Three card monte or tax plan?
- Thread starter Damn True
- Start date
Punish sucess and reward mediocrity. Yeah, good idea Mr. Marx.
The idea here (unlike in some other countries) is to create opportunity for sucess and reward those who work hardest to achieve it.
The idea here (unlike in some other countries) is to create opportunity for sucess and reward those who work hardest to achieve it.
Because in a capitalist nation the idea of SHARING is taboo. Which is really sad. The idea of "why should I have to help someone else!? I earned the money, therefore I don't have to share it." is very sad. Well, of course you don't have to share, but you should. Why? Because you can.Damn True said:
Maybe we should start taxing big business more, instead of just the individuals? Maybe not, I don't know anything about finance or business... But I do know this: when you see a person who is hungry, you feed them. Period. Anything less is inhumane.
What we are talking about here is redistribution of wealth. Essentially taking from people who have earned and giving it to those who have not. Again, punishing sucess and rewarding medicority.
The whole thing smacks of the liberal bent for creating a society dependant upon the government for support. Nothing but the work of lazy, jealous whiners with an overdeveloped sense of entitlement.
The "rich" give a lot more than you'd think.
http://www.twfound.org/
http://barrybonds.mlb.com/players/bonds_barry/about/foundation.html
http://www.ellisonfoundation.org/index.jsp
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm
http://www.carveracademy.com/public/carver.nsf/generalcontent/SWBV-62WRT6?opendocument
The whole thing smacks of the liberal bent for creating a society dependant upon the government for support. Nothing but the work of lazy, jealous whiners with an overdeveloped sense of entitlement.
The "rich" give a lot more than you'd think.
http://www.twfound.org/
http://barrybonds.mlb.com/players/bonds_barry/about/foundation.html
http://www.ellisonfoundation.org/index.jsp
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm
http://www.carveracademy.com/public/carver.nsf/generalcontent/SWBV-62WRT6?opendocument
the secret of the u.s.: you can't make money without having money to begin with. if you don't have money to spare for college application fees, a suit for that important interview, whatever, then you get the shaft and remain in the lower class. another thing going against your simplistic worldview is that once above a certain threshold of wealth, let's say several million, then one can live off the dividends. that's not doing work, let alone hard work, and people who live like that should indeed shoulder the brunt of the tax burden (as they do), and, by extension, social security.Damn True said:
Bull$hit. The secret to the U.S. is not to listen to people (like you) who would have you believe that there is some sort of barrier to sucess based on social class. That people who are poor will remain poor unless someone who isn't poor tosses them a handout.Toshi said:
People emigrate to this country all the time without a freakin dime to their name and manage to create lives for themselves and build wealth without a freakin handout.
I grew up in a single parent household, a latchkey kid from the 3rd grade and mom never made more than about $15k per year. Doomed to a life of poverty and entry level jobs right? Wrong. Joined the military (I know your ilk hates the idea of that) learned a number of life and professional skills and now make more money than anyone in my family ever has. Why? Because I worked my a$$ off. Graduated from HS, went to college when I could and did it myself without a freakin handout.
This country is full of stories about people who have done far more and come from far more meager means than I. Of course talking about that wouldn't support the socialistic bull$hit the posted article and some of you suggest.
Haha...you did it all without a handout, but you spent time in the most socialistic organization this country has to offer.
This country is full of stories about people who have done far more and come from far more meager means than I.
You lazy asshole.
This country is full of stories about people who have done far more and come from far more meager means than I.
You lazy asshole.
BwahahahaSilver said:
sentence fragment aside, what's your point? you made it from the poverty line to a middle class existence, a jump of maybe $60k annually at the price of much self-professed hard work. why then do you defend so vehemently fat cats who live off of trust funds orders of magnitude greater than your lifetime earning potential?Damn True said:
and Silver has a great point: the GI Bill and other join-the-military incentives are socialism at its finest.
You have no idea what you are talking about.Silver said:
I was in the CG for eleven years. It was a job, unlike any other. With the proceeds from that job I paid, in cash, for the education of my now ex-wife and for my own education.
What part of your VAST experience with the US military leads you to believe it is a socialist organization?
You work. You get paid. If you are good at your job and work hard you get promoted and therefore you get paid more. Seems exactly the same as my current situation in the private sector.
and you didn't use the GI bill or equivalent?
here's another question: do you think it's easier to move from growing up in a $100k household to making $200k yourself than to grow up in poverty and end up making $100k? as Brian HCM #1 says elsewhere $500k isn't a lot of money in some places (such as the cali housing market), and that kind of scratch doesn't come easily to most, even if they work as hard as they can.
here's another question: do you think it's easier to move from growing up in a $100k household to making $200k yourself than to grow up in poverty and end up making $100k? as Brian HCM #1 says elsewhere $500k isn't a lot of money in some places (such as the cali housing market), and that kind of scratch doesn't come easily to most, even if they work as hard as they can.
Because I have exactly the same opportunity to become among the group you call "fat cats" (tell me you aren't striving to get there too Mr. Harvard). If we as a society punish those who achieve we take away the incentive to do so. The result will be a society of self entitled boobs who think that someone else owes them a living rather than people who want to create it for themselves.Toshi said:
Jobs and Wozniak didn't have two dimes to rub together when they dreamed up Apple.
There were no "join the military" incentives for the Coast Guard in 1988. Never have been, they've never needed them. As for the GI Bill, yeah, I signed up for it.
But again....you don't freakin know what you are talking about. You can't use it while on active duty. I have yet to use it. I might someday but as yet, I have not needed to.
No. I paid for every class in cash directly from my paycheck. I have yet to touch the GI Bill. Have yet to graduate either...hasn't slowed me down a bit.Toshi said:
As for your second question, I dunno, you tell me? I'm guessing Mr. & Mrs. Toshi are doing pretty well if they put their sweet boy through Harvard. How's that workin out for ya?
I currently live in the same county I grew up in. When I was a kid (6yrs old in '76) homes in the area I live in went for about $50k. My folks bought the house we lived in for about $35k. Before the end of the year I will be living in one that will close at just shy of $1M.
Again, the simple fact is this:
If we as a society punish those who achieve we take away the incentive to do so. The result will be a society of self entitled boobs who think that someone else owes them a living rather than people who want to create it for themselves.
If we as a society punish those who achieve we take away the incentive to do so. The result will be a society of self entitled boobs who think that someone else owes them a living rather than people who want to create it for themselves.
Can you really only see in black and white? What's it like?
Look, your nothion of 'punishing' the rich for doing well is ludicrous. It's not like you're taking away all their wealth, forcing them to walk over hot coals or sending them to Abu-Ghirab. You're taking a small percentage of a hell of a lot of money to help the rest of the country. Following your extremist logic, there'd be no roads, no schools, no waste collection. Everyone would be forced to 'pay' for their own facilities. Although you're too blind to see it, helping the disadvantaged is helping the country. When these disadvanted people earn more money, they can spend more, and the fat cats and leaders of industry who gave a tiny percentage of their wage to help them out in the first place will reap the benefits once again. The cycle will perpetuate and everyone will get richer and have a better quality of life. "What go around come around." Try thinking more than 30 seconds ahead for a change.
Look, your nothion of 'punishing' the rich for doing well is ludicrous. It's not like you're taking away all their wealth, forcing them to walk over hot coals or sending them to Abu-Ghirab. You're taking a small percentage of a hell of a lot of money to help the rest of the country. Following your extremist logic, there'd be no roads, no schools, no waste collection. Everyone would be forced to 'pay' for their own facilities. Although you're too blind to see it, helping the disadvantaged is helping the country. When these disadvanted people earn more money, they can spend more, and the fat cats and leaders of industry who gave a tiny percentage of their wage to help them out in the first place will reap the benefits once again. The cycle will perpetuate and everyone will get richer and have a better quality of life. "What go around come around." Try thinking more than 30 seconds ahead for a change.
You folks have managed to steer this thing way off topic and this is only going to make it worse, but:
At what point did things change? 50-100 years ago we as a society regarded people like Ford, Hearst, Getty, etc as hero's. People who built empires created entire industries and shaped the world because of their hard work. In return they became wealthy and we honored that.
Now we vilify it. I think at some point laziness and greed took over. People saw the things that those people had and not only wanted them, but thought they DESERVED them. Regardless of what ability they had or how much or how little they worked to earn it.
It has become far too common for people to say "Well he has so much, he should just give it away." Bull$hit.
Chang, you refered to it as a "small percentage". We are talking about a tax rate in exess of 60-70 percent. Do a little math here. How would you like to give up 70% of YOUR paycheck every month? Would that be a small percentage to you? Hell no. You earned that money, you deserve to keep as much of it as possible (IMO I think everyone should pay taxes commensurate to what they earn, there should be a flat tax for everyone). Should Tiger Woods not be afforded the same opportunity to keep the majority of what he has earned just as I am?
At what point did things change? 50-100 years ago we as a society regarded people like Ford, Hearst, Getty, etc as hero's. People who built empires created entire industries and shaped the world because of their hard work. In return they became wealthy and we honored that.
Now we vilify it. I think at some point laziness and greed took over. People saw the things that those people had and not only wanted them, but thought they DESERVED them. Regardless of what ability they had or how much or how little they worked to earn it.
It has become far too common for people to say "Well he has so much, he should just give it away." Bull$hit.
Chang, you refered to it as a "small percentage". We are talking about a tax rate in exess of 60-70 percent. Do a little math here. How would you like to give up 70% of YOUR paycheck every month? Would that be a small percentage to you? Hell no. You earned that money, you deserve to keep as much of it as possible (IMO I think everyone should pay taxes commensurate to what they earn, there should be a flat tax for everyone). Should Tiger Woods not be afforded the same opportunity to keep the majority of what he has earned just as I am?
BTW, most of you clearly did not read the entire article. The connundrum presented by doing this is illustrated below, and is the reason why I used the term "three card monte" in the thread title.
Invitation to tax dodging?
Imposing the Social Security tax on the ultra-rich would push the nation's top federal tax rate from the current 37.9% to 50.3% and near 60% in California and other high-tax states. The top federal income tax rate is 35%. The Medicare tax is 2.9% on all income.
This would reverse the economic revolution of the Reagan era that lowered top tax rates to stimulate the economy by encouraging investment and work while reducing tax-dodging.
Some economists warn that high tax rates could devastate economic growth, even if they make Social Security richer. "High marginal rates drag the economy down and result in massive tax avoidance," says Florida State University economist James Gwartney, co-author of Common Sense Economics.
With so much money at stake, the tax would be dodged. "The rats would come out of the basement with all kinds of tax strategies to reclassify salary as another type of income," says Paul Caron, a tax law professor at the University of Cincinnati.
For example, a surgeon earning $1 million might direct his earnings to a corporation he owns. He'd pay himself a $200,000 salary and classify $800,000 as dividends.
But Social Security can be a tough tax to dodge because it is a pure flat tax, skimmed off the top before deductions. It applies to all income earned for services rendered, so its reach is extremely broad, covering endorsements and bonuses.
Caron says athletes would have a hard time avoiding the tax. "A sport that has a salary cap will have a hard time saying it's not paying salaries," he says.
Even if an athlete couldn't elude the Social Security tax, the high tax rate would create a greater incentive to dodge regular income taxes. While Social Security might collect more, "the federal government, as a whole, will collect less money if the top marginal rates return to 60% or 70%," as they were as recently as 1981, Gwartney says.
For example, a professional athlete might spend $1 million on a fancy gymnasium, a deductible business expense, to avoid paying $500,000 in federal and state taxes at a 50% rate.
"You're just inviting people to evade taxes," says Dean Baker, a Social Security expert of the liberal Center for Economic Policy Research. "It's counterproductive and you won't get as much money as you expect."
And the Social Security tax would hardly nick many of the richest people. Microsoft founder Bill Gates, worth $46.5 billion, earns less than $1 million a year in salary. His income comes from dividends and stock sales, which are not subject to Social Security taxes.
In fact, half the income generated in the top 2% of households the 2.5 million families that earned more than $200,000 in 2003 would escape the Social Security tax because the money comes from stock sales, dividends and other exempt sources.
'A political disaster'
Taxing all income could create another problem: huge monthly benefit checks for the richest people. That's because Social Security benefits are based on the taxes people pay into the system.
If Social Security taxed all income not just the first $90,000 New York Yankees superstar Alex Rodriguez would be entitled to $1.6 million in annual benefits starting at his full retirement age of 67, based on his career earnings, including his current 10-year, $252-million contract, according to a USA TODAY calculation. Woods would stand to get $5.9 million a year.
"It would be a political disaster" for Social Security to pay millions to millionaires, says David John, a Social Security expert for the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington.
It wouldn't be disastrous for Social Security, though. Based on Rodriguez's life expectancy, Social Security would collect $32.5 million in taxes from the ballplayer and pay the elderly A-Rod only $15 million.
John says denying the affluent benefits for added contributions would be a mistake. "That makes it a welfare program," he says. "It requires abandoning the idea that Social Security benefits are tied to the contributions," he says.
'Breach of faith'?
Liberals take an even harder line at denying benefits to the rich, saying the system should be considered a pension program. "It's a breach of faith to make the wealthy pay and get nothing in return," says Michael Ettlinger, director of economic analysis at the liberal Economic Policy Institute.
The idea that rich and poor are treated alike in retirement programs is so central that Kennedy tried to block the Medicare prescription drug benefit in 2003 because it charged the rich more than the poor. "Hold on to your hat," he declared. "Today, Medicare. Tomorrow, Social Security."
"It's the strangest thing," says Bruce Josten, chief lobbyist for the American Chamber of Commerce and a supporter of cutting benefits for the affluent. "I (mention) cutting benefits for the wealthy everywhere I go, and I can't find anyone willing to buy the argument not politicians or even well-off people themselves."
Invitation to tax dodging?
Imposing the Social Security tax on the ultra-rich would push the nation's top federal tax rate from the current 37.9% to 50.3% and near 60% in California and other high-tax states. The top federal income tax rate is 35%. The Medicare tax is 2.9% on all income.
This would reverse the economic revolution of the Reagan era that lowered top tax rates to stimulate the economy by encouraging investment and work while reducing tax-dodging.
Some economists warn that high tax rates could devastate economic growth, even if they make Social Security richer. "High marginal rates drag the economy down and result in massive tax avoidance," says Florida State University economist James Gwartney, co-author of Common Sense Economics.
With so much money at stake, the tax would be dodged. "The rats would come out of the basement with all kinds of tax strategies to reclassify salary as another type of income," says Paul Caron, a tax law professor at the University of Cincinnati.
For example, a surgeon earning $1 million might direct his earnings to a corporation he owns. He'd pay himself a $200,000 salary and classify $800,000 as dividends.
But Social Security can be a tough tax to dodge because it is a pure flat tax, skimmed off the top before deductions. It applies to all income earned for services rendered, so its reach is extremely broad, covering endorsements and bonuses.
Caron says athletes would have a hard time avoiding the tax. "A sport that has a salary cap will have a hard time saying it's not paying salaries," he says.
Even if an athlete couldn't elude the Social Security tax, the high tax rate would create a greater incentive to dodge regular income taxes. While Social Security might collect more, "the federal government, as a whole, will collect less money if the top marginal rates return to 60% or 70%," as they were as recently as 1981, Gwartney says.
For example, a professional athlete might spend $1 million on a fancy gymnasium, a deductible business expense, to avoid paying $500,000 in federal and state taxes at a 50% rate.
"You're just inviting people to evade taxes," says Dean Baker, a Social Security expert of the liberal Center for Economic Policy Research. "It's counterproductive and you won't get as much money as you expect."
And the Social Security tax would hardly nick many of the richest people. Microsoft founder Bill Gates, worth $46.5 billion, earns less than $1 million a year in salary. His income comes from dividends and stock sales, which are not subject to Social Security taxes.
In fact, half the income generated in the top 2% of households the 2.5 million families that earned more than $200,000 in 2003 would escape the Social Security tax because the money comes from stock sales, dividends and other exempt sources.
'A political disaster'
Taxing all income could create another problem: huge monthly benefit checks for the richest people. That's because Social Security benefits are based on the taxes people pay into the system.
If Social Security taxed all income not just the first $90,000 New York Yankees superstar Alex Rodriguez would be entitled to $1.6 million in annual benefits starting at his full retirement age of 67, based on his career earnings, including his current 10-year, $252-million contract, according to a USA TODAY calculation. Woods would stand to get $5.9 million a year.
"It would be a political disaster" for Social Security to pay millions to millionaires, says David John, a Social Security expert for the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington.
It wouldn't be disastrous for Social Security, though. Based on Rodriguez's life expectancy, Social Security would collect $32.5 million in taxes from the ballplayer and pay the elderly A-Rod only $15 million.
John says denying the affluent benefits for added contributions would be a mistake. "That makes it a welfare program," he says. "It requires abandoning the idea that Social Security benefits are tied to the contributions," he says.
'Breach of faith'?
Liberals take an even harder line at denying benefits to the rich, saying the system should be considered a pension program. "It's a breach of faith to make the wealthy pay and get nothing in return," says Michael Ettlinger, director of economic analysis at the liberal Economic Policy Institute.
The idea that rich and poor are treated alike in retirement programs is so central that Kennedy tried to block the Medicare prescription drug benefit in 2003 because it charged the rich more than the poor. "Hold on to your hat," he declared. "Today, Medicare. Tomorrow, Social Security."
"It's the strangest thing," says Bruce Josten, chief lobbyist for the American Chamber of Commerce and a supporter of cutting benefits for the affluent. "I (mention) cutting benefits for the wealthy everywhere I go, and I can't find anyone willing to buy the argument not politicians or even well-off people themselves."
We're already there.Damn True said:
I noticed that no one responded to my post. I am curious as to what you all think about what I tried to say. I'm not the most eloquent and thus have difficulty expressing myself as well as I would like. But I am wondering, what do you all think of the notion that one should share and help those who need it not because they have to but because they can.
DT, I believe that you are right, to a point. My own grandfather came to this country with pretty much nothing. He worked very hard and eventually came to own his own business and made a fair amount of money. He made the most of what he had and succeded as best he could.(He was not RICH, though. I feel that you are rich when your money works for you, not when you work for your money). However, there are absolutely many people who will not have that chance because of the situation they were born into. A young mexican boy living in East Los Angeles has many more obstacles to overcome than the upper middle class kid that I was. In addition to not being able to afford college, that kid may have to work to support his family (mother, et al. Not his wife and kids), may be beaten up daily untill he joins a gang, etc. Not to mention the sheer frustration that poverty brings. Yes, the opportunities are there for everybody. But I think that the obstacles that one must overcome to take advantage of said opportunities are increased for the many lower income, and therefore lower class people.
Take away 70% of Tiger Woods money, and guess what, he's still ****ing rich!Damn True said:
You should have a sensible sliding scale of tax that allows you to keep a reasonable amount of your wage. If I earn several million dollars a year, than asking me to give away 50%+ to help the country is fine. Oh no, I can't quite afford that 3rd Ferrari.
And as you said yourself, Rich people do give away a lot of their money. Maybe that's because they realise a) They've got way too much to reasonably spend with any purpose or meaning and b) helping other people helps them in the long run.
I mean, it's fine to be rich, to drive a nice car, live in a nice house, go on a bunch of holidays, put your kids through college, have investments, have the latest TV/bike whatever - the people we're talking about can afford that several times over. Seriously, what is BIll Gates usefully going to do with his money other than give it to good causes?
Who the hell are you or I to decide how much of somone else's earned income they actually should get to keep? It's theirs, they earned it. I didn't. You didn't.Changleen said:
The sliding scale is patently unfair and simply satisfies your greed and jealousy. IMO a flat tax of all personal and corporate revenue would do a much better job and would not take away the incentive for achievement.
Try this on for size. You don't really need anything more than a $500 per month studio apartment and about $300 for groceries and utilities. So how about we take away everything else?
Something like the Carver Institute funded by ex-NBA star David Robinson does a hell of a lot more for society than dropping the same amount of cash into the federal coffers to be wasted on another wasteful government program. If people like him are taxed to the hilt they won't be able or willing to fund things like this.
IMO far more good has been done by private contribution than will ever be done by another in the long list of entitlements.
Since we are on the subject of G.W. Carver & private funding, the majority of the funding for his studies at the Tuskeegee institute (an all black southern University) were funded by Henry Ford. Those studies created the soy industry as we know it today among many other things.
Whose roads did they use to get to work? Anyway, the real answer to that is: It's society's. As a democratic country you should decide how much you think is a reasonable amount, based on logical factors such as the cost of living, the cost of running the country and so on. Some people will think more, some will think less. Economists would probably be the most sensible. You seems to think that the rich should just wallow in useless cash, and that everyone should drag themselves out of poverty on their own merit. Very darwinian, but not everyone is a business mastermind, or has skills that mark them out above the average for that matter. By definition, 50% of people are 'below average'. Should their lot in life be to live in a ****hole with no chance of progression? In civilised societies with the highest average standard of living, people give a lot back to society. Maybe you should learn something from that, and not be so selfish.Damn True said:
How is the sliding scale unfair? It would only be unfair if the richer you got, the more things cost. That's not the case. Things cost the same for everyone. Secondly, if higher taxes remove the incentive for achievement, how come people in Europe and Japan achieve anything? That's just not true.
I know you like to reduce everything to a extreme, black and white version of what's being discussed, but it's really stupid and pointless in reality. You need to deal with the actual situation.
It's absolutely unfair to tax people at different rates. I currently get taxed at a rate of 28% from the federal govt. Someone who makes over $300k gets pinched for 35%. Both people go to work every day, do what they do, get paid what they get paid. Why should bear a heavier burden than the other?Changleen said:
And that is not counting state income taxes, taxes at the gas pump, state and local sales tax, property taxes etc etc.
Consider the fact that many who are in the upper tax brackets never use many of the services that the taxes fund (public education, community health care etc) its an even bigger rippoff and greater penalization.
Again, the only fair tax is a flat sales tax on all goods or a flat revenue tax.
In the case of the sales tax, individuals and corporations would be taxes on anything they buy at the same rate. It would be absolutely fair. Wanna buy a 25,000 car? You pay 10% tax = $2,500. Wanna buy an $80,000 car? You pay 10% tax = $8,000. If GM buys $1m worth of steel they pay 10% tax = $100,000. All parties are taxed comensurate to their spending. If they should choose to spend more, they keep less.
In the case of a revenue tax, its just as fair. Earn a total household revenue of $25,000 a year, you pay 10% = $2,500. Earn a total household revenue of $2,500,000 a year, you pay 10% = $250,000. Both parties are left with 90% of their income which they earned.
Roads are paid for by federal highway funding largely supported by vehicle and fuel taxes. Everyone who buys a car or buys gas pays these taxes. Lame reply.Changleen said:
Again with the "reasonable amount" thing. It's not yours or my place to decide what is a "reasonable" standard of living for anyone else.
If Lebron James decideds take his $90M for four year contract and drive a used Honda and live in a $1500 per month apartment and save the rest he ought to be as free to do so as he is to spend the entire mess on a palatial estate and a different McLaren for every day of the week and be dead broke at the end of that four years. It's his freakin money he earned it. He ought not be penalized for having more of it than me. I can't dunk, he can.
As to your "Darwin" argument. Giving people money is proven to do nothing in terms of raising the standard of living from generation to generation. People who become conditioned to entitlement will remain so, as will their children.
Give a man a fish he eats for a day. Teach him to fish he eats for a lifetime.
That which is earned is valued.
i think the answer is yes, and i think the reasons for it being harder to go from 10-100 are examples of the barriers whose existence you doubt.Damn True said:
fyi: for u.s. students all Ivy League schools are need blind on admission, and will provide in scholarships and loans the difference between actual costs and expected family contribution as per the fafsa. if your parents don't cough up the expected family contribution then you will be stuck with a huge tab, sure, but the Ivies (Ivys since proper noun? hm) do a lot to keep the class from being all rich kids from prep schools. btw i did grew up in a poor household even tho my parents are doing well now -- living in manhattan with 1 parent in (a second) grad school after being a post-doc, another fresh out of grad school will do that.
yet even with my cheap-clothes-yet-not-quite-rags to harvard-and-beyond story i am not so foolish as to portray myself as some hank rearden character from ayn rand. i couldn't have followed such a smooth path through the academic system had my parents been absent, destitute, or drug abusers, for instance, and i certainly didn't come by my education on my own (see below).
just as scientific achievements are built on the shoulders of the investigators who came before you, economic success comes largely from society: without the stable social framework, network of established companies and markets, previous failed ventures, and schooling system we would not have many if not most of your hallowed entrepreneurs.
also:
it's not punishment since income up to the lower tax bracket limit is taxed at that lower level. it's not like you'll ever lose money by making $1 more, putting you in a higher retroactive tax bracket.
and a flat tax would not be fair since living costs are fixed (or at least have a fixed lower bound), and, as i noted initially, money begets money. poor people don't have the luxury of investing money and reaping the dividends or returns.
it's not punishment since income up to the lower tax bracket limit is taxed at that lower level. it's not like you'll ever lose money by making $1 more, putting you in a higher retroactive tax bracket.
and a flat tax would not be fair since living costs are fixed (or at least have a fixed lower bound), and, as i noted initially, money begets money. poor people don't have the luxury of investing money and reaping the dividends or returns.
Go from making $70,350 to $70,400 and your tax burden increases by 3%. Go from $70k to $90k and you really get pinched.See graphic at the bottom of this pageToshi said:
Living costs are not at all fixed.
When your folks were stuggling you probably ate a crap-load of Mac-n-cheese and hamburger helper. I know I did when I was a kid. Now I buy the groceries I want and dinner at Ruth's Chris once a month because I can.
When your folks were struggling you lived where you could afford. We did. Now I live where I want because I can.
Even utility costs are not fixed. Someone pulling down $25k a year is not paying to heat a pool and hot tub, paying for satellite TV, and running a 50cft Viking fridge.
Once you are out of school and start pulling a check I want you to do something for me. Take a look at the stub. Consider the work you did busting your a$$ to get into Harvard, busting your a$$ to graduate (which is no mean feat, I commend you for that) busting your a$$ to get into the field you wish to be in and ask yourself how much of the money that you busted your a$$ for are you willing to give away. I'm pretty sure you won't be calling up the Treasury Department to make a donation becuase you think they aren't already taking enough.
That wouldn't help. There are a million and a half ways for a business to avoid tax, and the ones they can't avoid simply get passed on in many cases.Ciaran said:
Feeding hungry people is bad to the Social Darwinists. That only makes the poor lazier than they already are. Interestingly enough, once you toss out the Objectivists, the largest group of Social Darwinists I can think of don't believe that regular Darwinian theory is valid, which is also sort of interesting.
Personally, I can't think of a society that doesn't have some sort of income redistribution that functions well. I do know that most of the places I think of as non functioning societies have some pretty huge disparities in wealth. Also, assuming that rich and poor people reap the same benefits from society seems to be a very fragile starting point.
you have to agree that living costs have a fixed lower bound. and given that they will be an increasing percentage (approproaching and indeed passing 100% of income for those who literally can't make ends meet) of total income as you descend down the income ladder. therefore a flat tax penalizes poor people, and makes it even harder to pull a rags to riches success story. (assuming success == money, etc.)Damn True said:
and note the "Of the amount over" column in that linked page. go from 70,350 to 70,400 and the amount over 70,350 will be taxed at 28%, while the 70,350 itself will still be at its prior tax rate (less than 25% due to the nested "of the amount over"s).
My math gives me a total tax burden (I'm assuming that is just fed income) of 20% at 70K and 22% at 90K.Damn True said:
That's a large pinch?
You do know what currently happens after around 90K, right?
Go from making $70,350 to $70,400 and your tax burden increases by 3%.
No, your tax burden increases by a grand total of $14. That's an increase of 0.005%.
edit: Toshi caught that as well, I see. Must be that Harvard education at work
First of all, I don't think anyone is suggesting letting people starve. Im all for offering a hand up, but recoil when asked for a handout.Silver said:
Beyond that.....
A couple of interesting paradoxes (is that how you pluralize that?) you've offered here.
As to the last one I'll submit the following:
The model we are working under has been in existance for 229 years. In that time said model has been the crucible for very nearly every advancement in technology made within that time. Other systems contributions pale in comparisson. Would the advancements have been made as soon, if at all if things ran here they way they do in France, China, Switzerland etc?
I'll submit that investment, ownership and ruthless competition played huge roles in all of this. Add in the fact that the opportunities afforded by this model make living and here far more attractive to the great minds that existed in many other places. They immigrated here so that they could advance their work because in their home countries they could not.
There is a reason why the richest countries in the world are democratic and capitalist. As of yet, its the best solution. There may someday be another model that surpasses it, but it most likely wont be in our lifetime.
Math + Rum = woopsSilver said:My math gives me a total tax burden (I'm assuming that is just fed income) of 20% at 70K and 22% at 90K.
That's a large pinch?
You do know what currently happens after around 90K, right?
Go from making $70,350 to $70,400 and your tax burden increases by 3%.
No, your tax burden increases by a grand total of $14. That's an increase of 0.005%.
edit: Toshi caught that as well, I see. Must be that Harvard education at work
Yes, that is only Federal Income tax.
However, my point is that one should not give up a greater percentage of what they make simply because they make more. Flat taxes are the only fair taxes.
Toshi said:
True. People who cannot help themselves should be helped. However, I think there are better ways to meet those needs than by increasing taxation and entitlements. We have been trying that for years and the number of people on the take has gone up, not down. IMO the psychological barrier foisted on people by entitlement culture is greater than presented by the actuall challenges of making it out of poverty.
....yeah, I caught on to the math error on my part. :mumble:
I am a firm believer that the rich should give back to the society from which they have taken so much. It's mathematically fair to tax both the poor and rich at the same rate, it is not "fair" in reality. Let me quote Chris Rock, "When you have $30 million, and your wife wants 10, you ain't starvin'. But when you make 30,000 and your wife wants 15...you might just hafta kill 'er!"
DT, how do you consider the elimination of estate taxes to be fair to society? Estates are comprised of assets (stocks, bonds, real estate, whatever) that typically have unrealized gains and stuff. Usually, we mortals (non rich) pay capital gains taxes (20%?) when we sell these assets with unrealized gains. With the elimination of estate taxes, the rich can let these assets pass through the estate, the beneficiaries receive a step-up in basis, and can now sell the assets without paying one f'n cent in taxes. Is that fair to society? According to those that make the rules...yes.
DT, how do you consider the elimination of estate taxes to be fair to society? Estates are comprised of assets (stocks, bonds, real estate, whatever) that typically have unrealized gains and stuff. Usually, we mortals (non rich) pay capital gains taxes (20%?) when we sell these assets with unrealized gains. With the elimination of estate taxes, the rich can let these assets pass through the estate, the beneficiaries receive a step-up in basis, and can now sell the assets without paying one f'n cent in taxes. Is that fair to society? According to those that make the rules...yes.
Well, keeping in mind there are other reasons that many advances happened in the US (Jewish scientists fleeing Nazi Germany, for example really helped to kickstart our nuclear, rocket, and space programs. You'd also have to look at how devastated the Axis countries were after WW2 and take that into account) look up the marginal tax rates that were in effect before Reagan became President, and then explain to me how the computer revolution happened with the Apple boys inventing under the pre-Reagan marginal tax rates (which were much too high on the wealthy, that I agree with wholeheartedly.)Damn True said:
Also, if you're going to call the richest countries in the world capitalist, you'd best not call every form of income redistribution socialist. In short, you're taking a very convoluted issue that you don't understand (much like the Laffer curve that came up a couple of months ago) and attempting to make that messy data that doesn't support your point fit into your ideology.
For example, putting France and Switzerland in with China is borderline...I'd say retarded, but the good liberal in me doesn't want to offend the mentally challenged.
Take two seconds to attempt to comprehend the point I am making rather than looking for an opportunity to wave your imagined intellectual, google fueled dick in the air.Silver said:
Those three countries were listed because they are all unique socially, politically, and economically. They are all different from each other, and all very different from the United States.
And yes, there are a ton of contributing factors involved in why the biggest technological advancements in recent history have occured within US borders. But they DID occur within US borders and NOT elsewhere because this model allows for, inspires and rewards achievement. Others stifle it.
Greed, jealousy and fear leads to nothing but social and econmic ruin. Liberals don't want to redistribute wealth out of some grand sense of philanthropy for the underpriveldged. They want to do it to exact revenge upon those who are brighter and work harder than themselves. To get back at the achievers for having what they failed to achieve. Liberals don't give two $hits about the poor. They are simply attempting to get back at wealthy because due to their slacking they are driving Honda's not Bimmers. Childish temper tantrums manifested as legal action and tax legislation.
Instead of looking at the actual tax rate I'd like to see what the average tax paid by income is. The more money you make the more opportunities you have to hide said money from the government.Damn True said: