Does success originate from our government?

[W Grabow]

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

Successful people paid the taxes that built the schools, hired the teachers, paved the roads, maintained the bridges, and paid for most other government services. Businesses pay plenty of taxes. The top few percent of those who are successful pay most of the taxes for our infrastructure. It is the government which should be thankful for people with initiative who are successful; not the productive being thankful for the government. Every generation builds on the accomplishments of previous generations, but these are generations of individuals , not governments. Those schools, roads, and the rest of infrastructure are available to everyone, but only a few have the drive, risk tolerance, and genius to create successful products and businesses which in turn create jobs and a better life for others. Most often that "somebody along the line" who made a difference for a young person was their parents or a close friend. Do we then owe a debt to the government for our parents & friends?

[Tom Hunter]

You seem to be saying yes it does. If that was not your intent you might try editing a bit. If it's any consolation Obama doesn't express himself very well either. Compare Obama's argument for taxation above with John McCain's for decency in the face of a recent slander about Hilary Clinton's chief of staff:

"Ultimately, what is at stake in this matter is larger even than the reputation of one person. This is about who we are as a nation, and who we aspire to be. What makes America exceptional among the countries of the world is that we are bound together as citizens not by blood or class, not by sect or ethnicity, but by a set of enduring, universal, and equal rights that are the foundation of our constitution, our laws, our citizenry, and our identity. When anyone, not least a member of Congress, launches specious and degrading attacks against fellow Americans on the basis of nothing more than fear of who they are and ignorance of what they stand for, it defames the spirit of our nation, and we all grow poorer because of it."

[BrianW]

http://didntbuildthat.com/

[W Grabow]

The first paragraph is a quote from President Obama from last Friday. The second paragraph contains my comments. The quote is interesting because it is philosophically revealing in contrast to the staple of personal attacks that serves for much of political fodder (on both sides). I guess that in Obama's life, government likely has been a major originator of his success; so it has understandably influenced his view, but in the larger world the reverse is true. Pioneers, in many fields, faced new challenges and found their own solutions to create a better society. From their initial success, products, a government and an infrastructure were created. Roads, courts, schools were not provided by the government in advance of the frontiersmen. Sure they got help, but friends helping friends does not create a debt to the government.

[wardd]

The first paragraph is a quote from President Obama from last Friday. The second paragraph contains my comments. The quote is interesting because it is philosophically revealing in contrast to the staple of personal attacks that serves for much of political fodder (on both sides). I guess that in Obama's life, government likely has been a major originator of his success; so it has understandably influenced his view, but in the larger world the reverse is true. Pioneers, in many fields, faced new challenges and found their own solutions to create a better society. From their initial success, products, a government and an infrastructure were created. Roads, courts, schools were not provided by the government in advance of the frontiersmen. Sure they got help, but friends helping friends does not create a debt to the government.

someone had to give them birth and protect them as children, educate them provide them with the social support and resourses

others died defending the country who's children may not have had the same opportunity as a mitt

[David G]

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

This comment from Obama was clumsy. Where he says, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that." - it sounds like he's saying I didn't build my business. Well... that's a crock. But I don't think that's what he was saying. By 'that'... I believe he was meaning the framework referred to in the previous sentences. He sums up by saying, " The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

We succeed because of our individual initiative.

... but also because we do things together.

Hardly supports the notion that he's dismissing individual accomplishment, eh? I think the spinmeisters are just pouncing on a poor sentence structure to misrepresent his intent. No?

[BrianW]

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

Three "we's" and one "our" in the sentence meant to highlight individual success? Clumsy indeed.

I think his community organizer side was showing.

[Donn]

I think his community organizer side was showing.

That's his Elizabeth Warren side. He's 1/64th Cherokee.

[Michael Beckman]

Oh no, a completely reasonable statement. Somebody sound the alarms.

[Gerarddm]

Yes, WE succeed, as a country. This is so hard to grok? Really? Jeesh.

[Tom Hunter]

@Brain I love the Nobel Peace Prize photo, it’s hard to imagine a better retort to Obama’s speech.

I’m going to try and summarize the arguments:
Obama: We owe a debt to our govt. for our success.
W Grabow: “Pioneers, in many fields, faced new challenges and found their own solutions to create a better society. From their initial success, products, a government and an infrastructure were created.”

I disagree with both of you. Truth is, a well funded representative government is a pre-condition for our success. Read the history of the pioneers who came to New England in the 1620s and 30s. They were very well governed and their government created the infrastructure required for them to succeed. Infrastructure like the Essex County Register of Deeds, elected government, reliable courts and the rule of law as well as roads, warves, and bridges. You have your cause and effect backwards.

However successful people don’t owe the government a thing for their success. That does not mean they should not pay for government. They should pay not because they owe, but because the government of the United States is a spectacularly good deal. Fail to get the balance of taxation and spending right and both the US and global economies suffer. Make the tax system opaque and prey to special interested and the US and global economies suffer. Fail in these two things and we all suffer, we are all poorer, we all have to make more moral compromises to survive, and more of our pioneering efforts fail because of bad tax policy by our government. Successful people should pay more because paying less than you wish to spend is counterproductive and stupid, as Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and others have pointed out.

We don’t need Obama to raise taxes on the rich to get them to pay what they owe. We do need to reform out tax code as Reagan reformed it, and given our spending commitments and goals we need to pay more.

[jclays]

http://didntbuildthat.com/

Now thats FUNNY.

[Paul Pless]

This comment from Obama was clumsy. Where he says, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that." - it sounds like he's saying I didn't build my business. Well... that's a crock.

You know what though, there's a lot of people that believe that exactly, even well educated and well spoken folks. I've heard Keith Wilson and Norman Bernstein go on and on about those of us that have been successful in business have been merely lucky and that the money and effort that we have invested and the risks that we have taken have little to do with the outcome we earn.

[Kaa]

You know what though, there's a lot of people that believe that exactly, even well educated and well spoken folks. I've heard Keith Wilson and Norman Bernstein go on and on about those of us that have been successful in business have been merely lucky and that the money and effort that we have invested and the risks that we have taken have little to do with the outcome we earn.

Of course :-)

If you want to take other people's money, it's useful to build a moral justification for that -- in this case, you didn't really earn it, it was luck (or outright robbery) and we made it possible for you to get lucky, so GIMME, you ungrateful parasite!!

Very similar thoughts were expressed by a distinguished gentleman in a very thick book, Das Kapital :-D

Kaa

[Norman Bernstein]

You know what though, there's a lot of people that believe that exactly, even well educated and well spoken folks. I've heard Keith Wilson and Norman Bernstein go on and on about those of us that have been successful in business have been merely lucky and that the money and effort that we have invested and the risks that we have taken have little to do with the outcome we earn.

Thar is a total distortion of what I have said, and have believed.... But you would have to read 'Outliers', by Malcom Gladwell, to understand why.... And to understand the wisdom of it.

The utterly out-of-context spin on Obama's speech was expected.... The degree to which so many people here got sucked in by that spin was not.

[Paul Pless]

I thought you weren't gonna have internet access today.

So you deny making those claims?

[Ian McColgin]

I have never met a good business person, a good captain, a good leader in anything at all, who thinks he or she is solely responsible for success. Any life of success, any measure of individual greatness is a social event and it's not the slightest denigration of a person's greatness to see that. Rather, people who fail to see how they built on the efforts and contributions of others is the sign of unreflective hubris of the very worst sort.

If you aspire to the moral stature of Leona Helmsley, fine. As luck would have it, that level of selfishness is a genetic dead end that remains a minority destructive event in the human population. So far.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

The first paragraph is a quote from President Obama from last Friday. The second paragraph contains my comments. The quote is interesting because it is philosophically revealing in contrast to the staple of personal attacks that serves for much of political fodder (on both sides). I guess that in Obama's life, government likely has been a major originator of his success; so it has understandably influenced his view, but in the larger world the reverse is true. Pioneers, in many fields, faced new challenges and found their own solutions to create a better society. From their initial success, products, a government and an infrastructure were created. Roads, courts, schools were not provided by the government in advance of the frontiersmen. Sure they got help, but friends helping friends does not create a debt to the government.

Long berfore your state was a frontier my state, Ohio, was the frontier. It was part of The Northwest Territories. Ohio became a state in 1803. Even tho' it had numerous valuable attributes by 1819 Ohio was almost bankrupt. Fast forward to 1828 and we have the state borrowing to build a canal from Lake Erie to the Ohio River. It was finished in 1832. By 1840 Ohio was the third wealthiest state in the entire nation.
Your state was in a similar situation. Lots of resources and commodities that traveled very slowly if at all until the railroad came along. Colorado got that gift from the federal government that helped it advance beyond a frontier economy. Only a government could fund a construction that reached that far out into the middle of nowhere. Without a means of accessing markets frontier people were just a bunch hardworking subsistance farmers.

[Norman Bernstein]

I thought you weren't gonna have internet access today.

So you deny making those claims?

We are stuck in the slip by rain.... Hoping it will clear this afternoon.

I certainly deny characterizing the issue in the same way as you have... But I will admit to echoing the statements of that notorious leftist communist Marxist, Milton Friedman, who said that 'success in America is largely a matter of luck'. Read the book to understand why he said it.

[John Smith]

The first paragraph is a quote from President Obama from last Friday. The second paragraph contains my comments. The quote is interesting because it is philosophically revealing in contrast to the staple of personal attacks that serves for much of political fodder (on both sides). I guess that in Obama's life, government likely has been a major originator of his success; so it has understandably influenced his view, but in the larger world the reverse is true. Pioneers, in many fields, faced new challenges and found their own solutions to create a better society. From their initial success, products, a government and an infrastructure were created. Roads, courts, schools were not provided by the government in advance of the frontiersmen. Sure they got help, but friends helping friends does not create a debt to the government.

I think this is a stupid discussion.
A business cannot function without government support. Period. Let us consider more than just the highways, airports, and other transportation part of the infrastucture. Let us remember the Patent laws that protect research and invention. Copyright and name registration laws also are needed. Then let's remember the water supply created by the government. Obama points out that the internet was a government development and private industry is making all kinds of money off of it. I've pointed out that GPS systems are only possible because the government put up the satellites. Without contract laws and the government supplied mechanism to enforce them, where would a business be? Government has a role in electricity being available in many places. Prior to the modern electronic age, it was the government provided post office that allowed businesses to communicate with one another. Then there's all that record keeping: births, deaths, marriages, divorces, census, as well as ownership of things, etc. all done by the government.

Any sane person who gives this two minutes of thought will realize that roads not only helped move goods, but are the reason we got motels, hotels, more restaurants, malls, etc. The government provided infrastructure is absolutely necessary to the building of a business.

[John Smith]

You know what though, there's a lot of people that believe that exactly, even well educated and well spoken folks. I've heard Keith Wilson and Norman Bernstein go on and on about those of us that have been successful in business have been merely lucky and that the money and effort that we have invested and the risks that we have taken have little to do with the outcome we earn.

I don't remember anyone saying that.

[John Smith]

Of course :-)

If you want to take other people's money, it's useful to build a moral justification for that -- in this case, you didn't really earn it, it was luck (or outright robbery) and we made it possible for you to get lucky, so GIMME, you ungrateful parasite!!

Very similar thoughts were expressed by a distinguished gentleman in a very thick book, Das Kapital :-D

Kaa

Some people are simply born into weath and inherit a business. Is that not luck?

Meanwhile there is a need for a business to get its product to customers. Unless that business builds its own roads.......

[Paul Pless]

I don't remember anyone saying that.

There's a lot that you don't remember. I'm beginning to wonder if its selective. . .

[John Smith]

Hmm, let’s review. When I built my shop some years ago, it was part of a smallish 50,000 sq. ft. business park, my shop is 10,000 ft. I paid close to a million in fees, $350,000 of that was road improvements, $25,000 school fees, $40,000 for sewer/water and the rest in building department, zoning, utility, environmental fees etc. So, just how does other peoples money fit in to that??

You were not the only one paying taxes and fees. I'd guess this was still cheaper than building your own private roadway to every customer.

[Tom Hunter]

@ TallboyIn the past, when our tax system was less prey to special interests and had fewer loopholes the burden of paying for the road, schools and water would have been spread across more of the people who benefit from them and less on you. That's where other peoples money comes in. Some of those other people, with a lot of money, bought themselves special breaks and lower rates. So when it came time to spend the $350k there was no money for it, unless it came from you.

[Paul Pless]

when our tax system was less prey to special interests and had fewer loopholes

when was this time of fewer loopholes?

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Hmm, let’s review. When I built my shop some years ago, it was part of a smallish 50,000 sq. ft. business park, my shop is 10,000 ft. I paid close to a million in fees, $350,000 of that was road improvements, $25,000 school fees, $40,000 for sewer/water and the rest in building department, zoning, utility, environmental fees etc. So, just how does other peoples money fit in to that??

It works like this. If you were a sharp businessman you knew you had to set up shop somewhere where there was an existing net of infrastucture. You, were just buying into something others had ponied up for. Your road improvements weren't worth a damn if they didn't connect you to the wider world. The utiilities had to be avilable before you got there. That stuff isn't built over night.
What you went thru' is becoming more common. In Florida the fragile ecology and the fierce pace of urbanization has brought on heavy charges added on to each new home for the extension of and/or the maintainence of all the necessary infastructure.
Thanks for being so understanding.

[John Smith]

when was this time of fewer loopholes?

I think too much emphasis is put on loopholes. The fact is that under Ike the top rate was 90%. My dad made $10k a year. the people paying 90% were keeping many, many times what my dad made. They had their yachts, their summer homes, the big cars, etc. Meanwhile, we used their money to build the interstates, pay off WWII, and fund the GI bill. I don't know anyone who believes those were bad things to do or that the country, as a whole, didn't benefit from them.

When we put man on the moon, the tax rate for the upper income was 65%. Things here were pretty good.

A couple of things happened over the last several decades that are absolutely important to be aware of. Upper income rates dropped to 35%. Good jobs for the middle class kept moving out of the country. No one is paying taxes at a rate that sustains our government. Middle class wages, as has been posted frequently, have been stagnent, so they are not sending more money to the government even if they are working. Many are not working and are a drain on the treasury.

What I don't understand is why so many are unable, or unwilling, to do the simple math. Ship good middle class jobs out of the country and the revenue from the middle class goes down. Cut the upper income tax rates and the revenue generated from the wealthy goes down.

It is unrealistic to point the finger of blame for this at our current President, or the one who preceded him, or the one who preceded him, and so on. We NEED to acknowlege the reasons large companies move factories from here to elsewhere. I find it obvious that one reason is our healthcare system: it's a burden put on business here that is not put on them anywhere else.

More specifcally to the thread, and the importance of funding the government and the role you, as a business, need. If you have a new product you want to put into production, the first thing you do is patent the idea. That's done with the government who first makes sure you're not stepping on someone else's patent, and then is there, if needed, is someone steals your idea. All business dealings are contracts. Laws and courts insure both parties live up to their commitment within that contract. In order to make your product, you need material, and that material comes via some part of the government provided infrastructure. We also need the government to protect we, the people, from greedy, unseemply business folk who put their profits above the health and welfare of their workers or community

My drinking water is more important than your profits. Period. Someone should be making sure that restaurants meet certain criteria for cleanliness, no? Laws maintain order within our society, whether they be speed limts or waste disposal rules. Even the traffic rules help business function. They help insure your goods get where they are going safely.

[wardd]

the tax code will never be simplified, a complex code benefits the wealthy

[W Grabow]

the tax code will never be simplified, a complex code benefits the wealthy

Most of all a complex tax code benefits our congressmen. Congressional campaign contributions are solicited on the basis of the congressman in return creating some legal exception or narrow benefit for the campaign donor. How would a congressman make real money for himself without being able to tweak the laws, increasing their complexity, to help lobbyists?

[Paul Pless]

the tax code will never be simplified, a complex code benefits the wealthy

Most of all a complex tax code benefits our congressmen.

A complex code benefits the accountant and tax lobby. . .

[John Smith]

A complex code benefits the accountant and tax lobby. . .

True that. Accountant is also deductible.

Back to the thread topic, I'd be intersted in what government services businesses would like to not have. Channel markings and lighthouses made it safer to ship goods by ship. Still do. Would you prefer your goods go through a canal built by taxpayers or around a large country?

Seems to me pretty obvious that the government and private industry need to work in a way where they help each other. Neither, IMO, can stand without the other.

The government provides a lot of stuff that supports private industry. It just does. Aside from transportation, we've got things from the space program that allow for huge business opportunities in the private sector. We have laws to protect the intellectual property a business may be built on. I'm not sure how far a business would get without those services.

Elsewhere businesses seem to need credit. The financial meltdown didn't help them in that department, and I would think they would welcome legislation to keep banks stable and credit available.

Don't miscontrue this as my thinking our government is perfect and that all laws are good laws. It's more like cops. There are some bad cops, but I'd not want to live in a world without cops.

[wardd]

which was functioning first, the government or any particular business?

without government there is no commerce in the modern sense

[John Smith]

which was functioning first, the government or any particular business?

without government there is no commerce in the modern sense

I think it's pretty obvious that we are fortunate to have a system of government that allows private enterprise to function so well.

I've also been disturbed over the years that people seem to think a nation must have total capitalism, or total socialism. Frankly, it's been my opinion, that there are things only the government can do and we need to have done, and there are other things that the private sector does best. Both work best when they work together, in concert, so to speak.

[wardd]

I think it's pretty obvious that we are fortunate to have a system of government that allows private enterprise to function so well.

I've also been disturbed over the years that people seem to think a nation must have total capitalism, or total socialism. Frankly, it's been my opinion, that there are things only the government can do and we need to have done, and there are other things that the private sector does best. Both work best when they work together, in concert, so to speak.

i think business should be subservient to the laws of the nation and to the needs of the people

business should not be the equal of either

corporations are not people

[David W Pratt]

One notice two things about Obama's statement;
the government created the internet for military communication, not commerce, if the govt is so important in contributing to success, how come unemployment is so high?Doesn't make sense.

[elf]

Hard to believe that onyone would be asking such a stupid question.

Is there anything about life, successful or failure, which can be completely attributed to any single force or support?

Troll.

Ask a question that can be reasonable discussed instead of one that just opens the doors for trolling and pointless posturing.

[wardd]

success doesn't happen in a vacuum

[Keith Wilson]

I've heard Keith Wilson and Norman Bernstein go on and on about those of us that have been successful in business have been merely lucky and that the money and effort that we have invested and the risks that we have taken have little to do with the outcome we earn.

No you haven't, at least not me. You may not have been reading carefully, or maybe you didn't understand, or perhaps you are erecting a straw man, consciously or not. I never said "merely" lucky, nor did I ever say that effort and industry have "little to do with the outcome", nor do I believe these things.

Let me be very clear. First, we're talking about making lots of money. Let's not disguise it by calling it 'success'; there are all kinds of success in life, and only some of them involve lots of money. Nothing inherently wrong with that; I'm quite fond of money, or at least the things money can buy, and wish I had more of it. We're also talking about making lots of money by actually doing something to earn it. There are some who get rich purely through luck: lottery winners, for example, and about half of the richest 1% inherited their money. That's not what we're talking about. Let's also specify that the money is earned more or less fairly, not by swindling, or a Ponzi scheme, or by exploiting slave labor - an honest legal business, or invention, or something like that.

Now most complicated processes have many different contributing causes, and trying to identify just one makes no sense. Keeping an organism alive requires lots of different kinds of food, air, water, a very complicated functioning body, immune system, brain, and lots of other things. Claiming that the kidneys, for example, are THE essential thing for life, is silly - although you will certianly die if your kidneys don't work. Kidneys are, as they say, necessary but not sufficient.

Let's consider some of the factors that are necessary (but not sufficient) for making a lot of money in business. First, you have to live in a more or less orderly and peaceful society, where the local warlord, or marauding bandits, or the rival clan in the next valley, won't take all your money as soon as they get wind of it. You have to live in a place where property, including intellectual property, is mostly respected. A good education, by the standards of your time and place, is extremely helpful. You have to live in a society what has few arbitrary barriers against innovation and industry; hereditary restrictions on who can engage in certain trades, for example, or an aristocracy that owns all the resources, or strictly defined gender roles. Most important, you have to live where there are sufficient people prosperous enough to buy what you provide. It also helps a great deal if you don't have to do everything yourself because people who came before you have done a lot of that work already, and if shipping lines, sources of raw materials, libraries and other sources of information, scientific knowledge, specialized fabricators, systems of banking and accounting, and well-educated workers are already in place. Many of these things do indeed have to do with government and laws.

You also have to be lucky. Yes, you most certainly do. You have to be born with the metal and physical capacity; many aren't. Being born into a time and place with the characteristics I listed is an immense stroke of luck in itself - engineering genius would not be of much use to a female slave in ancient Greece, for example. It helps a great deal if you are fortunate in your choice of parents; bad parents very significantly worsen your odds, as do poor ones.

And even in business itself, you have to be lucky. Every time any of us makes a decision without knowing the outcome, we rely on luck (which is another way of saying factors beyond our knowledge and control). We cannot avoid doing this, being human and not omniscient. Every person who is really honest about his success will admit that there were many, many others who were as just as talented, just as intelligent, just as creative, worked just as hard, took just as great risks, yet didn't do so well.

All these things are necessary, but not sufficient. Also absolutely essential are intelligence, industry, creativity, dedication, effort, risk-taking, all those things that are under our control. Nobody gets rich by sitting on the couch in his underwear drinking gin and watching Baywatch reruns. Nobody gets rich by going to the office every day and doing just enough to get by. Industry and effort are absolutely necessary causes, but they are not the only causes. No one makes a lot of money all on their own. We are all connected, and we all rely on each other, and on the governments we create to organize our societies. As the president said, "When we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

As supporting evidence, I present the following quote from Mitt Romney, from his speech at the opening of the 2002 Olympics, saying almost exactly the same thing..

Tonight we cheer the Olympians, who only yesterday were children themselves. As we watch them over the next 16 days, we affirm that our aspirations, and those of our children and grandchildren, can become reality. We salute you Olympians – both because you dreamed and because you paid the price to make your dreams real. You guys pushed yourself, drove yourself, sacrificed, trained and competed time and again at winning and losing.

You Olympians, however, know you didn't get here solely on your own power. For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. We’ve already cheered the Olympians, let’s also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities. All right!

The quote's at about 1:40.

[LeeG]

Excellent thread, thank you all esp, Ian and Chuck.

[elf]

One notice two things about Obama's statement;
the government created the internet for military communication, not commerce, if the govt is so important in contributing to success, how come unemployment is so high?Doesn't make sense.

Been following the news lately? If you had been, it would make too much ugly sense.

[LeeG]

I guess that tells me a lot about your lack of personal success

Why say that?

[wardd]

I guess that tells me a lot about your lack of personal success

tell us how you became successful off all on your lonesome

i bet you could crash land on an alien planet and be rich within 24 hours

[Glen Longino]

just sniping BACK at wardd and his vacuous commentary

Of course you are!
You are Ward's heel hound!
You live only to run at Ward's commands, ears flopping, tail wagging, and foaming at the mouth!
Fun watching!LMAO

[wardd]

now i understand why conservatives don't like to serve in the military, it's all that cooperation crap

darn socialized military

[Waddie]

Obama put his foot in his mouth again but the gist of what he says has some merit. Every business success, or success of most any kind, benefits from a positive environment conducive to success. That's a given. But determining what's owed by the business or individual in blood and treasure as a fair contribution in order to facilitate that positive environment is what we argue about.

Some people believe the richest need to contribute more - some say as much as 95% of their wealth. Others believe the well to do pay enough as it is since they already contribute about 70% of our taxes. Some believe we need even more regulation in order to protect the environment from pollution, global weather changes, while others believe these threats are probably overstated and further regulations are simply an impediment to prosperity. Others see unionism as a positive force while some people view unions as a liability to business success.

What we're searching for is balance. What we disagree on is the construct of that balance. To the activist Left the correct balance is getting what they want. To the activist Right the correct balance is getting what they want. Unfortunately, the largely non-ideological middle class won't ever get much of what they want.

regards,
Waddie

[Keith Wilson]

Others believe the well to do pay enough as it is since they already contribute about 70% of our taxes.

This is not correct. I think you're considering income taxes only, which are just about the only progressive tax we pay; most others are regressive. The total tax bill is much flatter than most conservatives think.


[IMG][/IMG]

[Norman Bernstein]

Some people believe the richest need to contribute more - some say as much as 95% of their wealth.

I have never heard ANYONE argue for 95% taxation..... and the highest federal income tax rates, back in the 50's, didn't come even close to that level. The only remotely valid example might have been marginal tax rates of 95% in England, which were disasterous, and didn't last very long (George Harrison's song 'Taxman' is the most famous example of a protest against high marginal tax rates, which caused wealthy Britons to emigrate). No one is arguing for tax rates even remotely like that.

I HAVE heard, however, people who argue that, after 30 years of progressively greater tax cuts for the very folks who have succeeded overwhelmingly in life, they should pay less and less. It's commonly known as a self-serving argument.

[Keith Wilson]

. . . some say as much as 95% of their wealth.

Who?

The top marginal income tax rate was once 90% in the US. That does not mean that even very rich people paid 90% of their income, and certianly not '95% of their wealth'. Wealth and income are not the same thing, and a top marginal rate is not the same as an overall tax rate. Please try to get the numbers straight. One can't have a coherent discussion about finances otherwise.

[hanleyclifford]

It would seem that most taxes, sales, real estate, fee for use, are regressive. How can such taxes be made progressive and thus change the total tax incidence on a person? Only the federal income tax is changeable at the federal level.