![]() |
Quote:
America is littered with countless stories of folks who grew up in working class families and became millionaires. You won't find as many tales of success in any other nation in the world. Your attitude of hopelessness is as unfounded as your belief that supply side economics don't work. |
Quote:
Look, you've spent 3 pages spouting generalized bullshit. How about nailing SOMETHING down for a change? Yes, I know that if you nail something down, you will lose the argument because we will be able to come up with hard facts to refute your false assertions, but at least show some cajones and be willing to back up your vague assertions, eh? |
I know everyone is sharply divided on this, and that you're all getting heated up about the other side's arguments, but keep the personal comments and rudeness to a minimum.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Think of the shit teenager you've asked a question in any job they're working and all you got was a bad attitude, and you'll know what I mean. |
OK lets name some programs that the Feds do not and should not spend their money on, i nominate education since it is the responsability of the state and no the feds it has no place in the budget i am sure that many liberals would agree since they have nothing but negatives to say about no child left behind
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But as you said the war is a huge drain. We have to pay for it somehow. That means we can't be irresponsible and reduce taxes while our spending is so high. |
As to the 10% paying the 80, well yes technically I was wrong there, my idea was right but number were not. one thing that I did notice is that the bottom 50% only pay like 5%. Here is something I found that seemed interesting. check it out.
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.worldrevolution.org/Proje...Inequality.htm Quote:
Edit: I'd also like to pose a question that just occured to me: If the bottom 50% of income earners pay only 5% of income taxes... well, leaving them income-tax-free wouldn't hurt much at all, would it? |
Quote:
Yeah its called a anuity, its guaranteed to make more then SS is and you cannot loose your money and it can be tax free too. Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
SO, physix, no answer on the fact that a flat tax for 10% would cut the tax income of the government by more than half?
A big reason private schools "waste" less money is they don't have to cater to the lowest common denominator and they don't have to teach kids with special needs like retardation, autism, etc. Those conditions are a HUGE drain on a school's resources. Kerry's plan for a tax break is a break for the 98% who own less than 60% of the nation's wealth. He wants to tax the rich e.g., himself and his wife and his running mate, unlike Bush, who wants a cut for himself and his cabinet of millionaires. Finally, Hwed, it's not hopelessness, it's realism. There's a reason less than 1% of the country is "high-net-worth" individuals. |
Quote:
|
nobody have proven that alternatives are ready to replace oil.
As for private schools, well I can guarantee you that TU here in Tulsa pays better then OU and OSU. Also there are private schools that cater only to autistic and metaly handicapped kids. As for anwr, well my bad on the spelling, but one day it will happen and once we hit a few dollars a gallon I guarantee there will be a lot more people wanting to. |
Here are a couple of programs that seem to spend lots o money, not saying that these are bad programs, but I guarantee you the EPA is already bigger then it needs to be.
EPA 6.453 billion OSHA 443 million SBA 340 million SEC 253 million Equal employment oportunity commission 244 million FCC 165million FTC 89million Consumer product saftey comm, 40 million Its funny we spend more (6.413billion more) to make sure the plants and animals are ok, then we do to make sure the products that are made don't kill us. |
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2004/NEW01015.html
Quote:
Unless you like drinking arsenic out of the faucet. |
The IRS took in roughly $1 trillion in individual tax returns(versus corporate) in 2003. That means you need to cut $500 billion out of the budget to support a 20% flat tax. $493.5 billion to go, assuming you cut all the programs you listed to zero.
I agree that there are private schools that cater only to handicapped kids. I worked at one around here, Woods Services, when I was in high school. There might be 100 on this page. That's not enough capacity, nor is there one available to every child with special needs. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Taxing the rich isn't a result of the poor wanting revenge. It is because they are the best source for the taxes to sustain the very fabric of the society that makes wealth possible. Why do you think so many multi-gazillionaires have eagerly signed on to fight for the RE-INSTATEMENT of the estate tax, a tax that only has much effect at all on very large estates of the wealthiest Americans? (Check out Responsible Wealth - responsiblewealth.org, an organization spoken for by Bill Gates, Sr. for more). |
Quote:
Sacrifice is putting your life savings on the line, plus taking on a massive pile of debt, to start a new business and putting in 80 hour weeks with no guarantee of return, in the hope that you will succeed and build a better life for yourself. And how is this sacrifice that drives the lion's share of the US economy repaid? By people who just want to take someone else's hard-earned money that they don't deserve, either because they don't understand economics, they're lazy, or they presume themselves to be educated after swallowing the white-tower crackpot theories of a bunch of academics cowering on college campuses where they don't have to compete or see their flimsy left-wing theories fall apart at the first touch of reality. Look: Lower tax rate = more money spent on new business opportunities that would otherwise not draw investment = increased economic growth = high tax revenues! That's the way the real world works. It's that simple. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Hwed, Im not against cutting taxes--Im just against cutting them when we cant afford to. Certainly you can agree on that--its no different than racking up charges on your credit card that you cant really pay for. Find a way to replace that money that the taxes are bringing in and we can cut them all we want. What I am preaching is fiscal responsibility, not total communism. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And BTW, you think 40 million per YEAR is excessive for an agency that's tasked with making sure that EVERYTHING we buy in this country is safe? Exactly how lean do you think an office can run? BTW again, could you start making ONE post for all your points? This thread would still be on page 2 if you wouldn't make 5 posts back to back ;) |
Again I should have made my point more clear when I posted the budgets on those few programs. I am not for cutting any of those programs except maybe the EPA. They have gotten too big and have overstepped their bounds when protecting the animals have been a higher priority then man. (again to clarify I do realize that EPA protects us too, and that is all great, but when you cannot use an airport cause some damn bird made its home there well forget it. or farmers not useing their feilds cause they may kill the gophers or whatever. thats crazy.)
As for my reference to colleges, was only in compairison to private and public paid teachers, this happened to be the only place that I knew at the time of writing without doing any reasearch on it. As for alternative fuels, I am all for it, we need SOMETHING, but what, I do not know, spending billions on something that most don't think will ever work is a waste. i.e. hydrogen But lets get back to original point, which is the Kerry tax cut will not work and the proposed bush tax cuts will, its not as simple as the rich being able to get out of kerry's plan, but its part of it. Those of you that are against tax cut durring a time of defecit should have the decency to say that Kerry is also wrong for trying to cut taxes. Everyone says that the Bush administration is always contorting facts for there agendas, but it did not take long for Kerry to make it sound like Bush wanted to RAISE taxes and he was the president to LOWER taxes when Bush commented on a question about a national sales tax. |
I think I can speak about taxing the rich in a way few other here can. I am one of those 1% top earners. Whatever tax cut I got from Bush DIDN'T MAKE ONE BIT OF DIFFERENCE TO MY FINANCES. $10-15k more in the bank, great. Who gives a shit, I still have more money than I can reasonably spend. And I didn't spend the extra money, I saved it. I'm fairly certain that tax cuts for less wealthy Americans, people for whom a few hundered dollars is a big deal, would be felt in their pocket books, they would spend the extra money, contribute more to the economy.
Now it is true that I have become more philanthropic in the past few years, but it's not because of the extra Bush tax cuts, it's because I've become more aware of the vast and increasing gulf between the haves and have nots in this country. And not taxing people like me doesn't help. The reason you tax the rich is because we're the ones who can AFFORD IT. Regarding a national sales tax, it would be unfair, as are all sales taxes. The poor spend a larger percent of their income on taxable goods, so they carry a heavier burden, a greater percentage of their income is taken by the govt. [edit] To add to my own rant, rich people all know that not taxing them doesn't help. The only people who defend tax cuts for the rich are either 1. greedy and want more money or 2. too dumb/blinded to see the reality. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Bitter jealousy? How about well placed disdain for those who, for whatever reason, dysfunctionally cling to the idea that, no matter how much money they already have, they deserve more. How do you feel about a voluntary obese man shoving food in his mouth while others starve in his full view? Is that economic justice? Does that sound like a system that serves the best interests of all of its adeherents? I haven't given up on anything. I don't care if i get rich. I know that aside from financial security, having a lot of money will probably mean exactly jack shit as far as my levels of happiness and satisfaction go. I haven't given up hope, i just haven't bought so far into that bullshit capitalist myth that money and the hording of capital are somehow worthwhile goals. I don't respect people who take more than they need while others starve. I don't respect anyone who, with millions in the bank, complains about their financial problems. If i ever become that misguided, out-of-touch upper class self-pity-partier than i would hope that some sort of diety would strike me down for forgetting that money should serve humanity, not the other way around. I think the idea that somehow anyone who has a problem with the financial gluttony that is the u.s. is just jealous is stupid. It's a rationalization designed to allow people who otherwise may feel guilty about being so obscenely wealthy to sleep at night. Your attitude of entitlement is just as off base as your assertion that supply side economics are anything more than a cruel joke. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
I find it deeply saddening that a country ONCE great is in such turmoil and fosters such hatred.
First, let me explain where I came from. I'll make this short and get to the point as fast as I can. I was born out of wedlock. My mother's father was a lifelong employee of Westinghouse. My mom met my "dad" a year after I was born and married him. He adopted me and gave me his last name (and has always treated me as his own (though at times I'm sure it was hard). My mom instead of going on welfare worked her ass off as an operator for Ohio Bell. My dad was a part time meter reader for the electric company. When they married they didn't have a pot to piss in. My mom's mom loaned my parents the money for their first apartment and eventually a house ($15,000, in 1970 that was a nice sum). My dad worked hard, met people who believed in him and gave him a chance and eventually became a surveyor and civil engineer in 1976 (this was before you had to get a bachelor's degree). He worked hard and became one of the top waste management/ excavating engineers in the country, he was a part owner of one of Ohio's and the country's first environment friendly toxic waste construction firms. Eventually buying his own company and devoting full time in golf course excavation. My mother became an RN while taking care of my sister and I, on student loans at first to get her LPN then worked hard got a good rep and the hospital paid for her RN. I grew up never wanting but being taught to help others. Now fast forward to today. Today the oppurtunities my parents had are NOT there in any form. Companies don't take chances on people, especially those with no college. Had that been the thinking in the early '70's dad would never have gotten his chance to move forward in society. Find me a hospital today that will pay for an LPN to get her RN degree. It won't happen. In fact most hospitals have cut payroll by hiring Cert. Nurses' Aides for on average $7 an hour and although they cry for nurses refuse to pay those nurses much more than the nurses aides. (Speaking of which where is all the money healthcare is charging going, it's sure as hell not going to the nurses? And the malpractice excuse is bullshit, because insurance companies get rich both ways, not having to pay for the healthcare (reimbursed and then some in lawsuits) AND raising malpractice premiums sky high so that DR. have to charge outrageous prices and unless you are insured you can't really get good healthcare. Anyone still wanna tell me how great our country is?) Truth be told, we are being fed bullshit about how public schools are rotten and taxes are too high and the rich are the only ones holding up our government. Facts are these: 1) Schools are hurting because we have outsourced all our decent paying manufacturing jobs either overseas or to "independant" companies that hire temps for $6-7/ hr with no benefits and 10 cent raises after a year. So the tax base from the factories and middle class that we relied on in our great years is eroded and not coming back. 2) Wages for people who have to work through college are decreasing and tuitions are increasing faster than the raises (again maybe 25 cents after a year if you are lucky). More and more people, by the way HAVE to work to pay for college because their parents can't afford it. So we complain more about public education because they don't have the money, and yet we refuse to vote ways to get them more money and states have to cut more because the Feds cut their help. So fewer kids can get into college to get better jobs. 3) during the past 20 years the rich have increased their wealth exponentially while the middle class has shrunk and the rate of poverty and personal debt has increased exponentially. While some may say, "well watch what you spend your money on." that is cold and usually not based on fact but on selfishness and greed. Facts are, most schools require kids to have computers, with both parents working the need is there to have 2 cars, unless you work different shifts and even then it would be tough (bus services are just as expensive and being cut in almost every major city, walking to work is just as dangerous as crimes such as muggings and robbery increase (although these usually get ignored because they aren't considered "serious crimes"). As gas and food prices go up wages are stagnant at best. 3) The people complaining the rich pay too much are those who again, usually speak thinking they will get richer by saving a little more out of their paycheck when in reality the ones who are getting noticeable savings are people who are in no way shape or form worried about money. (Not to mention have accountants find loopholes for them.) So, I just don't understand this idea that the top 5% are crying to have lower taxes when in reality they own the wealth. Trickle down economics does not work it only promotes greed and hatred between classes. The solution lies in biting the bullet, finding ways to get factories to come back (it's the only way to lower taxes and keep a country growing). Rebuild a wage system that pays a man a living wage so that both parents don't have to work. Have a government that supports and gives incentives to companies that give on the job training of marketable skills. The very things that the GOP preaches but then knocks and spews hate towards because they can rile up people (who don't want to face the fact their children are the ones who will get lower paying jobs with their plans) by telling them they pay too much in taxes. It's going to take vision, bipartisanship and people not looking at today but to what the future truly holds for this country and their children and grandchildren, not just themselves. If "trickle down" and tax breaks for the rich work so well, why are wages stagnant and decreasing? Why are "home equity" loans such a big business? Why are used car lots like JB Byrider making more profit than a lot of "new" car lots? Why are companies that sell cheap but disposable goods like Wal-Mart doing so well while companies that sell quality products that last longer than a year going broke? Why is the Fed artificially keeping inflation down by keeping the prime rate low? (Most people don't get prime rate, most are lucky if they can get single digit loans.) But the biggest question is: why do we allow this bullshit of sending millions of the factory jobs (and now customer service and support), we need to move forward, overseas.... if the rich are using these tax breaks to invest in companies to build these new factories (as the GOP talking heads try to preach) why are we building them overseas for cheaper labor? Aw well I'm sure there are those who swing right that can explain why for the first time in our country's history the children face a worse future economically than their parents, while almost every other country in the world is showing a better future for theirs. But IMHO (and just MY OPINION) their reasoning is founded on sheer bullshit and greed being fed to them by people who don't give a rat's ass about the poor and middle classes. Hell, the truth is, the less the middle class and poor have the more the rich get. As an end note: my father who is in the top 1% takes his tax cuts and uses them for vacations in the Carribean and Jamaica..... How the Hell does that help our economy here?) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
/rather off-topic |
Quote:
|
water doesn't count because there's no way to get sufficient quantities of energy from water without heating up the water. Heat up the water, you kill the fish, and you're screwing up the environment anyway.
Solar: Do you have any idea how big a solar farm would have to be just to power hydrogen cars in ONE state? Wind: See solar. The problem with solar and wind is that you have to have a large collection apparatus (windmills / solar farms) to get even modest amounts of energy. You need a HELL of a lot of energy to crack molecules to get the hydrogen out. |
i realize we're getting really off topic, but i'm curious... what about electric cars? wouldn't using wind/water/solar power to generate electricity to power electric (hybrid until full electric is more realistic than whats available now) cars, as well as houses and such?
|
Quote:
There never was a surplus, merely a "projected" surplus that in essence implied that someday far into the future our huge national debt would be paid off. Now instead of paying off the national debt we are sinking further into debt. So you are partially correct. This increase in the deficit is due to several things, the recession that started on the Democratic watch, the complete economic breakdown of what little economy we had left when the attacks of 9/11 occurred, paying for this war on terror, and all the good paying jobs being shipped overseas thanks to NAFTA to name a few. NAFTA happened on the Democratic watch I might add. Why is it everyone seems to think that just because someone makes more money they should pay a bigger percentage of taxes????? WTF is up with that, the only truly fair tax system is everyone pay the exact same percentage with absolutely no loopholes. How is it fair that the man or woman living across the street has to pay a higher percentage of taxes than you just because they make more? If everyone paid the same percentage without the loopholes they would already have a higher tax burden than you simply because they made more. Under the current tax system you probably pay more taxes than the couple across the street because there is more for them to write off. What's fair about that? Where did this Democratic thing of robbing the rich to give more welfare to the poor go so wrong? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for helping out my fellow man that wakes up in a tight spot one day but geeeeeez there has to be a limit. It wasn't all that long ago I was working two jobs, raising a family and going to school and people on welfare was living better than me and that's no shit. Now that I've put forth the effort and worked my ass off, and the Good Lord knows I ain't rich by any stretch of the imagination, but just because I make more than the average worker you want me to pay a higher percentage of taxes? WTF is fair about that? Just because you feel it's your civic duty to pay more taxes doesn't necessarily mean I feel it's my civic duty. If you feel you owe more to society then by all means donate more of your check. When you get paid every week set down and write a check to Uncle Sam with a note telling him you don't feel you didn't pay enough in taxes this week so you are going to donate a little more. Don't tax me and force me to take on a burden I have little interest in supporting. /end of rant, stepping off the soapbox. |
Quote:
I'd like to venture that with more income and more sitting wealth, that someone also has a greater vested interest in seeing our nation, society, and economy prosper, as well as an indirect investment in national security. The guy with little more than a shirt on his back is usually the one that signs up to fight foreign enemies, to protect a lot of people with shirts on their backs and thousand dollar suits in their closets. And to say that the only fair system is a single, unavoidable percentage for all income earners is just silly. For someone who makes $25,000 a year, $2,500 is worth more in terms of that someone's quality of life than $25,000 is to someone's quality of life when they earn $250,000 a year. It's also silly to assume that there's going to be absolutely no loopholes. |
Quote:
Secondly, do you agree with me that person's tax obligation should be commensurate with his or her earnings/assets? That is, you are arguing that rich people shouldn't pay more taxes as a percentage than the average joe. If it's true that rich jon earns and owns 60% of the US economy pie, and average joe only earns/owns 30% of the pie, shouldn't rich jon pay 60% of the expenses to run this nation and average joe pay 30%? That is what I envision as fair. Why should rich jon only pay 45% of the nation's burden (while getting to play with 60% of its assets) while joe has to pay 45% when he only gets to play with 30% of the pie? There are all kinds of arguments swirling around this thread regarding justifications for or against the upper class citizens paying more or less than the average citizens; but it seems that taxes should be understood in relative terms as a percentage of one's earnings and assets than just thinking 30% is 30% is 30%. When I was working at a flooring company while attending school, we had our carpet marked up between 25-40%. We salespeople were able to play with the numbers but our rock-bottom was about 20-25% of cost. Now our $3.99 bottle of rug cleaner was marked up more along the lines of 200%. Do you think that was unfair? Or do you see how silly it would be to use a flat markup rate of 40% across the board regardless of taking into consideration other factors, such as, the low cost of the product? That is, we would have lost money on our rug cleaner in the long run if we sold it at a mere $2.10 (~40% markup)--only making something like $0.60 on each unit sold. On the other hand, if we had sold our carpet for 200% markup, we wouldn't end up selling very much of that either. I don't know if that anecdote will help you understand why I think flat tax arguments fail to take into account important contextual factors when they claim to be fair to everyone. |
it's been great lurking on this one but i just can't help myself anymore.
Quote:
but i suggest to you all that the domestic piece of this pales against the foreign debt problem. the far east is buying up our debt like crazy at the same time we're pushing our jobs and production of real goods off shore. there is a potential paper crisis facing the u.s. economy in a few years if we don't stop the bleeding now. we need to get the budget back on track and start paying down the debt and upping the trade balance. now that, my friends, is the kind of foreign policy i want to hear about. and all you small businessmen out there should know you don't want to be running your business on credit. a few quick shout outs... shakran and harry, it doesn't have to be cold turkey. the hybrids on the market are working fine, and if every car in the u.s. got 34 mpg, there would be no need for foreign oil (www.nrdc.org). we could keep working it down from there. in terms of the big traditional lines, the enviornment is non-partisan. it's more of new biz vs. traditional biz than liberal vs. conservative anymore (can anyone say big biz stifles competition through political muscle?).... but ironic how liberals are commonly defending the "conservation" of resources. phyz.... dude. i mean... dude. kutulu gave you the digits man. dude... pan, your story is awesome... both sides of the aisle should fight to claim a share of that kind of success story. that's the way the deal is supposed to work. wax off, i know two way cool apolitical 501(c)3's if you're in need of shelter. :D but i'm sure you're already doing the thing you want to do, and more power to you. again, that's the way the deal is supposed to work. |
"phyz.... dude. i mean... dude. kutulu gave you the digits man. dude..."
I call bullshit - you used the same word 3 times in..well...sort of one sentence (there's a whole thread on that). Nice post gingibus, but the second paragraph confused me a little bit..... Paper crisis??? What can Kadath and I do to help? |
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
Quote:
that's scary shit. quit whining about personal income tax breaks and start pressuring your government to run itself like a business that wants to stay in business or get ready to start paying for mexican-made levis with Euros. this is why real fiscal conservatives are mega pissed at bush. and strangely, the only candidates who made this issue part of their platforms were dean and kucinich. piss on the liberals if you want, but they are more fiscally conservative in the real sense of the word than either of the nominees. |
"Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that everyday, 10 men go to dinner. The bill for all 10 comes to $100. If it was paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. Now dinner for the 10 costs $80. The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share? The men realize that $20 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal. The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so, the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59. Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7." "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!" "That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks." "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor." The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important: they were $52 short! And that, boys and girls and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Switzerland and the Caribbean." |
Yeah, I've seen that. Now imagine that the restaurant is owned and staffed by all them guys, and the tenth man does nothing more than own it, reap the profits, and pay the other 9 guys minimum wage.
It simplifies things too much. |
A higher sales tax would be a ridiculous idea.
We should not be increasing the tax on work while cutting taxes on wealth. Tax the dead; jack up the estate tax on estates over 10 million. |
Quote:
OK, you have someone who works and makes let's saythe median $37,000 a year. Now on that $37,000 let's say he pays 20% by the time fed, FICA, state city are taken out. That leaves the man $29,600, now he pays sells tax on everything he buys and property taxes. So let's say that adds up to another $2,600. That leaves him with $27,000 for the year. That's $2250 a month. Now he has a mortgage that is say cheap $600 a month. Now he has $1650/month. Now he has 2 cars and the payments w/ insurance equal say $750 a month. He now has $900. Which now goes to electric, health insurance, kids clothing, gas for the car, CC payments and groceries. How can that man save anything? Now you look at a man that makes a million, if you tax him a flat rate of 40% in all taxes (state, city and Fed), he has $600,000 left. You look at his mortgage, car payments and CC payments and multiply them by 10 over the other guy (26,000+ (6000*12=72,000)=98,000) He still has $502,000. No matter how you slice it he is going to have way more money to save. Now, who's child is going to be able to get into college because the parents can afford it? Who's child may get into college but will have to work hard and his education is determined by loans and grants? Which get cut when the rich get their taxes cut. So who stays in the higher bracket and who has a very slim chance of having a better life than his parents? As for leaving the country, the rich don't have to there is such a gap in who owns what here they don't need to move to a country that will tax them more. (OUR "rich" pay a hell of a lot less than any other industrialized country out there, especially in Europe.) You want to fix it so the rich don't have to pay exuberant taxes then keep jobs here rebuild factories, rebuild a middle class, start taxing imports they way every other fucking country taxes our exports and put more money into schools so that people can make more money and have more oppurtunities. Tax companies that ship jobs overseas. Because what we are looking at right now is this, no true manufacturing base to tax, payrolls that are bare minimum and a government going broke while every other country out there is buying up our debt as fast as they can. The tax base has to come from somewhere. You cut education and everything else to bare bone you increase poverty and crime because there is no advancement. You increase class warfare and eventually you will have a revolution or we will be a Mexico or worse. Is that truly how you want this country to be? We once led in everything that was good and a country any man could advance in, since Reagan, we lead in infant death, illiteracy, crime and just about every negative category out there and we are in the bottom 50% in the positive among industrialized countries. What happened and why did we give up being the greatest? I take that back for the top 1% we still are the greatest, because they pay less taxes, get better tax breaks and can get away with anything. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Why do you think Bill Gates built a fortress of a house? He knows what's coming because of these "conservative" talking heads trying to rile the middle class and get everyone to believe they pay too many taxes. Can't believe anyone would rather see poverty and uneducated, uninsured kids instead of good schools and the next generation able to maintain a great country. Aw well.... same people who once sang this song with Floyd and had good intentions are now the ones who found the money and decided greed was truly better than change and making things better for all. God Bless Roger, the rest of Floyd sold out but not him. Money (Waters) 6:32 Money, get away. Get a good job with good pay and you're okay. Money, it's a gas. Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash. New car, caviar, four star daydream, Think I'll buy me a football team. Money, get back. I'm all right Jack keep your hands off of my stack. Money, it's a hit. Don't give me that do goody good bullshit. I'm in the high-fidelity first class traveling set And I think I need a Lear jet. Money, it's a crime. Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie. Money, so they say Is the root of all evil today. But if you ask for a raise it's no surprise that they're giving none away. |
I find this topic very interesting. One of the only political topics I've chosen to comment on. I wanted to ask a question to some of you though. I'm currently in that top 1%, so I suppose I could be listed with the "rich". Can anyone explain to me why I should pay more taxes than anyone else? Because I can afford it? Sorry, but I don't feel the same sense of duty that some of you hold to "share the wealth". I'm by no means a heartless bastard, I consistently give to our church and support local charities. I find ways to help the under priviledged, and I don't think taking more of my income via higher taxation is acceptable.
|
Mikado:
It's not about "sharing the wealth." Your money doesn't just go into the pockets of those less wealthy than yourself. You pay for more of the roads, the schools, etc. You shoulder more of the burden because you can afford it; it's your patriotic duty. I assume, you being in the top 1%, that you're not in the armed forces or a teacher or some other sort of public servant -- if you care about this country and want it to succeed, that's your contribution. You giving to charities may help your upper-class guilt, but it doesn't keep the trains running on time. |
Upper-class guilt? That's hardly the case. You're right, I'm not in the armed forces and I'm not a teacher. I made the choice not to and instead focused on business and started my own company. I've been blessed over the years with great clients and colleagues. But I still don't see why I should front more money than anyone else, just because I can afford it. My patriotic duty? That's a bunch of bull. So if I start paying more taxes than you, does that make me more patriotic? I don't think so. I don't consider that patriotism.
|
I don't have much sympathy for the "they can afford it" argument. Pragmatic as it may be, and that's the part I do value and consider, it doesn't sound the least bit just to me.
|
Patriotism -- devotion to one's country. One might even say it is putting one's country before one's self. It is the progressive tax system that allows the government to pay for all the programs that make this nation the greatest on Earth. Those who complain about high tax rates should not pretend it is about justice; it's about greed. Instead of looking at how much MORE the rich pay than the poor, look how much LESS they pay today than the used to. Under Eisenhower the top marginal rate was 88%. EIGHTY-EIGHT. Today's rich have it even easier that the rich in those days.
|
i agree that it isn't just, but it's necessary. i know others have tried, but let me try to explain it too...
you've got three people. person A makes $300,000/year. person B makes $50,000, and person c makes $20,000. lets take two taxing scenario's. first, a flat tax of 25%, second a sliding scale. with a flat tax, person A would pay $75,000 in taxes, B would pay $12,500, and C would pay $5,000. this would "fair" to everyone cause they'd all be paying the same percent. but it would be unfair to the lower incomes because while B could still afford to support their family (with a spouses second income), C would be falling to borderline poverty level for a single person (not 100% what the official poverty levels are, but you can't really live on $15,000/year with a family and probably some of that money will go back to them anyways through govt. programs). we could also discuss why it is that the person making $300,000/yr is able to do that while the person making $20,000/yr isn't (and how it is or isnt' "just."). but that's a whole differnt topic. total govt. take would be $92,500 from the three people. with a sliding scale, lets say A is taxed 35%, B is taxed 25%, and C is taxed 10%. now A is paying $105,000 in taxes, B is still paying $12,500, and C is now paying $2000. total govt. take is $119,500. this way, the govt is taking in more (and giving back less since C has $3000 more to use to live on). The extra $30,000 is unlikely to break person A. they still have $195,000 to live, play, and bank off of. and B is in the same situation as before. i don't know if anyone coudl ever convince someone one is better than the other, but i think the sliding (what's it really called?) scale would be better. you aren't taking as much from the people who are barely getting by and need it, whereas you are taking more from those who have extra and would not be using it anyways. it might not be "fair" but in reality, it seems to be the way to go to make this country work. |
So explain to me why I'm penalized because I devoted enough time, energy, and commitment to make myself more successful than most people. I'm not saying I work any harder than a teacher. Hell, my sister is a teacher and I think it's horrible she get's paid so little. But she chose that profession. She knew what she was getting into. If you're worried about not making ends meat, put yourself in a situation to improve your income. Do what it takes to support your family. The greatest part about this nation is that everyone has the opportunity to make a better life for themsevles. I just don't see solid reasoning for requiring me to pay more taxes than anyone else.
|
Quote:
Most of the top 1% are there because they have worker bees working for slave wages. |
Quote:
i see no penatly... merely an... opportunity cost. |
Mikado,
The problem is we have eroded the manufacturing tax base. The very thing that made this country the greatest in history after WW2, we let leave our shores. After WW2 we had manufacturing plants everywhere. They paid decent taxes (not high but decent), and their workers made decent livings. This afforded our country a great tax base and the ability to work toward a country where everyone would get a world class education and could be anything, and a middle class flourished. However, as we watched those factories close and go overseas not only did we lose the taxes from industry, we lost the taxes from those who worked there and were paid well. Unfortunately, now we are in a jam. What do we do to keep a needed middle class in this country? If we keep cutting education and programs that help advance the poor, we face no growing middle class. If we keep spending we need to tax those who can pay more. I agree it is not right, BUT what are the options we face right now? The shrinking middle class and their shrinking paychecks can't afford to pay anymore. The increasing poor can't. It leaves the wealthy. And unfortunately, if trends continue we will have a barebone gov't, no public education, no advancement of classes, high poverty, serious crime growth and a much higher tax. The ONLY way to diffuse this is to bring back factory jobs, liveable wages a man can feel proud to make and a tax on importation. However, the GOP and DEMS as a whole choose to ignore this because lobbyists are powerful. It's not about trying to penalize the rich or whatever Limbaugh and the GOP feed you. It is about trying to maintain a growing middle class and industries to keep the burden totally off the rich. Because, in the end by cutting programs and losing the middle class the rich inevitably will keep paying more and more or the country will tailspin into serious chaos. Again, you want fewer taxes on the rich, bring back the factories, liveable wages and import taxes and see how fast your tax rates will go down. Otherwise within 15 years be prepared to pay more or face a nation impoverished by it's own greed and stupidity. Or we can keep bringing in illegals who pay no taxes but work cheap. |
Mikado,
One more quick question....to get where you are did you use ANY government assisstance at all (college loans, grants, a public college funded with gov't monies, a private college funded with gov't monies, gov't loans and grants to start your own business, public education K-12, etc.)? If so then don't you think you owe a payback to the system that allowed you to get there so that someone else may get there? My dad (who again I'll state is in that 1% and came from one a very poor family) thankfully pays his taxes and believes that it is a payback to help others advance like he did. He instilled into me a sense of community pride and to believe that if the system helps you achieve your dreams you repay that system or that system will die and all you have will be meaningless. |
Quote:
I do agree with alot of what pan6467 had to say. I do think it's a shame that we outsource jobs and transplant industries overseas. I'd like to see them comeback to our country as well. But what about those of us who create jobs and promote higher wages? I don't employ a large number of people, but I guarentee they are paid far more than standard wages. Again, I'm not a heartless bastard. Maybe my views in running a business are different than most, but I have been blessed over the years and realize I wouldn't be where am today if it weren't for some of the people working for me. |
Mikado,
What type of business do you run and what do you mean by paying far more than standard wages? |
I'm a group health insurance broker. Whenever you get health benefits from an employer, we're the ones that sold the policy to them. What I mean is that the five people employed here get paid far more than they would at other buisnesses in the area. My secretary makes almost $45k a year without a college degree. I would say that's well above the standard wages for our area. That area being in Houston.
|
It seems from a historical perspective everytime tax cuts occurred the economy grew?
It may have took some time like trying to steer an aircraft carrier but its hard to argue with history. BTW I am not rich. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
But this is a misunderstanding that permeates the country. I recently saw a study that showed that 20% of Americans thought they were in the top 1% of the wealthiest! 60% thought they were in the to 20%! The Bush folks have played on this to try and make that 60% who think of themselves as in the upper crust think that they are getting a good shake when the truth is they are getting a raw deal. There are a lot of reasons one might start their own business, to be their own boss, have a career in a field of their choice, to create self-employment when they can't find employment elsewise, to get rich, etc. Certainly I would think the vast majority of entrepeneurs do want to create a positive influence in their community, and they do want to build a pillar of that community. But the common thread is they want to own that pillar. A union worker wants to build that pillar as well, but they just aren't stuck on having to own it. This fantasy concept of the lazy union worker who just punches a clock for a fat and happy life is just that: pure fantasy. There are probably about as many union workers looking for an easy safe paycheck as there are managers who are maliciously looking for ways to screw their employees and investors for their personal agrandizement. The bad ones are out there, but they aren't the rule. |
Quote:
One should always have their objectives in mind. Is your goal is to create a monstrous super-company to top the NYSE and collect every spare coin you can get your hand on in a never-ending mission to amass more wealth, or is your goal to create a profitable and responsible company that provides you a comfortable living and retirement, as well as being a positive pillar of the community? |
Quote:
BTW I don't hate the rich. :) |
Quote:
Obviously health care is no small benefit. Fewer companies cover 100%, and it is hard to blame them. I think that the burden of such coverage shouldn't fall on the business owner, but instead should be nationally covered. People are worried about cost, but what about the costs we are bearing right now under our current system? I think in a way there is a good aspect to the lessening company-provision of health care, in that the true costs are becoming more clear to average Americans, which in turn is why I do think the opportunity to reform the system is much more ripe now than say a decade ago when Clinton tried to do it. |
Quote:
Their histories, however, demonstrate that they are very likely not in that top bracket. No one in that top bracket works, first of all. They have billions of dollars in assets not income. They own a huge piece of the physical pie in the US--they don't have to do anything with their capital. It runs by itself as our economy churns. I don't know how any of us can make this part more clear: The reason someone in that upper strata owes "more" taxes is because we are supposed to pay taxes commensurate with our worth. We have a yearly government bill (for the sake of example). A wealthy person owning X% of the capital in a given society owes X% of the tax bill at the end of the year. If you own a company and it uses freight trucks, you do more wear and tear to a public road system than the person working at the company. The police, courts, and penal system provide protection to you on a greater level than they provide to someone in the lower tax brackets with little to no assets needing protection--you use more physical resources. That's one reason you owe more, outside of notions of fairness about quality of life, patriotic duty, and etc. |
It's amazing. Rational people think a sliding scale tax (slightly reduce the yacht purchasing power of the rich) is fair.
The ultra rich think a flat tax (starve the poor) is fair. The choice is pretty obvious to me. |
Quote:
Yeah, I'm stepping on your toe repeatedly, but at least I stopped punching you in the face. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I truly believe 1 thing needs clarified in your post. I am not flaming I am showing the difference between what you consider the top 1% (which in reality is probably actually .01% of the country) and the true top 1%. We are a country of 250+ million (rounded for easy math). the top 1% would then be a number of 2.5 million US citizens. I maybe wrong but I seriously doubt we as a country have some 2.5 million millionaires that don't work and live on assets. LINK:http://www.forbes.com/lists/results....sultsStart=376 That is a link to Forbes' 400 richest for 2003. The "poorest" is at 600 million. That still leaves 2,499,600 for the top 1%. But there are those (and they are the majority) in the "bottom tier" of that 1% that that do work, and while they have assets on paper they still need to make money to live and most of their "assets" are in savings for retirements or their small businesses. People see the very elite and think that is how all the rich live, it's not. Most millionaires drive older (5 year) cars, work at least 50 hours, own decent houses but not million dollar mansions, wear clothes off the rack, take 1 maybe 2 vacations a year and don't try to draw attention to themselves.These people are very much in the top 1%. Those who make a few 100,000 (the "yuppies", "neauveaux riche"... whatever the term is today for them) usually drive the newer import luxury cars and are flashy and usually have maxed out credit where if they miss a paycheck or 2 or the market drops they lose their arses. People, (the other 99%) see that and believe those people to be worth far more than they are, because that is the image those people want seen. Most of these are also in the top 1%, because of yearly income and what assets they may have). I agree with everything else in your post, but to claim "everyone in the top 1% are billionaires", when we don't even have 400 "billionaires" (Forbes list stops billionaires at #262 (actually 19 tied at #243) in the country is ridiculous and is as far off the mark as those in the bottom tier 1% claiming, (they should pay lower taxes because it's not fair to them). I am someone who will fight for my convictions and I try to respect everyone's view (sometimes I fail but I am human), but I also believe that you need to keep centered and make concessions when need be. Yes, the very ELITE are the ones you described as not having to work and having their money in assets, they own a huge piece (if not the vast majority) of the pie and blah blah blah. But the rest are just hard working folk who worked their arses off to get there, had a few good breaks, and deserve respect.... not grouped into an elite segment. It's like saying all Dems are lefty liberal whackos or all GOP are right winged pro business screw the little guy people. Yes, those statements are true about the VISIBLE and VOCAL minorities but the rest of the 90+% who don't fall into those groups don't need labelled because of those minorities. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Mikado seems to have very good intentions and whether I agree on his tax views or not it sounds like he is a very noble employer and one I should hope to work for or be. However, it also seems that some people will never be satisfied. You say you pay someone x and you believe that to be very fair and it is, yet others argue that the x you pay is normal and you should pay more ..... so in this situation we see Mikado having to defend himself for IMHO treating his secretary very, very well. I see as a serious problem and part of the schism between classes and philosophies.... an unwillingness to accept that one side maybe right in some situations, such as Mikado's pay and benefits and his views on overseas shipping of jobs. There are some here, who are totally opposite and would think Mikado treats his staff too well. My question is, why can we not accept the good someone does or the views that are quite reasonable while still disagreeing in other areas? It's not as simple as 1 side is always right and the other is always wrong. It shouldn't even be about taking sides or worrying about who is wrong or right. It should be about listening to each other and realizing both want to better our country. That both have good points and beliefs. If we do that instead of being totally 1 sided and negative against the other side, we may actually find ways to better the country.Yes, there will be fundamental and philosophical differences but it doesn't mean the other side is completely wrong. It means we need to figure out why there is such a gulf of difference in those areas and find compromise. I know right now the gulf and media fed hatreds are so deep that compromise looks like a weakness, but in all honesty compromise is the only way to move forward. We have 250+ million people and each person has a different view on what is "best" for the country, state and city. There is no way to appease each and every person. But by compromise and working with each other to move forward we can in fact build a better country together. Which is the very thing we (well most of us) truly desire. Perhaps I am a dreamer and this is unrealistic. I know I often say the GOP and I mean the far right but by the way I type or say it others can see me grouping the whole into just the minority I meant. So, I need to learn, myself, to practice what I preach. Again Cyn, if I misunderstood your post (which is highly possible) I appologize, I truly respect you and your views. I do nod my head in agreement with a lot of what you say. |
is everyone sure they are talking about income and not assets held when they consider total wealth. say joe millionaire owns 4 mil in assets, but makes no interest on those assets and doesn't work, he pays no income tax. of course this doesn't happen, but i'm just trying to see if we know when we're talking about apples and oranges. the biggest tax dodge of the superwealthy is paying themselves salaries of $1 dollar (which always reminded me of the asshats on the price is right who lowballed on bidders row, but i digress). by messing with the structure of capital gains and dividend taxes in recent years, they're pretty well sheltered.
i suggest that perhaps we step around the class issue for a moment and instead of thinking of it as a rich vs. poor cliche, we think about our tax base in business terms of market share or -to completely objectify us taxpayers- raw materials. in those regards, you want to pitch your product to the customers with the most disposable income or you want to develop the resources with the greatest potential. in both examples, it makes good economic sense to tax the upper income brackets proportionately. it's what the buzzmeisters call "low hanging fruit." the other point is, you need your lower income brackets to increase their retained wealth not only to expand their market potential but also ease the burden they place on the social systems.... thereby lessening the overall tax need. at times i ask my self, WWTSD (What Would Tony Soprano Do), and he would expect his top earners to kick up more, and if you weren't kicking up enough, you need to get out there and earn more or else bada-bing bada-boom. |
pan6467,
I couldn't agree with you more. Often times I think people get so caught up in a debate, that they totally disreguard that the other person may actually agree with their "opponent" on several issues. We also seem to have a hard time agreeing to disagree. My intentions when I first started posting in the thread was to gain some insight on how people on the other side of the fence felt. I generally stand firm in my beliefs and what I feel is fair or just, but I'm always open to new ideals and aspirations. At this point in time I feel like I'm doing my "patriotic" duty by supplying jobs in our local community, treating my employees with respect, acknowledging the work they do for me, and compensating them appropriately. It just so happens I don't agree with higher taxes for those that make more money, especially based on the ideal that "they can afford it". But difference of opinion is what helps make the world go round. |
Quote:
I guess I should just point out that I wasn't talking about wage earners and tried to make that clear by explaining why taxes on wages wasn't going to pay the full bill in the long-run (and gibingus) and by claiming that the top bracket doesn't actually even make a wage. You can slap whatever number you want or misplace a decimal--it doesn't bother me because I wasn't debating what porportion of wealth your family owns--just pointing out that no one is going to self-make oneself into the upper crust of this society. For starters, it isn't even possible to get from the bottom to the top in one lifetime because the top group maintians integrity of its class via organizations and books indicating who is fit to marry, do business with, etc. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Maybe I missed the link, but does anyone have one showing $300k/year to be in the top 1%? How is that number determined? Is it based on a national average? That number seems a bit low for the top 1% in the country.
|
Quote:
http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls It's a table from the IRS that has summaries from '86-'01, so the information is 3 years old but I doubt it has changed by more than 10-15%. It's the second table, thrid column, bottom row. It is also the adjusted gross income so that would be after deductions (maybe writeoffs and some loopholes too). It's also the cutoff point for the top 1%, not an average. That's where I've been getting all my numbers from. |
One thing to remember.....the truly Rich, have an accountant who will automatically lower the tax burden of the client. When looking at the returns of the mighty, it is amazing to see the level of loopholes available to those who can afford it.
That said, we are indeed in the process of eliminating what is left of our middle class. The level of taxation is but a small part of this, but is still a player in the damage bieng inflicted to those who work as hard as they can, yet live from paycheck to paycheck. It is my opinion that those individuals, and corporations, fortunate enough to make a great profit off of my needs, should realize that my income greatly effects thier own. If required they should act in self interest, and contribute to the general health of our economy by sacrificing a small percentage of profit to support the government that allowed thier very existance. Thereby freeing up the capital in the population that keeps them afloat in the first place. I would happily support my economy by spending my surplus cashflow on the items and services I "want", but instead can only contribute by purchasing such things as I "need". This coming from someone in the middle class ($40-80,000 a year) with three kids and a mortgage. |
Yeah, I use
Top 1 percent Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) break (TY 2002) [3,4] [P] $285,424 From this page as my "top 1%." It's 2002. The top 1% make about 10 times the median of 28,654. Mikado, given that you placed yourself in the top 1% and considered 300K low, I can infer you pay yourself more than that. Perhaps it is on the order of 450,000 -- 10 times what you pay your secretary? It's fine, even good that you provide jobs. My boss is like you, a small business owner who pays his employees pretty well and himself very, very well. That's his right, it's his business, and I don't have to work for him, but I don't feel bad that his taxes are 50% more than mine when he makes ten times what I do. He still nets six times what I gross. |
Kadath,
I'm sure you don't mind that he pays more taxes. But once again I'll agree to disagree and say that I don't see how you can expect me to pay more "because I can afford it". I also see a lot of talk about "loopholes" that allow the rich to pay lower taxes. These so called "loopholes" are written in the tax laws. It's perfectly legal to write off expenses when I own my own business. I just went from sole proprietor to a S-Corp also to help with my taxes. I don't see anything sneaky or underhanded about it. Unless there are other "loopholes" I'm unaware of. |
Quote:
|
Mikado,
There are many loopholes, but many of them don't apply to you and me. They apply to the super weathly. I've talked to my accountant about some of them and what he says is "yeah, you could do that, but it's on shaky ground legally. The govt could call you up about it and it would cost way more than you save to fight it." But for the super wealthy that bargain is fine. They save so much that any legal bills would pale by comparison. And the IRS isn't going to go after them anyway because they know they'll have an expensive fight on their hands with little hope of winning against slick, high price lawyers. This is the reason the tax code needs to be vastly simplified. While it's true that minimizing your taxes is perfectly legitimate, that's not what we're arguing here. We're arguing that the tax system needs to be altered so that the richest Americans shoulder a greater percentage of the tax burden because they have greater disposable income. In a way this is our duty as Americans to help support the system that allowed you and I to become high wage earners. To not leave scorched earth behind us. I had an interesting idea the other day. What if the IRS moved to more of a merit based system? If they gave out public awards for paying taxes. That way everyone would know who was being a good citizen and who wasn't. Corporate CEOs could compete for better awards. You could walk into someone's office and see "Oh, look, they've got the million dollar tax award." Make paying taxes a positive thing, not a negative. I mean really, shouldn't people be proud of making America a better place??? I'm sure this idea has tons of holes, but thought I'd throw it out there. |
Loopholes generally work for the super wealthy. I remember an oil businessman from somewhere (Saudi Arabia i think) who had to pay a large amount of taxes here for business ($ in the millions) but got it cut down to a few thousand by hiring two accountants who he each gave a Mercedes.
And as to people actually being in the right categories - no one ever really says they are in the right category. There are those in the top 10% who say they are "just middle class" as there are those right in the middle who say they are "upper class" or "lower class." What is true, however, is the slowly shrinking middle class, long the staple of the last half of the 20th century. |
Quote:
So here's the deal: You may be paying a higher tax percentage because you can afford it, but the other side of that coin is that your sister is paying a lower tax percentage because she can't afford it. Low income earners who have a hard time paying the bills oughtn't be stuck with a harder time paying big tax percentages. But the government still needs it's money to run. And that is where you come in. |
We're still stuck on the "because you can afford it" arguement. I agree that our government funded agencies need the taxes they collect each year to operate and keep society functioning. I agree that as user of such services we should continue to help fund them by paying our taxes. However, we all use these services. Rich or poor. We should all be responsible for helping to fund them every year. There shouldn't be a stipulation that says "because you can afford to, you have to pay more than everyone else." With a tax rate equal for everyone, I do pay more because I make more. But me paying 35% to someone else's 10% because I can afford to, I don't agree with. I need money from my clients when I sell them an insurance policy. Everyone within the company needs health coverage, but I don't ask for more money from people who can afford it when they are getting the same services.
|
Quote:
As an owner of capital, your business uses more resources than a worker/consumer. You must pay a tax rate commensurate with your capital--not income--in order to meet the yearly expenses of running the nation. That's the only way people who don't work and corporations able to shove their income around the globe--both of which I argued own the vast majority of the nation--will pay what they owe, not what I or anyone else thinks is fair; rather compensation for using resources as a disporportionate level than the average worker/consumer. On the other matter, frankly, I couldn't care less whether you can afford to pay your share. If you can't, your business isn't profitable enough to deserve to keep running. Right now the largest share of tax redistribution is in the form of wealthfare--not wellfare. Corporations and the upper crust receive a disproportionate amount of tax dollars back to them. People seem to have this notion that the wealthy pay in huge amounts of money (they do) and it funnels down to the poor (it doesn't). What happens is that the wealthy pay vasts amounts of money, but it isn't enough to service this nation's expenses. Rather than increase the amount taken in, the people who own the wealth (who are, or are connected to, the same people who control the decision making in this nation) argue to drive down necessary services for the working class and poorer in this nation who drive the economy. You can think in your mind that the rich really make the wheels turn if it appeases your conscious, but the people who keep it rolling are the people who produce and consume. That's what capitalism is all about--production and consumption. Decades ago there was an era when the filthy rich were spending extravagently while the poor were literally dying in the streets. At the time, and still recently, people argued that various wellfare programs were inching toward socialism. More astute analyists, however, now argue that those programs actually saved capitalism when it was about to die. If you look at the timeline, you'll notice that shortly thereafter is when socialism in this nation was all about extinquished when people actually began to believe the fiction that everyone had an equal chance at making it. When those safety nets were imposed the people responded and capitalism began to extract new legitimacy from the working classes. Moreover, the programs initiated that created a huge middle class (things like school funding, military payment for houses and schooling, and first time business loaning programs) started the economic boom that we've been feeling the residuals from for decades. Now that wave is ebbing, but there is no new movement to create another middle class. If you desire that, fine, but don't kid yourself--as the middle class shrinks it creates economic desolation in its wake, with little to no opportunity for the next generation of US citizens. Instead, those opportunities are shooting overseas literally faster than those economies can handle them. In short, the whole damn pizza is burning in the oven and capitalism's facade is starting to unravel. We get responses like 9-11 as a direct result of global capitalism--which has been described as the 4th world war, in case you didn't know, by none other than James Woolsey. Quote:
The entire article is too long to put here, but an extremely important piece of the larger picture I am describing--please read it. If you think you are paying too much, consider that if you reduce services to the people at the low-level production/consumption chain, you will strip the things that make this system of governance and resource distribution legitimate. The richest people on this planet know this and actively seek to not do it. Other richest people on this planet are just plain greedy, or underestimate the function of services to the poor, or just think it's the natural order of the world--survival of the fittest or whatnot. This isn't about whether you can afford to foot more of the bill as much as it is about you must afford it if you want the nation to keep abreast of its bills and if you want capitalism, in the long-run, to survive. |
Very informative smooth, thank you.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Your wrong. top one % is still a large amount of people. think about 1 million people. Now if you look at forbes there are only like a 500 billionaires. those are the top 1% of the top 1%ers. This is where I see that you are just jealous of rich people cause as you say they don't "work" I guess bill gates never worked a day in his life, the guys at google don't work, I am sure trump never had to work, and I am positive the waltons never have worked. Now it would have been true if you said they did not have to work, now. but to be considered in the top 1% your worth does not have to be as high as you think. And most of these people work. Also take away all the companies those people run and our economy plummets. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:40 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project