Fair taxes

114 posts / 0 new

The libertarian who called you the other day claims to have read the Federalist, but must’ve ignored op. 36, paragraph 15, where Hamilton talks about the luxury of the rich being tributary to the public treasury. He ends his essay stating, “Happy it is when the interest which the government has in the preservation of it own power, coincides with a proper distribution of the public burdens, and tends to guard the least wealthy part of the community from oppression!”

Mr. Buffett knows and so does Obama.

Maui-guy's picture
Maui-guy
Joined:
Apr. 11, 2012 6:58 am

Comments

Quote Maui-guy:

The libertarian who called you the other day claims to have read the Federalist, but must’ve ignored op. 36, paragraph 15, where Hamilton talks about the luxury of the rich being tributary to the public treasury. He ends his essay stating, “Happy it is when the interest which the government has in the preservation of it own power, coincides with a proper distribution of the public burdens, and tends to guard the least wealthy part of the community from oppression!”

Mr. Buffett knows and so does Obama.

Than why is mr buffet 1 billion dollars behind on his taxes? And he does not pay less in taxes than his assistant he pays a different tax she pays income tax he pays capital gains.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

The claim has always been that she pays a higher RATE than he does. Maybe he is behind on his taxes because she has too much work to do. The question is dumb and not to the point. What about the point about guarding the least wealthy from oppression? Cons seem to be unconcerned about these folks and angry about being taxed for this purpose.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote DRC:

The claim has always been that she pays a higher RATE than he does. Maybe he is behind on his taxes because she has too much work to do. The question is dumb and not to the point. What about the point about guarding the least wealthy from oppression? Cons seem to be unconcerned about these folks and angry about being taxed for this purpose.

Saying he pays a lower tax rate than she does is a straight up lie. He pays a different form of tax.

Raising capital gains taxes will kill pension plans and retirement acvounts not to mention investment in companies that will result in more layoffs and a worse economy.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

I am sure there is no answer to this problem according to you. Your sophistry does not change the fact that he gets a system she doesn't and pays a lower rate than she does. Is this just fine and dandy?

How would you protect the pensions and still make personal income and wealth the basis for progressive fairness and higher marginal rates on the upper percentiles of wealth? I don't think this is that hard.

If we had high marginal tax rates, more corporate income would be going back into the company instead of the bank accounts of the elites. What we have leads to layoffs and a worse economy.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote DRC:

I am sure there is no answer to this problem according to you. Your sophistry does not change the fact that he gets a system she doesn't and pays a lower rate than she does. Is this just fine and dandy?

How would you protect the pensions and still make personal income and wealth the basis for progressive fairness and higher marginal rates on the upper percentiles of wealth? I don't think this is that hard.

If we had high marginal tax rates, more corporate income would be going back into the company instead of the bank accounts of the elites. What we have leads to layoffs and a worse economy.

I would stop punishing the wealthy and locking out the middle class so thst every one has a fair shot at wealth. I would set it up so that everyone pays the exact same amount no loop holes no right offs no way out. I would than start to eliminate overlapping government agencies as well as fading out or severally reducing the others.

progressive tax rates or high marginal rates force some into slavery will also insuring that no one that is not currenyly ultra wealthy will never gain that status.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Raising capital gains taxes will kill pension plans and retirement acvounts not to mention investment in companies that will result in more layoffs and a worse economy.
Why would that be? Taxes on pension plans and retirement accounts are typically tax deferred. Why would it kill investment in companies? CG tax rates were 25-40% in the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s. As I reall, these were times when everybody had a pension and business investment was so robust that inflation was the big concern.

More Fox News twadle.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Art:
Raising capital gains taxes will kill pension plans and retirement acvounts not to mention investment in companies that will result in more layoffs and a worse economy.
Why would that be? Taxes on pension plans and retirement accounts are typically tax deferred. Why would it kill investment in companies? CG tax rates were 25-40% in the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s. As I reall, these were times when everybody had a pension and business investment was so robust that inflation was the big concern.

More Fox News twadle.

Yes they are tax deferred until you tack the payouts which you than have to pay capital gains taxes on the money you made on the investments. If the tax burden is to high people will stop investing and find a way to make more money with less tax confiscation.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

I you want to have a true debate on taxes we have to get to the point where we are talking the same thing. Income taxes are different than capital gain taxes.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Income taxes are different than capital gain taxes.
That really is the whole point, isn't it? Why should somebody pay a higher tax rate on income earned through actual work than for selling a capital asset?
If the tax burden is to high people will stop investing and find a way to make more money with less tax confiscation.
You really believe this? How would you go about making more money with lower taxes? Selling drugs, maybe? What would be some of these other options?

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Art:
Income taxes are different than capital gain taxes.
That really is the whole point, isn't it? Why should somebody pay a higher tax rate on income earned through actual work than for selling a capital asset?
If the tax burden is to high people will stop investing and find a way to make more money with less tax confiscation.
You really believe this? How would you go about making more money with lower taxes? Selling drugs, maybe? What would be some of these other options?

You can start by taking the money out side the u.s. another avenue is the trading of goods and services through barter system.

example I will use tax write off assests under my business to give you a car if you build me a pool.

Another way is to buy small amounts of silver and gold with cash hold it until the price goes up and sell it no taxes paid to federal gov.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

Underground economies are attractive in theory. If you can pursue that avenue, more power to you. I wouldn't object. You can buy and sell precious metals now. I would encourage you to do that. I prefer a little less risky practices. So, I guess raising capital gains to 1950s levels would put quite a strain on the precious metals markets. Would cause quite a bubble. Bubbles would be quite attractive for a lot of people. That's what you're saying.

Taking your capital out of the country is a different matter. That's something else that should be made more difficult.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

What I am saying is that the underground economy as you call it will get bigger like it was back in the 50 60 and 70. Gold was illegal to own by private citizens from 1933 until the 1980's. Bubbles are part of the economy when people do not pay attention to what is happening.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote workingman:

I would set it up so that everyone pays the exact same amount no loop holes no right offs no way out.

I agree with you. A fair flat tax of say, 52% of income, or 3% of net worth, would solve a lot of problems.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote chilidog:
Quote workingman:

I would set it up so that everyone pays the exact same amount no loop holes no right offs no way out.

I agree with you. A fair flat tax of say, 52% of income, or 3% of net worth, would solve a lot of problems.

wow you must really hate america 52 percent I was thinking more like 10. and accumulated wealth should be left completely alone. capital gains that are invested for retirement should also left alone.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

The pension/retirement funds in Wall st. investments meme is a variation on "too big to fail." We have to save Wall St. to save grandpa! Great Aunt Tillie will want to move in here if she loses her pension! Save Bank America!

Anytime we want to get honest about where the money is and isn't, and who stole it, etc., we can find a way to protect the vulnerable as we do the best we can with what is left. Speaking of honesty, it would help to expose slogans that are not true. Higher taxes do not "get passed back" to the consumer in any direct or substantial manner. What the high marginal rates did and what corporate taxes they actually had to pay would do is give an incentive to reinvest the profits instead of paying themselves off so grandly. With all the profits going to the top, there is no increase in consumer demand to justify hiring anyone new.

Myths and memes need to have basic credibility, not quite the same thing as honesty. There is an appeal to "the obvious," but also to the "contrary" or surprising 'truth beneath the surface.' Lies have to be framed to hide what is false. They have to be sold. Truth often appears naked at a fashion show, or respectably dressed and pious to avoid offending power. We think we know the truth and are free, so when slogans ring our chimes or being in possession of special knowledge flatters us, we forget to look closer or consider alternatives.

This is not a partisan comment in itself. The same caution and reflection is needed by all who are certain about what is and isn't. It is always what we knew for certain that turns out not to be that slips past due vigilance. We won't catch all the snares, and presumption does dim sight. All the more reason to stop falling into narrative traps with lines like "high taxes kill jobs" and "punish the job creators." It sounds like it ought to make sense, so it gets the pass given "the obvious." And, it also sounds like advice from someone who knows something about how the world works, even if that knowledge has a sniff of the paradoxical. Even if it is obvious to reason that an economic system must restore its balance, there seems to be something very wrong about "punishing" the successful job creators.

It is not hard to understand that corporate managers and investors, in a tax system of high marginal rates and no breaks for capital gains, would put profits into the company instead of into taxable income and dividends. As owners and investors, they would be increasing the asset value of their portfolios, but they would not be getting the money now or as virtually "free" if you have good accountants as today. Given that the progressive tax system also left the Middle Class with something to spend, the same owners and investors would see money to be made in hiring more workers and getting better equipment. So, class, the lesson is that high marginal tax rates promote job creation and investments in real wealth creation. See, obvious as the light of day. Because it shows us why the too simple 'truth' was wrong, what makes all the sense in the world requires us to test the truth we think we know.

I may think that "small government" and "evil government" rhetoric just avoids the problem of politics and not be thinking about the problems of size and institutions while I demolish their half-baked ideas. Polemics and debates are about winning. They are not about listening other than to find the weakness to exploit. Even if we don't get to conversation and just engage in debate, we need to check out our own favorite assumptions.

That said, we are about to enter the worst assault on truth and conversation ever. All standards of integrity have been demolished. The quality of the lie and its style wins awards. Honesty, candor and evidence is judged as technique or presentation and can easily be outshown by stagecraft and messaging. Despite what seems obvious about truth standing on its own authority, liberals have to learn to sell the truth and let honesty win the day in presentation.

Economics is hard turf to work on. Lots of theories and statistics and little solid agreement. But also some sound research and observation. I don't see economics being isolated from society and environment, and to talk about "the economy" as if it were the only thing that mattered is often evasive. What I have learned about economics is just a start. Mostly, it is about things we think we know for sure, that are not true.

We have a world framed in "neo-conservative" economics and "global free trade." We have people applying "market" thinking to construct and operate a "global market." The logic of money is framing the "realism" of entropy while making environmentally realistic approaches "unaffordable" and "unrealistic." "Tried and untrue" gets to go again while "true and untried" sits on the bench. What else would we expect money to tell us? Economics is not the study of money and how it works. It is supposed to focus on the substance, not the symbol of wealth.

Our cons love to post about money rather than economics. They love the "simple truths" like taxes drive up prices and cost jobs, but we don't have to give those lies respect. Don't get beguiled by the slogans and stats. Check out the substance and what the numbers are about. Enjoy the chance to rethink everything as we learn that almost everything we "know" is wrong.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote workingman:

wow you must really hate america 52 percent I was thinking more like 10.

wow you must really love china.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote DRC:

The pension/retirement funds in Wall st. investments meme is a variation on "too big to fail." We have to save Wall St. to save grandpa! Great Aunt Tillie will want to move in here if she loses her pension! Save Bank America!

Anytime we want to get honest about where the money is and isn't, and who stole it, etc., we can find a way to protect the vulnerable as we do the best we can with what is left. Speaking of honesty, it would help to expose slogans that are not true. Higher taxes do not "get passed back" to the consumer in any direct or substantial manner. What the high marginal rates did and what corporate taxes they actually had to pay would do is give an incentive to reinvest the profits instead of paying themselves off so grandly. With all the profits going to the top, there is no increase in consumer demand to justify hiring anyone new.

Myths and memes need to have basic credibility, not quite the same thing as honesty. There is an appeal to "the obvious," but also to the "contrary" or surprising 'truth beneath the surface.' Lies have to be framed to hide what is false. They have to be sold. Truth often appears naked at a fashion show, or respectably dressed and pious to avoid offending power. We think we know the truth and are free, so when slogans ring our chimes or being in possession of special knowledge flatters us, we forget to look closer or consider alternatives.

This is not a partisan comment in itself. The same caution and reflection is needed by all who are certain about what is and isn't. It is always what we knew for certain that turns out not to be that slips past due vigilance. We won't catch all the snares, and presumption does dim sight. All the more reason to stop falling into narrative traps with lines like "high taxes kill jobs" and "punish the job creators." It sounds like it ought to make sense, so it gets the pass given "the obvious." And, it also sounds like advice from someone who knows something about how the world works, even if that knowledge has a sniff of the paradoxical. Even if it is obvious to reason that an economic system must restore its balance, there seems to be something very wrong about "punishing" the successful job creators.

It is not hard to understand that corporate managers and investors, in a tax system of high marginal rates and no breaks for capital gains, would put profits into the company instead of into taxable income and dividends. As owners and investors, they would be increasing the asset value of their portfolios, but they would not be getting the money now or as virtually "free" if you have good accountants as today. Given that the progressive tax system also left the Middle Class with something to spend, the same owners and investors would see money to be made in hiring more workers and getting better equipment. So, class, the lesson is that high marginal tax rates promote job creation and investments in real wealth creation. See, obvious as the light of day. Because it shows us why the too simple 'truth' was wrong, what makes all the sense in the world requires us to test the truth we think we know.

I may think that "small government" and "evil government" rhetoric just avoids the problem of politics and not be thinking about the problems of size and institutions while I demolish their half-baked ideas. Polemics and debates are about winning. They are not about listening other than to find the weakness to exploit. Even if we don't get to conversation and just engage in debate, we need to check out our own favorite assumptions.

That said, we are about to enter the worst assault on truth and conversation ever. All standards of integrity have been demolished. The quality of the lie and its style wins awards. Honesty, candor and evidence is judged as technique or presentation and can easily be outshown by stagecraft and messaging. Despite what seems obvious about truth standing on its own authority, liberals have to learn to sell the truth and let honesty win the day in presentation.

Economics is hard turf to work on. Lots of theories and statistics and little solid agreement. But also some sound research and observation. I don't see economics being isolated from society and environment, and to talk about "the economy" as if it were the only thing that mattered is often evasive. What I have learned about economics is just a start. Mostly, it is about things we think we know for sure, that are not true.

We have a world framed in "neo-conservative" economics and "global free trade." We have people applying "market" thinking to construct and operate a "global market." The logic of money is framing the "realism" of entropy while making environmentally realistic approaches "unaffordable" and "unrealistic." "Tried and untrue" gets to go again while "true and untried" sits on the bench. What else would we expect money to tell us? Economics is not the study of money and how it works. It is supposed to focus on the substance, not the symbol of wealth.

Our cons love to post about money rather than economics. They love the "simple truths" like taxes drive up prices and cost jobs, but we don't have to give those lies respect. Don't get beguiled by the slogans and stats. Check out the substance and what the numbers are about. Enjoy the chance to rethink everything as we learn that almost everything we "know" is wrong.

to big to fail should not be in the realm of possiblities if you fail you fail.

one question how does higher tax rate increase my wealth and decrease the amount a product costs.

here is some back ground. i invest money into company abc, ABC says it will give me a dividend of 3 percent if i re invest that back into ABC. however because the dividend is a captial gain. i have to pay 30 percent of that dividend to the government. the way it is now is I pay 15 percent of the dividend as capital gains taxes. if the company does not pay a dividend than i only have to pay capital gains if I sell the stock. but there again if you are taking 30 percent how does that increase my welath.

second part of the question, i am running a company I have a 10 percent margin of profit. the government raising my corp taxes by 8 percent, the choice i have is lose the 10 percent profit or raise the cost of my products. if the market will not bare the raise than I will fire people in order to keep my ten percent profit. but since the government raise taxes the cost of all product across the board will go up.

raising taxes will never create more wealth or lower the cost of a product or service.

excuse typos posted from phone

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

We are talking about people earning a million a year. Do you believe they are going to barter small items or spend time squirreling away gold bars, and they will do so to such a level it makes a difference?

Further leaving the country, where they are making all this money won't happen. Number 1, if they earn it running a business here, the customers are here, the taxes will be paid here. #2, of the 30 largest industrial economies, the USA has the 29th lowest taxes, and I don't see rich Americans fleeing to low tax Mexico.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm
What I am saying is that the underground economy as you call it will get bigger like it was back in the 50 60 and 70. Gold was illegal to own by private citizens from 1933 until the 1980's. Bubbles are part of the economy when people do not pay attention to what is happening.
It won't surprise you to find that you can learn just about anything on the web. Private ownership of gold certificaates was legalized in 1964, while actual gold ownership was fully legalized min 1964. Gold isn't the only precious metal that can be traded.

Was the black market really bigger in the 50s, 60s and 70s? That's somenthing I wasn't able to find.

Bubbles are OK if they're only because people weren't paying attention? That's Von Mises stuff. Good luck with that.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

As for taxes taking wealth out of the US, if we have $15 trillion of bank notes in circulation, the tax man takes 1 tril there are now still $15tril. in the country. 15 -1 to the feds + 1 feds spend =15

All taxes change is in which pocket that dollar resides.

So, go buy an Econ 101 macro econ text book and get back to us.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:As for taxes taking wealth out of the US, if we have $15 trillion of bank notes in circulation, the tax man takes 1 tril there are now still $15tril. in the country. 15 -1 to the feds + 1 feds spend =15 All taxes change is in which pocket that dollar resides. So, go buy an Econ 101 macro econ text book and get back to us.

You are correct it changes where the dollar resides. It tskes it from those who earn it and gives it to those who did not. It does not increase wealth it destroys it.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
but there again if you are taking 30 percent how does that increase my welath.
Were you under the impression that the purpose of higher taxes on the wealthy would be intended to increase Workingman's wealth?[quote]If you are not able to have a business that will satisfy demand, then you should not be having employees. You will have to retain as many employees as you need to satisfy your demand. If you don't, then your competitors will be happy to take up the slack, and those employees youb fired will go work for them. Go ahead and raise your prices. All your competitors will have to too, so I don't see this harming your competitiveness. Of course, we could raise corporate taxes just for Workingman's business, but that wouldn't be very fair.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:We are talking about people earning a million a year. Do you believe they are going to barter small items or spend time squirreling away gold bars, and they will do so to such a level it makes a difference? Further leaving the country, where they are making all this money won't happen. Number 1, if they earn it running a business here, the customers are here, the taxes will be paid here. #2, of the 30 largest industrial economies, the USA has the 29th lowest taxes, and I don't see rich Americans fleeing to low tax Mexico.

But we are talking a million plus a year obama is talkung about all the way down to 250 thousand a year.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

Yeah, he has talked "all the way down" to where the marginal rate hikes begin. For most of us, 250K would let us give something back above and beyond. I will agree that they are not that far up the ever escalating "curve" or "arc" of wealth. The obscenity gets much worse at the top, but we are talking about taxes, not some punishment the rich are being slapped with. I know you whiners think of it as punishment and a terrible injustice, even being "enslaved" by the poor. It is pathetic, but you keep doing it, so I believe it. It makes you look bad, but you won't listen.

Then we hear about "everyone paying something" as you complain that the people trying to pay their bills on minimum wage are not contributing. If it is that tough on the guy with 250K, why would you want the 25K guy to be punished?

What is the proper minimum wealth to include in the marginal tax rate hike?

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote workingman:
Quote Phaedrus76:As for taxes taking wealth out of the US, if we have $15 trillion of bank notes in circulation, the tax man takes 1 tril there are now still $15tril. in the country. 15 -1 to the feds + 1 feds spend =15 All taxes change is in which pocket that dollar resides. So, go buy an Econ 101 macro econ text book and get back to us.

You are correct it changes where the dollar resides. It tskes it from those who earn it and gives it to those who did not. It does not increase wealth it destroys it.

No, it only changes the pocket where the wealth resides.
I know you can get this.
As for earning, your definition is very different from mine, and the govt's. Because the Buffet rule raises taxes on, by definition, unearned income. Capital gains are not earned.
Look it up.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:
Quote workingman:
Quote Phaedrus76:As for taxes taking wealth out of the US, if we have $15 trillion of bank notes in circulation, the tax man takes 1 tril there are now still $15tril. in the country. 15 -1 to the feds + 1 feds spend =15 All taxes change is in which pocket that dollar resides. So, go buy an Econ 101 macro econ text book and get back to us.

You are correct it changes where the dollar resides. It tskes it from those who earn it and gives it to those who did not. It does not increase wealth it destroys it.

No, it only changes the pocket where the wealth resides. I know you can get this. As for earning, your definition is very different from mine, and the govt's. Because the Buffet rule raises taxes on, by definition, unearned income. Capital gains are not earned. Look it up.

I work to make money, I take that money and put it into a bank they use that money to loan to other people, or i invest the money into a business that than uses that money to expand. I am given a dividend or an interest payment to compensate me for loaning that bank or that company the moeny, I worked hard to receive this adds to my wealth. if the government takes more money from me it lowers (destroys my welath) it than goes into to the government to be spit out some place else.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

Bossman is making what is a moral argument, not a sound case for finance. It is based in the idea that he who "earned" the money created the wealth reflected in the symbol, and that sharing it with those who did not "earn" it tears down the meaning of wealth. It is all about the "deserving" getting the rewards instead of those who did not "win" getting part of the prizes.

Bossman is not playing in a game where the game, or system, does anything other than allow the winners to win no matter what happens to the game. There is no "winning" seen in what it takes to keep the economy stable and running, so what happens to the "losers" is not really his concern. Nor is the integrity of the relationship between money earned and the virtue of created or increased wealth under scrutiny. It is "your," or 'his' money. "Giving it away" or having it taken is all the same if it goes to those who are not increasing the wealth. Game be damned, he is a winner!

The redistribution of wealth is what Market Thinking promises for profits invested so that all boats will be lifted on the tide. The ideology promises that the wealthy produce jobs and use their money to make us all richer. If we don't see this happening, it is our lying eyes that are the problem. After all, it is the moral core of human life that we get to keep "our" money and spend it like we want to. That it does not work out well is what is wrong with the world and not their responsibility.

I keep trying to offer a better way so the rich don't get blamed for being selfish without having to become skilled game managers or "philosopher/king/bankers." I say, enjoy your money and live it up. But, pay to play. We are talking about money that is too much for the rich to spend anyway. Buy yachts, and you will still have more coming in than going out. So, we will put that excess and unproductive capital to very good economic and social use. We will insure that your country club has a solid social context and foundation so it can go on being your playpen. You get to be rich in a good country, and without any effort other than to pay the taxes involved! Such a deal!

We don't hate the rich. We would like to help them enjoy their wealth without all the complaints and resentments. Think of it as the country club dues for upkeep on the society that lets you get so much money for ordinary human work. You lucky ones. Enjoy being winners. Just stop the whining and pay the dues.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote DRC:

Yeah, he has talked "all the way down" to where the marginal rate hikes begin. For most of us, 250K would let us give something back above and beyond. I will agree that they are not that far up the ever escalating "curve" or "arc" of wealth. The obscenity gets much worse at the top, but we are talking about taxes, not some punishment the rich are being slapped with. I know you whiners think of it as punishment and a terrible injustice, even being "enslaved" by the poor. It is pathetic, but you keep doing it, so I believe it. It makes you look bad, but you won't listen.

Then we hear about "everyone paying something" as you complain that the people trying to pay their bills on minimum wage are not contributing. If it is that tough on the guy with 250K, why would you want the 25K guy to be punished?

What is the proper minimum wealth to include in the marginal tax rate hike?

zero there should be no high marginal tax rate. you should have a basic tax that everyone has to pay no execptions.

you said that when taxes are raised on business owners they reinvest the money in the company they also increase the amount of money that the company pays them through their expense account. like steve wynn said you can change the rules but my taxes will not go up and my lifestyle will not go down.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

Depends on the changes made to taxes and the current dodges and loopholes, of course. As I pointed out, the rich already have more than enough money to spend to support their regal lifestyles. I am not requiring austerity for them, and I wish they would be as generous with others in return. Austerity is not the answer for those on the bottom.

Mr. Wynn may be accustomed to setting the rules of taxes, but I think we can find a way to solve the wealth glut at the top. Expense accounts get IRS scrutiny, so good luck on that one. You sure have great arguments against the way the privateers do finance and cook the books. Are they too deft at this to be accountable to society? Too slick to fail?

I wish you were better at economics so you would not make such dumb assertions.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote DRC:

Bossman is making what is a moral argument, not a sound case for finance. It is based in the idea that he who "earned" the money created the wealth reflected in the symbol, and that sharing it with those who did not "earn" it tears down the meaning of wealth. It is all about the "deserving" getting the rewards instead of those who did not "win" getting part of the prizes.

Bossman is not playing in a game where the game, or system, does anything other than allow the winners to win no matter what happens to the game. There is no "winning" seen in what it takes to keep the economy stable and running, so what happens to the "losers" is not really his concern. Nor is the integrity of the relationship between money earned and the virtue of created or increased wealth under scrutiny. It is "your," or 'his' money. "Giving it away" or having it taken is all the same if it goes to those who are not increasing the wealth. Game be damned, he is a winner!

The redistribution of wealth is what Market Thinking promises for profits invested so that all boats will be lifted on the tide. The ideology promises that the wealthy produce jobs and use their money to make us all richer. If we don't see this happening, it is our lying eyes that are the problem. After all, it is the moral core of human life that we get to keep "our" money and spend it like we want to. That it does not work out well is what is wrong with the world and not their responsibility.

I keep trying to offer a better way so the rich don't get blamed for being selfish without having to become skilled game managers or "philosopher/king/bankers." I say, enjoy your money and live it up. But, pay to play. We are talking about money that is too much for the rich to spend anyway. Buy yachts, and you will still have more coming in than going out. So, we will put that excess and unproductive capital to very good economic and social use. We will insure that your country club has a solid social context and foundation so it can go on being your playpen. You get to be rich in a good country, and without any effort other than to pay the taxes involved! Such a deal!

We don't hate the rich. We would like to help them enjoy their wealth without all the complaints and resentments. Think of it as the country club dues for upkeep on the society that lets you get so much money for ordinary human work. You lucky ones. Enjoy being winners. Just stop the whining and pay the dues.

country club dues, union dues, taxes they should be looked at all the same way, if you are a member of the country club all members pay their dues, if you are a member of a union all members pay their dues, you are a member of the country everyone should pay their taxes. the way it currently works is the bottom 49 percent(according to the IRS) pay zero in federal income taxes. make they pay some thing towards the upkeep of the country before you come to take more of mine away while complaining I am not paying my fair share.

I have no problem with helping those who are having trouble but let it be done through charities and nor private citizens not by confiscating more and more of my wealth why you are saying that I am not giving enough.

you could take enough wealth from the top one percent and give all of the people on welfare, within 5 years 98 percent of them would be completely broke and back on government assistance. what would be the plan than start over to watch it happen again, the sad thing is that the rich you take the money from to give to the poor will be the same people that will have it back at the end of the day.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote DRC:

Depends on the changes made to taxes and the current dodges and loopholes, of course. As I pointed out, the rich already have more than enough money to spend to support their regal lifestyles. I am not requiring austerity for them, and I wish they would be as generous with others in return. Austerity is not the answer for those on the bottom.

Mr. Wynn may be accustomed to setting the rules of taxes, but I think we can find a way to solve the wealth glut at the top. Expense accounts get IRS scrutiny, so good luck on that one. You sure have great arguments against the way the privateers do finance and cook the books. Are they too deft at this to be accountable to society? Too slick to fail?

I wish you were better at economics so you would not make such dumb assertions.

steve wynn is accountible to society he pays he taxes not like warren buffet. he has 30,000 employees that all pay taxes. the rich do provide jobs even if they are not a ceo. they hire people to clean the house, do their taxes, manage their money and so on.

yes expense accounts are looked at by the IRS so you don't bill alcohol to the account but you can have them pay for your car, house, trips to other countries as long as you are going there to build you buiness.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
What is the proper minimum wealth to include in the marginal tax rate hike?
The cool thing about the marginal tax rate system is that you don't specify a specific level. All you have to do is decide how steep you want the progressivity curve to be. the $250,000 level comes from where you think people are taking enough lifestyle money home with them now. Also, the $250,000 level is where people start paying just a few cents more in taxes. $250,000 seems OK to me.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Share the wealth and we will share the taxes more equitably. You are obsessed with greed. We have a greater gap between extreme wealth at the top less than one percent and the rest of the membership. There is no justification for this. There is no moral core to this economy. Legalized theft is the rule, and the rules have been written by the thieves. You just want your country club paid for by the working stiffs and the unemployed. I think they will resent that and that you will not sleep that well at night without a lot of "security" to protect you from people with cause to resent.

Even if the best we could get would be repeated games of Monopoly with the same winners and losers, that would be better than not starting over. People might be distracted enough by the game to avoid rebelling against it. I find your disrespect for others to be ugly and enough reason to call bullshit on your "ideas." Cynicism is its own dead end.

Charity provides some help, but it is crumbs from the table rather than social justice. If your charity experience does not lead you to want fundamental structural changes where injustice and need are clear, your "charity" is your narcotic against social responsibility. The problem with a number of charities is that they exist to make the rich feel good about serious neglect and injustice. Take your tax deductions and still blame the victims. Ugly.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote DRC:

Share the wealth and we will share the taxes more equitably. You are obsessed with greed. We have a greater gap between extreme wealth at the top less than one percent and the rest of the membership. There is no justification for this. There is no moral core to this economy. Legalized theft is the rule, and the rules have been written by the thieves. You just want your country club paid for by the working stiffs and the unemployed. I think they will resent that and that you will not sleep that well at night without a lot of "security" to protect you from people with cause to resent.

Even if the best we could get would be repeated games of Monopoly with the same winners and losers, that would be better than not starting over. People might be distracted enough by the game to avoid rebelling against it. I find your disrespect for others to be ugly and enough reason to call bullshit on your "ideas." Cynicism is its own dead end.

Charity provides some help, but it is crumbs from the table rather than social justice. If your charity experience does not lead you to want fundamental structural changes where injustice and need are clear, your "charity" is your narcotic against social responsibility. The problem with a number of charities is that they exist to make the rich feel good about serious neglect and injustice. Take your tax deductions and still blame the victims. Ugly.

I do not blame the vitims there are no vitcims in the economy there are people that suceed and those who do not. the ones who suceed should not be blamed for the ones did not, if they did some thing that was against the law than they should be punished for it. not forced into economic slavery by being forced to support the unsucessful.

on the social justice part of your post, what type of social justice are you talking about. the social justice that takes one of my houses becaude I have two? this is not justice this is governmental theif.

on a previous post you said you wanted the excess wealth put back into society, at what dollar amount would excess start?

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
THERE ARE NO VITCIMS IN THE ECONOMY THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT SUCEED AND THOSE WHO DO NOT. THE ONES WHO SUCEED SHOULD NOT BE BLAMED FOR THE ONES DID NOT,
This is all we really need to know about your philosopy.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Art:
THERE ARE NO VITCIMS IN THE ECONOMY THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT SUCEED AND THOSE WHO DO NOT. THE ONES WHO SUCEED SHOULD NOT BE BLAMED FOR THE ONES DID NOT,
This is all we really need to know about your philosopy.

go through the origan of debt that ties me to paying for those who do not suceed.

Origan of debt, you enter a bar you order a beer, you owe the bar owner for the beer. Where is the origan of debt making you responsible for the guy across the bar.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

Irrelevant example. You know nothing. It shows. If you want to appreciate what "debt" means, read the book by David Graeber. But have something around for the headache all the thinking will cause you.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Art:
THERE ARE NO VITCIMS IN THE ECONOMY THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT SUCEED AND THOSE WHO DO NOT. THE ONES WHO SUCEED SHOULD NOT BE BLAMED FOR THE ONES DID NOT,
This is all we really need to know about your philosopy.

LOL!!! Narcissism at its best or perhaps the me generation on steroids. Has yet to realize that you can not get there on your own. It takes communal economic activity to allow one to succeed. The public education, care of government program and taxation. electrical hoopkup to your house care of government program and taxation, water? safe food? roads... Obviously, he fails to see all the good the government has done because it works so well, that it all becomes transparent.

smilingcat
Joined:
Sep. 23, 2010 8:14 am
Quote DRC:

Irrelevant example. You know nothing. It shows. If you want to appreciate what "debt" means, read the book by David Graeber. But have something around for the headache all the thinking will cause you.

Ok how about this example a poor couple has a child they can not afford to care for. Where is the origan of debt making me responsible for the care of their child.

On a side note you did not answer my question about social justice or the question about excess wealth, at what dollar amount does excess start at?

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Ok how about this example a poor couple has a child they can not afford to care for. Where is the origan of debt making me responsible for the care of their child.
Not fair. On the surface, it would seem that poor people should not be allowed to have children. That's how China does it. More enlighted public policy recognizes that, at leat at this time, Government should not attempt to over-ride the more human drive to have sex and fulfill normal human drives to procreate. We aren't at that point yet.

On a side note you did not answer my question about social justice or the question about excess wealth, at what dollar amount does excess start at?
I don't define excess. I only define where wealth should contribute to its country. $250,000 seems like a reasonable place for lifestyle wealth to start contributing a few cents more. It really is an art. Not a science.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Art:
Ok how about this example a poor couple has a child they can not afford to care for. Where is the origan of debt making me responsible for the care of their child.
Not fair. On the surface, it would seem that poor people should not be allowed to have children. That's how China does it. More enlighted public policy recognizes that, at leat at this time, Government should not attempt to over-ride the more human drive to have sex and fulfill normal human drives to procreate. We aren't at that point yet.

On a side note you did not answer my question about social justice or the question about excess wealth, at what dollar amount does excess start at?
I don't define excess. I only define where wealth should contribute to its country. $250,000 seems like a reasonable place for lifestyle wealth to start contributing a few cents more. It really is an art. Not a science.

So below 250 thousand you pay zero. How will the country take in enough to run.

As far as regulating your sex life that should not be done but under personal responsibility is you do not have sex if you cant afford kids.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
So below 250 thousand you pay zero. How will the country take in enough to run.[quote]So, you think that people who earn $249,000 don't pay taxes?

[quote]As far as regulating your sex life that should not be done but under personal responsibility is you do not have sex if you cant afford kids.

Good luck with that one.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Art:
So below 250 thousand you pay zero. How will the country take in enough to run.[quote]So, you think that people who earn $249,000 don't pay taxes?

[quote]As far as regulating your sex life that should not be done but under personal responsibility is you do not have sex if you cant afford kids.

Good luck with that one.

and still no answer to the questions. outline the orgins of debt that make me responsible for the children of a poor couple?

what type of social justice are we talking about, the one that confiscates a house from me because I have two?

who gets to decide where the excess wealth starts, and how much is excess wealth?

follow up to the 250,000 are you saying that everyone that makes less than 250,000 get to pay zero taxes? if so again take me through the fairness of that option.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
and still no answer to the questions.
I believe that I have answered your question. Not my problem if you don't like my answers. I haven't really discusse "responsibility". That's a moral question. I leave moral questions to all those moral people out there.
what type of social justice are we talking about, the one that confiscates a house from me because I have two?
You can own as many houses as you want to, but you need to pay your fair share of taxes.
who gets to decide where the excess wealth starts, and how much is excess wealth?
I'll repeat my answer.
The cool thing about the marginal tax rate system is that you don't specify a specific level. All you have to do is decide how steep you want the progressivity curve to be. the $250,000 level comes from where you think people are taking enough lifestyle money home with them now. Also, the $250,000 level is where people start paying just a few cents more in taxes. $250,000 seems OK to me. [quote]follow up to the 250,000 are you saying that everyone that makes less than 250,000 get to pay zero taxes? if so again take me through the fairness of that option.
And again.
So, you think that people who earn $249,000 don't pay taxes?

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Art:
and still no answer to the questions.
I believe that I have answered your question. Not my problem if you don't like my answers. I haven't really discusse "responsibility". That's a moral question. I leave moral questions to all those moral people out there.
what type of social justice are we talking about, the one that confiscates a house from me because I have two?
You can own as many houses as you want to, but you need to pay your fair share of taxes.
who gets to decide where the excess wealth starts, and how much is excess wealth?
I'll repeat my answer.
The cool thing about the marginal tax rate system is that you don't specify a specific level. All you have to do is decide how steep you want the progressivity curve to be. the $250,000 level comes from where you think people are taking enough lifestyle money home with them now. Also, the $250,000 level is where people start paying just a few cents more in taxes. $250,000 seems OK to me. [quote]follow up to the 250,000 are you saying that everyone that makes less than 250,000 get to pay zero taxes? if so again take me through the fairness of that option.
And again.
So, you think that people who earn $249,000 don't pay taxes?

You did not answer the question you did not out line the orgin of debt you said the government should not stop you from having kids you can not affotd on the same note they should not force me to pay for them.

Under social justice it is the equal distibution of goods even if thst means confiscation of my personal property for the benefit of some one else.

The 250,000 number comes from obama saying he wants a millionaire tax so they pay more but it starts at 250. You said that people making that much have excrssive weslth and need to pay their fair share so by thst logic under that you do not have excessive wralth and should pay zero. Fair share has to start with everyone paying in something.

my idea of excessive eealth Is 1 trillion dollars once I reach that I will pay in excessive wealth tax.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
You did not answer the question you did not out line the orgin of debt
I think we all know wher debt comes from. More money going out than coming in. Taxes are too low.
the government should not stop you from having kids you can not affotd on the same note they should not force me to pay for them.
I stay away from "should" questions. I leave these to all you moral people.
Under social justice it is the equal distibution of goods even if thst means confiscation of my personal property for the benefit of some one else.
Nobody talks about "equal distibution of goods". I'm willing to allow government to tax away some of my means for the general welfare. Too bad if you aren't willing.
Fair share has to start with everyone paying in something.
No it doesn't. I prefer to have everybody have the means for a basic minimum subsistence, even at the expense of those with much more than they need. This is a political question
You said that people making that much have excrssive weslth and need to pay their fair share so by thst logic under that you do not have excessive wralth and should pay zero
This is a lie. I don't appreciate having you say that I said something that I didn't say. Please refer to my previous statements about "excessive wealth".
(The cool thing about the marginal tax rate system is that you don't specify a specific level. All you have to do is decide how steep you want the progressivity curve to be. the $250,000 level comes from where you think people are taking enough lifestyle money home with them now. Also, the $250,000 level is where people start paying just a few cents more in taxes. $250,000 seems OK to me.)
my idea of excessive eealth Is 1 trillion dollars once I reach that I will pay in excessive wealth tax.
You can have whatever definition of excessive you want. I haven't addressed the question of what is "excessive".

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Well, monasteries don't tax and don't re-distribute wealth.. On the surface, everything is "free". However, at the core, 100 hours of labor of an individual is exchanged for 100 hours labor of others. A monk's new home is paid for by other monks raising the food for the builder, others cooking it, and others sewing his garments, etc. Just exchanges of labor time. doing what needs to be done to fullfill the needs of the community.

The gardener has a home, the cook has a home, the tailer has a home. The builder has delicious meals, tailored clothing, beautiful surroundings...and like everyone else, a home and ample leisure time to pursue his own interests,

A successful economy/society is nothing more than producing required goods and distributing them to those who require them. We sort of do that. You don't. You should probably figure out a way to do it.

Excessive wealth in your economic set-up is probably wealth that is so high it isn't spent back into the economy on goods/services or productively like a new factory or product. When huge incomes are withdrawn from the economy and thrown into financial paper, it violates the basic premise of Say's Law. Economies that allow that go splat from time to time. Say's Law isn't "fair" from the point of view of the super rich,..but wishing it wasn't there or ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

The last time the U.S. ignored it and went splat, it took World War II for Humpty Dumpty to put itself back together again.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote workingman:

Ok how about this example a poor couple has a child they can not afford to care for. Where is the origan of debt making me responsible for the care of their child. On a side note you did not answer my question about social justice or the question about excess wealth, at what dollar amount does excess start at?[/quote]

The origin of debt is what we who make "enough" take away from those who cannot make "enough". Our system is based on competition. We compete for jobs and for work and therefore we compete for money. No matter how hard you want it to be so, not everyone can win when competing. Someone has to lose. That usually ends up being the Americans who need help. It's like a game of musical chairs. The one left standing is SOL, not because they aren't "good enough" but because of the rules of the game. You, I, and anyone else on this board that does well enough to get by or heaven forbid even become wealthy, owe a little bit back to those we left "standing".

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote polycarp2:

Well, monasteries don't tax and don't re-distribute wealth.. On the surface, everything is "free". However, at the core, 100 hours of labor of an individual is exchanged for 100 hours labor of others. A monk's new home is paid for by other monks raising the food for the builder, others cooking it, and others sewing his garments, etc. Just exchanges of labor time. doing what needs to be done to fullfill the needs of the community.

The gardener has a home, the cook has a home, the tailer has a home. The builder has delicious meals, tailored clothing, beautiful surroundings...and like everyone else, a home and ample leisure time to pursue his own interests,

A successful economy/society is nothing more than producing required goods and distributing them to those who require them. We sort of do that. You don't. You should probably figure out a way to do it.

Excessive wealth in your economic set-up is probably wealth that is so high it isn't spent back into the economy on goods/services or productively like a new factory or product. When huge incomes are withdrawn from the economy and thrown into financial paper, it violates the basic premise of Say's Law. Economies that allow that go splat from time to time. Say's Law isn't "fair" from the point of view of the super rich,..but wishing it wasn't there or ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

The last time the U.S. ignored it and went splat, it took World War II for Humpty Dumpty to put itself back together again.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

Unforunatly for you we do not live in a communist country mainly because commumism has failed.

Says law has not been an accepted.economic priniciple since the 1800's under says law retirement accounts or savings of any type are concidered hoarding of money that should be spent immediately.

The great depression was made worse and extended by the government getting involved. There was a depression way worse than the great depression in 1919 the government did nothing and the roaring 20's were the result.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

As taught in free market catechism class. Bossman has outdone himself here. A trifecta!

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Currently Chatting

The Death of the Middle Class was by Design...

Even in the face of the so-called Recovery, poverty and inequality are getting worse in our country, and more wealth and power is flowing straight to the top. According to Paul Buchheit over at Alternet, this is the end result of winner-take-all capitalism, and this destruction of the working class has all been by design.

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system