posted
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.
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Read an article today about them cutting programs for migrant kids to get educations... Guess we know where the money for that program went -_-.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, was that a general rant at people not participating in this thread or did I miss someone advocating a flat tax here?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...]
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.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not convinced that they do. But I am convinced that nearly all Democrats and Liberals alike believe that.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Does anyone else check that?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
