“Enough Money"

[Geo Patric]

Obama doesn't have the right to redistribute income, but he can use the Executive power to do that. Progressives most of the time try to legitimize taking from the more affluent in the society and rewards those who haven’t earned, because according to them that is the moral thing to do. In reality what they are after is more power to control people lives.

I would say that sowell is an idiot, but in fact, he is just deliberately disingenuous relying on the fact that he is free to take advantage of the fact that many folks ARE idiots and will gladly assist in making HIM richer and themselves poorer...which any rational person realizes is the only way he CAN get richer.

he knows, as well as any non-idiot knows, that obama's "you" is the rhetorical "you", the sort one uses in reference to oneself.

the statement, even taken as a advocacy of YOUR personal valuation, is STILL not advocacy of redistribution of YOUR income, it is merely the same sort of response to greed that many well-esteemed moral thinkers have made over millenia... folks like Socrates of Athens, Jesus of Nazareth, Augustine of Hippo, Siddartha Gautama, Mohandes Ghandi, Martin Luther King and even such icons of Capitalism as Adam Smith who insisted that limits on accumulation are needed to avoid stratification that results in poverty - "No society can surely be flourishing and happy," he wrote, when most of its people are "poor and miserable."

Smith was not opposed to taxation, which he called "a badge, not of slavery, but of liberty". He WAS opposed to private centralization of Capital, seeing it as being as capable of oppression as any government. he was right of course, as we have seen.

No, many people truly do not understand the principle of 'enough' and m. Obama demonstrates his moral integrity in saying so.

geo.

 

[Donc]

I think that we should return to the Clinton era tax rates.


The Tax Foundation - Comparing Income Taxes under Bill Clinton and George Bush

 

[obvious Child]

I can't find a link on that, OC. Have one? It's hard for me to believe. 3,000,000 people own 83% of stocks. Hard to believe.

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/the-u.s.-middle-class-is-being-wiped-out-here%27s-the-stats-to-prove-it-520657.html?tickers=^DJI,^GSPC,SPY,MCD,WMT,XRT,DIA

 

[imagep]

If I were in charge, the tax form would be one page long and 3 lines.

1. Enter your total gross income.
2. Subtract money given to charity.
3. Take 20% of line 1 minus line 2 and send it to the IRS.

Done.

Why subtract money given to charity? A tax deduction for charitable contributions is the same as governments subsidising charity.

What about people who have personal expenses that are required to make money? Like classes a teacher may have to take to remain certifide or a uniform that a nurse may be required to wear?

 

[imagep]

people who cannot achieve tend to whine about capitalism. They claim they support income redistribution to make things "fair" but in reality, they are usually envious and upset that their intellects do not command near as much salary as they think they are worth so they are relegated to wishing that those who do better then they do get hit with punitive taxes.

people who cannot achieve tend to whine about inheritance tax.

 

[imagep]

I can't state enough how a private individual's earnings are none of the government's business. Legally earned money is just that and anything other than staying out of the way of that will be arbitrary and draconian.

It's my gut reaction to agree with you. But the reality is without some form of redistributation, eventually there would be only a very small percent of people that would own everything, and the rest of us would be enslaved to pay the rents for what we use.

Our eco(nomy) is much like our eco(system). On our planet water runs off the land masses into the oceans where it is evaporated and rained back down on the land nurishing the land, this water eventually runs down our rivers and into the ocean. That is redisributation of water. Our wealth works the same way. All wealth eventually transfers to the wealthy though rents and profits, the wealthy then transfer their wealthy back to the non-wealthy. It is a never ending cycle and without this cycle of wealth distribution and redistribution our economy would die.

Taxation, particularly progressive taxation and inheritance tax is the "evaporation" of wealth from the "oceans" (wealthy people).

The interesting thing is that this evaporation NEVER empties our oceans. Water flows back to the oceans at about the same rate that it evaporates. The faster it evaporates the faster it flows back. Also, water is never distroyed. Same with money. When money is transfered it is just used by someone else in some other place or way, it never disappears, and ultimately it always returns to the wealthy.

It has been prove over and over again that progressive taxation neither harms or helps the wealthy, however it does help provide nurishment for the non-wealthy.

 

[imagep]

Who is going to decide who is making "enough money"? Let say you have a company which produce a product that people buy, and you make “enough money” satisfying a demand. How does a new department created by the government get to decide when you have made "enough money"? This will take us in a very dangerous path.

You make a good arguement for a progressive tax system. No one should decide when you made enough money. Make all the money you want to, thats great. I am all about making lots of money, the more the better. Profits are not evil.

Then on April 15th pay up for your share of the cost of the government that assisted you in making whatever you made without WHINING. Even with a higher marginal tax rate, our top income earnes still get to keep hundreds of times more income than our average income earners.

 

[imagep]

not sure i understand why you believe the paid employees - who are working by their own consent, for their given wage - are more entitled to a portion of the profits than the stockholders who have invested in the organization which generated the profits

Sure, companies should be operated for the economic benefit of the owners, I agree. But don't belittle the value of the worker over the value of the typical stock holder. The typical stock holder puts no effort into the operation of they company, the typical stock holder is just along for the ride hoping that the employees of the company will make the stock holder some money.

If you own any stock in any company, ask yourself truthfully, who is more responsible for a profitable company, you, or the employees of they company? As a stock holder have you ever gone into the company that you own and tried to make it more profitable? Have you tried to get that company a better deal on the materials it uses, have you ever done a cost benefit analysis on a piece of equipment for that company, have you ever tried to directly negotiate with the unions or to come up with a better advertising strategy? Have you ever even voted in their annual board elections? Most likely not. You, the typical stockholder are simply along for the ride.

Personally I have a heck of a lot more respect for someone who works for the company that he owns than someone who just happens to own a company.

 

[imagep]

...
the fact is the top 1% pay 40% of the income tax. Which means they are paying far more than they use and far more than their share of the income

But do the top 1% pay 40% of ALL taxes? I could argue that the middle class and poor pay 99% of medicare and medicade and social security taxes, I could argue that the poor and middle class pay 83% of property taxes and 90% of sales taxes. We have to look at the big picture and that is exactly what you dont want to do because looking at the big picture may not benefit yourself.

Yes, it is correct that the richest Americans pay most of our income taxes, but it is also correct that the richest Americans hold most of our wealth and make most of the income above a minimal living wage. Seems like income taxes are pretty much in line with how much we benefit from the society that our government helps us to maintain. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[imagep]

people were making massive amounts of wealth on stock long before anyone ever heard of a corporate subsidy. I find it interesting that people constantly want to talk about taxes on wealth when the issue is taxes on income and the top 1% make 22% of the income yet pay almost 40% of the income taxes.

What percent of the hard work done in America do you think that top top 1% do. Do you think that they do 22% of the production? Your friend the Neurosurgeon is likely just barely in the top 1%, do you really think that he does as much work as 22 nurses/clerks/janitors all put together?

Gold is 66 times more expensive than silver. But gold actually has less productive economic value than silver. Gold is not more expensive than silver because gold is more productive, it is more expensive because it is more rare.

The Neurosurgeon recieves a higher income because his skills are more rare than the typical worker's skills, not because the Neurosurgeon is 22 times more productive.

Our highest income earners earn more not because they are neccesarally more productive, they earn more just because it is the way things are. The taxes they pay is very much in line with the benefits that they recieve from our society. The neurosurgeon should stop whining about having to pay his fair share and should start being thankfull that despite the fact he has to pay more in taxes (or is it because he has to pay more in taxes) he still has more take home pay than the average american. He should be thankful that he has the physical skills and the mental skills to have a highly prestigeous and lucritive occupation. He should be thankful that he lives in a society that provided him with the opportunity to achieve significant education and a lucritive job.

 

[imagep]

I would agree with you if the employee did not receive a salary or compensation of any kind other than a portion of the profits.

Why should the employee receive gauranteed payment then a portion of the profits just for doing a small part for the company.

How do you distribute the money to the employees?

Does a janitor make more or less than somebody in the warehouse and does that person make more or less than somebody with an engineering degree that designed a product?

Do you have it all figured out?

A lot of good points. A company owned by it's employees sounds good, but in a way it can become a form of communism if lower skilled or lower producing employees demand "their fair share" (as defined by an equal amount of compensation), and it would eliminate the incentive for higher skilled employees or higher producing employees to stay with the company, ultimately collapsing the company; much the same way that communism collapsed in the USSR.

 

[imagep]

its nonsense given that just about anyone with a 401K or a union pension or a government pension owns stock-either directly or indirectly. Those huge public sector unions like AFSCME or the NALC own lots of stock.

If you understood how disportional income distributation is you would be able to understand how disporptional wealth distributation is.

The average income in the top 1% is something around $1.5 million a year. The average income in the bottom 99% is something like $50,000 a year. Now if it takes a minimum of $25,000 in income to have a minimally "American" life style, and if an average of 20% of the bottom 99%'s income is taxed away, then the bottom 99%'ers only have $15k per year in "extra" income to use for luxuries or investments. Even if the top 1%er's paid 40% in taxes they would still have $880,000 in extra income per year. With the rich having 59 times more discressionary income, it is very understandable why the rich would have 5 times as much invested in stocks. Whats amazing is the fact that the top 1% does not have 59 times more stock (98.7% of total stock holdings) than the bottom 99%. The bottom 99% are obviously much more frugle than the top 1%.

All it takes to figure out this stuff is an understanding that the rich are not just a little more wealthy than the bottom 99%, they are rediculously more wealthy. You are educated, learn to use a little math. When you are insulated from the common man you only see what you see around you, your rich friends and their rich friends and you think that everyone who isn't rich is stupid or lazy. Maybe you just prefer it to be that way because it makes you feel superior or safe.

 

[justabubba]

Sure, companies should be operated for the economic benefit of the owners, I agree. But don't belittle the value of the worker over the value of the typical stock holder. The typical stock holder puts no effort into the operation of they company, the typical stock holder is just along for the ride hoping that the employees of the company will make the stock holder some money.

If you own any stock in any company, ask yourself truthfully, who is more responsible for a profitable company, you, or the employees of they company? As a stock holder have you ever gone into the company that you own and tried to make it more profitable? Have you tried to get that company a better deal on the materials it uses, have you ever done a cost benefit analysis on a piece of equipment for that company, have you ever tried to directly negotiate with the unions or to come up with a better advertising strategy? Have you ever even voted in their annual board elections? Most likely not. You, the typical stockholder are simply along for the ride.

Personally I have a heck of a lot more respect for someone who works for the company that he owns than someone who just happens to own a company.

in no way would i belittle or diminish the contribution of the employee to the company
anyone who is engaged in gainful employment deserves respect
however, the position i opposed was that the employee of the company has some entitlement to the profits of the company
the employee has every expectation to timely receive his wage as well as safe and respectful working conditions
but unless it has been agreed to by the company management/owners, that employee has no reasonable expectation of a share of profits, no matter to what degree his efforts contributed to the attainment of those profits

 

[imagep]

one would think that if the ultra-rich were truly paying a disproportionate share of the country's taxes then the gap between the rich and the middle class would be shrinking
but the opposite is actually occurring, which should indicate that the middle class has been carrying a disproportionate portion of the nation's tax obligation

Thats a great point. Actually, if it were not for the progressive tax system that we have had for about a hundred years, we would currently have a plutocracy where we are all ruled by a few rich "royal" families. There would only be the financial royalty class and the peasents with no middle class what-so-ever. We would all be renters, and the rich would continue to get richer and richer from the rents that we pay until us peasants "manned up" and overthrow the royalty and steal their assets and redistribute their land.

It's happened over and over and over again throughout history. The progressive tax system basically does the same thing, but just a little at a time to where the rich are able to sustain and even continue to grow their wealth, and we all benefit from the progressive tax system.

 

[TurtleDude]

one would think that if the ultra-rich were truly paying a disproportionate share of the country's taxes then the gap between the rich and the middle class would be shrinking
but the opposite is actually occurring, which should indicate that the middle class has been carrying a disproportionate portion of the nation's tax obligation

that's lame

the government takes more and more

you think the "rich" are a monolithic force when in reality there are the rich despite the government and those who are rich because of it. Strangely, you support the latter.

and the addiction of welfare-socialism is expanding the dependent class.

and those people vote for more and more entitlements which in reality mire them more firmly in the dependency cesspool

welfare socialism is the opiate of the masses and those so stoned will never be ambitious and successful

 

[TurtleDude]

If you understood how disportional income distributation is you would be able to understand how disporptional wealth distributation is.

The average income in the top 1% is something around $1.5 million a year. The average income in the bottom 99% is something like $50,000 a year. Now if it takes a minimum of $25,000 in income to have a minimally "American" life style, and if an average of 20% of the bottom 99%'s income is taxed away, then the bottom 99%'ers only have $15k per year in "extra" income to use for luxuries or investments. Even if the top 1%er's paid 40% in taxes they would still have $880,000 in extra income per year. With the rich having 59 times more discressionary income, it is very understandable why the rich would have 5 times as much invested in stocks. Whats amazing is the fact that the top 1% does not have 59 times more stock (98.7% of total stock holdings) than the bottom 99%. The bottom 99% are obviously much more frugle than the top 1%.

All it takes to figure out this stuff is an understanding that the rich are not just a little more wealthy than the bottom 99%, they are rediculously more wealthy. You are educated, learn to use a little math. When you are insulated from the common man you only see what you see around you, your rich friends and their rich friends and you think that everyone who isn't rich is stupid or lazy. Maybe you just prefer it to be that way because it makes you feel superior or safe.

need some proof backing those claims up.

and tell me-what happens to a society where the rich do not get any richer?

have you ever thought that out?
methinks NOT

 

[justabubba]

need some proof backing those claims up.

and tell me-what happens to a society where the rich do not get any richer?

have you ever thought that out?

we would probably wind up with a society like sweden or denmark, which have consistently higher happiness index scores for their populations than does the USA

methinks NOT

finally, something you have posted with which we both agree

 

[TurtleDude]

we would probably wind up with a society like sweden or denmark, which have consistently higher happiness index scores for their populations than does the USA


finally, something you have posted with which we both agree

Happiness scores-OMG is that lame or what. What is Sweden's rate of booze addiction and suicides compared to us. And they didn't have the legacy of slavery as we did and all the problems that has caused.

tell me -where did all of Sweden's top athletes and rock singers live during the glory days of huge confiscatory tax rates?

and what happened to the average dependent in Sweden when those people did what they did

 

[justabubba]

Happiness scores-OMG is that lame or what. What is Sweden's rate of booze addiction and suicides compared to us. And they didn't have the legacy of slavery as we did and all the problems that has caused.

tell me -where did all of Sweden's top athletes and rock singers live during the glory days of huge confiscatory tax rates?

and what happened to the average dependent in Sweden when those people did what they did

i hear you
that those society's happiness index scores for their populations were significantly better than our own isn't meaningful to you
but i answered your question with a factual reply
whether you like it is not my concern

 

[TurtleDude]

i hear you
that those society's happiness index scores for their populations were significantly better than our own isn't meaningful to you
but i answered your question with a factual reply
whether you like it is not my concern

I think such an index not only oozes mouse dung, it is meaningless and the cause and effect cannot be proven.

 

[imagep]

need some proof backing those claims up.

You are welcome to look up the average income for the top 1%. You are a learned person, if you dont trust my math, do it yourself.

and tell me-what happens to a society where the rich do not get any richer?

have you ever thought that out?
methinks NOT

Yup, we would have a stable economy. Thats my point. Currently the rich are getting richer at a rate far faster than the middle class are becoming richer. Ultimately, without a progressive tax sytem, the rich would own all wealth and the middle class would disapear because no one but the rich would own anything.

If the rich only got richer at the same rate that the middle class got richer, our realitive wealth would still be the same. You see a rising tide lifts all boats - at the SAME RATE. That would result in economic stabilization.

 

[TurtleDude]

You are welcome to look up the average income for the top 1%. You are a learned person, if you dont trust my math, do it yourself.


Yup, we would have a stable economy. Thats my point. Currently the rich are getting richer at a rate far faster than the middle class are becoming richer. Ultimately, without a progressive tax sytem, the rich would own all wealth and the middle class would disapear because no one but the rich would own anything.

If the rich only got richer at the same rate that the middle class got richer, our realitive wealth would still be the same. You see a rising tide lifts all boats - at the SAME RATE. That would result in economic stabilization.

if the rich were not getting any richer that would mean one of several things

1) the rich would suddenly be spending more than they are making

2) the tax structure is taking more from the rich then their net income

3) the economy has collapsed.

the first is not likely

the second would lead to the third.

 

[justabubba]

if the rich were not getting any richer that would mean one of several things

1) the rich would suddenly be spending more than they are making

2) the tax structure is taking more from the rich then their net income

3) the economy has collapsed.

the first is not likely

the second would lead to the third.

and should this result, where the rich were in retrograde, i would be inclined to agree with you, at that point the wealthy might very likely be paying a disproportionate share of the taxes

but what we do see is the opposite. the middle class is in decline, indicating that a disproportionately large portion of the tax burden is being imposed on that segment of our society

 

[imagep]

if the rich were not getting any richer that would mean one of several things

1) the rich would suddenly be spending more than they are making.

You are implying that the rich live paycheck to paycheck. Of course they dont live paycheck to paycheck - they have vastly more money and income than they consume - otherwise they wouldn't be rich!

2) the tax structure is taking more from the rich then their net income

Rediculous. I certainly have never suggested that we have a tax rate in excess of 100%.

3) the economy has collapsed.

Yes, I guess if:
1) the rich suddenly became poor
and
2) We increased all income taxes to over 100% of income
that
3) the economy would collapse

I agree with your proposed result(#3), even though your scenario leading up to the collapse is preposterous. I'm just glad that there are no idiots on this forum suggesting such a chain of events.

You might as well have said:
1) if pigs flew
and
2) if monkeys flew out my rear
then
3) the economy would collaps

That would have made just as much sense.

 

[imagep]

but what we do see is the opposite. the middle class is in decline, indicating that a disproportionately large portion of the tax burden is being imposed on that segment of our society

Is a diproportionately large portion of the tax burdon being placed on the middle class, or is it that somehow the rich are able to extract a disproportionately large income from the production of the middle class?

I suggest that it may be the latter case, someone else posted a link that indicated that historically (just 30-40 years ago) top CEO's were compentated at the rate of 20-30 times their employees average salary, but now they are compensated at a rate of 300-600 times average salary. Seems to me that somehow salaries have become very disproportinate to the actual value of their productivity.

At any given point in time, a company only has a certain amount of money that they budget to salaries. If the CEO makes more, then there is no option other than for the workers to make less. It's a zero sum game. There is little correlation between the salary of the CEO and the profitability of the company.

The last CEO of GM recieved a pay raise far larger in terms of dollars or percent than did the workers of GM for 11 consecutive years. However during that 11 year time span GM lost billions of dollars almost every year. If the CEO's salary was linked to the the companies productivity which was measured by corporate profitability, then the CEO's salary would have been reduced every year.

Top executive salaries are established by the Board of Directors who's own salaries are directly linked to the executives. The Board of Directors can only raise their own salaries by providing large raises to the executives (whether these raises are warrented or not). The entire executive compensation system is corrupt. Similar situation within the large banks and investment houses.

I have no direct solutions for this problem, but if the rich are going to continue to enrich themselves in a corrupt manner, and at the expense of the middle class, the least they can do is to pay their taxes without whining about it.