41854
Post by: Hawkward
LordofHats wrote:The sweet irony of the US rich v poor debate. 5% of the world's population controls 80% of its wealth and resources. Many Americans are in that 5%.
How is that ironic? Our poor people aren't as poor as other people's poor people?
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Hawkward wrote:Rich people are human, Melissia. They react to incentives just like poor people. When people have access to more money, it doesn't matter whether or not they're already rich; they'll feel the urge to spend their money. Invest it into the economy.
And yet they haven't.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Hawkward wrote:LordofHats wrote:The sweet irony of the US rich v poor debate. 5% of the world's population controls 80% of its wealth and resources. Many Americans are in that 5%.
How is that ironic? Our poor people aren't as poor as other people's poor people?
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
A situation where people talk about not being rich when they control the vast majority of the planets financial and material wealth, and by a world standard are among the wealthiest human beings? Seems ironic to me, admitting it is a gross simplification of the matter. But that seems to fit the definition of irony.
41854
Post by: Hawkward
Melissia wrote:And yet they haven't.
Can you show me where, then, all the idle rich have hoarded their wealth Scrooge McDuck-style in a cave, where it can neither be saved in a bank nor spread through the consumption of material goods and services?
38857
Post by: VoidAngel
So far in this discussion, Melissa simply says things that fit with her conception of "rich people" as evil and deleterious to all other life; and then holds out her unsupported statements as proof. I too would like to see some supporting evidence.
Saying, "and yet they haven't" doesn't further your argument. Posting some sort of evidence other than "and yet they haven't" - might. Whatcha got?
29408
Post by: Melissia
Hawkward wrote:Can you show me where, then, all the idle rich have hoarded their wealth Scrooge McDuck-style in a cave, where it can neither be saved in a bank nor spread through the consumption of material goods and services?
Can you tell me where all of these tax cuts and benefits to the rich have produced these jobs and other benefits to the rest of society in the past decade?
Because THAT is what I can't find. I only see the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer, the job pool drying up.
Quite consistently, every time benefits are passed out to the rich.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Actually, Melissia is both correct and incorrect. The top 20% in this country has about 85% (or more, depending on who you ask) of the wealth. The top 1% owns over 50% of all securities. The bottom 40% has no wealth whatsoever. (Keep in mind that wealth isn't just what you own -- it's what you own minus what you owe.) The money isn't sitting around in giant vaults, no. But it isn't changing hands downward. In other words, in terms of the further accumulation of wealth, the investment of this 85% continues to benefit only the same 20%. Some charts for you all.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Wow, how can anyone draw that point from that chart?
29408
Post by: Melissia
Because they're a tax lawyer, and therefor arguing that point benefits their clients?
38857
Post by: VoidAngel
It's simple. It shows, as the author notes, that as the rich get richer - so does everyone else. It's a direct refutation of the "But trickle-down economics has been PROVEN not to work!" cry from earlier in this discussion.
Think about it: when's the last time you got a job from a poor person? Right. Never. If I have money and I start a business, and hire people...is my wealth not trickling down to them? Yes, they are making me more money than I had (assuming business is good and I run mine properly) - but so what? Why ELSE would I invest my wealth in them?
Like the author, most of what I read here is indignation that some people are richer than others. Yeah, they are - and most of 'em worked hard to make it that way. It's called 'success'. Very few hurt someone else in the process of obtaining it. Automatically Appended Next Post: Melissia wrote:Because they're a tax lawyer, and therefor arguing that point benefits their clients?
Of course. That must be it. And you would obviously know more than a professional who's livelihood depends on a deep and accurate knowledge of the subject, right? All you've done is point out why he could be expected to have some expertise.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Just because someone is an expert doesn't mean they're an unbiased expert.
38857
Post by: VoidAngel
Melissia wrote:Just because someone is an expert doesn't mean they're an unbiased expert.
And just because someone is not an expert, doesn't mean they are an unbiased non-expert.
You seem to have a bias against the successful, as if they had caused someone else's poverty. I take the opposite stance, that wealthy people over all contribute more than they (as a group) take. This contribution comes in the form of jobs provided, currency moving in the economy, and all of the other positive attributions listed in the last 12 pages. You seem to feel that wealth can only be obtained at the expense of others - and that this is done with some sort of active malice.
I will not argue with you that SOME *few* stupendously immoral people have gotten obscenely rich at the expense of others...but that truly does not place anyone who manages to succeed in the same category. It would be great if we could all be rich, but that's a fantasy. Everyone being poor - is a horror. Who wants that?
39004
Post by: biccat
VoidAngel wrote:Melissia wrote:Just because someone is an expert doesn't mean they're an unbiased expert.
And just because someone is not an expert, doesn't mean they are an unbiased non-expert.
I would have gone with "Just because someone is unbiased doesn't mean they're an expert."
Works better.
38857
Post by: VoidAngel
It's a separate and entirely different thing (though also true).
29408
Post by: Melissia
And yet, for all your attempts to flame and troll, we've still seen an increase in the concentration of wealth and a decrease in the overall financial well being of the country.
And this despite the fact that the rich have gotten so many tax cuts, so many other benefits and other things, other loopholes that often make them be taxed LESS than people who make less.
The real facts of history dispute that man's argument. Giving the rich more wealth does not cause a trickle down effect. The trickle down effect is a lie, and has always been.
38023
Post by: thedude
I think the trickle down effect works in some respects, the job creation example is great one and is perfectly legit but honestly I think it is just justification for the those with majority of the wealth in power to keep making policies to keep them the majority with wealth and power. The problem is history shows that most of the time these policies have much more negative impact on the bottom 85% than to justify the little gains from the trickle down effect. One example is war, when a country goes to war (and yes the wealthiest in a country decides the wars), it is the poor that go and fight those wars. It is their families that suffer, they are the ones living paycheck to paycheck and whos paychecks buy less and less.
And the thing is, the gap bewteen the rich and poor is continually deepening which if one is proned to forward thought can be alarming.
While its not the best anology because it is not always accurate, I always imagined the trickle down effect akin to the glutton stuffing themselves on a feast of plenty while the mouse scurries to pick up the crumbs.
38857
Post by: VoidAngel
@Melissa - please point out how I'm flaming or trolling. I've disagreed with you. That does not constitute either. Surely you are not so fragile that you can't countenance an opposing viewpoint?
We've been over the tax thing before. Wise people than we have been unable to come with a better system than the one we have. All have their flaws, our is among the most benign. A flat tax won't work. A flat rate CERTAINLY won't work...what do you want? NO tax on the poor? Shall we go even further toward creating a complete welfare state? Has that worked in Europe? Do a little research.
@thedude - I can't say I can remotely agree with the old "the rich start wars, and the poor fight them" trope. Most of the military families I know are extremely well off. Their children go into harms way for ideological reasons, not economic ones. Certainly this is not true of every family with someone serving, but the fact of it lets some air out of your assertion. You do a disservice to our soldiers by perpetuating what is no more than a gross generalization. There are many reasons to serve. "Because I can't do anything else" is the very least of them.
41854
Post by: Hawkward
Melissia wrote:And yet, for all your attempts to flame and troll, we've still seen an increase in the concentration of wealth and a decrease in the overall financial well being of the country.
And this despite the fact that the rich have gotten so many tax cuts, so many other benefits and other things, other loopholes that often make them be taxed LESS than people who make less.
The real facts of history dispute that man's argument. Giving the rich more wealth does not cause a trickle down effect. The trickle down effect is a lie, and has always been.
We're not flaming, and we're not trolling. As VoidAngel stated, we just disagree with you. A dissenting viewpoint is often a good thing - it lets you practice debate and self-reflection.
There's certainly been an economic downturn recently. That does not mean that America's financial well-being has been negatively affected forever. A good tool to measure overall financial wellbeing and the "concentration of wealth" is the Human Development Index, a figure that expresses the country's average wealth, education, health and standard of living.
Check it.
As you can see, the overall health, wealth, education and standard of living has been steadily increasing since 1980, with the US well above the rest of the world.
38023
Post by: thedude
VoidAngel wrote:
@thedude - I can't say I can remotely agree with the old "the rich start wars, and the poor fight them" trope. Most of the military families I know are extremely well off. Their children go into harms way for ideological reasons, not economic ones. Certainly this is not true of every family with someone serving, but the fact of it lets some air out of your assertion. You do a disservice to our soldiers by perpetuating what is no more than a gross generalization. There are many reasons to serve. "Because I can't do anything else" is the very least of them.
I think we have a vast difference in opinion on wealth. Assuming the people you know are high ranking officers with more than 14 years of service then they may be making closer to $150k annually. If the people you know are enlisted, it is closer to 30-50k annually. The head one of the major banks is closer to 2 million annually. That does not include other privlgies t o quality of life that comes with such a posistion.
I work in finance and have seen many servicemens income and assets over the last 10 years. Majority of what I see ranges between 30k-60k. With an average household assets around $150-500k including real estate and savings(401k included). With a household average debt somewhere between $150-500k. You must subtract debt from assets for a true idea of wealth.
The CEO of a specific major US bank is about 3.6 million NET worth.
This says nothing of the real wealth elite, such as the Rothchilds family
I do not disagree that there are many servicemen who serve for idealogical purposes alone, but I would contend that majority of the service men and women are also motivated by the financial security guaranteed by such an obligation and even a small percentage who as you put it join just 'because they cant do anything else' (I never stated nor implied this). I served 4 years in the military and do not feel in any way that my statement does a disservice to our troops. I consider the fact that our government is leading our troops into harms way unneccesarily on a regular basis is the great tragedy and disservice. If you believe that governments wage war soley for idealogical purposes alone and that money is power is not a primary motive then we will not agree on anything from this point forward I would suspect.
Edit: just wanted to add... I have nothing against making money and hard working people growing their wealth nor am I a class warrior but wrong is wrong and rigth is right, regardless of the banner it flies under.
16387
Post by: Manchu
VoidAngel wrote:It's simple. It shows, as the author notes, that as the rich get richer - so does everyone else. It's a direct refutation of the "But trickle-down economics has been PROVEN not to work!" cry from earlier in this discussion.
That's actually not what that chart shows. If anything, that chart shows that the poorer people don't keep up with or only barely keep up with inflation while the richer people increase in wealth astronomically above inflation rates. In other words, the chart shows that the gap between rich and poor was yawning in 1979 and has widened since 1979. The value of currency going down over decades is not proof of the "trickle-down" soundbyte. As for job creation and trickle down, consider that unemployment is as high as or higher than its been in the lifetime of almost every living US citizen even though the financial sector is even more profitable now than it was before 2008. "Trickle down" is wishful thinking. It's a point that makes intuitive sense so you believe it must be true. It's something like thinking that customer satisfaction equals profitability (airlines anyone?). Political slogans like "trickle down" and "rising tides lift all boats" do not express much if anything about economics. These are catchphrases designed to allow otherwise sensible people of average intelligence to reject reality.
38857
Post by: VoidAngel
If you think I base my worldview on catchphrases... well, I'll give you props for being masterful with the veiled insult.
I'll agree that part of the problem is a failure to define terms in this discussion. If "rich" to you means "millions and millions in the bank" - we could be talking past each other. If you mean 'rich' relative to residents of other nations...that's something else entirely. I think many of us have been freely swinging back and forth between these definitions without informing each other.
The rich have gotten richer to a greater degree than the poor. The reasons for this are many. The poor have gotten richer for a few more easily enumerated reasons. Are they still poor? Sure. Is that the fault of the people with "millions and millions"? Mostly, "no". A FEW of the very rich have been predatory and created some of the newly poor - but they're vastly in the minority. Most of the very rich have directly or indirectly helped a great many people become prosperous. Mostly through job creation. That's certainly something, and it certainly could be described as a "trickle-down" effect.
16387
Post by: Manchu
No insult was implied, unless you think that "you are wrong and your views are not based in fact" is an insult. The blog post that you linked to contained a chart that does not indicate that the poor have gotten richer. It does indicate that the value of the currency has gone down over time. It also indicates that the absolute value of the income of poorer people is less likely than that of richer people to have risen at the pace of inflation while the absolute value of income of richer people is more likely that that of poorer people to have outstripped inflation. In terms of 1979 money, the poorest people represented in that chart are poorer today than they were in 1979 while the richest are far, far more rich than they were in 1979. By the way, there is not very much difference between the quality of life of the destitute in this country and the quality of life of the destitute in third-world dictaorships. Similarly, there is little difference in terms of the wealth of the richest people in this country and the richest people in third-world dictatorships. The real difference is in the middle and it is not a difference in absolute wealth. Again, wealth is not just what you own but rather what you own minus what you owe. Our consumer credit culture allows us to own a lot but it is, in the case of the middle middle class, not in excess or (especially since the mortgage crisis) far less than what we owe. You can find some examples of this in thedude's post above. You can also read about this in almost any newspaper article about underwater mortgages or credit card reform.
38023
Post by: thedude
Here is just a few basic numbers...
The general rule of thumb when saving for retirement is you need to save about 1.25 million, with inflation estimates, this will put you at about $50k annually salary..depending on of course how long you live after that and what we actually see with regards to inflation and how old you are now, ect.
Latest reports from various news sources put the average net savings of those at retirement age now is closer to 350k. The official US 'poverty line 's $22,500 annually for a family of 4. So needless to say, these numbers point out that the average America will be poor when they retire (even accounting that you will not be support 4).
Remember as well that technology has provided amazing results for improving a distracting quality of life at relatively low costs but these things do not constitute wealth. We are a very wealthy country (although some would argue we are living on credit alone) Wealth is your income minus your debts and when you retire where will you be?
Edit: sorry just a few more things after reading the posts above...I think it is also important to make the distinction that most of the so called wealthy elite and ruling powers do not act with malicious intent to hurt others most of the time, when it is done is more so done in my opinion due to a reckless abandon that comes with being so far above the average man's 'reality'. They are simply acting in their interest from a more managorial stand point. But that does not mean that the people do not need to stay vigilent and educate themselves and refuse to settle for conditions simply due to complanency.
16387
Post by: Manchu
thedude wrote:Wealth is your income minus your debts and when you retire where will you be?
You will be where you are now except without the ability to earn or access credit. In other words, you will still be poor but you won't be able to pretend otherwise by appealing to slogans like "trickle down" or "rising tides lift all boats." Automatically Appended Next Post: thedude wrote:I think it is also important to make the distinction that most of the so called wealthy elite and ruling powers do not act with malicious intent to hurt others most of the time, when it is done is more so done in my opinion due to a reckless abandon that comes with being so far above the average man's 'reality'.
The problem is not that the wealthy view the impoverished with malice. The problem is that the wealthy view the impoverished with contempt.
752
Post by: Polonius
It's hard to argue that everybody is better off now than before (with before being pretty much any time), as long as you speak in relatively absolute terms. In terms of size/quality of housing, healthcare, education, and material goods, it's a great time to be non-wealthy.
It's also hard to argue that the wealthy have gotten wealthier faster. Meaning, while a middle class american now, compared to 30 years ago, might have more/better/safer cars, better health care, and far more electronics, a wealthy american now has far, far exceeded those gains.
In other areas, the middle class is getting screwed though, in terms of job security, dignity of work, availability of work, and say in the government.
Basically, you can look at the rise in poor/working/middle class standards of living and comment on how we're all enjoying the benefits of progress; you can also look at the burgeoning wealth of the upper 20% and realize we're getting bought off with bread and circuses.
39004
Post by: biccat
Manchu wrote:In terms of 1979 money, the poorest people represented in that chart are poorer today than they were in 1979 while the richest are far, far more rich than they were in 1979.
Did you happen to miss the "(in 2007 dollars)" part of the chart? The lowest quintile in 1979 earned $15,300 (in 2007 dollars). In 2007, they earned $17,700.
That looks like an increase to me.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
VoidAngel wrote:http://blog.pappastax.com/index.php/2010/07/11/case-rested-trickle-down-policies-work/
Read it and stop weeping.
Your charts are very interesting. But they no way take into account the cultural changes from 1979 till 2007.
Here is a better article http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p23-196.pdf
It's a little long, but it shows that the reality is that people are making less money.
Lots of government facts and charts for all you people that like that kind of thing.
While you account for inflation, there is no cost of living adjustment which has gone through the roof.
The days of the single family income are gone, now even with dual income families times are tight, disposable income is way down!
16387
Post by: Manchu
@biccat: I did miss that, thanks for pointing it out!
5534
Post by: dogma
VoidAngel wrote:
Like the author, most of what I read here is indignation that some people are richer than others. Yeah, they are - and most of 'em worked hard to make it that way. It's called 'success'. Very few hurt someone else in the process of obtaining it.
Given the nature of scarcity, that's simply not true. Arguments from a rising tide lifting all boats aside, the relative distribution of material wealth is, at any given time, finite. As such, any unusual amalgamation of wealth will necessarily do financial injury to others by the very fact that it collects a large sum of valuable goods and purchasing power in a single place; thereby denying it to all others. Which is, ultimately, why simply looking at percent change, even in normalized dollars, is not sufficient to make the argument that everyone is better off at time t than time t2. You also have to account for the relative prices of goods and services, hence the use of CPI, among other things.
Then you have wonder if that trend really is the result of trickle down policies, or simply lower tax rates across the board, which is something that you would need more than a two point analysis to determine. Meaning that titling that article "Case closed" is the same sort of indignant nonsense you're railing against. Basically the equivalent of a college Freshman taking a class on Marxism and deciding that Capitalism is crap because his eyes have been "opened".
Hawkward wrote:
As you can see, the overall health, wealth, education and standard of living has been steadily increasing since 1980, with the US well above the rest of the world.
The US usually floats between 4th and 5th, but is basically tied with the rest of the Western world at roughly .9 HDI. The only nations significantly higher than it are Australia (.937) and Norway (.938). It certainly isn't well above other developed countries though.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Andrew1975 wrote:
Your charts are very interesting. But they no way take into account the cultural changes from 1979 till 2007.
You also have to look at the the level of debt relative to annual income. It may be that while Americans are earning more on average the credit requirements of reaching those earning thresholds is much higher than previous. I imagine that, if true, this would mostly apply to urban areas where income is closely associated with education.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
You also have to look at the the level of debt relative to annual income. It may be that while Americans are earning more on average the credit requirements of reaching those earning thresholds is much higher than previous. I imagine that, if true, this would mostly apply to urban areas where income is closely associated with education.
What do you think the best indicator would be? Would it be disposable income? If so per person or per household. As I figure disposable income really encompasses the effects of everything. Either way its way down.
The only problem I have with disposable income, is that today there are so many more expenses that really are necessities. Internet, computers and cellphones are pretty mandatory now, no such animal existed in 1979.
Cars are not mandatory, they would however be less of a necessity if the rich auto executives didn't see fit to eviscerate public transportation in the 60's.
5534
Post by: dogma
Andrew1975 wrote:
What do you think the best indicator would be? Would it be disposable income? If so per person or per household. As I figure disposable income really encompasses the effects of everything. Either way its way down.
Disposable income works well, and that's what CPI is designed to get at, though I still think debt ratios are important. People don't necessarily take loans out of necessity, but why the loan was drawn isn't really important, its merely important to note that it affects the prosperity of the debtor.
Per household is probably a better measure as families tend to have less disposable income as the number of children increases. Though you also have to be careful that your definition of "household" doesn't group housemates with families, as that will artificially distort any data. Really, no one measure is going to be perfect though, so its best to use a collection of measures over time.
Andrew1975 wrote:
The only problem I have with disposable income, is that today there are so many more expenses that really are necessities. Internet, computers and cellphones are pretty mandatory now, no such animal existed in 1979.
Yeah, that's always going to be a criticism with any metric based on need. Hell, its why there are several different baskets used to calculate CPI.
16879
Post by: daedalus-templarius
Looking forward to the social changes that I am sure republicans will try to bake in with raising the debt ceiling, should be epic!
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
LordofHats wrote:Hawkward wrote:LordofHats wrote:The sweet irony of the US rich v poor debate. 5% of the world's population controls 80% of its wealth and resources. Many Americans are in that 5%.
How is that ironic? Our poor people aren't as poor as other people's poor people?
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
A situation where people talk about not being rich when they control the vast majority of the planets financial and material wealth, and by a world standard are among the wealthiest human beings? Seems ironic to me, admitting it is a gross simplification of the matter. But that seems to fit the definition of irony.
But that's also the problem, America is a wealthy country, but it's wealth is horded by just a few. Your average American does not control vast majorities of anything, even collectively.
The problem is not that the wealthy view the impoverished with malice. The problem is that the wealthy view the impoverished with contempt.
I think the problem is that they don't view them at all. I don't honestly think the rich intend to screw the poor, anymore than I intend to kill bugs when I drive. I don't think the crinkle their hands and say "excellent". I'm sure some do. I think though it's just that they have little regard for anyone else at all. Their goal is to amass wealth and power, and in their drive they forget about the real harm they are causing even unto themselves. They really are in danger of creating such a top heavy economy that it cannot sustain itself. If they can not find a way to spread the wealth around better, their social burden will only grow bigger.
I don't hate the rich, I think they are just short sighted in many cases. Vampires can't suck everyone dry or there is nobody left to feed on.
I don't even think there is a problem with amassing wealth, the problem is not finding a way to circulate it with better practices. The rich need to find ways to get money into people hands so they can sell them more stuff and services. Simplified it's like cellphones. Lose money on the phone, make a more constant and regular income stream from the services.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Andrew1975 wrote:
What do you think the best indicator would be? Would it be disposable income? If so per person or per household. As I figure disposable income really encompasses the effects of everything. Either way its way down.
Disposable income works well, and that's what CPI is designed to get at, though I still think debt ratios are important. People don't necessarily take loans out of necessity, but why the loan was drawn isn't really important, its merely important to note that it affects the prosperity of the debtor.
Per household is probably a better measure as families tend to have less disposable income as the number of children increases. Though you also have to be careful that your definition of "household" doesn't group housemates with families, as that will artificially distort any data. Really, no one measure is going to be perfect though, so its best to use a collection of measures over time.
Andrew1975 wrote:
The only problem I have with disposable income, is that today there are so many more expenses that really are necessities. Internet, computers and cellphones are pretty mandatory now, no such animal existed in 1979.
Yeah, that's always going to be a criticism with any metric based on need. Hell, its why there are several different baskets used to calculate CPI.
My problem with household is that we have changed so much from single income families to dual income families that to take household really skews the relationship. At one time if two people worked it was a real advantage, now it has become a necessity.
38023
Post by: thedude
"Debt Jumped $54.1 Billion in 8 Days Preceding Boehner-Obama Deal to Cut $38.5 Billion for Rest of Year "
"Since the beginning of the fiscal year on Oct. 1, 2010, the national debt has increased by $653.4 billion."
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/debt-jumped-54-billion-8-days-preceding#
Anyone else feel like this was all a dog and pony show?
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
You mean a round of rousing cuts that don't touch entitlements, medicare, social security, or the military is just a bunch of grand standing idiocy over nothing to quell a fanatical and ignorant populace? SHOCK
5470
Post by: sebster
VoidAngel wrote:You are really good at both the straw man and the ad hominem - but that doesn't make you right. I didn't say no increase. I didn't say no taxes. Nowhere did I mention 2-3%. You said "taxing the rich isn't the answer". I could have taken it completely literally and assumed you meant it is wrong to tax the rich at all. But I didn't, instead I took it as you believing that increasing taxes on the rich was not the answer. Meanwhile, 2-3% is the tax rate needed across the board to move the US budget to sustainability, long term. I must have assume you knew that. Sorry. What studies? By whom? I'm thinking of a study in the Economist in 2009 or 2010. There are others. Also, did you fail to catch the word "illegal"? Can't claim many services? Come down to my local hospital tonight and sit in the emergency room for 15 minutes. No, I didn't miss the word illegal. The word illegal is the whole point, because it allows you to keep one group of people seperate to the rest of society, pay them less and deny them services available to the rest of society. This by definition will improve living standards among the rest of society. And of course there's going to be lots of illegal aliens at the emergency clinic. They're denied access to other medical attention. No, you didn't. You claim that now, but in a thread just a few months back I am pretty sure I remember you calling me crazy for thinking that this was the plan when I mentioned it. Now that it's coming true it's obvious I guess. Convenient. Also, it's not failing - at all. It's been rough, and still is - but it's not failing. Umm, you're terribly mistaken, either in who you were talking to at that time, or the content of my argument. I've been aware that the democratic domino was the primary cause for the invasion well before the actual invasion. I've argued it many, many times on this forum. It's just that unlike you, I recognise that trying to reform a region through foreign invasion is stupid and doomed to failure. The dominoes need a push in order to start to fall. They won't do it by themselves. Unless it's Libya. Then we're just mucking it up by getting involved. Internal consistency is for the weak, yeah? Except that I never argued that. "Taxing the rich isn't the answer." Precisely. And we should not allow our Europhile Democrat brethren get us there. No-one in Europe is near the rate. No Democrat proposal is even close to the rate. Your argument above exists entirely in a bottle, protected on all sides by absolute ignorance of the actual situation. "You shouldn't tax the rich so heavily that they become resistant to invest and grow the economy further" is completely true, but utterly irrelevant in the real world where the rate of tax on the rich, and any seriously proposed new rate, is nowhere near that point. Automatically Appended Next Post: VoidAngel wrote:OK, now define "fair". Citizen A makes $80,000 a year and pays 34% income tax (making up numbers here for the sake of discussion). That's $28,000 Citizen B makes 8,000,000 a year and pays 17% income tax. That's $1,360,000 So I ask you, define fair. The evil rich guy just contributed 48 times more than the noble middleclassman. Is that fair enough for you? No? Are you actually arguing for regressive tax rates? That the more you earn, the less your marginal tax rate? That's pretty fething out there, you know. Automatically Appended Next Post: VoidAngel wrote:What other conceivable assumption is right?! Call me a traditionalist, but taking something not yours is...there's a word for it....gimme a sec...'theft'? Yeah, that's it. They have it. Why shall I assume they 'stole' it? What contortion of logic and morality should I apply to entitle myself to any portion of it? I sense (hope) that you are asking from a philosophical perspective, so feel free to attempt to demonstrate that people do not deserve what they have honestly (or, at least legally) acquired. The rules that allow any person to fit into the economy and peform a service and charge for it are rules written by government, on behalf of society. The contract laws, property laws and employment laws that we have written are just as much a part of that system as any tax laws we have written. The rule that says "John is deemed to own this land any house upon it and can deny anyone else its use" involves exactly as much theft as the rule that says "John will pay no tax on the first $10,000 he earns, and 25% tax on any earnings above that". That is to say, there's no theft involved in either. Automatically Appended Next Post: ShumaGorath wrote:They finished grandstanding and passed the meaningless hyper political budget that cuts nothing meaningful and fixes nothing. Automatically Appended Next Post: VoidAngel wrote:http://blog.pappastax.com/index.php/2010/07/11/case-rested-trickle-down-policies-work/ Read it and stop weeping. That blog entry is utterly terrible. Is that really the standard of economic debate you're content with? Really? Automatically Appended Next Post: VoidAngel wrote:It's simple. It shows, as the author notes, that as the rich get richer - so does everyone else. It's a direct refutation of the "But trickle-down economics has been PROVEN not to work!" cry from earlier in this discussion. Umm, actually, it demonstrates that as the economy grows, which it is inclined to do regardless of the distribution of wealth, that each class will get richer. Which is less of an observation and more of a truism. The chart doesn't in anyway link any of that growth to trickle down economics principles. It is, in fact, completely devoid of any economic analysis at all. It's absolute rubbish, and you should feel bad for having tried to present it here as evidence. Think about it: when's the last time you got a job from a poor person? Right. Never. If I have money and I start a business, and hire people...is my wealth not trickling down to them? Yes, they are making me more money than I had (assuming business is good and I run mine properly) - but so what? Why ELSE would I invest my wealth in them? Say you own a restaurant, every day about fifty customers come through the doors. One day there's a change in government, and it's noted that the poor don't deserve the tax breaks and social support they've been getting, and it's taken away, returned to the rich man who'd previously been paying high taxes to support all those people. A lot less people can afford to eat at your restaurant now, you only get 25 people through the doors each day. Good news though! The rich man eats at your restaurant everyday, and now that he's keeping even more of his money he's free to eat there even more. Except he doesn't actualy get any hungrier, so he still only turns up once a day. But trickle down economics is ready to kick in, yeah? Because the rich man is keeping more of his money, so it's there to invest in new businesses. Except he looks for opportunities and there aren't any. All he sees is business like yours that used to do so much better business. Point is, the poor and middle classes drive consumer demand. The rich provide investment funds. To think that you need one group only and not the other is a big mistake. It's the first mistake of trickle down economics. The second mistake is that you actually need to make trickle down economics happen, that it depends on a high level of income inequality. Like the author, most of what I read here is indignation that some people are richer than others. This is the result of you reading selectively, beceause that is not a reasonable summary of people desiring a more equitable distribution of income. Of course. That must be it. And you would obviously know more than a professional who's livelihood depends on a deep and accurate knowledge of the subject, right? All you've done is point out why he could be expected to have some expertise. Having worked as a tax accountant myself, I think it's adorable than you assume we require a deep and accurate knowledge of economics. What we actually need to know is tax law. Nothing more, nothing less. The actual impact of tax law is nothing do with us. Automatically Appended Next Post: biccat wrote:Did you happen to miss the "(in 2007 dollars)" part of the chart? The lowest quintile in 1979 earned $15,300 (in 2007 dollars). In 2007, they earned $17,700. That looks like an increase to me. Which is an annualised increase of less than a half of one percent. At which point you're claiming "look! trickle down economics works because the poorest 20% experienced an average increase in income of less than half of one percent per annum!" Which is, of course, a ridiculous thing to claim. Automatically Appended Next Post: dogma wrote:Then you have wonder if that trend really is the result of trickle down policies, or simply lower tax rates across the board, which is something that you would need more than a two point analysis to determine. You could simply compare it to average growth rates across the world during the same period, and see if the bottom 20% in the US did better than people elsewhere. Given no country in the developed world experienced average growth rates anywhere near the half of one percent increase experienced by the poorest 20% in the US, it seems a pretty accurate conclusion to say that trickle down economics have proven a dismal failure for the bottom 20%.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
So what do you guys think the answer is? I think getting rid of the payroll tax cap is a good start. Any other ideas?
5470
Post by: sebster
Andrew1975 wrote:So what do you guys think the answer is? I think getting rid of the payroll tax cap is a good start. Any other ideas?
I wouldn't have payroll tax.
Mind you, I wouldn't have any tax but a sales tax, nationally levied at 10%, and a progressively levied income tax that brought the overall tax burden to around 30%. Well, there'd also be a capital gains tax, but this would ultimately form part of income tax, as any capital gains realised during the year would be added to your yearly income tax and charged accordingly (with an option to offset the spike by annualising the gain over the last five years).
Simple. It means two people who earn the same amount in a year will pay the same in tax, regardless of their income levels.
5534
Post by: dogma
VoidAngel wrote:
Now that it's coming true it's obvious I guess. Convenient. Also, it's not failing - at all. It's been rough, and still is - but it's not failing.
Are you arguing that the invasion of Iraq caused the wave of revolts in the Middle East? And further arguing that said revolts are all either about democracy, or going to end in democracy? Because the first claim is dubious in the extreme, the second is going to be difficult to prove until much later, and the third is statistically very unlikely.
VoidAngel wrote:
The dominoes need a push in order to start to fall. They won't do it by themselves.
That's presuming the argument from "democratic protests are dominoes" has any merit, which is fairly preposterous considering that the number of successful occupations that have lead to democracy is 2. And in both of those cases no dominoe effect of any sort was seen.
VoidAngel wrote:
They risked everything to give birth to a different kind of system - one that stripped them of their aristocracy. They were midwives to the birth of new nation and could hardly step aside and bid the infant 'run!'... Many served as 'politicians' perforce, and not from preference. Most also had primary occupations that paid the bills. You should maybe read the Federalist Papers.
It doesn't really matter. If you're trying to argue that career politicians are a bad thing, and you then subsequently act as a career politician you're doing something very wrong. At least if, at the end of all that, you really think that career politicians are something that can be avoided.
As for paying bills: do you really believe that career politicians derive their primary income from the state? Because if you do, that is a huge misconception that you need to address.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
sebster wrote:Andrew1975 wrote:So what do you guys think the answer is? I think getting rid of the payroll tax cap is a good start. Any other ideas?
I wouldn't have payroll tax.
Mind you, I wouldn't have any tax but a sales tax, nationally levied at 10%, and a progressively levied income tax that brought the overall tax burden to around 30%. Well, there'd also be a capital gains tax, but this would ultimately form part of income tax, as any capital gains realised during the year would be added to your yearly income tax and charged accordingly (with an option to offset the spike by annualising the gain over the last five years).
Simple. It means two people who earn the same amount in a year will pay the same in tax, regardless of their income levels.
Would that be enough to cover social security? Sales tax is actually more of a local tax, so the fed doesn't have much control of that. It would be good to get everyone on the same page and allow sales tax to be collected on internet purchases.
As for paying bills: do you really believe that career politicians derive their primary income from the state? Because if you do, that is a huge misconception that you need to address.
What? Are you saying the president of the most powerful nation in the world isn't working for that whopping $400,000 a year?
5534
Post by: dogma
Andrew1975 wrote:
Would that be enough to cover social security? Sales tax is actually more of a local tax, so the fed doesn't have much control of that. It would be good to get everyone on the same page and allow sales tax to be collected on internet purchases.
He's basically proposing a national VAT.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
dogma wrote:Andrew1975 wrote:
Would that be enough to cover social security? Sales tax is actually more of a local tax, so the fed doesn't have much control of that. It would be good to get everyone on the same page and allow sales tax to be collected on internet purchases.
He's basically proposing a national VAT.
So a VAT tax and sales tax? I'm not following. Does the Vat replace sales tax. How do states get money? Maybe I'm reading federal when you say national? It just seams that last time I looked, when all taxes are added, the average person is paying around 40%. So a 30% tax plus a 10% Vat tax wouldn't really add up would it? I'm probably missing something, again I'm not a true economist.
37036
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous
sebster wrote:Andrew1975 wrote:So what do you guys think the answer is? I think getting rid of the payroll tax cap is a good start. Any other ideas? I wouldn't have payroll tax. Mind you, I wouldn't have any tax but a sales tax, nationally levied at 10%, and a progressively levied income tax that brought the overall tax burden to around 30%. Well, there'd also be a capital gains tax, but this would ultimately form part of income tax, as any capital gains realised during the year would be added to your yearly income tax and charged accordingly (with an option to offset the spike by annualising the gain over the last five years). Simple. It means two people who earn the same amount in a year will pay the same in tax, regardless of their income levels.
You just called Voidangel out for proposing regressive taxation, and then turn around and push sales taxes? Sales taxes are horribly regressive. The poor are stuck in one area, and have to spend a significant portion of their income just to survive. The wealthy can either go elsewhere, where the sales taxes aren't so high, or simply see the increased price for high-end luxuries as an extra value on it, since many high-end "luxuries" derive no small part of their value from simply having a higher price tag (and mid-range goods, too, for that matter; brand-names versus generics, with both having been made identically, in the same factories). Far better for there to simply be a progressive income tax that takes nothing from anyone below the poverty line, and a property tax on higher-valued property (with no tax on objects on the lower end of their respective category, like a car worth a couple of thousand dollars, or a small house on largely worthless land (which would still be in the tens of thousands in value, but quite low compared to the average house).
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:sebster wrote:Andrew1975 wrote:So what do you guys think the answer is? I think getting rid of the payroll tax cap is a good start. Any other ideas?
I wouldn't have payroll tax.
Mind you, I wouldn't have any tax but a sales tax, nationally levied at 10%, and a progressively levied income tax that brought the overall tax burden to around 30%. Well, there'd also be a capital gains tax, but this would ultimately form part of income tax, as any capital gains realised during the year would be added to your yearly income tax and charged accordingly (with an option to offset the spike by annualising the gain over the last five years).
Simple. It means two people who earn the same amount in a year will pay the same in tax, regardless of their income levels.
You just called Voidangel out for proposing regressive taxation, and then turn around and push sales taxes? Sales taxes are horribly regressive. The poor are stuck in one area, and have to spend a significant portion of their income just to survive. The wealthy can either go elsewhere, where the sales taxes aren't so high, or simply see the increased price for high-end luxuries as an extra value on it, since many high-end "luxuries" derive no small part of their value from simply having a higher price tag (and mid-range goods, too, for that matter; brand-names versus generics, with both having been made identically, in the same factories). Far better for there to simply be a progressive income tax that takes nothing from anyone below the poverty line, and a property tax on higher-valued property (with no tax on objects on the lower end of their respective category, like a car worth a couple of thousand dollars, or a small house on largely worthless land (which would still be in the tens of thousands in value, but quite low compared to the average house).
I've never been a fan of sales tax as it seams strange to tax income when it comes in and when it goes out. I'm sure there it is a logical mechanism, and I'd appreciate an explanation, but I don't understand it. It seams to penalize purchasing, which would be against capitalism. It does allow the taxation on people that don't earn, but spend (trustfund). I've attempted to look it up but I haven't found a good reason to include a sales tax instead of increasing income tax. Could someone help?
As far as it being regressive (as in poor people pay a higher percentage of tax per income on an item than a rich person), doesn't it even out, because the rich buy more and higher price tag things?
There is also logistics, that is some massive change! Wouldn't cutting the cap on payroll tax effectively accomplish the goal of raising tax revenue without rewriting the whole system? It would obviously be hard to get those affected to sign off on it (anyone than earns more than $102,000 a year), but should be easier than starting from scratch? No?
5470
Post by: sebster
Andrew1975 wrote:Would that be enough to cover social security?
Most countries with complete pensions have tax rates starting from 30%. You'd have to seriously cut back military expenditure and continue to reform healthcare, but given the fairly crappy nature of US social security it'd be doable.
But on that note, I wouldn't have social security either. Instead I'd have a superannuation scheme, where a portion of each pay cheque was taken, tax free, and put into a savings account, for the employee to invest as he sees fit. He could add more to this if he wanted, tax free up to a limit, and it could all be accessed once he reached retirement age.
This has two benefits - the money is really there, so the employee knows he will have it when he retires it, and it provides a savings pool to drive new investment.
Sales tax is actually more of a local tax, so the fed doesn't have much control of that. It would be good to get everyone on the same page and allow sales tax to be collected on internet purchases.
It's economically inefficient to have sales tax varying from state to state, both because of the increased admin, and because of the cost of market interference (why should the state dictate a different price because I bought a table and chairs in Vermont instead of Maine?)
So yeah, one national sales tax is the way to go.
The states would then be funded through this money, through a national grants scheme that used a formula considering population, infrastructure requirements, social disability factors and the like.
Local government would be similarly funded, as I wouldn't have land rates either. Well, they'd still have fee for service arrangements for picking up household bins and the like, but the general pool of money now raised through land rates would instead be part of the allocation coming from the central collection of funds. Automatically Appended Next Post: Sir Pseudonymous wrote:You just called Voidangel out for proposing regressive taxation, and then turn around and push sales taxes? Sales taxes are horribly regressive.
It is a mistake to look at a single part of a tax system in isolation. While an individual element might be regressive, it can be countered by other factors. In this case a progressive income tax could more than make up for the regressive impact of the sales tax.
Far better for there to simply be a progressive income tax that takes nothing from anyone below the poverty line, and a property tax on higher-valued property (with no tax on objects on the lower end of their respective category, like a car worth a couple of thousand dollars, or a small house on largely worthless land (which would still be in the tens of thousands in value, but quite low compared to the average house).
But a sales tax guarantees tax revenue coming in from grey market money. The amount of undeclared small business income is vast, and with income tax only it remains untaxed. With a sales tax you at least catch them for 10%.
5534
Post by: dogma
Andrew1975 wrote:
So a VAT tax and sales tax? I'm not following. Does the Vat replace sales tax. How do states get money?
The VAT would be a federal sales tax, in effect. States could presumably further apply their own sales taxes
Andrew1975 wrote:
Maybe I'm reading federal when you say national? It just seams that last time I looked, when all taxes are added, the average person is paying around 40%. So a 30% tax plus a 10% Vat tax wouldn't really add up would it? I'm probably missing something, again I'm not a true economist.
You're adding the tax rates together without adjusting for their actual effect on overall burden. As far as income taxes are concerned they can generally just be amalgamated through addition, but when you're talking about a VAT, sales tax, or payroll tax you have to account for the fact that they don't apply to the same class of transactions.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Instead I'd have a superannuation scheme, where a portion of each pay cheque was taken, tax free, and put into a savings account, for the employee to invest as he sees fit. He could add more to this if he wanted, tax free up to a limit, and it could all be accessed once he reached retirement age.
Where does that leave current social security recipients? Their benefits are paid for by the current work force? If they are in charge of the investments, what happens if they invest poorly? That's always been my issue with these self investment ideas. It sounds good, but I've seen people loose their shirts. At least with the current system (granted, if done correctly) they are guaranteed to have something to live on.
The VAT would be a federal sales tax, in effect. States could presumably further apply their own sales taxes
So if the current sales tax is 7% we would add a further 10% on there for a total 17% sales tax. Wow, I really see that hurting spending, which is not good in capitalism. We want to increase the flow of money not make people hoard it. I think I would rather see a higher income tax, if you never have the money you tend to not miss it. Am I wrong here?
5470
Post by: sebster
Andrew1975 wrote:I've never been a fan of sales tax as it seams strange to tax income when it comes in and when it goes out. I'm sure there it is a logical mechanism, and I'd appreciate an explanation, but I don't understand it. It seams to penalize purchasing, which would be against capitalism.
The point is to catch grey market earnings. We all know businessmen take discounts for taking jobs cash in hand, but not many understand the scope of these ultimately undeclared earnings. The national sales tax in Australia generated tens of billions in additional income, and our economy is around 1/15 the size of yours.
It does allow the taxation on people that don't earn, but spend (trustfund).
Profits generated by trust fund then distributed to beneficiaries are taxed, actually.
As far as it being regressive (as in poor people pay a higher percentage of tax per income on an item than a rich person), doesn't it even out, because the rich buy more and higher price tag things?
It's regressive in that the rich save and invest a greater portion of their income, and these activities don't generate a sales tax. So if the poor guy earns $10,000 and spends $10,000, he pays $9,09 in sales tax. But a rich guy might earn $300,000 but only spend $100,000, paying only $9,090 in sales tax.
The point is that you can offset that effect with a progressive income tax.
There is also logistics, that is some massive change!
Immense. It would have to be part of a 15 to 20 year plan. That's more or less how long it took in Australia
Wouldn't cutting the cap on payroll tax effectively accomplish the goal of raising tax revenue without rewriting the whole system?
It's inefficient and has a negative market effect to tax on the micro level. YOu end up discouraging specific actions for reason other than they're convenient places to place a tax.
37036
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous
sebster wrote:It's regressive in that the rich save and invest a greater portion of their income, and these activities don't generate a sales tax. So if the poor guy earns $10,000 and spends $10,000, he pays $9,09 in sales tax. But a rich guy might earn $300,000 but only spend $100,000, paying only $9,090 in sales tax.
The point is that you can offset that effect with a progressive income tax.
I'd at least argue against sales taxes on necessities. And the removal or reduction of vice taxes, which are even more regressive...
39004
Post by: biccat
sebster wrote:biccat wrote:Did you happen to miss the "(in 2007 dollars)" part of the chart? The lowest quintile in 1979 earned $15,300 (in 2007 dollars). In 2007, they earned $17,700.
That looks like an increase to me.
Which is an annualised increase of less than a half of one percent.
At which point you're claiming "look! trickle down economics works because the poorest 20% experienced an average increase in income of less than half of one percent per annum!"
Which is, of course, a ridiculous thing to claim.
If you're interested in responding to one of my posts, please respond to the actual content, and not what you think I wrote. And take your petty insults elsewhere.
38857
Post by: VoidAngel
Ugh. Just got back to this. I was working, so I can pay my underwater mortgage.
Yeah, I know all about it - trust me.
Biccat ninjaed me - thanks B.
@Dogma - "Given the nature of scarcity, that's simply not true. " Er, yeah - that works when you are talking about antelopes and hunter-gatherers. It's ridiculous when you're talking about iPads and Oreos. Oh, darn....that bajillionaire just bought the last Bugatti Veyron in the showroom! Oh, wait - I couldn't afford one anyway. I'll just mope on back to my sucky new Nissan...*grumble*. Give me a break.
5534
Post by: dogma
VoidAngel wrote:
@Dogma - "Given the nature of scarcity, that's simply not true. " Er, yeah - that works when you are talking about antelopes and hunter-gatherers. It's ridiculous when you're talking about iPads and Oreos. Oh, darn....that bajillionaire just bought the last Bugatti Veyron in the showroom! Oh, wait - I couldn't afford one anyway. I'll just mope on back to my sucky new Nissan...*grumble*. Give me a break.
No, it works in all systems predicated on limited resources, which is not only every economic system that exists, but the actual reason for the existence of economics. If you cannot except that fundamental principle, then there isn't really much point in trying to discuss this with you, but I'll try one more time anyway. Put simply, comparing basic resources (food) to the products derived from basic resources (Cars) is utter nonsense. My point was that any significant collection of wealth naturally denies wealth to other people, this does injury to others by the very nature of inhibiting their ability to access that pool of wealth; regardless of whether or not that wealth was originally acquired by means thought of as legitimate.
Additionally, your differentiation between Bugattis and Nissans is nonsense given the scope of the arguments being made in this thread, and the fact that you're making such microcosmic differentiations is preventing you from seeing the core of the issue. Namely that the amalgamation of wealth discussed above is explicitly what prevents non-wealthy individuals from purchasing luxury goods. Or, more broadly, what prevents impoverished nations from developing economically in the short-run.
Of course, there is no good way to sidestep this process, but arguing that it doesn't cause harm is just childish.
39004
Post by: biccat
dogma wrote:If you cannot except that fundamental principle, then there isn't really much point in trying to discuss this with you
If I understand your post correctly, he did except the 'fundamental principle' you suggested.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Yes, regardless of your position on the topic, the fact still remains that resources are scarce-- that is, they are in limited quantities, not unlimited. We don't live in a magical world where we have infinite resources. Metals are limited, oil is limited, water is limited, even air is limited in quantity (it is a large quantity, but still not unlimited).
This is why cornucopians tend to be rather wrong about most things
Regardless of that, the argument is more about the proper distribution of said resources than the amount that's present.
38857
Post by: VoidAngel
Jesus - there's a whole other page...
Sebster wrote (in reverse order)
"The point is to catch grey market earnings. We all know businessmen take discounts for taking jobs cash in hand, but not many understand the scope of these ultimately undeclared earnings."
Yeah, but guess who those "businessmen" are in America? Mostly blue collar types - i.e., the poor! And with unions in the mix...that's a misnomer. The rest of it is pure criminal activity. Find a way to tax that.
"I'm thinking of a study in the Economist in 2009 or 2010. There are others."
Let me go look that right up. Where did I leave that stack of two year old magazines...?
"No, I didn't miss the word illegal. The word illegal is the whole point, because it allows you to keep one group of people seperate to the rest of society, pay them less and deny them services available to the rest of society. This by definition will improve living standards among the rest of society.
And of course there's going to be lots of illegal aliens at the emergency clinic. They're denied access to other medical attention."
Ah, right - the secret plan to import a workforce and help them sneak across the border so we can have cheap labor...riiiight. Forgot. Nice job completely ingoring and excusing the main problem - illegal and consuming services.
(Re: war dominoes) "Umm, you're terribly mistaken, either in who you were talking to at that time, or the content of my argument. I've been aware that the democratic domino was the primary cause for the invasion well before the actual invasion. I've argued it many, many times on this forum.
It's just that unlike you, I recognise that trying to reform a region through foreign invasion is stupid and doomed to failure."
Possible. Alot of people on here have puppy avatars for some reason. I'll let history demonstrate to you who is stupid and what is doomed to failure.
"No-one in Europe is near the rate. No Democrat proposal is even close to the rate. Your argument above exists entirely in a bottle, protected on all sides by absolute ignorance of the actual situation."
Really? How about all the Scandanavian countries? All of 'em. If the bottle is big enough to include Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark...then I guess you are right.
"Are you actually arguing for regressive tax rates? That the more you earn, the less your marginal tax rate?
That's pretty fething out there, you know."
Read the whole thread - I was demonstrating to Andrew(?) what was wrong with the idea and asking what he thought the definition of fair was. Is it giving your share? Is your "share" a dollar amount? Is it a percentage? Is it every damn penny that can be wrung out of you and still let you go to work? What is it? I wasn't advocating anything.
"Good news though! The rich man eats at your restaurant everyday, and now that he's keeping even more of his money he's free to eat there even more. Except he doesn't actualy get any hungrier, so he still only turns up once a day."
Not a bad illustration, but overly simplified to make your point. That guy comes in a orders a $40 steak and $70 bottle of wine. I just made more off of him than 4 or 5 other customers. Maybe he buys the place a round. Who knows - you could get silly with how far you can extend this to make it work in either direction. Any way you look at it, raising sales tax decreases spending. It may be adorable, but I'd think a professional in the tax industry would understand that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Dogma and Melissa
Exceptions aside, I accept the 'fundamental principle' of scarcity - but you both fail to reckon with some "fundamental principles" of justice and reality.
We live in a place blessed with abundant natural resources. We pay farmers NOT to grow food. Now, please argue scarcity and how it applies further. That someone lives in a fething desert and therefore has little to eat is not CAUSED by me living in a place where food is plentiful! It's a natural consequence.
If citizen A makes enough to buy an iPad a week comfortably, he's still not likely to do so in some malignant effort to make sure that citizen B - who had to save up for a year to get one - can't.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Actually, not growing food in a field is good for that field's fertility compared to growing crops all the time. That's not really comparable... Though it is true that they are paid to do so for reasons other than that, it DOES benefit the farmers to not wear their fields down to nothingness.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
VoidAngel wrote:http://blog.pappastax.com/index.php/2010/07/11/case-rested-trickle-down-policies-work/
Read it and stop weeping.
This chart does not take into account GDP growth, which usually runs faster than inflation.
US GDP growth averaged 3.6% between 1979 and 2007. If all salaries had grown at the same rate as GDP, the result would have been
Lowest Fifth====41,187
Second Fifth====83,451
Middle Fifth====118,716
Fourth Fifth====155,327
Top Fifth======273,775
Top 1%======933,043
38857
Post by: VoidAngel
Nobody is saying "trickle down is the complete answer". But several were saying that it's complete bull$h!t - which is not true.
Look, if I didn't give a rat's posterior about the poor I would not donate frequently and generously (which I do). The folks I don't give the aforementioned vermin parts about are the ones who feel I *owe* them something or *took*something from them. I worked hard for everything I have. I've been poor. I'm not sitting on a gigantic retirement fund. I will likely have to work my ass off for the foreseeable future - like most other people.
But you know what? I wasn't satisfied with my lot in life, so I changed it. And I did it without sticking my hand out. Punishing me now because I managed to succeed is unfair. Why should I bear more than my share? You know who's entitled to what I have? Me.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
It's inefficient and has a negative market effect to tax on the micro level. YOu end up discouraging specific actions for reason other than they're convenient places to place a tax.
could you explain this more? I've thought about it and it seams that the payroll tax cap it a massively recessive tax, in that after $102K you are not longer charged any more. A CEO that is making 800 times his employees is still only paying for one worth of payroll tax. Granted corporations pay a percentage of each employees pay roll tax.
My thought is that it really has no effect on those salaries under $102K, it may slow down hiring above that, but inversely maybe companies employ more lower level management. I think it would certainly cut down on the mass escalation of salaries, as with this change those mutl million dollar salaries and bonuses cost corporations even more.
I'm an American so I like the fast, easy, solution. I see social security as being the biggest drain on the budget so that is really my target. There is regressive nature of the tax is directly connected to social security. It seams logical.
The problem with a massive overhaul of an entire system that could take 20 years is that you really have to have faith in the political system. I don't. Anytime the masses put forward political change they are in effect haggling with a bunch of Rich people. But its the kind of haggling where they seam to raise the price every time you present a new figure.
"It says $8 I'll give you $6",
"Well now it's $9, ask me again and it will be $10",
"What?".
Every reform always includes loopholes that are usually exploited by the rich. Since the make the rules, its very hard to change this system. Anyone you elect is going to be rich, they have to be just to be elected!
The point is to catch grey market earnings. We all know businessmen take discounts for taking jobs cash in hand, but not many understand the scope of these ultimately undeclared earnings. The national sales tax in Australia generated tens of billions in additional income, and our economy is around 1/15 the size of yours.
Yeah, but you are also double taxing a vast amount of people to get it. Again not an expert on economic theory, but it seams in a capitalist system you would not want to tax 17% on purchases. It would seam smarter to figure out a way to tax savings, as a mechanic to get money to flow faster! (that may be the stupidest thing ever in economic terms and cause a real problem with the banking system, i'm just saying theoretically if it could be done)
Ugh. Just got back to this. I was working, so I can pay my underwater mortgage.
Hey you bought the house, and believed it was worth it at the time or you would not have bought it. Does it provide shelter? If so, then live there and be happy that you have a roof over your head. Is your problem that you may not be able to quickly flip it and make a handsome return? Well that's part of the mechanic that caused your situation in the first place. You were trying to ride the bubble!
I'm sure you blame the housing collapse on the poor for not paying their mortgages. Truth is they probably never should have had those mortgages in the first place because they don't get paid enough by the rich to afford homes. You should blame the Rich bank CEO's that over-leveraged their companies in order to make that ginormous bonus, which you seam to believe they earned.
But you know what? I wasn't satisfied with my lot in life, so I changed it. And I did it without sticking my hand out. Punishing me now because I managed to succeed is unfair. Why should I bear more than my share? You know who's entitled to what I have? Me.
You know what? If this is true, than you are probably not the person that should be getting bent out of shape! If I'm understanding you, you are hardly rich, much less the uber rich, and I can't understand why you are defending them? The fact is, you sound like more a victim of the system they impose than anything else. You sound more like upper middle class, which gets pissed on from both ends, specifically because the rich don't do their share.
If citizen A makes enough to buy an iPad a week comfortably, he's still not likely to do so in some malignant effort to make sure that citizen B - who had to save up for a year to get one - can't.
He might though, knowing that he can make a nice profit off of them. I don't think that is necessarily evil though. Now if he does this and uses some bizarre tax loophole to not pay anytaxes, or used a government grant of some kind to purchase said I-pads, well then I'm pissed.
752
Post by: Polonius
VoidAngel wrote:But you know what? I wasn't satisfied with my lot in life, so I changed it. And I did it without sticking my hand out. Punishing me now because I managed to succeed is unfair. Why should I bear more than my share? You know who's entitled to what I have? Me.
Do you think that every person could achieve economic security through hard work, without support from others?
411
Post by: whitedragon
Polonius wrote:VoidAngel wrote:But you know what? I wasn't satisfied with my lot in life, so I changed it. And I did it without sticking my hand out. Punishing me now because I managed to succeed is unfair. Why should I bear more than my share? You know who's entitled to what I have? Me.
Do you think that every person could achieve economic security through hard work, without support from others?
No!
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
whitedragon wrote:Polonius wrote:VoidAngel wrote:But you know what? I wasn't satisfied with my lot in life, so I changed it. And I did it without sticking my hand out. Punishing me now because I managed to succeed is unfair. Why should I bear more than my share? You know who's entitled to what I have? Me.
Do you think that every person could achieve economic security through hard work, without support from others?
No!
It depends what you call support, getting loans is different from getting hand outs.
752
Post by: Polonius
Andrew1975 wrote:It depends what you call support, getting loans is different from getting hand outs.
It depends on the loan. Taking out home equity to pay for an MBA is a very different risk for the lender than an unsecured student loan to a community college student.
Most people that get ahead in this life have inherent advantages, either of talent or support (most likely both). Take away all avenues of support, even for a very talented person, and the margin of error for success becomes very, very thin.
I'd never deny that there are plenty of people that aren't trying hard, if at all. But I'd argue that I know a lot of well educated, hard working people that are underemployed right now, and it's hard to see what they're supposed to be doing differently.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Polonius wrote:Andrew1975 wrote:It depends what you call support, getting loans is different from getting hand outs.
It depends on the loan. Taking out home equity to pay for an MBA is a very different risk for the lender than an unsecured student loan to a community college student.
Most people that get ahead in this life have inherent advantages, either of talent or support (most likely both). Take away all avenues of support, even for a very talented person, and the margin of error for success becomes very, very thin.
I'd never deny that there are plenty of people that aren't trying hard, if at all. But I'd argue that I know a lot of well educated, hard working people that are underemployed right now, and it's hard to see what they're supposed to be doing differently.
I feel your pain, welcome to Cleveland!
edit: At least we are not Detroit!
Cleveland visitor center theme song
I both love and hate my city!
38857
Post by: VoidAngel
Andrew1975 wrote:
Ugh. Just got back to this. I was working, so I can pay my underwater mortgage.
Hey you bought the house, and believed it was worth it at the time or you would not have bought it. Does it provide shelter? If so, then live there and be happy that you have a roof over your head. Is your problem that you may not be able to quickly flip it and make a handsome return? Well that's part of the mechanic that caused your situation in the first place. You were trying to ride the bubble!
I'm sure you blame the housing collapse on the poor for not paying their mortgages. Truth is they probably never should have had those mortgages in the first place because they don't get paid enough by the rich to afford homes. You should blame the Rich bank CEO's that over-leveraged their companies in order to make that ginormous bonus, which you seam to believe they earned.
Way to miss sarcasm. Yeah, I'm underwater - but not in bad shape - and wasn't complaining. I bought less house than I could afford, with no intention of "flipping" it. I blame the housing collapse on several things, all of which are well known and proper recipients of that blame.
But you know what? I wasn't satisfied with my lot in life, so I changed it. And I did it without sticking my hand out. Punishing me now because I managed to succeed is unfair. Why should I bear more than my share? You know who's entitled to what I have? Me.
You know what? If this is true, than you are probably not the person that should be getting bent out of shape! If I'm understanding you, you are hardly rich, much less the uber rich, and I can't understand why you are defending them? The fact is, you sound like more a victim of the system they impose than anything else. You sound more like upper middle class, which gets pissed on from both ends, specifically because the rich don't do their share.
What do you mean "if this is true"? I'm not in the habit of making $h!t up. I'm not defending corrupt executives. I'm defending the innocent ones who far outnumber them, and deserve their high pay for guiding entire companies with their thousands of employees - all of whom (like me) depend on those jobs. Oh, and I'm a victim of NOTHING. I reject the entire victim mentality. I don't begrudge anyone their success - and I make it a point not to envy. To me, happiness consists largely in satisfaction with what you have.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
I'm defending the "innocent" ones who far outnumber them, and deserve their high pay for guiding entirely corrupt companies with their thousands of employees - all of whom (like me) depend on those jobs, so that we can exploit them to the point where they have to take social security which I don't want to pay for
Fixed that for you!
29408
Post by: Melissia
VoidAngel wrote:But several were saying that it's complete bull$h!t
Yes, because I do like saying things which are proven historically correct time and time again.
38857
Post by: VoidAngel
Polonius wrote:VoidAngel wrote:But you know what? I wasn't satisfied with my lot in life, so I changed it. And I did it without sticking my hand out. Punishing me now because I managed to succeed is unfair. Why should I bear more than my share? You know who's entitled to what I have? Me.
Do you think that every person could achieve economic security through hard work, without support from others?
I can quote many instances from my own experience where those with access to support I never had failed to succeed through their own lack of motivation. I'm STILL paying my student loans back. They had a free ride, but squandered it. Support from others is no guarantee. Individuals have to hold up their end of the deal and participate. When they don't, they should not have recourse to force others to subsidize them.
752
Post by: Polonius
VoidAngel wrote:Polonius wrote:VoidAngel wrote:But you know what? I wasn't satisfied with my lot in life, so I changed it. And I did it without sticking my hand out. Punishing me now because I managed to succeed is unfair. Why should I bear more than my share? You know who's entitled to what I have? Me.
Do you think that every person could achieve economic security through hard work, without support from others?
I can quote many instances from my own experience where those with access to support I never had failed to succeed through their own lack of motivation. I'm STILL paying my student loans back. They had a free ride, but squandered it. Support from others is no guarantee. Individuals have to hold up their end of the deal and participate. When they don't, they should not have recourse to force others to subsidize them.
I wasn't asking if it's possible to advance without support (and student loans are backed by the government, at least many of them). I was asking if you thought it possible for every single person to acheive economic independence without support.
There's no shortage of horatio algers, I don't doubt.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Individuals have to hold up their end of the deal and participate. When they don't, they should not have recourse to force others to subsidize them.
Well to be fair, most people have said there needs to be reform in the social security system for recipients also. I also don't subscribe the poor living entirely for free. However its hard to get up when someone is standing on your neck. That doesn't mean you should quite though and have the opportunity to leach.
I don't think anyone here is saying take all the rich peoples money and give it all to the unemployed cracked out mothers of 12. At least I'm not.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Of course not. But people can't exactly stop being poor through effort, skill, talent, knowledge, etc alone right now. They also have to be lucky. Meh.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Melissia wrote:They also have to be lucky.
This cannot be overstated.
38857
Post by: VoidAngel
Polonius wrote:
I wasn't asking if it's possible to advance without support (and student loans are backed by the government, at least many of them). I was asking if you thought it possible for every single person to acheive economic independence without support.
No, that's absurd. My preference would be (and I have said this over, and over again) for such services to be reserved for the truly needy - not everyone that can find a way to lay claim to them.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
VoidAngel wrote:Polonius wrote:
I wasn't asking if it's possible to advance without support (and student loans are backed by the government, at least many of them). I was asking if you thought it possible for every single person to acheive economic independence without support.
No, that's absurd. My preference would be (and I have said this over, and over again) for such services to be reserved for the truly needy - not everyone that can find a way to lay claim to them.
Yeah, I'm saying that, that is not enough though. Even if you could in some way get all the undeserving off of the dole. The rich still need to do more, or better! The decline of all other demographics besides the rich should point this out to you.
38857
Post by: VoidAngel
You seem to have forgotten to contend with the very motivational factors that enabled many of them to get rich in the first place. Unless you are born into it - you work to make money. Once you figure out how to be good at that, you tend to make more and more. That's what a meritocracy is all about.
752
Post by: Polonius
VoidAngel wrote:Polonius wrote:
I wasn't asking if it's possible to advance without support (and student loans are backed by the government, at least many of them). I was asking if you thought it possible for every single person to acheive economic independence without support.
No, that's absurd. My preference would be (and I have said this over, and over again) for such services to be reserved for the truly needy - not everyone that can find a way to lay claim to them.
How many services right now do you think exist, at taxpayer expense, solely to people that claim need? The big one is probably food stamps, but those cost very little.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
VoidAngel wrote:You seem to have forgotten to contend with the very motivational factors that enabled many of them to get rich in the first place. Unless you are born into it - you work to make money. Once you figure out how to be good at that, you tend to make more and more. That's what a meritocracy is all about.
Are you saying that unless people are able to obtain limitless wealth they wont try to attain it at all? No one here is trying to turn the rich into paupers, or make everyone even. It's more about closing the out of control wealth gap. It's not healthy to have such a top heavy system. The rich will still be rich, albeit slightly less rich. The poor will still be poor, but slightly less so. Automatically Appended Next Post: VoidAngel wrote:Polonius wrote:
I wasn't asking if it's possible to advance without support (and student loans are backed by the government, at least many of them). I was asking if you thought it possible for every single person to acheive economic independence without support.
No, that's absurd. My preference would be (and I have said this over, and over again) for such services to be reserved for the truly needy - not everyone that can find a way to lay claim to them.
My preference would be for wealth to be reserved for those that deserve it -not everyone that can find a way to lay claim to it.
38857
Post by: VoidAngel
Andrew1975 wrote:
My preference would be for wealth to be reserved for those that deserve it -not everyone that can find a way to lay claim to it.
Wow. And by what remotely just system would you propose to accomplish that? Unrestricted access to all legal means to increase one's wealth IS the very heart of our system!
I get that you want to stop the corrupt from essentially stealing wealth from others (who doesn't?) - but you make the typical mistake of looking to punish everyone for the crimes of a few bad actors. We have laws. Where we identify gaps in them, we amend them. That's the best you can do, and still have a shot at being fair.
29408
Post by: Melissia
And yet, many people simply get wealthy through nothing more than sheer luck as opposed to effort, skill, and so on.
Meanwhile those that are already wealthy can still stay wealthy even if they are unlucky. Upward mobility has decreased alongside downward mobility
5470
Post by: sebster
Andrew1975 wrote:Where does that leave current social security recipients? Their benefits are paid for by the current work force? If they are in charge of the investments, what happens if they invest poorly? That's always been my issue with these self investment ideas. It sounds good, but I've seen people loose their shirts. At least with the current system (granted, if done correctly) they are guaranteed to have something to live on.
You still have pensions, for those who were unable to earn enough superannuation or those who lost it all. But most people are quite sensible with their savings, so those ending up on the pension end up a fraction of what you currently have.
Think of that on-coming mass of baby boomer retirements, and think of how much money it's going to cost social security. Now imagine if 95% of them were all self-funded retirees.
So if the current sales tax is 7% we would add a further 10% on there for a total 17% sales tax. Wow, I really see that hurting spending, which is not good in capitalism. We want to increase the flow of money not make people hoard it. I think I would rather see a higher income tax, if you never have the money you tend to not miss it. Am I wrong here?
No, you're replacing current sales taxes. The big thing to understand about my proposal is that I'm not suggesting an overall increase in the tax burden, it'd remain about 30% of GDP as it is now. Automatically Appended Next Post: Sir Pseudonymous wrote:I'd at least argue against sales taxes on necessities. And the removal or reduction of vice taxes, which are even more regressive...
Except then you end up with the horrible game of trying to decide what is and isn't a necessity.
Food is a necessity. What about a cake? So not cakes, but then what's a cake and what's a pie? Just put it on everything, and adjust for the regressive impact with reduced taxes and improved benefit payments.
I agree on removing vice taxes, by the way. The only reason to tax an individual product is to capture an externality, such as increased health costs incurred by the state from smokers (which is itself a debatable thing). Automatically Appended Next Post: biccat wrote:If you're interested in responding to one of my posts, please respond to the actual content, and not what you think I wrote. And take your petty insults elsewhere.
You said that that tax lawyer's blog proved that trickle down economics works. I pointed out over the 30 year period you had an average increase for the bottom 20% of about half of one percent.
At which point the claim can only be termed as "trickle down economics works because the poorest 20% experienced an average increase in income of less than half of one percent per annum!"
There's no petty insult there. There's just a statement of how terrible your point was.
The fact that you've just responded with a little moan about how mean I'm being and not bothering to defend your point at all is a pretty good indication you've just realised how terrible your point really was. Automatically Appended Next Post: VoidAngel wrote:Yeah, but guess who those "businessmen" are in America? Mostly blue collar types - i.e., the poor! And with unions in the mix...that's a misnomer. The rest of it is pure criminal activity. Find a way to tax that.
Yeah, they're mostly blue collar types, most are self-employed tradesmen and the like.
And the point is that when they spend their earnings they get hit with sales tax. That's how you tax that. That was the point. Please read.
Ah, right - the secret plan to import a workforce and help them sneak across the border so we can have cheap labor...riiiight. Forgot. Nice job completely ingoring and excusing the main problem - illegal and consuming services.
What are you talking about? What secret plan? Go back and write a response that makes sense.
Possible. Alot of people on here have puppy avatars for some reason. I'll let history demonstrate to you who is stupid and what is doomed to failure.
History already has. No country was inspired by Iraq to begin it's own revolution. This is obvious and well known. Please accept this and move on.
Really? How about all the Scandanavian countries? All of 'em. If the bottle is big enough to include Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark...then I guess you are right.
No, they're not. You assume they must be because they have high taxes, but maybe instead if you did some reading on the subject you might have learned that isn't the case. You can't just make gak up because it fits your ideology. All you end up with is self-reinforcing ignorance.
Read the whole thread - I was demonstrating to Andrew(?) what was wrong with the idea and asking what he thought the definition of fair was. Is it giving your share? Is your "share" a dollar amount? Is it a percentage? Is it every damn penny that can be wrung out of you and still let you go to work? What is it? I wasn't advocating anything.
I know what you were arguing. I was just taken aback by your example, where the rich man was paying a lower percentage of his income in taxes, and you were suggesting this could be seen as unfair. I mean, even the furthest right among the Republicans aren't arguing for that.
Not a bad illustration, but overly simplified to make your point. That guy comes in a orders a $40 steak and $70 bottle of wine. I just made more off of him than 4 or 5 other customers. Maybe he buys the place a round. Who knows - you could get silly with how far you can extend this to make it work in either direction. Any way you look at it, raising sales tax decreases spending. It may be adorable, but I'd think a professional in the tax industry would understand that.
It has nothing to do with tax industry professionals. It's a matter for macroeconomists, and the answer is heavily studied and the conclusions very well understood. When the wealthiest have an increase in income, they spend less of it on consumer goods than the poorest. Automatically Appended Next Post: VoidAngel wrote:Nobody is saying "trickle down is the complete answer". But several were saying that it's complete bull$h!t - which is not true.
No, seriously, it is complete bs.
Well, the general concept that wealth generated at the top will create jobs and consumer demand, therefore growing the entire economy isn't bs. That's well known and accepted.
What's bs is the Reagan idea that you can spur economic growth by reducing tax rates at the top of the economy. When there is an economic opportunity the rich will pursue this opportunity whether the top rate of tax is 35% or 45%.
That there is the plain reality of the situation. Playing with that tax rate doesn't create more economic growth.
But you know what? I wasn't satisfied with my lot in life, so I changed it. And I did it without sticking my hand out. Punishing me now because I managed to succeed is unfair. Why should I bear more than my share? You know who's entitled to what I have? Me.
You're making a big mistake in assuming that opposition to trickle down economics is coming from a desire to punish the rich. Punishing the rich is also a bs, but has nothing to do with why trickle down economics fail. Automatically Appended Next Post: Andrew1975 wrote:could you explain this more? I've thought about it and it seams that the payroll tax cap it a massively recessive tax, in that after $102K you are not longer charged any more. A CEO that is making 800 times his employees is still only paying for one worth of payroll tax. Granted corporations pay a percentage of each employees pay roll tax.
My thought is that it really has no effect on those salaries under $102K, it may slow down hiring above that, but inversely maybe companies employ more lower level management. I think it would certainly cut down on the mass escalation of salaries, as with this change those mutl million dollar salaries and bonuses cost corporations even more.
You've got it bang on. It slows down hiring. It's a direct tax on companies employing people.
You can say the impact is small and you'd probably be right, but why have that impact at all? A tax system should look to impact the economy as little as possible, so why actually impact something like hiring new employees that everyone agrees is a good thing?
The problem with a massive overhaul of an entire system that could take 20 years is that you really have to have faith in the political system.
Hey, I'm not even American, so I don't get to vote let alone run your country. If you're going to ask, I might as well get utopian about things  .
And yeah, if you set about bringing those changes in and it only took twenty years, you could be well pleased with your efforts.
Every reform always includes loopholes that are usually exploited by the rich. Since the make the rules, its very hard to change this system. Anyone you elect is going to be rich, they have to be just to be elected!
Absolutely. Except they're not really loopholes, because loopholes are supposed to be accidental and in most cases the loopholes being exploited were put there quite deliberately. The classic example is the cap on executive incomes, at $1 million. Bonuses were exempted... now I don't think anyone could honestly claim that legislators were unaware that incomes would just be shifted into bonuses, having no effect on salaries paid.
But it allowed the politicians to get up and say 'we've brought really high incomes under control' without actually earning the ire of anyone, because the legislation was written deliberately to look like it was doing something while it was actually doing nothing.
Yeah, but you are also double taxing a vast amount of people to get it. Again not an expert on economic theory, but it seams in a capitalist system you would not want to tax 17% on purchases. It would seam smarter to figure out a way to tax savings, as a mechanic to get money to flow faster! (that may be the stupidest thing ever in economic terms and cause a real problem with the banking system, i'm just saying theoretically if it could be done)
Having a sales tax and an income tax isn't double taxation. Double taxation doesn't refer to something be taxed by two methods, but really means something being taxed twice while other forms of income are only taxed once because of the natuer of what it is. The classic example is company earnings, which can be taxed once as part of the company, then taxed again when paid as a dividend to the investor.
This is wrong because not because government taxed it twice, but because if a guy earned $50,000 through his unincorporated business he'd be taxed once, as personal earnings, and pay $10,000 in tax, while his neighbour, who earned $50,000 through his incorporated business is taxed on corporate earnings then on personal earnings, and would pay $18,000 in tax.
And you really don't want to tax savings. You actually want to encourage savings, because long term that's what funds investment, and investment drives growth.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Weird, I thought incorporation offered a lot of tax breaks? Because I know for a fact several local small businesses incorporated specifically to SAVE money on taxes... and it worked.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
I get that you want to stop the corrupt from essentially stealing wealth from others (who doesn't?) - but you make the typical mistake of looking to punish everyone for the crimes of a few bad actors. We have laws. Where we identify gaps in them, we amend them. That's the best you can do, and still have a shot at being fair.
No you don't get it, I'm for a more even distribution of wealth. You will never get rid of the corruption, that's impossible. I'm also not out to punish the rich for being successful or sneaky. I'm not out to punish them at all. What I'm trying to do is get the rich pay for a system that has set them up to be wealthy. It's really not unfair to expect them to pay for the system that maintains their opulence while also keeping the poor satisfied.
I'm also in turn trying say they social security needs to be reformed so that there are less leaches on the system.
In general the tax system needs to be made less of a maze and just much more simple, closing the loopholes and getting everyone on a responsible (not necessarily fair) tax rate. I still think this should include erasing the payroll cap, but maybe it could be done without it.
5534
Post by: dogma
VoidAngel wrote:
Exceptions aside, I accept the 'fundamental principle' of scarcity - but you both fail to reckon with some "fundamental principles" of justice and reality.
Reality isn't a fundamental principle, its a concept that we use to denote the sum of things that are real. Justice might be regarded as a fundamental principle, but not in the same sense as scarcity, as scarcity is a condition that arises from material limitations while justice is socially determined (where it is determined at all).
VoidAngel wrote:
We live in a place blessed with abundant natural resources. We pay farmers NOT to grow food. Now, please argue scarcity and how it applies further. That someone lives in a fething desert and therefore has little to eat is not CAUSED by me living in a place where food is plentiful! It's a natural consequence.
Farm subsidies exist in order to insulate their production decisions from global demand so as to maintain a relatively stable price and supply of food in the United States. This actively dnies consumers in other places, perhaps a certain desert, access to American agricultural products and therefore injures their ability to freely seek a given asset. They're basically an artificial measure to reduce the pressure of scarcity in the United States, and therefore increase it elsewhere.
VoidAngel wrote:
If citizen A makes enough to buy an iPad a week comfortably, he's still not likely to do so in some malignant effort to make sure that citizen B - who had to save up for a year to get one - can't.
It doesn't matter if its due to malicious intent, simply doing so does injury to all others attempting to do the same. Note that the reverse is also true, and people living in a particular state of poverty are denying others who might have the desire to live in that same state of poverty the ability to do so. You're making the mistake of assuming that I'm making some kind of moral argument, I'm not, I'm simply explaining to you that the uneven distribution of wealth naturally involves the constriction of choice, injury, of all other economic actors.
5470
Post by: sebster
Melissia wrote:Weird, I thought incorporation offered a lot of tax breaks? Because I know for a fact several local small businesses incorporated specifically to SAVE money on taxes... and it worked.
There can be, depending on the advantages of the individual. Beyond any of that there's the massive advantage of protecting your private assets in the event of business failure.
But you're missing the point. Simply put, it is wrong in an obvious and fundamental way for two people who each earn the same amount to pay different amount of taxes. If you have corporate taxes that don't carry a franking credit equal to the tax already paid, and then charge the individual personal income tax on top of the corporate taxes already paid on that income, you have that problem.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
It seams logical to me that tax should be a wealth based system based on demographics.
Top 1% owns 43% of the wealth should pay 43% of the cost to run the system that feeds it.
Next 15% should pay 29%
and so on
Now that sounds oversimplified even to me, you'd have the bottom 80% coughing up only 7% of the budget. So it's not perfect, but you get the general Idea.
Here is the chart that shows who actually pays taxes
As you can see, the rich own most of the wealth, but it's the middle that pays most of the taxes.
29585
Post by: AvatarForm
Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither.
Remember when pouring money into the education system raised testing scores for children in the U.S., welfare was used for people to buy food and clothing and not drugs and alcohol, presidents were not passing bills to help low income families buy houses they couldn't afford, and healthcare laws were passed that even the president and congress had to abide by? Yeah me neither!!!
5470
Post by: sebster
Andrew1975 wrote:It seams logical to me that tax should be a wealth based system. That top 20% that has 93% of the wealth should be covering 93% of the costs to run the system that feeds it. Almost like shares in a company.
Taxing wealth over income is a terrible idea.
From a purely pragmatic point of view, the actual value of wealth is highly subjective. We have a good idea what 10,000 shares in BP are worth on the last day of the tax year, but what's the value of my 10,000 acres of land outside of the city, currently awaiting development approval?
More than that, though, people can be asset rich and income poor. Consider a farmer having a poor year, he'd be paying wealth tax on his farm, while his farm is failing to generate revenue. Or consider a retired person, who has a number of assets they accumulated over their lives, but little in new income. They'd have to sell assets to pay the tax on their wealth.
Or think about two guys. Both earn $200,000 a year. One blows through his cash, living out of a pricey rented apartment, leasing fancy cars, splashing money around on chicks and blow. The other lives well, but saves many thousands each year, invests well and after a decade or so has built a nest egg of around $600,000 or 700,000. The second guy would get taxed more, because he is living responsibly.
And worst of all, you'd be adding a surcharge onto any productive asset. If the market demanded a 12% expected return to make investment in a new factory worthwhile, it would now have to consider the (say...) 3% wealth tax on the money involved. All of a sudden that factory would have to generate 15% in expected returns to be worthwhile. It'd kill investment.
That's why we focus on taxing income instead.
29585
Post by: AvatarForm
Andrew1975 wrote:
It seams logical to me that tax should be a wealth based system based on demographics.
Top 1% owns 43% of the wealth should pay 43% of the cost to run the system that feeds it.
Next 15% should pay 29%
and so on
Now that sounds oversimplified even to me, you'd have the bottom 80% coughing up only 7% of the budget. So it's not perfect, but you get the general Idea.
Here is the chart that shows who actually pays taxes
As you can see, the rich own most of the wealth, but it's the middle that pays most of the taxes.
CHARTS!
You remind me of a guy...
37036
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous
Andrew1975 wrote:It seams logical to me that tax should be a wealth based system based on demographics.
Top 1% owns 43% of the wealth should pay 43% of the cost to run the system that feeds it.
Next 15% should pay 29%
and so on
Now that sounds oversimplified even to me, you'd have the bottom 80% coughing up only 7% of the budget. So it's not perfect, but you get the general Idea.
I've always thought it make more sense to determine taxes with an equation rather than brackets. With hard brackets, someone at the edge can wind up making only a few hundred dollars more per year, and as a result end up paying an extra thousand in taxes. A sliding scale that either approached a limit of some percentage, or became statistically indistinguishable from 100% at a point greater than the the entire world economy, to prevent any case of someone making slightly more, and so paying an extra 5% in taxes or some such.
752
Post by: Polonius
Tax brackets don't change your overall tax rate, just the rate at the money earned in that bracket. So when you earn money that moves you inot a new bracket, only that income is taxed at that rate, not everything you've earned before.
Sebster: I'd argue we actually go out of our way to not tax wealth, in the form of reduced rates for capital gains and even dividends.
You are correct in that every study has shown that regardless of the tax rate, the wealthy will still persue more wealth.
38857
Post by: VoidAngel
sebster wrote:
Ah, right - the secret plan to import a workforce and help them sneak across the border so we can have cheap labor...riiiight. Forgot. Nice job completely ingoring and excusing the main problem - illegal and consuming services.
What are you talking about? What secret plan? Go back and write a response that makes sense.
I was making fun of the idea that there's some conspiracy to import Mexicans in order to obtain a cheap workforce.
Possible. Alot of people on here have puppy avatars for some reason. I'll let history demonstrate to you who is stupid and what is doomed to failure.
History already has. No country was inspired by Iraq to begin it's own revolution. This is obvious and well known. Please accept this and move on.
Do you realize that this is your standard answer, in every thread, when you have had a deeply held belief challenged? Saying "move on" doesn't make you right, it makes you tired of not being agreed with. It does nothing to convince the other party of anything. We disagree on this issue. The issue is not settled. It will be at some time in the future - and we'll know who was right.
Really? How about all the Scandanavian countries? All of 'em. If the bottle is big enough to include Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark...then I guess you are right.
No, they're not. You assume they must be because they have high taxes, but maybe instead if you did some reading on the subject you might have learned that isn't the case. You can't just make gak up because it fits your ideology. All you end up with is self-reinforcing ignorance.
Another common tactic of yours. Tiresome. Tell me that Scandinavians don't pay on the order of 50% taxes when all is said and done. Oh, and Germany and France are even higher, I believe.
Read the whole thread - I was demonstrating to Andrew(?) what was wrong with the idea and asking what he thought the definition of fair was. Is it giving your share? Is your "share" a dollar amount? Is it a percentage? Is it every damn penny that can be wrung out of you and still let you go to work? What is it? I wasn't advocating anything.
I know what you were arguing. I was just taken aback by your example, where the rich man was paying a lower percentage of his income in taxes, and you were suggesting this could be seen as unfair. I mean, even the furthest right among the Republicans aren't arguing for that.
You clearly have such a strong expectation, that you can't read what is actually written. I'm asking what the man's definition of fair is.
(snip) It's a matter for macroeconomists, and the answer is heavily studied and the conclusions very well understood. When the wealthiest have an increase in income, they spend less of it on consumer goods than the poorest.
So if a wealthier person buys a top of the line BMW instead of an entry level one - because he's had an increase in income...that's "less"? Assuming his or her retirement funding is secure (or on target) - most people will spend more if they are making more. Hell, most people will just spend more, period. Rich, poor, in the middle...if they suddenly acquire more income.
VoidAngel wrote:Nobody is saying "trickle down is the complete answer". But several were saying that it's complete bull$h!t - which is not true.
Well, the general concept that wealth generated at the top will create jobs and consumer demand, therefore growing the entire economy isn't bs. That's well known and accepted.
What's bs is the Reagan idea that you can spur economic growth by reducing tax rates at the top of the economy. When there is an economic opportunity the rich will pursue this opportunity whether the top rate of tax is 35% or 45%.
That there is the plain reality of the situation. Playing with that tax rate doesn't create more economic growth.
But I wasn't attempting to make the second point - you assumed that was where I was going (or the only place I was going). I think we're back to you assuming 2-3%, and me assuming European-style VATs and income taxes. We're clearer on each other's position on this point now - I hope.
But you know what? I wasn't satisfied with my lot in life, so I changed it. And I did it without sticking my hand out. Punishing me now because I managed to succeed is unfair. Why should I bear more than my share? You know who's entitled to what I have? Me.
You're making a big mistake in assuming that opposition to trickle down economics is coming from a desire to punish the rich. Punishing the rich is also a bs, but has nothing to do with why trickle down economics fail.
Have you been reading this thread? Melissa sounded like she wanted to line the street poles with the bodies of anyone making more than her! That was why I jumped in initially - because I've heard that kind of sentiment entirely too often lately, and its entirely misdirected.
39004
Post by: biccat
Andrew1975 wrote:
Here is the chart that shows who actually pays taxes
As you can see, the rich own most of the wealth, but it's the middle that pays most of the taxes.
The richest decile earns 33% of the income and pays 45% of the taxes according to this source.
This is a little high, but not terribly out of bounds with other countries.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
sebster wrote:Andrew1975 wrote:It seams logical to me that tax should be a wealth based system. That top 20% that has 93% of the wealth should be covering 93% of the costs to run the system that feeds it. Almost like shares in a company.
Taxing wealth over income is a terrible idea.
From a purely pragmatic point of view, the actual value of wealth is highly subjective. We have a good idea what 10,000 shares in BP are worth on the last day of the tax year, but what's the value of my 10,000 acres of land outside of the city, currently awaiting development approval?
More than that, though, people can be asset rich and income poor. Consider a farmer having a poor year, he'd be paying wealth tax on his farm, while his farm is failing to generate revenue. Or consider a retired person, who has a number of assets they accumulated over their lives, but little in new income. They'd have to sell assets to pay the tax on their wealth.
Or think about two guys. Both earn $200,000 a year. One blows through his cash, living out of a pricey rented apartment, leasing fancy cars, splashing money around on chicks and blow. The other lives well, but saves many thousands each year, invests well and after a decade or so has built a nest egg of around $600,000 or 700,000. The second guy would get taxed more, because he is living responsibly.
And worst of all, you'd be adding a surcharge onto any productive asset. If the market demanded a 12% expected return to make investment in a new factory worthwhile, it would now have to consider the (say...) 3% wealth tax on the money involved. All of a sudden that factory would have to generate 15% in expected returns to be worthwhile. It'd kill investment.
That's why we focus on taxing income instead.
Right, I see your point. It makes sense. Like I said it's not perfect by any means. But currently the ratio is so screwed up, it should be brought more into line.
The richest decile earns 33% of the income and pays 45% of the taxes according to this source.
This is a little high, but not terribly out of bounds with other countries.
They earn 33% of the income, but they also have 85% of the wealth. The problem with tacking the income of the wealthy is that there are ways around income. Hell steve jobs was only making $1 a year from apple. I'm sure that's not what he was living on.
Obviously there needs to be a responsible figure, you can't crush the rich, their wealth is vital to US stability. Their investments are required as much as the sweat is required from the poor. They are better off because they are not ditch diggers, but we all are better off because they are not ditch diggers. I get it. I know this. But the wealth ratios are just getting out of control.
Or think about two guys. Both earn $200,000 a year. One blows through his cash, living out of a pricey rented apartment, leasing fancy cars, splashing money around on chicks and blow. The other lives well, but saves many thousands each year, invests well and after a decade or so has built a nest egg of around $600,000 or 700,000. The second guy would get taxed more, because he is living responsibly.
Hasn't the extravagant guy paid his taxes in a. sales (lease) tax b. rent(landlord uses this to pay property tax) c. Income tax? He is actually redistributing wealth. The wise investor however has saved his money, redistributed wealth, but not to the extent of spendy spenderson. The economy needs both kinds of people. At the end of the day the investor has greater wealth and as paid less taxes (probably), so maybe he should be taxed more. Obviously not to the point where you put him at the same wealth level as spendy, but his wealth should be taxed. No?
It's crazy when you look at the distribution of wealth. The bottom of the top 10% is making $200k a year. I mean I wouldn't even call that rich, much less wealthy. That top .1% is astronomically richer than anyone needs to be. 8 out of the 15 wealthiest people in America.......Inherited money! Not shocking, but they majority did not get there through their own hard work and drive like some people expound. In some ways its amazing to me that someone who didn't inherit, Bill Gaits is even able to compete much less top the list. I understand that he was able to, I'm just amazed he was able to.
This is what I found astounding
The people that I think of as rich, really have nothing on THE RICH. This graph isn't even wealth, it's just income!
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
VoidAngel wrote:Nobody is saying "trickle down is the complete answer". But several were saying that it's complete bull$h!t - which is not true.
If the 1979 incomes of each quintile of the population were "just right", it would be reasonable to expect them all to rise roughly at the same rate as GDP. Yet income accelerated massively for the super rich and much less for everyone else. Essentially, the top 1% of the population got a lot of the money which should have gone to the bottom 99%.
It looks more like a "fire hose up" than a "trickle down".
To be fair, let's suppose that the top 1% are the people who do all the important work in terms of research, leadership, entrepreneurship and so on, which drives economic growth. Deprived of their rightful gains, they slack off, with the result that average GDP growth is halved. What effect what that have on everyone's income?
Lowest Fifth====25,213
Second Fifth====51,086
Middle Fifth====72,674
Fourth Fifth====95,085
Top Fifth======167,594
Top 1%======571,171
The bottom 80% still are better off than under the trickle down regime. The top 20% still have 84% of the gains they got under "trickle down". This injustice could be easily rectified by some redistribution.
That's just a thought experiment, though. Let's take an example from history.
If we examine the 28 years of 1951 to 1979, before "trickle down" became policy, we find that US GDP growth was nearly 23% higher than during the supposedly successful "trickle down" 28 years.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
VoidAngel wrote:Nobody is saying "trickle down is the complete answer". But several were saying that it's complete bull$h!t - which is not true.
In particular, he attacked Republicans' proposal to cut taxes for the wealthy while making elderly Americans pay more for their healthcare, as analysts have said the Republican plan would work out. "They want to give people like me a $200,000 tax cut that's paid for by asking 33 seniors to each pay $6,000 more in health costs?" Mr Obama asked. "That's not right, and it's not going to happen as long as I'm president. "The fact is, their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America. "There's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires." But top Republicans, whom Mr Obama briefed on his proposal on Tuesday morning, have staunchly rejected his call to increase tax revenue raised from wealthy Americans. The House is due to vote on Mr Ryan's proposal on Friday.
The rich have earned not only their comfort, but opulence, the old have earned nothing. So we will give the rich a tax break that is worth more than what 90% of people earn in a year.Really? Nice budget proposal! The rich aren't trying to screw anybody!
5470
Post by: sebster
VoidAngel wrote:I was making fun of the idea that there's some conspiracy to import Mexicans in order to obtain a cheap workforce.
What conspiracy? Who suggested such a thing? You're not making sense.
Do you realize that this is your standard answer, in every thread, when you have had a deeply held belief challenged? Saying "move on" doesn't make you right, it makes you tired of not being agreed with. It does nothing to convince the other party of anything. We disagree on this issue. The issue is not settled. It will be at some time in the future - and we'll know who was right.
I say it a lot because there are a lot of posters here who lack the honesty to see when something it true, accept it and move on.
The issue is settled. Iraq was invaded more than eight years ago. It caused no drive for democracy in the surrounding countries. We know this. It's done. Move on.
Another common tactic of yours. Tiresome. Tell me that Scandinavians don't pay on the order of 50% taxes when all is said and done. Oh, and Germany and France are even higher, I believe.
No, the claim wasn't that they pay more in taxes, we all know this, that is obvious. Your claim was that countries in Europe charge so much in taxes on the rich that it is counter-productive, as more rich people leave than pay the higher rate.
You have not in any way substantiated that claim. I put it to you that you can't substantiate it, because it isn't true. You should either attempt to make good on your claim, or concede it.
You clearly have such a strong expectation, that you can't read what is actually written. I'm asking what the man's definition of fair is.
As I just explained, which despite being in plain English has obviously completely escaped you, I wasn't commenting on your question to Andrew. I don't care about that.
I was just surprised that in your example the average rate paid by the rich man was lower than the average rate paid by the middle class guy. Even among the far right you won't see that kind of thing supported (at worst they go for a flat rate of tax).
So if a wealthier person buys a top of the line BMW instead of an entry level one - because he's had an increase in income...that's "less"? Assuming his or her retirement funding is secure (or on target) - most people will spend more if they are making more. Hell, most people will just spend more, period. Rich, poor, in the middle...if they suddenly acquire more income.
It is a basic point of economics that when the rich earn more money they will spend a smaller percentage of it on consumer goods than middle class and poor people.
That's really, really basic economics there. As in introductory macro, taught in year 10. You're making yourself look really bad by not getting it.
But I wasn't attempting to make the second point - you assumed that was where I was going (or the only place I was going). I think we're back to you assuming 2-3%, and me assuming European-style VATs and income taxes. We're clearer on each other's position on this point now - I hope.
But weren't you claiming trickle down worked in the US? As Killkrazy's excellent post showed, the experiment with trickle down in the US hasn't worked, growth hasn't increased, and what growth there's been has been centred among the most wealthy.
Have you been reading this thread? Melissa sounded like she wanted to line the street poles with the bodies of anyone making more than her! That was why I jumped in initially - because I've heard that kind of sentiment entirely too often lately, and its entirely misdirected.
I tend not to read Melissia's post, to be honest. When I do I end up arguing with her in much the same way as I'm arguing with you Automatically Appended Next Post: Andrew1975 wrote:Right, I see your point. It makes sense. Like I said it's not perfect by any means. But currently the ratio is so screwed up, it should be brought more into line.
Oh definitely, the rich need to be paying more in tax for the US to move back to a sustainable budget. Your idea of approximating the tax rates on wealth distribution is a pretty good idea as well.
I was commenting purely on the idea of directly taxing wealth, that is to say you have assets worth $800,000, you pay 5% (or whatever) as tax for simply owning them. Which doesn't work.
Actually just having a higher tax rate of higher income earners does work, though. Automatically Appended Next Post: Polonius wrote:Tax brackets don't change your overall tax rate, just the rate at the money earned in that bracket. So when you earn money that moves you inot a new bracket, only that income is taxed at that rate, not everything you've earned before.
Yeah, it's what they call the marginal tax rate, it's the tax rate paid on the next dollar you earn. The point being that when you go up into a new bracket and start paying a higher marginal rate, you aren't paying more taxes on other income, that still gets charged at the old rate.. That is, in the US right now on the first $8,375 dollars you earn you pay 10% in tax. If you earn more than that, you start paying 15% on every dollar over and above that, but you still only pay $837.50 on that first $8,375 in income, no matter how much more you earn.
Sebster: I'd argue we actually go out of our way to not tax wealth, in the form of reduced rates for capital gains and even dividends.
Yeah, there's been a sustained effort to kickstart investment and economic activity by dropping capital gains rates. It hasn't worked, which for some reason has only caused people to want to drop the rates further.
Mind you, I think capital gains and dividends should be seen as what they really are, income, and treated no differently from any other income. You don't pay taxes when they're generated, but instead you add them on to your taxable income at year end and pay taxes on it like any other income.
You are correct in that every study has shown that regardless of the tax rate, the wealthy will still persue more wealth.
It seems a very funny creation that people have placed in their heads, the idea of this rich person who sees an opportunity to invest and make $100,000, but upon realising he'd have to pay $40,000 in taxes instead of $35,000, he just says "feth it all I can't be bothered writing out the cheque".
But people keep on believing it...
38857
Post by: VoidAngel
sebster wrote:VoidAngel wrote:I was making fun of the idea that there's some conspiracy to import Mexicans in order to obtain a cheap workforce.
What conspiracy? Who suggested such a thing? You're not making sense.
The one you implied. Do you even read your own spew?
Do you realize that this is your standard answer, in every thread, when you have had a deeply held belief challenged? Saying "move on" doesn't make you right, it makes you tired of not being agreed with. It does nothing to convince the other party of anything. We disagree on this issue. The issue is not settled. It will be at some time in the future - and we'll know who was right.
I say it a lot because there are a lot of posters here who lack the honesty to see when something it true, accept it and move on.
The issue is settled. Iraq was invaded more than eight years ago. It caused no drive for democracy in the surrounding countries. We know this. It's done. Move on.
One commonly acknowledged marker of stupidity is to make the same mistake over and over again. As for the war...may I direct your attention away from your navel - and to the news?
Another common tactic of yours. Tiresome. Tell me that Scandinavians don't pay on the order of 50% taxes when all is said and done. Oh, and Germany and France are even higher, I believe.
No, the claim wasn't that they pay more in taxes, we all know this, that is obvious. Your claim was that countries in Europe charge so much in taxes on the rich that it is counter-productive, as more rich people leave than pay the higher rate.
You have not in any way substantiated that claim. I put it to you that you can't substantiate it, because it isn't true. You should either attempt to make good on your claim, or concede it.
No - this is the first time you are claiming to have known that all along on this subject (and the third time in as many days....I see a pattern). Actually, I never said that the rich themselves were leaving Europe - but their investments sure are. They're moving their money out of reach - out of bonds, out of equities, etc. The reasons for this are complex (currency exchange rates, inflation, asset volatility, TAXES). But it harms the poor by raising interest rates, doesn't it?
You clearly have such a strong expectation, that you can't read what is actually written. I'm asking what the man's definition of fair is.
As I just explained, which despite being in plain English has obviously completely escaped you, I wasn't commenting on your question to Andrew. I don't care about that.
I was just surprised that in your example the average rate paid by the rich man was lower than the average rate paid by the middle class guy. Even among the far right you won't see that kind of thing supported (at worst they go for a flat rate of tax).
GO BACK AND READ. 1) I said "just for the sake of argument". 2) I was using the percentages bandied about by him and Melissa (I think) just a couple of posts above mine.
So if a wealthier person buys a top of the line BMW instead of an entry level one - because he's had an increase in income...that's "less"? Assuming his or her retirement funding is secure (or on target) - most people will spend more if they are making more. Hell, most people will just spend more, period. Rich, poor, in the middle...if they suddenly acquire more income.
It is a basic point of economics that when the rich earn more money they will spend a smaller percentage of it on consumer goods than middle class and poor people.
That's really, really basic economics there. As in introductory macro, taught in year 10. You're making yourself look really bad by not getting it.
That's part of why they are rich. I thought that was pretty basic knowledge, too. My point was, "less isn't zero." That's all. You have this propensity for trying to make my points into something they are not. Stop it. It's dishonest argumentation.
But I wasn't attempting to make the second point - you assumed that was where I was going (or the only place I was going). I think we're back to you assuming 2-3%, and me assuming European-style VATs and income taxes. We're clearer on each other's position on this point now - I hope.
But weren't you claiming trickle down worked in the US? As Killkrazy's excellent post showed, the experiment with trickle down in the US hasn't worked, growth hasn't increased, and what growth there's been has been centred among the most wealthy.
I was claiming that it did not make the poor poorer. On principle I reject any notion that one person is entitled to another person's wealth because they have more of it. "You have two pairs of shoes and I have none - gimme!" No, I made both of mine while you played in the dirt - @#$% you. Killcrazy said that the super rich "got" 99% of what the poor "should have" gotten in that time period. By what logic? They didn't "get" it - they earned it. If some of them stole it, those people owe the poor. If they "stole" it "legally" due to some social injustice perpetrated by a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (incidentally, most of the seriously rich people I know, are Democrats and liberal ones at that...hmmmm)...I will not argue against a closing of those loopholes.
Have you been reading this thread? Melissa sounded like she wanted to line the street poles with the bodies of anyone making more than her! That was why I jumped in initially - because I've heard that kind of sentiment entirely too often lately, and its entirely misdirected.
I tend not to read Melissia's post, to be honest. When I do I end up arguing with her in much the same way as I'm arguing with you 
What do I have to do to get into that club?
29408
Post by: Melissia
Yeah, there's been a sustained effort to kickstart investment and economic activity by dropping capital gains rates. It hasn't worked, which for some reason has only caused people to want to drop the rates further.
This is pretty much the story of the Republican party's attempts to kickstart the economy over the past decade. Have you been reading this thread? Melissa sounded like she wanted to line the street poles with the bodies of anyone making more than her!
Histrionic hyperbole is stupid, and does not reflect well upon those who use it.
38857
Post by: VoidAngel
Oooh...that hurt my widdle feewings. I want my Moddy.
No, seriously, you sounded like you wanted to start a rich people pogrom. I can't help how you sounded.
5534
Post by: dogma
VoidAngel wrote:
No, seriously, you sounded like you wanted to start a rich people pogrom. I can't help how you sounded.
Seeing as the way something "sounds" when its read is as much a matter of the reader as the writer, yes you can.
752
Post by: Polonius
dogma wrote:VoidAngel wrote:
No, seriously, you sounded like you wanted to start a rich people pogrom. I can't help how you sounded.
Seeing as the way something "sounds" when its read is as much a matter of the reader as the writer, yes you can.
Are you telling me that all the barista's aren't really flirting with me?
38857
Post by: VoidAngel
Well Dogma, considering that you constantly misread my posts - I guess you'd know. I gave up trying to explain to you.
29408
Post by: Melissia
VoidAngel wrote:No, seriously, you sounded like you wanted to start a rich people pogrom. I can't help how you sounded.
No, I didn't.
You just refused to (and seemingly still refuse to) accept any other interpretation of my posts than that despite all logic and reason.
39004
Post by: biccat
Polonius wrote:dogma wrote:VoidAngel wrote:
No, seriously, you sounded like you wanted to start a rich people pogrom. I can't help how you sounded.
Seeing as the way something "sounds" when its read is as much a matter of the reader as the writer, yes you can.
Are you telling me that all the barista's aren't really flirting with me?
Even more importantly, is he suggesting that strippers really don't find me handsome?
241
Post by: Ahtman
Polonius wrote:dogma wrote:VoidAngel wrote:
No, seriously, you sounded like you wanted to start a rich people pogrom. I can't help how you sounded.
Seeing as the way something "sounds" when its read is as much a matter of the reader as the writer, yes you can.
Are you telling me that all the barista's aren't really flirting with me?
We would never (openly) tell you that. We say it when you aren't here out of respect and becuase we love America so much.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
I was claiming that it did not make the poor poorer. On principle I reject any notion that one person is entitled to another person's wealth because they have more of it. "You have two pairs of shoes and I have none - gimme!" No, I made both of mine while you played in the dirt - @#$% you. Killcrazy said that the super rich "got" 99% of what the poor "should have" gotten in that time period. By what logic? They didn't "get" it - they earned it. If some of them stole it, those people owe the poor. If they "stole" it "legally" due to some social injustice perpetrated by a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (incidentally, most of the seriously rich people I know, are Democrats and liberal ones at that...hmmmm)...I will not argue against a closing of those loopholes.
I think that most of us were saying that the Republican road map, by granting $250k in additional tax incentives to the rich and then cutting entitlement programs is tantamount to saying. "I have 2 pairs of gold plated shoes, you better give me those buddy's* you've got, live with the socks, you don't really work anyway. I'll eventually come for your socks though, so you can join the shoeless wonders over there, they really don't work. Why do I have to give shoeless people my crumbs! Why won't you work harder!"
*Buddy's may be regional, but they are slang for essentially generic cheap knock off shoes
The truth is, the rich people that you probably know are in reality a minor blip on the wealth scale. NO REALLY.
Again the portion of the population that owns 85% of the machine does not pay for 85% of the machine! Statistics show they may pay for 50%, that is a 35% discrepancy. The people that are really burdened only own 15% of the machine, but have to pay for 50% of it.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
* Last year, total compensation for CEOs averaged $11.4 million, up 23 percent from the previous year, according to data for 299 major companies.
* CEOs at those 299 companies raked in a total of $3.4 billion. That's enough to support over 100,000 jobs that paying the median wage of just over $33,000.
* Average CEO compensation is 343 times that median wage.
* Ray Irani, the outgoing CEO of Occidental Petroleum Corp., took in $76.1 million in compensation last year. Over the last decade, he received $857 million. "We're not in the business to employ people. We're in the business to make a profit," Irani has said, according to the AP.
* Evan at large financial services companies -- where the furor over bonuses was focused -- total compensation rose 5.7 percent in 2010, to a record $149 billion.
The numbers above include base salary, bonuses, stock awards, and any other form of compensation.
The site, Executive Paywatch, allows users to search for specific companies and find out how much their CEO was paid. For instance, it says that G.E. CEO Jeff Immelt, who also serves as President Obama's "jobs czar," took in $21,428,765 in total compensation last year.
The Dodd-Frank legislation passed by Congress last year included several provisions aimed at making it easier for shareholders to rein in excessive executive pay. For instance, it required companies to publicly disclose the ratio between CEO pay and the pay of their median worker.
The AFL-CIO's campaign comes at a time of increased concern over growing inequality. As we've noted, the income of the richest 1 percent of Americans has exploded over the last 30 years, while income growth for the bottom 90 percent has remained barely budged.
Yahoo.com
5534
Post by: dogma
VoidAngel wrote:Well Dogma, considering that you constantly misread my posts - I guess you'd know. I gave up trying to explain to you.
It isn't my fault that nearly everything you have said in this thread has been wrong.
38857
Post by: VoidAngel
Hardly. What you're reading as wrong looks that way to you because you are reading it wrong. I'll see you in some on-topic thread where we can have a pleasant conversation. Here, you are not worth talking to.
44704
Post by: Lord of Caliban
Are they really going to shut down? That would suck.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
IT LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVES!
Occurs to me; I should have reported the other guys post >.>
32955
Post by: Coolyo294
Arise from the dark depths from which you lay, ye thread of old!
123
Post by: Alpharius
Yes, back to the depths please!
|
|