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.

kutulu

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

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.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

pan6467

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.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

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.)?

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.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

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.

kutulu

Mikado,

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

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.

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.

98MustGT

I agree 100%

Cynthetiq

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

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

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.

jb2000

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

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

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

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

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.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

shakran

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

Ugh.

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

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

FoolThemAll

Link, please.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

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%.

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.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

pan6467

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.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

gibingus

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.

__________________
if everyone is thinking alike, chances are no one is thinking.

Mikado

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

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.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

kutulu

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.

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

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

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

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.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Kadath

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.

__________________
it's quiet in here

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.

hannukah harry

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.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

Wax_off

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

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

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

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

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.

-- 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.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

filtherton

Very informative smooth, thank you.

Journeyman

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

phyzix525

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.

__________________
It's hard to remember we're alive for the first time
It's hard to remember we're alive for the last time
It's hard to remember to live before you die
It's hard to remember that our lives are such a short time
It's hard to remember when it takes such a long time