Well as they [taxes] are one of the two certain things, you should really be happy that you are still able to rant about your taxes.
Annual Tax Rant
- Thread starter Pablo
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: javacontour
They may or may not be working hard, I'll give you that.
But why should one group pay a higher percentage so another group can pay a lower percentage? What's fair about that?
We keep hearing about how this isn't fair, or that isn't fair.
Well, from the perspective of my family, paying marginal rates that approach 50% when federal income and payroll taxes as well as state taxes are considered really isn't fair to my family when someone else is paying 7.65% or less if they are getting an EITC that may pay back all their income taxes, plus a little more to "make things fair."
They may be working, but they didn't do my job and they are taking from the fruits of my labors and impacting my freedom to spend and/or give away the fruits of my labors as I see fit. Not as some elected bureaucrat who is trying to by votes wants to spend the results of my efforts.
If Mr/Ms Bureaucrat wants to help, they are free to open their own checkbook and help as they see fit with their own money.
If you, or anyone else thinks some need help, start writing checks.
But let me and my family decide how we think we should spend and/or give away the fruits of our labors.
In no way do I wish to take the desire of others to help their neighbors. I simply ask that folks not take my freedoms by fulfilling their desires with money taken from me and my family.
Yes, I just sent my checks to the various government agencies today!
You're focusing on federal taxes. Other taxes are regressive so the overall burden is flatter than you think.
And in terms of wealth as opposed to income the overall set up is regressive.
The lowest 20% of income earners ie avg income $12.5k pay 16.2% of income in taxes.
Next 20% avg income $25.3k pay 20.7%
Next 20% avg income $40.7k pay 25.1%
Next 20% avg income $66.3k pay 28.5%
Next 10% avg income $100k pay 30%
Next 5% avg income $140k pay 31.1%
Next 4% avg income $241k pay 31.3%
Top 1% avg income $1254k pay 30%
Source is Institute of Tax and Economic Policy Tax Model Apr 2011. They have a unique model that factors in all taxes paid.
They may or may not be working hard, I'll give you that.
But why should one group pay a higher percentage so another group can pay a lower percentage? What's fair about that?
We keep hearing about how this isn't fair, or that isn't fair.
Well, from the perspective of my family, paying marginal rates that approach 50% when federal income and payroll taxes as well as state taxes are considered really isn't fair to my family when someone else is paying 7.65% or less if they are getting an EITC that may pay back all their income taxes, plus a little more to "make things fair."
They may be working, but they didn't do my job and they are taking from the fruits of my labors and impacting my freedom to spend and/or give away the fruits of my labors as I see fit. Not as some elected bureaucrat who is trying to by votes wants to spend the results of my efforts.
If Mr/Ms Bureaucrat wants to help, they are free to open their own checkbook and help as they see fit with their own money.
If you, or anyone else thinks some need help, start writing checks.
But let me and my family decide how we think we should spend and/or give away the fruits of our labors.
In no way do I wish to take the desire of others to help their neighbors. I simply ask that folks not take my freedoms by fulfilling their desires with money taken from me and my family.
Yes, I just sent my checks to the various government agencies today!
You're focusing on federal taxes. Other taxes are regressive so the overall burden is flatter than you think.
And in terms of wealth as opposed to income the overall set up is regressive.
The lowest 20% of income earners ie avg income $12.5k pay 16.2% of income in taxes.
Next 20% avg income $25.3k pay 20.7%
Next 20% avg income $40.7k pay 25.1%
Next 20% avg income $66.3k pay 28.5%
Next 10% avg income $100k pay 30%
Next 5% avg income $140k pay 31.1%
Next 4% avg income $241k pay 31.3%
Top 1% avg income $1254k pay 30%
Source is Institute of Tax and Economic Policy Tax Model Apr 2011. They have a unique model that factors in all taxes paid.
Actually, I don't care for the term regressive, because from my perspective, the tax system takes MORE not LESS from me, so in no way, from my perspective, is the system regressive.
The ONLY fair system is to charge everyone the same percentage. No one group, rich or poor gets an advantage when it comes to the other. If we tax at 15%, then for every $100 you make, regardless of type of income, you are taxed $15.
That's fair.
It's not fair to take $28 or $32 out of my $100 and take $10 out of the $100 earned by another.
Focusing on the state burden really don't make things more flat. After all, if we are all paying 5% to our respective states, then I'm not "catching up" with those who are not paying anything into the system.
But don't confuse my desire to have a tax system that charges everyone the same percentage with a hatred or distain for the poor. I'm all about helping the poor. I simply disagree that it should be a federal program.
I'm more willing to address it as a state, local, NGO issue, as the current system doesn't seem to effectively address the root causes of much of the poverty we see.
While I realize we can't fix it all, why not start addressing the root causes that we can solve.
We know that dropping out of school leads to a higher rate of poverty. Substance abuse issues lead to a higher incidence of poverty. Having children out of wedlock or being a child out of wedlock increases the chances you will live in poverty. Criminal convictions increase your chance of ending up in poverty, and so forth.
A great deal of the solution is not found in transferring wealth from one class to another. A great deal of the solution is addressing the behavior and choices that when avoided, improve your chances of not ending up in poverty.
So I resent someone saying I should pay $28 or more of every $100 I make because it's not PC to tell someone that perhaps the reason they are in poverty is because they've made some bad choices.
This is why I don't hand out money. Now I do help. If someone says they are hungry, I offer to buy them a meal, fill their gas tank, etc. But I'm unwilling to simply hand out cash. For all I know, I'm feeding one of the root causes of their circumstance if I give them cash.
My ex-wife worked in an East St. Louis pharmacy, and I saw how many of the patrons were working the system. None of their income was documented. They were selling drugs or selling sexual favors, or both. But since there was no W2 or 1099, they qualified for "free" health care.
Just makes me sick that over 1/4 of my working effort goes to supporting programs like that. Programs that give away goodies to folks who will game the system.
Yet people tell me I'm the one who doesn't care, etc.
What are the programs doing to get them out of that circumstance when they pay them for their criminal enterprise.
I feel the same at the top of the economic food chain. I was against the bank bailouts and automaker bailouts. If the banks didn't trust one another to do deals, then why should the taxpayer?
It's not a question of did we get our money back. It's a question of did we change the behaviors that lead to the last crisis.
It appears the answer is no. It's business as usual.
To fix the system, it's time to flatten the system. No one pays more or less than X percent of total income. Let the debate begin about what X is, but we are all paying it, rich poor, individual or corporation.
That's fairness in my mind.
Everything else takes a larger share from one to give to another paying a smaller share.
Or better yet, let's do away with federal taxes and each state simply pays the federal government based on their fair share based on census figures.
If your state has 10% of the US population, your state is on the hook for 10% of the federal tax levy. Each state can make it's own tax policy and we'll see which states prosper and which suffer due to their policies.
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Originally Posted By: javacontour
They may or may not be working hard, I'll give you that.
But why should one group pay a higher percentage so another group can pay a lower percentage? What's fair about that?
We keep hearing about how this isn't fair, or that isn't fair.
Well, from the perspective of my family, paying marginal rates that approach 50% when federal income and payroll taxes as well as state taxes are considered really isn't fair to my family when someone else is paying 7.65% or less if they are getting an EITC that may pay back all their income taxes, plus a little more to "make things fair."
They may be working, but they didn't do my job and they are taking from the fruits of my labors and impacting my freedom to spend and/or give away the fruits of my labors as I see fit. Not as some elected bureaucrat who is trying to by votes wants to spend the results of my efforts.
If Mr/Ms Bureaucrat wants to help, they are free to open their own checkbook and help as they see fit with their own money.
If you, or anyone else thinks some need help, start writing checks.
But let me and my family decide how we think we should spend and/or give away the fruits of our labors.
In no way do I wish to take the desire of others to help their neighbors. I simply ask that folks not take my freedoms by fulfilling their desires with money taken from me and my family.
Yes, I just sent my checks to the various government agencies today!
You're focusing on federal taxes. Other taxes are regressive so the overall burden is flatter than you think.
And in terms of wealth as opposed to income the overall set up is regressive.
The lowest 20% of income earners ie avg income $12.5k pay 16.2% of income in taxes.
Next 20% avg income $25.3k pay 20.7%
Next 20% avg income $40.7k pay 25.1%
Next 20% avg income $66.3k pay 28.5%
Next 10% avg income $100k pay 30%
Next 5% avg income $140k pay 31.1%
Next 4% avg income $241k pay 31.3%
Top 1% avg income $1254k pay 30%
Source is Institute of Tax and Economic Policy Tax Model Apr 2011. They have a unique model that factors in all taxes paid.
The ONLY fair system is to charge everyone the same percentage. No one group, rich or poor gets an advantage when it comes to the other. If we tax at 15%, then for every $100 you make, regardless of type of income, you are taxed $15.
That's fair.
It's not fair to take $28 or $32 out of my $100 and take $10 out of the $100 earned by another.
Focusing on the state burden really don't make things more flat. After all, if we are all paying 5% to our respective states, then I'm not "catching up" with those who are not paying anything into the system.
But don't confuse my desire to have a tax system that charges everyone the same percentage with a hatred or distain for the poor. I'm all about helping the poor. I simply disagree that it should be a federal program.
I'm more willing to address it as a state, local, NGO issue, as the current system doesn't seem to effectively address the root causes of much of the poverty we see.
While I realize we can't fix it all, why not start addressing the root causes that we can solve.
We know that dropping out of school leads to a higher rate of poverty. Substance abuse issues lead to a higher incidence of poverty. Having children out of wedlock or being a child out of wedlock increases the chances you will live in poverty. Criminal convictions increase your chance of ending up in poverty, and so forth.
A great deal of the solution is not found in transferring wealth from one class to another. A great deal of the solution is addressing the behavior and choices that when avoided, improve your chances of not ending up in poverty.
So I resent someone saying I should pay $28 or more of every $100 I make because it's not PC to tell someone that perhaps the reason they are in poverty is because they've made some bad choices.
This is why I don't hand out money. Now I do help. If someone says they are hungry, I offer to buy them a meal, fill their gas tank, etc. But I'm unwilling to simply hand out cash. For all I know, I'm feeding one of the root causes of their circumstance if I give them cash.
My ex-wife worked in an East St. Louis pharmacy, and I saw how many of the patrons were working the system. None of their income was documented. They were selling drugs or selling sexual favors, or both. But since there was no W2 or 1099, they qualified for "free" health care.
Just makes me sick that over 1/4 of my working effort goes to supporting programs like that. Programs that give away goodies to folks who will game the system.
Yet people tell me I'm the one who doesn't care, etc.
What are the programs doing to get them out of that circumstance when they pay them for their criminal enterprise.
I feel the same at the top of the economic food chain. I was against the bank bailouts and automaker bailouts. If the banks didn't trust one another to do deals, then why should the taxpayer?
It's not a question of did we get our money back. It's a question of did we change the behaviors that lead to the last crisis.
It appears the answer is no. It's business as usual.
To fix the system, it's time to flatten the system. No one pays more or less than X percent of total income. Let the debate begin about what X is, but we are all paying it, rich poor, individual or corporation.
That's fairness in my mind.
Everything else takes a larger share from one to give to another paying a smaller share.
Or better yet, let's do away with federal taxes and each state simply pays the federal government based on their fair share based on census figures.
If your state has 10% of the US population, your state is on the hook for 10% of the federal tax levy. Each state can make it's own tax policy and we'll see which states prosper and which suffer due to their policies.
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Originally Posted By: javacontour
They may or may not be working hard, I'll give you that.
But why should one group pay a higher percentage so another group can pay a lower percentage? What's fair about that?
We keep hearing about how this isn't fair, or that isn't fair.
Well, from the perspective of my family, paying marginal rates that approach 50% when federal income and payroll taxes as well as state taxes are considered really isn't fair to my family when someone else is paying 7.65% or less if they are getting an EITC that may pay back all their income taxes, plus a little more to "make things fair."
They may be working, but they didn't do my job and they are taking from the fruits of my labors and impacting my freedom to spend and/or give away the fruits of my labors as I see fit. Not as some elected bureaucrat who is trying to by votes wants to spend the results of my efforts.
If Mr/Ms Bureaucrat wants to help, they are free to open their own checkbook and help as they see fit with their own money.
If you, or anyone else thinks some need help, start writing checks.
But let me and my family decide how we think we should spend and/or give away the fruits of our labors.
In no way do I wish to take the desire of others to help their neighbors. I simply ask that folks not take my freedoms by fulfilling their desires with money taken from me and my family.
Yes, I just sent my checks to the various government agencies today!
You're focusing on federal taxes. Other taxes are regressive so the overall burden is flatter than you think.
And in terms of wealth as opposed to income the overall set up is regressive.
The lowest 20% of income earners ie avg income $12.5k pay 16.2% of income in taxes.
Next 20% avg income $25.3k pay 20.7%
Next 20% avg income $40.7k pay 25.1%
Next 20% avg income $66.3k pay 28.5%
Next 10% avg income $100k pay 30%
Next 5% avg income $140k pay 31.1%
Next 4% avg income $241k pay 31.3%
Top 1% avg income $1254k pay 30%
Source is Institute of Tax and Economic Policy Tax Model Apr 2011. They have a unique model that factors in all taxes paid.
Our tax system stagnates income for the poor. I think if the poor actually paid a flat tax like everyone else their NET earnings would improve. Does paying no Fed taxes for some and placing the burden on few help the less than fortunate...history says no. There is better way.
I think in theory and hopefully practice, letting a poor person keep another $100 a month does more for the local economy than letting a rich person keep another $100. To stereotype a little, the rich guy sends the $100 to france for a bottle of champange, the poor guy will hopefully buy better food or sign up for a sports team for his kids... Which will have a greater good for the community?
But instead of just taking the $100 from the rich guy and giving it to another guy, why not let someone have the chance to work and earn that $100.
Frankly, freedom really isn't about doing the best for the poor guy. It's about both the rich guy and the poor guy have the freedom to work as little or as much as they want and to have the freedom to spend the fruits of their labors as they see fit.
If the rich guy wants to buy a bottle of bubbly, he should have the freedom to do so. If he wants to offer up work on his property or in his business for that $100, he is free to do so. If he wants to send a check to his favorite charity, he is free to do so.
Once it's decided that it's in "the public good" to take that $100 from the rich guy so the poor guy can keep his $100, we no longer have freedom. We have others mandating what the rich guy does with money that would be his if it were not taken by taxation.
Now if someone wants to give the poor guy $100 from his wealth, I have no problem with that. I do have a problem when someone at a distance measured in hundreds or thousands of miles away decides for me and my family that I "should" be happy to give more to the myriad of programs that have done little to address the root causes of poverty.
I'd rather keep the $100 and hire the guy or my kids to mow the grass, etc.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
I think in theory and hopefully practice, letting a poor person keep another $100 a month does more for the local economy than letting a rich person keep another $100. To stereotype a little, the rich guy sends the $100 to france for a bottle of champange, the poor guy will hopefully buy better food or sign up for a sports team for his kids... Which will have a greater good for the community?
Frankly, freedom really isn't about doing the best for the poor guy. It's about both the rich guy and the poor guy have the freedom to work as little or as much as they want and to have the freedom to spend the fruits of their labors as they see fit.
If the rich guy wants to buy a bottle of bubbly, he should have the freedom to do so. If he wants to offer up work on his property or in his business for that $100, he is free to do so. If he wants to send a check to his favorite charity, he is free to do so.
Once it's decided that it's in "the public good" to take that $100 from the rich guy so the poor guy can keep his $100, we no longer have freedom. We have others mandating what the rich guy does with money that would be his if it were not taken by taxation.
Now if someone wants to give the poor guy $100 from his wealth, I have no problem with that. I do have a problem when someone at a distance measured in hundreds or thousands of miles away decides for me and my family that I "should" be happy to give more to the myriad of programs that have done little to address the root causes of poverty.
I'd rather keep the $100 and hire the guy or my kids to mow the grass, etc.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
I think in theory and hopefully practice, letting a poor person keep another $100 a month does more for the local economy than letting a rich person keep another $100. To stereotype a little, the rich guy sends the $100 to france for a bottle of champange, the poor guy will hopefully buy better food or sign up for a sports team for his kids... Which will have a greater good for the community?
I guess one is trying to improve wages for the poor by creating a "worker shortage" through economic stimulus (flat tax). Wages rise and quickly overcome his flat 15% tax rate.... Now as of today we have VERY stagnate wages for the poor and paying no Fed tax. Time for a change!
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
I think in theory and hopefully practice, letting a poor person keep another $100 a month does more for the local economy than letting a rich person keep another $100. To stereotype a little, the rich guy sends the $100 to france for a bottle of champange, the poor guy will hopefully buy better food or sign up for a sports team for his kids... Which will have a greater good for the community?
...or it prevents the rich guy from investing that $100 in a business that hires more poor guys.
I think in theory and hopefully practice, letting a poor person keep another $100 a month does more for the local economy than letting a rich person keep another $100. To stereotype a little, the rich guy sends the $100 to france for a bottle of champange, the poor guy will hopefully buy better food or sign up for a sports team for his kids... Which will have a greater good for the community?
...or it prevents the rich guy from investing that $100 in a business that hires more poor guys.
Ok, here's another set of numbers for you, especially those who want to keep more and make the poorer pay more.
All Federal, State and Local Govt spending is about $20k per capita. So add up the number of people in your family and multiply it by $20k.
Do you pay more than that? I do but if you don't, you're not paying your fair share - according to your own definition.
Our problem is we waste money. As individuals we waste money and we let our elected officials do the same. We over consume and under think how to do things. We push the limits because a little extra never hurts - the same as our eating habits and look where that has gotten us.
Military spending is ridiculous. Blank checks for non preventative medical care and pharmaceuticals is ridiculous. Providing medicine privately to individuals who don't see or really pay the bill is ridiculous. Having a crazy complicated tax system with all sorts of loopholes for the rich and corporations is ridiculous. Having the highest incarceration in the world where the poor are disproportionately given criminal records for minor offenses which prevents them from voting or getting jobs while private prisons receive quotas is ridiculous.
These are not things that the poor put in place. The system is being gamed by all sorts of people with their own self interest in mind.
And the response here is to tax the poor a little more. Did you even calculate how much extra revenue that would bring in? Well if you look at my numbers, do you really want to take $1500 more from someone getting $12.5k be they retired, sick or a student? How about $2000 from someone getting $25.3k which is below the poverty line?
That's all you are pretty much talking about when you say you want the same % tax for everyone.
All Federal, State and Local Govt spending is about $20k per capita. So add up the number of people in your family and multiply it by $20k.
Do you pay more than that? I do but if you don't, you're not paying your fair share - according to your own definition.
Our problem is we waste money. As individuals we waste money and we let our elected officials do the same. We over consume and under think how to do things. We push the limits because a little extra never hurts - the same as our eating habits and look where that has gotten us.
Military spending is ridiculous. Blank checks for non preventative medical care and pharmaceuticals is ridiculous. Providing medicine privately to individuals who don't see or really pay the bill is ridiculous. Having a crazy complicated tax system with all sorts of loopholes for the rich and corporations is ridiculous. Having the highest incarceration in the world where the poor are disproportionately given criminal records for minor offenses which prevents them from voting or getting jobs while private prisons receive quotas is ridiculous.
These are not things that the poor put in place. The system is being gamed by all sorts of people with their own self interest in mind.
And the response here is to tax the poor a little more. Did you even calculate how much extra revenue that would bring in? Well if you look at my numbers, do you really want to take $1500 more from someone getting $12.5k be they retired, sick or a student? How about $2000 from someone getting $25.3k which is below the poverty line?
That's all you are pretty much talking about when you say you want the same % tax for everyone.
I don't want the poor to pay more, in fact I want everyone to pay less.
And out of that list, the military is the only thing the Federal government should be doing.
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Ok, here's another set of numbers for you, especially those who want to keep more and make the poorer pay more.
All Federal, State and Local Govt spending is about $20k per capita. So add up the number of people in your family and multiply it by $20k.
Do you pay more than that? I do but if you don't, you're not paying your fair share - according to your own definition.
Our problem is we waste money. As individuals we waste money and we let our elected officials do the same. We over consume and under think how to do things. We push the limits because a little extra never hurts - the same as our eating habits and look where that has gotten us.
Military spending is ridiculous. Blank checks for non preventative medical care and pharmaceuticals is ridiculous. Providing medicine privately to individuals who don't see or really pay the bill is ridiculous. Having a crazy complicated tax system with all sorts of loopholes for the rich and corporations is ridiculous. Having the highest incarceration in the world where the poor are disproportionately given criminal records for minor offenses which prevents them from voting or getting jobs while private prisons receive quotas is ridiculous.
These are not things that the poor put in place. The system is being gamed by all sorts of people with their own self interest in mind.
And the response here is to tax the poor a little more. Did you even calculate how much extra revenue that would bring in? Well if you look at my numbers, do you really want to take $1500 more from someone getting $12.5k be they retired, sick or a student? How about $2000 from someone getting $25.3k which is below the poverty line?
That's all you are pretty much talking about when you say you want the same % tax for everyone.
And out of that list, the military is the only thing the Federal government should be doing.
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Ok, here's another set of numbers for you, especially those who want to keep more and make the poorer pay more.
All Federal, State and Local Govt spending is about $20k per capita. So add up the number of people in your family and multiply it by $20k.
Do you pay more than that? I do but if you don't, you're not paying your fair share - according to your own definition.
Our problem is we waste money. As individuals we waste money and we let our elected officials do the same. We over consume and under think how to do things. We push the limits because a little extra never hurts - the same as our eating habits and look where that has gotten us.
Military spending is ridiculous. Blank checks for non preventative medical care and pharmaceuticals is ridiculous. Providing medicine privately to individuals who don't see or really pay the bill is ridiculous. Having a crazy complicated tax system with all sorts of loopholes for the rich and corporations is ridiculous. Having the highest incarceration in the world where the poor are disproportionately given criminal records for minor offenses which prevents them from voting or getting jobs while private prisons receive quotas is ridiculous.
These are not things that the poor put in place. The system is being gamed by all sorts of people with their own self interest in mind.
And the response here is to tax the poor a little more. Did you even calculate how much extra revenue that would bring in? Well if you look at my numbers, do you really want to take $1500 more from someone getting $12.5k be they retired, sick or a student? How about $2000 from someone getting $25.3k which is below the poverty line?
That's all you are pretty much talking about when you say you want the same % tax for everyone.
Originally Posted By: Mykl
...or it prevents the rich guy from investing that $100 in a business that hires more poor guys.
If you think rich guys will change an investment decision based on an extra $100 then your understanding is way off.
...or it prevents the rich guy from investing that $100 in a business that hires more poor guys.
If you think rich guys will change an investment decision based on an extra $100 then your understanding is way off.
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Originally Posted By: Mykl
...or it prevents the rich guy from investing that $100 in a business that hires more poor guys.
If you think rich guys will change an investment decision based on an extra $100 then your understanding is way off.
So then what's the number? $1000? $10000? $100000? $1000000?
Which one of those will cause my understanding to be way on? I can add as many zeros as you want and my basic argument will still be the same.
Originally Posted By: Mykl
...or it prevents the rich guy from investing that $100 in a business that hires more poor guys.
If you think rich guys will change an investment decision based on an extra $100 then your understanding is way off.
So then what's the number? $1000? $10000? $100000? $1000000?
Which one of those will cause my understanding to be way on? I can add as many zeros as you want and my basic argument will still be the same.
Quote:
All Federal, State and Local Govt spending is about $20k per capita. So add up the number of people in your family and multiply it by $20k.
That is a per capita tax, NOT a flat tax. You are trying to confuse the discussion.
Quote:
That's all you are pretty much talking about when you say you want the same % tax for everyone.
The idea is that everyone have skin in the game. If a large portion of the population pays no tax, but a small percent does, then you have a tyrannous situation where the majority will always tend to vote the minority's money into their own wallets. And politicians are more than willing to create generations of dependent people to achieve the power of arbiter.
All Federal, State and Local Govt spending is about $20k per capita. So add up the number of people in your family and multiply it by $20k.
That is a per capita tax, NOT a flat tax. You are trying to confuse the discussion.
Quote:
That's all you are pretty much talking about when you say you want the same % tax for everyone.
The idea is that everyone have skin in the game. If a large portion of the population pays no tax, but a small percent does, then you have a tyrannous situation where the majority will always tend to vote the minority's money into their own wallets. And politicians are more than willing to create generations of dependent people to achieve the power of arbiter.
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
If you think rich guys will change an investment decision based on an extra $100 then your understanding is way off.
What is the correct level of taking money from the productive, and giving it to the unproductive?
If you think rich guys will change an investment decision based on an extra $100 then your understanding is way off.
What is the correct level of taking money from the productive, and giving it to the unproductive?
Originally Posted By: kschachn
I don't want the poor to pay more, in fact I want everyone to pay less.
I agree. In fact I think up to a certain level of income there should be minimal tax and a huge incentive to save as well as incentives for healthy habits. Give people a free market incentive to lift themselves up and to look after their health. Then make the tax system progressive and close loopholes so you know exactly what to expect as you earn and save more.
Make it simple. Send the message that you won't be penalized for working your way up. And that you can build up your wealth at any income level because we've made it attractive for you to save.
And make personal finance a subject taught in school. We are a wealthy country and have the means for far more people to be self sufficient than they are.
Fund this by halving the military and slashing medical overspend eg stop funding end of life procedures that add no value esp those that are the result of poor life decisions and end the practice of paying 20x more for procedures in one part of the country vs others. Find free market solutions to claims management / auditing to minimize fraud.
I don't want the poor to pay more, in fact I want everyone to pay less.
I agree. In fact I think up to a certain level of income there should be minimal tax and a huge incentive to save as well as incentives for healthy habits. Give people a free market incentive to lift themselves up and to look after their health. Then make the tax system progressive and close loopholes so you know exactly what to expect as you earn and save more.
Make it simple. Send the message that you won't be penalized for working your way up. And that you can build up your wealth at any income level because we've made it attractive for you to save.
And make personal finance a subject taught in school. We are a wealthy country and have the means for far more people to be self sufficient than they are.
Fund this by halving the military and slashing medical overspend eg stop funding end of life procedures that add no value esp those that are the result of poor life decisions and end the practice of paying 20x more for procedures in one part of the country vs others. Find free market solutions to claims management / auditing to minimize fraud.
Quote:
Then make the tax system progressive......Send the message that you won't be penalized for working your way up.
??
A progressive income tax is a sin tax on wealth building.
Quote:
We are a wealthy country and have the means for far more people to be self sufficient than they are.
Self sufficient people don't need many things from their government so buying their votes with other people's money isn't as easy. Having whole swaths of people stuck on transfer payments for generations makes it much easier.
Then make the tax system progressive......Send the message that you won't be penalized for working your way up.
??
A progressive income tax is a sin tax on wealth building.
Quote:
We are a wealthy country and have the means for far more people to be self sufficient than they are.
Self sufficient people don't need many things from their government so buying their votes with other people's money isn't as easy. Having whole swaths of people stuck on transfer payments for generations makes it much easier.
Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Originally Posted By: Mykl
...or it prevents the rich guy from investing that $100 in a business that hires more poor guys.
If you think rich guys will change an investment decision based on an extra $100 then your understanding is way off.
So then what's the number? $1000? $10000? $100000? $1000000?
Which one of those will cause my understanding to be way on? I can add as many zeros as you want and my basic argument will still be the same.
You quoted $100 for the rich guy. If you meant something else, sorry if I'm not a mind reader.
In no case will $100 make the difference for a "rich" guy.
What the actual amount is is situation dependent. But studies have shown by quite a margin that tax cuts for the rich have a far far smaller impact than those given to the poor.
The poor tend to spend their money which multiplies in the economy. The rich tend to save their money.
A while back, there was an economist who was derided for warning that we will run into economic problems if productivity gains only go to owners, not workers. This trend started in the last few decades eg excessive CEO pay but was never a feature of the US economy in its heyday when one parent made enough in a blue collar job.
As productivity gains go to owners and the real income of the masses stagnates, the productivity gains are saved or spent on luxury items (usually overseas goods and services). There is actually a lack of domestic demand / wealth for domestically produced goods and services and local investments. We end up with a two class society but eventually some owners suffer too as their domestic consumers can't spend more than they have.
Right now, a lot of people complain that the jobs post recession are worse and prices are higher. Many blame the government but essentially the economy was changing, the asset bubble masked the problem, and it is now where it was heading as a result of the system being stacked towards some people.
Small business is not the issue. It's really any area where we don't have competition or where rules allow people to abuse power. So too big to fail is still a problem, and corporate governance where CEOs and executives who still receive rewards when they fail are a problem. Then our military and healthcare complexes and structures which divert money away from more efficient uses.
What's interesting is that many of these are related to bad decisions by Congress but not because they are trying to win the votes of the poor.
Too big to fail and corporate governance show the power of corporate America on Congress. The military complex is due to a mixture of votes, corporations and fear.
Healthcare might be attributable to votes for the poor but the non poor love Medicare and you'd have a hard time prying it away from them.
The poor get something from the rest but they are not the ones who have manipulated and designed the system.
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Originally Posted By: Mykl
...or it prevents the rich guy from investing that $100 in a business that hires more poor guys.
If you think rich guys will change an investment decision based on an extra $100 then your understanding is way off.
So then what's the number? $1000? $10000? $100000? $1000000?
Which one of those will cause my understanding to be way on? I can add as many zeros as you want and my basic argument will still be the same.
You quoted $100 for the rich guy. If you meant something else, sorry if I'm not a mind reader.
In no case will $100 make the difference for a "rich" guy.
What the actual amount is is situation dependent. But studies have shown by quite a margin that tax cuts for the rich have a far far smaller impact than those given to the poor.
The poor tend to spend their money which multiplies in the economy. The rich tend to save their money.
A while back, there was an economist who was derided for warning that we will run into economic problems if productivity gains only go to owners, not workers. This trend started in the last few decades eg excessive CEO pay but was never a feature of the US economy in its heyday when one parent made enough in a blue collar job.
As productivity gains go to owners and the real income of the masses stagnates, the productivity gains are saved or spent on luxury items (usually overseas goods and services). There is actually a lack of domestic demand / wealth for domestically produced goods and services and local investments. We end up with a two class society but eventually some owners suffer too as their domestic consumers can't spend more than they have.
Right now, a lot of people complain that the jobs post recession are worse and prices are higher. Many blame the government but essentially the economy was changing, the asset bubble masked the problem, and it is now where it was heading as a result of the system being stacked towards some people.
Small business is not the issue. It's really any area where we don't have competition or where rules allow people to abuse power. So too big to fail is still a problem, and corporate governance where CEOs and executives who still receive rewards when they fail are a problem. Then our military and healthcare complexes and structures which divert money away from more efficient uses.
What's interesting is that many of these are related to bad decisions by Congress but not because they are trying to win the votes of the poor.
Too big to fail and corporate governance show the power of corporate America on Congress. The military complex is due to a mixture of votes, corporations and fear.
Healthcare might be attributable to votes for the poor but the non poor love Medicare and you'd have a hard time prying it away from them.
The poor get something from the rest but they are not the ones who have manipulated and designed the system.
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
If you think rich guys will change an investment decision based on an extra $100 then your understanding is way off.
So then what's the number? $1000? $10000? $100000? $1000000?
Which one of those will cause my understanding to be way on? I can add as many zeros as you want and my basic argument will still be the same.
You quoted $100 for the rich guy. If you meant something else, sorry if I'm not a mind reader.
You may not be a mind reader, but I'm sure you could read the post I quoted to gather some context clues.
Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
If you think rich guys will change an investment decision based on an extra $100 then your understanding is way off.
So then what's the number? $1000? $10000? $100000? $1000000?
Which one of those will cause my understanding to be way on? I can add as many zeros as you want and my basic argument will still be the same.
You quoted $100 for the rich guy. If you meant something else, sorry if I'm not a mind reader.
You may not be a mind reader, but I'm sure you could read the post I quoted to gather some context clues.
Quote:
But studies have shown by quite a margin that tax cuts for the rich have a far far smaller impact than those given to the poor.
I would love to see these studies.
In your previous post you said that "we" are consuming to much, and now you advocate the poor go out and....consume...to help the economy. Which is it?
Quote:
The rich tend to save their money.
People don't get rich by keeping their money in a savings account. They get rich by investing money. The only reason "rich" people save their money is if there is no incentive to invest, i.e. profit. High taxes reduce profit, reduce investment, and reduce job opportunities for other people.
But studies have shown by quite a margin that tax cuts for the rich have a far far smaller impact than those given to the poor.
I would love to see these studies.
In your previous post you said that "we" are consuming to much, and now you advocate the poor go out and....consume...to help the economy. Which is it?
Quote:
The rich tend to save their money.
People don't get rich by keeping their money in a savings account. They get rich by investing money. The only reason "rich" people save their money is if there is no incentive to invest, i.e. profit. High taxes reduce profit, reduce investment, and reduce job opportunities for other people.
- Status
