Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 63

Thread: Whats a fair share?

  1. #1
    Member
    Joined
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    56
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Whats a fair share?

    Today is the federal income taxes 65th birthday (Hey shouldn't it have to retire?) There has been a lot of talk here about taxes lately, and I'm curious what people think is a "fair share" What percentage of the tax burden do you think people in these groups should pay? What do you think is fair?

    The top 1% of wage-earners:
    top 5% :
    top 20%:
    bottom 40%:

  2. #2
    Veteran Member LadyLuck's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    521
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Whats a fair share?

    Personally I want some version of a "flat" tax or a "fair" tax.
    There never was a good war or a bad peace.

    Benjamin Franklin

  3. #3
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Whats a fair share?

    Personally, I support the original constitutional approach to taxes being re-enacted i.e. apportionment . Each state can add up the specific costs for everything in the budget ... police protection, roads, social welfare benefits, education, gov't worker salaries, etc. Then the total dollar number can be divided by the number of working people in the state, with each person then paying an equal dollar share towards the costs of the gov't services they are using ( or voted to approve the gov't to provide to others )- without regard to actual incomes of specific workers !

    This was the 'founding fathers' idea of every citizen paying their fair share. After all, a rich person doesn't cause 100 times as much wear and tear on roads as a 'poor' person. A rich person doesn't command 100 times as much police protection. A rich person doesn't use 100 times as much resources from the public education system. A rich person doesn't cause 100 times as much clerical work at the state office building. So what's fair about making them pay 100 times a much in taxes ? When every state citizen had some 'skin in the game' under apportioned taxes, i.e. if a person voted for a certain proposal there was a very good chance that they personally would bear part of the cost of that proposal, voters paid much more attention to the financial consequences of the proposals they were being asked to support !

    PS the constitutional amendment which replaced apportionment with an income tax was enacted in 1913.

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 07-01-2008 at 05:02 PM.

  4. #4
    God/dess FBR's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2003
    Posts
    8,351
    Thanks
    85
    Thanked 342 Times in 244 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Mellow

    Default Re: Whats a fair share?

    I wonder how many folks here to some extent agree with this statement.

    "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

    I mean, considering that times are tough for a lot of us I can see the allure.

    FBR
    Once again I have embraced my addiction and have put off the moral dilemma to another day.

  5. #5
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Whats a fair share?

    ^^^ we're heading there one slippery slope at a time, FBR !

    Obviously (or at least I hope it is obvious), part of the reason stems from my own point about apportionment having been replaced with an income tax. As a result, today in America 50% of voters pay only 3 point something percent of the taxes. With essentially no 'skin in the game', 50% of American voters are free to vote for candidates advocating economic programs that 'sound like a good idea' with essentially no economic impact on their personal budgets. Well I take that back ... some portion of that 50% would RECEIVE additional money / 'free' gov't services as a result of voting for some of the economic programs being advocated.

    Again not wanting to swing too far towards the political in Dollar Den, other than to readdress the title topic of this thread. On a basis of fairness, there is nothing fair at all about allowing some Americans to essentially utilize gov't health care facilities, public schools, public transportation, LE and the justice system, public housing etc. at a personal cost which is zero or a highly subsidized tiny fraction of the actual cost, while allowing ( or more correctly, mandating ) other Americans to pay many times the actual cost in order to pay for those subsidies.

    Fairness involves the concept of 'you use it, you pay for what you use'. And while there were inequities under the apportioned tax system that our 'founding fathers' created, all citizens still were personally required to pay something towards the cost of whatever gov't programs were voted into effect - causing them to consider such proposed programs much more carefully before voting them into existance. Obviously, under today's progressive income tax system, with a significant percentage of voters having no de-facto personal tax bill associated with voting for the approval / expansion of gov't programs, and with a notable percentage of voters actually standing to gain personally from voting for the approval / expansion of some gov't programs, such voters don't need to consider the costs / side effects / unintended consequences at all ( since those will fall on other voters who actually pay substantial income taxes and not themselves ).

    Once the discussion turns away from 'you use it, you pay for what you use' towards '"from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", you're discussing an entirely different concept of economics ... and arguably a different concept where 'fairness' isn't a factor at all.

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 07-02-2008 at 03:25 AM.

  6. #6
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Whats a fair share?

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    Personally, I support the original constitutional approach to taxes being re-enacted i.e. apportionment . Each state can add up the specific costs for everything in the budget ... police protection, roads, social welfare benefits, education, gov't worker salaries, etc. Then the total dollar number can be divided by the number of working people in the state, with each person then paying an equal dollar share towards the costs of the gov't services they are using ( or voted to approve the gov't to provide to others )- without regard to actual incomes of specific workers !

    This was the 'founding fathers' idea of every citizen paying their fair share. After all, a rich person doesn't cause 100 times as much wear and tear on roads as a 'poor' person. A rich person doesn't command 100 times as much police protection. A rich person doesn't use 100 times as much resources from the public education system. A rich person doesn't cause 100 times as much clerical work at the state office building. So what's fair about making them pay 100 times a much in taxes ? When every state citizen had some 'skin in the game' under apportioned taxes, i.e. if a person voted for a certain proposal there was a very good chance that they personally would bear part of the cost of that proposal, voters paid much more attention to the financial consequences of the proposals they were being asked to support !

    PS the constitutional amendment which replaced apportionment with an income tax was enacted in 1913.

    ~

    The really "FAIR" thing to do is to tax the "poor".
    They sop up government services at a higher proportional rate than the so-called "rich".
    Subsidized housing; Medicaid; health services; police and fire; Head Start ; aid to education;addiction services; social services; mass transit etc.etc. are used disproportionately by the so called "poor". So if the system were FAIR and equitable the poor would be taxed to pay for all that they receive. And since experience teaches that when you subsidize something you get more of it and when you tax you get less, a tax on the poor would result in fewer poor people.

    Some studies indicate that a flat tax as low as 17% would generate revenues equal to if not greater than that which is currently being collected. And that 17% would kick in after a hefty personal exemption. For a family of four it could be as high as $39,000 i.e. they'd pay 17% on anything OVER $39 k.

  7. #7
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Whats a fair share?

    And since experience teaches that when you subsidize something you get more of it and when you tax you get less, a tax on the poor would result in fewer poor people.
    as counter-intuitive as this may sound, in fact it has been proven to be true.

  8. #8
    Veteran Member LadyLuck's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    521
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Whats a fair share?

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    as counter-intuitive as this may sound, in fact it has been proven to be true.

    Hmm. Proven, huh? Would you mind pointing me to some links which show that raising taxes on the poor improves their personal income status so I can read it for myself. Please no rightwing think tanks stuff though if you don't mind. Stats would be much prefered instead. Thanks!
    There never was a good war or a bad peace.

    Benjamin Franklin

  9. #9
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Whats a fair share?

    Hmm. Proven, huh? Would you mind pointing me to some links which show that raising taxes on the poor improves their personal income status so I can read it for myself.
    in order to understand the proof, it would help to absorb the point as it was made by Eric Stoner, rather than substituting an entirely different point of your own ! Obviously 'taxing' the poor does not improve their personal income status. But without a doubt 'taxing' the poor makes for fewer poor people ! The reason of course is that when particular locations do 'tax' the poor they respond by moving elsewhere !!!

    Now in point of fact no jurisdictions directly 'tax' the poor. However, they do levy taxes on the poor indirectly, via imposing high sales taxes which rich and poor alike must pay ... by imposing high property taxes which translate into high rent payments the poor must pay ... by imposing high 'sin' taxes on alcohol and tobacco products which rich and poor alike must pay ... by adding a 'stealth' carbon tax / green tax to utility bills which rich and poor alike must pay etc. When the cumulative effect of these taxes provides for a very low standard of living for the 'poor', they move elsewhere !!! Voila fewer poor people !

    Ironically, however, the locations that typically impose the highest sales taxes / property taxes / 'sin' taxes / green taxes also maintain social welfare programs that effectively pay all of these taxes on behalf of 'poor' people ... and then some ! These subsidies of course create the opposite effect ... they attract MORE 'poor' people to move that location ! Of course this does not occur in a vacuum ... as these locations also need to increase income taxes on middle class and rich residents to pay for these subsidies. This in turn reduces the standard of living for the 'middle class', and some of them move elsewhere ! Voila fewer taxpayers !

  10. #10
    Veteran Member LadyLuck's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    521
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Whats a fair share?

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    in order to understand the proof, it would help to absorb the point as it was made by Eric Stoner, rather than substituting an entirely different point of your own ! Obviously 'taxing' the poor does not improve their personal income status. But without a doubt 'taxing' the poor makes for fewer poor people ! The reason of course is that when particular locations do 'tax' the poor they respond by moving elsewhere !!!
    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    Ironically, however, the locations that typically impose the highest sales taxes / property taxes / 'sin' taxes / green taxes also maintain social welfare programs that effectively pay all of these taxes on behalf of 'poor' people ... and then some ! These subsidies of course create the opposite effect ... they attract MORE 'poor' people to move that location !
    Oh, sorry. All I saw was what you quoted and replied to-I don't read his stuff anymore and haven't for some time now.

    So anyway just going by what you wrote, the reason you are saying there are less poor isn't that there are really less people in poverty it's that if an area raises their taxes then they move to another area. In other words, it only helps they people wanting to get rid of the poor in their area rather than the poor.

    It's not about being fair at all. It's about not having to help out the poor. Got it now. Thanks.


    I'm not going to get into the whole "green" thing in this topic b/c I think there is more than enough of that in other threads. It's funny to me though how you try tie nearly EVERYTHING into an anti "green" discussion.


    And now since I got my question answered and answered the OP question too, I'm done in this topic. Since the subject seems to have now turned into hating on the poor further reading in this thread is probably just going to tick me off so...
    Last edited by LadyLuck; 07-02-2008 at 09:49 PM.
    There never was a good war or a bad peace.

    Benjamin Franklin

  11. #11
    Featured Member minnow's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,003
    Thanks
    242
    Thanked 519 Times in 315 Posts
    Blog Entries
    10
    My Mood
    Twisted

    Default Re: Whats a fair share?

    Quote Originally Posted by LadyLuck View Post
    Personally I want some version of a "flat" tax or a "fair" tax.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    O-o-o-o-okay, what would "fair" flat rate be? 5, 10, 15%?? Or some other number. Furthermore, what current "exemptions" would you get rid of?? Home loan interest?? Depreciation?? State income /real estate tax? Business travel deductions??? Would current "tax free income" (muni bonds or mutual funds)? What effect might that have on state & municipal taxes if they had to suddenly start paying higher interest on bonds to attract investors?
    Who exactly would be howling the loudest if certain exemptions were to be yanked or certain income start to be taxed?
    Sometimes, opening a new can of worms can be just as bad as the "tapeworm" you've got. Or is it??

  12. #12
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Whats a fair share?

    Actually, I was making a somewhat different point re: "taxing the poor". While admittedly facetious about "taxing " them what I have consistently argued against is for us to stop "Subsidizing Poverty". Welfare Reform went part of the way. Eliminating Rent Control; Public Housing and most importantly providing for school choice would provide quantum leaps in poverty reduction. Mandating fathers support their children regardless of whether or not born out of wedlock would be a BIG help.

    A Harvard University Study clearly showed that if one wanted to avoid living below the poverty line all you had to do was finish high school; stay out of jail and NOT get pregnant or married before turning 21. And it clearly showed that this was regardless of race or social standing. In other words, "poor children" who finish high school; stay out of jail and who don't marry or get pregnant before 21 do NOT live in poverty as adults.

  13. #13
    God/dess
    Joined
    May 2006
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    2,420
    Thanks
    36
    Thanked 291 Times in 210 Posts

    Default Re: Whats a fair share?

    Personally, I an kind of intrigued by the idea of a national sales tax to replace the current system.
    "never trust a big butt and a smile"-- Bell Biv DeVoe

    If you're in your twenties and aren't a liberal, you have no heart. If you're in you're forties and aren't a conservative, you have no brain - Winston Churchill

  14. #14
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Whats a fair share?

    Quote Originally Posted by bem401 View Post
    Personally, I an kind of intrigued by the idea of a national sales tax to replace the current system.
    It sounds and seems appealing until you get into the actual nuts and bolts of implementing and enforcing such a scheme.

  15. #15
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: Whats a fair share?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    It sounds and seems appealing until you get into the actual nuts and bolts of implementing and enforcing such a scheme.
    Interesting, you make it sound kind of like the current system.

  16. #16
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Whats a fair share?

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard_Head View Post
    Interesting, you make it sound kind of like the current system.
    When have I EVER supported the current "Tax Lawyers and Lobbyists Relief Act"
    aka The Tax Code ?

  17. #17
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: Whats a fair share?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    When have I EVER supported the current "Tax Lawyers and Lobbyists Relief Act"
    aka The Tax Code ?
    I know you don't support the current tax system, I just find it humorous when change is discounted because it would be too complex (considering the complexity of the current system).

  18. #18
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Whats a fair share?

    I'm not going to get into the whole "green" thing in this topic b/c I think there is more than enough of that in other threads. It's funny to me though how you try tie nearly EVERYTHING into an anti "green" discussion.
    my only basis for referring to the 'green' thing is that 'green' laws already in existance have significantly increased the prices for electricity, for US blended gasoline, and (as a secondary effect) increased prices of every product and service in America. Higher prices are paid by the poor and rich alike !

    If you'd like a specific example, near Albany NY two coal fired power plants were recently shut down permanently because the power company could not afford to install super-scrubbers on the smokestacks that could meet New York's tough emission standards. As a result, the power these coal plants used to produce must now be made up for by natural gas turbine power plants, which are cleaner but which must also price their electricity 2-3 cents/kWh higher in order to earn a (gov't guaranteed) profit. Thus the electricity bill of every upstate New Yorker living near those coal fired power plants, rich or poor, just went up by $30-$45 per month.

    Additionally, study after study confirms that, once becoming eligible for New York's generous social welfare benefits, the 'moral hazard' created by those social welfare benefit programs serves as a strong incentive for the eligible recipients to actually turn down job opportunities, to limit their hours worked per week (the average is only 16 hours I believe), to quit full time low paying jobs etc. The specific reason, of course, is that New York's generous social welfare benefits have an equivalent cash value that, between 'free' medicaid / subsidized rent / subsidized utilities / food assistance / heating fuel assistance / cash assistance etc., is estimated to be in excess of $12,000 per year. So if a 'poor' person in New York is earning say $20k per year with full eligibility for benefits, and has the opportunity to take a job that pays $30k per year but makes them ineligible for benefits, from the standpoint of personal standard of living they would be crazy to take that higher paying job !!!


    While admittedly facetious about "taxing " them what I have consistently argued against is for us to stop "Subsidizing Poverty". Welfare Reform went part of the way. Eliminating Rent Control; Public Housing and most importantly providing for school choice would provide quantum leaps in poverty reduction. Mandating fathers support their children regardless of whether or not born out of wedlock would be a BIG help.
    This 'generous' plate full of social welfare benefits for 'low income' New Yorkers has indeed been proven to INCREASE the number of 'poor' residents moving to and living in New York. We have one of the fastest growing segments of Mexican illegal immigrants. We also have a fast growing segment of 'poor' US citizens from other states. Which re-raises Eric's question ... what's FAIR about asking Eric and I to pay tons of money via high state and local taxes in order to provide Mexican illegal immigrants with an improved standard of living, and to provide 'poor' people from other states with a higher standard of living than their own state was willing to provide ? And in reference to the 'moral hazard' issue, what's fair about asking Eric and I to pay tons of money via high state and local taxes in order to provide a DIS-incentive that causes 'poor' New Yorkers to turn down higher paying jobs / extra working hours / quit their existing jobs when their annual earnings begin to approach the benefit eligibility threshold ?

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 07-04-2008 at 03:05 AM.

  19. #19
    God/dess Paris's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,345
    Thanks
    168
    Thanked 801 Times in 419 Posts

    Default Re: Whats a fair share?

    If the super wealthy are to keep more of their money, what are they going to do with it anyway?

    Let's look at money like any other commodity. It is finite, insomuch as the the earth's resources are also finite. You can divide the money into smaller portions (inflation), but there is still only so many items and services available for any individual to purchase.

    By the laws of physics, the more possessions one person has, the less others can have. Money is like this too. If a person "saves" a lot of money, and does not use it, that leaves less available for everyone else to use. The value of the money that is in use is lessened by people "saving" their money.

    This means that the more money a single person has in reserve, the less there is to go around for everyone else. If the money is not spent, then the economic machine slows, and recession or economic depression is the result.

    Humans are very competitive creatures. Many people measure their personal value by the numbers in their bank accounts. For the super wealthy, this number may never be large enough, so they continue to hoard that finite supply of money well beyond even the most frivolous human need. The "value" of the money eventually means nothing to the super wealthy person, only how large that number is of their financial (self?) worth.

    The personal need to increase wealth will continue to the point of harming the very nations that allowed the individual to achieve that wealth in the first place.

    Progressive income taxes are designed to save the wealthy from themselves.

    You can tell if there is an economic imbalance by looking at the valuation of the currency. A currency's value can grow if it is being used to purchase goods and services. The more concentrated a currency (being used by fewer individuals) into "savings" the likelihood of the value dropping goes up with amount of concentration into fewer and fewer hands.

    Progressive taxation can be looked at like a pressure valve on the economy. It prevents economic collapse by keeping money flowing through the entirety of society. We all have to prop each other up, if the lowliest cashier cannot afford to buy fuel to get to work, then the store doesn't open. If the store doesn't open, then the manufacturers of the goods in that store don't make any sales. Then the factories close because there are no more orders for goods and services, then the super wealthy people lose all their wealth because the lowly cashier couldn't afford to buy gas.

    I know that is an oversimplification, but it illustrates perfectly why we need progressive taxation. Using the above example, if the city had the foresight to tax the wealthiest people in the community in order to build a public transportation system, then the lowly cashier could ride the bus to work and everything keeps running smoothly.

    Progressive taxation saves the wealthy from themselves. Whenever wealth has been concentrated into very few hands, there is an inevitable collapse of the economy. That collapse always starts at the bottom and brings everyone down with it. Envision a skyscraper demolition. It collapses from the bottom first, but eventually the whole building is nothing but rubble. Even that most expensive penthouse at the very top is destroyed.

    So to make a long explanation even longer, I think taxes should be decided by what is needed to survive and then allow for personal betterment of the individual. We need to determine the "so-much-money-he -couldn't -spend-it all-if-he-tried" point, and then determine a fair amount to create progress in society.

    The minimum wage earner that depends on public transportation is as important to society as the wealthy person that signs his paycheck. That wealthy person cannot single handedly run every level of a corporation and cannot single handedly maintain a public infrastructure to assure that every single McDonald's employee has a reliable way to get to work either.

    Government programs such as public transportation and progressive taxation bridge that gap. It really is elegantly beautiful how extremely well it works when it is managed correctly. Those who work on building wealth can still afford limousines and vacations around the world. Those who have fallen on tough times have a safety net to fall back on until they can get back on their feet.

    It isn't a perfect system, just as we humans fall well short of perfection ourselves. But it just happens to be better than anything else going, today.


    Promote yourself and earn more money! This is a business that is owned by strippers for strippers. Let's make that money!


  20. #20
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Whats a fair share?

    ^^^ I don't even know where to start in responding to your views ...

    "Let's look at money like any other commodity. It is finite, insomuch as the the earth's resources are also finite. You can divide the money into smaller portions (inflation), but there is still only so many items and services available for any individual to purchase"
    What happened to the concepts of invention and productivity increase ? Over the past century, the number of items and services available for any individual to purchase have expanded incredibly - and the relative costs have decreased (to a point anyhow) ... air travel, cars, nuclear power, plastics. Your view would appear to be Malthusian ... to which I respond with

    (snip)"The same thing is obvious wherever we look. The richest countries are not those where nature is most prolific, but those where labor is most efficient. Not Mexico, but Massachusetts. Not Brazil, but Britain. Other things being equal, countries with the densest population devote the largest proportion of production to luxury and the support of non-producers. They are the countries where capital overflows. In emergency, such as war, they can stand the greatest drain. Though a much smaller proportion of the population is engaged in productive labor, a much larger surplus is available for purposes other than supplying physical needs.

    On the other hand, in a new country the whole available workforce is involved in production. There are no paupers or beggars. Neither are there idle rich, nor whole classes whose labor is devoted to ministering to the convenience or caprice of the rich. There is no literary or scientific class, no criminal class, and no class maintained to guard against them.

    Yet, even with the whole community devoted to production, there is no consumption of wealth as in the old country. The condition of the lower classes, however, is better. Everyone can earn a living. Yet no one gets much more. Few, if any, can live in anything that would be called luxury (or even comfort). In the older country, consumption of wealth in proportion to population is greater. At the same time, the proportion of labor devoted to the production of wealth is less. In other words, fewer laborers produce more wealth.

    Let us consider one last argument. Could the greater wealth of older countries be due to the accumulation of wealth, not greater productive power?

    The truth is, wealth can be accumulated only to a small degree. Wealth consists of the material universe transformed by labor into desirable forms. As such, it constantly tends to revert back to its original state. Some wealth will last only a few hours, others for days, months, or even a few years. But there are really very few forms of wealth that can be passed from one generation to another.

    Take wealth in some of its most useful and seemingly permanent forms: ships, houses, machinery. Unless labor is constantly applied to preserve and repair them, they will quickly become useless. If labor were to stop in any community, wealth would vanish. When labor starts again, wealth will reappear almost immediately. It is like the jet of a fountain that vanishes when the flow of water is shut off.

    This is clear where war or disaster has swept away wealth -- but left the population unimpaired. London has no less wealth today because of The Great Fire (1666). Nor Chicago because of its fire (1871). On those fire-swept acres, magnificent buildings, overflowing with goods, have arisen. A visitor, unaware of history, would never dream these stately avenues lay black and bare a few short years ago.

    This same principle is obvious in every new city -- namely, that wealth is constantly re-created. No one who has seen Melbourne or San Francisco can doubt that if the population of England were transported to New Zealand -- leaving all accumulated wealth behind -- it would soon be as rich as England is now. Conversely, if England were reduced to the sparseness of New Zealand, they would soon be as poor -- despite their accumulated wealth. Wealth from generations past can no more account for present consumption than last year's dinners can give strength today. "(snip)


    Progressive taxation can be looked at like a pressure valve on the economy. It prevents economic collapse by keeping money flowing through the entirety of society. We all have to prop each other up, if the lowliest cashier cannot afford to buy fuel to get to work, then the store doesn't open. If the store doesn't open, then the manufacturers of the goods in that store don't make any sales. Then the factories close because there are no more orders for goods and services, then the super wealthy people lose all their wealth because the lowly cashier couldn't afford to buy gas.

    I know that is an oversimplification, but it illustrates perfectly why we need progressive taxation. Using the above example, if the city had the foresight to tax the wealthiest people in the community in order to build a public transportation system, then the lowly cashier could ride the bus to work and everything keeps running smoothly.
    I would agree with this in an ideal theoretical world, or in yesterday's world where the burdens of that progressive taxation upon the wealthy were still sufficiently low to allow the production / accumulation of more wealth via risk-taking to be more important than the preservation of previously accumulated wealth by tax avoidance. I would also agree with this in an ideal theoretical world where progressive taxation upon the middle class was sufficiently low to allow them to enjoy some of the fruits of their own labors. However, in today's real world, high progressive tax rates on the wealthy now makes tax avoidance just as / more important than the production of additional wealth. Also, in today's world, high progressive tax rates on the middle class is causing many to question whether or not 'investing' in an education / working their asses off is still 'worth' the effort. And no matter what your position on high progressive tax rates being leveed on the wealthy, in today's world of global alternatives it is a practical impossibility for one nation / gov't to actually 'collect' from the very rich. In turn, this forces that nation / gov't to collect more from the middle class.

    If the super wealthy are to keep more of their money, what are they going to do with it anyway?
    There is a growing body of alternatives for the super wealthy when presented with the prospect of having more of their money taxed away ... buying a newly constructed private 'island' in tax free Dubai ... investing in a US ethanol refinery and use the production tax credits to cancel out the high progressive US tax rates that apply to their other sources of income ...

    Historically, when tax rates on the super-wealthy were 'reasonable', they have invested in conventional businesses and industries ... which provided new inventions, productivity increases, additional jobs for the middle class and working class. This was historically based on the risk of failure / loss being counterbalanced by the possibility of success. But when tax policies will assure that 50% of whatever success may occur will be taxed away by the gov't, whereas the consequences of failure are not similarly shared by the gov't, the risk / reward equation changes greatly - to the point where the super-wealthy stop investing in businesses and industries and instead invest in tax free gov't bonds or 'secret' Lichtenstein hedge funds which in turn invest in Chinese or Indian or Vietnamese companies that aren't burdened by high taxes (or other high gov't mandated costs i.e. environmental compliance / worker safety compliance / employee benefits) !

    The minimum wage earner that depends on public transportation is as important to society as the wealthy person that signs his paycheck. That wealthy person cannot single handedly run every level of a corporation and cannot single handedly maintain a public infrastructure to assure that every single McDonald's employee has a reliable way to get to work either.
    Ayn Rand would vehemently disagree. You can put 1000 McDonalds employees together in an uninhabited area rich in natural resources ... and they will probably produce nothing of note other than reducing the number of people still alive in a year. And the more technologically advanced our world becomes, two factors become increasingly critical. The first is capital (which the McDonalds employees don't have and can't get), and the second is technical expertise (which the McDonalds employees also don't have and probably can never get either). Yet the McDonalds employees all 'consume' ... or at least attempt to. In fact, in the US at least, they all 'consume' at levels which are greater than their best personal 'added value' contribution can balance ! Under cold hard objective analysis, this makes them non-productive 'excess baggage', requiring someone else who is more productive 'paying the freight' to subsidize their (unjustified) high standard of living.

    (snip)"And this is just the tip of the iceberg of how our government today stifles economic productivity through its gargantuan regulatory and welfare state. Try to project the impact on productive businesses of the vast burden of federal and state regulations--regulations that render off-limits a huge range of productive endeavors.

    For example: If a fast-growing software company needs to quickly import a dozen eager and talented Indian programmers, it can't, thanks to our immigration laws. If a company needs to fire a group of incompetent employees to make its workforce more productive, it risks a million-dollar lawsuit. If a developer seeks to offer low-cost housing in the vast, unused tracts of land in expensive California districts, too bad--that would go against environmentalist "open space" laws.

    If a health insurance company tries to win more customers with deductibles, coverage and limits that will make insurance far more affordable, the idea is sunk; states dictate the terms of health insurance contracts. If a group of venture capitalists want to invest in new nuclear power, to supply cheap energy to a new market, it cannot--environmental regulations have prevented any new plants for decades, despite the technology's stellar safety record.

    If the board of a struggling public company wants to hire a top-flight CEO to turn its company around, its job is much harder (and more expensive) thanks to the CEO-repelling climate created by Sarbanes-Oxley, whose vague laws and new criminal penalties make managing a firm much riskier. Even the simple project of building a larger facility to house a growing business can easily be held up for six months, while the owner must glad-hand zoning and permit bureaucrats.

    And this is just the smallest indication of the regulatory strangulation that American businesses suffer. Imagine the economic stimulus, the explosion of productivity, that would occur if these regulatory nooses were removed.

    For that matter, consider how our government wreaks economic destruction by taxing the wealth of the productive and diverting it unproductively. Americans pay trillions of dollars in taxes annually--the vast majority of which is not for the agencies that protect our rights (police, military and courts), but for regulations and for entitlement programs that transfer wealth from productive individuals who have earned it to those who haven't.

    Over the years, these programs have prevented individuals from investing trillions of dollars in new ventures. It took a million dollars to start Google (nasdaq: GOOG - news - people ); if the government hadn't drained us of millions of dollars, picture what other amazing technologies, products and services we would be enjoying today.

    The economic stimulus that would result from drastically cutting government regulation and spending (and thus taxation) is almost unimaginable.

    Faced with recession, therefore, we should be asking not, "What can the government do to stimulate the economy?" but "What can it stop doing?" Washington should be debating which disastrous programs to phase out first: Sarbanes-Oxley, or the constellation of agencies that distort the housing market, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Politicians should be committing to drastically cutting government spending, so that Americans can have real and lasting tax relief.

    What our economy needs is not a stimulation package, but a liberation package."(snip)

    from


    The bottom line appears to be that you support a theory that government has the wisdom, expertise and foresight to do a 'better job' of managing the economy than free market forces - and that government programs to redistribute wealth on a monumental scale is both positive and necessary. I would only point out that history has this annoying tendency to repeat itself !

    ... speaking of which, I posted a pertinent thread over in Member's Area ...



    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 07-05-2008 at 12:32 PM.

  21. #21
    God/dess
    Joined
    May 2006
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    2,420
    Thanks
    36
    Thanked 291 Times in 210 Posts

    Default Re: Whats a fair share?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paris View Post
    If the super wealthy are to keep more of their money, what are they going to do with it anyway?

    Progressive income taxes are designed to save the wealthy from themselves.
    All I can say is OMG, comrade.
    "never trust a big butt and a smile"-- Bell Biv DeVoe

    If you're in your twenties and aren't a liberal, you have no heart. If you're in you're forties and aren't a conservative, you have no brain - Winston Churchill

  22. #22
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: Whats a fair share?

    Quote Originally Posted by bem401 View Post
    All I can say is OMG, comrade.
    I think she makes a good point, how much is enough? Why does that need to draw comparisons to communism?

  23. #23
    God/dess Paris's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,345
    Thanks
    168
    Thanked 801 Times in 419 Posts

    Default Re: Whats a fair share?

    Quote Originally Posted by bem401 View Post
    All I can say is OMG, comrade.
    Read some history. Anytime a great accumulation of wealth by a few people in our nation has occurred, a great economic collapse has quickly followed.

    Oh, and BTW, our current tax system is that of progressive taxation. And wasn't it during the Kennedy era (not sure) that the top level of income tax was something like 90%?

    I mean, if Warren Buffett thinks it's a good idea, who am I to argue with him?


    Promote yourself and earn more money! This is a business that is owned by strippers for strippers. Let's make that money!


  24. #24
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Whats a fair share?

    Anytime a great accumulation of wealth by a few people in our nation has occurred, a great economic collapse has quickly followed.
    hmmm, somebody must have forgotten to tell me about the collapse of Taiwan / China, India, South Africa, Israel etc. However, in other countries that are trying your idea, i.e. Zimbabwe, Cuba, and lately Venezuela, the results have certainly been less than thrilling. Of course to make an accurate comparison one must exclude natural resource countries since the resources themselves and not the economic productivity of the country's economy / people provide a growth and wealth engine.

    Oh, and BTW, our current tax system is that of progressive taxation. And wasn't it during the Kennedy era (not sure) that the top level of income tax was something like 90%?
    (snip)"Apparently, it's fine for a Democratic President to push for tax cuts that will spur economic growth, but not for a Republican like Ronald Reagan, and now George W. Bush. To say that JFK's tax cut was any different is a blatant lie. In a way, Kennedy's tax cut could have benefited the rich even more. Any tax cut from rates as high as over 90% will have a much larger impact than a tax cut on tax rates from 20 through 50%.

    Bush only plans to reduce the top income tax rate from 39.6 to 33%. Kennedy cut taxes for the rich by one-third. Bush's income tax cut is only a one-sixth reduction. Additionally, Bush's tax cut would return less than 7 cents on each dollar earned, whereas Kennedy's tax cut returned 26 cents on each dollar. These are facts conveniently left out by Ted Kennedy and other Democrats - that Kennedy too drastically cut taxes for the rich, and that Reagan's tax cuts were across-the-board and caused tax revenue to increase. The evil Republicans' tax cuts even propose an end to the marriage penalty tax and the tax on Social Security benefits!

    Part of Ted Kennedy's argument is that Kennedy's tax cut returned less money to those earning above $300,000. Well, of course. During the 1960's, the size of the upper class was considerably lower. From population growth and upward mobility caused by the tax cuts of Kennedy and Reagan, the number of people earning as much is larger. Ted also fails to take into account the rising value of the dollar. A current income of $300,000 translates to $50,000 forty years ago. Neither did Kennedy curb federal spending or the national debt, possibly the most trivial and over-exaggerated economic concerns.

    The only fundamental difference lies in the end to double taxation on dividends. Business income is already taxed through a corporate tax. When shareholders are paid this income as dividends, and taxed again, this double taxation discourages investment in the stock market, and for businesses to pay dividends to shareholders. And unlike forty years ago, the numbers and types of people invested in the stock market have skyrocketed. Regardless, the parallels shown in the pro-Bush tax cut advertisements are real. All three Presidents have passed massive tax cut legislation, including the infamous "tax cuts for the rich".

    Ted Kennedy and his comrades in the Democratic Party have exploited the legacy of Kennedy. Being the relatives of one of the most popular Presidents, it is fairly easy to fool the public into believing them. However, their sole claim to any legitimacy is shattered by the fact that the very same tax cuts they are vocal opponents of, were not only passed, but also defended by Kennedy. The Kennedys and Democrats will go to great lengths to suppress this, as if they have the sole rights to an ex-President's public record, video footage, and words. It's extremely strong partisanship. Kennedy is a Democrat. They hate the fact that he cut taxes, so they conveniently hide that detail whenever they attack tax cuts. Kennedy is like Teflon when it comes to tax cuts.

    Why do schools and the liberal media rarely, if ever, mention JFK's tax cuts, but readily focus on, and denounce the tax cuts of Reagan? Why do they only mention the boom of the 60's and its social programs, but never mention the positive aspects of the Reagan years? Could it be that the socialists only intend taxes to continually increase, and that any tax cut, that in any way helps the largest taxpayers, is only a "tax cut for the rich"? This thinking is what led to the 90 % tax rates that a member of their own party cut. "(snip)

    from

    Read some history.
    I suggest you do the same. You'll typically find that past economic 'crises' are in fact an unintended consequence of gov't actions. The most straightforward example is probably the 'panic of 1893'. An objective analysis will show that the true cause was anti-trust legislation ... which in turn caused the uber-rich to redistribute their money ... which in turn left railroads / banks etc. short of cash ... which in turn caused a massive tightening of credit ... which in turn caused a rash of business and personal bankruptcies ... which in turn caused a 'run' on many US banks and a 'collapse' of stock prices.

    Of course, you'll need to do some dot-connecting of your own since the 'public school' version comes across a bit differently !

    The same is arguably true of the 'crash of 1929' ... which is actually a misnomer. What actually occurred could be better described as the 'gov't induced crash of 1930' !

    Actually, your concept already had a name 100 years ago ... Progressivism ...

    (snip)"After the Fed-induced crash of 1929, President Herbert Hoover, a favorite of a large number of Progressives, decided to take a non laissez-faire approach to the economic downturn that followed the crash. Within a couple of years, Hoover had openly urged business owners to keep wages and prices artificially high, signed the disastrous Smoot-Hawley Tariff into law and oversaw the doubling of tax rates. As Rothbard noted in America’s Great Depression, all of these measures took what would have been a brief recession and turned it into the greatest economic calamity in U.S. history.

    That Progressivism ultimately led to the Great Depression should be obvious. Not surprisingly, Franklin Roosevelt chose to expand the powers of the state. Not surprisingly, his actions prolonged the depression. And, not surprisingly, the Progressivist propaganda machine was able to convince the public that the solution lay not in elimination of government intervention, but rather in further expansion of government.

    While the names of interventionist politicians have changed, the Progressive Era still remains. The modern regulatory state is firmly rooted in Progressivist legislation of 100 years ago, the income tax still confiscates hard-earned wealth of productive Americans, and the Fed continues to inflate. The U.S. Supreme Court, once the bulwark against the Progressivist agenda, today gives rubber stamp approval to the latest legislative outrages.

    Just as the political classes turned liberalism upon its head with Liberalism, so have Progressivists undermined the meaning of progress. The rise of humanity from its existence of perpetual poverty to the modern standard of living has occurred precisely because people were free to dream, invent, and invest. Real progress has happened because the stifling chains of government were removed from people. It is false Progress which seeks to reimpose those shackles. "(snip)

    from
    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 07-06-2008 at 04:40 PM.

  25. #25
    God/dess
    Joined
    May 2006
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    2,420
    Thanks
    36
    Thanked 291 Times in 210 Posts

    Default Re: Whats a fair share?

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard_Head View Post
    I think she makes a good point, how much is enough? Why does that need to draw comparisons to communism?
    So you think it is a good idea to penalize the brightest, hardest working people in society just because they are successful?

    Your question is valid though. "How much is enough?". When you bump up the tax rates, people get out of the game earlier. That means they expand their businesses less, meaning less jobs for the working class. The reason they do this is because the high tax rates will make it harder for them to earn additional bucks. Its called the Laffer Curve and is mostly used to describe how much an individual is willing to work but it applies to investment as well, though the investment is much more of a risk/reward thing.

    The reason it draws comparisons to communism is because that is basically what it is. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, its a duck.
    "never trust a big butt and a smile"-- Bell Biv DeVoe

    If you're in your twenties and aren't a liberal, you have no heart. If you're in you're forties and aren't a conservative, you have no brain - Winston Churchill

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Do you think this is fair?
    By _Avery_ in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 09-08-2011, 07:49 PM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-20-2010, 03:59 PM
  3. what is fair?
    By MRno in forum Customer Conversation
    Replies: 121
    Last Post: 04-07-2009, 01:52 PM
  4. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-02-2005, 04:50 PM
  5. Fair is fair
    By electric_head in forum Sex Talk
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 11-29-2003, 05:18 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •