More on taxes

[Jim]

HRoark said:

Yes, Jim, you make more you pay more. However, the current system exacts a much higher percentage of those who earn more. If the percentage was the same for everyone, the upper 10% would still pay more than the lower 50%.

 

Oh, and thanks for responding in a logically thought out way. What type of response is "I'm not crying for them"? You are sidestepping the issue I brought up which is the blatantly unfair method of taxation.

 

It's just the thought that the upper incomes are paying too much is ridiculous to me. You say it's "unfair" that they pay so much. Who are you talking about? The upper 10% , the middle 25%, everyone?

 

And you side-stepped my example of a flat tax.

 

Taxes are going down, rich are getting richer, and they're still complaining. Give it a break already.

 

I don't suppose we'll change one another's mind. You think the upper incomes pay too little now - I'd say they are paying much less that historically and reaping the benefits big time.

 

Really gotta go now. Later.

[Jim]

JayB said:

Jim:

 

I would have to go searching for documentation to back it up - don't have time to google at the moment - but I recall reading a few papers which demonstrated that every time the top marginal tax rates have been lowered, the percentage of all taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans has increased, rather than decreased (maybe PP has a link).

 

What!!??

 

Oh so you drop the capital gains tax, the inheritance tax, and the tax on the upper 10% (which bushie has done) and they pay more?? Yes, I would like to see documentation on that magic.

 

Maybe it's the folks that are making $30K or less that are weasling out of the inheritance tax and capital gains?

[HRoark]

Jim said:

HRoark said:

Yes, Jim, you make more you pay more. However, the current system exacts a much higher percentage of those who earn more. If the percentage was the same for everyone, the upper 10% would still pay more than the lower 50%.

 

Oh, and thanks for responding in a logically thought out way. What type of response is "I'm not crying for them"? You are sidestepping the issue I brought up which is the blatantly unfair method of taxation.

 

It's just the thought that the upper incomes are paying too much is ridiculous to me. You say it's "unfair" that they pay so much. Who are you talking about? The upper 10% , the middle 25%, everyone?

 

And you side-stepped my example of a flat tax.

 

Taxes are going down, rich are getting richer, and they're still complaining. Give it a break already.

 

I don't suppose we'll change one another's mind. You think the upper incomes pay too little now - I'd say they are paying much less that historically and reaping the benefits big time.

 

Really gotta go now. Later.

 

I was saying the upper levels pay too much AS A PERCENTAGE of their earnings.

 

I came out in favor of the flat tax in an earlier post. What did I miss?

 

I'm not trying to change your mind, just have a good ol' debate, like we used to.

[Peter_Puget]

Ok Here’s the scoop. My first link (which Jim read!) clearly stated that average EU productivity/hr was at one point up to 87% of the US. The more recent link breaks out productivity by country. Note: three countries have higher per hr productivity rates - France, Belgium and Netherlands. Belgium has a population of approximately 10 million. NYC has about 8million. Are comparisons of small countries such as Belgium and Netherlands to the entire US appropriate? Clearly not. France is better but still much smaller than the US.

 

The current discussion regarding “fairness” is interesting but misses a major point. Would a tax scheme seen as “fair” by the vast majority of citizens be preferred over a grossly unfair tax scheme where everyone is materially better off? My links have real points to make regarding economic growth rates and flexibility. Important points not addressed by a discussion of fairness. Of course to be fair in a discussion of fairness you don’t need to rely on facts.

 

PP

[HRoark]

Peter_Puget said:

Of course to be fair in a discussion of fairness you don’t need to rely on facts.

 

PP

 

Oh, but I disagree. You must look at this logically, and apply reason. How else can you analyze this? Use whatever word you want, 'fairness', 'equity', whatever. The bottom line point I was making is that simply because someone has created more wealth for himself than others, doesn't automatically mean that the government is entitled to more of it on a percentage basis.

[sal]

HRoark said:

Peter_Puget said:

Of course to be fair in a discussion of fairness you don’t need to rely on facts.

 

PP

 

Oh, but I disagree. You must look at this logically, and apply reason. How else can you analyze this? Use whatever word you want, 'fairness', 'equity', whatever. The bottom line point I was making is that simply because someone has created more wealth for himself than others, doesn't automatically mean that the government is entitled to more of it on a percentage basis.

 

[Peter_Puget]

HRoark said:

Peter_Puget said:

Of course to be fair in a discussion of fairness you don’t need to rely on facts.

 

PP

 

Oh, but I disagree. You must look at this logically, and apply reason. How else can you analyze this? Use whatever word you want, 'fairness', 'equity', whatever. The bottom line point I was making is that simply because someone has created more wealth for himself than others, doesn't automatically mean that the government is entitled to more of it on a percentage basis.

 

I agree with the last sentence!

 

Back to economies in general.

 

Ok let's say we have two countries and in each country we have a worker. Each worker makes $1/per year. In the first country economic growth is encouraged and consequently the worker there has a real income growth rate of 3.5%/annum in the other country the growth rate is 1% less per year. After 40 years the worker in the second country will be making only 67% of what the worker in the first makes. Small differentials in growth rates have huge impacts on real wealth over time!

 

PP

[sk]

FLAT TAX

[Paco]

The flat tax is a BAD idea, and anyone who thinks that it would make things more "equitable" is wrong. People who make more money CAN afford to pay more in taxes as a percentage of income.

 

Here's a simplified example of why people who make more money CAN pay taxes at a higher percentage:

 

As an estimate lets say that all people need to make a minimum salary or $30,000 to meet basic needs including housing, food, healthcare etc. If you tax someone 10% who makes 32,000 a year then they don't have enough money to make ends meet. Now tax someone who makes 120,000 a year at 50% and they still have plenty of money to make ends meet and then some. I'm not suggesting that we tax everyone into being poor and just getting by, but a tierd tax system is the way to go. It really isn't a deterant from trying to make more money. If you make more money you still make more money, even if part of that gets taxed at a higher percentage.

 

Also note that in a tired system the first xx dollars are taxed at the lowest rate, and then the next bracket of dollars are taxed at their specific rate, etc.

[j_b]

HRoark said:

the government claims an entitlement to the earned wealth of people who work hard and are successful.

 

[Jopa]

 

It's not a matter of "hurting." It is a matter of entitlement; the government claims an entitlement to the earned wealth of people who work hard and are successful. They exercise this entitlement in an unfair, and unequal way. They punish, in essence, those who have made themselves successful by imposing upon them higher taxes.

 

[HRoark]

Paco said:

People who make more money CAN afford to pay more in taxes as a percentage of income.

 

No shit, Taco. CAN is not the point. I CAN shove an icepick through your ear...SHOULD I? No. Your scenario has set up a state where the successful are made to work to support those who are not so successful (for whatever reason). Thus, you have enslaved a portion of the people by requisitioning a portion of their labor to support others.

[allthumbs]

no shit, and I'm fucking tired of paying for useless lazy motherfuckers that won't work-

nuke the bitches

[Jim]

HRoark said:

Paco said:

People who make more money CAN afford to pay more in taxes as a percentage of income.

 

No shit, Taco. CAN is not the point. I CAN shove an icepick through your ear...SHOULD I? No. Your scenario has set up a state where the successful are made to work to support those who are not so successful (for whatever reason). Thus, you have enslaved a portion of the people by requisitioning a portion of their labor to support others.

 

Oh God. Now the upper 10% of the wealthy are enslaved who have the equivalent of ice picks in their ears because of our unfair tax laws. Such a burden. Sniff

[Jim]

trask said:

no shit, and I'm fucking tired of paying for useless lazy motherfuckers that won't work-

nuke the bitches

 

 

Hop on the clue train buddy. The vast majority of your taxes are being spent on a wild goose chase in the sands of the middle east.

[HRoark]

Jim said:

HRoark said:

Paco said:

People who make more money CAN afford to pay more in taxes as a percentage of income.

 

No shit, Taco. CAN is not the point. I CAN shove an icepick through your ear...SHOULD I? No. Your scenario has set up a state where the successful are made to work to support those who are not so successful (for whatever reason). Thus, you have enslaved a portion of the people by requisitioning a portion of their labor to support others.

 

Oh God. Now the upper 10% of the wealthy are enslaved who have the equivalent of ice picks in their ears because of our unfair tax laws. Such a burden. Sniff

 

Nothing making any sense there, Jim. Thanks for contributing. I guess you lack any ability to debate logically...no surprise there, actually.

[allthumbs]

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with getting rich in this country. Except that the socialist democrats want us to believe that it is something to be ashamed of and something to deplore. We all have the chance to get rich in life. Why begrudge someone for actually obtaining it? Losers get off the bus.

[sal]

national sales tax? anyone care to comment

[Paco]

I believe the government should provide certain services to the general public to ensure a certain minimum standard of living to include food, housing, and health care while at the same time encouraging people to work. This is done by a few means such as setting a minimum wage and providing subsidized housing, food, and health care to the poor. These subsidies have to be funded somewhere and those with a high salary can afford to pay a greater percentage of income for taxes to support this. People with a higher salary can also afford to pay for a larger share of commonly used public services like roads, etc.

 

You have not enslaved any portion of the people because they get taxed at 30% on their income and others get taxed at 10% of their income, and no one is required to work in order to support another class.

 

The main part of my argument is that after basic needs are met then the rest of the money is just gravy, so that gravy money should be taxed at a higher rate because it is no longer used to buy necessities. It goes for paying for things like expensive cars, large houses, etc.

 

What would you propose? A flat tax so the poor get poorer. Maybe a system where only those that need social services have to pay for them. Hmm, that'll work well. Let's make those who can't afford something pay for it.

[HRoark]

sal said:

national sales tax? anyone care to comment

 

Has some merit, I think. What sort of pros/cons would you see as compared to a flat tax?

[j_b]

Jim said:

Oh God. Now the upper 10% of the wealthy are enslaved who have the equivalent of ice picks in their ears because of our unfair tax laws. Such a burden. Sniff

 

yeah, and they work so much harder than anybody else that the income disparity is completely justified

[vegetablebelay]

You guys get a room.

[allthumbs]

In my own experiences I have met a number of very wealthy people and while I haven't taken a poll, I can't help but notice that about half of these people have never attended college. One fellow that I know didn't even finish the eight grade but yet he started a huge trucking company and became very wealthy.

 

I am curious what are your thoughts on wealth in this country? Can anyone make it here if they try?

[Jim]

Hey HR - if you could give me some logic I would reply in kind.

 

I think the basis of your view goes something like this - Because the upper incomes (now I'm talking upper 10-20% here, so hope we're on the same page) pay a greater percentage of their income than the lower tax brackets they are "enslaved" by their government and the lower incomes.

 

You may believe it. I think it's a silly notion. Enslaved? Poor choice of words in the least. How much lower taxes do you think is fair? I assume you're advocating a flat tax. Again I would say that is not fair to take 10% from someone making $30K vs 10% from $3 million.

 

The little guy has $27K left, the big guy has $2.7 million. Doesn't seem "enslaved" is the proper context. Yes the rich should pay more, up to some debateable point, because they can afford to.

 

The changing tax structure has resulted in a huge redistribution of wealth in the US in the past 20 years. Is there class warfare in the US? Definately - and there is no doubt who is winning and who is losing.

[HRoark]

Paco said:

This is done by a few means such as setting a minimum wage and providing subsidized housing, food, and health care to the poor. These subsidies have to be funded somewhere and those with a high salary can afford to pay a greater percentage of income for taxes to support this. People with a higher salary can also afford to pay for a larger share of commonly used public services like roads, etc.

 

You have not enslaved any portion of the people because they get taxed at 30% on their income and others get taxed at 10% of their income, and no one is required to work in order to support another class.

 

The main part of my argument is that after basic needs are met then the rest of the money is just gravy, so that gravy money should be taxed at a higher rate because it is no longer used to buy necessities. It goes for paying for things like expensive cars, large houses, etc.

 

What would you propose? A flat tax so the poor get poorer. Maybe a system where only those that need social services have to pay for them. Hmm, that'll work well. Let's make those who can't afford something pay for it.

 

So, are you saying, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? What you are advocating is a massive socialist system where you have to right to the fruit of your own labor. Where some arbitrary committee or department will decide what "basic needs" are (using your words). Who are you, or anyone for that matter, to stipulate what an individual's "basic needs" are? This may vary from one person to another.

 

Regarding enslavement: you are dead wrong, each person IS required to work in order to support another class by the simple fact that when we DO work, that income is taxed. These taxes are required unless one goes through great pains to exempt themselves from the tax rolls.

 

What's this "gravy" money you are talking about? Are you saying that I don't have the right to buy a $40,000 pickup if I had a good year on the stock market? THat I don't deserve to receive all that money, since it is what you call "gravy" and not "necessary". More to the point, who are you to tell me what is necessary for me? Are you prepared to leave this to some government office to decide? Who decides, Paco? Tell me. Who knows best what YOU need from day to day?

 

Howard