Export thread
Tax the rich more than regular people (said Obama)
#1
Chibibar
Chibibar
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44592106/from/RSS/
Then, why not a flat sale tax and get rid of all the confusing rules.
25% base + 5% for state. No more income tax, no more tax evasion, exemption. You buy something, you pay sale tax.
Then, why not a flat sale tax and get rid of all the confusing rules.
25% base + 5% for state. No more income tax, no more tax evasion, exemption. You buy something, you pay sale tax.
#2
GasBandit
Not that I don't think there's something to what you're saying... so long as it's a sales tax with a prebate so that it's not harming the poor.
But, really, let me repost what I put in the jobs bill thread:
GasBandit
Because that's not what he means. He means tax them at a higher rate. Which they are.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44592106/from/RSS/
Then, why not a flat sale tax and get rid of all the confusing rules.
25% base + 5% for state. No more income tax, no more tax evasion, exemption. You buy something, you pay sale tax.
Not that I don't think there's something to what you're saying... so long as it's a sales tax with a prebate so that it's not harming the poor.
But, really, let me repost what I put in the jobs bill thread:
I object to the whole "pay their fair share" rhetoric being tossed around. When the top 5% of earners are paying more than 50% of the tax revenue, how are they not paying "their fair share?"
As for jobs going overseas, you don't think that might have something to do with the reign of an administration extremely hostile to business causing gobs and gobs of that which wall street hates most: uncertainty? Much as I hate to say it, even straight tax breaks aren't going to be enough on their own to reinvigorate the job market, and government spending another lump of "more-of-the-same" stimulus money isn't going to do it unless we're going to have new stimulus into perpetuity, otherwise the jobs are only short term. What's needed is a complete rethinking of how we do things, and a drastic reduction of the intrusiveness of government. If it didn't occur to you that maybe things have gone too far when even a little girl can't run a lemonade stand without the proper permits and kickbacks, then I think we need to check Lenin's tomb to see if the body is still there.
The whole Buffett thing is complete bullshit as well. Mr "Raise my taxes" is trying to dodge a billion dollar tax bill. And comparing capital gains tax to income tax isn't exactly an apples-to-apples comparison. The fact of the matter is, if somebody thinks the government should be taxing them more, nothing's stopping them from writing a bigger check. But so far they aren't putting their money where their mouth is.
#3
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Because Flat Taxes are more detrimental to the poor than the rich, because a much larger portion of their income in needed to maintain living standards. You need to graduate it based on income or your essentially destroying the lower income bracket's economic mobility.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44592106/from/RSS/
Then, why not a flat sale tax and get rid of all the confusing rules.
25% base + 5% for state. No more income tax, no more tax evasion, exemption. You buy something, you pay sale tax.
#4
Chibibar
Chibibar
I forgot to add the prebate that Gas talk about earlier (in older posts)Because Flat Taxes are more detrimental to the poor than the rich, because a much larger portion of their income in needed to maintain living standards. You need to graduate it based on income or your essentially destroying the lower income bracket's economic mobility.
#5
Mathias
Mathias
Fair share still refers to the fact that someone making 34k and paying 25% of that income in taxes is much worse off in terms of quality of life than a person making 100k with the same rate. Rich people should pay more in taxes. Simple as that. Frankly, I'm just sick of the middle class holding up both the rich and the poor.
#6
Philosopher B.
Philosopher B.
Tax the rich?
Pfffffft!
We should de-gut those bitches and live inside, tauntaun-style. And you thought they smelled bad ... on the outside!
Pfffffft!
We should de-gut those bitches and live inside, tauntaun-style. And you thought they smelled bad ... on the outside!
#7
Eriol
Eriol
Why is everybody required to be at the same quality of life? If I bust my ass, I expect to actually live better than those that aren't. I don't want to see them in cardboard boxes, but that doesn't mean that they have a "right" to drive the same thing, and live in the same types of places. SAFE yes, the SAME, no.Fair share still refers to the fact that someone making 34k and paying 25% of that income in taxes is much worse off in terms of quality of life than a person making 100k with the same rate. Rich people should pay more in taxes. Simple as that. Frankly, I'm just sick of the middle class holding up both the rich and the poor.
#8
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
--Patrick
#9
GasBandit
But you know who it doesn't soak? People like Warren Buffett and Paris Hilton who don't have an actual income... the former makes all his money through capital gains (which is taxed at 15%) and the latter is a trust fund heiress. You know what WOULD soak these guys for taxes? A federal sales tax with a prebate.
GasBandit
First, the guy making 34k is paying 15%, and as was shown above, the middle class is not holding up anybody. The top 20% (making 260k or higher) is paying 70% of the total tax revenues collected. IE, we are already soaking the rich, and people are saying it's not their fair share.Fair share still refers to the fact that someone making 34k and paying 25% of that income in taxes is much worse off in terms of quality of life than a person making 100k with the same rate. Rich people should pay more in taxes. Simple as that. Frankly, I'm just sick of the middle class holding up both the rich and the poor.
But you know who it doesn't soak? People like Warren Buffett and Paris Hilton who don't have an actual income... the former makes all his money through capital gains (which is taxed at 15%) and the latter is a trust fund heiress. You know what WOULD soak these guys for taxes? A federal sales tax with a prebate.
#10
makare
makare
Not taxing the lower income families as much does not allow them to live like rich people it allows them to live period. No one is making them the same.
#11
Necronic
Necronic
Forget for a second the fact that fair is a matter of perspective and almost completely subjective. Fair is completely irrelevant in the question. All that matters is what increases government revenues in a sustainable way.
Let's assume for the moment that the rich (defined as the 250k+ a year) are rich because they are better at investing. So, let's say that the national average ROI is 20%, but for the rich it's 25% . I don't think this is a ridiculous claim, but if you disagree then the rest of this won't follow.
Now, consider 2 situations:
A) Both parties have a 10% income tax (leaving 10 and 15% ROI). The rich guy start with 10mil and in 10 years they have 40.5 mil, whereas the average american would only have 25.9 mil. At year 1 the rich guy is putting in 100k and the average guy is putting in 100k (200k revenue). At year 10 the rich guys is putting in 405k and the poor guy is putting in 259k (660k). Because they are more able to increase their own revenue they are also more able to increase the government tax revenue.
B) The rich guy has a 15% income tax and the avg joe has a 10% tax (giving both parties a 10% ROI). At year 1 the rich guy is putting in 150k and the average guy is putting in 100k, which is a higher initial revenue. But with the increased tax burden the rich guys ROI reduces to 10%, therefore at year 10 he also only has 25.9 mil, and is paying 389k, giving a total tax revenue of 648k.
From year 10 onwards scenario A increases it's tax revenue at a faster rate than situation B. In this idealized situation Scenario A is more profitable for the government.
This isn't an argument for a flat tax though, there are a lot of points in between A and B that allow a marginal tax that are actually more profitable than A, and (more importantly) this is an idealized scenario that doesn't represent the real world in any granularity beyond the 2 extremes given, which are used to formulate the theory:
If the rich are more capable of increasing wealth than the average american then excessive tax burdens on them will actually decrease government revenue in the long term.
So, there's the theory, but the devil is in the details.
If the rich are rich, not because they actually generate wealth at a faster rate than the average american, but because they use unethical practices (for example if they steal it, say like Enron), then the above theory completely falls apart. In fact unethical practices actually destroys value, therefore it is actually dangerous for them to get more wealth (they would reduce the government revenue in the long run).
The above example is the view a LOT of people have on the rich, that they got there by cheating. I think that for some this is most definitely the case. I have met people like this before and it makes my skin crawl to see someone earn money for destroying value. That said I think it is a gross generalization to argue that this is the state of the majority of the wealthy, or even a significant minority.
The question is complicated (hey its economics what do you want) and both the democrats and republicans choose to simplify it to the initial question of fairness, because hey, that's an argument that sells. That's easy. When you're arguing with your buddy from Green Bay about whether or not your 49ers will take them down this sunday you don't bust out your stats sheets and start doing rigorous analyses of the teams. No, you say that the 49ers will win because Green Bay sucks and because Brett Favre is a creeper.
Anyways, I guess I haven't actually said much in this wall of text so I'll actually add my view of how things should really go:
The theory above rides on ROI being a kind of acceleration/momentum thing (as Einstein said, compound interest is the strongest force in the universe). In times of recession like right now, even with no taxes, there is not enough momentum in the base economy to allow for high ROIs from even savvy investers. Therefore an increase in taxes doesn't significantly change the long term outlook as these periods are a wash for most people. However in the "good times" there is a lot of base momentum in the economy, and at that time the wealthy have the ability to maximise their ROI, which means that the government needs to severely back off of taxation.
Let's assume for the moment that the rich (defined as the 250k+ a year) are rich because they are better at investing. So, let's say that the national average ROI is 20%, but for the rich it's 25% . I don't think this is a ridiculous claim, but if you disagree then the rest of this won't follow.
Now, consider 2 situations:
A) Both parties have a 10% income tax (leaving 10 and 15% ROI). The rich guy start with 10mil and in 10 years they have 40.5 mil, whereas the average american would only have 25.9 mil. At year 1 the rich guy is putting in 100k and the average guy is putting in 100k (200k revenue). At year 10 the rich guys is putting in 405k and the poor guy is putting in 259k (660k). Because they are more able to increase their own revenue they are also more able to increase the government tax revenue.
B) The rich guy has a 15% income tax and the avg joe has a 10% tax (giving both parties a 10% ROI). At year 1 the rich guy is putting in 150k and the average guy is putting in 100k, which is a higher initial revenue. But with the increased tax burden the rich guys ROI reduces to 10%, therefore at year 10 he also only has 25.9 mil, and is paying 389k, giving a total tax revenue of 648k.
From year 10 onwards scenario A increases it's tax revenue at a faster rate than situation B. In this idealized situation Scenario A is more profitable for the government.
This isn't an argument for a flat tax though, there are a lot of points in between A and B that allow a marginal tax that are actually more profitable than A, and (more importantly) this is an idealized scenario that doesn't represent the real world in any granularity beyond the 2 extremes given, which are used to formulate the theory:
If the rich are more capable of increasing wealth than the average american then excessive tax burdens on them will actually decrease government revenue in the long term.
So, there's the theory, but the devil is in the details.
If the rich are rich, not because they actually generate wealth at a faster rate than the average american, but because they use unethical practices (for example if they steal it, say like Enron), then the above theory completely falls apart. In fact unethical practices actually destroys value, therefore it is actually dangerous for them to get more wealth (they would reduce the government revenue in the long run).
The above example is the view a LOT of people have on the rich, that they got there by cheating. I think that for some this is most definitely the case. I have met people like this before and it makes my skin crawl to see someone earn money for destroying value. That said I think it is a gross generalization to argue that this is the state of the majority of the wealthy, or even a significant minority.
The question is complicated (hey its economics what do you want) and both the democrats and republicans choose to simplify it to the initial question of fairness, because hey, that's an argument that sells. That's easy. When you're arguing with your buddy from Green Bay about whether or not your 49ers will take them down this sunday you don't bust out your stats sheets and start doing rigorous analyses of the teams. No, you say that the 49ers will win because Green Bay sucks and because Brett Favre is a creeper.
Anyways, I guess I haven't actually said much in this wall of text so I'll actually add my view of how things should really go:
The theory above rides on ROI being a kind of acceleration/momentum thing (as Einstein said, compound interest is the strongest force in the universe). In times of recession like right now, even with no taxes, there is not enough momentum in the base economy to allow for high ROIs from even savvy investers. Therefore an increase in taxes doesn't significantly change the long term outlook as these periods are a wash for most people. However in the "good times" there is a lot of base momentum in the economy, and at that time the wealthy have the ability to maximise their ROI, which means that the government needs to severely back off of taxation.
#12
PatrThom
PatrThom
I think the short of this is pretty much as follows:
-The government is currently in a position where it needs to acquire a lot of money to make ends meet.
-Rich people have more money (forget income, we're talking assets) per capita than poor people.
-Therefore, to acquire a target amount of operating capital, the government either needs to put the squeeze on millions of poor people, or they need to put the squeeze on a thousand or so really rich people. Option B seems the most efficient. Each individual in the top 10% on average earns somewhere around 400x the amount of the lowest 10% (3.2million v. just under 8k according to the first set of figures I dredged up).
-The poor people don't think this is fair.
I can see the argument. If I need to raise a couple thousand to make my house payment, I can scrounge for bottle deposits, couch change, coupons, leftovers in winter jacket pockets, pawn the watch and silverware, hold a garage sale, whatever. Or I could also put my car up for sale. The car has significantly more value, so I could easily cover the shortfall with it. But I'm not going to want to part with my car. The car is very useful. So instead I do the scrounging because I don't want to imagine what life would be like without (the assistance of) my car. Likewise, any legislator who enacts a "rape the rich" rule will probably lose the financial assistance of his wealthiest supporters, and as we can derive, every individual really rich supporter who pulls out will be like losing 400 poor supporters. A legislator can therefore afford to piss off a helluvalotta poor people without affecting his campaign as much.
The absolute quickest way to raise money would be to institute a tax on (non-qualified) net worth, but there's pretty much no way that's going to happen, no matter how efficient it might be*.
--Patrick
*It would certainly encourage people to stimulate the economy, that's for sure.
-The government is currently in a position where it needs to acquire a lot of money to make ends meet.
-Rich people have more money (forget income, we're talking assets) per capita than poor people.
-Therefore, to acquire a target amount of operating capital, the government either needs to put the squeeze on millions of poor people, or they need to put the squeeze on a thousand or so really rich people. Option B seems the most efficient. Each individual in the top 10% on average earns somewhere around 400x the amount of the lowest 10% (3.2million v. just under 8k according to the first set of figures I dredged up).
-The poor people don't think this is fair.
I can see the argument. If I need to raise a couple thousand to make my house payment, I can scrounge for bottle deposits, couch change, coupons, leftovers in winter jacket pockets, pawn the watch and silverware, hold a garage sale, whatever. Or I could also put my car up for sale. The car has significantly more value, so I could easily cover the shortfall with it. But I'm not going to want to part with my car. The car is very useful. So instead I do the scrounging because I don't want to imagine what life would be like without (the assistance of) my car. Likewise, any legislator who enacts a "rape the rich" rule will probably lose the financial assistance of his wealthiest supporters, and as we can derive, every individual really rich supporter who pulls out will be like losing 400 poor supporters. A legislator can therefore afford to piss off a helluvalotta poor people without affecting his campaign as much.
The absolute quickest way to raise money would be to institute a tax on (non-qualified) net worth, but there's pretty much no way that's going to happen, no matter how efficient it might be*.
--Patrick
*It would certainly encourage people to stimulate the economy, that's for sure.
#13
Krisken
Krisken
And that is weakness in our political system. Our politicians are too easily influenced by wealth, making their vote disproportionate to that of many poor.Likewise, any legislator who enacts a "rape the rich" rule will probably lose the financial assistance of his wealthiest supporters, and as we can derive, every individual really rich supporter who pulls out will be like losing 400 poor supporters. A legislator can therefore afford to piss off a helluvalotta poor people without affecting his campaign as much.
#14
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
This is especially damning considering the Citizens United ruling, which legally recognized money as a form of speech, as least as far as politics go.And that is weakness in our political system. Our politicians are too easily influenced by wealth, making their vote disproportionate to that of many poor.
#15
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
My favorite political quote of late: "I refuse to believe that corporations are people until Texas executes one."This is especially damning considering the Citizens United ruling, which legally recognized money as a form of speech, as least as far as politics go.
--Patrick
#16
Krisken
Krisken
Holy shit, that is awesome.My favorite political quote of late: "I refuse to believe that corporations are people until Texas executes one."
--Patrick
#17
GasBandit
GasBandit
Ha ha ha, that is a good quote!
#18
Krisken
Krisken
This is kind of where I stand on the issue at hand. She says it more succinctly and clearly than I ever could.
#19
GasBandit
GasBandit
I was saying "ok, that's understandable, if oversimplified" until she got to the "rich people" bashing. Spend less, ok. Less war, sure, easy to say today, but whatever. Bush prescription plan bad, alright, I'm on board... but then.... Telling rich people they only got rich because they used roads that rich people paid 70% of the bill for, and that somehow going to public school means the government can take credit for all their subsequent achievement? My little brother went to private school. Does that mean we should give a tax break to anybody who hires him?
That woman IS class warfare personified. Oversimplified fallacies that all just boil down to "YOU DON'T DESERVE YOUR MONEY GIVE IT TO US!"
That woman IS class warfare personified. Oversimplified fallacies that all just boil down to "YOU DON'T DESERVE YOUR MONEY GIVE IT TO US!"
#20
Chibibar
Chibibar
I do agree with this woman to a certain extent. Our society is communal in terms of protection, laws, road, education (the standard stuff) but that is what taxes are for. If she felt that businesses need to pay more tax, that is a tax issue not who has money and who doesn't.
Edit: cause by her method of "giving a chunk" what if a business using the same services but not doing well, do they owe extra to the government?
Edit: cause by her method of "giving a chunk" what if a business using the same services but not doing well, do they owe extra to the government?
#21
Krisken
I'd also point out that their wealth accumulation affords them other benefits besides resources. Respect from their society, political influence, and a sort of respect/influence over authority (local police). All of this only helps to accumulate more wealth.
I still don't understand how that is rich-bashing.
Krisken
They owe a portion of their profits because they gained them on the backs of society. That's the whole point she's trying to make. Without society, the rich would not be able to have their comfortable lifestyles. It's not too much to ask companies and wealthy individuals who make billions of dollars in profits to give back to the communities, and it is silly to call it class warfare.I do agree with this woman to a certain extent. Our society is communal in terms of protection, laws, road, education (the standard stuff) but that is what taxes are for. If she felt that businesses need to pay more tax, that is a tax issue not who has money and who doesn't.
Edit: cause by her method of "giving a chunk" what if a business using the same services but not doing well, do they owe extra to the government?
I'd also point out that their wealth accumulation affords them other benefits besides resources. Respect from their society, political influence, and a sort of respect/influence over authority (local police). All of this only helps to accumulate more wealth.
I still don't understand how that is rich-bashing.
#22
GasBandit
GasBandit
It's the very exemplification of it - to say that the rich owe others money simply because they are rich. To act like they're not already paying three quarters of the bill when they are. It's fallacious, and it's economically ill-advised to tell those who are already picking up 70% of the tab that they have to pick up more OR ELSE, when they're the ones who have the discretion to pick up their ball (and jobs) and go elsewhere if they decide being here isn't in their best interest.
Also - the US government is not "society."
Also - the US government is not "society."
#23
Krisken
Krisken
Yeah, not like they go to war to help the rich get richer, acquire goods, protect U.S. companies overseas, facilitate trade agreements with other nations, etc.
Sorry man. They most certainly do owe their wealth to the nation. That this is a global society now is exactly the reason why jobs are leaving for cheaper shores. If anything, the rise in unemployment and cost of living here in the States is inevitable.
Sorry man. They most certainly do owe their wealth to the nation. That this is a global society now is exactly the reason why jobs are leaving for cheaper shores. If anything, the rise in unemployment and cost of living here in the States is inevitable.
#24
Chibibar
We (the general we not just Halforum) do like to get more bang for our bucks. It is CHEAPER to have a shirt made in China and ship to U.S. than making in the U.S. why? U.S. have safety standards in the factory and worker's condition. This is a good thing because our workers are protected from harm, but China doesn't have such protection. Having a system in place and inspection cost MONEY, this cost rolled into the cost of the item to offset it, but that makes a shirt cost a lot vs one made in China AND shipped (cheaper overall by a lot)
Business are created to make money. The bottom line is money, the 2nd line might be "moral"
Of course we (again the general we) protest against slave labor and harsh condition but still buy stuff from China.
The only reason company outsource to other countries cause the labor is CHEAPER. more bang for their bucks.
Chibibar
But that is not only business issue.Yeah, not like they go to war to help the rich get richer, acquire goods, protect U.S. companies overseas, facilitate trade agreements with other nations, etc.
Sorry man. They most certainly do owe their wealth to the nation. That this is a global society now is exactly the reason why jobs are leaving for cheaper shores. If anything, the rise in unemployment and cost of living here in the States is inevitable.
We (the general we not just Halforum) do like to get more bang for our bucks. It is CHEAPER to have a shirt made in China and ship to U.S. than making in the U.S. why? U.S. have safety standards in the factory and worker's condition. This is a good thing because our workers are protected from harm, but China doesn't have such protection. Having a system in place and inspection cost MONEY, this cost rolled into the cost of the item to offset it, but that makes a shirt cost a lot vs one made in China AND shipped (cheaper overall by a lot)
Business are created to make money. The bottom line is money, the 2nd line might be "moral"
Of course we (again the general we) protest against slave labor and harsh condition but still buy stuff from China.
The only reason company outsource to other countries cause the labor is CHEAPER. more bang for their bucks.
#25
GasBandit
GasBandit
So long as we adhere to self-destructive marxist doctrine and class warfare, yes, I'd say it is inevitable.Yeah, not like they go to war to help the rich get richer, acquire goods, protect U.S. companies overseas, facilitate trade agreements with other nations, etc.
Sorry man. They most certainly do owe their wealth to the nation. That this is a global society now is exactly the reason why jobs are leaving for cheaper shores. If anything, the rise in unemployment and cost of living here in the States is inevitable.
#26
Krisken
It has nothing to do with doctrines and class warfare (no matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true). I'm not saying we can't stymie the the bleeding a bit, but every empire falls. History doesn't lie.
Krisken
You're pining for a time that doesn't exist anymore, and probably won't exist again. Resources are not infinite, and someone is going to be wealthy at the expense of others. The level of resources the U.S. had was a boom, to be sure. That level could not perpetuate itself, though. Eventually other countries and people would want to have those things as well.So long as we adhere to self-destructive marxist doctrine and class warfare, yes, I'd say it is inevitable.
It has nothing to do with doctrines and class warfare (no matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true). I'm not saying we can't stymie the the bleeding a bit, but every empire falls. History doesn't lie.
#27
Chibibar
Chibibar
I don't have an answer but I do see the issue here.
Pure capitalism doesn't really work in real life (eventually lead to monopoly when larger company squashes smaller competition) So government regulation require to be fair for everyone.
But human safety/standard is also important. It seems that both are not symbiotic. safety/standards = higher cost. Safer factory, safety for people, insurance, etc etc etc (you get the idea) make cost of product higher here.
So, at this rate in the U.S. we can't really make any products to compete against China (not cost effective)
Pure capitalism doesn't really work in real life (eventually lead to monopoly when larger company squashes smaller competition) So government regulation require to be fair for everyone.
But human safety/standard is also important. It seems that both are not symbiotic. safety/standards = higher cost. Safer factory, safety for people, insurance, etc etc etc (you get the idea) make cost of product higher here.
So, at this rate in the U.S. we can't really make any products to compete against China (not cost effective)
#28
GasBandit
GasBandit
You seem to be advocating contradictory statements here - yes, I agree that resources are not infinite and someone will always be getting wealthy while others don't. But this is an illustration of the futility of progressivism, not a justification for it.You're pining for a time that doesn't exist anymore, and probably won't exist again. Resources are not infinite, and someone is going to be wealthy at the expense of others. The level of resources the U.S. had was a boom, to be sure. That level could not perpetuate itself, though. Eventually other countries and people would want to have those things as well.
It has nothing to do with doctrines and class warfare (no matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true). I'm not saying we can't stymie the the bleeding a bit, but every empire falls. History doesn't lie.
#29
Krisken
Krisken
And that would be why we disagreeYou seem to be advocating contradictory statements here - yes, I agree that resources are not infinite and someone will always be getting wealthy while others don't. But this is an illustration of the futility of progressivism, not a justification for it.
#30
Covar
Covar
Resources are not infinite, but wealth is definitely not a zero-sum game.
#31
Norris
And Gas, while the top 20% may pay the lion share of taxes, the top 1% holds 42% of the country's wealth. So I will start pitying those guys...never. There will never be a situation where I won't feel like saying "well, that sucks terribly but you're billions should help". Unless like one their kids get murdered or something. Then pity.
Norris
Marxist policies like safety standards, child labor laws, and a minimum wage. If we just lowered our standards to those of the developing world we could get a lot of jobs back.So long as we adhere to self-destructive marxist doctrine and class warfare, yes, I'd say it is inevitable.
And Gas, while the top 20% may pay the lion share of taxes, the top 1% holds 42% of the country's wealth. So I will start pitying those guys...never. There will never be a situation where I won't feel like saying "well, that sucks terribly but you're billions should help". Unless like one their kids get murdered or something. Then pity.
#32
Adammon
Adammon
I know prominent economists may disagree with me on this point, but I'd argue that PROSPERITY is not zero-sum, but WEALTH in the form of liquid currency is.Resources are not infinite, but wealth is definitely not a zero-sum game.
#33
GasBandit
This isn't about safety standards or child labor laws, it's about using the government's monopoly on the sanctioned use of deadly force to take what has been legally obtained by person A and redistribute it to person B. We have decided, as a people, that a certain extent of that is acceptable. But now we are pretending that person A "isn't paying his fair share" when he's paying almost all of it already, and pretending the problem is he isn't paying enough while we absolutely refuse to do anything about spending. We're taking in more tax revenue now than it would have taken to balance the budget in 2008. We haven't even HAD a budget in 800 days. The rich are just a convenient scapegoat for those in political power to deflect their responsibility, and of course because poor people vastly, vastly outnumber rich people, it's a popular and low risk method.
GasBandit
Like it or not, there is nothing you can do to enforce an equality of end results with these people, and attempting to do so will only perpetuate misery, which is NOT a limited resource.Marxist policies like safety standards, child labor laws, and a minimum wage. If we just lowered our standards to those of the developing world we could get a lot of jobs back.
And Gas, while the top 20% may pay the lion share of taxes, the top 1% holds 42% of the country's wealth. So I will start pitying those guys...never. There will never be a situation where I won't feel like saying "well, that sucks terribly but you're billions should help". Unless like one their kids get murdered or something. Then pity.
This isn't about safety standards or child labor laws, it's about using the government's monopoly on the sanctioned use of deadly force to take what has been legally obtained by person A and redistribute it to person B. We have decided, as a people, that a certain extent of that is acceptable. But now we are pretending that person A "isn't paying his fair share" when he's paying almost all of it already, and pretending the problem is he isn't paying enough while we absolutely refuse to do anything about spending. We're taking in more tax revenue now than it would have taken to balance the budget in 2008. We haven't even HAD a budget in 800 days. The rich are just a convenient scapegoat for those in political power to deflect their responsibility, and of course because poor people vastly, vastly outnumber rich people, it's a popular and low risk method.
#34
Norris
If you right wingers want to cut spending, start with the bloated defense budget. Then move to the President and congress' salaries. Then redundant bureaucracy. Not food stamps, medicare, social security, public education the social safety net.
And don't try to pull "I'm not a right winger, I'm libertarian". So's Glenn Beck and the damn Tea Party.
And since the alternative is letting people starve to death, die of otherwise preventable diseases, have no chance of escaping a cycle of ignorance, I think I don't mind part of my meager pay checks being put into food stamps, health care (shit, we need a public option), and public schools.
(I know that it a lot more complicated than that, but I'm making a point that some of us want a livable society more than money)
The U.S. government actually PAID General Electric money this year. Our government doesn't giving a flying fuck about you unless you can donate to their campaign. We both know what Obama said was lip service that he doesn't even begin to have the ability to carry out. "Class warfare" started a looooong time ago and it is not the middle/lower class that started it, that is wining it, or will win it.
Norris
I don't think anyone but the most extreme of radical leftists are trying to do that. Most folks are just trying for social programs that prevent poor people from dying and giving them the opportunity to improve their situation. Which doesn't seem to evil.Like it or not, there is nothing you can do to enforce an equality of end results with these people, and attempting to do so will only perpetuate misery, which is NOT a limited resource.
If you right wingers want to cut spending, start with the bloated defense budget. Then move to the President and congress' salaries. Then redundant bureaucracy. Not food stamps, medicare, social security, public education the social safety net.
And don't try to pull "I'm not a right winger, I'm libertarian". So's Glenn Beck and the damn Tea Party.
Taxes aren't really a "give or die" proposition. Pay or go to prison? Yes. But deadly force? Nuh-uh.This isn't about safety standards or child labor laws, it's about using the government's monopoly on the sanctioned use of deadly force to take what has been legally obtained by person A and redistribute it to person B.
And since the alternative is letting people starve to death, die of otherwise preventable diseases, have no chance of escaping a cycle of ignorance, I think I don't mind part of my meager pay checks being put into food stamps, health care (shit, we need a public option), and public schools.
(I know that it a lot more complicated than that, but I'm making a point that some of us want a livable society more than money)
For one wing. For one wing the rich are the convenient scapegoat. For the right wing, the poor are that scapegoat. They're your scapegoat. You want regressive taxes, like a national sales tax. You want no Post Office. No public schools. No social security. No social program of any kind. They're all "marxist".We get it. Fuck the poor.The rich are just a convenient scapegoat for those in political power to deflect their responsibility, and of course because poor people vastly, vastly outnumber rich people, it's a popular and low risk method.
The U.S. government actually PAID General Electric money this year. Our government doesn't giving a flying fuck about you unless you can donate to their campaign. We both know what Obama said was lip service that he doesn't even begin to have the ability to carry out. "Class warfare" started a looooong time ago and it is not the middle/lower class that started it, that is wining it, or will win it.
#35
PatrThom
Agreed that it's economically ill-advised, but Uncle Sam stood by the last 25 years or so and did very little while that (favored) demographic piled up more wealth, power, and influence, so it's the Government's own fault for assuming its affections would be returned. The wealthiest played the Government's infatuation and generosity and now the wealthy are basically threatening to dump the Government if it doesn't play along. There's technically nothing saying that Congress can't pass a law making it illegal to earn more than $5 million/year and mandating that anyone who does has to forfeit the excess to thecrown government. It would just be (exceedingly) politically unpopular to do so. Make no mistake...if the government needs money badly enough, they have virtually unlimited methods of doing so. The hard part is going to be doing so without pissing off (too many of) your constituents. They try make you want to give it to them rather than taking it from you.
--Patrick
PatrThom
Well, they do take home almost 60% of all the (reported/unsheltered) income. And I don't know exactly which first-world country they are going to flee to that's going to be as friendly to their accustomed lifestyle as we've been (Venezuela or Saudi Arabia, maybe?)....it's economically ill-advised to tell those who are already picking up 70% of the tab that they have to pick up more OR ELSE
Agreed that it's economically ill-advised, but Uncle Sam stood by the last 25 years or so and did very little while that (favored) demographic piled up more wealth, power, and influence, so it's the Government's own fault for assuming its affections would be returned. The wealthiest played the Government's infatuation and generosity and now the wealthy are basically threatening to dump the Government if it doesn't play along. There's technically nothing saying that Congress can't pass a law making it illegal to earn more than $5 million/year and mandating that anyone who does has to forfeit the excess to the
--Patrick
#36
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
They'd risk becoming targets in those regions. To terrorist factions in Saudi Arabia and to the eventual next "people's revolution" in Venezuela. People talk about it happening here, but it's almost guaranteed to happen in Venezuela.Well, they do take home almost 60% of all the (reported/unsheltered) income. And I don't know exactly which first-world country they are going to flee to that's going to be as friendly to their accustomed lifestyle as we've been (Venezuela or Saudi Arabia, maybe?).
#37
Krisken
Krisken
They'd certainly have to spend more on security.
#38
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
They'd have to spend a FORTUNE on it because you can't hire domestic security... they are simply too easy to bribe in that region. So you'd have to pay for your goons, their equipment, their living arrangements, their healthcare... having a private army is fucking expensive.They'd certainly have to spend more on security.
#39
GasBandit
GasBandit
Something else from Forbes on the effect of changing tax rates -
I claimed that republicans aren't.
Also, I never claimed to not be "right wing"In 1997, Congress was considering a cut in the capital gains rate from 28% back down to 20%. The Joint Tax Committee (JTC) estimated that as a result revenues would increase by $7.8 billion from 1997 to 1999, but the tax cut would produce a loss of $28.8 billion over the following 7 years, for a net loss of $21 billion over the 10 year period.
The actual numbers after the tax cut was passed showed an increase of $84 billion over the pre-tax cut projections for 1997 to 2000. Despite an almost 30% cut in the rate, capital gains revenues rose from $62 billion in 1996 to $109 billion in 1999.
Similarly, when Congress considered cutting the capital gains rate again in 2003, from 20% to 15%, the JTC estimated that this would cause a loss of revenue of $5.4 billion from 2003 to 2006. But after Congress passed the tax cut, capital gains revenues increased by $133 billion during those years, as compared to the pre-tax cut projections. As Dan Clifton of the American Shareholders Association said, “There is no excuse for this $138 billion error.” Capital gains tax revenue doubled from 2003 to 2005 despite a 25% cut in the tax rate.
I claimed that republicans aren't.
#40
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
Already responded here as to why I just don't get how people could possibly think of this as "stimulus."Something else from Forbes on the effect of changing tax rates
--Patrick