Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   Don't tax the rich says Bush - WTF?! (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/65445-dont-tax-rich-says-bush-wtf.html)

Hwed 08-12-2004 03:47 PM

Quote:

confused middle class folks who like to think that they will one day be rich
That's what I'm talking about... the bitter jealousy summed up nicely. The Democratic party is the party of folks who have given up. In the land of opportunity where anyone can make something of themselves if they're willing to take some risks and work hard, the Democrats of today would rather sit around and moan about how they'll never amount to anything. Of course, instead of blaming themselves for their own lack of ambition, they'd rather hate successful people.

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.

shakran 08-12-2004 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by phyzix525
Government waste is spending, not the taxation, if you stop spending so much you can get away with a 10% flat tax and it does away with all loopholes.
We have a winner here folks. He wants us to stop spending so much, but fails utterly to tell us what we can stop spending money on. Isn't that convenient.

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?

MSD 08-12-2004 06:35 PM

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.

phyzix525 08-12-2004 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Journeyman
I'm disheartened by your generalizing of all non-college graduates as being "dumb" and "lazy," but encouraged by your wife's story. You are in favor of universal, paid-for college to those who can't afford it, then? Sort of like an educational welfare, yes?
To those that deserve it by working hard and not taking advantage yes.

phyzix525 08-12-2004 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kutulu
This may be the socialist in me but if you look at the model of our wages, it is a pyramid with a small group on top making the largest amount of money. Those are the people that employ almost everyone else. They set the wages and keep them as low as competition allows so that they can hoard their money. Keeping that in mind, I don't see how it is so wrong that the tax model can't be the same.
They do that too keep competative cause I don't think that the majority of the people are going to spend more money at the grocer cause they pay the employees better. Now of course it would be nice to see the walton's spead out some of the 5 billion that they made in profit last year, but I don't think it is the governments job to do so.

phyzix525 08-12-2004 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hwed
Bush is right... when you tax the rich, it's the poor who end up paying. On the other hand, if you stop confiscating their money, the rich will create new businesses, new jobs, and improve the life of everyone.

This rabid, frothing insistence that we punish wealthy people for being successful is the misguided result of bitter jealousy from people who have given up on ever wanting to make something of themselves, and have decided to punish those who have.

ditto

phyzix525 08-12-2004 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by shakran
We have a winner here folks. He wants us to stop spending so much, but fails utterly to tell us what we can stop spending money on. Isn't that convenient.

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?

Well I did not know it was up to me to change the counrty. But since you asked, I think for starters we could fix the welfare program. Also turn the social security program privitized, also getting our education system changed. like vouchers for example. Stop spending government money to find out the differences between men and women, or something stupid like that. The war is a big money drain at this point, but its not something we can just jump out of. Become more depended on our natural resorces like drilling anwar. There are many ways to slow spending, not all of it but some areas are a waste.

Journeyman 08-12-2004 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by phyzix525
They do that too keep competative cause I don't think that the majority of the people are going to spend more money at the grocer cause they pay the employees better. Now of course it would be nice to see the walton's spead out some of the 5 billion that they made in profit last year, but I don't think it is the governments job to do so.
The idea is that better pay leads to happier, more productive workers. A bummed out staff of stockers, moppers and cashiers can lead to a bummed out customer, and being bummed out isn't something that people gravitate towards.

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.

fuzyfuzer 08-12-2004 08:22 PM

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

shakran 08-12-2004 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by phyzix525
Well I did not know it was up to me to change the counrty. But since you asked, I think for starters we could fix the welfare program.
More generalizations. HOW will you fix it. Just saying "fix it!" isn't gonna save any money.

Quote:

Also turn the social security program privitized
Got a plan for that? Got safeguards for that so that when some dumbfuck invests in the wrong stock and loses everyone's retirement we won't wind up with a bunch of homeless senior citizens?

Quote:

also getting our education system changed. like vouchers for example.
Please explain to me how giving people money to send their children to private school will help save money.

Quote:

Stop spending government money to find out the differences between men and women, or something stupid like that.
Finally something we agree on. Something you may not know, however, is that the last president to take a bigassed knife to the pork barrel bullshit the government likes to spend money on was Clinton.

Quote:

The war is a big money drain at this point, but its not something we can just jump out of. Become more depended on our natural resorces like drilling anwar.
Or maybe try developing alternative energies that work? (solar, wind, water, etc)



Quote:

There are many ways to slow spending, not all of it but some areas are a waste.

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.

phyzix525 08-12-2004 08:27 PM

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:

LOOKING AT HISTORY'S LESSONS
There is a distinct pattern throughout U.S. history: When tax rates are reduced, the economy prospers, tax revenues grow, and lower-income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden. Conversely, periods of higher tax rates are associated with subpar economic performance and stagnant tax revenues. This evidence demonstrates that:

Lower tax rates do not mean less tax revenue.
The tax cuts of the 1920s: Revenues from personal income taxes increased substantially during the 1920s despite a reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1.164 billion in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent (this was a period of virtually no inflation).

The Kennedy tax cuts (1960s): Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

The Reagan tax cuts (1980s): Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, but the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically--by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).



Fact #1: According to data from the Internal Revenue Service, the top 1 percent of income earners pays more than 30 percent of the total income tax burden; the top 10 percent pay more than 60 percent; and the top 25 percent pay more than 80 percent. The bottom 50 percent of income earners, on the other hand, pay less than 5 percent of the total income tax burden.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1253es.cfm

phyzix525 08-12-2004 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Journeyman
The idea is that better pay leads to happier, more productive workers. A bummed out staff of stockers, moppers and cashiers can lead to a bummed out customer, and being bummed out isn't something that people gravitate towards.

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.

I have worked in construction before and there are a lot of mexicans getting minimum wage and most of those guys are happy and enjoy what they do. Its a matter of peoples perceptions on whether they are happy with their jobs. I have seen lots of people who make 50K+ who are bummed out of their minds cause they sit insdie all the time.

Journeyman 08-12-2004 08:36 PM

Quote:

Lower tax rates do not mean less tax revenue.
The tax cuts of the 1920s: Revenues from personal income taxes increased substantially during the 1920s despite a reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1.164 billion in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent (this was a period of virtually no inflation).
http://mutualfunds.about.com/cs/1929...ck_tuesday.htm
Quote:

Black Tuesday - October 29th, 1929

[...]

By the end of November, investors had lost $100 billion in assets in what was later called "The Great Stock Market Crash." In just two months, September and October, the stock market had lost 40 percent of its value. Black Tuesday usually marks the point where the Roaring 20’s ended and the Great Depression started.
And for the end of your bits.
Quote:

Fact #1: According to data from the Internal Revenue Service, the top 1 percent of income earners pays more than 30 percent of the total income tax burden; the top 10 percent pay more than 60 percent; and the top 25 percent pay more than 80 percent. The bottom 50 percent of income earners, on the other hand, pay less than 5 percent of the total income tax burden.
The response is...
http://www.worldrevolution.org/Proje...Inequality.htm
Quote:

The top 1% of households own almost 40% of the nation's wealth.
The top 10% of Americans own over 70% of nation's wealth.
The top 20% of the nation's households own 85% of the nation's total wealth.
The top 60% of households own almost 100%, or 99.8%, of the nation's wealth.

The bottom 40% of households own one-fifth of 1% (or 0.2%) of the nation's wealth.

The bottom 80% of Americans own only 15% of the nation's wealth.
So the top 1% pay 30% of the income tax burden, but own 40% of the wealth in the nation? Compare and contrast at will from there.

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?

phyzix525 08-12-2004 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by shakran
[B]Got a plan for that? Got safeguards for that so that when some dumbfuck invests in the wrong stock and loses everyone's retirement we won't wind up with a bunch of homeless senior citizens?

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:

Please explain to me how giving people money to send their children to private school will help save money.
Privite schools waste less money.


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.
So this means you disagree with Kerry's plan for a tax break then?

kutulu 08-12-2004 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by phyzix525
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.
I already stated that. In typical Rushism fashion you only throw out how much tax that they pay. 5% from half the country sounds terrible but when you add the perspective that they only make 14% of the money it's a different story.

shakran 08-13-2004 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by phyzix525

Privite schools waste less money.

You're trapping yourself. Private schools "waste" less money by paying their teachers much less than their public school counterpoints. Now, if you're supporting low wages, then surely there must be a flaw in your idea that more money in americans' pockets means more revenue for the government. Of course you, like the rest of the trickledown crowd, are only interested in enriching the already rich.

Quote:

So this means you disagree with Kerry's plan for a tax break then?
Why would i disagree with a plan that eliminates tax breaks for companies that move their jobs outside the united states while providing incentives to keep the jobs here? I certainly don't see Bush taking much interest in doing that, despite all his big talk about creating jobs.

Kadath 08-13-2004 05:09 AM

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.

sailor 08-13-2004 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by phyzix525
Become more depended on our natural resorces like drilling anwar. There are many ways to slow spending, not all of it but some areas are a waste.
OK, just something I have to add here. First, its ANWR. Not ANWAR. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Second, its a fucking wildlife refuge, not an oil drilling ground. Third, it costs far more to get a barrel of oil out of the ground there than it does to get one from almost any other country and ship it here. Not very good economics, is it? Finally, why should we be investing in fossil fuels at all? We already know, and the recent war and gas spikes have shown us--we need to get away from fossil fuels. Why sink billions into drilling an unprofitable oil field and destroying one of the nation's national gems when we could instead sink that money into a clean alternative that will last longer than 15 years?

phyzix525 08-13-2004 05:47 AM

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.

phyzix525 08-13-2004 05:55 AM

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.

Journeyman 08-13-2004 06:22 AM

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2004/NEW01015.html
Quote:

The request is part of the President's FY 2005 budget proposal for FDA, which totals $1.8 billion.
It's also useful to consider context, as in humanity's context on the planet. That is to say: If the environment is fucked, we are fucked.

Unless you like drinking arsenic out of the faucet.

Kadath 08-13-2004 06:58 AM

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.

kutulu 08-13-2004 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by phyzix525
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

All of those add together to equal 9.2B dollars. Considering the fact that the 2005 federal budget is somewhere around 2.4T dollars, those programs combine to draw 0.38% of the budget.

Quote:

Originally posted by phyzix525
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.
If that's your opinion of the EPA then you seriously need to read about how things were and where they were going before we started environmental regulations. It's not there to prevent plants and animals, it's meant to protect US.

jb2000 08-13-2004 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hwed
On the other hand, if you stop confiscating their money, the rich will create new businesses, new jobs, and improve the life of everyone.
They wouldn't have the money if it weren't for the historic and current sacrifices made on a daily basis by the average American. The idea that every dollar collected is somehow all because of you and therefore any taken in taxes is 'robbed' from you is ludicrous. Not one buck could be earned if not for the society and country as a whole being there, and so it is only appropriate to owe a fair share to maintaining and building that very society and nation that made your success even possible.

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).

Hwed 08-13-2004 11:49 AM

Quote:

They wouldn't have the money if it weren't for the historic and current sacrifices made on a daily basis by the average American.
If punching a clock 40 hours a week for overinflated union wages is your idea of sacrifice, it must be a nice life you lead.

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.

kutulu 08-13-2004 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hwed
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.
Sorry, it's not that simple.

sailor 08-13-2004 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kutulu
Sorry, it's not that simple.
No, its not. Again, you want to talk about economics? The first thing they teach you is that it isnt that simple and that there is a hell of a lot more to it than you think.

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.

phyzix525 08-13-2004 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
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 am not saying to get rid of those programs. mearly useing them as a compairison to the EPa's budget. Also I cannot follow your math. If 1 trillion was collected, I have to ask what was the total amount of income from all people in the US, that way you know what total % they are paying in the first place, only then can you figure out how much you would be cutting.

shakran 08-13-2004 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sailor
OK, just something I have to add here. First, its ANWR. Not ANWAR.
OH! Well hell I figured he was talking about drilling Mr. Sadat :D


Quote:

Originally posted by phyzix525
nobody have proven that alternatives are ready to replace oil.
Finally, a correct statement. You're right. A lot of people are pushing hydrogen, but it's bullshit. But we need to be LOOKING for an alternative.




Quote:

As for private schools, well I can guarantee you that TU here in Tulsa pays better then OU and OSU.
Um. The vouchers are for K-12 schools, not colleges. Let's get our story straight eh?


Quote:

Also there are private schools that cater only to autistic and metaly handicapped kids.
Yes, and taking care of them costs NO money at all and will save the government a fortune. What exactly is your point here?


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 ;)

phyzix525 08-14-2004 06:07 AM

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.

Wax_off 08-14-2004 03:16 PM

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.

Kadath 08-15-2004 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phyzix525
I am not saying to get rid of those programs. mearly useing them as a compairison to the EPa's budget. Also I cannot follow your math. If 1 trillion was collected, I have to ask what was the total amount of income from all people in the US, that way you know what total % they are paying in the first place, only then can you figure out how much you would be cutting.

I know that the top marginal rate is about 40%. So if you're instituting a flat tax of 20%, you're cutting taxes on those folks by 50%. If those folks account for 80% of tax income, you lose 40% of tax income just on them. Yeah, it's just rough estimation, but it serves to show just how unrealistic a 20% flat tax is.

filtherton 08-15-2004 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hwed
That's what I'm talking about... the bitter jealousy summed up nicely. The Democratic party is the party of folks who have given up. In the land of opportunity where anyone can make something of themselves if they're willing to take some risks and work hard, the Democrats of today would rather sit around and moan about how they'll never amount to anything. Of course, instead of blaming themselves for their own lack of ambition, they'd rather hate successful people.

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.


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.

hannukah harry 08-16-2004 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phyzix525
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.

fyi, at least out here in michigan (one of the best paying states for teachers), teachers at private schools never really make more than ~$35,000/yr (according to my friend who wanted to teach) while a public school teacher starts at about $25k-30k (depending on the county, etc) and with a masters degree at as high as $35k.

Quote:

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
most people? there are many people who think hydrogen will work. in time. it needs the reasearch and money invested to get it working. and then there are other sources (mentioned earlier by someone else) that could use some inveseting in getting them working. now is the time for the govt. to be spending the money on it, before we get into a real gas crunch so that they're ready and viable sources when that time comes, or even better manage to replace gas from being the most depended on source of energy.

Quote:

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.
maybe i missed something, but i don't remember hearing kerry say anything about tax cuts. i remember him saying that he would roll back the tax cuts on the rich (which isn't a new tax) and doesn't affect the middle class. it's possible i've missed something, if so i'd like to be informed. thanks.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Wax_off
I think I can speak about taxing the rich in a way few other here can. I am one of those 1% top earners.

if you don't mind my asking, what do you do for a living? and can you hook me up? :D (PM me if you don't want to post in the open forum)

pan6467 08-16-2004 03:11 AM

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?)

shakran 08-16-2004 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannukah harry
most people? there are many people who think hydrogen will work.

And those people don't understand their science. It takes more energy to extract pure hydrogen from its molecular bonds than you can get out of the hydrogen once you have it. There is NO way to use hydrogen as an energy SOURCE. It's an energy STORAGE medium. That's fine if you want a battery, but if you're trying to cut pollution, this isn't the way to go because you have to expend an energy source (coal/oil/gas/nuclear) in order to get the hydrogen in the first place.

hannukah harry 08-16-2004 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran
And those people don't understand their science. It takes more energy to extract pure hydrogen from its molecular bonds than you can get out of the hydrogen once you have it. There is NO way to use hydrogen as an energy SOURCE. It's an energy STORAGE medium. That's fine if you want a battery, but if you're trying to cut pollution, this isn't the way to go because you have to expend an energy source (coal/oil/gas/nuclear) in order to get the hydrogen in the first place.

gotcha. i saw something at the detroit auto show like 4 or 5 years ago, and it there was an exhibit that mentioned fuel cells for cars. between new info since then, my memory, and how much attention i actually paid to it, i could easily have misunderstood it... as it is, i've always thought of hydrogen only in terms of powering cars, so that would make it more of a storage medium rather than a source, i've never really differentiated between the two of them. my bad.

/rather off-topic

smooth 08-16-2004 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran
[...] expend an energy source (coal/oil/gas/nuclear) in order to get the hydrogen in the first place.

try listing renewables, since that's the context: water, solar, and wind.

shakran 08-16-2004 02:43 PM

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.

hannukah harry 08-16-2004 03:15 PM

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?

scout 08-16-2004 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sailor

The Kerry tax plan the discussion was talking about suggested repealing the Bush tax cut because we are sitting on the largest deficit in history--something that came about after a rather large surplus four years ago, I remind you. That doesnt leave me very pleased with Bush's economic policies, ............


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.

Journeyman 08-16-2004 04:59 PM

Quote:

Why is it everyone seems to think that just because someone makes more money they should pay a bigger percentage of taxes?????
As Wax-Off said, because that someone can afford it.

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.

smooth 08-16-2004 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout
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.

First of all, I think it would be more accurate to claim NAFTA was a bipartisan fucking of the middle class than to state it happened on the democratic watch.

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.

gibingus 08-16-2004 05:15 PM

it's been great lurking on this one but i just can't help myself anymore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hwed
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.

truly, personal income tax affects the consumer index, but the "trickle down" theory is more applicable to business tax rates. the consumer index is pretty tricky, too... as we have seen in both the reagan and second bush tenures, the payday eventually comes home. sustainable growth, renewable markets and expanding revenue potentials are the course.

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.

matthew330 08-16-2004 09:27 PM

"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?

scout 08-17-2004 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth
First of all, I think it would be more accurate to claim NAFTA was a bipartisan fucking of the middle class than to state it happened on the democratic watch..

Yes it is correct that while it was a bipartisan fucking of the middle class, it still happened under a Democratic president.

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%?.
Yes I am arguing that the rich shouldn't pay a higher percentage of their earned income to support the expenses of this fine nation. They should pay the same percentage as the "average joe" but without the loopholes. The way it is now even though someone in theory supposedly pays more they in fact pay less because there are loopholes built into the system by our fine Congressmen and women because they themselves are in that tax bracket and they don't wanna pay anymore than they have to. That's why the middle class burdens most of the tax, they don't have all the write-offs that the upper class have. Regardless, our tax system is broke and it's in dire need of an overhaul, I think we both agree on that.

rukkyg 08-17-2004 06:41 AM

http://rukkyg.chewplastic.com/images/1mil.jpg
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8302.pdf

gibingus 08-17-2004 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330
Nice post gingibus, but the second paragraph confused me a little bit..... Paper crisis??? What can Kadath and I do to help?

the united states is on a course where we will no longer manufacture any goods of tangible value to the global market at the same time as our rising debt is being bought up by China and Japan. The danger in defecit management of our national economy while we are not focusing on increasing tax revenue from original product is that we will not have enough actual money ("paper") on shore to service our debt and we will face a default situation.

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.

98MustGT 08-17-2004 03:35 PM

"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."

Journeyman 08-17-2004 03:44 PM

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.

PDiddy 08-17-2004 03:50 PM

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.

pan6467 08-17-2004 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 98MustGT
"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."

Interesting little story but not truly how it goes, old sport.

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.

rukkyg 08-17-2004 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 98MustGT
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!

That is not how it happens. What happens is the 4 poor guys beat up the rich guy and steal all his money. Then each of them pays 13. It's called a revolution.

pan6467 08-17-2004 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rukkyg
That is not how it happens. What happens is the 4 poor guys beat up the rich guy and steal all his money. Then each of them pays 13. It's called a revolution.

Lol.... AMEN BROTHER

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.

Mikado 08-18-2004 07:00 AM

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.

Kadath 08-18-2004 07:07 AM

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.

Mikado 08-18-2004 07:13 AM

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.

FoolThemAll 08-18-2004 07:42 AM

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.

Kadath 08-18-2004 08:35 AM

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.

hannukah harry 08-18-2004 08:53 AM

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.

Mikado 08-18-2004 09:08 AM

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.

kutulu 08-18-2004 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikado
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'm so tired of that arguement. That may hold weight with individual people, but when you look at society as a whole, it makes no sense whatsoever. We are always going to have a class of people that have to do take the low paying jobs and there are only so many high-paying jobs available. It's not as if the entire bottom 50% could go to college and wind up getting 50k/yr jobs. Even if it happened there'd be no people left to bag our gorceries, work cashiering jobs, construction, etc. Those same people need to be able to support a family or else our population would shrink. Either the people at the top need to pay MUCH MUCH higher wages to those people or they have to supplement their tax burden. It's the only way to build for the future.

Most of the top 1% are there because they have worker bees working for slave wages.

hannukah harry 08-18-2004 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikado
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.

how are you penalized? you said it yourself... your sister chose her profession, she knew what she was getting into. you chose yours, and you knew if you succeeded you'd be in that higher tax bracket.

i see no penatly... merely an... opportunity cost.

pan6467 08-18-2004 09:38 AM

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.

pan6467 08-18-2004 10:00 AM

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.

Mikado 08-18-2004 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467
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.)?

Sure I did. Everyone else does as well. Because someone who is poor, or chose a lower paying profession than I did then they get to pay a lower percentage of taxes to help fund those same institutions? Why do I pay more while they don't?

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.

kutulu 08-18-2004 11:07 AM

Mikado,

What type of business do you run and what do you mean by paying far more than standard wages?

Mikado 08-18-2004 11:17 AM

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.

98MustGT 08-18-2004 11:25 AM

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.

98MustGT 08-18-2004 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467
Mikado,
Or we can keep bringing in illegals who pay no taxes but work cheap.

I agree 100%

Cynthetiq 08-18-2004 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikado
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.

there are lots of assistants and secretaries that make $30k to $70k... and not all of them have degrees.

Mikado 08-18-2004 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
there are lots of assistants and secretaries that make $30k to $70k... and not all of them have degrees.

I'm sure there are, but you won't find many around here. Especially in the $70k range and without a college degree. She works 30 hours a week, gets to take a day of every other week, three weeks at Christmas, a week at Thanksgiving, plus I pay 100% of her family's health insurance. I'd say that's more than fair.

jb2000 08-18-2004 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hwed
If punching a clock 40 hours a week for overinflated union wages is your idea of sacrifice, it must be a nice life you lead.

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.

The rich of this country are not the small business owners of America, I hate to tell you. Yes, some (few) small business owners are able to get to that stage. Maybe they are shrewd enough, put in enough work, get lucky enough, whatever. But the vast majority of those who put their life, money, time, effort, heart, and soul into creating a business are NOT rich, and do NOT live high on the hog.

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.

jb2000 08-18-2004 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikado
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.

I don't know that your sentiments are that rare. Certainly, in business there are multiple avenues that can succeed. You can take a Wal-Mart approach and try and squeeze your employees and suppliers to the maximum in order to corner the basement level of costs, or you can take the Costco approach of rewarding your people better in order to get better work and loyalty from them. They both can work.

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?

jb2000 08-18-2004 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 98MustGT
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.

I assume that you mean every time tax cuts occured, the economy eventually grew. The same is true of tax raises. Since the economy has grown both when taxes are raised and when they are lowered, you'll have to be more specific about how much growth and how it is tied to the tax moves to substantiate an argument that there is a historical trend demonstrating a tie between tax cuts and economic growth.

BTW I don't hate the rich. :)

jb2000 08-18-2004 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikado
I'm sure there are, but you won't find many around here. Especially in the $70k range and without a college degree. She works 30 hours a week, gets to take a day of every other week, three weeks at Christmas, a week at Thanksgiving, plus I pay 100% of her family's health insurance. I'd say that's more than fair.

I'd have to agree!

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.

smooth 08-18-2004 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jb2000
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%!

You're seeing that here: at least two people have claimed to be or closely related to someone in the top 1% bracket.

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.

shakran 08-18-2004 04:38 PM

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.

FoolThemAll 08-18-2004 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath
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.

Ugh.

Yeah, I'm stepping on your toe repeatedly, but at least I stopped punching you in the face.

FoolThemAll 08-18-2004 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jb2000
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%!

Link, please.

pan6467 08-18-2004 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth
You're seeing that here: at least two people have claimed to be or closely related to someone in the top 1% bracket.

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.



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.

pan6467 08-19-2004 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikado
Sure I did. Everyone else does as well. Because someone who is poor, or chose a lower paying profession than I did then they get to pay a lower percentage of taxes to help fund those same institutions? Why do I pay more while they don't?

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.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
there are lots of assistants and secretaries that make $30k to $70k... and not all of them have degrees.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikado
I'm sure there are, but you won't find many around here. Especially in the $70k range and without a college degree. She works 30 hours a week, gets to take a day of every other week, three weeks at Christmas, a week at Thanksgiving, plus I pay 100% of her family's health insurance. I'd say that's more than fair.

I debated as to say anything about this, as I respect both posters immensely, and I seriously doubt Cyn meant this the way I took it.

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.

gibingus 08-19-2004 05:40 AM

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.

Mikado 08-19-2004 07:38 AM

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.

smooth 08-19-2004 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467
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%.

Yeah, I missed the .0 before my 1. This thread is going back and forth between "top" "true top" and "top 1%" and etc. Complicating things further by interchanging wage earners and asset holders.

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.

kutulu 08-19-2004 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467
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.

It would be closer to half of 2.5 million (~1.25M), since we are only counting taxpayers, not everyone in the family. It's still a lot more than 600 though... Just thought it would be more accurate to say that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467
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 don't want to sound abrasive or like an ass, but as far as I'm concerned I could give a fuck if they can lose their asses that fast. They put themselves in a position way above the norm. If they can't maintain because they blew their money on a house they could barely afford and a Ferarri that's their fault. Maybe they should have built up a couple mil cash in the bank before they blew the rest of their wad. The top 1% is still making over 300k/yr. Maybe that isn't the best way to build up a huge fortune, but it's a guaranteed way to keep the money you already have no matter what happens in the market.

Mikado 08-19-2004 11:10 AM

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.

kutulu 08-19-2004 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikado
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.

I think I did give that link earlier, but I don't know how far back it is. Here it is again:

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.

tecoyah 08-19-2004 12:37 PM

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.

Kadath 08-19-2004 01:48 PM

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.

Mikado 08-19-2004 02:12 PM

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.

hannukah harry 08-19-2004 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikado
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.

and no one's complaining about those "loopholes." those are more like tax incentives than loopholes anyways. but there's a lot of more underhanded ways of getting out of paying the full amount one could be taxed.

Wax_off 08-19-2004 03:59 PM

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.

Zeld2.0 08-19-2004 04:18 PM

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.

Journeyman 08-19-2004 04:31 PM

Quote:

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"
The government needs a certain amount of money each year to run the things that keep society going. Cops, DA offices, courts, military, roads, regulation enforcers, etc. If the government's short, the government goes into debt, and that's not a good thing.

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.

Mikado 08-20-2004 07:41 AM

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.

smooth 08-20-2004 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikado
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.

I don't agree with the "because you can afford to" either. But I have raised an alternative explanation, along with a couple other posters, that you haven't addressed, yet.

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:

"On September 13, 2001, the New York Times' Tom Friedman wrote: "Does my country really understand that this is World War III? And if this attack
was the Pearl Harbor of World War III, it mea ns there is a long, long war
ahead."

More sophisticated minds have since challenged this declaration as
numerically incorrect. While sharing the pro-war consensus, former CIA
Director James Woolsey is on the lecture circuit asserting that the global
crus ade against terrorism is World War IV--the Cold War having been III.
"This fourth world war, I think, will last considerably longer than either
World Wars I or II did for us," Woolsey told a group of UCLA students in
April. "Hopefully not the full four-plus decades of the Cold War."
-- http://www.worldwar3report.com/comments.pl?sid=77&cid=7

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.

filtherton 08-20-2004 02:50 PM

Very informative smooth, thank you.

Journeyman 08-20-2004 03:03 PM

Quote:

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.
Maybe you don't, but living in the Bay Area will teach you that a whole lot of companies do.

phyzix525 08-21-2004 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth
You're seeing that here: at least two people have claimed to be or closely related to someone in the top 1% bracket.

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.


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


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360