View Full Version : Top Earners in America Pay Just 16% Income Tax
I posted this in News of the Wierd, but Lemur told me to make a new thread. Happy now, buddy? :shame:
http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/4862392C0AC24550852576CD0077FEA7?OpenDocument
In short, the top 400 earners in America are paying less taxes and have higher incomes than ever before. Meanwhile wages have been stagnating for decades while the cost of living continues to soar, our public education system is crap, and we have woefully inadequate health care.
I said that (and what I'm about to say) in the news thread, but it boggles my mind that the people who should be pissed about this - the working class who were exploited to get those top earners to where they are - are defending them. America has the completely insane notion that people are rich through hard work and merit, instead of, you know, the typical way that wealth is accumulated here; exploitation, luck, and inheritance.
But I suppose I should tack a discussion point to this post so we can actually discuss things. So I guess my thesis, as it were, will be on raising taxes on the rich. Now I have a few moral reasons for thinking that should be so, but I read a discussion post elsewhere that made a point I had never considered, but agree with, that being that the wealthy business owners (for example) benefit from public services more than any other demographic. Thus it really goes without saying that they should pay more, as they're getting more out of the system than anyone.
But I've rambled enough. Discuss away!
Crazed Rabbit
02-27-2010, 23:19
As I said in the NotW, the top 1% of of income tax returns paid 39.9% of all federal income taxes (http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23392.html) in 2006 - a share that increased from earlier in Bush's presidency, and even though they earned 22% of 'adjusted gross income'.
So I don't quite see how that's a terribly low percentage. The people you cited, the top 400, mainly made income from capital gains - like the stock market, which has a relatively low tax rate compared to wage income.
But guess what - people don't care because they realize the economy is not one set 'pie' where to take a larger slice you have to take something from somebody else. That is not how economics works. Someone else getting richer doesn't make me poorer.
You say they're getting more out of the system? Well they're contributing much more than that in terms of jobs and investments.
CR
Sasaki Kojiro
02-27-2010, 23:35
So I don't quite see how that's a terribly low percentage. The people you cited, the top 400, mainly made income from capital gains - like the stock market, which has a relatively low tax rate compared to wage income.
Perhaps jabarto is suggesting an increase in the capital gains tax rate.
So I don't quite see how that's a terribly low percentage. The people you cited, the top 400, mainly made income from capital gains - like the stock market, which has a relatively low tax rate compared to wage income.
You're right, as is Sasaki. I'm all for taxing capitla gains, inheritance...whatever needs to be done to make the tax effectual.
But guess what - people don't care because they realize the economy is not one set 'pie' where to take a larger slice you have to take something from somebody else. That is not how economics works. Someone else getting richer doesn't make me poorer.
So how, then, do you account for the stagnating wages of workers and steady increase of CEO wages, amongst other things, over the last 40 years?
You say they're getting more out of the system? Well they're contributing much more than that in terms of jobs and investments.
CR
Heh, good one.
I feel like replying, but you all know what I am going to say.
Lemur told me to make a new thread. Happy now, buddy?
Yes, thank you very much! I'm freakishly protective of NotW, as many Orgahs can attest. Thank you for taking this discussion to its own space.
Kadagar_AV
02-28-2010, 01:09
well.... Thank GOD we have the american dream... You know, working your arse off to against all odds maybe one day have a glimpse of what the rich people have...
it's not like you need things like health care or vacation, no, you have the DREAM!!!
Yes, thank you very much! I'm freakishly protective of NotW, as many Orgahs can attest. Thank you for taking this discussion to its own space.
Heh, you're welcome. I didn't plan on discussing it at first, but more information has come to light as I read more into it, so I thought I'd open up an avenue for that. :book:
Also I'm too lazy to multiquote but Kadagar pretty much nailed it. :beam:
Wow, that is (quite literally) backwards.
Kadagar_AV
02-28-2010, 01:30
Also I'm too lazy to multiquote but Kadagar pretty much nailed it. :beam:
*bows*
I'll be here all week :)
Who cares? IIRC, my effective tax rate for '09 was around 10%- including state taxes. Something like 40% of Americans pay nothing in federal taxes. How much did you pay?
CR - still standing up for the big man I see. ;x
KukriKhan
02-28-2010, 18:59
I suppose this is a bad time to propose a "everything is income; no deductions; eliminate separate taxes for SS & Medicare, and bin the IRS" national flat tax of 13%? Some 'experts' claim such funding would easily pay for SocSec, Nat'l Health Care for 50 years, and elimination of national debt in 5.
Centurion1
02-28-2010, 21:32
well.... Thank GOD we have the american dream... You know, working your arse off to against all odds maybe one day have a glimpse of what the rich people have...
it's not like you need things like health care or vacation, no, you have the DREAM!!!
lol id rather have my current american standard of living rather than your Scandinavian one no matter how high it is touted.
Jabarto you need to look at all the facts. Do you know that as CR the wealthy pay over a third of america's income. And dont be stupid the CEO tax income does far more for the country that some factory worker's tax incomes (if he even pays) to claim otherwise is just silly.
and if you dont like, then leave. You can go to Sweden ad have a vacation and incredibly high tax rates.
and people who make their money from investment deserve it. They took a bigger risk than you probably ever will. And so do people who form a company.
raising capital gains does absolutely nothing except stagnate business.
and if you dont like, then leave. You can go to Sweden ad have a vacation and incredibly high tax rates.
Don't you think I would have given the opportunity? Sweden is a bitch to get into if you're not part of the EU.
and people who make their money from investment deserve it. They took a bigger risk than you probably ever will. And so do people who form a company.
Of course it's high risk. That's why literally more than 99% of all business founders fail, and your stupid belief in the "self-made billionaire" is full of holes. You know how those people get rich? It's not because they make brilliant management decisions. They get there by hiring the best workers from college to do all that for them. The owners literally do nothing but sit back and profit from the labor of their subordinates.
I'm not saying risk taking shouldn't be rewarded. I'm saying that pretending that people don't get to that top percentile through exploiting others' labor is foolish.
and people who make their money from investment deserve it. They took a bigger risk than you probably ever will. And so do people who form a company.
Equating investment income with entrepenurship is ... novel. I would really hesitate to say that a trust-fund brat like Paris Hilton is of the same value and economic promise as somebody who starts their own business.
Seamus Fermanagh
02-28-2010, 23:17
I suppose this is a bad time to propose a "everything is income; no deductions; eliminate separate taxes for SS & Medicare, and bin the IRS" national flat tax of 13%? Some 'experts' claim such funding would easily pay for SocSec, Nat'l Health Care for 50 years, and elimination of national debt in 5.
Not too shabby. I prefer a sales tax/consumption tax such as Boortz and company advocate, but this would be a notable improvement.
Jabarto is making a fair dig, and one I have alluded to in previous tax discussions. If the goal of our current tax system is funding government services, it fails -- we run huge deficits and fail to tax ourselves enough to pay for them. If the goal of our current system is to make the wealthy pay for those who have far fewer resources (wealth re-distribution), it fails -- as Rabbit rightly notes, our system does not tax wealth, only income. What we have is a system that taxes income more harshly the more you make, thereby making it harder to "move up" and preserving the extent elites -- clipping coupons and not really earning "income" per se, just distributions from the trust fund -- in their positions of economic privilege.
I would prefer an equitable system -- from each according to what they consume. If we can't get to that level, then at least flatten the tax and make it possible for someone who works hard to get ahead without penalizing anyone else.
PanzerJaeger
02-28-2010, 23:35
There is certainly something wrong here. These people should not have to pay more than 10% income taxes. No one should. That money would be better spent on capital investment than going to prop up our ridiculous entitlement system.
Equating investment income with entrepenurship is ... novel.
Venture capitalism, anyone?
Centurion1
03-01-2010, 00:45
Of course it's high risk. That's why literally more than 99% of all business founders fail, and your stupid belief in the "self-made billionaire" is full of holes. You know how those people get rich? It's not because they make brilliant management decisions. They get there by hiring the best workers from college to do all that for them. The owners literally do nothing but sit back and profit from the labor of their subordinates.
I'm not saying risk taking shouldn't be rewarded. I'm saying that pretending that people don't get to that top percentile through exploiting others' labor is foolish.
your telling me that all people who become rich are only doing so off the backs of their college graduates. That is grossly inaccurate. Let me give you a very recent example. The founder of UnderArmor, (this comes to mind becaus ei just got into his alma mater) most definetly deserves all the money he made and is making from a business venture he took a huge risk on. No hes not quite a billionaire but he mayvery well end up one.
Did Bill Gates deserve the money he made.
does Steve Jobs?
No lemur i did not mean to equate "inheritance tycoons" with hard working people, those are probably my least favorite individuals, not to say all people with inheritances are like that. i meant people who risk there money on huge investments within stocks and the like and either crash and burn or reap the benefits. Say what you will thats a risk your taking there.
Strike For The South
03-01-2010, 01:10
I suppose this is a bad time to propose a "everything is income; no deductions; eliminate separate taxes for SS & Medicare, and bin the IRS" national flat tax of 13%? Some 'experts' claim such funding would easily pay for SocSec, Nat'l Health Care for 50 years, and elimination of national debt in 5.
That would be to simple. There are special interests that need to be fed kukri. C'mon now.
And FTR, Sweden and the US are not comparable countries.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-01-2010, 05:45
Of course it's high risk. That's why literally more than 99% of all business founders fail, and your stupid belief in the "self-made billionaire" is full of holes. You know how those people get rich? It's not because they make brilliant management decisions. They get there by hiring the best workers from college to do all that for them. The owners literally do nothing but sit back and profit from the labor of their subordinates.
I'd like to see your source on that figure. There is a high percentage of business failures (a majority in fact), particularly in the first year or two, but I do not believe it is quite that high.
As to hiring others to work for you, do you have a problem with the idea of informed consent? If they offer me X to do a particular job, it is my choice as to whether that's worth it to me or not. You make it sound as though all business owners are "buckra" getting their slavies to do everything while they polish their watch fob. I just dont' see it....
As to hiring others to work for you, do you have a problem with the idea of informed consent? If they offer me X to do a particular job, it is my choice as to whether that's worth it to me or not. You make it sound as though all business owners are "buckra" getting their slavies to do everything while they polish their watch fob. I just dont' see it....
I believe there is the perfect explanation to help you understand jabarto's points.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJl5kNL3BnY
Ironside
03-01-2010, 11:50
I suppose this is a bad time to propose a "everything is income; no deductions; eliminate separate taxes for SS & Medicare, and bin the IRS" national flat tax of 13%? Some 'experts' claim such funding would easily pay for SocSec, Nat'l Health Care for 50 years, and elimination of national debt in 5.
Doesn't that end up equal to a budget of 13% of the total GDP? A 13% tax raise would surely do it, a total of 13% barely pays the defense and treasury department (not sure what they do with the money, the interest is much smaller). :juggle2:
And without a health care reform and current growth, that's the equal to the public part of the healthcare expenses in a decade or two.
Crazed Rabbit
03-01-2010, 23:07
CR - still standing up for the big man I see. ;x
I'm standing up for the 50%+ of Americans who have stock and would be hurt by an increase in the capital gains tax just because Jabarto despises rich people.
You know how those people get rich? It's not because they make brilliant management decisions. They get there by hiring the best workers from college to do all that for them. The owners literally do nothing but sit back and profit from the labor of their subordinates.
Wow. Do you really believe that? How can you believe that?
I would really hesitate to say that a trust-fund brat like Paris Hilton is of the same value and economic promise as somebody who starts their own business.
How do you think people get loans from banks to start businesses? That's not to say Paris Hilton is of the same value, but the banks have to get money from somewhere.
CR
I'm standing up for the 50%+ of Americans who have stock and would be hurt by an increase in the capital gains tax just because Jabarto despises rich people.
Thanks for strawmanning me. And are you seriously complaining about rich people being "hurt" by this?
"OH NO if we raise taxes on rich people they'll only make 1000x what other people do in a year instead of 10,000x GOD HELP US ALL".
Seriously. We could tax them at 95% (not that I advocate that) and they'd STILL have more disposable income than almost anyone.
Wow. Do you really believe that? How can you believe that?
I don't see any reason not to. We live in one of the most strongly capitalistic societies on Earth, after all. So why don't you enlighten me and offer your libertarian perspective on things? I'm sure it'll breed an interesting discussion (not kidding; I really want to hear your take on this).
Oh and I don't feel like multi-quuoting every post but to answer a few questions that have come up so far; I don't have sources on business failure rates off hand but I'll see what I can find. And I should point out that I'm not against people being rewarded for their merit. I'm saying merit doesn't justify ownership of another's labor.
Centurion1
03-01-2010, 23:47
Oh and I don't feel like multi-quuoting every post but to answer a few questions that have come up so far; I don't have sources on business failure rates off hand but I'll see what I can find. And I should point out that I'm not against people being rewarded for their merit. I'm saying merit doesn't justify ownership of another's labor.
thent hey can quit and get a new job. how do you propose we nip this ownership of labor idea in the bud.
perhaps a new form of business where everyone makes the same money and all decisions are a vote from the janitor to the CEO.
Yeah that will really improve innovation and harness human nature.
thent hey can quit and get a new job. how do you propose we nip this ownership of labor idea in the bud.
Ah yes. The classical libertarian response.
"Well they can just take their business elsewhere!" *ignores all geographical and socio-economic factors that could inhibit this*
perhaps a new form of business where everyone makes the same money and all decisions are a vote from the janitor to the CEO.
Or maybe we could have a democratized workplace where people are actually paid the money they're worth with the more demanding jobs still being well compensated?
what you described isn't how socialism works btw
Yeah that will really improve innovation and harness human nature.
The myth that capitalism and privatization feuls innovation is a lie of cosmic proportions.
Centurion1
03-02-2010, 00:00
Or maybe we could have a democratized workplace where people are actually paid the money they're worth with the more demanding jobs still being well compensated?
what you described isn't how socialism works btw
The myth that capitalism and privatization feuls innovation is a lie of cosmic proportions.
your right it is more like communism. people are paid the money there jobs are worth sorry but cleaning my toilets isn't worth 100k. serving me burgers isnt worth 100k either. Running a lasrge company is worth quite a bit of money in most cases however.
And yes capitalism does harness human nature. otherwise it would never ever work. what does it harness then?
Aemilius Paulus
03-02-2010, 00:12
Thanks for strawmanning me. And are you seriously complaining about rich people being "hurt" by this?
"OH NO if we raise taxes on rich people they'll only make 1000x what other people do in a year instead of 10,000x GOD HELP US ALL".
Seriously. We could tax them at 95% (not that I advocate that) and they'd STILL have more disposable income than almost anyone.
I wish this was true, but it is not quite that simple. In fact, it is not that simple at all. It is true that the wealthy have so much money it should not matter to them much. The thing is, though, no-one sits on piles of gold. All of the money is in circulation, invested into all sorts of things. I doubt if Warren Buffet has as little as $150,000 on his checking account. If you tax the money of the rich, you will not merely target assets lying around. No, the wealthy have their own role, and a very important one. You tax them too much, and the economy tanks.
Not to mention, while the personal income tax in US is ridiculously low by world standards, the corporate tax rates are among the highest. ALL taxes carry over. You tax one person, and he will skin the money from the next one. Tax the companies, and prices rise, business falls, and all sorts of after-effects follow. Now, US is such a lucrative market that no company can afford to overlook it and let their competitor grow fat. Which is why in part US gets away with such high corporate tax.
I don't see any reason not to. We live in one of the most strongly capitalistic societies on Earth, after all.
US can do plenty of things to improve itself, including raising the personal income tax a bit, but taxing the wealthy that much can easily backfire. I am a Democrat, but...
And yes capitalism does harness human nature. otherwise it would never ever work. what does it harness then?
*nervous chuckle* I would not advertise that too much...:sweatdrop::sweatdrop: I am not crazy liberal, but neither am I partial to going into GOP fantasies...
I wish this was true, but it is not quite that simple. In fact, it is not that simple at all. It is true that the wealthy have so much money it should not matter to them much. The thing is, though, no-one sits on piles of gold. All of the money is in circulation, invested into all sorts of things. I doubt if Warren Buffet has as little as $150,000 on his checking account. If you tax the money of the rich, you will not merely target assets lying around. No, the wealthy have their own role, and a very important one. You tax them too much, and the economy tanks.
Not to mention, while the personal income tax in US is ridiculously low by world standards, the corporate tax rates are among the highest. ALL taxes carry over. You tax one person, and he will skin the money from the next one. Tax the companies, and prices rise, business falls, and all sorts of after-effects follow. Now, US is such a lucrative market that no company can afford to overlook it and let their competitor grow fat. Which is why in part US gets away with such high corporate tax.
You're right, but we're talking about rates here. I'm not suggesting taxing his worth, but rather his income.
EDIT: Though I grant I said "disposable income" and was likely wrong about that...
US can do plenty of things to improve itself, including raising the personal income tax a bit, but taxing the wealthy that much can easily backfire. I am a Democrat, but...
Very well. I rescind my statement. Keep in mind, though, I was being rhetorical when I said that.
Smacked down by the godless Russian commie! :laugh4:
The OP seems to have a disconnect between workers, corporate officers, and rich people. Workers have a job, this job pays whatever is the company thinks it's worth. If the pay is not good, the quality of the workers will suffer, this is a tradeoff the company needs to juggle to maximize profit. Corporate officers are (theoritically) elected by the shareholders to maximize profit. Rich people own companies through shares, which are an investment tool that companies need to develop and grow. Poor people own shares as well, through 401ks, pension funds, etc. Shares either generate income based on corporate profit (dividends) or through speculation (buying and selling). Without the money that companies get for shares, growth is hard to accomplish and companies stagnate and falter, which does the workers no good. This investment is very important to an economy, taxing it heavily will lead to all kinds of bad.
If the point is to just tax rich people, taxing income is not going to do it. Rich people can afford tax lawyers, income will be hidden or exchanged for other compensation. If the point is to reduce the exorbitant compensation packages corporate officials get at some companies, I'm on board, but that is really the job of the shareholders.
Protip - You don't get rich by working, you get rich by owning.
Aemilius Paulus
03-02-2010, 00:54
You're right, but we're talking about rates here. I'm not suggesting taxing his worth, but rather his income.
But their income is their worth - they stick it right back in the system. :shrug: Hard to choose here...
Very well. I rescind my statement. Keep in mind, though, I was being rhetorical when I said that.
Oh, I know that, but you would not have the panache to insist you did not wish for what you said, would you?
Smacked down by the godless Russian commie! :laugh4:
If it weren't for your little wall of text below I'd say you were ****posting. Knock it off.
The OP seems to have a disconnect between workers, corporate officers, and rich people. Workers have a job, this job pays whatever is the company thinks it's worth. If the pay is not good, the quality of the workers will suffer, this is a tradeoff the company needs to juggle to maximize profit. Corporate officers are (theoritically) elected by the shareholders to maximize profit. Rich people own companies through shares, which are an investment tool that companies need to develop and grow. Poor people own shares as well, through 401ks, pension funds, etc. Shares either generate income based on corporate profit (dividends) or through speculation (buying and selling). Without the money that companies get for shares, growth is hard to accomplish and companies stagnate and falter, which does the workers no good. This investment is very important to an economy, taxing it heavily will lead to all kinds of bad.
You do know that the vast majority of income reinvested in one's business is tax exempt, right? If it were, they would be incentivized to reinvest in their own business which would create jobs.
If the point is to just tax rich people, taxing income is not going to do it. Rich people can afford tax lawyers, income will be hidden or exchanged for other compensation.
That much is plain.
Protip - You don't get rich by working, you get rich by owning.
I already said that, though perhaps with a slightly different subtext.
Strike For The South
03-02-2010, 01:48
I don't understand why we just don't raise tax to 33% of GDP, scale back defense spending and scrap SS.
All this snarkiness of rich people need to pay more or poor people need to stop breeding is really pointless when we spend 700 billion on defense and give old people checks for being old and not dying
Aemilius Paulus
03-02-2010, 01:53
Hah, good joke Strike. Would have been even better if it was not so obvious.
gaelic cowboy
03-02-2010, 01:53
Just a thought but smarter tax rates might be the solution instead of broadsword economics try to target certain kinds of wealth.
So the guy has 100 million encourage a certain amount to be invested in the economy of US certain to be taxed regardless another amount allowed for charity and and lastly certain amounts encouraged into research and infrasturcture.
By giving some kind of incentive the higher the amount of wealth then the better there deal would be it would encourage people to get richer obviously to pay less tax but it still makes them put a huge pile in US economy.
Trusting rich people to invest is naive the rich tend to save their money the poorer sections tend to spend all their income because they have to eat and clothe themselves etc as a percentage it eats a far larger amount of their income.
Also the massively wealthy tend to invest in whatever is the best return this is not neccesarily the best for American society property bust anyone.
The rich also may invest outside the US helping Chinese factories increasing their profit but hurting obviously preventing all investment outside US would actually hurt US business but surely the system could be graded to encourage investment in newer industry to replace the old possibly paid by the profits from the outsourcing in the first place.
Also on a related point ordinary income is stagnating or even deflating in US for years now but the increase in wealth was in the main from released property equity thats all gone now so expect to see lots of people highlighting this point over the coming years.
Centurion1
03-02-2010, 03:23
Just a thought but smarter tax rates might be the solution instead of broadsword economics try to target certain kinds of wealth.
So the guy has 100 million encourage a certain amount to be invested in the economy of US certain to be taxed regardless another amount allowed for charity and and lastly certain amounts encouraged into research and infrasturcture.
By giving some kind of incentive the higher the amount of wealth then the better there deal would be it would encourage people to get richer obviously to pay less tax but it still makes them put a huge pile in US economy.
Trusting rich people to invest is naive the rich tend to save their money the poorer sections tend to spend all their income because they have to eat and clothe themselves etc as a percentage it eats a far larger amount of their income.
Also the massively wealthy tend to invest in whatever is the best return this is not neccesarily the best for American society property bust anyone.
The rich also may invest outside the US helping Chinese factories increasing their profit but hurting obviously preventing all investment outside US would actually hurt US business but surely the system could be graded to encourage investment in newer industry to replace the old possibly paid by the profits from the outsourcing in the first place.
Also on a related point ordinary income is stagnating or even deflating in US for years now but the increase in wealth was in the main from released property equity thats all gone now so expect to see lots of people highlighting this point over the coming years.
"broadsword economics" (i like that term) rarely work for that reason. Everything is always concentrated on one of two extremes and the middle class are the ones who often suffer. Be it tax cuts or tax raises by conservatives or liberals.
That much is plain.
So what was the point of this thread? Is this just a vent at rich people?
A healthy economy needs investment. Rich people don't just hide piles of cash under their mattresses, they invest it in stocks, bonds, etc, while keeping reserves in banks. Money kept in banks is also invested, the banks use current accounts for loans. Sitting on piles of cash is poor fiscal management, you just end up losing wealth due to inflation. Taxing this investment heavily is a good way to stagnate an economy.
From your own article:
Most of the income going to the top 400 tax returns is from capital. Salaries and wages accounted for only 6.5 percent of the top 400's income in 2007, down from 7.4 percent in 2006 and 26.2 percent in 1992. The average salary rose from 2006 to 2007, however, just at a slower rate than overall income growth.
The biggest source of income was capital gains, which are taxed at a maximum rate of 15 percent. Gains accounted for 66.3 percent of 2007 income for the top 400, up from 62.8 percent in 2006 and 36.1 percent in 1992.
The top earners are not getting huge salaries, their reported income is coming mainly from dividends and capital gains, i.e. investment. So what's the problem? You said yourself:
You're right, but we're talking about rates here. I'm not suggesting taxing his worth, but rather his income.
The main source of income for rich people is a economic necessity you don't want to tax heavily. :shrug:
I don't understand why we just don't raise tax to 33% of GDP, scale back defense spending and scrap SS.
Schutzstaffel ?
Strike For The South
03-02-2010, 18:17
Schutzstaffel ?
No thank you, Im full from the schnitzel
So what was the point of this thread? Is this just a vent at rich people?
The point is that we have a regressive taxation system when we should have a progressive one. I said as much right in the thread title.
A healthy economy needs investment. Rich people don't just hide piles of cash under their mattresses, they invest it in stocks, bonds, etc, while keeping reserves in banks. Money kept in banks is also invested, the banks use current accounts for loans. Sitting on piles of cash is poor fiscal management, you just end up losing wealth due to inflation. Taxing this investment heavily is a good way to stagnate an economy.
You said that in your last post and I refuted it in mine. Saying that taxing the rich will stagnate the economy is apologism, nothing more.
You said that in your last post and I refuted it in mine. Saying that taxing the rich will stagnate the economy is apologism, nothing more.
I'm not saying don't tax the rich, I'm saying don't heavily tax investments/capital gains. There are other ways to tax the wealthy if you are so inclined. Instead of outright taxation though, it would probably be better to adjust the tax system to nudge their wealth into more constructive investments for the national economy.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-02-2010, 22:14
The point is that we have a regressive taxation system when we should have a progressive one. I said as much right in the thread title.
We DO have a progressive system. The more you earn, the higher the rate at which your earnings are taxed. That's the definition thereof.
So, are you arguing that the rates at the higher brackets aren't high enough and that we should confiscate more of their income OR are you suggesting that the system of taxation we have isn't working to re-distribute wealth and that we therefore need a tax on worth in addition to or in place of a tax on income?
Aemilius Paulus
03-02-2010, 22:32
We DO have a progressive system. The more you earn, the higher the rate at which your earnings are taxed. That's the definition thereof.
I thought the US had a flat tax, not progressive, personal income rate based on a set percentage. Of course, then there are the various deductions and tax returns/permitted witholding, but that is another story. Anyhow, I though the 'rate' was supposed to be 'amount'. The wealthy, the more money they earn, the higher the amount they pay, which is determined by percentage. The percentage is a rate. And amount dependent on it is not. Right?
I mean, I could be wrong, US may have a progressive tax rate where the wealthy pay a higher percentage, but that is not what I read so far :shrug:. But as I said, I could be wrong.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-02-2010, 22:36
We DO have a progressive system. The more you earn, the higher the rate at which your earnings are taxed. That's the definition thereof.
So, are you arguing that the rates at the higher brackets aren't high enough and that we should confiscate more of their income OR are you suggesting that the system of taxation we have isn't working to re-distribute wealth and that we therefore need a tax on worth in addition to or in place of a tax on income?
He's saying that if the system is progressive, the richest people should be paying the highest percentage. Right now they don't, because the capital gains tax is at a different rate from the income tax, and various things like that.
ajaxfetish
03-02-2010, 23:27
I thought the US had a flat tax, not progressive, personal income rate based on a set percentage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_schedule_%28federal_income_tax%29
Ajax
I thought the US had a flat tax, not progressive, personal income rate based on a set percentage. Of course, then there are the various deductions and tax returns/permitted witholding, but that is another story. Anyhow, I though the 'rate' was supposed to be 'amount'. The wealthy, the more money they earn, the higher the amount they pay, which is determined by percentage. The percentage is a rate. And amount dependent on it is not. Right?
I mean, I could be wrong, US may have a progressive tax rate where the wealthy pay a higher percentage, but that is not what I read so far :shrug:. But as I said, I could be wrong.
The tax rate is progressive. For 2010, the tax rates for single people on wages/salaries are:
10% $0 – $8,375
15% $8,376 – $34,000
25% $34,001 – $82,400
28% $82,401 – $171,850
33% $171,851 – $373,650
35% $373,651+
This is after deductions though, which is one of jabarto's issues. The wealthy play lots of games to get this type of income down. These rates also apply to short-term capital gains (speculative stock sales, etc.) Long-term capital gains are also taxed progressively, depending on the highest tax bracket the payer qualifies from on salary. People below the 25% bracket don't pay any long-term capital gains on basic investment, everyone higher pays 15%. Real estate capital gains get capped at 25%, using the same brackets.
Tax rates stolen from wiki. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States)
These figures do not include other taxes, such as local/state income taxes and property taxes.
Aemilius Paulus
03-03-2010, 01:31
The tax rate is progressive. For 2010, the tax rates for single people on wages/salaries are:
10% $0 – $8,375
15% $8,376 – $34,000
25% $34,001 – $82,400
28% $82,401 – $171,850
33% $171,851 – $373,650
35% $373,651+Thank you for clarifying :bow:
This is after deductions though, which is one of jabarto's issues. The wealthy play lots of games to get this type of income down.
Heh, no kidding. The last law office my father worked at had a boss who redefined misery. He was not a bad person actually, but he squeezed his customers and the tax codes with immeasurable panache and élan.
On his official tax return, in the fiscal year of 2008 he made $26,000 profit from a law-firm of six lawyers/law clerks. Twenty-six grand, I swear this is the truth and nothing but it. In reality, his profits were around 400,000, according to my father. For a city whose metropolitan area population was nearly half a million, this boss had the only immigration law firm there.
I had a strong urge to worship that man when I heard this...
Centurion1
03-03-2010, 02:36
I thought the US had a flat tax, not progressive, personal income rate based on a set percentage. Of course, then there are the various deductions and tax returns/permitted witholding, but that is another story. Anyhow, I though the 'rate' was supposed to be 'amount'. The wealthy, the more money they earn, the higher the amount they pay, which is determined by percentage. The percentage is a rate. And amount dependent on it is not. Right?
I mean, I could be wrong, US may have a progressive tax rate where the wealthy pay a higher percentage, but that is not what I read so far . But as I said, I could be wrong.
no its progressive.
oops someone addressed this.
Jabarto needs to redefine what he wants reformed as we already have what he says he wants.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-03-2010, 02:47
Long-term capital gains are also taxed progressively, depending on the highest tax bracket the payer qualifies from on salary. People below the 25% bracket don't pay any long-term capital gains on basic investment, everyone higher pays 15%. Real estate capital gains get capped at 25%, using the same brackets.
Which makes them not progressively taxed.
How much do people making less then 34,000 a year invest long term in the stock market? Not much, so it's basically a flat tax.
Which makes them not progressively taxed.
How much do people making less then 34,000 a year invest long term in the stock market? Not much, so it's basically a flat tax.
It may not seem that way, but I imagine lots of retired seniors benefit from this.
Crazed Rabbit
03-03-2010, 03:15
Thanks for strawmanning me. And are you seriously complaining about rich people being "hurt" by this?
"OH NO if we raise taxes on rich people they'll only make 1000x what other people do in a year instead of 10,000x GOD HELP US ALL".
Seriously. We could tax them at 95% (not that I advocate that) and they'd STILL have more disposable income than almost anyone.
You're missing the point. Who would work if 95% of every dollar went to the government? There would be no incentive to work, so they wouldn't work, so GDP falls.
I don't see any reason not to. We live in one of the most strongly capitalistic societies on Earth, after all. So why don't you enlighten me and offer your libertarian perspective on things? I'm sure it'll breed an interesting discussion (not kidding; I really want to hear your take on this).
Surely something must have put that idea into your head. I don't see how you can say that; if business founders were so useless why wouldn't a group of engineers just get together and work for themselves? A person who founds or leads a business has to make a lot of important decisions that effect the company. If they make the right decisions they deserve to be compensated.
Oh and I don't feel like multi-quuoting every post but to answer a few questions that have come up so far; I don't have sources on business failure rates off hand but I'll see what I can find. And I should point out that I'm not against people being rewarded for their merit. I'm saying merit doesn't justify ownership of another's labor.
I'm all for people owning their labor; you seem to be the one against people being able to sell their labor as they see fit. You seem to think everyone who works and isn't the CEO is getting exploited, when in fact the worker is trading his labor for money. And since we don't have slavery he gets to make that choice freely.
So here's my summary;
Working for someone is not being exploited. It seems like some socialists think that merely working for someone proves the employer is exploiting workers. There is no cause to believe that.
If you tax someone really high, they'll just work less, which hurts the economy.
Money taxed by the government is always spent less efficiently than by private taxpayers - it results in less GDP.
I don't see why you seem to harbor such a grudge against rich people. They haven't exploited anyone to get rich (generally in the US at least), and they aren't taking anything from you.
Taxing them merely for spite makes everyone worse off. You're also missing Seamus' important point; taxing income does. not. tax. wealth. Taxing income means you punish those trying to improve their lives, while ignoring those who already have a large amount of wealth.
CR
Sasaki Kojiro
03-03-2010, 03:26
It may not seem that way, but I imagine lots of retired seniors benefit from this.
That's true. Still, it's only semi-progressive. Why are certain kinds of income taxed at different rates? That seems to be the core question.
Surely something must have put that idea into your head. I don't see how you can say that; if business founders were so useless why wouldn't a group of engineers just get together and work for themselves? A person who founds or leads a business has to make a lot of important decisions that effect the company. If they make the right decisions they deserve to be compensated.
Well, it wasn't always thus. There was a time when the corporate founders got rich by actually providing a service that people actually needed. But nowadays in this increasingly service-based economy that's a thing of the past.
I'm all for people owning their labor; you seem to be the one against people being able to sell their labor as they see fit. You seem to think everyone who works and isn't the CEO is getting exploited, when in fact the worker is trading his labor for money. And since we don't have slavery he gets to make that choice freely.
Not everyone, but it happens more often than people like to admit.
So here's my summary;
Working for someone is not being exploited. It seems like some socialists think that merely working for someone proves the employer is exploiting workers. There is no cause to believe that.
No. Not everyone who works gets exploited. But the rich in this country only get there because they have an entire system designed to funnel wealth into their pockets.
If you tax someone really high, they'll just work less, which hurts the economy.
I defy you to name a single instance in which someone didn't try to better themselves because of taxes.
I don't see why you seem to harbor such a grudge against rich people. They haven't exploited anyone to get rich (generally in the US at least), and they aren't taking anything from you.
I'm just going to post a reply I read on another forum.
mostly because there's something like 45,000 people a year dying for lack of healthcare, people are still homeless and hungry, our infrastructure is crumbling and our educational system is a joke
their "success" is largely predicated upon exploitation of the system and of your average american worker
taxing them to hell or forcing them to reinvest in their own business will help with providing healthcare, reducing homelessness and malnutrition and also help america reinvest in its infrastructure
yet your average american also thinks they'll approach that wealth someday, and actively fight to defend these rich [snip] who, by and large, contribute nothing to society of any mention
that's why
That's true. Still, it's only semi-progressive. Why are certain kinds of income taxed at different rates? That seems to be the core question.
I imagine the basic belief is that certain types of "income" benefit society more and are thus taxed less to encourage it. Tax deductions and exemptions are theoretically in the same boat, but many of the loopholes are politically motivated and just get exploited.
One big problem with the federal tax rate scale is that it doesn't really take into account the vast differences in cost of living across the nation. Someone making $50K in East BF is much better off than someone making $100K in Boston or New York. The current problems with the AMT highlight this.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-03-2010, 03:50
I imagine the basic belief is that certain types of "income" benefit society more and are thus taxed less to encourage it. Tax deductions and exemptions are theoretically in the same boat, but many of the loopholes are politically motivated and just get exploited.
So, wealthy long term investors pay 15% instead of 35% because having a lot invested in the stock market benefits society. Hmm. It would seem like teachers shouldn't be taxed then.
One big problem with the federal tax rate scale is that it doesn't really take into account the vast differences in cost of living across the nation. Someone making $50K in East BF is much better off than someone making $100K in Boston or New York. The current problems with the AMT highlight this.
Well, it's likely that those two people have the same job though. One would think.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-03-2010, 04:05
I defy you to name a single instance in which someone didn't try to better themselves because of taxes.
Of course they try to better themselves, but they'll do (in large part) so in whatever way minimzes their personal tax burden. I have clients who carefully monitor the deductions from their IRA's in order to prevent themselves from ending up in a higher income bracket, defering money they could have in order to miminze their tax burdens.
Now, you DO have a point that taxation and productivity are not linked in a perfect inverse relationship. To some extent increased taxation can serve as a spur for someone to increase their earnings -- but that only works to a point. There is an inverse connection there that does influence monies and finance.
By lowering taxes in the early 1980s, Ronald Reagan's administration spurred a lot of economic growth, scads of new jobs, and increased incomes. Yes, some of the rich got even richer than they otherwise would have -- but a lot of boats really did go up with that tide. So to did the federal tax coffers. As the economy grew, the amount of money available for government spending grew substantially, even though it was being collected at a lower rate. The pie was bigger. Now, if they'd actually practiced a little fiscal discipline (addressed Soc Sec, Welfare, $600 DoD hammers etc.) then much of our national debt would have been eliminated. They didn't -- but that is a separate concern.
So, wealthy long term investors pay 15% instead of 35% because having a lot invested in the stock market benefits society. Hmm. It would seem like teachers shouldn't be taxed then.
I have thought for a long time that public school teachers should not have their salaries taxed. This would essentially give all public school teachers a ~20% raise, without hitting city/county coffers. And it cuts out the administrative leaching of the Department of Education/NEA.
Aemilius Paulus
03-03-2010, 05:50
I have thought for a long time that public school teachers should not have their salaries taxed. This would essentially give all public school teachers a ~20% raise, without hitting city/county coffers. And it cuts out the administrative leaching of the Department of Education/NEA.
Wow, that is a splendid idea. The only problem is the IRS, who would have this done only over their cold, dead body. This sets a dangerous precedent ITSHO.
a completely inoffensive name
03-03-2010, 06:00
I didn't realize undeserved money was a right for the poor. It's this kind of attitude toward taxes and healthcare that's why America has been going down hill. FDR single handily prevented another decade or so of prosperity because of his socialist reforms and brought the inflation of the 70s upon us. It looked like America was going to be back on top when Reagan came in and showed the ability of his ideas by succeeding in toppling the Soviet Union by himself, but no, in came Clinton with his own health care reform and liberal reforms and now we are in the biggest recession we have had ever since the 1930s.
How about we make everything fair for everyone and stop punishing success with a flat tax. The poorest man chips in 1 out of his 10 dollars and the richest man chips in 5 billion of his 50 billion. Both pay 10% so their standard of living are both being reduced by 10%, that's called math for you fact deprived liberals. That's already pushing for me, because i dont particular see how you can say it's true equality when one person chips in a drop and the other, the whole bucket.
I didn't realize undeserved money was a right for the poor. It's this kind of attitude toward taxes and healthcare that's why America has been going down hill. FDR single handily prevented another decade or so of prosperity because of his socialist reforms and brought the inflation of the 70s upon us. It looked like America was going to be back on top when Reagan came in and showed the ability of his ideas by succeeding in toppling the Soviet Union by himself, but no, in came Clinton with his own health care reform and liberal reforms and now we are in the biggest recession we have had ever since the 1930s.
How about we make everything fair for everyone and stop punishing success with a flat tax. The poorest man chips in 1 out of his 10 dollars and the richest man chips in 5 billion of his 50 billion. Both pay 10% so their standard of living are both being reduced by 10%, that's called math for you fact deprived liberals. That's already pushing for me, because i dont particular see how you can say it's true equality when one person chips in a drop and the other, the whole bucket.
Psst...you're trying way too hard. Subtlety is the successful troll's best friend.
a completely inoffensive name
03-03-2010, 06:21
Psst...you're trying way too hard. Subtlety is the successful troll's best friend.
By acknowledging me I have already won.
Crazed Rabbit
03-03-2010, 09:19
Well, it wasn't always thus. There was a time when the corporate founders got rich by actually providing a service that people actually needed. But nowadays in this increasingly service-based economy that's a thing of the past.
So...basically more accusations of evil corporate leaders with no proof. The only way companies thrive is by providing a service or good people need, or by getting the government to regulate businesses in such a way to help them.
You've got no evidence anything has changed or that any of the wide ranging accusations you list are true. Can you link to some facts or evidence or anything that agrees with what you say? It's a thing of the past? You've got absolutely no basis for that. The fundamentals of economics haven't changed.
Not everyone, but it happens more often than people like to admit.
So...you've got no evidence.
No. Not everyone who works gets exploited. But the rich in this country only get there because they have an entire system designed to funnel wealth into their pockets.
Oh please. People who make their fortunes by and large do it by working really hard and inventing something or starting a successful company. The system is designed to benefit large, established companies, not people starting out. And the tax system and people like you want to tax the "hell" out of them. And I'm guessing here but I think you probably also support the estate tax, which makes it really hard for small businesses to stay in a family.
mostly because there's something like 45,000 people a year dying for lack of healthcare, people are still homeless and hungry, our infrastructure is crumbling and our educational system is a joke
Any source for that? And people will also be hungry and homeless on this earth. There are some people who live a homeless lifestyle even though they have houses. There are other people who will always make bad decisions no matter how much is provided for them.
It is not the fault of successful people that others are unsuccessful. There's no causation. And why should we take money from someone who earned it by providing a service to someone and give it to someone who doesn't want to work hard? (Not the case for all those who are poor, but a question about a specific example).
And of course, we've had billions in food and welfare handouts for decades. Yet we've still got poverty and some hungry people. They won't be helped by ladling more money at them, but by making them able to earn money for themselves.
their "success" is largely predicated upon exploitation of the system and of your average american worker
Ridiculous. We're not talking about the soviet politburo, we are talking about capitalism where everything is a consensual trade. No one works at a job they have not chosen to work at.
taxing them to hell or forcing them to reinvest in their own business will help with providing healthcare, reducing homelessness and malnutrition and also help america reinvest in its infrastructure
So basically this guy has no understanding of taxes and economies. And forcing them to reinvest? What does he think they do? He's got no clue of what's going on.
yet your average american also thinks they'll approach that wealth someday, and actively fight to defend these rich [snip] who, by and large, contribute nothing to society of any mention
Contribute nothing? I believe I've spent this whole thread proving him wrong.
that's why
So you got agitated up by some guy, though you haven't seen anyone exploited, you can't provide evidence of all this exploitation going on, and your basing many of your arguments on a completely wrong view of economics?
It seems your anger is based on what other people have said, not on the facts or evidence they have (or rather, don't have).
CR
So...you've got no evidence.
I...don't recall you asking for any until now..?
Oh please. People who make their fortunes by and large do it by working really hard and inventing something or starting a successful company. The system is designed to benefit large, established companies, not people starting out. And the tax system and people like you want to tax the "hell" out of them. And I'm guessing here but I think you probably also support the estate tax, which makes it really hard for small businesses to stay in a family.
And there are millions and millions of people who work their asses off and get nowhere. THink of it this way; if hard work is what brings success, why aren't the top 10% composed entirely of Mexican roof shinglers?
And I absolutely do support the estate tax. It's the only way to break up the pseudo-aristocracy that deveolps when wealth never leaves the hands of people and their sons.
Any source for that? And people will also be hungry and homeless on this earth. There are some people who live a homeless lifestyle even though they have houses. There are other people who will always make bad decisions no matter how much is provided for them.
It is not the fault of successful people that others are unsuccessful. There's no causation. And why should we take money from someone who earned it by providing a service to someone and give it to someone who doesn't want to work hard? (Not the case for all those who are poor, but a question about a specific example).
You don't know many poor people do you? Hint: they work harder just to get by than you or I ever will.
Oh and you wanted a source: http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverage
And of course, we've had billions in food and welfare handouts for decades. Yet we've still got poverty and some hungry people. They won't be helped by ladling more money at them, but by making them able to earn money for themselves.
I agree and this is one of the biggest hurdles in socialism. It's a little beyond the scope of this thread though.
Ridiculous. We're not talking about the soviet politburo, we are talking about capitalism where everything is a consensual trade. No one works at a job they have not chosen to work at.
So there's no coercion? At all? Everyone has absolute unfettered freedom to work wherever they please? Even you can't believe that.
So you got agitated up by some guy, though you haven't seen anyone exploited, you can't provide evidence of all this exploitation going on, and your basing many of your arguments on a completely wrong view of economics?
It seems your anger is based on what other people have said, not on the facts or evidence they have (or rather, don't have).
CR
Well you could make the case that I've been reading Laissez Faire (the forum where I get a lot of info) a little too much. But give me a little credit here; my mind isn't some vacuous cavern to be filled by whatever the leftist propaganda machine desires.
Oh and if you're truly insistant I can dig up some graphs to illustrate my point.
Ironside
03-03-2010, 12:11
Now, you DO have a point that taxation and productivity are not linked in a perfect inverse relationship. To some extent increased taxation can serve as a spur for someone to increase their earnings -- but that only works to a point. There is an inverse connection there that does influence monies and finance.
By lowering taxes in the early 1980s, Ronald Reagan's administration spurred a lot of economic growth, scads of new jobs, and increased incomes. Yes, some of the rich got even richer than they otherwise would have -- but a lot of boats really did go up with that tide. So to did the federal tax coffers. As the economy grew, the amount of money available for government spending grew substantially, even though it was being collected at a lower rate. The pie was bigger. Now, if they'd actually practiced a little fiscal discipline (addressed Soc Sec, Welfare, $600 DoD hammers etc.) then much of our national debt would have been eliminated. They didn't -- but that is a separate concern.
For a counter example, the Swedish taxes were rapidly rising from 1945 to 1975, while still beating the crap out of the US (atleast from 1960-1975, that is the most rapid tax increase period). We had very low growth from 1980-1985, lost our position, but had regained it in 1990, when we had a baad recession. Can be noted that it's very possible to have high GDP growth while using a system that will eventually backfire.
Simply put, the economy is too complex to simply refer it to taxes. For example tax money taking a detour in Iraq and then ending up at the US pool makers would be considered bad (by all), while the same money at the pool maker due to a tax cut would be considered good (by the libertarian). The main difference is simply an administration cost. Aha! you say, but then those people work, pays taxes and buys products in turn and by working, a small percentage will also not turn to crime, that burdens the society, etc, etc.
Simple version. There's good and bad investments, and taxes doesn't fall in any category by default, like wise with private money. The influence varies a lot though.
I didn't realize undeserved money was a right for the poor. It's this kind of attitude toward taxes and healthcare that's why America has been going down hill. FDR single handily prevented another decade or so of prosperity because of his socialist reforms and brought the inflation of the 70s upon us. It looked like America was going to be back on top when Reagan came in and showed the ability of his ideas by succeeding in toppling the Soviet Union by himself, but no, in came Clinton with his own health care reform and liberal reforms and now we are in the biggest recession we have had ever since the 1930s.
I love the ending. Didn't know that overexpanded banking with excessive risk taking and inflated stock values were the signs of socialism... Even when the stock market was at its lowest, the dividend yield was still at its lowest values in history.
How about we make everything fair for everyone and stop punishing success with a flat tax. The poorest man chips in 1 out of his 10 dollars and the richest man chips in 5 billion of his 50 billion. Both pay 10% so their standard of living are both being reduced by 10%, that's called math for you fact deprived liberals. That's already pushing for me, because i dont particular see how you can say it's true equality when one person chips in a drop and the other, the whole bucket.
Did you know that basic standard of living is a fixed value? That's called math for you fact deprived market liberal.
You've got no evidence anything has changed or that any of the wide ranging accusations you list are true. Can you link to some facts or evidence or anything that agrees with what you say? It's a thing of the past? You've got absolutely no basis for that. The fundamentals of economics haven't changed.
Ah, but they are. We are moving into a society where the number of people employed to provide all the wanted products and services are less than the potential work force. The end result by the invisible hand is mass unemployment. A way to prevent a collapse of the system would be to provide the unemployed with money, so that thier consumption will still keep the ones whose job depends on the unemployed's consumption with a job. Now this might simply be a coincidence,it simply did occur to me while writing. :juggle2:
And of course, we've had billions in food and welfare handouts for decades. Yet we've still got poverty and some hungry people. They won't be helped by ladling more money at them, but by making them able to earn money for themselves.
Ridiculous. We're not talking about the soviet politburo, we are talking about capitalism where everything is a consensual trade. No one works at a job they have not chosen to work at.
And add the invisible hand. Exactly how much choise are we in fact talking about here? They have to work to survive, while the invisible hand controls what jobs are available. I can agree that there's more freedom to choose now than before, but the choise is not always there.
I agree on that it's better to make people to be able to earn money by themself, but I will ask you a question:
If the free market will in practice disencourage some people from working, since it cannot be done with maximum cost effiency, what do you do?
This applies with disabled today and will eventually affect a larger group (when can be debated), so it is an important and relevant question.
So basically this guy has no understanding of taxes and economies. And forcing them to reinvest? What does he think they do? He's got no clue of what's going on.
In general, wouldn't a high capital gain tax ensure that the money stays inside the company for reinvestments, simply due to the money taken out for consumption would be taxed? :juggle2:
Crazed Rabbit
03-03-2010, 21:55
And there are millions and millions of people who work their asses off and get nowhere. THink of it this way; if hard work is what brings success, why aren't the top 10% composed entirely of Mexican roof shinglers?
Why? Because hard work doesn't just mean physical labor. It means supplying something people are willing to pay for. Say one worker spends some amount of time and effort making a detailed chainsaw carving of a bear, while another worker spends the same time and effort making a customized personal computer. More people would be willing to pay $1000 for the computer.
I'm sure you understand supply and demand - there's a lot of people who can do that labor. Those immigrant shinglers get the job because they'll work for much less than other people (and yet more than they would be paid in their countries of origin). They're providing a service, but since a lot of people can provide that service they won't get paid very well.
If laborers charged so much money that they'd be among the richest 10%, then people would simply shingle their own houses. Or, more likely, other laborers would offer to work for less and get the job instead.
And I absolutely do support the estate tax. It's the only way to break up the pseudo-aristocracy that deveolps when wealth never leaves the hands of people and their sons.
:rolleyes: Two things; it certainly doesn't work well at breaking up large family collections of wealth. What it is good at is crushing small family businesses and preventing them from being passed on to the next generation - in short, keeping those who aren't rich from becoming rich.
You don't know many poor people do you? Hint: they work harder just to get by than you or I ever will.
Oh really? I've worked 15 hour days with migrant laborers on a large berry picking farm. I've worked 10 hour days at an oil refinery as an industrial painter. So I dare say I know what hard work is.
And since I didn't want to do such things forever, I went to college and got a degree, thereby increasing the value of the work I could do and increasing what I would be paid.
So there's no coercion? At all? Everyone has absolute unfettered freedom to work wherever they please? Even you can't believe that.
I didn't say everyone gets to work where they want to work.
Well you could make the case that I've been reading Laissez Faire (the forum where I get a lot of info) a little too much. But give me a little credit here; my mind isn't some vacuous cavern to be filled by whatever the leftist propaganda machine desires.
Of course it isn't. :bow:
But opinions can certainly be unduly influenced by rhetoric for those who haven't got a large amount of their own experience. You seem to think that CEOs and rich people are bad, exploitative people based, a lot, on what other people have said, and not what those people have actually done.
Oh and if you're truly insistant I can dig up some graphs to illustrate my point.
Well it would lend credence to what you claim.
We are moving into a society where the number of people employed to provide all the wanted products and services are less than the potential work force. The end result by the invisible hand is mass unemployment. A way to prevent a collapse of the system would be to provide the unemployed with money, so that thier consumption will still keep the ones whose job depends on the unemployed's consumption with a job. Now this might simply be a coincidence,it simply did occur to me while writing.
Consider the scope of all wanted products and services 100 years ago. That didn't include cars for nearly everyone, computers, televisions, etc. Consider even 10 years ago, when wanted products would not have included smart phones, laptops with 3G capability, hybrid cars.
So the deduction that mass unemployment is inevitable is completely wrong. Because of innovation there will be new products to make and buy. That's why the standard of living keeps increasing.
If the free market will in practice disencourage some people from working, since it cannot be done with maximum cost effiency, what do you do?
You'll have to clarify. Each individual person decides how much they want to work, based on how much money they want and how much they would be paid. I think that most work occurs at something other than the ideal amount for workers - if you only want to work 38 hours a week instead of 40, for example.
But if people decide they want to work less and they would be satisfied with the money they would make, I don't have any problem with it.
In general, wouldn't a high capital gain tax ensure that the money stays inside the company for reinvestments, simply due to the money taken out for consumption would be taxed?
Capital gains is the tax on money made from buying and then selling stock. And maybe dividends, I'm not sure.
But the point is that it is not the company's money being taxed, but the transactions between owners of the stock. Nor do I see why a company spending money is preferable to an individual owners of stock spending money.
CR
Ironside
03-04-2010, 00:17
Consider the scope of all wanted products and services 100 years ago. That didn't include cars for nearly everyone, computers, televisions, etc. Consider even 10 years ago, when wanted products would not have included smart phones, laptops with 3G capability, hybrid cars.
So the deduction that mass unemployment is inevitable is completely wrong. Because of innovation there will be new products to make and buy. That's why the standard of living keeps increasing.
So 90% of the population is still working in agriculture? The amount of people employed in the industry is not reduced relative to the service sector (that is by a large margin the largest sector nowadays) for every year that goes by? Automatisation is increasing your production, while reducing the number of employed. Simply put, the number of new innovations and their subsequntal production is no longer suffient to keep the same number of employed, when observing the entire market. This development will hit the serivice sector as well, because its profitable from the viewpoint of the induvidual company.
You'll have to clarify. Each individual person decides how much they want to work, based on how much money they want and how much they would be paid. I think that most work occurs at something other than the ideal amount for workers - if you only want to work 38 hours a week instead of 40, for example.
But if people decide they want to work less and they would be satisfied with the money they would make, I don't have any problem with it.
I was refering to why you would employ notably less efficient workers. It will cut into your profit margins. Thus I would still want an answer to that question.
Capital gains is the tax on money made from buying and then selling stock. And maybe dividends, I'm not sure.
But the point is that it is not the company's money being taxed, but the transactions between owners of the stock. Nor do I see why a company spending money is preferable to an individual owners of stock spending money.
CR
I was refering to that proclaimed reason to why rich people shouldn't be taxed extra (now it seems that they pay less than the normal worker, which is a different issue, who you might have a different opinion on) is that they reinvest. Stock market speculation is most of the time not a reinvestment that increases production. Keeping it inside the company forces reinvestment or divends.
a completely inoffensive name
03-04-2010, 04:38
I love the ending. Didn't know that overexpanded banking with excessive risk taking and inflated stock values were the signs of socialism... Even when the stock market was at its lowest, the dividend yield was still at its lowest values in history.
maybe if the government didnt punish the rich with high taxes, the rich wouldnt have to choose riskier business decisions in order to keep their money. It was either that or leaving the country, obviously you just want Bear Stearns and AIG to just pack up and go elsewhere dont you?
Did you know that basic standard of living is a fixed value? That's called math for you fact deprived market liberal.
Liberal propaganda, different regions have different cost of living expenses, and the socialists have managed to secure luxuries as "necessities" to be counted when taking into account the cost of the "basic standard of living" such as electricity. Because obviously the human beings didnt experience good lives until edison.
Ironside
03-05-2010, 11:05
maybe if the government didnt punish the rich with high taxes, the rich wouldnt have to choose riskier business decisions in order to keep their money. It was either that or leaving the country, obviously you just want Bear Stearns and AIG to just pack up and go elsewhere dont you?
That would imply that they would be fine with a smaller income as long it wasn't taxed. Thus they do not act on the ethics of greed, which are the fundamental principle of which market economy is built on (that and the rational human). That also implies that they would be fine with a different sort of taxation...
Liberal propaganda, different regions have different cost of living expenses, and the socialists have managed to secure luxuries as "necessities" to be counted when taking into account the cost of the "basic standard of living" such as electricity. Because obviously the human beings didnt experience good lives until edison.
True. That's why the impoverished tends to vote for the pirtchfork party when the situation feels too unequal. It tends to be eventually successful, even if the road there can be long and rough, with a few less successful sidetracks.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.