The rich don't pay enough in taxes.

[Orion]

and how do they put the water back in the barrel? Did Microsoft or other companies receive lump sum payments from the government for free or disproportionate to their work?

I'm sure there are "secret payments" or an example or 2 of corruption that prove that its widespread :roll:.

The problem with conspiracy theories is always the same: proving them. Kind of like those dryer gnomes who always steal just one of your socks.

The central compaint usually centres around the idea that redistribution of wealth is lacking and thus the rich need to be taxed more... but the rich own industry as well as the financial institutions, so when their money is taken and redistributed to the lower classes, who in turn either invest it or spend it, the money goes back into the system which feeds the rich.

The idea that the money is being redistributed is illusory. It only provides temporary purchasing power to the lower classes who in turn give the money back to the bourgeoise. The corporations (owned and run by the rich) also suffer taxation, but the burden is distributed to the workers and not the executives or shareholders. The rich being taxed MORE is beneficial to them for this very reason... the money goes back into their own system for collection.

If anything, taxing the rich too aggressively is a bad thing. It is the rich who take financial risks by investing in new enterprise, and it is the rich who invest in capital. The solution to the deficit is not to tax the rich more but to regulate government spending more, as that is the root of the problem.

Most people who shout to tax the rich more are envisioning the top 5% of the country who own billions of dollars. Their tax bracket is off the scale, so an increase won't affect them. Who it will effect are the small time business owners whose annual income is 200k.

Raising taxes will not do anything to curb overspending. The only fix for that is for each citizen to demand less spending and programs from the government. Instead of electing people that "bring home the bacon", we should elect people that are fiscally responsible that eliminate or reduce government spending in their home districts.

Taxing the rich is a red herring to throw people off of the fact that the problem in the U.S. is overspending, which is completely unrelated to taxation levels. You can tax the rich 90% and the government will still overspend.

In terms of taxation... you don't need to increase the percentage, but close the loopholes in the tax code itself which allow the rich to evade taxation or gain unnecessary reimbursement. It is these loopholes which prevent the rich from feeling the full brunt of their tax bracket in the first place, and this is a result of government lobbying. No more calling your car a business asset, or your house a "home office". Enough is enough.

 

[Sheraz]

Top 20% Pay 80% of Taxes
Here's the final number. The bottom four-fifths, 80% - the bottom 80% of income earners pay just 20%, 22% of the federal income tax burden. The bottom 80% pay only 20% of the burden. Now, how in the world can anybody with a brain come forth and say, "I am against tax cuts for the rich. I'm only going to have a tax cut for the middle class." If you give a tax cut to people in the bottom 20%, you're not going to stimulate anything. They're not paying any taxes anyway. But we're making progress. We're making progress. That's why this thing is going to stay on my website in perpetuity. So you can see it.

 

[Ethereal]

The central compaint usually centres around the idea that redistribution of wealth is lacking and thus the rich need to be taxed more... but the rich own industry as well as the financial institutions, so when their money is taken and redistributed to the lower classes, who in turn either invest it or spend it, the money goes back into the system which feeds the rich.

The idea that the money is being redistributed is illusory. It only provides temporary purchasing power to the lower classes who in turn give the money back to the bourgeoise. The corporations (owned and run by the rich) also suffer taxation, but the burden is distributed to the workers and not the executives or shareholders. The rich being taxed MORE is beneficial to them for this very reason... the money goes back into their own system for collection.

You act as if that increased purchasing power is a pittance. It is utilized to purchase goods and services which serve to raise the lower classes' standard of living. Money is illusory, goods are tangible. Your fixation on the flow of money is obfuscating the transfer and consumption of goods and services, which are the only things that really matter.

If anything, taxing the rich too aggressively is a bad thing. It is the rich who take financial risks by investing in new enterprise, and it is the rich who invest in capital. The solution to the deficit is not to tax the rich more but to regulate government spending more, as that is the root of the problem.

Most people who shout to tax the rich more are envisioning the top 5% of the country who own billions of dollars. Their tax bracket is off the scale, so an increase won't affect them. Who it will effect are the small time business owners whose annual income is 200k.

Raising taxes will not do anything to curb overspending. The only fix for that is for each citizen to demand less spending and programs from the government. Instead of electing people that "bring home the bacon", we should elect people that are fiscally responsible that eliminate or reduce government spending in their home districts.

Taxing the rich is a red herring to throw people off of the fact that the problem in the U.S. is overspending, which is completely unrelated to taxation levels. You can tax the rich 90% and the government will still overspend.

I agree. Very sensible.

In terms of taxation... you don't need to increase the percentage, but close the loopholes in the tax code itself which allow the rich to evade taxation or gain unnecessary reimbursement. It is these loopholes which prevent the rich from feeling the full brunt of their tax bracket in the first place, and this is a result of government lobbying. No more calling your car a business asset, or your house a "home office". Enough is enough.

To what loopholes are you referring?

 

[Orion]

You act as if that increased purchasing power is a pittance. It is utilized to purchase goods and services which serve to raise the lower classes' standard of living. Money is illusory, goods are tangible. Your fixation on the flow of money is obfuscating the transfer and consumption of goods and services, which are the only things that really matter.

The lower class doesn't typically invest money. The only meaningful impact the tax revenue could have would be in the form of social programs, but given overspending in government, these programs unfortunately must be cut back upon. The lower classes can only afford immediate survival goods, or goods that have depreciating value. If their standard of living increases, the increase is temporary. Either way, the money sees its way back to the bourgeoise.

To what loopholes are you referring?

Being able to claim an inordinate number of things as write offs is one; charity donations and public works projects are another (in that you can designate a portion of your income as "charity" and therefore it is not taxable); being able to declare overseas branches of your companies as "foreign subsidiaries" to evade taxes is a biggy.

I continue to assert that the problem is not the tax percentage but the tax code itself, and government spending. On paper the rich pay a higher amount but in practice they get away with avoiding it sometimes. I think Obama has it right in one way, because he wants to close those loopholes. However, he is still not sufficiently addressing government spending.

Unfortunately, because of the recession, we won't get a chance to see if his party would really make any meaningful budget cuts in government, since recessions require uanvoidable increased stimulus.

IMO we will not see significant spending decreases from either the Dems or the current Republicans. If the Republicans can reform OR their fiscal Conservatives can join up with the Libertarians, there could be a viable option for cutbacks in government expansion. I'm not talking about the government powers side of thing... mostly just fiscally at the moment.

 

[DeeJayH]

Until they run out of places to dig up.

But what if there were 100 labourers, who also doubled as 100 directors, who can hire as many labourer/directors as needed?

if they were capable of directing they would not be digging ditches :doh
your idea is straight out of fantasy land
all men are NOT created equal

 

[Tucker Case]

if they were capable of directing they would not be digging ditches :doh

Not true. Opportunity is a huge factor. My father was never given an opportunity to go to school. He came to this country with no education, no money, nothing.

He literally started off here digging ditches for a living.

He saved his money for about 8 years and was able to start his own construction company, which was quite successful.

So he was definitely capable of directing, he just had to dig ditches until he could create the opportunity to do so.

Opportunity is absolutely necessary to achieve full potential. It's far easier for a rich kid to go to Harvard than it is for a poor kid, even when the poor kid might have stronger skills.

For example, who's going to end up with a better job: A genius from the Congo, or a dumbass from Beverly Hills?

 

[DeeJayH]

Not true. Opportunity is a huge factor. My father was never given an opportunity to go to school. He came to this country with no education, no money, nothing.

He literally started off here digging ditches for a living.

He saved his money for about 8 years and was able to start his own construction company, which was quite successful.

So he was definitely capable of directing, he just had to dig ditches until he could create the opportunity to do so.

Opportunity is absolutely necessary to achieve full potential. It's far easier for a rich kid to go to Harvard than it is for a poor kid, even when the poor kid might have stronger skills.

For example, who's going to end up with a better job: A genius from the Congo, or a dumbass from Beverly Hills?

could he have started his own company and been successful if he had not dug those ditches?
thats my question

 

[Tucker Case]

could he have started his own company and been successful if he had not dug those ditches?
thats my question

If he had the money to start the company, yeah. Without a doubt. He didn't have the opportunity at the time, but he had all the necessary abilities.

Had he been born into a middle class American family, instead of a dirt poor Irish family, he never would have had to dig ditches.

 

[DeeJayH]

If he had the money to start the company, yeah. Without a doubt. He didn't have the opportunity at the time, but he had all the necessary abilities.

Had he been born into a middle class American family, instead of a dirt poor Irish family, he never would have had to dig ditches.

unless one has extremely deep pockets i think it would be hard to start a business one has no experience in

 

[Ethereal]

The lower class doesn't typically invest money. The only meaningful impact the tax revenue could have would be in the form of social programs, but given overspending in government, these programs unfortunately must be cut back upon.

Not to sound callous, but that seems like a personal problem to me. Plenty of people (as Tucker has just demonstrated) work hard and save over time whereas others spend frivolously and manage their personal lives poorly. We, as a society, shouldn't be expected to assume the financial burden of those who refuse to live within their means. The free market is the best mechanism available for separating successful trends from the failures. We must allow the free market to punish failure and reward success; shielding people from their mistakes is a great way to ensure they continue making poor decisions.

The lower classes can only afford immediate survival goods, or goods that have depreciating value. If their standard of living increases, the increase is temporary. Either way, the money sees its way back to the bourgeoise.

Then the solution is simple. Do not spend money frivolously. If you own a twenty inch television when a twelve inch would do, you are not spending your money wisely; even the TV itself is a luxury. The only limits to success in this country are self-imposed. Anyone can work hard, get an education, and become successful. I'm not adverse to social programs which help orphans and the disabled - the truly needy and helpless - but no able-bodied person should expect to live on government largess.

Being able to claim an inordinate number of things as write offs is one; charity donations and public works projects are another (in that you can designate a portion of your income as "charity" and therefore it is not taxable); being able to declare overseas branches of your companies as "foreign subsidiaries" to evade taxes is a biggy.

I'm not opposed to closing some "loop-holes" but I don't really see a problem with a person keeping more of their own money. And despite these loop-holes, the wealthy still represent the lion's share of tax revenue.

I continue to assert that the problem is not the tax percentage but the tax code itself, and government spending. On paper the rich pay a higher amount but in practice they get away with avoiding it sometimes. I think Obama has it right in one way, because he wants to close those loopholes. However, he is still not sufficiently addressing government spending.

Government spending is the root of our problems. Rich people are just a convenient scapegoat.

Unfortunately, because of the recession, we won't get a chance to see if his party would really make any meaningful budget cuts in government, since recessions require uanvoidable increased stimulus.

This method is not proven, yet left-leaning folks take it as gospel; I find that disturbing.

 

[scourge99]

Not true. Opportunity is a huge factor. My father was never given an opportunity to go to school. He came to this country with no education, no money, nothing.

He literally started off here digging ditches for a living.

He saved his money for about 8 years and was able to start his own construction company, which was quite successful.

So he was definitely capable of directing, he just had to dig ditches until he could create the opportunity to do so.

Opportunity is absolutely necessary to achieve full potential. It's far easier for a rich kid to go to Harvard than it is for a poor kid, even when the poor kid might have stronger skills.

For example, who's going to end up with a better job: A genius from the Congo, or a dumbass from Beverly Hills?

The part I find important is how your father had the opportunity to make himself successful even though he had nothing. That even though he had no advantage such as a rich kid, the system we live in allowed him to succeed because he was ambitious and bold. A system that fosters this type of outcome is the epitome of "fair" in my book.

 

[scourge99]

The central compaint usually centres around the idea that redistribution of wealth is lacking and thus the rich need to be taxed more... but the rich own industry as well as the financial institutions, so when their money is taken and redistributed to the lower classes, who in turn either invest it or spend it, the money goes back into the system which feeds the rich.

.... which goes back into the workers because the money spent by other workers is also used to pay for the workers jobs, increase their salary, or higher new workers.

The idea that the money is being redistributed is illusory. It only provides temporary purchasing power to the lower classes who in turn give the money back to the bourgeoise. The corporations (owned and run by the rich) also suffer taxation, but the burden is distributed to the workers and not the executives or shareholders. The rich being taxed MORE is beneficial to them for this very reason... the money goes back into their own system for collection.

The rich have to manage their money and generate new wealth. They either have to run some sort of profitable business, gamble the stock market, or some other way to generate new wealth. With inflation they can't simply stuff their money in the bank not to mention that there is no FDIC for millionaires! You seem to think that their money replicates on its own. That once you make $10 million or so it just duplicates itself why you sleep or Uncle Sam gives you a check in the mail.

If anything, taxing the rich too aggressively is a bad thing. It is the rich who take financial risks by investing in new enterprise, and it is the rich who invest in capital. The solution to the deficit is not to tax the rich more but to regulate government spending more, as that is the root of the problem.

I agree. Stimulus my ass. Imagine living in the 1950's when the tax rate was 90%. "congratulations, you made a $1 million this year.. opps, sorry, the government gets $900K of that". Not to mention all the other taxes you have to pay.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States]Income tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Most people who shout to tax the rich more are envisioning the top 5% of the country who own billions of dollars. Their tax bracket is off the scale, so an increase won't affect them. Who it will effect are the small time business owners whose annual income is 200k.

It shouldn't matter HOW much they make. Its discrimination. If they made it legitimately then it not fair to take more of it simply because they are successful.

Raising taxes will not do anything to curb overspending. The only fix for that is for each citizen to demand less spending and programs from the government. Instead of electing people that "bring home the bacon", we should elect people that are fiscally responsible that eliminate or reduce government spending in their home districts.

As much as I wish this were possible its not going away anymore than mudslinging during elections will.

But I do find some programs worthwhile, virtuous, or needed. About HALF are not.

 

[Agnapostate]

The part I find important is how your father had the opportunity to make himself successful even though he had nothing. That even though he had no advantage such as a rich kid, the system we live in allowed him to succeed because he was ambitious and bold. A system that fosters this type of outcome is the epitome of "fair" in my book.

Yeah. Too bad we don't have one.

It's sad how rightists can't understand so basic a concept as the diminishing rate of marginal utility.

 

[scourge99]

Yeah. Too bad we don't have one.

I suppose your theoretical Utopian system would perform much better? Out of curiosity, whats holding it back right now?

It's sad how rightists can't understand so basic a concept as the diminishing rate of marginal utility.

Are you done stroking your ego?

 

[Agnapostate]

I suppose your theoretical Utopian system would perform much better? Out of curiosity, whats holding it back right now?

"Theoretical utopian system"? It never ceases to amuse me how proponents of "free markets" accuse my favored economic system of being "theoretical" and "utopian" despite its successful inter-regional implementation in the past and impressive performance of its most integral components in the capitalist economy (worker-owned enterprises). And to answer your question, the financial class has an obvious interest in maintaining their power, and shall thus resist the establishment of economic democracy. All who have power are afraid of losing it.

Are you done stroking your ego?

Do you think I'm here to play professor? This sh!t's simple. Ten dollars is worth more to a man with $100 than to a man with $1,000.

 

[scourge99]

"Theoretical utopian system"? It never ceases to amuse me how proponents of "free markets" accuse my favored economic system of being "theoretical" and "utopian" despite its successful inter-regional implementation in the past and impressive performance of its most integral components in the capitalist economy (worker-owned enterprises). And to answer your question, the financial class has an obvious interest in maintaining their power, and shall thus resist the establishment of economic democracy. All who have power are afraid of losing it.

So what specifically stops me or others from implementing a businesses in your favored approach?

Do you think I'm here to play professor?

I don't know. Can you teach?

This sh!t's simple. Ten dollars is worth more to a man with $100 than to a man with $1,000.

Assuming, among other things, the needs of the men are equal.

 

[Agnapostate]

So what specifically stops me or others from implementing a businesses in your favored approach?

Uh...what?

I don't know. Can you teach?

Of course. Some just can't learn.

Assuming, among other things, the needs of the men are equal.

Acknowledgment of the realities of marginal utility assumes something quite opposite, that is, that provisions for necessities are of more critical importance than provisions for commodities.

 

[scourge99]

Uh...what?

You've obviously got some theory of how a business should be run that is "fair". Whats stopping that from being put into place other than the vague notion of "the people in power".

Acknowledgment of the realities of marginal utility assumes something quite opposite, that is, that provisions for necessities are of more critical importance than provisions for commodities.

And necessities are established at birth or constantly evolve based on one's unique conditions?

 

[Agnapostate]

You've obviously got some theory of how a business should be run that is "fair". Whats stopping that from being put into place other than the vague notion of "the people in power".

I have no such theory. I'm a market abolitionist, though my anarchist stance permits me to tolerate any variety of socialism, including forms which incorporate competitive market enterprise.

And necessities are established at birth or constantly evolve based on one's unique conditions?

Again...what?

Acknowledgment of the reality of the diminishing rate of marginal utility, crudely put, is based on the fact that a diamond necklace is not as significant as food and other necessary provisions.

 

[Orcprocess]

Whilst cases of self made millionaires are exemplary - and let's not decry them for their good luck - I think you're willfuly neglecting the evidence that the vast majority of people who are not millionaires still enjoy very variable amounts of wealth, which is inheritied. And that the children of self made millionaires also inherit their wealth - herein lies the contradiction of capitalism.

It claims to allow anyone to rise by merit - assuming they have the capital to invest in a business which is successful. Those who's families have been successful have this capital, those who's families have not do not.

A capitalist system is not, cannot, be solely merit dependent (in economic terms this can be stated simply - 'there are barriers to entry').

These barriers are erected by those on the top - the companies, the law makers - to protect their privilege.

In a capitalist labour market it is also necessary to have some unemployment in order to keep labour costs, and thus inflation, down. This unemployment then breeds poverty, which in turn prejudices against those who wish to enjoy the capitalist system by worth of merit alone; for they find they cannot.

Look at the ONS, the HBAI, the CRAE figures. I am not making a theoretical case - this is happening, and one exception to the rule does not justify one hundred victims of it.

The free market is an efficient economic system, however capitalism is not a fair societal structure; and neither is it more libertarian or meritocratic than any other societal structure. Joseph Stalin Rose on merit - amongst his many declamations none would dare to list "capitalist"
It is not daring and hard work alone that underpin advancement in capitalism. Can anyone gainsay me that?

 

[Tucker Case]

unless one has extremely deep pockets i think it would be hard to start a business one has no experience in

He had the experience already before he came here. He didn't start a company that dug ditches, he started a carpentry company. He learned how to do carpentry because back in Ireland you had to do the work yourself because nobody could afford to hire people for these jobs. He had a natural gift for it. And he was extremely smart. Genius level IQ, even though he has no formal education. HE taught himself how to do calculus by reading my math book when I was in school.

So he didn't come here free of ability. He was very capable of doing many jobs. He just had to fight for his opportunities.

The part I find important is how your father had the opportunity to make himself successful even though he had nothing. That even though he had no advantage such as a rich kid, the system we live in allowed him to succeed because he was ambitious and bold. A system that fosters this type of outcome is the epitome of "fair" in my book.

True, but the point I was making wasn't about "fair" so much as it was a response to the comment that "they wouldn't be digging ditches if they were capable of being directors."

Although, I wouldn't say that it's "fair". Such a thing can never exist so long as those with meager abilities have greater opportunity than those with great ability.

But I don't believe that "fair" can exist in reality.

Imagine two people of equal natural ability. One grows up filthy rich, the other dirt poor. The one who is rich is almost assuredly going to have a more "prestigious" occupation than the poor one just because they have greater opportunity, even though all other factors are equal.

But there is another factor. Imagine two people in the same position. One grew up filthy rich and the other dirt poor. More often than not, the one who grew up dirt poor will have greater ability than the one who grew up rich because he/she had to fight for their opportunities to reach the same level as the one who had the advantages.

It isn't necessarily "fair" that the one with greater ability is at the same level as the one with lesser ability. Had they been born into the same circumstances, the guy with greater ability would probably have achieved even greater heights. But he would not be "better" for it. In many ways, he is better for not having the opportunities that the other guy did.

I'm not bitching about how society works, I'm just pointing out how it works.

Is it unfair? Sure.

Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily. It might even be a good thing.