Taxation and exemption policy

[Banquo's Ghost]

Unsurprisingly, things have moved on, so please forgive the step back in time, but I did promise to respond to Koga's post.

I think I am a bit confused, perhaps because we have so fewer really old things in America. Are you talking about things along the lines of, declaring something a historical treasure?

In a manner of speaking, yes. Many ancient houses for example, are still in private hands. These houses are part of the heritage of the country and in many cases are made available for visits by the general public. Now, the system is complex and there are many grants available to the landowner from the state for maintenance and such, but these assets are still taxed at the death of the owner and transfer to his heir. Within, there are often art treasures that would (and do) cost the state a great deal of money to acquire on the open market - again, often made available for the general public.

This is the idea of stewardship, which has infused the great families of Europe for generations - that we hold these assets in trust for one's children and the wider good. (This is not to say of course, that such stewardship is at the mercy of the tiny of brain and withered of moral, for plenty has been gambled and drunk away in its time. But the principle remains).

I suspect that you would feel that this has little place in the modern world, and that all such assets should be the property of the state. This is the unannounced view of many governments, which tax so heavily on inheritance that there is little choice left but to barter away goods to the state and go quietly to live in a semi-detached in Dorking.

Regarding estate tax, you said you disagree. I'm just curious what exactly your view on it is. Any money passed along upon death of its owner should be tax free? Or something more complicated? Bear in mind that in the U.S., I believe at the moment, estate tax doesn't hit any estate passing along less than 2 million in assets. And that level might very well be raised sooner or later because depending on where you live, one house and a decent amount in retirement money might come up to near 2 mil. I wouldn't be surprised to see it raised to 3 or 4 mil sometime soon, and that would be fine with me. But the idea of passing along 10, 20, 50 million to your kids and they pay no tax on it, I don't agree with. If I go out and earn $100,000 I pay tax on every penny. It should be at LEAST the same case if someone is being handed it for free.

My views on estate tax (or inheritance tax) are, unsurprisingly, in line with Seamus'. Indeed, my instinctive position is entirely in line with his arguments, save that I do not have quite his faith in the charity of man. (Probably because like so much of my one time faith, my membership of the Knights of St Columbanus is a distant memory ). Therefore I would be found arguing for a progressive income tax, as I feel that sales taxes are effectively flat rate taxes, and consequently penalise those on lower incomes disproportionately. I have no issue with paying a percentage of the monies I earn, no matter how great, for the benefits the state brings to enable me to earn that money. I would in fact, be quite happy to pay a higher percentage to enable my estate workers to be exempt - and in fact do, by paying them more than the market would bear (which is Seamus' advocated solution, of course).

Rather than repeat his reasoning, I will note that my forebears' assets have been taxed several times over in the earning and I rather object to the notion that they should be taxed again merely for transfer. Unlike the moneylenders of the world, I cannot move my houses and estates to the Caribbean or Liechtenstein. We are tied to the land, for land is our soul. I personally believe in contributing what I should to the greater weal of my countries, but I have little choice than to deploy those assets that are moveable to tax efficient environments, otherwise my heir will be forced to sell a great portion of their inheritance. Aside from assorted confiscations by choleric monarchs unimpressed with our political stances, the family has always managed to maintain and improve its position from generation to generation.

My father was able to utilise this wealth, not only to maintain quite a number of people in their work, but to allow investment in a company that I set up to deliver training and support to unemployed refugees in the United Kingdom. This continues in other hands - the hands of a couple of fellows with great talent but no start-up money. I have also managed to earn a reasonable living on my own through the written word and occasional service to ensure I never needed to draw money for living.

The point being, that if capital for investment and employment is to be available, it has to come from somewhere. One might argue that it should be entirely from "democratic" shareholder-run banks, but they often prove very much less philanthropic than one might hope. One might argue that it should come from the government, but they are rarely wise investors. How else then, might the entrepreneurs of this generation gain access to capital to build from scratch each and every generation? For one assumes that the end-point belief behind your advocacy of estate tax would be that no-one should be able to pass on wealth.

The enormous tax burden (planned for and covered, thanks for asking ) arising from my father's passing means that I have a lot less for new investment. We'll get over it, but it's tiresome.

[Koga No Goshi]

I'm glad SOMEBODY else recognized that a flat sales tax disproprotionately burdens the poor. I get distinctly irritated when people go on a lot about how the rich earned their money and thus shouldn't pay tax on so much of it, but that same argument somehow falls mute when it comes to the money that lower income and working middle class people earn. They would be paying tax on nearly everything if all taxes were replaced by a sales tax, and simply, that isn't fair at all when our societies support so many thousands or millions of people who have millions of times more money than they will need for decent living.

Another consideration about the "wealth = earned = tax is not fair" argument, is that massive wealth created by say, a corporation, or a series of corporations, owned by an individual, which makes him very wealthy-- that's not money he made by himself. That's money he made by amassing and organizing the work of hundreds, thousands of people. Those people took hourly wages or salaries and probably their big ambition in life was to own a house or maybe have a slightly better house than their parents did, or afford college for their children. So, when it comes to taxes to pay for things like public education, or public healthcare, or whatever the case might be based upon the country in question, I do feel that the richest people do have a special obligation to pay their fair proportionate share of their disposable income to support those systems. Were it not for the people available, literate and trained to work for them at sometimes quite low wages (I can't speak for European countries, but this is certainly true for the U.S.) a single individual making 10, 20, 50 million in a year simply isn't possible. The only tradeoff I would consider just if we did a substantial change in the tax structure which greatly relieved tax burdens off the wealthiest people and entities, would be mandatory pay structures to ensure at least a dignified living off the lowest wage. I know that some countries, such as Sweden, already have this. But no one in the United States is covering all their bills with a $5/hour job, unless they are living at home and not buying anything. They will almost certainly never own a house just off their work income. And while yes we can talk about school and education and people pulling themselves up to get better jobs, economies are always pyramid distributions. The lower the pay, the greater number of people working for that level of pay. That's how it works, so the idea that everyone could just put themselves through night school and go get a six figure job is make believe. (At the time of writing this I can't pull up your profile so I do not know which country you live in, but it might be useful to point out that in the U.S., virtually everything is pay-for-it-yourself, short of extraordinary circumstances. There are scholarships for college of course, but the dominant reality for most people is loans which have to be paid back with interest. And the #1 cause of bankruptcy in our country is medical bills.) And, an increasingly smaller number of American companies offer health insurance or retirement plans as part of job benefits. (I am certain this will get considerably worse once our financial crisis has fully kicked in, but it's been on the decline for quite awhile.)

Regarding the estate.... it sounds like you inherited a castle, or manor or something? I really couldn't quite get a fix on what exactly it was that you inherited, but it sounds like a big production if you have a work staff and such to maintain it and work on it. I honestly cannot give you an answer about estate tax in reference to those kinds of situations in Europe because there really is not anything quite like that here in the U.S., unless there are some privately owned skyscrapers or something. But chances are people wealthy enough to privately own a skyscraper have absolutely no problem passing along enough money to cover taxes upon their death--- honestly though, it' svery doubtful that there are any that are privately owned in that sense. More likely they are turned over to the ownership of a "corporation" (and a corporation can be owned by just 1 person) which of course is its own legal entity in the United States and thus will never "die" and pay estate tax on itself. My guess is that even if we had manors and castles and estates and such in private ownership, that is the way they would be passed down. There are many financial loohpoles in the American tax system, and I think that's something that perhaps got glossed over as well. People moving property and assets into trusts, corporations, or in the case of the very wealthy, "non profit foundations" and such, is a way to avoid any sort of estate tax on your property passed along in perpetuity. Those entities have to file tax returns but the individuals who "own" the property would not have to pay tax on anything except whatever profit or money was flowing to them individually from the trust or corporation on a yearly basis, as normal income.

It's a very interesting question, but I simply can't give an answer for it in reference to the American estate tax, because there isn't a true parallel here, and there are aforementioned ways of passing along property and avoiding estate tax. Basically what people do is "trick" the system so that, on paper, they are poor or under the estate tax threshold upon their death, by signing away property or putting it in trusts or LLC's or corporations. There are stubborn old people who refuse to do this and then abruptly die, but I would say out of the rich, we're talking a minority. Anyone wealthy enough to use a lawyer's services or even to have a "family lawyer" and/or financial planner is heavily advised to do this estate planning before old age and sickness or death become immediate concerns, to minimize or even nullify their estate tax liability. So, everything is not as it seems, and it's not like any bit of property passed along in the U.S. gets slapped with a vicious estate tax. This I believe is one of the things, indirectly, Obama mentioned in the debates when he talked about tax loopholes and how in America effectively some of the lowest tax rates are paid despite tax rates on paper. There are ways to bundle up your property in other legal entities and packages so that you do not have direct, personal ownership when tax time comes due.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Another consideration about the "wealth = earned = tax is not fair" argument, is that massive wealth created by say, a corporation, or a series of corporations, owned by an individual, which makes him very wealthy-- that's not money he made by himself. That's money he made by amassing and organizing the work of hundreds, thousands of people.

That's an odd stance, if I may say so. So even the cleaning supervisor, who merely arranges the rota for the workers, does not deserve any wage - or at least, any higher wage to account for their higher responsibility? Their facilitation of a successful cleaning, ensuring that the ordinary cleaners are rewarded by another job and thus continued pay, is not worth any extra?

That rather sounds like Soviet communism. I know you have a point in there, perhaps about comparative reward, but on the face of it the argument seems one of enforced equality.

So, when it comes to taxes to pay for things like public education, or public healthcare, or whatever the case might be based upon the country in question, I do feel that the richest people do have a special obligation to pay their fair proportionate share of their disposable income to support those systems.

Much more reasonable, and here I would tend towards agreement. Depending on the social model (and from my reading, the United States have a problem here, being generally inclined in practice towards a social democratic model of state provision, but philosophically considering this "socialism" and railing against it politically, ensuring a bastardised system that fails to work at all) taxation for the public good - and to provide healthy, well educated people to work and grow the economy - is one of the few wise investments the state can make. Rich people, on a progressive scale, do pay more in flat terms, but not in proportional terms unless there is a banding. So in real terms, more rich people means more actual money to distribute. Equally, a fair system of taxation means that more of the rich are likely to pay the tax, rather than find ways to avoid it (avoidance costs money, so one would rather pay the fair tax than blood-sucking lawyers and accountants - no offense to present company ).

(At the time of writing this I can't pull up your profile so I do not know which country you live in, ...

I am a citizen of the Republic of Ireland and live between there, the United Kingdom, France and occasionally Russia.

I really couldn't quite get a fix on what exactly it was that you inherited, but it sounds like a big production if you have a work staff and such to maintain it and work on it.

Don't worry, that's just me being obtuse to avoid too much personal information.

I honestly cannot give you an answer about estate tax in reference to those kinds of situatiIt's a very interesting question, but I simply can't give an answer for it in reference to the American estate tax, because there isn't a true parallel here, and there are aforementioned ways of passing along property and avoiding estate tax. Basically what people do is "trick" the system so that, on paper, they are poor or under the estate tax threshold upon their death, by signing away property or putting it in trusts or LLC's or corporations. There are stubborn old people who refuse to do this and then abruptly die, but I would say out of the rich, we're talking a minority. Anyone wealthy enough to use a lawyer's services or even to have a "family lawyer" and/or financial planner is heavily advised to do this estate planning before old age and sickness or death become immediate concerns, to minimize or even nullify their estate tax liability. So, everything is not as it seems, and it's not like any bit of property passed along in the U.S. gets slapped with a vicious estate tax. This I believe is one of the things, indirectly, Obama mentioned in the debates when he talked about tax loopholes and how in America effectively some of the lowest tax rates are paid despite tax rates on paper. There are ways to bundle up your property in other legal entities and packages so that you do not have direct, personal ownership when tax time comes due.

I was actually after your philosophy on the matter, which you have eloquently illustrated, thank you. You appear to be a thoughtful proponent of American social democracy, which is a hard beast to pin down since you all use the wrong words for political thought (ie your liberals aren't and your conservatives most certainly don't!)

I think that my rejoinders were more about the issue of tax avoidance brought on by excessive and illiberal (my version of English meaning ) taxation policy. As you note above, a great deal of effort is put into avoiding tax and this is disproportionately successful for wealthy people with the means to move money. Inheritance tax is one of those that is remarkably easy to avoid for the wealthy (without fixed assets) yet is relied upon by politicians to maintain the fiction that those wealthy are in fact, being soaked.

Thank you for an intriguing discussion.

[Koga No Goshi]

That's an odd stance, if I may say so. So even the cleaning supervisor, who merely arranges the rota for the workers, does not deserve any wage - or at least, any higher wage to account for their higher responsibility? Their facilitation of a successful cleaning, ensuring that the ordinary cleaners are rewarded by another job and thus continued pay, is not worth any extra?

Oh no, I didn't say any such thing. What I'm saying is no one makes $50 million in a year all by themselves, unless they win a lottery or invent some computer program in their bedroom and sell the rights to it or something really unusual. Any corporation will have a number of employees; of those, some will be quite low paid, some will have no benefits. I'm speaking in the U.S. of course. So I think any employer is benefitting from a system of public schools, emergency rooms, take your pick of whatever social services tax revenue helps fund. I'm not saying they should be taxed till they make no profit at all, I'm just saying that the idea that the richer someone is, the more they deserve not to pay as much tax as people lower on the scale, doesn't make any sense to me. Someone with several corporations making a ton of money a year is benefitting MORE, even if indirectly, from things tax money pays for, than a single individual working for a wage is.

That rather sounds like Soviet communism. I know you have a point in there, perhaps about comparative reward, but on the face of it the argument seems one of enforced equality.

No, that's about as far away from what I was saying as possible, though it's a common comparison that is made when people defend taxes on the wealthy. What I'm saying is that wealthy people owe at least as much of a fair share into the tax system as poorer people, and in many cases, their wealth is possible because of some of the things taxes help to pay for. Let's take private healthcare and social security as examples in the United States. How many people would work an hourly wage job with no medical insurance and no retirement plan if we fully de-socialized healthcare and turned social security into a voluntary only private investment system? I think U.S. employers actually get away with paying a lot less than perhaps they should be in many cases precisely because they can tell employees "that's not my problem, go to the ER if you can't afford healthcare." In fact, Wal Mart got in trouble for doing exactly this, and encouraging its workers to apply for welfare to supplement their income.

Much more reasonable, and here I would tend towards agreement. Depending on the social model (and from my reading, the United States have a problem here, being generally inclined in practice towards a social democratic model of state provision, but philosophically considering this "socialism" and railing against it politically, ensuring a bastardised system that fails to work at all) taxation for the public good - and to provide healthy, well educated people to work and grow the economy - is one of the few wise investments the state can make. Rich people, on a progressive scale, do pay more in flat terms, but not in proportional terms unless there is a banding. So in real terms, more rich people means more actual money to distribute. Equally, a fair system of taxation means that more of the rich are likely to pay the tax, rather than find ways to avoid it (avoidance costs money, so one would rather pay the fair tax than blood-sucking lawyers and accountants - no offense to present company ).

Yes. The reason I put in the little "reminder" about quite how much is NOT covered in the U.S., is because I know that in a lot of Europe people do not routinely go bankrupt over things like poor health or a bout with cancer, and lose their house over it. It's very common in the U.S. It is in fact the #1 cause of financial wipeout for an American family. So yes it is a problem as you say, and the system for as much as many wealthy Americans would like to make it out like everything is just milk and honey for the poor what with all the "entitlement programs" and "high taxes", it's hardly the case in practice with all the tax loopholes and the horrendous state of may of our social services, combined with such a low minimum wage and the decreasing availability of job benefits like health insurance. Our "entitlement programs" and "taxes" are certainly nothing like Europe.

I was actually after your philosophy on the matter, which you have eloquently illustrated, thank you. You appear to be a thoughtful proponent of American social democracy, which is a hard beast to pin down since you all use the wrong words for political thought (ie your liberals aren't and your conservatives most certainly don't!)

I think that my rejoinders were more about the issue of tax avoidance brought on by excessive and illiberal (my version of English meaning ) taxation policy. As you note above, a great deal of effort is put into avoiding tax and this is disproportionately successful for wealthy people with the means to move money. Inheritance tax is one of those that is remarkably easy to avoid for the wealthy (without fixed assets) yet is relied upon by politicians to maintain the fiction that those wealthy are in fact, being soaked.

Thank you for an intriguing discussion.

Thank you too.

[Redleg]

Oh no, I didn't say any such thing. What I'm saying is no one makes $50 million in a year all by themselves, unless they win a lottery or invent some computer program in their bedroom and sell the rights to it or something really unusual. Any corporation will have a number of employees; of those, some will be quite low paid, some will have no benefits. I'm speaking in the U.S. of course. So I think any employer is benefitting from a system of public schools, emergency rooms, take your pick of whatever social services tax revenue helps fund. I'm not saying they should be taxed till they make no profit at all, I'm just saying that the idea that the richer someone is, the more they deserve not to pay as much tax as people lower on the scale, doesn't make any sense to me. Someone with several corporations making a ton of money a year is benefitting MORE, even if indirectly, from things tax money pays for, than a single individual working for a wage is.

So your arguement is that politicians have established an inheriently unfair tax structure that benefits the rich over the poor? Is this from an income tax perspective only? or are you including the other taxes that are paid not only by the poor and middleclass tax payers, but yes even those with a bit more money, be it private ownership of property or corporate ownership.

Now there is some validity to an inheriently unfair income tax structure that this country has established, being that the ability to write off certain aspects of income has always grated me because it completely complicates the tax code, that the successful middleclass ends up with paying more then they should because they do not often have the ability to tax advantage of these regulations in the tax code.

However what grates me more is the fact that property taxes - which is the primary base of income for cities and even some states is adjust to help corporations more then private property owners. All done in the name of intincing business into the area. Or the fact that sports groups get bonds and benefits out of the public coffers to keep them in the town. Last I hear the NFL is full of corporate or private owners.

So go into more detail, but then the scale of payments by the rich far exceeds the payments of others, so to claim that they should pay more seems a little weak on the surface when one only talks in generalities.

No, that's about as far away from what I was saying as possible, though it's a common comparison that is made when people defend taxes on the wealthy. What I'm saying is that wealthy people owe at least as much of a fair share into the tax system as poorer people, and in many cases, their wealth is possible because of some of the things taxes help to pay for. Let's take private healthcare and social security as examples in the United States. How many people would work an hourly wage job with no medical insurance and no retirement plan if we fully de-socialized healthcare and turned social security into a voluntary only private investment system? I think U.S. employers actually get away with paying a lot less than perhaps they should be in many cases precisely because they can tell employees "that's not my problem, go to the ER if you can't afford healthcare." In fact, Wal Mart got in trouble for doing exactly this, and encouraging its workers to apply for welfare to supplement their income.

Careful now - attempting to state rich get more benefit from public structures is a poor arguement. Property taxes in cities and counties is what pays for the benefits that your are primarily talking about and from looking at tax structures - property owners pay much more in taxes then none property owners, corporations with commerical property structured without political benefits often pay a greater share then many would image.

Yes. The reason I put in the little "reminder" about quite how much is NOT covered in the U.S., is because I know that in a lot of Europe people do not routinely go bankrupt over things like poor health or a bout with cancer, and lose their house over it. It's very common in the U.S. It is in fact the #1 cause of financial wipeout for an American family. So yes it is a problem as you say, and the system for as much as many wealthy Americans would like to make it out like everything is just milk and honey for the poor what with all the "entitlement programs" and "high taxes", it's hardly the case in practice with all the tax loopholes and the horrendous state of may of our social services, combined with such a low minimum wage and the decreasing availability of job benefits like health insurance. Our "entitlement programs" and "taxes" are certainly nothing like Europe.

Last I heard it was the loss of income associated with the loss of health. So saying its from just poor health seems a bit misleading to me.

[Koga No Goshi]

However what grates me more is the fact that property taxes - which is the primary base of income for cities and even some states is adjust to help corporations more then private property owners. All done in the name of intincing business into the area. Or the fact that sports groups get bonds and benefits out of the public coffers to keep them in the town. Last I hear the NFL is full of corporate or private owners.

So go into more detail, but then the scale of payments by the rich far exceeds the payments of others, so to claim that they should pay more seems a little weak on the surface when one only talks in generalities.

Well it comes down to no matter what you do aren't you just pushing the beans around on the table? Companies ALREADY complain about business tax being too high. So, you cut property tax and replace it with business taxes, and businesses say they will take their marbles and go home, or open in other countries. You leave business taxes the same and cut property taxes, and schools close left and right. The fact is that we need taxes, no one likes to be the one paying them, and everyone thinks their end of the tax burden isn't fair. Whenever I see anything right of center talking abou tax reform, it always ultimately comes down to vastly decreasing taxes and not replacing them with anything else, or replacing them with things that will hit only lower classes and won't generate as much revenue anyway. And while the idea of "cut spending!" is very populist and appealing, there is simply no way to make any of the tax systems I've seen proposed by wealthy people and the ideological right work, without cutting things that people don't think of as wasteful spending, such as education and social security and police and fire. There are things we can cut yes but, as with McCain's tax policies, what we can cut without really sabotaging ourselves never adds up to as much as rich people want to cut in taxes.

I didn't say the rich should pay more than they do now, but I do think thare are a gazillion loopholes and ways to minimize tax liability that are not options for lower income people. I think that if we closed a lot of these loopholes we would suddenly find ourselves dealing with a surplus again. Because I do not think it is a wily minority of the very wealthy finding tax loopholes. I think it's the stubborn or unwise minority of wealthy who are not using them. And I do think that everthing from white collar crime penalties vs. blue collar crime penalties, to conviction rates, to lobbying power in government, to influence in local government (such as the Malibu homeowners getting together and shoving through a law so that the state of California has to cover their homes with taxmoney when they burn down every so often, since insurance companies aren't stupid enough to cover them affordably) to reaping the "end reward fruit" of what tax dollars pay for, all benefit the wealthy. (For example, no personal liability on the wealthy when the corporations they own default on pension plans, yet those same wealthy people still don't believe the cap on social security tax should be raised. They don't want to take any financial responsibility either way, they seem to think these sorts of problems should just fall to individuals even if they helped create said problems for people who otherwise thought they were doing the responsible thing and sought a job with a pension plan, etc.)

Careful now - attempting to state rich get more benefit from public structures is a poor arguement. Property taxes in cities and counties is what pays for the benefits that your are primarily talking about and from looking at tax structures - property owners pay much more in taxes then none property owners, corporations with commerical property structured without political benefits often pay a greater share then many would image.

In states where property tax is high often the tradeoff is that sales tax is lower. California is kind of an exception; both rates are somewhat high. But Oregon as an example, has very low sales tax and higher property tax. And businesses presumably benefit because they can sell things cheaper and more of the market can buy more things. Switch that around, high sales tax and low property tax, then more people can afford to buy houses, but rich people also can afford to tie up their money in property investments and such, but it costs a little more to buy things in the store. It's a tradeoff, and I fail to see where the wealthy are hurt in either scenario honestly.

Last I heard it was the loss of income associated with the loss of health. So saying its from just poor health seems a bit misleading to me.

Of course. But that's kind of a distinction without meaning or vice-versa, isn't it? The fact that most Americans cannot afford to take a month off work for chemo (and a lot of pepole might need more than a month depending on whatever their medical condition is) without defaulting on their mortgage is a reality. I don't see how it would be any more an individual's fault for getting sick.... I mean, I guess I am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that if someone gets seriously sick then they deserve to lose their house even more? I don't see how that serves society.

[Redleg]

Well it comes down to no matter what you do aren't you just pushing the beans around on the table? Companies ALREADY complain about business tax being too high. So, you cut property tax and replace it with business taxes, and businesses say they will take their marbles and go home, or open in other countries. You leave business taxes the same and cut property taxes, and schools close left and right. The fact is that we need taxes, no one likes to be the one paying them, and everyone thinks their end of the tax burden isn't fair. Whenever I see anything right of center talking abou tax reform, it always ultimately comes down to vastly decreasing taxes and not replacing them with anything else, or replacing them with things that will hit only lower classes and won't generate as much revenue anyway. And while the idea of "cut spending!" is very populist and appealing, there is simply no way to make any of the tax systems I've seen proposed by wealthy people and the ideological right work, without cutting things that people don't think of as wasteful spending, such as education and social security and police and fire. There are things we can cut yes but, as with McCain's tax policies, what we can cut without really sabotaging ourselves never adds up to as much as rich people want to cut in taxes.

Interesting - so do you support the Farm Bill - which pays a bit of money out, I will leave out the big ticket items such as defense and social security ( a farse now that the government has been robbing the kitty). There are many governmental programs that can be reduced or better yet let the redunant state agency handle it. Take out the huge bueraracy and one might find the ability to actually balance the budget, Now will taxes have to go up across the board, yes - since we just assumed as a nation an additional 700 billion in debt we can not afford. Which makes me wonder about both parties campaign on giving tax cuts, Obama also claims to want to give a tax cut which under the current economic condition is just as foolish as McCain's.

I didn't say the rich should pay more than they do now, but I do think thare are a gazillion loopholes and ways to minimize tax liability that are not options for lower income people. I think that if we closed a lot of these loopholes we would suddenly find ourselves dealing with a surplus again. Because I do not think it is a wily minority of the very wealthy finding tax loopholes. I think it's the stubborn or unwise minority of wealthy who are not using them. And I do think that everthing from white collar crime penalties vs. blue collar crime penalties, to conviction rates, to lobbying power in government, to influence in local government (such as the Malibu homeowners getting together and shoving through a law so that the state of California has to cover their homes with taxmoney when they burn down every so often, since insurance companies aren't stupid enough to cover them affordably) to reaping the "end reward fruit" of what tax dollars pay for, all benefit the wealthy. (For example, no personal liability on the wealthy when the corporations they own default on pension plans, yet those same wealthy people still don't believe the cap on social security tax should be raised. They don't want to take any financial responsibility either way, they seem to think these sorts of problems should just fall to individuals even if they helped create said problems for people who otherwise thought they were doing the responsible thing and sought a job with a pension plan, etc.)

Agreed close the loopholes - but I would go farther and restructure the tax code. A lot of money is wasted within the IRS which could be saved for the people by removing parts of that beueracy. Yes it would cost government jobs, and maybe the private sector will pick them up and then again maybe it wont.

In states where property tax is high often the tradeoff is that sales tax is lower. California is kind of an exception; both rates are somewhat high. But Oregon as an example, has very low sales tax and higher property tax. And businesses presumably benefit because they can sell things cheaper and more of the market can buy more things. Switch that around, high sales tax and low property tax, then more people can afford to buy houses, but rich people also can afford to tie up their money in property investments and such, but it costs a little more to buy things in the store. It's a tradeoff, and I fail to see where the wealthy are hurt in either scenario honestly.

One has to look into what the tax base and what it is used for. Now for instance how many counties have free medicial clinics available for the poor that is funded by a portion of property taxes. My point was not that they are hurt - but that they alreadly pay a significant portion of the public services for which everyone has benefit for. Futher the point is that one has to look at more then just straight income tax, because taxes come from many sources.

Of course. But that's kind of a distinction without meaning or vice-versa, isn't it? The fact that most Americans cannot afford to take a month off work for chemo (and a lot of pepole might need more than a month depending on whatever their medical condition is) hout defaulting on their mortgage is a reality. I don't see how it would be any more an individual's fault for getting sick.... I mean, I guess I am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that if someone gets seriously sick then they deserve to lose their house even more? I don't see how that serves society.

Not at all - one has to look at the cause in total. For instance some studies point out the raising number of bankrupticies in socialized medicine countries because of the loss of income associated with illness even though the state takes care of the medical issues.

Now what I am saying that the causes of bankruptcy can be intertwined with each other - put the overwelming cause is the loss of income regardless if its from losing your job or getting sick.

This is not placing blame on the person getting sick - only demonstrating that the cause is the loss of income.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Aside from assorted confiscations by choleric monarchs unimpressed with our political stances

I'm afraid I must insist you add '...and Revolutionary fervour on the continent'.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'm afraid I must insist you add '...and Revolutionary fervour on the continent'.

As redistributive policies go, that was the unkindest cut of all.