Interesting insight for taxing millionaires

[szh]

taxing millionares won't fix this...cutting spending will

I completely agree with this, and lets start with Defense, Medicare and S.S., three of our largest holes.

Indeed!

There are, and should not be, any sacred cows.

Z

[IBCoupe]

Meaningless when they are not likely to be included in the picture.

Remember your "pretty hand-wave" comment?

Z

What the hell does this even mean?

[IBCoupe]

My final point is that if we would properly acknowledge that we are taxing the rich more and thank them for their higher contributions, rather than use "they can afford it" kind of unfair and unjust justifications, it might be acceptable more easily to folks like me.

First: what are you basing that acknowledgment on? The CBO numbers that we're still talking about?
Second: the two things aren't mutually exclusive.

[stebo0728]

Wow lotsa nice movement on this tread, pity my interwebs are dead on the weekend

Heres the plain and simple truth. The only fair way to tax a nation of supposedly free people is to base it on consumption, giving the freedom of whether or not to pay said tax back in the hands of the individual. However, if we are going to simply insist upon an income based tax, then the only fair way to work an income tax, is to make it a flat tax. One percentage for everyone, and the more you make, the more you pay, but on the same curve. It has to be based on a principle of "how much do we take" because that is exactly what is happening. It may be a justifiable take, but its a take none the less. Hiding behind altruism and signing pretty tales about being concerned with "how much you leave" does not fit into our model of liberty. It is not the governments to leave, only to take. The wealth does not belong to the collective, it belongs to the individual, and most individuals recognize a need to contribute to the collective, hence taxation is necessary. But to be a nation of personal freedom and liberty, then fiscal liberty cannot be ignored. To work from a position of "leaving" sets a dangerous precedent, one which will only lead to less "leaving" as time goes on. It sets the stage for "to each according to their need". The job of the government is not to "spread the wealth around", the wealth is not the governments to spread around. The government is not to be in the business of picking favorites, deciding who will succeed and who wont.

As I said before, we have to work from a position that we figure out what amount of revenue we can raise, fairly, and then use that figure as our baseline for the budget. If programs have to go, then they have to go. Raising taxes on the rich will not pay the bills. The bills have to be lowered, pruned. Besides the fact that raising taxes on the rich will most likely reduce revenues, given historical statistics, even with that aside, the rich dont have enough money to pay the bills. We have to figure out how to put some tax liability back onto the 50% of America that pays absolutely no tax at all. Just exactly what is fair about that?

But I would also add, IF this nation handled its money responsibly, then just maybe some of the "evil rich" would be a little less withdrawn from the notion of paying a bit more tax, knowing it would be put to good use. But why would you want to put more money into a system that is broken?

[szh]

Meaningless when they are not likely to be included in the picture.

Look at your post above mine that you just quoted.

Remember your "pretty hand-wave" comment?

Z

What the hell does this even mean?

Did you forget this:

Yes, of course, it shows Federal income tax ... clearly, any other taxes (like the property taxes I pay for my house - go to the state though) are additional tax burdens we put on everybody. The fact is that we all pay far more money to "government" (I am including Fed and State together here) in taxation than we really should - things like property taxes, driver's license fees, sales taxes, car registration fee's, fishing licenses, etc., etc., etc., add up. The total amounts actually collected by "government" is a surprisingly high percentage of everyone's "income".

You haven't really responded to srellim's criticism.

That was a pretty hand-wave, though.

Z

[IBCoupe]

No, I didn't forget that, either. And I agree: you've just done another hand-wave. I assume, though, that you acknowledge that, when the sum of a person's taxes and mandated spending are considered, the rich might just have it pretty good? Being that you chose to say that the reason my comment is "meaningless" is for the weak a** reason that nobody's looking at my comment.

Which, is, by the way, a pretty nifty and convenient assertion to make. It's almost like it actually alleviates the necessity of defending your position. Almost. And, I imagine, the reason you tried to take your ball and go home was because you have no interest in actually defending your position. That's why you've consistently dodged the issue throughout this thread, after hanging your hat on a narrow reading of a narrowly defined set of statistics.

Hey, but that's okay. The CBO has a portion of your back.

[szh]

No, I didn't forget that, either. And I agree: you've just done another hand-wave. I assume, though, that you acknowledge that, when the sum of a person's taxes and mandated spending are considered, the rich might just have it pretty good? Being that you chose to say that the reason my comment is "meaningless" is for the weak a** reason that nobody's looking at my comment.

Actually, I believe that you did the same hand-wave that you accused me of.

And, since my post was right after yours, it was obvious what I was referring to as far as I am concerned. But, if it bothers you so much, I will go back and edit and add your comment as a quote.

What does the rich "might have it pretty good" have to do with this at all? Sure they do - they do have more money for stuff that others don't. I have never said that they don't do well. Does that mean we should penalize them further just because it is an easy target and they can afford to do it, etc.?

My point has to do with the amount of money that we already collect from them for taxation purposes for the collective good of others who don't. It is high enough already, and it seems that the proposal on the table is to increase it further - rub that salt in the wound!

Which, is, by the way, a pretty nifty and convenient assertion to make. It's almost like it actually alleviates the necessity of defending your position. Almost. And, I imagine, the reason you tried to take your ball and go home was because you have no interest in actually defending your position. That's why you've consistently dodged the issue throughout this thread, after hanging your hat on a narrow reading of a narrowly defined set of statistics.

Not at all. I have defended my position totally and provided factual data to back it up - unlike your innuendo and false assertions.

When you start introducing out of thin-air reasons that have no basis in reality (unlike the CBO report - which is totally real data from the IRS information), then it is pointless to argue with your fantasy introductions.

Hey, but that's okay. The CBO has a portion of your back.

Exactly right. At least I have independent and accurate data - you have nothing to bolster your flawed position with.

Z

[IBCoupe]

My position has been that your assumptions in your argument bring your argument down. I don't have the numbers or the time to find them, and I've been careful about how I've worded my responses to you, Z, so that I wouldn't have to. For at least the third time, I'm not criticizing the veracity of your data, I'm criticizing your reliance upon it. You claimed to show that the rich pay a higher portion of their income on taxes, Srellim called that into question, I'm holding you to it, and now you want me to do your homework for you.

I'm less interested in crafting new tax policy on here than I am in correcting bad logic, and you have displayed it, and apparently proudly stand by it.

And re: your edit, I don't recall whining. But cute anyways.

[srellim234]

z- let me know when you decide to actually address the issue instead of just spouting ideology and only seeing what YOU want to see. I only spent three years as an economics major in college but to the best of my knowledge Friedman never addressed how large of a gap was tolerable. He proposed the trickle down theories which don't work when they are corrupted in real life by greed and power. His promotion of free market principles and deregulation are wonderful, but only in an ideal world. You have yet to actually actually point anyone to an article by Friedman where he acknowledges that 100% of the wealth accumulated by 1% of the people is a good thing. Show me where he indicated that was acceptable..

As for one article by one person on one viewpoint, try reading the posts. So far I've linked to three articles, noting many renowned economists, with differing viewpoints on how to address the current unsustainable imbalance.

As for thanking the rich, right now that would be like thanking the person who raped you for leaving a red rose on the dresser on the way out. They are investing the money in corporations who are not investing here. Jobs, raw materials, etc. are being invested overseas but are not being used here to provide opportunity for all in the U.S. Infrastructure is not being built and/or re-built. Corporate profits are being distributed to the top tier through their majority of stock ownership and rotated through the same channels again. The only payroll increases are for the top tier, not the middle and lower class workers. Even though worker productivity is up, corporate profits are up, the economy is supposedly recovering, the top tier are not investing it back in a way that provides the opportunity for success to all classes and would thus provide long term economic success, growth and profits.

Friedman indicated that without such investment that the curve would gradually return because such profits and wealth would be unsustainable. That's where we are at. In a real world situation as opposed to theoretical situations, though, we're talking about political upheaval, possible revolution, war, etc. As a society and as a country we should be attempting to avoid that.

You're correct that there are no easy solutions. Corruption and lack of long term vision has led to this situation. Without change, either by a sudden enlightenment by the top tier in how they invest and reward their workers, or by government force, even Friedman acknowledged that this situation is not sustainable.

[donandal]

Gosh, I wouldn't know where to begin.
When I read srellim234's comment challenging Z to find an article by Friedman that
supported 100% of the wealth being controlled by 1% of the people.......wow!!!!!!!!
100% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! good grief
as if that's where we are, or where we are headed ( except in some fantasy world )
I just have to say this
yes there are simple answers......cut spending
Z
don't waste your time debating this. obviously the parameters of debate from the other side
are no longer sane

[srellim234]

The point is, how far is it allowed to go? We already see rebellions taking place in countries with more balance than we have.

As I said, Friedman theorized that over the long term the curve would return in a pure theoretical sense without government intervention. What those writings fail to take into account is the physical reaction of those who are being denied. I don't think you can quantify the point at which people will tolerate no more but it will be before you reach the 100% mark.

What we have right now, though, is a 1% or 5% using their wealth and power to accumulate even more wealth and power at the expense of all others. Like the Hunt Brothers when they attempted to control the silver market (which was impossible for the reasons cited by Friedman). Do we take the chance that it will automatically return to the balance as Friedman suggests, hoping that violence by the masses or oppression by the top tier don't occur, or do we address it now?

[stebo0728]

What we have right now, though, is a 1% or 5% using their wealth and power to accumulate even more wealth and power at the expense of all others.

This is devicive classism speech, you're above that. It could just as easily be said that the 99% or 95% are using their self imbued poverty to put reins on the productive. But then that too is classism speech.

Any society that puts its most mediocre in a life boat, at the expense of their most productive, is doomed to demise.

[szh]

My position has been that your assumptions in your argument bring your argument down. I don't have the numbers or the time to find them, and I've been careful about how I've worded my responses to you, Z, so that I wouldn't have to. For at least the third time, I'm not criticizing the veracity of your data, I'm criticizing your reliance upon it. You claimed to show that the rich pay a higher portion of their income on taxes, Srellim called that into question, I'm holding you to it, and now you want me to do your homework for you.

I'm less interested in crafting new tax policy on here than I am in correcting bad logic, and you have displayed it, and apparently proudly stand by it.

And re: your edit, I don't recall whining. But cute anyways.

You and srellim want to wave red herrings without any facts to back up your statements.

When I use real facts, from an independent source, you have no argument except to make it personal.

No point in discussing further ... which is where I was a short while back and should have stayed there. Shame on me for responding to the trolling.

Z

[szh]

Z
don't waste your time debating this. obviously the parameters of debate from the other side
are no longer sane

You are absolutely correct.

Z

[szh]

Any society that puts its most mediocre in a life boat, at the expense of their most productive, is doomed to demise.

I saw evidence of this in the USSR when I visited there many years ago, but that is off-topic here.

Z

[srellim234]

What we have right now, though, is a 1% or 5% using their wealth and power to accumulate even more wealth and power at the expense of all others.

This is devicive classism speech, you're above that. It could just as easily be said that the 99% or 95% are using their self imbued poverty to put reins on the productive. But then that too is classism speech.

Any society that puts its most mediocre in a life boat, at the expense of their most productive, is doomed to demise.

99% or 95% use their self imbued poverty to put the reins on the productive? Surely you're joking! The majority of workers in the United States are more productive than ever and are not being rewarded for it. The owners of those corporations are being rewarded.

[stebo0728]

Thats great, your talking about job takers. I thought we were talking about job makers. Would you rather erode the job makers for more than their fair shake, causing less jobs, or would you rather force people to either rise above or be content with their mediocrity? You want to talk platitudes about the poor man, and how its so horrible how he cant find a job, then rather than empowering the job creators to create him a job, you further penalize them for welfares sake, thus further thinning the job pool. You are content giving the man a fish every day, instead of allowing some minor discomfort in his life to force him to pick up a fishing pole.

[srellim234]

Where does that fishing pole come from?

The job creators ARE empowered to create jobs. They're not doing it. They're too busy rewarding themselves.

I'm all for streamlining things. I believe an awful lot of regulation in this country is unwarranted and restrictive. Yes, it has contributed to a lot of jobs going overseas. Totally unregulated doesn't work, either. The trick is finding a way to survive while balances are found.

As you've seen, I'm also a proponent of the flat rate income tax. On all forms of income, no deductions, no deferments or discounts. Where I differ from most, though, is that I also propose we totally eliminate taxes on corporations. They don't pay taxes anyway. They just pass them on to their customers in the form of higher prices. Without having to pay taxes and some streamlining of regulation businesses will be falling all over themselves to come back and operate here again.

Once money moves from the corporation to the individual, it becomes income. Dividends count. Under those circumstances business managers and corporate officers I know would willingly reimburse business expenses to their employees + whatever the tax is.

Add your capital gains, subtract your capital losses and there's the taxable figure for that part of your income.

[szh]

Some appropo - only slightly off-topic, IMHO - classic quotes from Milton Friedman:

• "I am favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible."
• "Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another."
• "If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand."
• "We have a system that increasingly taxes work and subsidizes nonwork."
• "A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."

Z

[srellim234]

That second quote is very much what I'm talking about. The top tier is acting as if there is a fixed pie and it must gain at the expense of the other classes.

[stebo0728]

But thats contrary to the quote, the point of the quote is that the acquisition of wealth is NOT at the expense of another.

[szh]

And, from Galbraith:

• "By all but the pathologically romantic, it is now recognized that this is not the age of the small man."
• "Wealth is not without its advantages and the case to the contrary, although it has often been made, has never proved widely persuasive."
• "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite."
• "Of all classes the rich are the most noticed and the least studied."

Z

[szh]

And, finally, Thomas Sowell, a noted American economist - considered more Libertarian perhaps:

• "Balanced budget requirements seem more likely to produce accounting ingenuity than genuinely balanced budgets."
• "The real goal should be reduced government spending, rather than balanced budgets achieved by ever rising tax rates to cover ever rising spending."
• "Elections should be held on April 16th- the day after we pay our income taxes. That is one of the few things that might discourage politicians from being big spenders."
• "Imagine a political system so radical as to promise to move more of the poorest 20% of the population into the richest 20% than remain in the poorest bracket within the decade? You don't need to imagine it. It's called the United States of America."
• "Liberalism is totalitarianism with a human face."
• "Liberals seem to assume that, if you don't believe in their particular political solutions, then you don't really care about the people that they claim to want to help."
• "Mistakes can be corrected by those who pay attention to facts but dogmatism will not be corrected by those who are wedded to a vision."
• "Mystical references to society and its programs to help may warm the hearts of the gullible but what it really means is putting more power in the hands of bureaucrats."
• "One of the most pervasive political visions of our time is the vision of liberals as compassionate and conservatives as less caring."
• "People who identify themselves as conservatives donate money to charity more often than people who identify themselves as liberals. They donate more money and a higher percentage of their incomes."
• "Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it."

Z

[srellim234]

stebo, read my answer again. I agree with the quote. The upper class is acting in a manner contrary to the quote.

[IBCoupe]

My position has been that your assumptions in your argument bring your argument down. I don't have the numbers or the time to find them, and I've been careful about how I've worded my responses to you, Z, so that I wouldn't have to. For at least the third time, I'm not criticizing the veracity of your data, I'm criticizing your reliance upon it. You claimed to show that the rich pay a higher portion of their income on taxes, Srellim called that into question, I'm holding you to it, and now you want me to do your homework for you.

I'm less interested in crafting new tax policy on here than I am in correcting bad logic, and you have displayed it, and apparently proudly stand by it.

And re: your edit, I don't recall whining. But cute anyways.

You and srellim want to wave red herrings without any facts to back up your statements.

When I use real facts, from an independent source, you have no argument except to make it personal.

No point in discussing further ... which is where I was a short while back and should have stayed there. Shame on me for responding to the trolling.

Z

Where did I make it personal? I'm challenging your use of real facts from an independent source.

I am well aware that you're using facts, but facts alone don't make your case. The facts actually have to sit in an argument, and that's where I'm drawing a point. You could swap your facts out for "2+2=4," and this entire conversation would look identical.

[szh]

[IBCoupe]

Oh, now I'm convinced. Well done, sir!

[szh]

Oh, now I'm convinced. Well done, sir!

The Lord be praised. He has seen the light!

Z

[IBCoupe]

[stebo0728]

Oh, now I'm convinced. Well done, sir!

The Lord be praised. He has seen the light!

Z

You mean he's finally been Hanitized?!?