<<<THOR>>>
Posted by Wussy Actor (Member # 5937) on :
Because with all that money to keep track of, it has to be a really huge tax cut before the poor billionaires will notice it.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Read an article today about them cutting programs for migrant kids to get educations... Guess we know where the money for that program went -_-.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Interesting way to characterize not taking something that belongs to another as giving it to them.
Dagonee
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Because as you're well aware, THOR, billionaires pay by far the highest percentage of taxes vs. any other income levels and, possibly, vs. any other time in history.
Edit: But it's really not their money, anyway, right? They should be grateful we let them keep as much as we do!
[ July 22, 2004, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Hah.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
Yeah lets raise takes to ~90% on those people so they won't be rich anymore. That'll show'em.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Rakeesh, I would say that in terms of "real" value, the same huge amounts of taxes billionaires pay is actually less then lesser well off people. That 100,000+ dollars has more utility to the nation for the common good than it does for that particular billionaire (I have a just thought up pet theory that each billionaire is a mini inflation environment, where due to the immense amounts of cash, the value of an individual dollar to the billionaire is devalued). It's merely efficient use of currency.
-Bok
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
Your pet theory aside, its still their money. Not yours, not the governments.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Yes, well, in the face of that sort of logic, I'm gonna march down and demand my tax money back!
But I'm glad you through out that unsubstantiated 90% number. I was totally going to point it out as the ideal, but well, you destroyed that argument.
-Bok
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Let's say that by some miracle, the government decided that it was too big, and it cut itself in half, and decided to reduce all taxes by half.
Who would get the biggest tax break? The billionaires. Why? Because they pay the most taxes in the first place.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Bok,
You're right, of course-which is why I don't oppose progressive income taxes. I think that 'real-value' has a definite place in the issue, but I get really nervous when it starts edging into the, "They don't need all that money anyway."
Which is a big part of 'real-value' that I'm no fan of.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dag -- I fail to recognize money (or at least the value represented by it) as property. Money is a medium of exchange which sole value rests in the financial power of the nation as a whole and the backing of the government, which is also a heavy influence on that financial power. Even the possession of that medium of exchange is a nebulous concept, as "having money" amounts nowadays to having some numbers in a database, the most meaningful rules governing that database being primarily determined by . . . the US government.
That money is at least in part a barometer of the amount of value generated and consumed by various transactions on the part of a person? Yes. That it is solely that? No. It is also related deeply and intrinsically to billions of other factors, and the value of the money a person has access to may and does change arbitrarily absent action by them.
Can the physical representations of money be owned by a person? Why not. Can the value in money be owned by them? To me, the concept seems absurd. Now, that they have a "right" to the value of their work seems reasonable to me. But even that does not preclude the government taking money, which value is in a large part determined independently of the value of work done to obtain it.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I really don't understand why people have such a problem with this. When you are dirt poor, especially if you have kids, you don't have to pay taxes at all because of the tax breaks. Those who do make lots of money have to pay much larger percentages than those who make less.
Instead of billionaires, lets talk about millionaires. Being a millionaire these days is not such a big deal. In fact, it is a smart idea to save up so that by the time you retire you have that much saved up and you can live off of the interest for your retirement and have an inheritance to give to your children.
Just because you have a lot of money doesn't mean you are living "high on the hog". Ever read "The Millionaire next door"? Most millionaires are extremely frugal for the amount of money they make. That is why they are millionaires to begin with.
It is true that there are "loopholes" that rich people are often able to take advantage of because they can hire people who know how to find those loopholes. Does anyone think that those loopholes were puposely put there to benefit the rich? That seems kinda paranoid. I think it is more that it is an imperfect system and someone is always going to abuse it no matter what you do.
It is their money, they earned it. Let them keep some of it. If they feel like being generous and giving their money to those who need it, that is up to them. They can do it freely and receive the blessings, or not do it and be accountable before God. (That is, if you believe in God.)
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
I seem to remember a very touching Bible story about the rich man who gave bags of gold to the church without being generous.
But the homeless widow, who gave only a penny, was making an enormous sacrifice.
Just food for thought.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Some points about the widow's mite story:
The rich man's contributions were not counted as righteousness because he did it to be seen doing it, not because he wanted to help.
There was virtue in the widow's contribution because she gave it. If it had been taken from her (taxes), where would the virtue be? Nowhere.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's an excellent point, Kasie. That's why I'm not really impressed with the donations of Bill Gates. I've heard (not sure) that, proportionally, he donates the least compared to other billionaires, corporations, etc.
As far as it goes with taxes, however...taxes aren't charity. They're money that one earns and is, in many cases-particularly the richer you get-taxed more than once.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Here's the thing. I haven't exactly hashed out how I feel about this particular issue, and that story is part of the reason why.
Instinctively, I want to be taxed less. I feel like I have a high earning potential, and I'd like to keep as much as that as possible. I've worked for it, after all.
....but then, wait. That might be a lot more money than I actually need. And I was, after all, given amazing opportunities that were afforded me not by hard work but by birth -- I did not grow up in a drug-ridden urban neighborhood, my college education was paid for by my parents, etc etc. Essentially, I feel selfish and wrong for wanting to keep my money where there are so many people who have nothing.
This debate is further complicated, of course, by the fact that the government is notoriously inept with handling money. The trouble is there's no one else trying to help these people. Even if, say, we go to a voucher program instead of the current public education system, the government still has to administer the vouchers.
I just find this a tough issue to wrap my head around.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: ....but then, wait. That might be a lot more money than I actually need
Then give it away. But don't vote for people who will pass laws to take other people's money by Force. (That's what taxes are you know. If you resist you go to jail.)
There are TONS of charities out there and with most of them a larger percentage of the donations get to the intended than with the federal government.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Pixiest, have you ever worked for the federal government?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
fugu, that's an interesting semantical exercise, but the point of my post was that "taking less" is being described as "giving." I'm not against taxes; I'm not against people with more money contributing more in both absolute and percentage terms. But I am against the sense of government entitlement that doesn't recognize that taxes are taking. Not taking is not the same as giving.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Does anyone think that those loopholes were puposely put there to benefit the rich?"
*raises hand* I can think of a few that were.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: The trouble is there's no one else trying to help these people.
I think that that's because everybody expects the government to take care of it. There is the attitude "Why should I contribute to [insert charitable cause]? Enough of my taxes are already going toward that sort of thing. I know I feel that way sometimes.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Sadly, mph, I think much much more of it has to do with apathy and a natural out of sight out of mind mentality. I really don't think you can depend on the kindness of strangers to keep all social programs afloat.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Just to clarify:
There is no organization on this earth that feeds more of the hungry, teaches more children, helps more of the sick, the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and the lame to walk, promotes the Arts, protects nature and the environment, takes care of our soldiers and their families, aids the elderly, advances all areas of scientific research, and still manages to promote economic growth, and tens of thousands of more things, and does so with good efficiency and little corruption and heavy oversight, than our government.
You want to be Patriotic? Stop playing games with your taxes and pay them not with stingy fingers but with pride.
Sure, you may not like the tax incentives for SUV's or the Art Work they are promoting on PBS or any few things they do, but there are many things our government does that all but the most fringe elements approve of, and that is where your voice and your money will go.
You don't like the expensive war in Iraq? Fine. You will like the new schools and hospitals we are building their. You don't like the UN money we give? Fine, but you will like the new tanks we are buying.
You say give the money to a charity? What charity? Should I name the great charities that, over the past decades have been caught mismanaging the money they get? United Way; Catholic Charities; Islamic Charities; etc.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Oooh! Give to Lottie Moon!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Does anyone think that those loopholes were puposely put there to benefit the rich?
Some tax loopholes that benefit the middle class as much or more than they benefit the rich:
Mortgage Interest Deduction (Capped well below what a billionare spends on a house)
State Income Tax Deduction
Tuition deduction or credit (Capped so even upper middle class can't take advantage of them)
Primary Residence Capital Gains Tax exemption (capped at $250k per person every 2 years)
Property Tax Deduction
Roth IRA future tax exemption/Regular IRA current deduction
Non-taxable employee benefits including medical insurance, mass transit subsidies, retirement plans, and cafeteria plans
And remember, even these deductions are limited by the AMT, which is effecting more and more upper middle class folks. Tax "loopholes" are just the deductions that the speaker can't take advantage of. I think the whole system needs to be simplified. Not flat, but blanket deductions per person (including dependents) so that some minimum amount of living expenses, comfortably above poverty level, just isn't taxed. Then a few tiers of tax rates above that, and almost no other deductions.
The problem is that lots of legitimate business deductions are also useful as tax dodges, and I see no good way around that without crippling small businesses. We need creative ideas on how to tell a true business expense from an expense designed solely to use pre-tax dollars for personal gain.
And, of course, the payroll taxes need to be made less regressive. Since the lockboxes are myths anyway, let's just throw them in with income tax.
Dagonee
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: The trouble is there's no one else trying to help these people
This, I think, is a pretty common fallacy. I think a lot of people believe this, and they use it as a rationalization for the government taxing the way they do.
To Dan: I think that the LDS church has been proven to be a faithful charitable organization, one that is good at giving help where it is needed most and does not use it dishonestly. Ever. I feel pretty confident contributing there.
It's not that I am unwilling to pay taxes. There are some things that the government can do that no one else can. I pay my taxes, though I am always happy when I qualify for a tax break. Hey, I like having money.
[ July 22, 2004, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
I just love that people believe taxes disappear forever. For the vast majority of us, taxes pay for necessities -- roads, half-hearted medical coverage, public education. While I sympathize with the suffering wealthy white man, I'll somehow find a way to sleep at night knowing he has only $800,000 per year to somehow survive on.
The gap between rich and poor is huge, and growing exponentially -- I'd be interested in seeing the wage gaps from the Gilded Era and see how they compare to today, and how quickly we're approaching the gaps of yesteryear. Taxes shouldn't be distributed with equal burden because wages are staggered by the lower you go on the socio-economic ladder. Taking 30% of $20,000 (the national average is $35,000) and taking 30% of $200,000 leave the poorer man pretty severely screwed -- and has a neglible effect on the richer man, given he can still buy food, housing, a Mercedes or two, private school, entertainment, even as the poorer of the two is probably going into debt to simultaneously afford rent in a crappy neighborhood and food at the same time, never mind the sheer impossibility of getting a higher education while doing a full-time job. Though of course I weep bitter tears for the richer man.
I'm for fairly free markets (provided a degree of government oversight and minimal regulation) and I dislike the efficiency of taxes, but to argue against staggered taxes is ridiculous.
Not to mention, it's simply far more economically advantageous to have money spread out and spent. Giving $500,000 to each billionaire is far less efficient than giving $5 to every citizen -- we have a virtual guarantee that the $5 will be spent quickly, often, and domestically. Terms that sure as hell don't apply to the very rich.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Maybe it's because they check that little box that says "I'd like to donate $3 to the presidential campaign fund" which does not increase or lower your taxes Does anyone else check that?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Lalo, was that a general rant at people not participating in this thread or did I miss someone advocating a flat tax here?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Dag, I'm guessing a general rant.
Or maybe it's a counterbalance to the 90% quip above.
-Bok
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
While we're discussing the Gilded Age (or rather, if we're going to) we should discuss standards of living and education, without a doubt.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
That was partially addressed to Rakeesh, Jeff, with whom I've had this discussion before. He's an advocate of flat taxes (and has said so in this thread), which I find to be largely useless to the economy and especially damaging to the middle and lower classes.
[edit: Fine, post before I get the chance to correct the embarrasingly premature posting. I gotta start thinking about baseball, thinking about weightlifters, if Train A leaves London at 2:08 PM and Train B leaves Mexico City at 4:30 AM...]
[ July 22, 2004, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: Lalo ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
OK. Then I'll just sit back and watch for now.
*grabs the popcorn* *munch*
Dagonee
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:When you are dirt poor, especially if you have kids, you don't have to pay taxes at all because of the tax breaks. Those who do make lots of money have to pay much larger percentages than those who make less.
Not true. If you were talking only of income tax, you would be closer to the truth, but still not completely.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Right. If you have a W-2 job, you pay over 7.5% in payroll taxes, matched by the employer. The tax credits do not make up for this unless you're making a very tiny amount of money.
Talking of federal taxes only, people earning up to about 82,000 will in general pay a larger percentage of their income than people making less than them. Then there's a big gap into the $100k-200k range where the lack of additional payroll taxes overcompensates for higher tax rates, then it generally goes back to higher income = higher percentage for federal taxes. But individuals can radically change their percentage depending on available deductions. Lower income people can't afford houses, so miss a huge deduction there.
In high sales tax states, the disparity is worse and is sometimes never overcome.
Dagonee
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Someone with more economics background than me can have fun with the IRS Statistics. I think the most interesting thing is that companies get out of a lot of taxes.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I'm worried about the middle-class (we'll just call it that even though we don't have a class system in the USA) will wither, or to put it another way that the super rich will become the new aristocracy/robber-barons.
I can almost agree with the previous statement that the billionaire's money is not really his own. HE didn't make all of that by himself through magic or divine powers but by using the civilization that spawned him... so all those resources could be considered public domain...at least in a moral way. Thus it is the billionaire's duty to give back to the civilization that gave him so much.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
"It is their money, they earned it."
There is an american myth.
If you have the money you EARNED it.
Is it that if too much of the money floats into the richest of hands society can become unbalanced and harmed?
Forbes did an article on how the richest americans take advantage of the 50,000 page tax code and end up paying about 8% of average on their taxes.
Also, the majority of the 30 richest Americans made their billions in MEDICINE, REAL ESTATE and ENERGY.
Hmmm... three catagories that come from the public NEED.
<T>
Also, how idiotic is it to give MORE tax breaks to Billionaires FROM a deficit?????
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Actually, sales & property taxes are what hurt the lower and middle classes way more than the upper-mid and upper classes, which is why I mentioned using straight income taxes, state or federal, is a poor comparison in terms of showing who is hit less hard by taxation. Put simply, $100 is a far greater burden for someone making $15-20,000 a year than $10,000 is for the person netting $1.5-2 million, not because of using the "all things being equal" method of evaluating, but applying a realistically based reasoning for cost of living, differences in expenses, number of luxuries, deductable pay-outs, and a whole lot more.
Knowing plenty of people who make a whole lot more than I do right now, I can assure anyone that if someone is making over $100-150,000, they are moving some of their money into non-taxable or less-taxable locations (usually non-liquid). Even the few millionaires I know, who basically barely count as one, make sure that they keep their assets in non-liquid form and often in either investments or trusts that will guarantee a lower taxation than their net worth. Companies do this as a matter of regular practice, and anyone making over six figures practices this as a matter of keeping more of what they make. For those of us who don't deal with this regularly in our personal finances, you can equate it to having a 401k or a CD account, but one that can be cashed in within certain increments at certain times with a lessened tax penalty than it would be if you cashed it in normally. Also, your funds would be spread over numerous CDs and 401ks instead of one or two larger ones, kept track of very well, all falling under legal limits for taxation once cashed in (if necessary), but also able to continue growing and able to funnel back and forth to maintain that legal level.
I'm not really explaining it very accurately, mostly for the sake of keeping it simplified, but also because I'm trying to condense a whole lot of accounting and economics practics into a few paragraphs. It's really far more intricate and conditional than I put it, but the trick is that it's almost always done completely within the bounds of law, and it's something anyone can do. The reason it's so common with those who have bigger bankrolls is because they have more to work with. I know a few guys who have gotten to the point of making six figure incomes because they are careful and talented at choosing where and how to keep their money. The most common reason for the disparity is that most people don't have access to or are just not aware of the resources that can help them become a little more financially comfortable. In addition, the people and places who can make people more aware cost an arm and a leg to utilize for just some advice.
It's a more complex issue than just the rich people being evil and poor people being the oppressed. This doesn't mean either side is really in the more morally superior situation, either. So, as long as we keep this in mind and keep away from trying to argue from a morally superior position, the financial disparity can be properly discussed. I don't know that is has been so throughout this whole thread, and definitely not from the start. It's not just a matter of "they earned it" or "they need it more" or anything of that sort. It's more of an issue of what set of balances between classes is going to produce a more efficient economic situation on a national level for the most people.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
I forgot to mention credit in there. The ability to cover the amoount of credit someone has accrued is another large factor when covering the disparity between financial classes. Lower to middle levels have a much higher amount of credit on average than they can reasonably cover at any given time. This is another thing that keeps people locked into a financial rut. In America, there is a high percentage of people who are not always in a state of poverty, but were their credit debts to be paid at any moment, they would inevitably be spun right into the poverty level. In the upper-mid and upper classes, there are far fewer cases of this. It does happen from time to time, but it is not the average. The trick is to keep the amount of money owed and the amount of liquifiable assets at a balance where you don't get stuck in a financial conundrum. Most people have a hard time achieving this, and once stuck in it, it's difficult to get out of without getting serious help.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Where did I say I advocated flat taxes, exactly? You're right, though, Ed-we have had this discussion before, and you know very well I don't advocate flat-taxes.
I just point out that there is nothing worthwhile in the idea that says, "They don't need all that money anyway."
quote:Forbes did an article on how the richest americans take advantage of the 50,000 page tax code and end up paying about 8% of average on their taxes.
I would like to see that article, or any such article. I do not for a minute believe that statistic is accurate.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
You don't? That's a new twist. Glad to see you finally succumbed to my obviously and always correct arguments -- admitting error is a new twist, too.
No, no need to worship me, I'm content with you having you name your firstborn after me. Or possibly cash.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Er, actually, maybe it's not all that new. I just noticed I misread your comment in this thread -- when did you start supporting progressive taxes, dude?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I would like to second the excellent point that mr_porteiro_head made above.
Crossbreed that with my comment about the extremely rich being very good at finding loopholes.
What if removing those loopholes causes more harm then good? Is it not just petty to point your finger and say, "No fair! No fair!"
I freely admit that I don't know what the loopholes are or how they work or what the consequences would be of changing them. But I think it is just a wee bit silly to say that it is the secret agenda of all Republicans to make the very richest Americans not have to pay taxes. That just doesn't make sense.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Heh. No, it doesn't. I wonder why they try so hard, then...
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I am not convinced that they do. But I am convinced that nearly all Democrats and Liberals alike believe that.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Perhaps we need to read over Bush's tax cuts. In the first one, somewhere between 40-60% of it went to the top 2%. The next one was after 9/11, which probably means it exceeded it -- but I can't be sure, it's been quite some time since I reviewed them.
Beverly, do you seriously believe the Republican party, at least in its current form, doesn't actively operate to protect the interests of the rich and cater to the prejudices and fears of the Religious Right? I can see a weak free-market justification for voting Republican in response to social programs proposed by Democrats, but given how prone the Republican government has been to bailing out big industries, driving the country into impossible debt, slapping the wrists of corporate criminals (though to be fair on this one, just because Bush refuses to publically admonish them without a nod and wink [if that?] doesn't mean others in the government aren't trying to prosecute them for their crimes), and doing the occasional protectionist demonstration, I really can't see any self-respecting free market proponents allowing themselves to register Republican, much less vote that way.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Here is a link to an online article with footnotes and bibliography. Don't know if it is valid stuff as I am dumb as rock when it comes to money.
I agree with the point above about the value of money, though. That is an interesting way to think of it. Not a reason on its own to tax rich folks higher, but an interesting place to start.
fil
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: do you seriously believe the Republican party, at least in its current form, doesn't actively operate to protect the interests of the rich and cater to the prejudices and fears of the Religious Right?
That's like asking somebody if they have stopped beating beating their wife. There's no good way to answer it.
[ July 22, 2004, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
bev, there is a generally accepted (from all sides) concept known as the Laffer Curve. This curve is an abstract description of the effect of tax income vs. tax rate. The theory is that depending where you are on the Laffer Curve, you could actually GAIN more in tax revenue if you cut taxes, all other things being equal. At some point however, you can get to the apex of the curve, where cutting taxes nets less revenue. These ideas can be seen by looking at the extremes of the LC; if the tax rate is 100%, people wiill flee or hide their money, or stop gaining income to move into the 100% bracket, since it won't actually help them. If the tax rate is 0%, obviously no money is collected, period.
This has been a favorite concept to trot out when trying to enact tax cuts.
Now in reality, no one knows where the "sweet spot" of the LC is at any given time. Those "other things being equal" do not stay equal for long, causing the highest efficiency rate to move. Often you aren't able to tell if the tax cuts effected some positive economic change, or it was, say, increased defense spending by the govt.
I think a simplified tax code would be beneficial to all, but financial planners... I think getting rid of some of these loopholes COULD hurt some wealthy people, causing a cascading effect that affects poorer people, at least in the short-term. However, I think that eventually, except in exceptional circumstances, those people will distribute themselves to other work, and the wealthy person will find ways to stay wealthy (if they were wealthy solely due to a couple tax loopholes, then, IMO, they didn't deserve to be wealthy). The markets, and people, are much more resilient than many theorists factor. We used to have 90% tax rates in America (yes, during the 30s/40s) and somehow the economy and the country muddled through. Now, I don't recommend going back to those rates, but I don't feel like taxes ought to be flat, or low across the board. And there are good times to keep taxes around, like when the state of MA repealed 3-4 separate taxes/tolls in 2000, in part because of the feeling that the Roaring 90s would continue into the far future. Funny, an economic downturn a couple years later, and the state is in the red hundreds of millions of dollars.
I think another side effect of our byzantine tax code is that the very wealthy can jump from loophole to loophole, because there are lots of little ways to hide money from tax collectors. Shut down most of them, and they'll have no place to hide (except off-shore, but then any sort of claim of patriotism goes out the window, since most off-shore tax shelters are in countries whose peoples are rather poor, so it's not like those countries have exemplary economic policies either).
-- As for your Democrat/liberals believe that Republicans are trying to remove taxes on the rich, I'd have to say that is being unfair to that side. In fact, I'd say that you'd be no different than Lalo in that regard. First, many Democrats don't believe that, and many Liberals don't; further, one could be a Dem without being Liberal, and vice versa. I think that Republicans who champion tax cuts all the time are a vocal minority that appeal to others who aren't as rabid about the idea, and that they believe there are good reasons to drop the tax rate as often as possible (LC efficiency, belief that a free market can do a better job than the govt. at some all things that the govt. does, etc.)
I don't buy it. Life is too short for me to try and work the system, in order to give money to more efficient non-profits to help feed the hungry, house the poor, especially in far off places. If I were to find one as far-reatching as the US govt., odds are it'd be as costly as paying my taxes, and in the case of the govt., I can help vote out the one's in charge if they are mismanaging things.
-Bok
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Beverly, do you seriously believe the Republican party, at least in its current form, doesn't actively operate to protect the interests of the rich and cater to the prejudices and fears of the Religious Right? I can see a weak free-market justification for voting Republican in response to social programs proposed by Democrats, but given how prone the Republican government has been to bailing out big industries, driving the country into impossible debt, slapping the wrists of corporate criminals (though to be fair on this one, just because Bush refuses to publically admonish them without a nod and wink [if that?] doesn't mean others in the government aren't trying to prosecute them for their crimes), and doing the occasional protectionist demonstration, I really can't see any self-respecting free market proponents allowing themselves to register Republican, much less vote that way.
Sounds every bit as paranoid as me saying that those horrid Left Liberals are out to destroy family values and religious freedom. But I wouldn't say that.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
bev, you wouldn't say it, out of politeness, at the very least, but do you in some way BELIEVE it (this is putting you on the spot, feel freel to refrain from answering it altogether )?
I'm interested, because lots of people across the political spectrum (include myself at times I'm sure) use some form of this statement to deflect the argument, yet if it's true, in some way, then isn't it valid to bring up.
-Bok
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Sorry, Bok, for lumping them together like that. I just get tired of hearing it.
It is clear to me that you know far more about how taxes work than I do. That is one of the reasons why I refrain from having strong opinions on politics and the like. I just don't know enough.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Oh, Bok, to answer your specific question, I disagree with some of the values that seem to be commonly held by Liberals. And I have no problem with those who are Liberal disagreeing with some of the values held by the Conservatives. I am not sure where I fall on the spectrum or exactly what I believe. But when I hear such sweeping accusations, I just go Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Fair enough.
Oh, and while I've tried to make clear where my opinion was interjected in the above tax talk, I may miss stuff, even subconciously. So don't take my word on it And don't use ignorance as an excuse to learn; wading into a conversation like this is often the best way. I've found this particularly true for myself here at Hatrack.
I give my answer to the same question: I feel extreme exasperation at many conservatives, particularly over their persecution complex. I feel that a lot of little issues (like pledge of allegiance, God on our currency) get blown out of proportion because there is this idea that seems to imply that omission equals denunciation, when, to me, I feel that it's clearly NOT the case. The more license you give or create (gay marriage, adoption, even abortion, though less so) means you can still refrain from exercising it. I see the govt. of necessarily having to cater to everyone, and the healthiest way is to increase options, rather than restrict it.
Whoa, that was more than I expected to write!
-Bok
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:As for your Democrat/liberals believe that Republicans are trying to remove taxes on the rich, I'd have to say that is being unfair to that side. In fact, I'd say that you'd be no different than Lalo in that regard.
What?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Lalo, you often demonize the other side.
Now, you may be right, but I think you have to pick and choose who and when you do so. Getting into virtual hysterics isn't more compelling.
This is all my opinion, so feel free to tell me to go take a flying f***.
-Bok
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Bok, I think I can understand why people feel as you have stated there. I hope, though, that they also understand how the opposite side feels on those same issues. (Even if you strongly disagree.)
[ July 22, 2004, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
The link fil gave is accurate enough, even if it doesn't always fill in the blanks lying between the big differences. It is a pretty well-known fact among the higher tax brackets that the higher the fiscal value, the more tax break opportunities are available. Those who don't take advantage of those tax break opportunities either require huge income to make up for the cost of having so much, or they quickly decrease in value. This is noticable with some pop and rock stars who, when given huge amounts of cash, don't properly spread out their worth, and within ten years, they aren't worth very much economically (though are far from being broke, like some would have you believe). The more money you have, the more you have to manage it properly. Unfortunately, a lot of this managing is done in a manner to keep it out of taxable territory, which can easily be argued is not fair to those with less who have to pay more compared to their cost of living (not living well, just surviving).
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Honestly,, bev, I really can't. It looks (rather feels) selfish to me. I feel that restrictions enforced from the governmental realm ought to be as rare as possible. I see extending privileges as still allowing people not to utilize them, whereas restricting something, even if it's been that way since the beginning of time, is restricting action with no inherent gain.
I can understand the gut feeling to be against something like same-sex marriage, but I don't let that excuse someone from acting on that gut feeling.
But I'm trying, every day, to learn a little more. One of the reasons I'm here at Hatrack.
-Bok
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Lalo, you often demonize the other side.
Now, you may be right, but I think you have to pick and choose who and when you do so. Getting into virtual hysterics isn't more compelling.
This is all my opinion, so feel free to tell me to go take a flying f***.
Well, given that your opinion is one I respect, I'd be interested in hearing some examples of said demonization.
Or did you think it was virtual hysterics when I said the Republican party caters to the rich and the religious?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
That's cool. This probably isn't the thread to discuss each of those issues, but they will probably come up in the future (and I guess many of them already have.)
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Lalo, it's the broad brush strokes, to start.
Like mph said above, your statement about who the GOP represents is phrased in an intellectually abusive way. This is a regular occurrance. When you get folks like Dag constantly noting this, perhaps its time to keep the rhetoric in check.
Or maybe when you write something, think how the other side may criticize it, and amend it appropriately.
I dunno. Your posts just constantly exude anger, never any sort of constructiveness.
-Bok
EDIT: I'll note that I didn't always feel like you were this angry, but it does pre-date your age "revelation". I see what you type and _I_ know how others are going to react, and yet you never take a different tack.
[ July 22, 2004, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well, fil's link supports my contention that it's social security/payroll taxes that contribute most to the disparity.
This makes intuitive sense. Employee share or payroll is 7.5% up to 82,000 or so, then zero. For the super rich, the percentage approaches zero because of all the income not subject to it.
For those making below the max for contribution, the y are paying 7.5% on almost all income. There are no deductions, although interest, dividends, and capital gains are exempt.
Sales tax in most states is below 5%, and is at most only on the post-tax portion of the income. Therefore it can't be as much as payroll taxes. Even allowing for consumer debt spending, over the long term the payroll taxes have a bigger impact.
Property taxes are deductible, which means there impact on post-tax income is less than their face value. Besides, the poorer the person, the less property to tax.
Dagonee Edit: I forgot the most important distinction - sales and property tax are somewhat within the taxpayer's control. Granted, you have to buy somethings to survive, but the only way to pay less payroll tax is to make less money or cheat.
[ July 22, 2004, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:When you get folks like Dag constantly noting this, perhaps its time to keep the rhetoric in check.
I'm not sure how to take this. Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Take it as a compliment to you and an insult to me.
Though if the biggest complaint that can be made about me is that while I'm right, I come off as angry, I'll somehow learn to deal. Start complaining about my sex appeal next?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I never said you were right. You talk extremes, instead of nuane, and you yell it from the top of your articulate lungs. It's like a beautiful church organ being played by an over-eager 6-year-old. Those who sympathize with the kid will smile and admire the organ itself. Those that don't will complain about the awful din.
In my opinion.
-Bok
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:But don't vote for people who will pass laws to take other people's money by Force.
[general rant]
The government creates an environment in which you can accrue wealth. While the actual dollars aren't theirs to begin with, whenever I hear anyone in the upper middle class or upper class complaining about high taxes I just go and immediately make a value judgment about that person's character. I suppose that makes me a bad person.
I just don't like to hear griping about taxes. Complaining about services you aren't getting is fine, but this whole notion that "the big bad government is out to steal my hard-earned money from me" is just ridiculous. Get over your fear of government already. The Revolution and Civil War were a looooooong time ago.
[/general rant]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
twink, you're about to become very not popular
(and, of course, you know I completely agree with you. Taxes are the fee for living in your country. Get over it. )
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There's a big difference between thinking all taxes are armed robbery and thinking they might be too high or misallocated.
Dagonee
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Fair enough. And you'll notice twinky said the very same thing (as did I, by proxy).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But he doesn't like people to complain about high taxes, which I think is every American's God-given right. Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Don't you thrust your god down my throat! Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't know how you listen or read to complaints, but I generally use my ears or my eyes.
I don't want to know how your throat comes into it.
Dagonee Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
There's a difference between complaining about paying taxes and complaining that you aren't getting the services the government promised you. But even if you aren't getting all of the services you should be getting as a result of your status as a citizen, you still get to live in a first-world country and enjoy the resulting amenities, and you also still get to live in an environment where wealth can be accrued. This is a direct result of the existence of your government and the taxes you pay to it.
Gripe about the services if you must, but not about the taxes. My attitude toward people who gripe about taxes is basically "suck it up." I'm 23. I've been paying my high Canadian taxes for four years and have yet to complain.
Of course, I'm a firm believer in strong centralized governments and public education, health care, and so forth. These things require high taxes; you folks south of us are far too paranoid about those, too.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Huh. I glanced at the article fil linked to...
I'm somewhere inbetween on economics. I don't mind scaled up taxes and I'd prefer the poor to pay less taxes. I'd like to cut down corporate tax loopholes and super-rich tax loopholes.
But I can't stand estate tax. It bothers the hell out of me. And the article points out how lots of money can be gained from estate tax. But that's money that's been taxed several times over. I really believe that children deserve to inherit the money their parents die with. Not a small percentage after the government takes yet another chunk through taxation. But all of it. It's more important to me that everything gets taxed properly in the beginning, than this money gets "recirculated."
There should certainly be a reasonable cap for taxation of the super-rich. No matter how much money you make, I don't think you should be taxed 90%. That's absurd. Off the top of my head, I think anything more than 40% is unreasonable. But by the same token, I don't like all the manipulations that allow someone to end up only being taxed 10% of their million dollar salary.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
This is a great conversation.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I'm of a generally opposite feeling of the estate tax. I think the estate tax should take into account certain debt to value ratios, to address farmer concerns, and I believe a good portion should go to survivors.
BUT!
I think that so long as we have a (relatively) free market system, we should not reward children completely for what their parents did. You can easily end up with an "idle" class that never has to work (see: Hilton, Paris), and employs a few people to till the money inherited to increase it.
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The problem is that many, many small businesses need to be broken up. Someone who owns 4 convenience stores probably will be subject to estate tax when they die.
These types of businesses aren't going to make anyone idle and rich; but they do generate a hell of a lot of jobs. And the buyers usually end up being large corporations getting a deal because they're being sold under tax duress.
It happens an awful lot.
Dagonee
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
True, I hadn't thought of that.
And people wonder why the tax code gets so complicated
what if it were to start at, say 10 million, and tie the exemption to inflation?
-Bok
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
That's a little more reasonable. There should be a good cutoff where one could argue was "extreme" amounts of money. But a few million doesn't fall under "extreme" for me. 50 million, or 100 million tax free could be extreme. I guess it's only on physical property, eh?
It just gets frustrating to realize how much money is taxed as it goes through the pipeline. Income tax, sales tax, property tax, estate tax. I wish they could just get it right the first time.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Gripe about the services if you must, but not about the taxes.
I don't gripe that taxes exist. I gripe that the governement uses my taxes to fund things that I think the government has no buisness doing.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
mph, that goes both ways. The solution is compromise, rather than inflexibility.
-Bok
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
What do you mean that it goes both ways?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
There are things that everyone doesn't like our government spending their money on, and often it contradicts something someone else wants. So the best solution is often to come to a compromise (modify how the money is spent, and how much), rather than restricting everything.
-Bok
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dags, do you have any statistics on small businesses being broken up? It would seem to me many of them would be incorporated, and likely sold off prior to death unless the death came unexpectedly. Most people in their retirement years would probably rather the greater liquidity and care less about the involvement of managing a business for a yearly return, I would think.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I can't find any good stats. One site estimates that little less than one third of small businesses have to liquidate all or part of the business to account for the tax: NASE - Estate Tax (Note, not a disinterested source). Most others on this side of the issue quote something close. Most groups in favor of the estate tax don't quote the statistics by percentage of businesses affected, but rather by percent of deaths which affect a business (a very small number). To me this suggests that the real impact is small in actual numbers, but a large concern for a decent percentage of small business owners.
I know many small business owners (which includes farms, gas stations, convenience stores, small retail, small construction, and other services firms) want to leave their business, not just the profits from sale, to their children as a going concern. When I owned my business, it was something we had to constantly keep in mind. Had I stuck with it, I'd have to spend a good chunk each year planning for it.
Dagonee Edit: Incorporation doesn't effect this equation at all, by the way.
[ July 23, 2004, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
For what it's worth, I tend to agree with Bokonon about estate tax. In fact, I have suggested that (if it were workable) we'd be better off taking most or all of a person's estate in taxes than taxing income. Of course, it's not workable--there'd have to be even more loopholes, which people would use to hand over most of the money to their children before they died, and the government would get next to nothing. Besides, I know I hold an odd position on what people "deserve" to inherit; I don't think anyone has an inherent right to something just because their parents earned it, in the way I think each person has the right to his or her own earnings.
More broadly regarding taxation--basically, it comes down to my desire to keep the money I earned, which means that I understand why other people (even rich people) want to do the same. (No, it's not entirely rational.) Obviously, there must be some tax, but I'd prefer it to be as little as possible.
And while increasingly-centralized government may be inevitable, I cannot think of it as a good thing. Any power given to the government can, and eventually will, be abused. That's why our American ancestors were so careful to limit our government--but the powers they did give it have proven to be more than enough.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Bokonon,
quote:I give my answer to the same question: I feel extreme exasperation at many conservatives, particularly over their persecution complex. I feel that a lot of little issues (like pledge of allegiance, God on our currency) get blown out of proportion because there is this idea that seems to imply that omission equals denunciation, when, to me, I feel that it's clearly NOT the case.
I feel the same way about persecution statements in general. Not every liberal or Democrat (or both) who supports homosexual marriage, for instance, 'hates Christians' and is 'out to get the family'. If such a thing is true at all, it can only possibly be true of a tiny minority.
Of course, liberals have their persecution complexes, as well. Flags on fire trucks are a past news issue that occurrs to me. It was in California (shocking!) that some people were upset that American flags were being flown and painted on fire trucks shortly after 9-11. To me, someone offended by that is going way too far out of their way to be offended.
I could just as well stand to the side of a crowded hallway and stick my foot out in the walking area, and dare people to step on it, and then pick a fight when it (inevitably, and accidentally) happened. Incidentally, as a new convert, I have often cringed a bit when I hear people in my ward talk about the 'assault on the family', etc.
To be sure, the culture is changing and in many ways it's not a good change-to that particular way-of-life (social conservative). But 'change' does not equal 'attack', nor does resisting change equal attack.
quote:I think that so long as we have a (relatively) free market system, we should not reward children completely for what their parents did.
On the one hand, the 'idle rich' annoy me a great deal. I guess some of it is my own bias and transferrance of emotion, but it seems to me that 'they' are so smug. I guess it's because I feel they should be embarrassed at having so much without earning a wooden nickel of it. Paris Hilton is a good example. She's got a TV show, she's moderately famous, and for what? Being an exhibitionist who was blessed by fate with lots of money.
Of course, it wouldn't mean much (fame-wise) if there weren't millions of people who are the voyeur to her exhibitionist, and other such celebrities. Exhibit A: the E! Network.
So in that respect-and in the interest of working to keep the wealth more evenly distributed-I support higher estate taxes. I realize there are many social and economic benfits in doing so.
But on (another) emotional level, raising estate taxes deeply unsettle me. Why shouldn't parents be able to reward their children, even if the children have done nothing (to our mind) worthy of reward? For instance, if I want to give my kid a car for graduating college (if I ever have kids), I damn well want to do that and I don't wanna hear anything from anyone in the government about it-except for taxes on the purchase and insurance purposes. My money, my kid, my present.
So while I support estate taxes (higher ones) in the face of that concern, it's a narrow victory for the tax, so to speak.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Twink,
quote:The government creates an environment in which you can accrue wealth. While the actual dollars aren't theirs to begin with, whenever I hear anyone in the upper middle class or upper class complaining about high taxes I just go and immediately make a value judgment about that person's character. I suppose that makes me a bad person.
An American response (and my own) to that would be, "The people create the government." So saying that 'the government' creates the environment is true, but misleading when talking about this issue. We create and fund the government, we give it power, we vote for it to create the environment of which you speak.
That said, people who are very well-off complaining about high taxes are a bit irritating as well. But I feel the same way about someone who finds something to complain about even when things are good-for instance, the really attractive person who complains about being overweight.
quote:Get over your fear of government already. The Revolution and Civil War were a looooooong time ago.
But they-especially the Civil War-continue to have an enormous, universal impact on our government, society, and economy.
quote:But even if you aren't getting all of the services you should be getting as a result of your status as a citizen, you still get to live in a first-world country and enjoy the resulting amenities, and you also still get to live in an environment where wealth can be accrued. This is a direct result of the existence of your government and the taxes you pay to it.
I could just as well say the exact same thing about the government, in general and individually. In fact, I do say the same thing. Also, we don't 'get' to live in a first-world country. It was made and continues to be maintained by us. Granted, in the past there were people who have made much greater sacrifices and our current status owes more to them than to our own upkeep.
It's a fundamental difference in perspective. You say 'get' to live in a first-world country. Well, it didn't sprout from Zeus's head fully grown. It was made. And the government screws it up as often as it helps.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Incorporation does affect it in that an incorporated business is likely to be easier to deal with as an entity rather than one still run under a sole proprietorship, in which case business properties can be much harder to separate from personal properties.
Also, the kids were one of the possible groups of people to sell to I was assuming were included.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, those statistics look highly suspect in their own context. Take a look at this quote:
quote:Due to this disturbing tax, one-third of all small business owners will have to either liquidate part of their business or sell outright to pay estate taxes. Only six out of ten family businesses get passed on to a second generation, and only one out of ten make it to the third generation.
That one third statistic looks suspiciously derived from the 6/10 statistic (which, being more measurable, is likely more correct).
Lets say the "six out of ten" is correct. Then the biggest reason by far businesses don't get passed on is estate taxes. But wait! Only one out of ten make it to the third generation, and if the previous assumption were so we could expect a third to a half (depending on how devastating the other reasons are) of small businesses to make it to the third generation.
I suggest that the reasons for small business liquidation and sale are likely less tied to the estate tax than they are trying to suggest here, and have more to do with:
Businesses not keeping up with changing economics, particularly in the local area. This includes things like neighborhoods changing. The generic corner grocer isn't going to compete with the major chain store a mile away if it keeps doing business the same way.
Families moving on to other things. A child who's spent his or her entire life in a successful small business (it reached the second generation) might be more interested in an MBA and corporate management.
Small businesses becoming big businesses. It definitely happens to some. Blockbuster never made it to a second generation for a simple reason: it was a major corporation within the first generation, though it did spend a while as a small business. This occurence will be rare, but its worth mentioning.
I'm certain there are several other things as well that just didn't spring to mind, but you can understand why I'm skeptical that the estate tax fells one third of businesses but the above reasons fell less than ten percent of businesses (any reasonable difference between about one third and four tenths is less than ten percent).
[ July 26, 2004, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
Don't forget that all businesses are fighting time, as well as generation turnover. We have a business in my wifes family that went out of business after two generations because its market dried up. It was incorporated and didn't suffer because of inheritance taxes--just went out of business.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
fugu, I said right up front there were no good statistics available on this. Very first line of the post.
Incorporation might make the legalities easier to handle. However, it does nothing to change the economics of the situation except to maybe save some money on legal and accounting fees.
The fact that some businesses fail for other reasons is no reason to accept a government-induced method of failure, whatever the extent of it might be.
Finally, I know anecdotally that this is a real issue that effects real businesses. I've seen the hardship it can cause, and the expenses associated with avoiding those hardships through estate planning.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dags, I'm not arguing against you (in the respect you seem to think), but I am arguing against the estate tax causing non-inheritance statistics (which seem pretty obviously contrived) and how you appeared to at least tacitly be willing to consider them reasonable.
Regarding the expenses involved in estate planning, I rather suspect that even absent any estate tax estate planning will take over a considerable portion of money and time. Also, I'm somewhat dubious of the "right to inherit". Does someone have the right to inherit and keep running the family corner grocer? Seems reasonable. Does someone have the right to inherit and keep running the twenty store chain of health food stores that's part of the family? I don't think so, personally. I just fail to see any moral imperative for complete ownership of such a business to pass down to a new member of a family.
Now, I am willing to agree the current estate tax's upper cap is too low to encompass those businesses that are reasonable to pass down. I favor one of a couple of options: a higher general cap with fewer exceptions, or a specific exception for business properties, but with some pretty strict rules on what a business property is. Simply put, the higher that exemption becomes, the more someone is going to use it to pass on personal property, which is why I consider the higher overall cap with fewer exceptions a better notion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Does someone have the right to inherit and keep running the twenty store chain of health food stores that's part of the family? I don't think so, personally. I just fail to see any moral imperative for complete ownership of such a business to pass down to a new member of a family.
I've never understood this philosophy. You seem to be saying that a highly successful business somehow has less personal meaining to a family than a less successful one. What is about the size that makes it less worthy of passing down from one generation to the next? Or is there some other factor in your conclusion I'm not picking up on.
Dagonee
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:While the recession that hit the economy in 2001 in the wake of the market plunge was considered relatively mild, the new information shows that its effect on Americans' incomes, particularly those at the upper end of the spectrum, was much more severe. Earlier government economic statistics provided general evidence that incomes suffered in the first years of the decade, but the full impact of the blow and what groups it fell hardest on were not known until the I.R.S. made available on its Web site the detailed information from tax returns.
The unprecedented back-to-back declines in reported incomes was caused primarily by the combination of the big fall in the stock market and the erosion of jobs and wages in well-paying industries in the early years of the decade.
In the past, overall personal income rose from one year to the next with relentless monotony, the growth rate changing in response to fluctuations in economic activity but almost never falling.
But now, with many more ordinary employees joining high-level executives in having part of their compensation dependent on stock options and bonus plans, a volatile and relatively unpredictable new element has been introduced to the incomes of millions of workers.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
People, people, people. Please. Please. Listen.
Let us be full of good sense. Let us not draw this discussion along party lines, can we speak as intelligent adults?
We are talking about giving BIGGER tax cuts to those who have ALREADY accumulated the greatest amounts of wealth under the "OLD" system.
We are speaking of BILLIONAIRES.
1,000,000,000 + dollars to their name.
It's not like they weren't allowed to prosper under the old tax rates, obviously they've done well beyond fine. So why on Earth give them MORE money?
ALSO
a FACT of the matter is MOST
Billionaires made their money in
Real Estate, Health, Communication, Energy.
All NEEDS of of all people.
The profit scale has greatly shifted beyond the quality scale.
Are we a Christian based society or a Darwin based theme park???
<THOR>
Posted by Child of the Mind (Member # 1740) on :
I don't know that you even need to bring religion into it.
As human beings striving to be ethical, we have an obligation to provide for those who need.
However, it does confuse me when extremely religious Catholics are Republicans, and are thus against welfare, which is a world application of the lesson of the Good Samaritan, and for the war in Iraq which the Pope himself is against.
So although religion does apply to the problem, the more immediate drawing of the individual should lie in the universal morality of providing for those who need.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Thor> "ALSO a FACT of the matter is MOST Billionaires made their money in Real Estate, Health, Communication, Energy. All NEEDS of of all people."
Exactly. Demand is high, so price is high, so profit is (usually) high. Or--let me put it another way--those who provide these very important things deserve to be compensated handsomely, for such a great service. Is there a limit? I suppose there is--but it is very far out.
Child of the Mind> As a matter of fact, it is arguable whether welfare is really a fulfillment of the obligation to help others. Of course, it is ultimately funded by our tax dollars, but that's an extraordinarily impersonal way of "giving" to people, especially since it is done by coercion on the government's part. Real benevolence is, by its nature, voluntary. Justice is appropriately legislated. Mercy legislated loses its good quality and becomes simple injustice, because mercy is inherently "better than the law demands".
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:However, it does confuse me when extremely religious Catholics are Republicans, and are thus against welfare, which is a world application of the lesson of the Good Samaritan, and for the war in Iraq which the Pope himself is against.
What's equally confusing is Catholic politicians supporting the maintenance of abortion legality. Just thought I'd add that to your list.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Silverblue Sun has a point... I don't see the logic in giving tax cuts to billionaires even if they provide jobs and services... Especially since many of them could lay off workers and move to mexico or some other country at the slightest whim causing a lot of American workers to get lesser paying jobs which means that they cannot afford the companies services.. Trickle down is illogical.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But if you give any tax cuts in a progressive situation, someone at the top will always get the biggest cut. There's no way around it except by making the highest marginal rate continually higher, which is unsustainable. Eventually the highest rate will be brought down to more reasonable levels or there will be a constant talent drain to other economies.
Why do you think the Beetles ended up in America?
Dagonee
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
The Beatles didn't "end up" in America. George was living on his estate in England when he died. Paul and Ringo still maintain homes in England, and spend most of their time living there. Only John took up full residence in the U.S, and I'm pretty sure that had more to do with Yoko than the economy.
Regardless of whether it's tax breaks, or outright giveaways (pork barrel projects, single bid contracts, S&L bailouts, etc.) The gap between the wealthiest americans and the "average american" is growing at an unbelievable rate. The Japanese have a "maximum wage" law that pegs the compensation of the highest paid employee at 25X that of the lowest paid employee. Also, if the corporation has a loss, the highest paid employees are expected to absorb it first, before the lowest paid employees.
In the U.S it's just the opposite. Executives get paid astronomical bonuses for laying off thousands of workers during hard times.
The argument that taxing the rich is "stealing money that doesn't belong to the government" is exactly the same argument that the communists used to claim that "Capitalists" were criminals because they "stole" the money that was generated by the proletariat. Capitalism "exploits" workers in exactly the way that taxes "exploit" the rich. That is, in each case a larger framework is needed for the smaller economic systems to exist, but the larger framework needs to skim money from the system in order to support itself for the benefit of the entire system.
The question then is this: Which is the bigger rip off? Government exploiting the rich, or the rich exploiting the rest of us?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The argument that taxing the rich is "stealing money that doesn't belong to the government" is exactly the same argument that the communists used to claim that "Capitalists" were criminals because they "stole" the money that was generated by the proletariat.
Who is making such an argument?
quote:The question then is this: Which is the bigger rip off? Government exploiting the rich, or the rich exploiting the rest of us?
Who is this 'us' you're talking about? I am not at all wealthy-in fact, I fit quite low right now on the economic ladder-but I do not feel 'exploited' by the rich. And I've worked for big-time corporations before, too. I have more control over my financial destiny than 'the rich' ever will; complaints that I am being 'exploited' by them serve only to victimize myself and justify any future failures-in addition, I acknowledge, to any legitimate complaints. None of this is to say that 'the rich' do not exploit the poor, either. Just to point out that everyone in America, except for the most desperately poor, is exploiting someone else.
Do you shop at Wal-Mart? Buy produce? Eat fast-food? Ever have your landscape done professionally? Ever bought something Made In China? Consider that, everyone who complains about the rich exploiting the poor: if you answered 'yes' to any of those questions, then by your own definition of exploitation, you're screwing someone else.
quote:The gap between the wealthiest americans and the "average american" is growing at an unbelievable rate.
So is standard-of-living, the middle-class, life-expectancies, etc. How many people does Bill Gates-a robber-baron type if there ever was one-employ?
quote:In the U.S it's just the opposite. Executives get paid astronomical bonuses for laying off thousands of workers during hard times.
Sometimes, this is true. I do believe there should be laws against high-level exeuctives profiting from the termination of masses of employees, no matter what the times are like. However, I don't think mass-layoffs themselves should be outlawed.
Oh, and the government exploits everyone, not just the rich.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:So is standard-of-living, the middle-class, life-expectancies, etc.
The middle-class is growing? Have any figures to back that up? I've been hearing the opposite.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Right now, the economy is recovering from a recession and a downturn. I mean in a longer-term.
Nothing to say about the other two?
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Why are you dodging the question? As for the other two, standard of living just grows along with inflation, and life expectancy is no real solid argument for current economic issues. It would be a total failure for life expectancy to halt. Since I never said it was a total failure, that doesn't disagree with me. The growing middle class claim, however, seems like it was made up on the fly. Can you back it up, or did you toss it in there because it sounded good?
Kind of like the "1.5 million new jobs" claim constantly touted. They don't tell you that around 800,000 of those new jobs are self-employment, which is a euphemism for "not eligible for unemployment and don't have a job somewhere" in many cases.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
How many cases? And I am looking up figures right now; it will take awhile.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I have more control over my financial destiny than 'the rich' ever will...."
Why do you say that?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I say it because I believe it, Tom. *grin*
Seriously, though: I say that because I hold myself responsible for making decisions about my future, decisions such as which jobs to take, which skills to learn, which schools to go to, which degrees to work towards, etc.
Granted, I have more freedom due to my unattached circumstances than many. But the restricting circumstances often have more to do with the choices we as individuals make, than do 'the rich'.
Children, families, illness, education (or lack thereof), location, etc., on an individual level depending on the specifics of those factors, these circumstances can have a great deal of control over one's financial destiny. But it's not the rich that cause people to have children, or families that need assistance. It's not the rich that makes people sick. It's not the rich that makes people quit school or continue. It's not the rich that makes people stay in one place.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:How many cases? And I am looking up figures right now; it will take awhile.
quote:WASHINGTON -- More than 90,000 people who have been out of work for months will lose their federal benefits today, when a program to aid the long-term unemployed expires.
During the first six months of next year, more than 2 million unemployed people across the country will be cut off from the extra assistance, unless Congress acts.
quote:How about employment—smelling delicious, too? The latest recession, as officially dated by the National Bureau of Economic Research, began in March 2001 and ended in November 2001, but the aroma lingers on. From March 2001 through July 2003, 2.7 million jobs disappeared, in the greatest employment contraction since the 1930s: for the first time since World War II, the total number of employees on payrolls (private sector and government) continued to fall 20 months into recovery from a recession. The previous record, impressive in its own right, was 13 months, following the end of the 1990-1991 recession.
...
The official rate is the percentage of all workers who are unemployed, expressed as unemploy- ment/labor force. The numerator, unemployment, is the number of jobless people who have actively looked for work during the last four weeks. The denominator is the number of people in the labor force, which equals employment plus unemployment, or people who have jobs plus those who are unemployed as defined in the numerator.
This measure understates unemployment in two key respects. First, unemployment excludes involuntary part-timers—people who want full-time work but have to settle for part-time or split-week schedules. Second, it excludes “discouraged workers”—those who believe they can no longer find work and stop looking or who indicate they want a job and have looked for work sometime in the indefinite recent past. People in this category are no longer actively seeking work and are therefore classified as “not in the labor force” (neither employed nor unemployed).
Thus, as happened last summer, an increase in numbers of discouraged workers can actually reduce the official unemployment rate. The labor force as officially defined (employed plus unemployed) totaled 147,096,000 in June and 146,530,000 in August—a decrease of 566,000, during which time the official unemployment rate fell from 6.4 to 6.1 percent. The reason for the drop is that 566,000 workers vanished (ceased looking for work and were no longer considered to be in the labor force).
For this and other reasons, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) provides a series of “alternative unemployment measures,” which go almost entirely ignored and unreported by the major media and news organizations. One of the alternative measures shows that if both involuntary part-timers and discouraged workers were added to the unemployment rate as officially measured, the rate for November 2003 would stand at 9.5 percent of the labor force, instead of the official 5.9 percent.
Also, for most of those "self-employed," health coverage and insurance coverage are negligible to absent, yet these people are counted along side wage earners who are covered.
How is that for a start?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Good grief. I'm trying to find statistics on the middle-class that aren't hopelessly politicized, and having no luck so far. Given that, it does make me wonder why I believe that the middle-class is not in dire trouble. I shouldn't have ANY beliefs on the subject; I'll have to discard that one.
Justa, that IDEAS database looks very interesting. I'll have to take a look at it, but it's pretty daunting nonetheless.
I do understand the distinction between 'employed' and 'self-employed'. I just don't think it's necessarily the government's job to protect unneeded jobs.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that you had more financial freedom than the rich had financial freedom. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, no-I definitely don't think that, Tom.
Nor do I think I have more control over my financial destiny than the rich do over their own. Obviously, the more resources one has, the more choices are available. I just think that I exert a great deal more control over my own individual future than the rich do over my own future.
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
quote:Children, families, illness, education (or lack thereof), location, etc., on an individual level depending on the specifics of those factors, these circumstances can have a great deal of control over one's financial destiny. But it's not the rich that cause people to have children, or families that need assistance. It's not the rich that makes people sick. It's not the rich that makes people quit school or continue. It's not the rich that makes people stay in one place.
Hmm. I agree that the US is built on the concept of personal freedom. Also, it is designed to be a government of and for the people. However, I think that more and more one has to be independently wealthy to be able to exert any political force in government. This is most notable in Presidential elections, where the costs of campaigning are so astronomical as to keep someone of limited means out of the race.
so...
Although I agree that I am responsible for all of my choices that change my financial destiny, I am not responsible for the way that opportunities are presented. Often, that is going to be governed by elected official, who, more and more, are rich. Thus, I'm not sure that "the rich", have no influence on my financial destiny.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I didn't say that, either, rubble. 'The rich' obviously have an impact, and exert some control over, my financial destiny.
Also, the wealthy and more powerful have always exerted more power on the government than the 'common man'. In fact, I think this trend is decreasing, really, if you look at the whole history of USA democracy.
There was a time when only landowners could vote; when only men could vote; when Senators did not participate in direct elections, etc.
That the wealthy still exert power over government in proportion with their wealth does not necessarily mean it's getting worse. Another explanation is that it used to be a LOT worse, and is still continuing.
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
I see your point. I still think that even though the electorate is expanding, the "electable" (sic) is contracting.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Remember when we wouldn't let people with Black Skin vote? There had to be a large number of people who had reasons why they believed heart and soul that black people didn't have the right to vote. They lived and died believing in something that was totally wrong, and totally false, and many of them were "good church going christians."
This is different, but similar.
318 or so BILLIONAIRES in America.
Two Billion people on Earth live on less than two dollars a day.
Billionaires have better access to EVERYTHING on Earth (except God and Jesus and The Holy Spirit).
They are the ones who can afford to BUY a million man army to fight one poor man.
If you're going to stand strong and tall for something, pick a better cause in need than defending a billionaire who isn't getting a fair shake, so the government has to re deal himn a new hand with a few more aces.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The gap between the wealthiest americans and the "average american" is growing at an unbelievable rate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So is standard-of-living, the middle-class, life-expectancies, etc. How many people does Bill Gates-a robber-baron type if there ever was one-employ?
"Billionaires employ a lot of people."
If you split a Billion dollars one thousand ways, that creates a thousand people who have One Hundred Million dollars.
Where is the proof that one man with a Billion Dollars wll employ more people than One Thousand Men and Women with One Hundred Million Dollars Each?
It is only sane in a social sytem that requires where 50% of the entire work force make less than 8 dollars and hour, to regulate those at the very top of the darwinistic economic chain from becoming more powerful than ten major cities.
If I were president, right now minimum wage would be $10.00 and All those people who made billions of dollars from the American money pool would be taxed 50% on every dollar earned from that point on.
We want thousands of Innocent Iraqis to sacrafice their lives and homes for forced American Freedom, and we want thousands of Innocent America soldeirs to sacrafice their lives and their homes for Occupation, but in the same shared time we want to reward billionaires for being billionaires?
I don't want that.
hell and destruction will rain upon the future of the whole world in that mindset moves forward and blankets the earth with a mental smog.
If a nation is built on falacies as foundation, they will fall, if nations are built on falacies as foundation in the name of God, they will burn.
<T>
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Right now,
More tax breaks for billionaires is very, very dangerous.
<T>
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well I've been reading that IDEAS data, and I have to say that while I can't be sure, it certainly looks like the middle-class is shrinking. Or at the very least, it's not growing as well as it could be, which amounts to the same thing. So the belief I had about the middle-class, that it's growing, was I think mistaken.
But man, economics seems more like voodoo, on both sides of the aisle. Makes me wanna be a commie.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote: If you split a Billion dollars one thousand ways, that creates a thousand people who have One Hundred Million dollars.
*cough*
Hobbes Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Does anyone else check that?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
That is one of the reasons why I refrain from having strong opinions on politics and the like. I just don't know enough.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)