Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Silat on June 06, 2005, 05:51:21 PM
-
June 5, 2005
Richest Are Leaving Even the Rich Far Behind
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
When F. Scott Fitzgerald pronounced that the very rich "are different from you and me," Ernest Hemingway's famously dismissive response was: "Yes, they have more money." Today he might well add: much, much, much more money.
The people at the top of America's money pyramid have so prospered in recent years that they have pulled far ahead of the rest of the population, an analysis of tax records and other government data by The New York Times shows. They have even left behind people making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
Call them the hyper-rich.
They are not just a few Croesus-like rarities. Draw a line under the top 0.1 percent of income earners - the top one-thousandth. Above that line are about 145,000 taxpayers, each with at least $1.6 million in income and often much more.
The average income for the top 0.1 percent was $3 million in 2002, the latest year for which averages are available. That number is two and a half times the $1.2 million, adjusted for inflation, that group reported in 1980. No other income group rose nearly as fast.
The share of the nation's income earned by those in this uppermost category has more than doubled since 1980, to 7.4 percent in 2002. The share of income earned by the rest of the top 10 percent rose far less, and the share earned by the bottom 90 percent fell.
Next, examine the net worth of American households. The group with homes, investments and other assets worth more than $10 million comprised 338,400 households in 2001, the last year for which data are available. The number has grown more than 400 percent since 1980, after adjusting for inflation, while the total number of households has grown only 27 percent.
The Bush administration tax cuts stand to widen the gap between the hyper-rich and the rest of America. The merely rich, making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, will shoulder a disproportionate share of the tax burden.
President Bush said during the third election debate last October that most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans. In fact, most - 53 percent - will go to people with incomes in the top 10 percent over the first 15 years of the cuts, which began in 2001 and would have to be reauthorized in 2010. And more than 15 percent will go just to the top 0.1 percent, those 145,000 taxpayers.
The Times set out to create a financial portrait of the very richest Americans, how their incomes have changed over the decades and how the tax cuts will affect them. It is no secret that the gap between the rich and the poor has grown, but the extent to which the richest are leaving everyone else behind is not widely known.
The Treasury Department uses a computer model to examine the effects of tax cuts on various income groups but does not look in detail fine enough to differentiate among those within the top 1 percent. To determine those differences, The Times relied on a computer model based on the Treasury's. Experts at organizations representing a range of views, including the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and Citizens for Tax Justice, reviewed the projections and said they were reasonable, and the Treasury Department said through a spokesman that the model was reliable.
The analysis also found the following:
¶Under the Bush tax cuts, the 400 taxpayers with the highest incomes - a minimum of $87 million in 2000, the last year for which the government will release such data - now pay income, Medicare and Social Security taxes amounting to virtually the same percentage of their incomes as people making $50,000 to $75,000.
¶Those earning more than $10 million a year now pay a lesser share of their income in these taxes than those making $100,000 to $200,000.
¶The alternative minimum tax, created 36 years ago to make sure the very richest paid taxes, takes back a growing share of the tax cuts over time from the majority of families earning $75,000 to $1 million - thousands and even tens of thousands of dollars annually. Far fewer of the very wealthiest will be affected by this tax.
The analysis examined only income reported on tax returns. The Treasury Department says that the very wealthiest find ways, legal and illegal, to shelter a lot of income from taxes. So the gap between the very richest and everyone else is almost certainly much larger.
The hyper-rich have emerged in the last three decades as the biggest winners in a remarkable transformation of the American economy characterized by, among other things, the creation of a more global marketplace, new technology and investment spurred partly by tax cuts. The stock market soared; so did pay in the highest ranks of business.
One way to understand the growing gap is to compare earnings increases over time by the vast majority of taxpayers - say, everyone in the lower 90 percent - with those at the top, say, in the uppermost 0.01 percent (now about 14,000 households, each with $5.5 million or more in income last year).
From 1950 to 1970, for example, for every additional dollar earned by the bottom 90 percent, those in the top 0.01 percent earned an additional $162, according to the Times analysis. From 1990 to 2002, for every extra dollar earned by those in the bottom 90 percent, each taxpayer at the top brought in an extra $18,000.
President Ronald Reagan signed tax bills that benefited the wealthiest Americans and also gave tax breaks to the working poor. President Bill Clinton raised income taxes for the wealthiest, cut taxes on investment gains, and expanded breaks for the working poor. Mr. Bush eliminated income taxes for families making under $40,000, but his tax cuts have also benefited the wealthiest Americans far more than his predecessors' did.
The Bush administration says that the tax cuts have actually made the income tax system more progressive, shifting the burden slightly more to those with higher incomes. Still, an Internal Revenue Service study found that the only taxpayers whose share of taxes declined in 2001 and 2002 were those in the top 0.1 percent.
But a Treasury spokesman, Taylor Griffin, said the income tax system is more progressive if the measurement is the share borne by the top 40 percent of Americans rather than the top 0.1 percent.
The Times analysis also shows that over the next decade, the tax cuts Mr. Bush wants to extend indefinitely would shift the burden further from the richest Americans. With incomes of more than $1 million or so, they would get the biggest share of the breaks, in total amounts and in the drop in their share of federal taxes paid.
One reason the merely rich will fare much less well than the very richest is the alternative minimum tax. This tax, the successor to one enacted in 1969 to make sure the wealthiest Americans could not use legal loopholes to live tax-free, has never been adjusted for inflation. As a result, it stings Americans whose incomes have crept above $75,000.
The Times analysis shows that by 2010 the tax will affect more than four-fifths of the people making $100,000 to $500,000 and will take away from them nearly one-half to more than two-thirds of the recent tax cuts. For example, the group making $200,000 to $500,000 a year will lose 70 percent of their tax cut to the alternative minimum tax in 2010, an average of $9,177 for those affected.
But because of the way it is devised, the tax affects far fewer of the very richest: about a third of the taxpayers reporting more than $1 million in income. One big reason is that dividends and investment gains, which go mostly to the richest, are not subject to the tax.
Another reason that the wealthiest will fare much better is that the tax cuts over the past decade have sharply lowered rates on income from investments.
While most economists recognize that the richest are pulling away, they disagree on what this means. Those who contend that the extraordinary accumulation of wealth is a good thing say that while the rich are indeed getting richer, so are most people who work hard and save. They say that the tax cuts encourage the investment and the innovation that will make everyone better off.
"In this income data I see a snapshot of a very innovative society," said Tim Kane, an economist at the Heritage Foundation. "Lower taxes and lower marginal tax rates are leading to more growth. There's an explosion of wealth. We are so wealthy in a world that is profoundly poor."
But some of the wealthiest Americans, including Warren E. Buffett, George Soros and Ted Turner, have warned that such a concentration of wealth can turn a meritocracy into an aristocracy and ultimately stifle economic growth by putting too much of the nation's capital in the hands of inheritors rather than strivers and innovators. Speaking of the increasing concentration of incomes, Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman, warned in Congressional testimony a year ago: "For the democratic society, that is not a very desirable thing to allow it to happen."
Others say most Americans have no problem with this trend. The central question is mobility, said Bruce R. Bartlett, an advocate of lower taxes who served in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations. "As long as people think they have a chance of getting to the top, they just don't care how rich the rich are."
But in fact, economic mobility - moving from one income group to another over a lifetime - has actually stopped rising in the United States, researchers say. Some recent studies suggest it has even declined over the last generation.
-
yes silat we all know this liberal rant.
1. Being rich even if you started with nothing is bad
2. No one should ever have that much money.
3. These people don't ever do anything for society except collect interest.
Truth be told this is simple math. You make more money when you HAVE more money.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
yes silat we all know this liberal rant.
1. Being rich even if you started with nothing is bad
2. No one should ever have that much money.
3. These people don't ever do anything for society except collect interest.
Truth be told this is simple math. You make more money when you HAVE more money.
Gunslinger, weren't you one of the guys chuckling in grim satisfaction at those Laguna Beach rich people that got wiped out in the mud slide?
:confused:
-
I'm getting richer. I love this economy.
-
When the super rich declare Prima-nocta, I will worry about it. Up until that point, I will merely cheer them on.
-
How's this for a liberal rant...
[rant]Everyone should pay their fair share of taxes. Just because you have a $10 Million income does not mean you should pay less taxes than Joe Blow who makes $100,000. The tax burden should be equally spread across the spectrum, not loaded primarily on the lower income brackets. [/rant]
-
It is a shame, then, RPM, that the poor and lower middle class do not pay ANY taxes, and have a net income from those upper middle and "rich" taxpayers.
-
And I agree, EVERYONE should pay their fair share of taxes, including the poor. You see, I suscribe to the theory that no one should receive public moneys. Organizations, fine, but no individual should ever recieve a penny of public money, unless it is for services rendered.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
And I agree, EVERYONE should pay their fair share of taxes, including the poor. You see, I suscribe to the theory that no one should receive public moneys. Organizations, fine, but no individual should ever recieve a penny of public money, unless it is for services rendered.
Wow, Liz. You just contradicted yourself.
Nobody should get public money.
Organizations should get public money.
Ahem....flip-flop?
-
Individuals. If you look at the early spending of the government, and the thought behind it, you will realize that one of the most basic tenents of our nation is that individuals will not benefit from the government, other than for services rendered. Organizations are not individuals.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Individuals. If you look at the early spending of the government, and the thought behind it, you will realize that one of the most basic tenents of our nation is that individuals will not benefit from the government, other than for services rendered. Organizations are not individuals.
Would'nt cutting taxes for a partcular group of individuals violate that tenent?
Flip-flop again.
-
Of course not, because cutting the taxes of those who pay, and increasing the taxes of those who do not, is the minimum that should be done.
The US government should never, ever, make a cash payment to any individual, except for services rendered.
-
A tax cut is not reception of public funds, it is retention of private funds.
-
Under the Bush tax cuts, the 400 taxpayers with the highest incomes - a minimum of $87 million in 2000, the last year for which the government will release such data - now pay income, Medicare and Social Security taxes amounting to virtually the same percentage of their incomes as people making $50,000 to $75,000.
OMG ARMAGREDONRON!!!!11
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Of course not, because cutting the taxes of those who pay, and increasing the taxes of those who do not, is the minimum that should be done.
The US government should never, ever, make a cash payment to any individual, except for services rendered.
OK, I'll play along with your logic. The richest 1% that are paying less than the $100,000 group should have their taxes increased. Good call.
Are you sending back your tax refund check from the U.S. Treasury in protest? And before you ask if I will do the same, I don't get a refund, I pay in.
-
How is this for logic: Taxes should be paid by everyone for the common good, and no tax money shall be spent to improve the financial standing of ANY INDIVIDUAL, without services rendered.
For any government, that should be rule 1.
-
I'm a flat tax advocate. Everyone should pay a predetermined percentage. 10% sounds about right.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Gunslinger, weren't you one of the guys chuckling in grim satisfaction at those Laguna Beach rich people that got wiped out in the mud slide?
:confused:
actually I don't believe I commented on that on this board......I could be wrong.
but you are correct. I did not feel sympothy for them because they are rich. Then I thought about Karma and WWJD and then I felt bad for the what happened and sympothy ensued. Then I thought about all those poor people in trailer parks that keep rebuilding after tornados. Then I had another beer and thought well I hope they at least screw over their insurance company. Then I had another beer. Then I turned the news off and watched something else and havn't thought about it since.
-
You can't be generous and rich.
-
Flat tax is not a valid or fair option. The fair thing to do is to eliminate all government payouts to invididuals without service rendered, followed by the immense tax reduction at all levels of government that would then be possible.
-
You can't be generous and rich.
====
I dunno...Gates has donated billions of dollars to needy causes. That is being generous in my estimation.
-
Originally posted by rpm
I'm a flat tax advocate. Everyone should pay a predetermined percentage. 10% sounds about right.
15% is my thought...along with a national sales tax of about 5% on everything. I'm already in a higher tax bracket than these 2 add up to. No Deductions....Nothing. Just pay and go on.
Just a thought.
-
The Roman empire did pretty well off of the generosity of the rich, too, until the public teat became onerous.
-
If there is a 20% tax on a transaction, a large percentage of those transactions will become tax free via barter and private paper. Dream on.
-
my wife told me today that the nation's safest drivers are in oregon and that my beloved Florida was rated 41. I told her that it's because oregon is populated by hippies and liberal girly men.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
If there is a 20% tax on a transaction, a large percentage of those transactions will become tax free via barter and private paper. Dream on.
20% on all? Noooo...not what I meant...At least didn't mean to if thats the way I cam across.
Person makes a million a year...15 percent is deducted from that for taxes. No more. No deductions for anything. No interest deducts. No Child tax. Marriage tax. Nothing. 15%.
Go buy a loaf of bread for a dollar...Pay 5 cents more. If state has a sales tax of say 8% than that state is up to 13 percent in sales tax. Move.
AT the end of the year....or april...whicever ya want to look at it.....I OWE Uncle sam nothing. Nadda Zilch 0.00.
And the people that have these "LoopHoles" lawyer ex[perts will save money by not paying them. PLUS they will pay their fair share.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
actually I don't believe I commented on that on this board......I could be wrong.
but you are correct. I did not feel sympothy for them because they are rich. Then I thought about Karma and WWJD and then I felt bad for the what happened and sympothy ensued. Then I thought about all those poor people in trailer parks that keep rebuilding after tornados. Then I had another beer and thought well I hope they at least screw over their insurance company. Then I had another beer. Then I turned the news off and watched something else and havn't thought about it since.
LOL Think I'll have a beer too. :D
-
Originally posted by RedTop
15% is my thought...along with a national sales tax of about 5% on everything. I'm already in a higher tax bracket than these 2 add up to. No Deductions....Nothing. Just pay and go on.
Just a thought.
it costs canada more to collect its %7 GST than it brings in.
to a person making 20000 dollars a year 15% makes one helluva difference.
-
not loaded primarily on the lower income brackets
The bottom 60% of the US earners pay only 8% of all income tax collected annually.
How again is it loaded on the lower income brackets?
-
Redtop, your concept of "income" is sorely lacking. I can make my income whatever it needs to be, with no impact upon my personal lifestyle.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
15% is my thought...along with a national sales tax of about 5% on everything. No Deductions....Nothing. Just pay and go on.
I could do without the national sales tax part. Other than that, you're right on the mark. It's a fair and equal burden.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Redtop, your concept of "income" is sorely lacking. I can make my income whatever it needs to be, with no impact upon my personal lifestyle.
Your prolly right cause I do things honestly:eek:
My income is paid to me by a real pay check. I cant hide it. Or maybe it's that I don't know HOW to hide it?
At any rate it is just a thought.
-
That is what I mean, and no offense intended. For a large portion of the population, that paycheck is subject to many and various ways to be totaled, and there is nothing unethical or illegal about it.
-
But Liz, you are talking about cheating and tax evasion. We are talking about the amount that is fair across the board. We all know what the penalties are for those caught cheating the IRS. They take your goodies away from you, sell them to the highest bidder and give you a jail sentence if you don't pay up.
-
It is not cheating, it is good business. What you are implying is that the ability to have capital to invest is wrong, which is the basic tenent of socalism.
Investment and return are not cheating, or unethical or illegal.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
That is what I mean, and no offense intended. For a large portion of the population, that paycheck is subject to many and various ways to be totaled, and there is nothing unethical or illegal about it.
Absolutley no offense taken my ALMOST fellow Austinite.:)
I work for the State...so there ya have the Pay Check thing.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
It is not cheating, it is good business. What you are implying is that the ability to have capital to invest is wrong, which is the basic tenent of socalism.
Investment and return are not cheating, or unethical or illegal.
And an equal across the board tax on that return is not socialism.
-
But capital does not involve mere money. that is where the rich REALLY get rich from a "fair" flat tax, while the no capital poor get screwed like a mangy cat.
-
Well.....lemme ask this.
What about possibly say 2-3 brackets. Still no deductions.
Lets say..0.00 - 35k 10 percent
36k- 100k 15 pecent
101k and up 18 percent
No loopholes. Just pay each month you get a PAY check.
As far as money made on investment , don't you both think there is an easy way to clean up all the mess that is involved with that stuff?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
yes silat we all know this liberal rant.
1. Being rich even if you started with nothing is bad
2. No one should ever have that much money.
3. These people don't ever do anything for society except collect interest.
Truth be told this is simple math. You make more money when you HAVE more money.
Facts are now a liberal rant? What college taught you that?
-
I dont like a flat tax. The richest SHOULD pay more, if government is going to insist on growing and spenmding more. They can sustain it better.
For a guy making $20K a year, $3K is a pretty signifigant burden.
On the other hand, a guy making $10 million a year probably isn't going to be sweating from paycheck to paycheck if he has to live on $8.5 million...or even $5 million
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Individuals. If you look at the early spending of the government, and the thought behind it, you will realize that one of the most basic tenents of our nation is that individuals will not benefit from the government, other than for services rendered. Organizations are not individuals.
Corporations are individuals. Ask an attorney if you doubt that. They receive welfare.
-
Let me give you a simple example, which is not really simple.
I own a small company, assembling widgets into units, which I then sell. In a bad year, I do not invest capital into the business, nor increase my biggest variable cost (wages). My income is X.
In a good year, I buy equipment and increase my largest variable cost (wages) to lower the triple-net income. Result:
I pay the same or less taxes, but the employees pay increased taxes because of the thier increase in income. My paycheck income is the same, but my capital is increased.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Facts are now a liberal rant? What college taught you that?
fair enough....
Fact: the rich are getting richer.
Fact: That's not hard to do using very simple math
Fact: The liberals hate this
-
Ok Liz...got it I think. (Economics isn't my bag really)
wanna talk Golf...now that I hang with all day....anyway...
If you invest your money back into your business , you as you said made no more money personally. Though you increased your "worth" it's still tied up. Right?
So in essence you still pay taxes on what YOU made.
If you were to sell that business or make money off of small pieces of selling part of it , then you would have to pay on that right?
So you would STILL pay eventually. Right?
-
No, Redtop, because you do not structure it where the buyer writes you a check for the full amount at closing. You are employed for a few years at a decent salary, you get stock in their company, performance bonuses, long term payouts, etc.
Serious transactions do not involve a paycheck, they involve commitments and paper.
-
how many of those "hyper-rich" are celebrities?
i'd say people making $10 million per movie (directors / actors / producers) are making above the "average" of $3 million / year.
let's say 300 people in hollywood are in that situation minium....
let's say 1/3 of those are making mroe than $10 million / year
let's say 1/2 of all hollywood are making killings off royalities of past work.
now add in the whole entertainment industry, music, TV, and so on.
now add in the who professional sports industry. 100's of rookies making $5 million / year
there are HUGE paychecks going to these people, and adding them all up i would hazard a guess they make up more than 2/3 the whole "hyper-rich"
the "entertaining" industry in America is out of control period. record exec's make insaine ammounts of money, movie studios make insaine ammounts of money.
think about the biggest money maker in the world first before you think of joe schmoe corporate worker.
-
But Liz, at some point in time you will cash in or recieve dividends on that stock. That's when you are taxed.
If you are incorporated, you are drawing a paycheck from the "corporation". You are taxed on that check. The "corporation" pays taxes on it's profits.
If you are a sole proprietor, it does not matter if you pay yourself a check or not. You are taxed on the company profits.
You can run, but you can't hide.
-
Originally posted by rpm
I'm a flat tax advocate. Everyone should pay a predetermined percentage. 10% sounds about right.
So you're saying that families that, at present, pay no income tax at all SHOULD have to pay? At least 10%?
Do I read you correctly?
I believe for 2005, Married Filing Joint, anyone with less than $14,600 in income pays ZERO tax.
Your plan would tax these people 10%?
Just needing some clarification.
-
Yep, that's what I'm saying. They would not get a refund check.
-
Well, they don't PAY any tax now, so they get no refund now. Instead, money is given to them.
Under your system, the poorest of the poor would be.......... poorer after paying their taxes.
That's the system you want? Folks that make $14,600 now would make $13,200 after taxes?
You think that's a good thing then?
-
If they are earning an income , i.e. working at a job, they are paying taxes every paycheck. So yes, they get a refund check. If they are on public assistance then they have the option of having taxes withdrawn. It should be manditory, not optional.
It may not be the best solution, but it would be the most fair. Everybody pays the same percentage, no free rides.
-
You sir, are a cruel man. I'm sure you will hear from some of the more notable "liberal" type folks on the board shortly. They will probably call you a filthy Republican and other dirty names.
May Cod have mercy upon you. I don't think you can oppose progressive taxation on this board and remain in the "liberal" camp. Good luck.
;)
BTW, in for a penny, in for a pound.
Do you also oppose the transfer of wealth that is our Social Security system as "unfair"?
Just curious.
-
WHAT!?! I'm not the leading dirty commie liberal anymore? Dang.
I think the retirement plan known as Social Security is a very good thing. Sorry.
-
So let me get this straight.
You oppose the transfer of wealth that is the progressive income tax system
but
you support the transfer of wealth that is the social security system?
-
I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head.
I'm a complex individual.:)
-
Complex is probably not the word I would use.
Inconsistent seems more correct.
;)
Anyways... nite. Was fun.
-
I prefer the term "Free Spirit". :cool:
-
Everybody pays the same percentage, no free rides.
RPM, is this a milestone? The first time we solidly agree on something?
Amen, brother.
-
Anyway... what kind of ring do you think THOSE pple buy to their wives? :p
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, they don't PAY any tax now, so they get no refund now. Instead, money is given to them.
Under your system, the poorest of the poor would be.......... poorer after paying their taxes.
That's the system you want? Folks that make $14,600 now would make $13,200 after taxes?
You think that's a good thing then?
hmmm not sure where you are getting this dont pay taxes info. Everything I have seen says otherwise.
http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=133625,00.html
Everybody pays taxes. Poor people don't get exempted. I made 5k 1 year and I paid 500 bucks in taxes.(student) You think someone who made 5k has got 500 just sitting around, let me tell ya they dont. lol
-
Only the Poor should be taxed (or enslaved) not the Rich.
The reason is pretty logical : only the poor use welfare so they should pay what they use.
-
Straffo that just might be the worst bait you've ever used.
-
Arggg now I won't have any fish !
pffff :)
-
Originally posted by rpm
Wow, Liz. You just contradicted yourself.
Nobody should get public money.
Organizations should get public money.
Ahem....flip-flop?
average non-native speaker understand his statement in this way.
nobody = any single person
person =/ organization
Why somebody so cool like you didint get it ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
Only the Poor should be taxed (or enslaved) not the Rich.
The reason is pretty logical : only the poor use welfare so they should pay what they use.
There is something about that....
That remind me old joke..
Do you know the diference between communism and capitalism ?
In communism are people exploited by people. And in capitalism its opposite.
Anyway thats what i love about some eastern countries. For example, where you can, but dont have to pay for healty insurance and later on if you go to hospital, you can simply pay by money or use your insurence.
Once i will be allowed to die on the street coz i will refuse medical care, i will feel free person in a free country. ;)
-
Yeah, it's 10% nominal for Married Filing Joint in the 2005 tables. I saw the "0" and missed the 10% over between $0-14,600. My mistake on that.
I think they still get things like the Earned Income Tax Credit so it's really less than that. Unless RPM gets his way.
(http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/mww/earned1.jpg)
-
"same percentage".... isn't say 20% of 75,000 a lot less money than 20% of 10 billion? and....
Why would the rich pay more for one persons medicare and social security (which they will probly never use anyway) than the poorest person?
I mean... maybe we should make it so that all goods are on a sliding scale too? no? then how bout just the sales tax on em... you buy an alarm clock and you have to show your IRS issued income card... if you are poor... the tax is small... if you are rich then the tax is like 10 times the cost of the clock..... all done at the regester... a big surprise everytime you buy something.
"fair share" is the most misused phrase in the whole liberal vocabulary of newspeak.
lazs
-
it would be nice if, after I retire, I could send my medical and housing expenses directly to the liberal hollyweird type of my choosing... lol
that is basically what we are saying right?
-
I agree with Laz that "fair share" is often misused or misunderstood. One person may feel that everybody paying an equal dollar amount is fair, while for another "fair" means everybody paying the same percentage of their income, while for a third, "fair" is a sliding scale where those who can more easily afford it pay a higher amount than those who can't as easily afford it. And I'm not sure agreement is possible. We may have to just agree to disagree.
One point, our taxes pay for more than social security and medicare. We pay for national defense, for roads, for education, police and fire protection, and for the higher courts.
Some people say those who benefit the most should pay the most. But who really benefits the most from our first rate national defense, generally excellent transporation system, judicial and law enforcement system, and mediocre educational system? Does a trailer park denizen working a minimum wage job benefit more from an effective highway system than a CEO of manufacturing or large retail company? Seems to me that many functions of the national government provide more assistance to the wealthy in their pursuit and protection of wealth than to the poor in their subsistence lifestyle.
I think we often concentrate too much on programs where fixed dollar costs can be examined and don't pay enough attention to benefits of government that are more intangible, yet still extremely important.
-
Yeah baby! USER FEES!
For EVERYTHING!
-
In one sense, we do have user fees for everything-- its all rolled up into the income tax. Paying the tax helps provide for national defense, court system, law enforcement, transportation, etc.
You get my point about how much more benefit these things are to the wealthy than to the poor?
-
Allow to rephrase then......... SPECIFIC USER FEES! For EVERYTHING!
I should only pay for what I use, don't you agree?
Let's have Toll Booths on every Federal Highway. Bill on a "per exit" driven basis. Booths all over the place... think of the JOBS that would create!
No reason for me to pay toll on a Fed road on the East Coast I'll never use. And if I choose to drive rural country roads and stay off Fed roads... well, no payment to the Feds.
There ya go!
And no, I don't agree. Unless you agree with the above posted precept.
-
oboe.... what are you talking about? the rich person doesn't drive on roads any more than the poor person commuting... any unfairness in the cost of roads is more than compensated by our punitive tax on gasoline and regestration of vehicles.
as for defense and other things... the rich person is paying a higher amount due to his higher income even tho his hide is not being protected any more than say... yours. Everyone is being protected equally yet some are paying more.
Fairness is a word that should not be used in the same breath as income tax.
lazs
-
The graduated income tax system was created to "punish" the rich if they kept a large portion of their wealth for personal use, but NOT if they reinvested it in their corporate or business enterprises.
The current tax system encourages investment and economic growth, which benefits everyone.
Class envy is such an ugly thing. A pity that it has become a major tenet of a certain political movement.
-
How do you assign a specific user fee for national defense? Our tanks, troops, radar systems, interceptor aircraft, etc provide more benefit to someone who is having a $100 million estate protected than to someone who rents a place at a trailer park, agreed? So the more possessions you have to protect, the more you should pay, right? That's the way insurance works, anyway.
Laz, the rich person gains benefit from the roads by more than simply driving on them. Let's say you are the CEO of Best Buy. Doesn't an excellent transportation system benefit you by allowing your customers and suppliers easy access to your retail outlets? In other words, many of the functions of the federal government aid and protect commerce in some way or other. And the wealthy derive a greated benefit from commerce than do the poor.
See my point?
-
Originally posted by oboe
Laz, the rich person gains benefit from the roads by more than simply driving on them. Let's say you are the CEO of Best Buy. Doesn't an excellent transportation system benefit you by allowing your customers and suppliers easy access to your retail outlets? In other words, many of the functions of the federal government aid and protect commerce in some way or other. And the wealthy derive a greated benefit from commerce than do the poor.
See my point?
I agree with this. Also feel that since rich people benefit more off the system, they should pay more to sustain it. How do they benefit more you might ask? Well they are rich aren't they?
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
The graduated income tax system was created to "punish" the rich if they kept a large portion of their wealth for personal use, but NOT if they reinvested it in their corporate or business enterprises.
The current tax system encourages investment and economic growth, which benefits everyone.
Class envy is such an ugly thing. A pity that it has become a major tenet of a certain political movement.
I think its reasonable to be alarmed at the widening gap of wealth in this country without being consumed by class envy. I think a large, healthy middle class has a stabilizing affect on a nation - and conversely, lack of middle class leaving a small number of extremely wealthy and a large group of very poor people destabilizes a nation.
So to the extent that the middle class is being eroded I think the health of our nation is being damaged.
-
what are you talking about? an invasion by a foreign power is gonna effect eveyone equally... homeless is homeless.
the bombs drop on everyone.
As for benifiet of a good road system vs cost... the rich as a person, is not getting anything more or less for his dollar than you are... as for his bussiness.... and everyone elses.... we all pay on a use fee basis... 34 cents or so of every gallon of gas goes toward maintaining roads.... more than enough.. along with regestration fees and truck fees... the more you use the roads the more you pay.
also... everyone benifiets from goods getting to market... everything you buy is cheaper with good roads. You are paying less of of a burden than the rich but getting the benifiet.
you benifet by good roads getting to retail stores in that the goods become cheaper to you... They did all the work and you get the benifiet. you get a lot of road for what you are paying. The rich and the corporations pay the lions share.
To be fair... the rich will allways get richer unless you set a cieling and then confiscate wealth at that point.
The real issue is not how many people are getting super rich but how many people are doing worse because of it. Are more poor people being created? Are the rich taking the money out of anyones pockets or....
Is it simply that creeping socialism is creating a larger and larger tax burden for everyone? We make more money but are able to keep less of it. Thisw is not the fault of the rich and.... even if we soaked em until they no longer had incentive to produce.... We would still continue to pay more and more and more and more and more taxes no matter what our income bracket.
The rich aren't hurting me... the socialists are with they well ententioned and bloated programs... Is SS in trouble because of the rich?
lazs
-
If the super rich were running the Social Security program that sucker would be in GREAT financial shape.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
what are you talking about? an invasion by a foreign power is gonna effect eveyone equally... homeless is homeless.
the bombs drop on everyone.
As for benifiet of a good road system vs cost... the rich as a person, is not getting anything more or less for his dollar than you are... as for his bussiness.... and everyone elses.... we all pay on a use fee basis... 34 cents or so of every gallon of gas goes toward maintaining roads.... more than enough.. along with regestration fees and truck fees... the more you use the roads the more you pay.
also... everyone benifiets from goods getting to market... everything you buy is cheaper with good roads. You are paying less of of a burden than the rich but getting the benifiet.
you benifet by good roads getting to retail stores in that the goods become cheaper to you... They did all the work and you get the benifiet. you get a lot of road for what you are paying. The rich and the corporations pay the lions share.
To be fair... the rich will allways get richer unless you set a cieling and then confiscate wealth at that point.
The real issue is not how many people are getting super rich but how many people are doing worse because of it. Are more poor people being created? Are the rich taking the money out of anyones pockets or....
Is it simply that creeping socialism is creating a larger and larger tax burden for everyone? We make more money but are able to keep less of it. Thisw is not the fault of the rich and.... even if we soaked em until they no longer had incentive to produce.... We would still continue to pay more and more and more and more and more taxes no matter what our income bracket.
The rich aren't hurting me... the socialists are with they well ententioned and bloated programs... Is SS in trouble because of the rich?
lazs
I suspect we aren't going to be able to come to agreement about this, because we are looking at the situation differently, and I don't think either of us will be able to budge. And I don't think its for lack of intelligence on either of our parts - its just the way we were made, or the way our experiences molded us.
You say if everyone lost their home due to an invasion, we've all been affected equally because we are all now homeless. I disagree - I think the guy whose $10 million dollar home has been destroyed has suffered a larger loss than the guy renting a mobile home in a trailer park. So I think there is no getting around the fact that we won't agree on what 'equal' is. I think I'm right and you think you're right.
Likewise, if you do not see that the wealthy are actually benefiting more from their tax dollar being spent on roads and other programs which benefit, encourage and protect commerce, I don't think there is any point in continuing. I think the statement
"many of the functions of the federal government aid and protect commerce in some way or other. And the wealthy derive a greater benefit from commerce than do the poor."
put my notion about as succinctly as I could. If you still don't see it, ask youself how did they become wealthy in the first place? Unless the wealth was inherited, odds are that it was built through commerce. So, while its true you gain a benefit from being able to use fine roads, the wealthy gain a benefit not only from themselves being able to use the same roads, but also from the rest of us being able to use fine roads. Don't think I can expound on it any better than that.
Makes sense to me, and that's why I don't have a problem expecting the wealthy to pay a higher share of taxes than the poor.
btw, the boys and I are halfway through Firefly and we all like it. How's "Combat"? Good as you remember?
-
and that's why I don't have a problem expecting the wealthy to pay a higher share of taxes than the poor.
The top 40% of earners in the US pay 92% of all income tax. How much more can you ask of them?
-
Where'd you get that stat, Steve?
-
Originally posted by Steve
The top 40% of earners in the US pay 92% of all income tax. How much more can you ask of them?
http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls
Top 50% pay 96.03% of federal taxes occurding to IRS in 2001.
Top 25% pay 82.9%...
Top 5% pay 53.25%...
Top 1% pay 33.89%...
-
Thanks Raider.
oboe, How much more can you ask of them?
-
Are you asking me to design my own tax code? What I think it should look like?
So far all I've done is explain why I believe its fair that the wealthy should pay a higher percentage of taxes than the poor, and you've produced statistics which seem to indicate that they do. Agreed?
My first quick answer would be to ask as much of them as before the Bush tax cuts. But I'll think harder on it. Right now, I gotta go out and mow my grass.
-
wealthy should pay a higher percentage of taxes than the poor,
and I believe in a flat tax since it's the only fair way.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls
Top 50% pay 96.03% of federal taxes occurding to IRS in 2001.
Top 25% pay 82.9%...
Top 5% pay 53.25%...
Top 1% pay 33.89%...
That's 266.07%
-
A flat tax might work if you include SS taxes, but talk of removing the cap causes screams from the "rich"
shamus
-
Originally posted by rpm
That's 266.07%
RPM I hope your joking....if not re-read the states. The ones on the left do not add together they are separate statistics.
-
That's 266.07%
rpm are you serious?
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
;)
-
Originally posted by oboe
Are you asking me to design my own tax code? What I think it should look like?
So far all I've done is explain why I believe its fair that the wealthy should pay a higher percentage of taxes than the poor, and you've produced statistics which seem to indicate that they do. Agreed?
My first quick answer would be to ask as much of them as before the Bush tax cuts. But I'll think harder on it. Right now, I gotta go out and mow my grass.
No matter what they (the "wealthy") pay in taxes, it will NEVER be enough in the eyes of those like you, EVER. It's called redistribution of wealth, AKA socialism. It's also called legalized stealing. The money DOES NOT belong to the government. It belongs to the person or persons who earn it.
This whole thing amazes, amuses, and deeply saddens me. The economy is not ZERO based. There is no finite amount of wealth. Just because Sam Walton made $X billion over his life time does not mean that "Joe S--T The Rag Man" was deprived of his "rightful opportunity to acquire wealth". It means Sam Walton did a better job. Just think of all the jobs in all the places all over the world that exist because people who created great wealth for themselves created those jobs in the process. Just exactly why is it that a person or persons who create or acquire wealth by legitimate means should be taxed at a higher rate than those who simply wander along aimlessly, never getting anywhere?
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." --Ronald Reagan
You can add to that the liberal view of how to deal with the wealthy, and fund their excess government: "If they make money, tax it. If they keep making money, tax it more. If they die, tax what they leave their heirs. If they complain about the ridiculous taxes, call them racists, elitists, evil, and greedy.
And if the excess taxes stop growth and wreck the economy, blame it on somebody or something else."
No matter how much revenue is taken in by taxes, they'll find a way to spend it, and a need for more. They'll claim a need to subsidize the poor instead finding a way to get the poor to bring themselves out of poverty. And they'll claim the wealthy should fund that subsidy, because they have money.
You just keep right on thinking real hard, I'm sure you'll find a reason and a way to take money that does not belong to you from people who earned it and justify it by saying "they have plenty, and more than anyone else". It'll still be just as wrong, just as evil, and just as damaging to the country and the economy.
-
This post shoulda gone in the Special Relationship and Hate for everything russian threads, too..
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
No matter what they (the "wealthy") pay in taxes, it will NEVER be enough in the eyes of those like you, EVER. It's called redistribution of wealth, AKA socialism. It's also called legalized stealing. The money DOES NOT belong to the government. It belongs to the person or persons who earn it.
Savage I just think its a different way of thinking.
Neither Oboe nor I are advocating socialism. But we do think that those with money should care greatly about those that dont have money. '
Im my opinion we are all in this together. If I or my government ( which is me )dont care for those with less than me then it will be a very messed up country.
Im fortunate in my life and have benefited greatly from Bush's caring of the rich. But I dont think it is right. I get to keep plenty and the 2 points he gave me didnt change my lifestyle one bit but it hurt those less fortunate than I.
And the government is US.
I want good roads,a teacher for every 9 kids ( as 95% of all studies recommend ) , no one in America to go hungry if they want to eat, no one to lack health care for any reason whatsoever.
I feel this is a small price for those in the top 1% to pay, to keep the little people happy:)
:lol
-
Key word being 'should', not 'must'.
You get what you earn, nothing more, nothing less.
-
"I want good roads,a teacher for every 9 kids ( as 95% of all studies recommend ) , no one in America to go hungry if they want to eat, no one to lack health care for any reason whatsoever.
I feel this is a small price for those in the top 1% to pay, to keep the little people happy"
silat.. you don't seem that naive so I will assume you were joking.. For anyone dumb enough to think that you sounded reasonable....
If you want good roads then take the 34 cents a gallon of gas that we pay and make it an enterprise fund that can only go to building and maintaining roads.... not social programs... you would have gold plated roads built by the best contractors in the world...
You want good education? twice as good do for a start? allow vouchers and use the wasted money that goes to public schools to allow the parents to have some real choice in their childrens education... yeah... you need 9 in a classroom in liberal public schools... private schools do twice as good with classrooms 3-5 times as large.
Name someone who has starved to death (besides fasting to make tibet free or some such) or not been able to get into an emergency ward and emergency care.
Anyway... I am sure you know this and don't really want to stop the producers in this country from producing... you don't really expect to get a paycheck from the poor do you?
lazs
-
Savage that was harsh, and an incorrect assessment of my politics besides. I don't like being lumped in with either liberals, conservatives, Republicans or Democrats. I dislike alot of things about all of them.
Taxes aside, the biggest issue that bothers me about government is the reckless spending resulting in the deficit and staggering debt we are passing to our children. I'm not an economist but I do understand there are times when deficit spending is a reasonable course. But our current situation, however, feels far from reasonable and having to borrow $2 billion a day from the Chinese and Japanese to keep our country going is a disgrace. Does that sound socialist? Liberal?
The secondmost thing bothering me is bloated government - absolutely ineffective government programs, waste, fraud, corruption. And we have plenty of that too. Halliburton and Custer Battles are two companies that come to mind when thinking of waste and fraud. But the permanent state of welfare queens bothers me alot too. Does that sound like a socialist?
But I agree with Lew - we are looking at it differently than you.
My goals wouldn't be as expansive as Lew's - for example I think 9 kids per teacher may be unaffordable as anationwide standard. But I sure as hell wouldn't mind getting down to 20-22 from the 30-40 students per teacher that my children currently endure.
My tax principles would be that everybody, EVERYBODY pays something (this means cracking down on illegal immigrant workers, tax evaders, etc) and nobody ever pays more than half their income in taxes. Within those guidelines there is a broad range of possibilities, and I would probably skew more favorably toward the middle class families and small business.
You might think a nation with a small number of trillionaires and the rest of the population in poverty, without healthcare or education or decent jobs is fine if that's where globalism and the free market capitalism takes us (which is where I believe it does ultimately). I don't. But you don't have to look very hard to see trends that indicate its happening.
-
Virgil, spot on old chap.
Lew, did you return your Bush tax cut and tell them to pay down the national debt, fund a school program or feed the hungry with your contribution? Or did you just give it to the Salvation Army or something? Or did you keep it?
Oboe, there's not a single thing standing between you and sharing as much of your wealth as you choose to share with those less fortunate. I can link you to several worthy charities if you like.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Just exactly why is it that a person or persons who create or acquire wealth by legitimate means should be taxed at a higher rate than those who simply wander along aimlessly, never getting anywhere?
This answer to this is because they operated in an environment provided by our taxes to create the wealth. Bully for them if they had the ingenuity and drive to create a company and jobs for people - that's great. But recognize your and my tax money keeps the environment in which they succeed so well operating smoothly.
But how about Nike in Indonesia? Or was it the Phillippines? Sure, they created jobs but the employees earned so little they were basically economic slaves. You cheer on that kind of system?
How about our own heritage with coal mining - economic conditions so harsh they inspired the song that goes - "sixteen tons and whaddaya get - another day older and deeper in debt." and "I've sold my soul to the company store." Its great that you idolize successful capitalists but there are plenty that made their wealth by exploiting the workers. Do you think that was right? Is that what makes a nation strong and healthy?
-
In the present US system, what person or company is exploiting the workers as Nike did in SE Asia or as the coal companies did the later 1800's and early 1900's?
-
oboe... the rich pay a far higher share of the infrastucture than you or I... If the money is spent badly it is not their fault but.. they pay more in road fees and everything else.
When a sudivision of houses is built.... It includes upgrades to the cities watrer, sewer, storm and park and road systems... the hookup fees for each house can run into $50,000 dollars (but you knew that).
Habitat for humanity is a great thing but the house they build is prtty much fee exempt and adds nothing to the community but a low income home owner... nothing wrong with that but.. you don't want a whole city of low income homes.
the socialist democrats and their butt buddies the teachers unions have destroyed education.. not the rich.
You did know that they early capitalist robber barons had their power through the power of the US military and local police right?
socialism is what will drag us all down not rich people creating more wealth.
Look at england.. Is that what you want? you want to look at those teeth in the mirror?
lazs
-
Have you guys seen "Tax Me if you can" ?
-
Here you go Oboe. The Brits are pondering taxing all road users on a per mile basis.
What do you think? Fair? Not Fair?
UK would tag all vehicles in road pricing scheme (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/06/road_pricing/)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Virgil, spot on old chap.
Lew, did you return your Bush tax cut and tell them to pay down the national debt, fund a school program or feed the hungry with your contribution? Or did you just give it to the Salvation Army or something? Or did you keep it?
Oboe, there's not a single thing standing between you and sharing as much of your wealth as you choose to share with those less fortunate. I can link you to several worthy charities if you like.
We arent talking about what you or I give to charity.
We are talking about our (governments) responsibilities to its citizens.
And like I said, "We see things differently"
I love compassionate conservatives:) Wish I could find one:)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
[B
You want good education? twice as good do for a start? allow vouchers and use the wasted money that goes to public schools to allow the parents to have some real choice in their childrens education... yeah... you need 9 in a classroom in liberal public schools... private schools do twice as good with classrooms 3-5 times as large.
lazs [/B]
Yes lets have school vouchers so the public schools can compete for money. What a joke that would be.
This is contradictory to your position. You want the public to pay for private schools for your children?
Well I want a public school system. I want every child in this country to get the same education from Georgia to Oregon for free. It is an investment Im willing to make for the future.
If you want to send your child to private school then use your own money laz. Do you actually believe that we dont need a top notch public school system?
Why dont we just give money to the schools like we do to failed weapons systems? Or how about we stop corporate welfare and fund the schools with that?
-
Originally posted by Steve
The top 40% of earners in the US pay 92% of all income tax. How much more can you ask of them?
Hmmm since they have 90% of the money I think we should ask for more.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Hmmm since they have 90% of the money I think we should ask for more.
How much more?
When is enough enough?
What level of income makes you rich?
-
Originally posted by Krusher
How much more?
When is enough enough?
What level of income makes you rich?
Well we were talking about :
Originally posted by Steve
The top 40% of earners in the US pay 92% of all income tax. How much more can you ask of them?
-
silat... you make no sense. If you believe that a top notch school system is essential to everyone in the country and that we all need to pay for it... fine. I will go along with you.
Where you go off on a tangent is where you say that government education is the only effective means.... you then go and say that if Iwant toget good education for my children.... I should pay twice... once for the education they that my tax money is supposedly used for and then once again for an education that is private and useful.
I am saying that all I want is the money extorted from me and used to educate my kid and then let me spend it as I please... If public education were worth a damn.... Iwould smply use that money on it.
You are implying that without government protection public schools would fail because.... because what?
Why wouldn't the people continue to use the great public school system... Truth is... the bloated and useless public schol system couldn't compete... or... better yet... the competion would shake things up and get the public schools to compete.
You also never replied to my saying that we have more than enough money in gas tax right now to repair and maintain at autobhn levels, every road in America.
You want to spend the money on socialism then don't whine for the rich to fix the roads when they fall apart.
On a smaller scale this, socialism, is like someone with a gambling habit or drug habit spending all their money and then saying that it is unfair that other people have more money and more "stuff" than they do... that it isn't "fair".
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
silat... you make no sense. If you believe that a top notch school system is essential to everyone in the country and that we all need to pay for it... fine. I will go along with you.
Where you go off on a tangent is where you say that government education is the only effective means.... you then go and say that if Iwant toget good education for my children.... I should pay twice... once for the education they that my tax money is supposedly used for and then once again for an education that is private and useful.
I am saying that all I want is the money extorted from me and used to educate my kid and then let me spend it as I please... If public education were worth a damn.... Iwould smply use that money on it.
You are implying that without government protection public schools would fail because.... because what?
Why wouldn't the people continue to use the great public school system... Truth is... the bloated and useless public schol system couldn't compete... or... better yet... the competion would shake things up and get the public schools to compete.
You also never replied to my saying that we have more than enough money in gas tax right now to repair and maintain at autobhn levels, every road in America.
You want to spend the money on socialism then don't whine for the rich to fix the roads when they fall apart.
On a smaller scale this, socialism, is like someone with a gambling habit or drug habit spending all their money and then saying that it is unfair that other people have more money and more "stuff" than they do... that it isn't "fair".
lazs
We have been down this road. You want to pick and choose which taxes you pay? It is in your best interest to pay taxes to support the public school system and the roads. Its you who is flip flopping laz.
Im not whining nor am I advocating socialism.
-
Originally posted by Silat
We arent talking about what you or I give to charity.
We are talking about our (governments) responsibilities to its citizens.
What you're talking about is spending someone else's money. It's what compassionate liberals do best and there's no end to their desire to spend or their desire to spend money not their own.
;)
-
The Rich & the Government, Friends Forever
Debunking the latest round of class warfare.
It is impossible that the Bush tax cuts of June 2003 contributed to relatively lower tax payments by the very richest Americans in 2002. But New York Times writer David Cay Johnston conveniently avoids this fact in his Sunday front-page article, “Richest Leaving Even the Rich Far Behind,” which used tax-payment data that ended in 2002 to extend the class-warfare argument. Is this just more garden-variety Bush-bashing from the newspaper of record?
I’d also like to know why Johnston never mentions the fact that the wealthiest Americans suffered the most in the stock market plunge and asset deflation of 2000-02. One reason the richest seemed to pay less in taxes during this period is that they were the hardest hit during the deflation.
Johnston singles out the top 145,000 taxpayers who comprise the top 0.1 percent of income distribution in 2002. Their average income was $3 million, two-and-a-half times the inflation-adjusted $1.2 million that the group reported in 1980. My gosh — how dare they be successful earners and investors?
Over that 22-year span, this group probably included the very same people who launched tens of thousands of new companies that hired roughly 40 million net new workers that completely revolutionized the U.S. economy through unbelievable breakthroughs in the realms of information technology, communications, finance, health care, and retailing.
Should we go out and shoot these 145,000 for their success?
These entrepreneurs use their God-given talents within the Reaganesque free-market framework that deregulated, slashed tax rates, and provided the first strong dose of economic incentives since the 1920s. A rising economic tide over the last 20 years has lifted living standards, productivity, and employment throughout America. Everyone got richer, with a full $39 trillion in new wealth created during this period. That’s why the unemployment rate has been averaging 5 percent over the past 10 years, with non-financial productivity running about 5 percent and inflation virtually nil.
Of course, the bulk of Bush’s 2003 tax cuts on dividends and capital gains will help people with the highest incomes, but they pay the most taxes in the first place. The tax cuts will also help the entire 100-million-strong investor class — about 50 percent of U.S. households. But when the new IRS income statistics for 2004 and 2005 are published, we will undoubtedly find that lower tax rates — particularly on investment — have again generated much higher tax collections for the so-called richest among us. Already, for the twelve months ending April 2005, non-withheld tax receipts (read capital gains and dividends) rose an astronomical 36 percent.
There’s nothing new here. Through 2001, a tiny one-tenth of 1 percent of U.S. taxpayers generated a hefty 16 percent of total tax collections. That’s brainpower plus initiative, aided and abetted by the incentive to keep more of what you earn and thus work with more intensity and purpose. Meanwhile the top 1 percent paid 34 percent of tax collections, the top 5 percent paid 53 percent, the top 10 percent paid 65 percent, the top 25 percent paid 83 percent, and the top 50 percent paid 96 percent. These “rich people” are government’s best friend.
This week in the Wall Street Journal, Gotz Aly, a professor of Holocaust research at the University of Frankfurt, talked about the “rotten achievement” of the German economy, where policymakers obsess over the “equalization of living standards.” Germans have an “equality sickness” that makes them dependent on the welfare state. Is that what David Cay Johnston has in mind for America?
Nations engaged in punishing the rich and leveling income and wealth through high taxes and resource redistribution have always failed. These were the goals of the socialist and communist regimes following WWII, in particular old Russia and its satellites. The size and scope of these failures, and the related deprivation of democracy and human rights, ultimately led to the downfall of communism and the rise of free-market capitalism, with its attendant privileges of free-election democracy and sweeping new human rights. This very transition is now occurring in the once darkest corners of the Middle East.
The economic failure of income- and wealth-leveling is more and more apparent today. The stagnant economies of socialist Old Europe are falling further and further behind the free-market capitalist models of the U.S. and Britain. Milton Friedman’s great 1962 book, Capitalism and Freedom, should be read by all inhabitants of Old Europe. He offered a way out. Twenty-odd years later, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher put Friedman’s ideas into political and economic action. The startlingly positive results are being copied by India and China, if not inevitably by France, Germany, and Italy.
This is a thought for the ages … and for Mr. David Cay Johnston.
Larry Kudlow (http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/kudlow/kudlow200506080921.asp)
-
silat... not at all. I am not "picking and choosing" where my taxes go... I am merely asking that if we all pay for schooling and it is say...10,000 per year per student then... people with school children should be given a voucher for that amount and they can spend it on a public school or an accredited private school.
As for the roads... no problem... I am not adverse to paying a fee at the gas pump per gallon to maintain roads but that money should be used only for the maintenance of roads... it is more than enough for that purpose.
You are acting like we don't have enough money for roads when what you mean is the general fund for all socialist programs does not have enough money.. the rich are paying more than their fair share for roads...and... there is more than enough money in road related fees to build and maintain roads...
You are not talking about the rich paying for roads... you are saying that you want the rich to put more money into the general fund.... this would do nothing for roads... the socialists would simply confiscate that money too and let the roads rot.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
silat... not at all.
lazs
Laz as long as we sheep keep allowing them to waste money it will continue to happen. But the corporations that would take over the job arent any better at managing our money. In fact I have even less faith in them to look out for my interests.
Maybe we arent understanding each other:)
I dont believe that the private sector can manage my interests any better than my government in some areas. And I prefer it stays in government hands. Roads being an example. Schools another. SS, medicare,military etc.
If you dont like SS then by all means take some of your money and invest it. But you still pay into SS and have that guaranteed payout.
If you dont like public schools then take your money and pay for private education. But you still must pay taxes that support the public system. It is in your best interest that the children are educated.
There are other areas but no need to bring them up now.:)
We obviously disagree on the school voucher issue:)
Ive read as much as I can stand about vouchers and while trying to keep an open mind cant quite get to the point that I support it. I will continue to be open to changing my mind on the subject.
By the way the studies dont show private schools to be better than public.
Rant:
What really gets me is that some on this board who advocate pure unfettered capitalism and belittle social programs are actually employed or have a spouse employed in industries that take vast amounts of corporate welfare. The airline industry for
instance.
Corporate welfare being OUR money given to private industry. Whether it be tax breaks or outright handouts.
These individuals keep ranting their talking points but at home its a different story altogether. They are living partially off the government teat but talking against it in here.
Its this hypocrisy on the board that really sets me off.
Dont get me wrong. I feel that the airline industry needs to succeed. But if these people are going to stick to their guns then they have to be consistent and not take the money ,not be union nor work for these WELFARE corporations.
You know there is a saying that really fits on this BB.
"Put your actions where your mouth is."
And Laz I do feel that I should pay more taxes than someone who is less fortunate than I. I am benefiting from the system a lot. Therefore I feel I should give back a bit more. It is in my best interests and in the best interests of my country.
I know we dont agree with this:)
Now after all that I feel we can disagree and still have a BBQ together.
;)
-
I believe you are referring to me?
If so, you are incorrect. On many levels. However, I'll just address the salient one.
I would prefer that the government stay entirely OUT of the airline business and let the fittest survive. The current policy is foolish.
There is extreme overcapacity right now, or so they tell us. The brainiacs in the corporate offices claim they cannot raise fares due to overcapacity while the load factors (% of seats filled per flight) are generally near record high levels.
Best thing for the industry would be to let the weak, incompetently managed carriers fail. That would eventually result in a business model that allowed proficient, efficient carriers to do quite nicely.
Had this model been allowed from the start of deregulation, the industry wouldn't be in the sad shape it is in right now.
However, individual airline employees don't get to ordain government policy.
-
Originally posted by storch
my wife told me today that the nation's safest drivers are in oregon and that my beloved Florida was rated 41. I told her that it's because oregon is populated by hippies and liberal girly men.
Do I have to bring amway up again?:)
-
Originally posted by Silat
Do I have to bring amway up again?:)
and what? prove how silly you are in not being involved again? it would only further prove my point. :aok
-
Originally posted by lazs2
silat... not at all. I am not "picking and choosing" where my taxes go... I am merely asking that if we all pay for schooling and it is say...10,000 per year per student then... people with school children should be given a voucher for that amount and they can spend it on a public school or an accredited private school.
As for the roads... no problem... I am not adverse to paying a fee at the gas pump per gallon to maintain roads but that money should be used only for the maintenance of roads... it is more than enough for that purpose.
You are acting like we don't have enough money for roads when what you mean is the general fund for all socialist programs does not have enough money.. the rich are paying more than their fair share for roads...and... there is more than enough money in road related fees to build and maintain roads...
You are not talking about the rich paying for roads... you are saying that you want the rich to put more money into the general fund.... this would do nothing for roads... the socialists would simply confiscate that money too and let the roads rot.
lazs
Take the amount of money you paid in taxes and multiply it by the % of the budget (2.9%) which is for the Department of education and you will see you are getting a good deal.
Its $580 dollars for 20k in taxes and thats for 1 student. Got more than 1 kid, start dividing it up.
-
Thanks Krusher,good read:)
-
Originally posted by Silat
We arent talking about what you or I give to charity.
We are talking about our (governments) responsibilities to its citizens.
And like I said, "We see things differently"
I love compassionate conservatives:) Wish I could find one:)
So, find me the article in the Constitution that says the FEDERAL government is charged with WELFARE, SOCIAL SECURITY, PUBLIC HOUSING, EDUCATION.
When the FEDERAL government FORCES people to subsudize those things that you THINK are part of the government's responsibilities, that is stealing.
The original intent of the FEDERAL government was to promote and regulate interstate commerce, and provide for the common defense. NOTHING in the original documents makes the government responsible for widows, orphans, slackers, the homeless, education, retirement, subsidized medical care, or any of the rest of the crap you want to add.
The BIG problem is the more clowns try to add to the list, the worse the results are. More money is wasted, and less is done. Then they keep coming back for more and more money. That money does not belong to the government, nor is the government charged with dispensing it to those that are supposedly deserving of it. It wasn't in the Constitution, and it was never intended to be. The more these self annointed conscience bearers try to pile on, the farther we'll get from the original intent, and the more screwed up it will be.
B.S. selective moderation is a joke.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
So, find me the article in the Constitution that says the FEDERAL government is charged with WELFARE, SOCIAL SECURITY, PUBLIC HOUSING, EDUCATION.
When the FEDERAL government FORCES people to subsudize those things that you THINK are part of the government's responsibilities, that is stealing.
The original intent of the FEDERAL government was to promote and regulate interstate commerce, and provide for the common defense. NOTHING in the original documents makes the government responsible for widows, orphans, slackers, the homeless, education, retirement, subsidized medical care, or any of the rest of the crap you want to add.
The BIG problem is the more clowns try to add to the list, the worse the results are. More money is wasted, and less is done. Then they keep coming back for more and more money. That money does not belong to the government, nor is the government charged with dispensing it to those that are supposedly deserving of it. It wasn't in the Constitution, and it was never intended to be. The more these self annointed conscience bearers try to pile on, the farther we'll get from the original intent, and the more screwed up it will be.
B.S. selective moderation is a joke.
I love clowns.
We disagree.
Show me where the constitution says your way is correct.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Take the amount of money you paid in taxes and multiply it by the % of the budget (2.9%) which is for the Department of education and you will see you are getting a good deal.
Its $580 dollars for 20k in taxes and thats for 1 student. Got more than 1 kid, start dividing it up.
Raidr good point. But it falls on deaf ears. :(
-
Im fortunate in my life and have benefited greatly from Bush's caring of the rich.
Bush's caring for who? huh? Lies... propaganda BS. I'm calling you out. Just how did Bush care for the rich more than the poor?
-
Originally posted by Steve
Bush's caring for who? huh? Lies... propaganda BS. I'm calling you out. Just how did Bush care for the rich more than the poor?
The taxpayers who get no or reduced benefits from the tax bill are concentrated in the bottom three-fifths of income earners. Sixty-two percent of the three-fifths of all taxpayers who make less than $44,000 a year will get less than the full rebate amounts, with 42 percent of these taxpayers getting nothing at all.
The tax rebates are supposed to reflect the tax savings from the new 10 percent income-tax bracket on the first $12,000 in taxable income for couples, $10,000 for single parents, and $6,000 for others. Payroll taxes, which are the largest federal tax for three out of four taxpayers, are not counted in computing the rebates.
Oddly, although most taxpayers in the bottom 60 percent of the income scale will get reduced or zero rebates, the tax bill extends the benefits of the rebate to about two million upper-income taxpayers who will not actually benefit from the new 10 percent rate bracket, due to the Alternative Minimum Tax.
"Like the rest of the Bush tax plan, the rebates have been carefully designed to give as little as possible to those who need the money, and as much as possible to those who don't," said Robert S. McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice.
http://www.ctj.org/html/rebate01.htm
-
with 42 percent of these taxpayers getting nothing at all.
My point is: Bush's plans benefits tax payers.
I bet those 42% pay no taxes in the first place.
-
Originally posted by Steve
My point is: Bush's plans benefits tax payers.
I bet those 42% pay no taxes in the first place.
lol It says 42% of TAXPAYERS lol ;)
-
Yes, I think my version of tax payer and theirs is different. I define a tax payer as someone who actually pays taxes. (net)
-
raider... you are being shortsighted... I pay that 580 a year all my working life... not just while my children are of school age... some people pay it and never have any children.
That is not the point tho... if, as silat and you say... we need to fund education... then It matters not how it is done so long as we get good results for the money... Private schools are not normally "capitalism" vs "socialism" at all. they are simply choice.
silat.. I would love to spend time at a meal with you shouting you down (my normal converstional voice)....We don't seem to be getting eachn other in print... the road tax thing for instance... I am not saying turn all the money over to a private company (although I would not be oppossed) I am saying simply that there is no need for more money no matter who maintains the roads.... we have plenty if we weren't being robbed by the socialists.
my point is that you could charge the rich 10 times more and say it was to make better roads and not a cent of it would make it ot any road in the country.
You are aware that most public road maintenance is done now by private contractors (at least in Ca.)?
I do not believe that corprate welfare is "welfare" at least not as I understand welfare. Anyone who has stock or a bank account or even anyone who lives here is the benificiary of "corprate welfare". Corporations are not people.
I am sorry but when I hear phrases like "corporate welfare" or "pay their fair share" or "seperation of church and state" even...
I tend to figure that I am talking to someone who doesn't really think past the soundbite.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Silat
I love clowns.
We disagree.
Show me where the constitution says your way is correct.
Doesn't work that way. The Constitution does not provide for the things you want to do. As such, the Federal government is not charged with performing and subsidizing those tasks. You are not entitled to chose for the rest of us what we should fund, and how much we should be FORCED to spend funding it. You may fund whatever you want as an individual.
Funny, you want it both ways. You DEMAND that the government not "interfere" with personal choices, but then you DEMAND that the government take care of personal responsibilities. You want the government to strong arm money from others and spend it on things you want it spent on, regardless of whether or not it is Constitutional. You claim the Constitution is supposed to "protect" you from that which you desire to be "protected" from, and you claim the Constitution allows you to take money that does NOT belong to you and spend it on what you want it spent on.
I think you need to take a course on reading and comprehension, and then take a closer look at the Constitution. And read the history that surrounds the document and its authors. Maybe then you'll understand the intent of those men far wiser than you. The Constitution is NOT a "living document", malleable in the hands of those who wish to interpret it as they desire and to suit their wishes. It was NEVER intended to be such.
-
Taken from: "Liberals and Class, Parts I and II",
by Thomas Sowell"
The new trinity among liberal intellectuals is race, class and gender. Defining any of these terms is not easy, but it is also not difficult for liberals, because they seldom bother to define them at all.
The oldest, and perhaps still the most compelling, of these concerns is class. In the vision of the left, we are born, live, and die in a particular class -- unless, of course, we give power to the left to change all that.
The latest statistics seized upon to support this class-ridden view of America and other Western societies show that most people in a given part of the income distribution are the children of other people born into that same part of the income distribution.
Among men born in families in the bottom 25 percent of income earners only 32 percent end up in the top half of the income distribution. And among men born to families in the top 25 percent in income earners, only 34 percent end up down in the bottom half.
How startling is that?
More to the point, does this show that people are trapped in poverty or can coast through life on their parents' wealth? Does it show that "society" denies "access" to the poor?
Could it just possibly show that the kind of values and behavior which lead a family to succeed or fail are also likely to be passed on to their children and lead them to succeed or fail as well? If so, how much can government policy -- liberal or conservative -- change that in any fundamental way?
One recent story attempting to show that upward mobility is a "myth" in America today nevertheless noted in passing that many recent immigrants and their children have had "extraordinary upward mobility."
If this is a class-ridden society denying "access" to upward mobility to those at the bottom, why is it that immigrants can come here at the bottom and then rise to the top?
One obvious reason is that many poor immigrants come here with very different ambitions and values from that of poor Americans born into our welfare state and imbued with notions growing out of attitudes of dependency and resentments of other people's success.
The fundamental reason that many people do not rise is not that class barriers prevent it but that they do not develop the skills, values and attitudes which cause people to rise.
The liberal welfare state means they don't have to and liberal multiculturalism says they don't need to change their values because one culture is just as good as another. In other words, liberalism is not part of the solution, but part of the problem.
Racism is supposed to put insuperable barriers in the path of non-whites anyway, so why knock yourself out trying? This is another deadly message, especially for the young.
But if immigrants from Korea or India, Vietnamese refugees, and others can come here and move right on up the ladder, despite not being white, why are black and white Americans at the bottom more likely to stay at the bottom?
The same counterproductive and self-destructive attitudes toward education, work and ordinary civility found in many of America's ghettos can also be found in lower-class British communities. Anyone who doubts it should read British doctor Theodore Dalrymple's book "Life at the Bottom," about the white lower class communities in which he has worked.
These chaotic and violence-prone communities in Britain do not have the excuse of racism or a legacy of slavery. What they do have in common with similar communities in the United States is a similar reliance on the welfare state and a similar set of intellectuals making excuses for their behavior and denouncing anyone who wants them to change their ways.
The latest round of statistics emboldens more intellectuals to blame "society" for the failure of many people at the bottom to rise to the top. Realistically, if nearly a third of people born to families in the bottom quarter of income earners rise into the top half, that is not a bad record.
If more were doing so in the past, that does not necessarily mean that "society" is holding them down more today. It may easily mean that the welfare state and liberal ideology both make it less necessary today for them to change their own behavior.
Someone once defined a social problem as a situation in which the real world differs from the theories of intellectuals. To the intelligentsia, it follows, as the night follows the day, that it is the real world that is wrong and which needs to change.
Having imagined a world in which each individual has the same probability of success as anyone else, intellectuals have been shocked and outraged that the real world is nowhere close to that ideal. Vast amounts of time and resources have been devoted to trying to figure out what is stopping this ideal from being realized -- as if there was ever any reason to expect it to be.
Despite all the words and numbers thrown around when discussing this situation, the terms used are so sloppy that it is hard even to know what the issues are, much less how to resolve them.
Back in mid-May, both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal had front-page stories about class differences and class mobility. The Times' article was the first in a long series that is still going on a month later. Both papers reached similar conclusions, based on a similar sloppy use of the word "mobility."
The Times referred to "the chance of moving up from one class to another" and the Wall Street Journal referred to "the odds that a child born in poverty will climb to wealth." But the odds or probabilities against something happening are no measure of whether opportunity exists.
Anyone who saw me play basketball and saw Michael Jordan play basketball when we were youngsters would have given odds of a zillion to one that he was more likely to make the NBA than I was. Does that mean I was denied opportunity or access, that there were barriers put up against me, that the playing field was not level?
Or did it mean that Michael Jordan -- and virtually everyone else -- played basketball a lot better than I did?
A huge literature on social mobility often pays little or no attention to the fact that different individuals and groups have different skills, desires, attitudes and numerous other factors, including luck. If mobility is defined as being free to move, then we can all have the same mobility, even if some end up moving faster than others and some of the others do not move at all.
A car capable of going 100 miles an hour can sit in a garage all year long without moving. But that does not mean that it has no mobility.
When each individual and each group trails the long shadow of their cultural history, they are unlikely even to want to do the same things, much less be willing to put out the same efforts and make the same sacrifices to achieve the same goals. Many are like the car that is sitting still in the garage, even though it is capable of going 100 mph.
So long as each generation raises its own children, people from different backgrounds are going to be raised with different values and habits. Even in a world with zero barriers to upward mobility, they would move at different speeds and in different directions.
If there is less upward movement today than in the past, that is by no means proof that external barriers are responsible. The welfare state and multiculturalism both reduce the incentives of the poor to adopt new ways of life that would help them rise up the economic ladder. The last thing the poor need is another dose of such counterproductive liberal medicine.
Many comparisons of "classes" are in fact comparisons of people in different income brackets -- but most Americans move up from the lowest 20 percent to the highest 20 percent over time.
Yet those who are obsessed with classes treat people in different brackets as if they were classes permanently stuck in those brackets.
The New York Times series even makes a big deal about disparities in income and lifestyle between the rich and the super-rich. But it is hard to get worked up over the fact that some poor devil has to make do flying his old propeller-driven plane, while someone further up the income scale flies around a mile or two higher in his twin-engine luxury jet.
Only if you have overdosed on disparities are you likely to wax indignant over things like that.
That explains EVERYTHING about this discussion. It is ALL about redistribution of wealth, and justifying it with contrived class warfare, trumped up by those with an agenda.
-
theoretically, inheritance is, and will continue to be one of the greatest contributors to the problem of class.
the idea that one person should hold sway or a higher status as a human being over another due to a sperm lottery is the last vestige of an archaic monarchical system and draws against the very nature of democracy.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
That explains EVERYTHING about this discussion. It is ALL about redistribution of wealth, and justifying it with contrived class warfare, trumped up by those with an agenda.
pretty much
-
Originally posted by JB88
theoretically, inheritance is, and will continue to be one of the greatest contributors to the problem of class.
the idea that one person should hold sway or a higher status as a human being over another due to a sperm lottery is the last vestige of an archaic monarchical system and draws against the very nature of democracy.
The idea that one person can pull themselves out of dire economic straights and achieve, through hard work and sacrifice, a superior way of life that can be passed on to thier children is the very nature of democracy.
You should move to the Peoples' Republic of Mendocino County, JB88. The primary industry is attracting and caring for indignents, from food to halfway houses to Methadone, with teams of activists recruiting homeless off the freeway onramps and convincing them we have the social services in place that'll make Ukiah a great place to live and be a vagrant in.
We don't keep score at youth sporting events, the kids don't have numbers on thier shirts, and if a kid scores two goals in a soccer game or hits a couple of home runs then he's benched lest he stick out and make his teammates feel inferior.
You would like it here JB88...no individulism allowed, kinda like a virtual Squad that requires you to give up your old handle and adopt a number.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
The idea that one person can pull themselves out of dire economic straights and achieve, through hard work and sacrifice, a superior way of life that can be passed on to thier children is the very nature of democracy.
You should move to the Peoples' Republic of Mendocino County, JB88. The primary industry is attracting and caring for indignents, from food to halfway houses to Methadone, with teams of activists recruiting homeless off the freeway onramps and convincing them we have the social services in place that'll make Ukiah a great place to live and be a vagrant in.
We don't keep score at youth sporting events, the kids don't have numbers on thier shirts, and if a kid scores two goals in a soccer game or hits a couple of home runs then he's benched lest he stick out and make his teammates feel inferior.
You would like it here JB88...no individulism allowed, kinda like a virtual Squad that requires you to give up your old handle and adopt a number.
wow.
a. i did not say that we should get rid of it. (i am not FOR giving it to government either)
b. born priveledge is not hard work. not even remotely.
c. i believe that inheritance actually discourages work.
so that said, reread my post and tell me where i said we should go welfare state.
to me, it is a socialogical issue.
i think that we will reach a time when society begins to look at ways to level the playing field rather than unequally leveling players.
then we will see some real capitalism baby.
oh, and do some homework. the JB squad never asks you to change your handle or go to a number.
we do it because we feel honored to be a part of a brotherhood. i made that choice and i am proud to have done so.
i dont need to be "mrwickawacka" to have fun.
you might fly with us sometime. its actually quite diverse and spirited. its hard to think of any other squad that would encourage me to be as individualistic as i am.
-
So it's fair to donate to a stranger on the other side of the planet, but not to your descendence?
-
Originally posted by Airhead
The idea that one person can pull themselves out of dire economic straights and achieve, through hard work and sacrifice, a superior way of life that can be passed on to thier children is the very nature of democracy.
You should move to the Peoples' Republic of Mendocino County, JB88. The primary industry is attracting and caring for indignents, from food to halfway houses to Methadone, with teams of activists recruiting homeless off the freeway onramps and convincing them we have the social services in place that'll make Ukiah a great place to live and be a vagrant in.
We don't keep score at youth sporting events, the kids don't have numbers on thier shirts, and if a kid scores two goals in a soccer game or hits a couple of home runs then he's benched lest he stick out and make his teammates feel inferior.
You would like it here JB88...no individulism allowed, kinda like a virtual Squad that requires you to give up your old handle and adopt a number.
are you trolling? say it ain't so! i can't believe this. not even in the people's republic california.
-
again. i see this as socialogical.
i think that it is fair to donate whatever you want to to whomever you want to.
but i think that it creates problems and i think that we would all be far better off if the focus actually was helping your fellow man rather than spoiling a brat.
build a friggin library, set up a fund to cure cancer instead.
someday, we are going to look back at history and wonder how we could have been so petty and stupid about so many things.
privelidge is an illusion. superpower is an illusion. money isnt even real.
-
Originally posted by JB88
wow.
a. i did not say that we should get rid of it. (i am not FOR giving it to government either)
b. born priveledge is not hard work. not even remotely.
c. i believe that inheritance actually discourages work.
so that said, reread my post and tell me where i said we should go welfare state.
to me, it is a socialogical issue.
i think that we will reach a time when society begins to look at ways to level the playing field rather than unequally leveling players.
then we will see some real capitalism baby.
oh, and do some homework. the JB squad never asks you to change your handle or go to a number.
we do it because we feel honored to be a part of a brotherhood. i made that choice and i am proud to have done so.
i dont need to be "mrwickawacka" to have fun.
you might fly with us sometime. its actually quite diverse and spirited. its hard to think of any other squad that would encourage me to be as individualistic as i am.
It is not your money or the governments to **** around with. What that hell makes you think you should have any bearing on the money one man earns and what he wants done with it in death?
-
did you read the previous posts or are you just slow?
for the last time, and please follow along, i dont think that the government should do squat with it.
i think that it is a socialogical issue.
i think that helping mankind is good.
i think that entitlement is silly.
i think that society will eventually turn its back on those who are unwilling to help others.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
raider... you are being shortsighted... I pay that 580 a year all my working life... not just while my children are of school age... some people pay it and never have any children.
That is not the point tho... if, as silat and you say... we need to fund education... then It matters not how it is done so long as we get good results for the money... Private schools are not normally "capitalism" vs "socialism" at all. they are simply choice.
Paying taxes for education is more than just your kids, if you have any. It's good for society to have education offered to everyone. You benefit from it even if you think you havent. How many people are educated by public schools and go on to do great things? It may not be at the same percentage as private schools but it proves that it does produce intelligent and sucessful people. Call it socialism if you want but giving everyone an opprotunity for k-12 is one thing I am happy to pay taxes on.
-
Raider,
Just curious; seems I discussed things with someone much like you under a different BBS name in the past.
Have you posted on this board under a different BBS name prior to being Raider179?
Thanks!
-
Negative...
-
raider... no problem.. I would agree with you that educating our children is a very good thing and that it is worth a lot of money... Money is, for you who don't know... what you earn by working for...money is the paper representation of your sweat.
I am willing to contribute my sweat and blood to educate your children and my childrens children... Hell... I will pound pins on the next school raising...
I just want to get the most for my money. I, and all of us taxpayers, are being cheated by the public school system... their one sided monopoly is an expensive farce that gets worse every year.
Private schools markedly outperform public schools and at a fraction of the cost. Also... those who are offended by the current public school agenda are being forced to pay for it or worse... pay for it and have their children expossed to it at the same time.
also..
If 88 could read my posts I would ask him what he meant by society eventually turning it's back on those who are unwilling to help others... this would seem to say that society only consists of certain people... others are left out... it would also seem to say that the wealthy are not contributing to charity... this is very far from the truth. Wealthy people contribute the lions share to all charities.
He thinks that helping mankind is good.... well... there is a novel idea. Everyone thinks that. Some do more than others. Some feel that they should do less than others and that they should decide how much each person should contribute and to what.
Also... there is that old buggaboo.... what acts can be proven to really "help" mankind? Who decides what are worthy acts or charities or whatever? Seems only the individual can make that personal choice.
lazs
-
Every private school I have ever seen is expensive as hell. Not sure where you are getting at a "fraction of the cost".
-
Originally posted by storch
are you trolling? say it ain't so! i can't believe this. not even in the people's republic california.
Dude, you don't even know...As the WIC roles and relief roles rise staff are added, and as staff are added people are promoted, new programs branch out and yes, indeedie, derelects are actually recruited by traveling bands of "advocates" who are paid (and, indeed, have the best jobs in town) Government employees who have a vested intrest in seeing the relief roles increase.
Seriously- the fishing industry and lumber industry have been destroyed by a combination of Left Wing activism and Right Wing "free trade" agreements where local mills have to compete with a subsidized Canadian timber industry, so all that's left is Government employment or, our other fast track growth industry, "compassionate caregiving" by growing legal dope.
What mills that ARE still open now use migrant Mexican workers (read: exempt from taxes, minimum wages, labor laws) because timber is an "agriculturial" product.
The powers that be up here are a combination of 70s Back to the Land Hippies and local old money rednecks- the Hippies want to hinder growth, unless it's Government growth, and the Rednecks want to hinder growth because they're afraid of another influx of Back to the Land hippies.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
To be fair... the rich will allways get richer unless you set a cieling and then confiscate wealth at that point.
The real issue is not how many people are getting super rich but how many people are doing worse because of it. Are more poor people being created? Are the rich taking the money out of anyones pockets or....
Is it simply that creeping socialism is creating a larger and larger tax burden for everyone? We make more money but are able to keep less of it. Thisw is not the fault of the rich and.... even if we soaked em until they no longer had incentive to produce.... We would still continue to pay more and more and more and more and more taxes no matter what our income bracket.
The rich aren't hurting me... the socialists are with they well ententioned and bloated programs... Is SS in trouble because of the rich?
lazs
Hard to believe nobody jumped on you for that first statement about confiscating wealth after a certain point. It's a simple solution to a well-known problem of free-market capitalism, though, and I'm sure you aren't the first to have suggested it.
As far as the rich not taking money out of your pockets or hurting you in any way- you live in California, right? So neither you nor any of those close to you were hurt in any way by the Enron-conspired artificial energy crisis in California? Did you not have to suffer through rolling black- or brownouts? Or pay more for anything because of increased energy costs? My guess is you were hurt in more than one way but didn't realize it. The guys running Enron were pretty rich, btw.
You use MS Windows, right? And Microsoft was convicted after monopolisitic anti-competitive practices. MS's illegal practices caused you to pay more for Windows than you would've otherwise. And Microsoft is lead by some pretty rich people.
And Walmart's employment practices which increase costs of government provided social services is widely recognized, and has even lead to an anti-Walmart bill being introduced in the Montana legislature. You have Walmarts in Cali? Walmart's leaders are also pretty wealthy.
Just a few examples off the top of my head.
-
Did you not have to suffer through rolling black- or brownouts?
Exactly how do you connect this to Enron/rich people?
-
Are you asking how Enron is connected to rich people? Or were you unaware that the California energy crisis of a couple years ago was 'manufactured' Enron in order to raise energy prices?
btw, I don't mean to suggest what laz says about the costs of creeping socialism is wrong either - as far as I can tell the middle class is getting chewed on from both ends.
Neither do I mean to characterize all wealthy people as cheating connivers. I'm sure there are plenty of hardworking, smart and ambitious wealthy people following their dreams and achieving material success - you probably chief among them, Steve.
-
Or were you unaware that the California energy crisis of a couple years ago was 'manufactured' Enron in order to raise energy prices?
ROFL. sorry, I didn't know I was conversing w/ a fool. I'll go back to dismissing anything you post as worthless tripe. Carry on.
-
hmm.... so microsoft and enron/energy companies are ruthless monopolies taking our money but public schools and their teachers unions are the "good" monopolies?
I say competition is good in every case.
How is confiscating wealth any kind of solution if you wish to maintain a republic? Economic systems and political syustems must function together.
Now... I don't know how old oboe and raider and silat are but... this is the way it goes..
When we are in school our parents take care of us and money is meaningless... we think that they get it for slacking off or whatever and all we see is the poor people around us who don't have enough and we feel that people like our parents should give away their easily gotten money to help..
We get older and struggle with school and first jobs and feel that... everyone with more than $10,000 a year should be helping us to be fair.
We get a decent job and married and we feel that we can barely support our family (no matter what we make) and that everyone making a lot more than us should be paying to take care of every social problem we can dream up..
We raise kids and think that even tho we make 10 times what we originaly considered rich... we need every penny to get our kids going and help our grandkids and that the super rich need to pay for a our now much smaller list of "vital" social programs.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Steve
ROFL. sorry, I didn't know I was conversing w/ a fool. I'll go back to dismissing anything you post as worthless tripe. Carry on.
well then steve, since you are well versed in these things, perhaps you might enlighten the rest of us on what caused the power screw in california.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
hmm.... so microsoft and enron/energy companies are ruthless monopolies taking our money but public schools and their teachers unions are the "good" monopolies?
I say competition is good in every case.
How is confiscating wealth any kind of solution if you wish to maintain a republic? Economic systems and political syustems must function together.
Now... I don't know how old oboe and raider and silat are but... this is the way it goes..
When we are in school our parents take care of us and money is meaningless... we think that they get it for slacking off or whatever and all we see is the poor people around us who don't have enough and we feel that people like our parents should give away their easily gotten money to help..
We get older and struggle with school and first jobs and feel that... everyone with more than $10,000 a year should be helping us to be fair.
We get a decent job and married and we feel that we can barely support our family (no matter what we make) and that everyone making a lot more than us should be paying to take care of every social problem we can dream up..
We raise kids and think that even tho we make 10 times what we originaly considered rich... we need every penny to get our kids going and help our grandkids and that the super rich need to pay for a our now much smaller list of "vital" social programs.
lazs
that pretty much sums up all the titlatchers i've ever met.
-
Originally posted by JB88
well then steve, since you are well versed in these things, perhaps you might enlighten the rest of us on what caused the power screw in california.
Gray Davis?
-
4 pages of this stuff, and I'm Still trying to figure out how someone making 10 million a year pays less in taxes then someone making 100k
-
Oh, it's just "fair share math".
Somehow, 10% of $1,000,000 is less than 15% of $100,000.
I personally don't understand it, but "fair share math" always seems to pop up in these threads.
I'm sure some of the posters can explain it because they keep saying it makes sense to them.
Oh, one thing I DO know about "fair share math" is that only OTHER people need to use it to figure their taxes. People proposing it are exempt from using.
;)
-
Originally posted by Steve
Exactly how do you connect this to Enron/rich people?
http://www.dynrec.com/rge/calif.html
Federal energy regulators said Wednesday that their
investigation found widespread manipulation of natural
gas and electricity prices and supplies in California.
Pat Wood, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
said that as a result of the manipulation California
would receive more than the $1.8 billion in refunds
recommended by a FERC judge in December. The exact
amount is to be determined in the coming months.
The FERC singled out seven subsidiaries of bankrupt
Enron Corp. and five other companies for taking
advantage of a dysfunctional market and reaping
millions of dollars in unjust profits.
After a 13-month investigation, FERC concluded "that many
trading strategies employed by Enron and other companies
violated the anti-gaming provisions" of marketing rules.
"Enron manipulated thinly traded physical markets to profit
in financial markets," FERC said, estimating that Enron
made more than $500 million in online trading in 2000 and 2001.
FERC investigators recommended that the companies be
forced to give up unfairly earned profits.
The energy crisis cost the state as much as $45 billion
over two years in higher electricity costs, lost business
due to blackouts and a slowdown in economic growth,
according to the Public Policy Institute of California.
Fun to learn new stuff huh? :)
-
This is pretty old news, but:
Enron traders caught on tape (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/01/eveningnews/main620626.shtml)
As far as progressive vs regressive taxation, I dont' expect to convince anybody my way is the right way. Plenty of intelligent people with different philosophies here and I'm not one to claim my way is right over theirs. I just hope people fully understand the the mechanics and implications of each system, and then use their vote for candidates who represent positions they agree with.
Laz, I grew up in a lower middle class family. I always knew my folks worked hard for their money, and while we had the basic necessities, we didn't have much beyond that.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Oh, it's just "fair share math".
Somehow, 10% of $1,000,000 is less than 15% of $100,000.
I personally don't understand it, but "fair share math" always seems to pop up in these threads.
I'm sure some of the posters can explain it because they keep saying it makes sense to them.
Oh, one thing I DO know about "fair share math" is that only OTHER people need to use it to figure their taxes. People proposing it are exempt from using.
;)
Ahhhh Fair Share Math
When I was in school they called that socialism, ya know, the needs of the many were more important them the haves of the few.
Of coarse, I'm sure that these are the same people who don't want to privatise SS. Which ,I might add, would only take away congresses ability to spend it on something else.:aok
-
Golly-geenit but I hate it when commies make patently commie arguements then claim they aren't commies.
-
Originally posted by Steve
ROFL. sorry, I didn't know I was conversing w/ a fool. I'll go back to dismissing anything you post as worthless tripe. Carry on.
LOL do you realize in the post before this one I called you a smart, hardworking and ambitious person?
So have you got any links to disapprove the links on Enron's manipulation of the California energy market that Raider and I supplied?
-
edit
-
All i know is that year in and year out, top 50% wage earners pay like 96% of all taxes collected, and top 20% pay something like 80%---next time commie's bich about tax cuts for the wealthy..THEY are the only ones left still payin em--fediddlein country runs on their backs
-
Not that Enron didn't screw Kalifornica; they did. Kaliforicators brought it on themselves though, with their bizarre laws. I would put the blame at 75% Cali, for creating the conditions that alllowed (encouraged, actually) Enron (and others) to screw them, and the other 25% of blame on Enron (and others) for the actual legal screwing Kalifornica got.
-
LOL do you realize in the post before this one I called you a smart, hardworking and ambitious person?
Oboe, I never had you on ignore. It was a tongue in cheek stab. I'm sorry it came across so seriously and so harshly. Please accept my apology for my poorly chosen words. The fault with the misunderstanding lies soley with me.
-
Fun to learn new stuff huh?
Raider, that article is a nice fluff piece but not really where the problem lies. The Govt of CA had bad laws and made worse deals. This is what caused the crises there. If it was Enron's fault, G Davis would still be in power in CA.... probably.
-
Steve -
no worries, mate. I still believe what I said about you is true.
As far as what Enron did California, and in reference to the bad/bizarre laws? that supposedly had them 'deserving' what they got...
Come on! Manipulating the energy market the way they did was illegal, wasn't it?
btw, I thought one of the things that made that fiasco possible was deregulation in the California energy market (there is the Grey Dacis connection, I think). Deregulation usually involves an unfettering of business by the removal of laws governing conduct, standards, etc.
-
A flat tax is a truly regressive tax...it harms low income folks more than high income folks. Consider a 10% flat tax...a person earning $100,000 would end up with $90,000 after taxes. That $10,000 difference is really not going to change their life style all that much. They may have to buy a Cadillac instead of a Lexus.
Now consider a person earning $10,000 who would end up with $9,000 after the tax. A thousand dollar difference to that person is significant. It might mean the difference between being able to afford a used Toyota or taking the bus.
Replacing the current income tax system with a national sales tax is more preferable. I know many economists consider a sales tax a regressive tax as well, however this economist disagrees (yeah, one of my degrees is in economics). Here is why: The rich tend to buy more expensive products than those less well off. The sales tax on a Lexus is going to be a lot more than on a used Toyota, but they still provide the same utility, i.e. transportation. The rich person does not have to choose to buy the Lexus, but they prefer it and therefore voluntarily choose to pay a greater amount of tax. So in the end the rich person ends up paying a greater amount of tax than the lower income individual.
Now the sales tax also has several side benefits
1) It encourages savings, which frees more money for investment and economic growth. Of course economic growth in turn stimulates further spending and greater tax revenues.
2) It simplifies the tax code incredibly.
3) It would allow for the virtual elimination of the IRS as 45 of 50 states have a sales tax collection agency which can collect the Federal Government's share just as they currently collect and redistribute each county's share. Of course, nearly eliminating the IRS reduces the cost of running the government.
Anyway...just my $0.02.
-
crow... that is bull.. Allmost every flat tax I have seen had a minimum yearly income.. If the bottom was say 20,000 then the "poor" with 20k or less declared income would pay.... 0%... everything I have seen would have credits for families also.
I am not married currently but would like to see a tax system that encouraged being married and raising a family. I think that is important..
I would also like to see a flat tax with a return to deducting tax spent on say gas or property tax.
I am not adverse to a tax based solely on sales tho.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
crow... that is bull.. Allmost every flat tax I have seen had a minimum yearly income..
I think you are confused...the $100,000 income comparison to $10,000 income was illustrative to show that a flat tax is regressive. I was hoping to make the math easy for those who are easily confused.:lol
-
Ok... so the math would be.... 10% of 100k is... 10k in taxes.
0% of 10k would be 0k in taxes. How is that hurting the poor?
lazs
-
Looks like we may also disagree on the meaning of 'flat' as well, Laz.
When I think of a flat tax, I think of a tax where everyone pays the same percentage - no ifs ands or buts. Your version of the 'flat' tax includes a minimum ceiling, below which no one pays tax, and tax incentives for marriage and children, and deductions for gas and property tax. In short, you've greatly simplified the current tax code, but you've kept some of its main features - progressivity, incentives and deductions.
Not that I am against what you describe, but I think you're not talking about a truly 'flat' tax system.
-
Flat is the only pseudo logical and "equal" way to crush the low income more than the hight income.
Only a cretin can pretend it's fair.
-
The current suggestion for flat tax allows ONLY the personal family deductions, and NOTHING else. Meaning a single person with no dependants gets his first $10K free of taxes. He pays $1K only on his NEXT $10K. Actually it's about $1.3K because the flat tax is supposed to be around 12.7%. A family of 3-4 would pay nothing on the 1st $20K or so.
In the current proposal you get NO other deductions. No interest, mortgage or other, nothing besides the deduction for state income taxes.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The current suggestion for flat tax allows ONLY the personal family deductions, and NOTHING else. Meaning a single person with no dependants gets his first $10K free of taxes. He pays $1K only on his NEXT $10K. Actually it's about $1.3K because the flat tax is supposed to be around 12.7%. A family of 3-4 would pay nothing on the 1st $20K or so.
So...what you and Laz2 are telling me is that you consider a tax with select deductions and sliding scale on income up to a point as a "flat tax". {blink, blink}:confused:
Sooo...what do you call what we have now?
Since we are on the slippery slope...maybe the Congress can make a minor modification and say: flat tax allows ONLY the personal family deductions and interest deduction on a home (because we want to encourage home ownership), and NOTHING else...except...well...also deduct state income tax...and maybe state sales tax too. BUT NOTHING ELSE...cuz this is a simple flat tax.
Then in a few years they can make just another tiny change: A person with no dependants gets his first $10K free of taxes. He pays $500 only on his NEXT $10K and $1k on his NEXT $10k. Except if they are a married couple (cuz we want to encourage marriage) and then the first $20k is free. But it is still flat...sorta...from an angle anyway.
Then many years and many tiny changes later we have: flat tax that allows ONLY the personal family deductions, interest deduction on a home (because we want to encourage home ownership), state income/sales tax deduction, a deduction on each 1000 head of cattle raised for beef, deduction for each bushel of corn not grown over the quota, deduction for leased automobiles over 5000lbs and $75K, deduction for emu breeding stock, deduction for...deduction for...deduction for...but absolutely NOTHING else...this is a flat tax remember...so really nothing else. But we might want to think about a deduction for hybrid cars cuz we want to encourage fuel efficient clean cars. But after that...scout's honor...NOTHING else.
Lets just make it really easy...if you buy something, you pay a sales tax. No loop holes.
-
crowMaw got it right. We need to have the guts to say flat and mean flat, or in a few years we'll be right back where we are now.
Or maybe, where we are right now isn't so bad after all, because even the people that want a 'flat' tax end up emulating important features of the current tax code. Its starting to sound like a smokescreen to me - the flat tax backers gain notoriety by being crusaders for radical tax change but really there is not much fundamentally different from what we already have.
btw I don't think I'd like a national sales tax. Sales taxes hit you right in the face everytime you make a purchase; can you imagine what the sales tax would be on a house purchase? I thought we wanted to encourage home ownership? I don't mind paying taxes but I don't like to be reminded about it every time I turn around, you know?
Our economy depends greatly on consumption, so any tax proposal that adversely affects consumption could backfire unless its implemented properly.
-
we don't have a flat tax now at all. I said that I would not be opossed to a sales tax only but if we had a flat tax it should include marriage and children deductions and have a minimum for which there would be no tax. Also.. you should not pay tax on tax. Your property and state taxes and gas taxes and regestration for instance are all taxes and should be deducted.
In reality.. that is the only kind of flat tax that would fly... there isa huge tax industry that is stuffed full of accountants, preparers and lawyers and they won't go down easy.
lazs
-
Social Security started at like 1%...("you'll HARDLY even notice it")...every few years, TEENY ("you'll HARDLY even notice it") changes have been made, until we arrived at our current 14% or thereabouts, and we've got some folks on left saying the poor should be exempted from even THAT; (the 'tax-breaks for the rich mantra was partially correct, as those with families making 30ish really dont pay any taxes other than FICA, in the end, and thus received no tax break;)
The actual rate when the INCOME tax first started, in WWI, was like 3-4%? mebbe one of yall can hunt that up, and it was supPOSED to be temporary--like, until the war ended. When Reagan's first term started the top earners were paying 70% (of the income they couldnt hide from the gov't, and thus from the economy)---There is NO reason to think our elected pimps won't do the same damn thing with a flat tax, except we will have already given away the few deductions we now have.
BTW, in either '84 or '86, Reagan cut a deal with congress--MANY deductions were given away (first and foremost interest on credit cards, etc.) in exchange for lower rates. Bush I and Clinton took those cuts away, and we never DID get those deductions back:mad:
-
bj.. nice short and accurate history lesson on why you never let the government have anything or run anything. The socialists here just don't get it.
lazs