PDA

View Full Version : What do the rich actually pay?



David W Pratt
03-01-2011, 11:44 AM
I forget what the specific numbers are, but isn't it the case that the top 5-10% in terms of income pay most of the income taxes? Presumably they also pay more in sales taxes, real estate taxes, etc.

Dan McCosh
03-01-2011, 12:01 PM
I forget what the specific numbers are, but isn't it the case that the top 5-10% in terms of income pay most of the income taxes? Presumably they also pay more in sales taxes, real estate taxes, etc. The top 10% have roughly 80% of the wealth in the U.S., and about 60% of the taxable income. It follows that they pay most of the income taxes. As a percentage of their income, however, the median-income family in the U.S. (60,000 a year or so) pays about 40% total taxes, much higher than the top 10%. Sales taxes, property taxes, and most importantly payroll taxes also fall disproportionately on lower incomes as a percentage of income. The federal income tax, which represents about 45% of the federal tax bill, does come mainly from the top 25% of income earners.

S.V. Airlie
03-01-2011, 12:03 PM
Property tax is determined by the val=ue of the property in question As far as I can see sales tax is set at X percent regardless of whether one is poor or rich.

skipper68
03-01-2011, 12:04 PM
Billionaire Mayor of NYC's secretary pays more in taxes than him,he said.

Dan McCosh
03-01-2011, 12:14 PM
Property tax is determined by the val=ue of the property in question As far as I can see sales tax is set at X percent regardless of whether one is poor or rich. The reason property taxes are paid disproportionately by lower incomes is that housing as a percentage of net worth drops considerably as net worth increases. High income earners also pay far less of their income for taxable goods.

delecta
03-01-2011, 12:14 PM
It's worth considering an example.

A very wealthy guy buys a Rolls Royce Phantom Drophead Coupe, for $443,000. .[/B]

Seems like someone isn't actually working 24/7, perhaps doing a little lusting :)

Beautiful automobile.

S.V. Airlie
03-01-2011, 12:18 PM
Well, Dnan may be si..All I know is my land that I pay taxes on are valued by he town, a figure is created with regards to value. and as that land is divided by three..Three siblings, I do not see that which you aregoing into..I don't think the county has any idea how wealthy one individual is or how poor.. It is a set figure X number of bucks per mil. value...

S.V. Airlie
03-01-2011, 12:19 PM
Seems like someone isn't actually working 24/7, perhaps doing a little lusting :)

Beautiful automobile.

He is multitasking and billing accordingly

B_B
03-01-2011, 01:14 PM
Well, Dnan may be si..All I know is my land that I pay taxes on are valued by he town, a figure is created with regards to value. and as that land is divided by three..Three siblings, I do not see that which you aregoing into..I don't think the county has any idea how wealthy one individual is or how poor.. It is a set figure X number of bucks per mil. value...
could someone pls translate?

mikefrommontana
03-01-2011, 01:52 PM
He's saying he pays 1/3rd of his property tax (with two other relatives). County land taxes, which are assessed as mills against assessed property value, does not take into account the relative wealth poverty of the property owner. In a way, county property taxes are effectively a flat tax, good or ill.

Anthony Zucker
03-01-2011, 02:08 PM
From Norm;

"A middle class guy buys a brand new Honda Accord for around $22,000. He pays a sales tax on it (in most states), but the money he used to pay for the car was taxed at perhaps 25%.

A very wealthy guy buys a Rolls Royce Phantom Drophead Coupe, for $443,000. He pays sales tax on it, just like the middle class guy.... but he's a hedge fund manager, and the money he used to buy the car was taxed at only 15%."

Actually, the wealthy guy has his company buy it and the company writes it off, along with its maintainance, so it doesnt cost him anything.

wardd
03-01-2011, 02:11 PM
From Norm;

"A middle class guy buys a brand new Honda Accord for around $22,000. He pays a sales tax on it (in most states), but the money he used to pay for the car was taxed at perhaps 25%.

A very wealthy guy buys a Rolls Royce Phantom Drophead Coupe, for $443,000. He pays sales tax on it, just like the middle class guy.... but he's a hedge fund manager, and the money he used to buy the car was taxed at only 15%."

Actually, the wealthy guy has his company buy it and the company writes it off, along with its maintainance, so it doesnt cost him anything.

how much does it cost the rest of us?

Dan McCosh
03-01-2011, 03:04 PM
He's saying he pays 1/3rd of his property tax (with two other relatives). County land taxes, which are assessed as mills against assessed property value, does not take into account the relative wealth poverty of the property owner. In a way, county property taxes are effectively a flat tax, good or ill.

Of course property taxes do not take into account the income of the owner. That is why they are regressive--as your income drops, the taxes represent a larger percentage of your income. As your income goes up, the property taxes represent a lower percentage. Hardly a "flat tax", which generally means a fixed percentage of income. (Hint--all taxes eventually have to be paid by your income.)

Gonzalo
03-01-2011, 04:19 PM
In North Carolina the sales tax on high dollar items such as cars is capped, so that the person who pays high dollars for a very expensive car pays a much lower proportion of the value in tax than the guy who buys a cheap car.

Also, the sales tax applies to those necessities that poorer people spend most of their income on, such as food, clothing, furniture, and other goods. However, services that are mainly purchased by wealthier people with their greater "disposable income" are not taxed. Fees that go for their gym membership, masseur, financial planner, landscaper, house cleaner, airplane rental, lawyers, accountants, and so forth, are not taxed at all in this state nor in many others. The result is that the rich pay way less sales tax, proportionate to the money they spend on goods and services, than poor people do.

The tax code is riddled with provisions reduce taxes on the things only the wealthy can afford and sources of income only the wealthy have. In principle, of course, the poor would get these same tax breaks if they spent money on the same things, but since most of their income goes to those items that are taxed, there is relatively less money left over for these untaxed services. Likewise, the poor would pay less income tax if their income came from capital gains, but only the relatively wealthy have significant capital gains income.

Gonzalo
03-01-2011, 04:29 PM
A program in Minnesota gives income tax breaks for low-income people to offset their real estate taxes to make their total taxation less regressive. The income tax break is proportionate both to income and to the real estate tax paid. It is assumed that a portion of rents go to real estate tax, so there is a formula that gives low income renters similar income tax reductions. Breaks for the poor such as the one in Minnesota are few are far between. Breaks for better-off taxpayers, on the other hand, are quite common.

Overall taxation, including Federal, State, and local taxes, is slightly regressive, meaning that actual taxes paid by the wealthy, relative to their means, are lower than those paid by the middle and poorer classes.

Scott Rosen
03-01-2011, 04:30 PM
The poor also don't own assets that they can take depreciation on. And they don't own LLC's and partnerships that allow them to take phantom losses. I'm familiar with someone who's annual revenue is about $150,00, but who pays zero income tax through wise planning.

It sucks to be poor.

Dutch
03-01-2011, 04:43 PM
what do the rich really pay?

take away all the jobs they create both with thier corporations and in their highly consumptive lifestyles - id guess about 85% of the income stream the government gets is directly or indirectly due to " the evil rich"

Im one of those employed by the evil rich - poor and middle class folks cant afford me - nor do I wish to lower the quality of my products nor my own standard of living enough to attempt to accomodate them

Gonzalo
03-01-2011, 05:13 PM
Most of the rich aren't evil (Bernie Madoff and his ilk excepted) any more than are most of the middle class or poor. Anyone who says so is a fool.

Remember, the business owner only hires those workers he needs to serve his customers, so the worker earns his pay by providing services the business owner needs. Both function cooperatively to create wealth. Both are needed as customers for the other businesses that make up the economy. It is foolish to lionize the contribution of the business owner while discounting the contribution of the workers--and vice versa.

Thus, the question of whether the tax code is properly balanced to fairly tax all of the contributors to the national prosperity is a legitimate one. It is not a matter of anyone being evil.

Dan McCosh
03-01-2011, 06:17 PM
what do the rich really pay?

take away all the jobs they create both with thier corporations and in their highly consumptive lifestyles - id guess about 85% of the income stream the government gets is directly or indirectly due to " the evil rich"

Im one of those employed by the evil rich - poor and middle class folks cant afford me - nor do I wish to lower the quality of my products nor my own standard of living enough to attempt to accomodate them Why not say that only the super-rich produce anything? That should be obvious to anyone who has called a plumber. FWIW, as I noted above, the entire federal income tax only produces 45% of the federal tax stream, so how could the taxes of the rich produce 85%? Note that the payroll tax ends at $100,000 a year, which means the vast bulk of it is paid by the middle and lower income wage earners, and that alone is 40% of federal revenue. Now if the argument is that only the rich produce, why not have them pay 100% of the taxes?

Phillip Allen
03-01-2011, 06:21 PM
The top 10% have roughly 80% of the wealth in the U.S., and about 60% of the taxable income. It follows that they pay most of the income taxes. As a percentage of their income, however, the median-income family in the U.S. (60,000 a year or so) pays about 40% total taxes, much higher than the top 10%. Sales taxes, property taxes, and most importantly payroll taxes also fall disproportionately on lower incomes as a percentage of income. The federal income tax, which represents about 45% of the federal tax bill, does come mainly from the top 25% of income earners.

what do you think about adjusting traffic fines according to income?

Phillip Allen
03-01-2011, 06:23 PM
It's worth considering an example.

A middle class guy buys a brand new Honda Accord for around $22,000. He pays a sales tax on it (in most states), but the money he used to pay for the car was taxed at perhaps 25%.

A very wealthy guy buys a Rolls Royce Phantom Drophead Coupe, for $443,000. He pays sales tax on it, just like the middle class guy.... but he's a hedge fund manager, and the money he used to buy the car was taxed at only 15%.

I don't understand where you got those numbers...25%!!!

Dan McCosh
03-01-2011, 06:24 PM
what do you think about adjusting traffic fines according to income? What do you think about making sidewalks out of concrete?

Captain Intrepid
03-01-2011, 06:24 PM
what do you think about adjusting traffic fines according to income?

That's eminently sensible, and is the case in some European countries.

Paul Pless
03-01-2011, 06:27 PM
What do you think about making sidewalks out of concrete?:D. . .

Phillip Allen
03-01-2011, 06:30 PM
What do you think about making sidewalks out of concrete?

prolly a good idea...your turn now, what about the traffic fines?

Phillip Allen
03-01-2011, 06:31 PM
I wanna hear what Dan has to say...I answered his silly question (out of turn in a show of good faith) and await his answer

Pugwash
03-01-2011, 06:33 PM
In North Carolina the sales tax on high dollar items such as cars is capped, so that the person who pays high dollars for a very expensive car pays a much lower proportion of the value in tax than the guy who buys a cheap car.

Same in SC. The guy buying the Honda and the guy buying the Rolls would both pay $300 in sales tax.

Phillip Allen
03-01-2011, 06:36 PM
Same in SC. The guy buying the Honda and the guy buying the Rolls would both pay $300 in sales tax.

no cap that I'm aware of...Bill Clinton changed a lot of the tax applications during his tenure as governor

oznabrag
03-01-2011, 06:50 PM
what do you think about adjusting traffic fines according to income?

Excellent idea!

There's no reason that Mel Gibson should get arrested for being slobbering drunk and driving and have the fine be an amount of money that he farts before breakfast, while the same penalty would crush the average Joe.

delecta
03-01-2011, 07:03 PM
That's eminently sensible, and is the case in some European countries.

It is incredibly stupid and socialist.

But I'm sure you think it is fine.......<is it OK to say idi0t?> if not, I apologize

http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/public/wsj_finland.html

Phillip Allen
03-01-2011, 07:16 PM
Excellent idea!

There's no reason that Mel Gibson should get arrested for being slobbering drunk and driving and have the fine be an amount of money that he farts before breakfast, while the same penalty would crush the average Joe.
it sounds good sometimes but I can't get past the equal protection problem...if a fine is worth X dollars, and it is tied to personal wealth (X plus some percentage) then it is unconstitutional by defination


when we start adjusting the constitution according to political fashion the whole thing will crumble

oznabrag
03-01-2011, 07:24 PM
it sounds good sometimes but I can't get past the equal protection problem...if a fine is worth X dollars, and it is tied to personal wealth (X plus some percentage) then it is unconstitutional by defination


when we start adjusting the constitution according to political fashion the whole thing will crumble

Bull poop.

We already have a big ol' pile of laws that make you pay taxes according to your income.

If it costs 20K to deal with a DUI, that's chump change to some people, and not a deterrent.

If a DUI would cost him half a year's pre-tax salary, you can bet yer backside Mr. Gibson would hire a chauffeur.

Why won't this happen in the US? Because iggernant folks wanna protect those poor, poor rich people from whom they think all blessings flow.

Keith Wilson
03-01-2011, 07:29 PM
Here you go: CBO data. It's very important to include ALL taxes, not just income taxes. (source (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/just-how-progressive-is-the-tax-system/))

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/04/13/business/economy/taxrates2.jpg

Comparison of overall taxes with other wealthy countries:

http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/oecd-tax-revenue-as-percentage-of-gdp1.png

Captain Intrepid
03-01-2011, 07:34 PM
It is incredibly stupid and socialist.

But I'm sure you think it is fine.......<is it OK to say idi0t?> if not, I apologize

http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/public/wsj_finland.html

How is it stupid? A $150 speeding ticket isn't even a blip on the RADAR of a wealthy banker, while it could ruin someone down on their luck. Now, I'm not saying that the fellow down on his luck should get off easy, I'm hugely against any form of unsafe driving. I just think it's reasonable that for those who can pay, a fine ought to be more than just paid permission to break the law.

As for it being socialist? What's wrong with a little socialism? After all, the best medical systems in the world are socialized! Using the right wing definition, the military is merely socialized defense.

Phillip Allen
03-01-2011, 07:37 PM
Bull poop.

We already have a big ol' pile of laws that make you pay taxes according to your income.

If it costs 20K to deal with a DUI, that's chump change to some people, and not a deterrent.

If a DUI would cost him half a year's pre-tax salary, you can bet yer backside Mr. Gibson would hire a chauffeur.

Why won't this happen in the US? Because iggernant folks wanna protect those poor, poor rich people from whom they think all blessings flow.

are you driving your agenda by inciting envy or hate? that can easily bite you later

Phillip Allen
03-01-2011, 07:40 PM
let is put it another way...If a burglar steals from you something valued at X percentage of your annual income and another burglar steals from a wealthy man the same percentage...should convictions result in different judgments...?

how about if both burglars steal the same value of goods...same judgment?

Keith Wilson
03-01-2011, 07:48 PM
Should a crime be punished according to the amount of harm done? That seems reasonable to me.

Rich Jones
03-01-2011, 07:48 PM
what do you think about adjusting traffic fines according to income?

Who gets the summons, the chauffeur or the guy who owns the limo?

Phillip Allen
03-01-2011, 07:57 PM
Should a crime be punished according to the amount of harm done? That seems reasonable to me.

a guy sticks a gun in your face on the street and gets away with $30...another guy sticks a gun in another guy's face and gets away with $1000

who has committed the greater crime?

Phillip Allen
03-01-2011, 07:59 PM
a guy sticks a gun in your face on the street and gets away with $30...another guy sticks a gun in another guy's face and gets away with $1000

who has committed the greater crime?

the guy who lost $30 brings home $300/week and the guy who lost $1000 clears $300/hour...who has been damaged more?

wardd
03-01-2011, 07:59 PM
isn't punishment supposed to be a deterrent?

then a fine that would be a deterrent to the less well off may just be the cost of arriving a little sooner to the well off

Keith Wilson
03-01-2011, 08:01 PM
Another example: An embezzler steals $10,000 from the bank account of a person without much money. By the time it's all sorted out, the victim's house gets foreclosed. The same guy also steals $10,000 from the bank account of Mel Gibson (or if you don't like Mel, pick any rich person). No discernible harm results. Who has committed the greater crime?

Phillip Allen
03-01-2011, 08:01 PM
isn't punishment supposed to be a deterrent?

then a fine that would be a deterrent to the less well off may just be the cost of arriving a little sooner to the well off


is speeding not a crime then? the fines being the cost of using public roads?

Phillip Allen
03-01-2011, 08:03 PM
Another example: An embezzler steals $10,000 from the bank account of a person without much money. By the time it's all sorted out, the victim's house gets foreclosed. The same guy also steals $10,000 from the bank account of Mel Gibson (or if you don't like Mel, pick any rich person). No discernible harm results. Who has committed the greater crime?

so, are you advocating that justice be dispensed based on personal wealth?

wardd
03-01-2011, 08:07 PM
so, are you advocating that justice be dispensed based on personal wealth?

why not the affect of the crime on the victim. if there is a victim?

or if not, then something that would be a deterrent in reality

Phillip Allen
03-01-2011, 08:10 PM
why not the affect of the crime on the victim. if there is a victim?

or if not, then something that would be a deterrent in reality

a convicted banker cannot repeat his crime...no deterrent is necessary for him...

Keith Wilson
03-01-2011, 08:14 PM
OK, another example: In the process of stealing a wallet, a criminal whacks his victim in the left hand with a club, breaking three fingers and causing him to lose some dexterity in the hand.

A. The victim works in a bank, and is right-handed. The injury doesn't affect his livelihood at all.

B. The victim is a concert pianist. His career is ruined.

Which is the greater crime?

hokiefan
03-01-2011, 08:17 PM
a convicted banker cannot repeat his crime...no deterrent is necessary for him...

Oh really? My uncle is a disbarred lawyer, theft by forgery. Lost his stockbroker's license same basic way. You'd think he would have run out of avenues for white collar crime huh, no further deterrent needed. Not him, he just turned on family. Stole half a house from my father. Stole from his ex-wife. Stole from my sister and me when my grandmother died. He needed a lead poisoning deterrent to stop him. He's lucky he's not worth going to jail over.

Cheers,

Bobby

Phillip Allen
03-01-2011, 08:17 PM
OK, another example: In the process of stealing a wallet, a criminal whacks his victim in the left hand with a club, breaking three fingers and causing him to lose some dexterity in the hand.

A. The victim works in a bank, and is right-handed. The injury doesn't affect his livelihood at all.

B. The victim is a concert pianist. His career is ruined.

Which is the greater crime?

what about criminal intent...the example you mention seems more like a civil extension of a criminal beginning

wardd
03-01-2011, 08:18 PM
a convicted banker cannot repeat his crime...no deterrent is necessary for him...

maybe a deterrent to others

I'd take the money if all i got was a conviction with out jail time

Phillip Allen
03-01-2011, 08:40 PM
now let us get back nearer the beginning...

taxes based on personal wealth...

sales tax of say 10% for me (pretty poor) and for the man with millions...50% or 100% or even more...

how will this be controlled, applied, regulated and so on? Who gets to make the decision/judgment? What's in it for him?...do you believe in transparency in taxation?

Keith Wilson
03-01-2011, 08:45 PM
A sales tax, VAT, or any consumption tax that varies with income is hard to do, as you say. As they're currently set up, sales taxes are always regressive (those with less money pay a significantly higher percentage of their income than those with more).

That's why we have progressive income taxes, and estate taxes.

oznabrag
03-01-2011, 08:47 PM
is speeding not a crime then? the fines being the cost of using public roads?

Yes, speeding is a crime. The wealthy can easily afford paying a speeding fine every time they're caught, so yes, for them the risk of being caught and fined is merely a potential premium they must pay as a cost of using public roads. The poor man who gets a $250 speeding ticket may end up foreclosed on.

With your whole deal about traffic fines being a tax this should make you understand that traffic fines NOT tied to income (I would prefer Net Worth) would make them among the most regressive taxes.

If you further make an assumption that the rich man has grown wealthy by employing others, which the Right is constantly asserting, (even though this condition is vanishing. More and more people obtain to great wealth by single-handedly manipulating markets, or simply inheriting) it is only right that he should pay his fair share.

Phillip Allen
03-01-2011, 08:48 PM
I didn't think estate taxes were progressive...

oznabrag
03-01-2011, 08:50 PM
a convicted banker cannot repeat his crime...no deterrent is necessary for him...

Clearly, you have taken leave of your senses, sir.

EVERY deterrent is necessary for the banker.

Phillip Allen
03-01-2011, 08:50 PM
Yes, speeding is a crime. The wealthy can easily afford paying a speeding fine every time they're caught, so yes, for them the risk of being caught and fined is merely a potential premium they must pay as a cost of using public roads. The poor man who gets a $250 speeding ticket may end up foreclosed on.

With your whole deal about traffic fines being a tax this should make you understand that traffic fines NOT tied to income (I would prefer Net Worth) would make them among the most regressive taxes.

If you further make an assumption that the rich man has grown wealthy by employing others, which the Right is constantly asserting, (even though this condition is vanishing. More and more people obtain to great wealth by single-handedly manipulating markets, or simply inheriting) it is only right that he should pay his fair share.
how does oznabrag determine what a "fair share" is?

Phillip Allen
03-01-2011, 08:51 PM
Clearly, you have taken leave of your senses, sir.

EVERY deterrent is necessary for the banker.

???

oznabrag
03-01-2011, 08:55 PM
Oh really? My uncle is ...
Cheers,

Bobby

Mr. Bobby Hokiefan, sir, that's the angriest post I've ever seen from you. I hope you will take my heartfelt advice and head for the water with your son. Your employment thing will become a revelation for you, but the watched pot never boils. What will you say when you don't have time to paddle around with that guy?

DO IT!

Keith Wilson
03-01-2011, 08:56 PM
I didn't think estate taxes were progressive...Sure they are. There's a whopping big exclusion which isn't taxed.

FWIW, about half of the wealthiest couple of percent of people in the US inherited their money.

oznabrag
03-01-2011, 09:15 PM
how does oznabrag determine what a "fair share" is?

WTF is this, Phil, International Third-Person Day??

What I said was

If you further make an assumption that the rich man has grown wealthy by employing others, which the Right is constantly asserting, (even though this condition is vanishing. More and more people obtain to great wealth by single-handedly manipulating markets, or simply inheriting) it is only right that he should pay his fair share.


This person grew rich by having employees traveling to and from his place of business on public roads and using their public educations to read his stupid employee manual while they used the public airwaves to promote the use of public waterways with their Personal Water Craft under the protection of the Water Safety Department of the Public Safety Commission.

This is the niggling little petty detail that always gets tossed aside by the iggernant.

Holistic economy accounts for ALL externalized costs. The businessman in our scenario has profited handsomely by the mere fact that he lives in the USA, with excellent infrastructure for delivering goods, energy and human resources (which infrastructure is going to Hell in a handbasket), and decent education (in the same basket). He also enjoys (same basket) a middle-class market who can afford a modest house somewhere near The Lake and a way to put a boat in, but he doesn't want to pay his taxes, he wants OTHER PEOPLE to pay his taxes. The taxes that fund the roads and the middle schools and the freakin' forkin' boat ramps that launch his noisy POS out onto the briny.

Phillip Allen
03-01-2011, 09:23 PM
WTF is this, Phil, International Third-Person Day??

What I said was


This person grew rich by having employees traveling to and from his place of business on public roads and using their public educations to read his stupid employee manual while they used the public airwaves to promote the use of public waterways with their Personal Water Craft under the protection of the Water Safety Department of the Public Safety Commission.

This is the niggling little petty detail that always gets tossed aside by the iggernant.

Holistic economy accounts for ALL externalized costs. The businessman in our scenario has profited handsomely by the mere fact that he lives in the USA, with excellent infrastructure for delivering goods, energy and human resources (which infrastructure is going to Hell in a handbasket), and decent education (in the same basket). He also enjoys (same basket) a middle-class market who can afford a modest house somewhere near The Lake and a way to put a boat in, but he doesn't want to pay his taxes, he wants OTHER PEOPLE to pay his taxes. The taxes that fund the roads and the middle schools and the freakin' forkin' boat ramps that launch his noisy POS out onto the briny.

your logic seems to me to be envy/hatred...if someone has more than you, you want him punished...examine your OWN motives

Pugwash
03-01-2011, 10:04 PM
It is incredibly stupid and socialist.

Because that whole "socialist" thing is such a failure for everyone else.

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Healthcare-Costs-versus-Life-Expectancy.png


Or maybe not.

oznabrag
03-01-2011, 10:25 PM
your logic seems to me to be envy/hatred...if someone has more than you, you want him punished...examine your OWN motives

LJ has over-estimated your intelligence by an enormous margin of error!

Phillip Allen
03-01-2011, 10:25 PM
LJ has over-estimated your intelligence by an enormous margin of error!

oh stop it...you're being silly

oznabrag
03-01-2011, 10:28 PM
You're gonna tell me that my
... logic seems to me to be envy/hatred...if someone has more than you, you want him punished...examine your OWN motives


oh stop it...you're being silly

And I'M the one being 'silly'?

Get a grip, Phillip.

Phillip Allen
03-01-2011, 10:36 PM
envy is an ugly thing...I am serious

and...I certainly DO examine my own motives... introspection is hard to learn but I've worked at it for years...I'm not claiming to be perfect but if you make a sporting event out of politics or "spanking" Phillip or any other crass doings then you are leaning too far over the edge...even an old cur gets tired and sore somethimes

Captain Intrepid
03-01-2011, 10:39 PM
Personally, I'd love to have the horrible problem of being in a high income tax bracket. ;) Somehow I doubt the thought of paying higher taxes would discourage me from making more money.

Phillip Allen
03-01-2011, 10:40 PM
Personally, I'd love to have the horrible problem of being in a high income tax bracket. ;) Somehow I doubt the thought of paying higher taxes would discourage me from making more money.

yep...but it doesn't change anything

Phillip Allen
03-01-2011, 10:42 PM
as to the traffic violations...I look at it this way...a poor man gets stopped and it hurts his feelings because he'll have to deal with serous money stress...the larger wound comes to the rich man's ego

Keith Wilson
03-01-2011, 10:44 PM
Tom Tomorrow understands.

http://www.salon.com/ent/comics/this_modern_world/2011/03/01/this_modern_world/story.jpg

Gonzalo
03-01-2011, 10:46 PM
Because that whole "socialist" thing is such a failure for everyone else.Turns out that the almost all of the most prosperous countries in the world are democracies that are more socialist than the U.S. We could learn from them. It looks a bit like a little socialism is a good thing for prosperity, for everyone.

Poorer countries that are growing most quickly are those in which their governments have a good deal of say in the economy.

Countries with limited governments that rely on the private sector to run their economies are called third world countries. We could learn from them, too.

http://www.prosperity.com/summary.aspx

Phillip Allen
03-01-2011, 10:47 PM
envy...pitiful

I'm going to bed

Gonzalo
03-01-2011, 11:28 PM
I'll say again, as I did in post #21, that the question of whether the tax code is properly balanced to fairly tax all income levels is a legitimate one. There are arguments on all sides that properly have weight. Tax policy has effects on the national prosperity and its distribution that might not be obvious, especially to those who won't open their minds, look around them, and try to understand what they see. The examples set by other prosperous nations -- and not-so-prosperous ones -- could be instructive if you are willing to take a look.

It has nothing to do with envy, and I'll say outright that those who reduce the discussion to that epithet are fools.

I'm a pragmatic person -- I'm in favor of what works to achieve a prosperous, strong, healthy, and reasonably happy nation. It just might be the things we learned in third grade don't accurately point the way.

paladin
03-01-2011, 11:31 PM
Surgeon worked on my arm last August. I cannot properly feed myself with that arm, draw, paint, assemble electronics etc. They screwed up....now they gonna try to repair the right arm and transfer the fistula to left arm....I will have limited use of my right arm

Durnik
03-01-2011, 11:48 PM
let is (sic) put it another way...If a burglar steals from you something valued at X percentage of your annual income and another burglar steals from a wealthy man the same percentage...should convictions result in different judgments...?

how about if both burglars steal the same value of goods...same judgment?

You seem to be equating taxes with the government stealing something.. the problem with this logic is the thief 'gives' you nothing in return while the state gives you much.. not the least of which is a safe place to live, (presumably) reasonable rules for everyone, roads, military, police, fire depts, unemployment ins, SSI.. I could go on, but, to all who don't like taxes, please unavail yourselves of ALL the benefits.. live in the woods, walk everywhere, make your own clothes, grow & catch your own food.. All else exists because of the interactions of many, IE, the state.

Keep in mind, FICA stops at roughly 100k.. taxes on the salaries over that would likely produce enough to finance health care in the U.S... Regardless, why do the wealthiest, who 'get the most' from the country, pay the least? As another poster said
"Because iggernant folks wanna protect those poor, poor rich people from whom they think all blessings flow."
and I'd add, because ignorant people believe the "lower taxes" the repubs go on about are for them.. not at all realizing they are for the very wealthy.. Repubs have _always_ raised taxes on the working class.. who, in reality, produce _everything_, everywhere.. while lowering them for the wealthy.. who produce nothing.

The wealthy don't make jobs.. People's involvement in the system (IE, demand) makes jobs. As many others have observed, the 'bail outs' of the banks were _not_ to stimulate the economy, they were actually to ensure the wealthy continued to live to the standards they were used to. If an 'economy stimulation' were the goal, the money would have been divied up amongst the poor.. as the poor spend whatever they have while the wealthy either save, or spend it out of the country.. At least Obama put some strings on Cheney's carte blanc gift to the wealthy.. I'm sure everyone knows the government just made some $12billion or so profit on loan paybacks from the bailout.. What, Faux News didn't report that? How strange.. ;-)

enjoy

Durnik
03-01-2011, 11:57 PM
your logic seems to me to be envy/hatred...if someone has more than you, you want him punished..

not punished, simply pay his fair share of the burden that helped him reap the rewards..

Gonzalo
03-02-2011, 12:35 AM
The wealthy don't make jobs.I think it is reasonably clear that innovative, energetic, risk-taking people create jobs, and many of them become rich as a consequence. But they don't live in a vacuum. There wouldn't be any internet billionaires if the U.S. government hadn't financed the technology that became the internet and legislatively opened it to the public. Amazon? Google? Facebook? Craig's list? They wouldn't exist. There wouldn't be any jobs at Boeing building airliners if governments at all levels hadn't build airports for them to land on. There wouldn't be any jobs in satellite TV if various governments hadn't developed launch capabilities and put their satellites in orbit. How about GPS devices? If the U.S. government hadn't developed that technology and opened it to the public, there wouldn't be any jobs in that field, either.

The richest men in North Carolina developed the technology that they turned into a highly successful private company while graduate students and later faculty at a publicly financed engineering university. And the early development of the computers their software runs on was financed and directed by -- who else? -- the U.S. government.

The list of government investments that contributed in big ways to the success of private industries employing millions goes on and on. Aviation, communication, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, forest products: examples are everywhere. The same is true in other prosperous and growing countries. People who don't see this aren't looking around them very hard, or aren't seeing very clearly.

Nothing I've written should be understood to take respect away from the smart, energetic people who build those companies. And not all successful companies were built on technologies developed by governments, under government contracts, or within government institutions. The phone companies and the power utilities come to mind. But putting it into perspective, governments do sponsor innovative projects, and government investment is a powerful driver of the private sector.

Durnik
03-02-2011, 01:59 AM
But they don't live in a vacuum.

I think that statement pretty much says what I was trying to say. You seem to be saying that 'energetic' people build on systems, if you will, at least partly developed with support from the government. This is true. However all systems build on previous knowledge. Even the 'power systems' & 'telephone' examples were supported by government led utilities monopolies.. My point is that even though individuals may take initiative, they are still working within a framework set up by others/society & using the skills of many others in their endeavors. Although a reward for their efforts is understandable, a reward that penalizes the vast majority of workers who cooperate to help create their success is not. This, of course, has no bearing on the over 'rewarding', if you will, of people mis-using the system for individual gain.. investment bankers come to mind.

What I was trying to say, was this foundation is part & parcel of what our taxes 'give' us, and therefore, taxes are/can be a good thing.

my apologies if I mis-understood you - it is late ;-)

enjoy

oznabrag
03-02-2011, 09:09 AM
envy...pitiful

I'm going to bed

Hopelessly ignorant and proud of it.

Sleep tight!

Phillip Allen
03-02-2011, 09:27 AM
not punished, simply pay his fair share of the burden that helped him reap the rewards..

define fair and share both together and separately...just who died and and made you deputy-god in charge of what's "fair"?

wardd
03-02-2011, 09:33 AM
your logic seems to me to be envy/hatred...if someone has more than you, you want him punished...examine your OWN motives


what if he got more by subverting the system?


it's like they are using their own dice

Dan McCosh
03-02-2011, 11:12 AM
prolly a good idea...your turn now, what about the traffic fines? I've been away. Anyway, the thread was about taxes. If your point is that most fines hit the poorest disproportionately, you are correct. I was simply trying to match your non sequitur.

hokiefan
03-02-2011, 11:58 AM
Mr. Bobby Hokiefan, sir, that's the angriest post I've ever seen from you. I hope you will take my heartfelt advice and head for the water with your son. Your employment thing will become a revelation for you, but the watched pot never boils. What will you say when you don't have time to paddle around with that guy?

DO IT!

Hello Mr oznabrag, I appreciate your concern. The anger at my uncle is old (really old!) family news, that unfortunately simmers away slowly in a dark corner. The episode with me and my sister is over 15 years old. It is the source of a good family story though. My wife and I were discussing the progress of the lawsuit my sister filed (her lawyer bungled it, but thats another story) and my daughter was listening in. She was about 10 at the time I guess. She asked why Uncle Dan stole from us. I turned to her and said, "Its nothing personal, we were just next." Ah well...

The employment thing isn't a source of anger at this point. A little frustration maybe, as a job search is humbling and frustrating right up until the point that it is rewarding. And you never know when that is until it is. Ask me how I know all this. :D

Actually, my real frustration last night was someone on here's naivety. Such is life...

Cheers,

Bobby

oznabrag
03-02-2011, 12:01 PM
Cheers, Bobby!

Gonzalo
03-02-2011, 12:02 PM
Dan, I think you understood me correctly. We shouldn't deride the role of capable individuals and private companies, but we should recognize that government investment paves the way for those individuals and companies to create wealth. In other words, while the private sector often finds clever and useful ways to use the tools at their disposal, they often work with tools created by the government. General prosperity follows government investment. I cited several examples above.

The reverse is also true--sometimes government invests in tools created by the private sector. Aviation is an example: private industry created flying machines, but government investment in airports, the air traffic control system, aviation research, and military aviation promoted and advanced the commercial usefulness of those machines, creating wealth and prosperity in the private sector.

These patterns have been followed throughout our history. For example, government investment in the Erie Canal brought about a huge rise in the prosperity of the state of New York. The port of New York soon surpassed competing ports in Philadelphia and Virginia as the preeminent port of the country, because the canal vastly increased the markets available from that port. States all over the Eastern seaboard fell all over themselves investing in canals because they saw how well they worked in New York. The canals had a relatively short life before they were largely superseded by the railroads, which were initially created by the private sector and supported hugely by the public sector, helping to spread greater prosperity for all.

The same patterns apply in other prosperous countries as well.

In the 19th century, public investments at the national level were supported by the Whigs and their successors, the Republicans, and opposed by Democrats. But Republicans learned the wrong lesson from Reagan, that government can't do anything right, so the parties have switched places, as least as far as what they say in the campaigns.