Why we need free college education for all

[Rocketman]

Which would mean more unemployed and low-wage workers (those few who could get jobs at all). Yours is a GREAT road map for dragging us back into third world status.

Employers want college degrees. No one cares if you think college degrees don't matter, because employers want them. And in a generation, so will Wal Mart and McDonald's... if they don't just automate.

Perhaps what you mean is, "we need to start killing people off"?

What a load of crap, many non college educated people have great careers as electricians, plumbers, mechanics, various sales jobs.

Everyone is not meant to go to college.

 

[ksu_aviator]

I wouldn't say "no business pays their taxes". We seem to be sensationalized into thinking that General Electric is the norm (however, most people think they have a clue as to why they had no tax liability when they don't). Walmart pays an effective business tax well over 20%, and probably over 25%, as a standard rule of thumb.

No, Walmart doesn't pay anything. The people swiping their cards at the register pay the taxes. The taxes are just embedded in the mark-up of the goods.

We've been deluded into thinking that all rich people pay only capital gains tax (15%), which is crap. Because of double and triple taxation, corporations as a whole can't loophole themselves out of taxes all the way, even if they can carry huge deductions to the 1120. They get it somewhere along the way, that's for sure.

I too, however, would like to see consumers take a little less to the chin.

Every tax is paid for by the consumer. For example; when I negotiated my salary, I didn't pick a number that would just cover my expenses. I picked a number that would cover my expenses, my taxes and some left over for me. The consumer that paid my taxes is the company I work for. They, in turn, pass the cost off on their consumers (my passengers). In the end, I write the check that pays my taxes, but that money came from my consumers.

 

[imagep]

Every tax is paid for by the consumer. For example; when I negotiated my salary, I didn't pick a number that would just cover my expenses. I picked a number that would cover my expenses, my taxes and some left over for me. The consumer that paid my taxes is the company I work for. They, in turn, pass the cost off on their consumers (my passengers). In the end, I write the check that pays my taxes, but that money came from my consumers.

If your taxes go up, do you expect your employer to give you a raise to cover the cost of the taxes? When Bush cut taxes, did most everyone also take a cut in pay?

Employers could care less than what your personal need is, or how much you pay in taxes. They offer you as little as they think that they can hire you for, and they make you that offer without asking you how many tax deductions you have, or how much you need to live on. Taxes on income, and taxes on profits are never passed on to the consumer.

Think about it...

if you really believe that income taxes are passed on to the consumer, then as an employee you should never complain or care about how much your income taxes are, because you aren't paying your income taxes, consumers are. you wouldn't even have a motivation to try to minimize taxes, if you got a high tax bill, you would just tell your employer to give you a check for those taxes and you would tell him that he needs to recover that money by raising prices on consumers.

Likewise, we shouldn't be complaining about corporate taxes because if the cost of those taxes were truely passed on to the consumer, then companies wouldn't care how much their corporate income taxes were, and those taxes would not make a dimes difference in how much the company made, or how much the shareholders profited from their investment.

And companies can't always pass on expenses. Prices aren't set by expenses and operating costs. Those things only create a floor price. Prices are actually set by the law of supply and demand and have to be competitive with competition. I can't increase the price of my goods, just because I decide to operate my business less efficiently, and if I operate my business more efficiently, I certainly don't want to reduce my prices, unless they are already exceeding the profit maximizing price. Companies never set price levels below or above what they think the profit maximizing price is, regardless of taxes or material cost or labor cost or overhead costs are.

 

[ksu_aviator]

If your taxes go up, do you expect your employer to give you a raise to cover the cost of the taxes? When Bush cut taxes, did most everyone also take a cut in pay?

Employers could care less than what your personal need is, or how much you pay in taxes. They offer you as little as they think that they can hire you for, and they make you that offer without asking you how many tax deductions you have, or how much you need to live on. Taxes on income, and taxes on profits are never passed on to the consumer.

Everything is a balance. I accept the most an employer will offer me and the employer hires me based on what I can produce for them. But I don't accept a position with compensation that I can't afford to live on.

Think about it...

if you really believe that income taxes are passed on to the consumer, then as an employee you should never complain or care about how much your income taxes are, because you aren't paying your income taxes, consumers are. you wouldn't even have a motivation to try to minimize taxes, if you got a high tax bill, you would just tell your employer to give you a check for those taxes and you would tell him that he needs to recover that money by raising prices on consumers.

I have thought about it and you are only thinking about the very first level. You haven't looked at the next levels. As someone that sells his services, if the cost of my services rises beyond the acceptable price of my consumers then my services will not be purchased. Likewise, if I can reduce my cost to my consumers by voting for lower taxes, I can better insure that my services will continue to be purchased. Everything has a tipping point.

Likewise, we shouldn't be complaining about corporate taxes because if the cost of those taxes were truely passed on to the consumer, then companies wouldn't care how much their corporate income taxes were, and those taxes would not make a dimes difference in how much the company made, or how much the shareholders profited from their investment.

Unless they can reduce their tax burden by going to countries with lower tax burdens. This is one of many reasons why our jobs have gone to other countries.

And companies can't always pass on expenses. Prices aren't set by expenses and operating costs. Those things only create a floor price. Prices are actually set by the law of supply and demand and have to be competitive with competition. I can't increase the price of my goods, just because I decide to operate my business less efficiently, and if I operate my business more efficiently, I certainly don't want to reduce my prices, unless they are already exceeding the profit maximizing price. Companies never set price levels below or above what they think the profit maximizing price is, regardless of taxes or material cost or labor cost or overhead costs are.

Regardless of how you try to rationalize it, the money used to pay for taxes always comes from consumers. There is no way around it.

 

[imagep]

Everything is a balance. I accept the most an employer will offer me and the employer hires me based on what I can produce for them. But I don't accept a position with compensation that I can't afford to live on.

You accept the best compensation package that you can find for the job that you want to do. The job that you accept has nothing to do with your cost of living. People all over the world accept low paying jobs, because that is the best that they can find, and they adjust their cost of living to the job that they have.

I have thought about it and you are only thinking about the very first level. You haven't looked at the next levels. As someone that sells his services, if the cost of my services rises beyond the acceptable price of my consumers then my services will not be purchased.

Yup, and you have found yourself in the unemployment line because you are a slacker not willing to accept the best job that you can find.

Likewise, if I can reduce my cost to my consumers by voting for lower taxes, I can better insure that my services will continue to be purchased. Everything has a tipping point.

Sure, and you can also reduce the amount of money that you spend on stuff other than taxes. Whats really neat is that with the progressive income tax system, the less that you are willing to accept in wages, the lower your tax rates are, and thus the lower the salary that you can accept.

Unless they can reduce their tax burden by going to countries with lower tax burdens. This is one of many reasons why our jobs have gone to other countries.

Mostly jobs have gone to other countries due to environmental regulations, workforce protection regulations, and peoples willingness in other countries to accept lower paying jobs. Also note that foreign investment in the US is huge. Lots of foriegn companies prefer to come here. My county how employers from 60 different countries, including companies like BMW and Michelin.

Regardless of how you try to rationalize it, the money used to pay for taxes always comes from consumers. There is no way around it.

You have just changed the argument from "all taxes are passed on to consumers in the cost of goods" to "taxes suck money from our economy". That sounds to me like you admit that I proved my point that income taxes are not passed on.

However, your alternate rationalization of "loss of money in the economy due to taxation" is a total fail. Every penny that is removed from our economy in the form of taxes, is reinjected right back into our economy in the form of government goods and services. In aggregate, we have no less money in our economy due to tax and spend.

 

[solletica]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/23/e...er-role-in-success.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp&

Each showed the ability to do college work, even excel at it. But the need to earn money brought one set of strains, campus alienation brought others, and ties to boyfriends not in school added complications. With little guidance from family or school officials, college became a leap that they braved without a safety net.

The story of their lost footing is also the story of something larger — the growing role that education plays in preserving class divisions. Poor students have long trailed affluent peers in school performance, but from grade-school tests to college completion, the gaps are growing. With school success and earning prospects ever more entwined, the consequences carry far: education, a force meant to erode class barriers, appears to be fortifying them.

“Everyone wants to think of education as an equalizer — the place where upward mobility gets started,” said Greg J. Duncan, an economist at the University of California, Irvine. “But on virtually every measure we have, the gaps between high- and low-income kids are widening. It’s very disheartening.”

The growing role of class in academic success has taken experts by surprise since it follows decades of equal opportunity efforts and counters racial trends, where differences have narrowed. It adds to fears over recent evidence suggesting that low-income Americans have lower chances of upward mobility than counterparts in Canada and Western Europe.

If she could sling it academically with the brightest in the country, and applied to scholarships, she would have enough $$ to go anywhere she wanted.

Federal financial aid to college is no longer necessary, especially in the modern era where several scholarships are only a click away.

 

[ksu_aviator]

You accept the best compensation package that you can find for the job that you want to do. The job that you accept has nothing to do with your cost of living. People all over the world accept low paying jobs, because that is the best that they can find, and they adjust their cost of living to the job that they have.

What you are talking about is a group of people that aren't negotiating properly or don't have the skills needed to negotiate. But that doesn't mean they pay their taxes. Their employer and more apropriately, their employer's consumer, pays their taxes.

Yup, and you have found yourself in the unemployment line because you are a slacker not willing to accept the best job that you can find.

I've never accepted unemployment. I have a set of skills that employers are willing to pay for. Admittedly, my price has gone up through the years, but that hasn't pushed me into the unemployment line. That price went up because my skills have become more valuable.

Sure, and you can also reduce the amount of money that you spend on stuff other than taxes. Whats really neat is that with the progressive income tax system, the less that you are willing to accept in wages, the lower your tax rates are, and thus the lower the salary that you can accept.

Think about that statement for just a minute. Are you actually advocating a progressive tax system for the purpose of creating downward mobility? If so, then you must admit that the gap between the "rich" and the "poor" has widened, in part, because of the progressive tax system.

Mostly jobs have gone to other countries due to environmental regulations, workforce protection regulations, and peoples willingness in other countries to accept lower paying jobs. Also note that foreign investment in the US is huge. Lots of foriegn companies prefer to come here. My county how employers from 60 different countries, including companies like BMW and Michelin.

Your micro-economy is not indicative of a national trend.
Video - Big Companies Add More Jobs Overseas Than in U.S. - WSJ.com

You have just changed the argument from "all taxes are passed on to consumers in the cost of goods" to "taxes suck money from our economy". That sounds to me like you admit that I proved my point that income taxes are not passed on.

Wow, nice straw-man. I never once mentioned taxation being a drain on the economy. I just mentioned methods used to lower tax burdens.

However, your alternate rationalization of "loss of money in the economy due to taxation" is a total fail. Every penny that is removed from our economy in the form of taxes, is reinjected right back into our economy in the form of government goods and services. In aggregate, we have no less money in our economy due to tax and spend.

I wasn't planning on getting into this. It is a huge topic that just doesn't fit into this thread.

 

[imagep]

What you are talking about is a group of people that aren't negotiating properly or don't have the skills needed to negotiate. But that doesn't mean they pay their taxes. Their employer and more apropriately, their employer's consumer, pays their taxes.

If income taxes went to zero today, employers wouldn't cut peoples wages. You can look at things however you choose though.

I've never accepted unemployment. I have a set of skills that employers are willing to pay for. Admittedly, my price has gone up through the years, but that hasn't pushed me into the unemployment line. That price went up because my skills have become more valuable.

Au, so you admit that taxation has nothing to do with compensation rates. It's the law of supply and demand.

Think about that statement for just a minute. Are you actually advocating a progressive tax system for the purpose of creating downward mobility? If so, then you must admit that the gap between the "rich" and the "poor" has widened, in part, because of the progressive tax system.

No. I am not advocating income taxes at all. I'm the guy who keeps posting that 47% of us not paying income taxes is way to low. If 60 or 80 or 99% of us didn't have to pay income taxes it would be a step in the right direction.

Wow, nice straw-man. I never once mentioned taxation being a drain on the economy. I just mentioned methods used to lower tax burdens.

I thought that you were bringing up that straw-man. I must have misunderstood what you were getting at. So if taxation is not a drain on the economy, then I guess we are in agreement.

I wasn't planning on getting into this. It is a huge topic that just doesn't fit into this thread.

Yea, go ahead and bring up how taxing away money and redistributing it means that it is less efficiently spent. I know the argument well. In part, it is correct, in part, it is incorrect. Not all taxation has the same results.

 

[Gipper]

No. I am not advocating income taxes at all. I'm the guy who keeps posting that 47% of us not paying income taxes is way to low. If 60 or 80 or 99% of us didn't have to pay income taxes it would be a step in the right direction.

I'm assuming that you'd phase it out to usher in some sort of consumption tax, right?

 

[ksu_aviator]

If income taxes went to zero today, employers wouldn't cut peoples wages. You can look at things however you choose though.

If income taxes went to zero, then employers wouldn't be paying my taxes. That was my point.

Au, so you admit that taxation has nothing to do with compensation rates. It's the law of supply and demand.

I didn't say that. I also never said supply and demand have nothing to do with it. You are trying to make this a false choice fallacy. Both cost of living (including taxes) and supply/demand are considerations when accepting wages from an employer.

No. I am not advocating income taxes at all. I'm the guy who keeps posting that 47% of us not paying income taxes is way to low. If 60 or 80 or 99% of us didn't have to pay income taxes it would be a step in the right direction.

I assume that with that you'd also cut spending to infrastructure, operating costs and military only? Because even that would be hard to fund with that few taxes.

I thought that you were bringing up that straw-man. I must have misunderstood what you were getting at. So if taxation is not a drain on the economy, then I guess we are in agreement.

I never said that either. You are making wild assumptions.

Yea, go ahead and bring up how taxing away money and redistributing it means that it is less efficiently spent. I know the argument well. In part, it is correct, in part, it is incorrect. Not all taxation has the same results.

I'm not getting into that.

 

[imagep]

I'm assuming that you'd phase it out to usher in some sort of consumption tax, right?

Nope. I'd eliminate tax on all but the highest level of income ($400k+), and replace it with taxing inheritance and capital gains exactly like we tax income from work. I would consider more import duties, particularly against countries that don't have adequate environmental and worker protections - free trade has to also be fair trade. And if we still needed a new tax, it could possible be the land value tax that keeps popping up on this forum, although I am yet to be totally sold on the merits of a land value tax.

I would also eliminate all forms of means tested government benefits to cut the federal budget, along with slashing military spending and most of the redundant governmental functions and departments.

Weird huh?

 

[johnny_rebson]

I wish they had this when I was a student. I could have spent seven years at college on the "Blutarsky Plan" and it wouldn't have cost me a dime.

 

[imagep]

If income taxes went to zero, then employers wouldn't be paying my taxes. That was my point.

Because they weren't paying it to begin with, so we agree on that.

I didn't say that. I also never said supply and demand have nothing to do with it. You are trying to make this a false choice fallacy. Both cost of living (including taxes) and supply/demand are considerations when accepting wages from an employer.

Nope, you would choose the best deal that you could get, and then adjust your cost of living. People do this every day. No employer is going to pay you more money than you are worth just because you have a high standard of living, and I seriously doubt if you would be willing to leave money on the table just because you happened to have a low standard of living. Have you ever turned down a raise or a job offer because it paid too much? I think that we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this.

I assume that with that you'd also cut spending to infrastructure, operating costs and military only? Because even that would be hard to fund with that few taxes.

Not so much on infrastructure, but yes on the military. Just imagine if instead of having the last two wars, which accomplished little good if any, we had spent that money on infrastructure. We would have national assets that would benefit us for generations to come, without spending an extra dime of tax payer money. Now we have nothing to show for our debt. I served 11 years in the military, I am not anti military by any means, but we don't have to be the peace keepers and policemen of the world.

Mostly I would eliminate means tested welfare spending. I've seen estimates on welfare spending of anywhere between half a trillion, and a tad over a trillion (depending on what we are defining as welfare, and what levels of government). Eliminating welfare alone would be enough to balance the budget. Tax elimination for all but the top income bracket could be funded by economic growth, increased sin taxes (tobbacco, alcohol, prostitution, pot, and fossil fuels), and other reductions in government spending.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Because they weren't paying it to begin with, so we agree on that.

Wow. You really don't grasp this concept do you? Where does an employee get his/her money from?

Nope, you would choose the best deal that you could get, and then adjust your cost of living. People do this every day. No employer is going to pay you more money than you are worth just because you have a high standard of living, and I seriously doubt if you would be willing to leave money on the table just because you happened to have a low standard of living. Have you ever turned down a raise or a job offer because it paid too much? I think that we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this.

None of this even applies to what we are talking about. You aren't grasping the concept so you are going off on this tangents that aren't germane to the conversation.

Not so much on infrastructure, but yes on the military. Just imagine if instead of having the last two wars, which accomplished little good if any, we had spent that money on infrastructure. We would have national assets that would benefit us for generations to come, without spending an extra dime of tax payer money. Now we have nothing to show for our debt. I served 11 years in the military, I am not anti military by any means, but we don't have to be the peace keepers and policemen of the world.


Mostly I would eliminate means tested welfare spending. I've seen estimates on welfare spending of anywhere between half a trillion, and a tad over a trillion (depending on what we are defining as welfare, and what levels of government). Eliminating welfare alone would be enough to balance the budget. Tax elimination for all but the top income bracket could be funded by economic growth, increased sin taxes (tobbacco, alcohol, prostitution, pot, and fossil fuels), and other reductions in government spending.

I made a poorly worded statement. My point wasn't to cut from infrastructure, operating costs and military. My point was that you could only fund infrastructure, operating costs and the military....maybe.

Since you aren't getting it, I'm going to use someone else's explanation. We've basically been talking about embedded taxes. Taxes that get passed on to the consumer. I was relating it to employment, but it applies to all types of business:

FairTax Blog: EMBEDDED TAXES EXPLAINED
Embedded taxes are business taxes that are part of the cost of doing business. Business passes these taxes along to consumers when they set the price for their products. At the federal level, theses taxes are the corporate income tax, the self-employment tax and the employer share of Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes.

Businesses at every level of the supply chain are taxed and pass the taxes along in the price of the goods or services they produce. The Europeans call this a VAT (value-added tax). We call it embedded taxes (silent taxes that aren’t talked about and most people do not even consider when making a purchase). These taxes amount to approximately 22% tacked onto the price of goods and services throughout the chain of the manufacturing and marketing process.

BTW, I'm not endorsing the Fair Tax, VAT or any sales tax in particular. I'm just using their explanation of the way taxes get passed on.

 

[imagep]

Wow. You really don't grasp this concept do you? Where does an employee get his/her money from?

Usually from someone like me, an employer.

I made a poorly worded statement. My point wasn't to cut from infrastructure, operating costs and military. My point was that you could only fund infrastructure, operating costs and the military....maybe.

That sounds about right to me. Isn't that about all that government is supposed to do?

Since you aren't getting it, I'm going to use someone else's explanation. We've basically been talking about embedded taxes. Taxes that get passed on to the consumer. I was relating it to employment, but it applies to all types of business:

BTW, I'm not endorsing the Fair Tax, VAT or any sales tax in particular. I'm just using their explanation of the way taxes get passed on.

I fully understand their explanation, I have studied it before. Note that nowhere in that explanation does say that employees income taxes are passed along or embedded. The other taxes, I do agree about, except for corporate income tax.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Usually from someone like me, an employer.

So if the money comes from the employer and they use that money to pay for their taxes, who paid the taxes?

 

[MarineTpartier]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/23/e...er-role-in-success.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp&

Each showed the ability to do college work, even excel at it. But the need to earn money brought one set of strains, campus alienation brought others, and ties to boyfriends not in school added complications. With little guidance from family or school officials, college became a leap that they braved without a safety net.

The story of their lost footing is also the story of something larger — the growing role that education plays in preserving class divisions. Poor students have long trailed affluent peers in school performance, but from grade-school tests to college completion, the gaps are growing. With school success and earning prospects ever more entwined, the consequences carry far: education, a force meant to erode class barriers, appears to be fortifying them.

“Everyone wants to think of education as an equalizer — the place where upward mobility gets started,” said Greg J. Duncan, an economist at the University of California, Irvine. “But on virtually every measure we have, the gaps between high- and low-income kids are widening. It’s very disheartening.”

The growing role of class in academic success has taken experts by surprise since it follows decades of equal opportunity efforts and counters racial trends, where differences have narrowed. It adds to fears over recent evidence suggesting that low-income Americans have lower chances of upward mobility than counterparts in Canada and Western Europe.

If everyone is special then no one is.

 

[Rocketman]

Education should be paid for the person receiving the education since they reap all the benefits. Why do most liberals look for a free ride?

 

[NoC_T]

Education should be paid for the person receiving the education since they reap all the benefits. Why do most liberals look for a free ride?

They look for redistribution. Problem is, they cannot achieve it without coercion. Being Liberals, they're uneasy in their failure to reconcile the irreconcilable. Don't imagine they suffer no guilt. The Liberal's pillow is made of granite.

 

[wolfie]

The average college grad makes more than the average non-college grad, and has a lower unemployment rate. There must be some merit to college or else this wouldn't be true. I suspect that you are either jealous of college grads, or are incapable of understanding what they do because you are too ignorant to understand what they do.

Although I am not a college grad...I do actually understand what they do...they try to apply their textbook teachings to the real world...and it doesn't work!!

 

[wolfie]

Neither of those two statements is true in the United States.

What country are you in that has recruiters at "stands" in the "market" and "professional soldiers" are redundant?

Just curious.

Great Britain..my friend...

 

[Gipper]

Nope. I'd eliminate tax on all but the highest level of income ($400k+), and replace it with taxing inheritance and capital gains exactly like we tax income from work. I would consider more import duties, particularly against countries that don't have adequate environmental and worker protections - free trade has to also be fair trade. And if we still needed a new tax, it could possible be the land value tax that keeps popping up on this forum, although I am yet to be totally sold on the merits of a land value tax.

I would also eliminate all forms of means tested government benefits to cut the federal budget, along with slashing military spending and most of the redundant governmental functions and departments.

Weird huh?

A little. 400k seems awfully high to be a tax floor. To make up for revenue set at that point, the tax rate for people above 400k would probably have to rival what it was between the years of Kennedy and Reagan, which would be oppressive by today's standards.

I also wouldn't like an immensely high inheritance tax, just because of the fact that you're still telling people what to do with their money. Now, would the concept of a few less Paris Hiltons running around our country be a nice one? Sure. I don't know if I could look Rick and Conrad Hilton in the face and tell them that the money they've accumulated in business suddenly goes bye-bye when you do. Apparently they wanted her to live like a privileged idiot, and I believe them to have that right.

I'd drop 400k to maybe 100k. That'd create a whole lot of revenue, and it always becomes a slippery slope when you attempt to attach a static figure to a concept of "well, you make X money, now you don't need it anymore" because it starts becoming a game.

 

[Gipper]

Although I am not a college grad...I do actually understand what they do...they try to apply their textbook teachings to the real world...and it doesn't work!!

I suggest you don't try to become a college grad then. If you try to do what the book says, you'll fail. The education in college textbooks, for most subjects, is supposed to be a guide, not a manual. You learn abstract thought. You learn application. You learn when to use a principle and when to use a theory. The good academics can translate education to the real world by taking what they know and applying it. If they don't, they just waste time taking tests for the sake of taking tests.

That may fly in humanities and other dip**** concentrations, but most assuredly not in business.

 

[imagep]

A little. 400k seems awfully high to be a tax floor. To make up for revenue set at that point, the tax rate for people above 400k would probably have to rival what it was between the years of Kennedy and Reagan, which would be oppressive by today's standards.

You may possibly be right. Of course back then the median income was growing at about the same rate as the top few percent, thats part of my goal. As we become a more productive society, it shouldn't only be the top one percent that benefit from our improvements. Everyone should.

From about the start of the great depression, until around 1980, all income brackets rose at about the same rate. If they didn't, then most people still would not be able to afford electricity and running water and central hvac in their homes. Most Americans would still be living like it was 1812 instead of 2012. The sharing of increased productivity has benefited almost all Americans, including the rich, who have become richer due to it. Note that during the last one hundred years there have been two spikes in the disparity of income, one just prior to the Great Depression, the other was just prior to the Great Recession. Coincidence? I suspect not.

But here is an alternative top income tax bracket that you might like better, $125k. This is also a logical amount because it is the current mean average income. I would be willing to compromise a that point. Or we could have three tax brackets, the zero bracket up to 125k, a middle bracket from 125 to 400, then a higher rate over 400k since 400k is about where most income from actual work tops out at. So maybe for income between $125k and $400k pay 10% or 20%, and income over $400k would be taxes at the current 35% or the Clinton tax rate of 39.6% (seemed to work out good), or 50% (just a nice number), or whatever was needed to keep the gov from going further into debt.

You are also ignoring the fact that I am suggesting that we should eliminate all forms of means tested welfare, and reduce government spending in other ways. We don't actually have a need to make up all the tax revenue that we would loose by not taxing the consumer class.

Claiming that we can't afford tax cuts on the consumer class is about as logical as claiming that tax hikes on the rich will not reduce the deficit.

I also wouldn't like an immensely high inheritance tax, just because of the fact that you're still telling people what to do with their money. Now, would the concept of a few less Paris Hiltons running around our country be a nice one? Sure. I don't know if I could look Rick and Conrad Hilton in the face and tell them that the money they've accumulated in business suddenly goes bye-bye when you do. Apparently they wanted her to live like a privileged idiot, and I believe them to have that right.

Taxing doesn't tell anyone what to do, it just incentivizes/deincentivies. Taxing inheritance incentivize people to spend their money and get it circulating in our economy so that more jobs and opportunities are created, it also deincentizes people acquring wealth that is far above and beyond what they expect to actually ever need in life, again allowing that wealth to remain in the wealth pool for everyone else to acquire a larger slice of.

I'd drop 400k to maybe 100k. That'd create a whole lot of revenue, and it always becomes a slippery slope when you attempt to attach a static figure to a concept of "well, you make X money, now you don't need it anymore" because it starts becoming a game.

OK, thats a lot like my compromise position. I can agree with that. I didn't mention this before, but I also think that we should automatically increase that taxable red line as our nations productivity increases and of course to adjust for inflation. So if next year we become X% more productive, the top tax bracket would move up by X%.

I'm a pragmatist, not an ideolog.

 

[Gipper]

You may possibly be right. Of course back then the median income was growing at about the same rate as the top few percent, thats part of my goal. As we become a more productive society, it shouldn't only be the top one percent that benefit from our improvements. Everyone should.

From about the start of the great depression, until around 1980, all income brackets rose at about the same rate. If they didn't, then most people still would not be able to afford electricity and running water and central hvac in their homes. Most Americans would still be living like it was 1812 instead of 2012. The sharing of increased productivity has benefited almost all Americans, including the rich, who have become richer due to it. Note that during the last one hundred years there have been two spikes in the disparity of income, one just prior to the Great Depression, the other was just prior to the Great Recession. Coincidence? I suspect not.

I think the thing we disagree on here is that I don't necessarily see disparity of income as a bad thing. I take the "a rising tide lifts all boats" approach when it comes to supply-side economics, without all the anti-whatever sentiment that fiscally liberal people paint on it. The average household of today has pretty close to the same amount of creature comforts as a household in the 60s, with the exception of today's household often being a two-income establishment as opposed to a single breadwinner in those days.

But here is an alternative top income tax bracket that you might like better, $125k. This is also a logical amount because it is the current mean average income. I would be willing to compromise a that point. Or we could have three tax brackets, the zero bracket up to 125k, a middle bracket from 125 to 400, then a higher rate over 400k since 400k is about where most income from actual work tops out at. So maybe for income between $125k and $400k pay 10% or 20%, and income over $400k would be taxes at the current 35% or the Clinton tax rate of 39.6% (seemed to work out good), or 50% (just a nice number), or whatever was needed to keep the gov from going further into debt.

Seems fair enough. We may quibble a little bit on the exact numbers, but there's a fair compromise somewhere in the grey there on both sides. However, I would probably start to argue if all corporate loopholes try to get plugged. There still needs to be an incentive for companies to perform activities that would result in positive externalities by giving them a small break here and there. You didn't bring it up, but I figured I'd would for argument's sake.

You are also ignoring the fact that I am suggesting that we should eliminate all forms of means tested welfare, and reduce government spending in other ways. We don't actually have a need to make up all the tax revenue that we would loose by not taxing the consumer class.

Claiming that we can't afford tax cuts on the consumer class is about as logical as claiming that tax hikes on the rich will not reduce the deficit.

Not ignoring, and not arguing.

Taxing doesn't tell anyone what to do, it just incentivizes/deincentivies. Taxing inheritance incentivize people to spend their money and get it circulating in our economy so that more jobs and opportunities are created, it also deincentizes people acquring wealth that is far above and beyond what they expect to actually ever need in life, again allowing that wealth to remain in the wealth pool for everyone else to acquire a larger slice of.

I'm not sure that it would necessarily change anything, except allow for more shelters to exist that protect accumulated wealth. That'd be great for my position though. I could always use the work.

OK, thats a lot like my compromise position. I can agree with that. I didn't mention this before, but I also think that we should automatically increase that taxable red line as our nations productivity increases and of course to adjust for inflation. So if next year we become X% more productive, the top tax bracket would move up by X%.

I'm a pragmatist, not an ideolog.

Would you lower the tax bracket if we become less productive? That's essentially what would happen. You'd probably find a fluctuation range (I'd guess probably a 5% range from top to bottom) where if you fall below it, it'll get buoyed back up, and if you rise above it, it'll get slammed back down to earth, both by circular forces and economic cycles. Might piss some people off in my field if you allow for that.

I already have enough fun keeping up on the IRC.