Take from the rich...

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

First, the "hardship" is that to the "rich" (whoever that is) it is their money being taken from them under force of law and not your money. The hardship is that such is discriminatory and socialist.

Is it "discriminatory", or is it discerning?  

We pay taxes for certain goods that are impossibly inefficient to secure for ourselves privately... things like national defense and roads.  Taxes are also used to pay for some social goods that could be provided privately, or simply ignored. Would capitalism work without taxes?  Probably, but it would look a lot more like Mad Max than America.  And so, we pay taxes to support a framework that, among other things, pays close attention to the well being of our citizens.  Capitalism works very well in America precisely because we don't have large numbers of starving, well-armed people running around.  

That social "safety net" benefits the rich every bit as much as the poor.  Since the rich are building wealth faster than the rest of us, you can argue that they have more to gain than the rest of us.  So, why not pay more?

Even if they weren't building wealth at a faster rate than the rest of us, you can still argue that we need to preserve the well-being of our citizens in order for capitalism to thrive.  So, why would you tax the poor, or the middle class for that matter, at rates that are harmful to their well-being, when you can tax the rich in ways that don't harm them at all?  

You can argue that our system is unfair, but that is not the same as proving a hardship.  How are the rich harmed by progressive levies?

Also, it's not "socialism".  "Ability to pay" is not the same principle as "equal distribution of wealth". We've had progressive taxation since 1913, and last I checked, the rich are still rich.

quote:As to revenue source, as is the case in my family, if we cannot afford something, we do not buy it. That means, if this country cannot afford the Iraq war, then we cannot have an Iraq war. If that means we cannot afford free public education or quality roads or a developed river, then we cannot have those things either.

I agree with you to a point, Guido.  But if you dismantle that social framework, then you don't really have America anymore...just Mad Max.  There are lines that you won't cross with your family, too.  It's okay to live in a smaller house if you must, but it's not okay to live in a park or down by the River, because, how are you going to keep them safe?  

quote:However, the notion that this country should have all these things, and that the "rich" and not everyone should pay for it even though it is for the benefit of everyone is unAmerican and smacks of redistribution of wealth.

As for "ability to pay", what exactly does that mean? Does that means that rich people are not permitted to spend their money as they see fit on larger homes, private schools for their kids, and on charitable causes but instead give it to the government?

I don't think "ability to pay" is un-American.  As noted, we've been doing it that way since 1913.  Those that can afford to pay more, pay more, and those that can't, don't.  Even if it means paying nothing at all.  It's the price we pay for a stable society where capitalism can flourish.  Nobody is being taxed into the poorhouse, and the rich are still able to pay for all of those things that they want, in fact, they are doing better than at any time since the before the Great Depression.  Sounds pretty fair to me, even if it is discriminatory.    []

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Again, spoken like have not. Still not getting the message.

I think he's got the message just fine.

If the rich can afford to pay more, then why shouldn't they?  How are the rich being harmed by this?  Where's the hardship?

1.  Revenue must come from somewhere, ultimately.

2.  Taxation based on ability to pay is the best way to protect everyone's well being.

Following that logic in Tulsa, any family that makes more than $70,000 a year should give 100% of their income to the government.

That's not what I'm saying at all and you know it.  Having no income would clearly be a hardship.  That's not a pedantic statement, it's illustrative of "ability to pay".  As is this:  taxing the income of a family making $40,000 at 32% leaves them with $26,800.  That's the difference between having a roof over your head or not.  Clearly, taxing them at that rate would cause harm.  But taxing a family who makes $1,000,000 a year at 32% still leaves them with $670,000.  They can still live comfortably, heck opulently, so I have trouble seeing the harm bestowed upon them.

quote:Certainly a family can live comfortably on $70,000 and the rest is just excess for unneeded luxury items.  The logical conclusion follows that not just 4%, but all excess should be taken and given to families that earn less than $70,000 a year until all families earn equal.

Not what I said at all.  What I said is that the rich can afford to pay more, and that's why they do...and have since 1913.

quote:The very notion WHY SHOULDN'T THEY PAY? is the most detestable defense of a government taking someones wealth I have ever heard.  How about the fact that the wealth BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE.  The government is taking their wealth.  In this instance, they are taking it and giving it to others simply because they can.  They should not do so because the wealth is private and does not belong to the government.

It's not a defense of government, it's a defense of society.  A LOT of things belong "to the people":  our fire department, Grand Lake, ICBMs, and the air we breathe.  It all costs money to maintain, so spare me the righteous indignation.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

I think you have touched on the real issue, which is that the "tax the crap out of the rich" people believe that government's purpose is to create a balance between the rich and poor under some amorphous definition of "fairness" and not perform the very limited services it is constitutionally authorized to provide.

Nothing amorphous about it.  The rich are still getting richer and the poor aren't starting tire fires on Memorial Drive.  What's so unfair about that?

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

...Accordingly, when tax rates are decreased on the wealthy, tax revenue increases, because there is more volume in the purchase of goods and services, and higher levels of employment (because we need people to make those goods and services).

Back in the Robber Baron days of the 1890's, they called it the "horse and sparrow theory": "if you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows."

Asking the Heritage Foundation if supply side economics is a good thing is like asking Williams if natural gas is an important energy resource.  Heritage's money comes entirely from rich donors and major corporations.

You know what also correlates with your supply-side tax cuts?  Deficits.



Check out the latest from the bi-partisan Concord Coalition.

[cannon_fodder]

I'm not arguing that there should be no taxes.  I'm not arguing that we should tax people into the poor house.  I'm not even arguing against some form of progressive taxation.   As you stated, the government needs money from somewhere and the poorest members of society can not pay.

I AM arguing against taxing higher wage earners because they have wealth and giving it to lower wage earners simply because they do not.

I am arguing against a taxation system that sees 50% of the population drawing more money FROM the government than paying in via income taxes.

I am arguing against a country in which 50% of the population's sole stake in the government is to ensure that they continue to take from the rich and give to them.  Its easy to complain about budget deficits and demand more spending when most people do not have to pay income taxes.

quote:so I have trouble seeing the harm bestowed upon them.

Maybe that money was going to start a new company that would have eventually employed hundreds of people.  Maybe it was going to be donated to the United Way.  Maybe it was funding a year sabbatical to research a cure for cancer.  Who knows what that person wanted to do with THEIR MONEY.  And why does there need to be a specific harm for their to be injustice anyway?

Your argument is they have lots and I'm just taking a little (a third), they have plenty left.  Do you not see the glaring faults in that argument?  My neighbors have a Lexus, a Hummer, and a pickup, no married couple needs 3 vehicles so I should  be able to take one.  I have a bass boat I rarely use and certainly can live a nice life without it, shall someone steal it?  I have 3 8mm Mauser's from WWI but cannot possible use them all - take 1 and I will still have more than enough.  Heck, for that matter no one really needs to kidneys.   Absurd?  Yes, but following the logic you outlined.

Now we all know we need taxes.  We all know those with more money will inevitably pay more.    No one is arguing those points.  I am arguing:

1) Everyone within reason should have some stake in our government.  If a family must sacrifice an iPod to pay taxes so be it.  The notion that the vast middle class has become poor in America is a myth.  The middle class has become spoiled and acquired a vast sense of entitlement.  They want the world with someone else paying for it.

2) Wealth should not be taken from one citizen and given to enhance the lifestyle of another citizen.  I'm not arguing against subsistence level aid, this tax amendment would give additional wealth to people who already have food, housing, education, transportation, health care, and job training opportunities.  If Dr. X wants Joe Blow to have a little nicer Xmas he can donate on his own accord, it is not the governments place to redistribute wealth.
- - -

Finally, I'll scream it form the roof tops yet again...

THE RICH ARE NOT RICHER.  For gods sake go look something up.  Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Astor, Girard, Carnegie, Weyerhaeuser, Hill, Derby...   Rockefeller alone was worth THREE TIMES what Gates is worth today.  Of the top 10 richest Americans of all time 80% lived sometime NOT now.   I'm willing to bet if you add up the lifetimes and incomes that's a bracket that has been pretty steady.  And in any event, those men had incomes that were not only larger than Gates, it was at a time where all 6 members of the average family worked 12 hours 6 days a week in order to just barely survive.  

Statements that our rich are richer than ever are patently false, and any notion that our poor are as poor as ever is offensive to the memories of millions of tenement factory workers in NYC, share croppers in Georgia, and dust farmers in Oklahoma.   Only in America do we have the balls to call anything short of HDTV and an iPod poverty.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

THE RICH ARE NOT RICHER.  For gods sake go look something up.  

First off, don't be an *sshole.  I did read this on the previous page.  In fact, I posted it.  Did you read it?

quote:New tax figures show rich getting richer
The Business Journal of Phoenix - by Mike Sunnucks The Business Journal

The rich are getting even richer, according to federal tax numbers released Friday.

The IRS reports that the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans accounted for 21 percent of all income in 2005.

That is the highest level of wealth concentration in the U.S. since before the Great Depression and World War II, according to economic studies.

The IRS figures also showed the median taxpayer's income fell by 2 percent between 2000 and 2005.

The tax numbers back up other recent economic data showing the most affluent have been making the greatest gains in the U.S. economy.

All contents of this site © American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved.

quote:cf said

Statements that our rich are richer than ever are patently false,

Never said it.  But wealth concentration is at its highest level since before the Great Depression.

Secondly, Where did this "50% on the dole" thing come from?  Rangel didn't say it.  I didn't say it.  Hyperbole?

And third, with this talk about Lexuses (Lexii?) Hummers, and unused bass boats, you are making my point, which is very simply, some people can afford to pay a little more.

Lastly, you said, "it is not the governments place to redistribute wealth."  As I have already said, "ability to pay" is not the same thing as "equal distribution of wealth".  That's not the intent or the effect of progressive taxation.  But, as also noted before, the government helps look after the welfare of everyone to one degree or another, and I'm happy that it's them doing it, subject to public scrutiny and accountability.

You are not against progressive taxation, and neither am I...I don't even know why we are arguing.  And I don't disagree with you that everyone should pay something.

The difference, possibly, is that I am using blunt rhetoric to describe what I think is good for our society.  We're all happy to argue about what's "fair".  In fact, all of us are proud, rugged, individualists, at least, right up until the point where some jobless, hungry, douchebag decides it's "fair" to toss a coke bottle full of gasoline through our front window.  That's why we pay taxes.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Again, spoken like have not. Still not getting the message.

I think he's got the message just fine.

If the rich can afford to pay more, then why shouldn't they?  How are the rich being harmed by this?  Where's the hardship?

1.  Revenue must come from somewhere, ultimately.

2.  Taxation based on ability to pay is the best way to protect everyone's well being.

Taxation based on consumption is the fairest way to close the loopholes that only the select are able to exploit.

Agreed. But I sure like my mortgage interest deduction...

Yeah, but they keep raising the standard deduction so that the threshold to be able to take advantage of the MID keeps going up.

[Conan71]

Okay, I'll throw out a bone here, why does social security cap at $90K?  Why have a cap on it at all?  If there is an SSI shortfall in the future no doubt if the decision was to shore that up instead of cutting benefits, it will have to come from other tax sources.

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Okay, I'll throw out a bone here, why does social security cap at $90K?  Why have a cap on it at all?  If there is an SSI shortfall in the future no doubt if the decision was to shore that up instead of cutting benefits, it will have to come from other tax sources.

They put a cap on it so the rich don't get huge checks out of social security.  Can you imagine what Tiger Woods' social security checks would be if he paid social security tax on all $60M every year?  Please don't tell me they should pay social security tax on all their money but only receive benefits based on the first $90K.

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

...Accordingly, when tax rates are decreased on the wealthy, tax revenue increases, because there is more volume in the purchase of goods and services, and higher levels of employment (because we need people to make those goods and services).

Back in the Robber Baron days of the 1890's, they called it the "horse and sparrow theory": "if you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows."

Asking the Heritage Foundation if supply side economics is a good thing is like asking Williams if natural gas is an important energy resource.  Heritage's money comes entirely from rich donors and major corporations.

You know what also correlates with your supply-side tax cuts?  Deficits.



Check out the latest from the bi-partisan Concord Coalition.

Good point.  The figures were posted by the heritage foundation but were published by the US Census Bureau, The Economic Report of the President, and the Office of Management and Budget.  Not the Heritage foundation.

I went to the Concord Coalition. . . and reviewed the very article and powerpoint you are getting the graph from.  I like this group and agree with most of what they say.  They use good math.  I agree that building a deficit of this size is not a good, but you are talking about a completely different subject.  

Lets review:
1. I presented a correlation between reduced taxes and increased revenue.  
2. You presented a wonderful graph related to spending and deficit.

So if you would like to change the subject than we can.  Lets have everyone have a look at the site http://www.concordcoalition.org/  .

How do your reduce the deficit?  You pay your bills.  You reduce program spending.  You increase GDP and reduce debt owed to foreign lenders.  

So I ask again, How does increasing tax revenue hurt this effort, and how does decreasing tax revenue help?

Why wouldn't we try to reduce this deficit by eliminating public funding for stupid crap like the Margaret Wilson Museum of Hair, or the proposed million dollar funding for the Woodstock Memorial Museum.  

Or kill the deficit all together by privatizing social security and medicare.  Some places have already done it and it works http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba215.html .

It's program spending that is killing us on deficit. . . and yes the war is expensive but it's not something that we can just pack up and leave.  

Thank you for pointing me to this site.  I have spent quite a bit of time here and it has given me some very good insight into what they call plausible outcomes of deficit spending and reinforced my resolve to rally against political pet projects.

[cannon_fodder]

Chicken Little:

You are correct, I was getting out of line and I apologize.  I strongly dislike the "because they can" rationale for the government requisitioning more payment.  In this particular instance, they are requisitioning more wealth so they can cease taxing a larger percentage of the population.  A bad tax for a bad cause.  That's why it upsets me.

USRuf:

Law school tuition at TU is ~$27,000 a year.  I was on a partial scholarship, I worked and my wife worked.  But add in the cost of books ($600 a semester), fees ($500 a semester), the bar exam (~ $3,500 with classes), and a thousand other little things and my debt from law school is substantial.  One can not work their way through law school and pay your own way in the same manner one can undergraduate (graduated from there debt free).  I fail to see how choosing to go to law school makes me stupid.  My debt load is far less than the average law school graduate as I managed to take only minimal tuition loans (can you imagine the poor SOBs who live off of loans AND go to school?).

and I never judged you.  You said yourself that you mismanaged your time in college by participating in too many extra curricular activities and working too much.  I never even implied that it was ultimately a poor decision, since I have no idea.  I had to re-read my post several times in an effort to discern what you thought was judgmental:  I correct your impression that I was in med school, I agreed with subsidized student loans, and I reiterated your statement about mismanaging time in college.

I hope the bad juju stays away because I neither wished you ill nor judged your decisions.

[tim huntzinger]

'Marx, Lenin, Mao, Hugo, Fidel, and Pol Pot would be so proud.'

THAT makes you look . . . um . . . well . . . like an Associates in History may be in order . . . []

[cannon_fodder]

Tim, history is actually a hobby of mine (though not really on a scholarly level).  Trust me, all of those figures would (do) see such things as an incremental step in their direction.  They were not (are not) stupid people.  Certainly any step that enhances wealth distribution would be viewed favorably by them. Just as Smith, Malthus, Keynes, and Hamilton would all welcome incremental changes in communist countries towards capitalism.

You do realize that aside from being mostly dictators that those men were (are) all a devote of a particular brand of economics?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Okay, I'll throw out a bone here, why does social security cap at $90K?  Why have a cap on it at all?  If there is an SSI shortfall in the future no doubt if the decision was to shore that up instead of cutting benefits, it will have to come from other tax sources.

They put a cap on it so the rich don't get huge checks out of social security.  Can you imagine what Tiger Woods' social security checks would be if he paid social security tax on all $60M every year?  Please don't tell me they should pay social security tax on all their money but only receive benefits based on the first $90K.

Why, pray tell, would someone like Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, or Tiger Woods need social security benefits in the first place?

I'm just positing the question because some people think an additional 4% in tax on the wealthiest is fair whilst raising the income threshold on who must pay taxes at the lower end.  They keep talking about how SS is going to crater big-time, yet the slowly raising cap apparently isn't going to cover the shortage.

Just seems like a pretty obvious "break" for the rich that the libs on here haven't tapped into yet.

[tim huntzinger]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder


You do realize that aside from being mostly dictators that those men were (are) all a devote of a particular brand of economics?

Republicans? Absolutists? Federalists? Nationalists?  Dialect humanists?  In any case, comparing war-hero Rangel to genocidal dictators on the 'slippery slope' theory is unfortunate and demeans the victims of humanist dictatorships.