What is it about making $250 K that would make me a focus of the President's enmity?

Hehehe, I can’t get past “Low hanging fruit.” I have so many smart ass things to say about your fruit I don’t know where to start. You really are my Fluther figure!

enmity
1. The quality of being an enemy; hostile or unfriendly disposition.
2. A state or feeling of opposition, hostility, hatred or animosity.

target
1. A butt or mark to shoot at, as for practice, or to test the accuracy of a firearm, or the force of a projectile.

to loot
1. to steal, especially as part of war, riot or other group violence.

An enemy of the state is a person accused of certain crimes against the state, such as treason. Describing individuals in this way is sometimes a manifestation of political repression. For example, an authoritarian regime may purport to maintain national security by describing social or political dissidents as “enemies of the state”. In other cases, the individual in question may have legitimately endangered the country and/or its population. For example, a double agent selling military or intelligence secrets could undermine a nation’s security, and could therefore be considered an enemy not of just a person or entity within a state, but the state itself and all entities therein.

Hyperbole (pronounced /haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hye-PUR-bə-lee[1]; from ancient Greek ὑπερβολή ‘exaggeration’) is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.

Hyperboles are exaggerations to create emphasis or effect. As a literary device, hyperbole is often used in poetry, and is frequently encountered in casual speech. An example of hyperbole is: “The bag weighed a ton”.[2] Hyperbole helps to make the point that the bag was very heavy although it is not probable that it would actually weigh a ton. On occasion, newspapers and other media use hyperbole when speaking of an accident, to increase the impact of the story. This is more often found in tabloid newspapers, which often exaggerate accounts of events to appeal to a wider audience.

In rhetoric, some opposites of hyperbole are meiosis, litotes, understatement, and bathos (the ‘letdown’ after a hyperbole in a phrase).

@absalom My point exactly.

Your whiny attitude. He’s sick of it, so he singled you out, and this is your punishment.

$0.05 makes someone an enemy of the state and a class enemy?

IF the Bush tax cut is ended for people with a taxable income of $250,001.00, the increase in actual taxes will be 5 cents.

I am not kidding. 5 cents.

If you don’t understand that, you need to study up before you rant.

@jaytkay So are you saying that my provincial misunderstanding of the tax brackets makes me prone to rant? But if I studied them in proper cosmopolitan fashion, I would become a cooperative and willing little slave to the political state?

Here is the thing: $250K/yr puts you in the top 10% of wage-earners. While it may not sound like much next to someone earning $40M/yr, it does put you above the vast majority of Americans.

The top tax brackets pay disproportionately little of their income to taxes, leaving most of the burden to the middle-class; a group that earns about half of what the top 10% do but collectively pay nearly twice as many dollars.

So tell me, how do you feel about giving a free ride to people who can more than afford to take care of themselves at the expense of taking hard-earned money from those who can’t afford to take European vacations every other month and who drive Toyotas instead of Mercedes?

@jerv Please don’t say “you”. I do not make $250 K. I simply aspire to.

@josie That “you” was more of an “if you fit into that income bracket” than directed personally. Sorry if that seemed otherwise.

@jerv No problem

250 K is the point where one becomes in the top 2–3%. That top 55 does not generally spend additional income at the same rate as the other 95% do. Thus the reduction in tax rates for that top tier doesn’t generate very much impact for the cost. The cost of that tax reduction is HUGE to society, more than 700 billion. But the increase is not that much on each additional dollar- it’s actually 3.6 cents (not 5 cents).

But no one has called you any of those terms; that’s just your impression.

One thing to bear in mind here is that if the income distribution in this country were more even than the increasingly extreme L-curve, the cutoff point would be higher.

If you don’t want @jerv to say “you” in his response, maybe you shouldn’t say “me” in your question.

@josie, Your rant shows that you either have no grasp of why all the world’s top industrialized nations have a progressive tax system, or you simply don’t care, and you want the US to become a banana republic. The “fair tax” that Republicans dream of would set up a system where the top 1% would soon hold all the wealth in the nation. There are 24 countries in the world today that have a regressive flat tax, and all are either banana republics or socialist nations where the revenues raised by taxes are distributed to the benefit of the poor. Regressive taxes benefit only the wealthiest. They make it very difficult for small business owners like you and I to break into the big time. The big boys soon control everything, and they don’t really want new members in their club. Less for you means more for them.

Millionaires and billionaires actually did quite well under the Clinton tax policy. If we allowed the rate to reset on income over $250,000 per year, the top income earners would still get the same tax break the rest of us get on all income up to a quarter of a million. They would pay 5 cents on the dollar more on income above a quarter million. That’s hardly an attack on their very existence.

The problem we are really facing is not a President that hates everyone who earns over a quarter of a million. That’s an absurd allegation. If it were so, he would clearly have to hate himself, his wife, and all the Democratic senators he works with. The real problem is $13.7 trillion in debt, $9.2 trillion of which Republicans ran up and another 3 trillion added trying to keep the economy they drove over the brink from sliding into Depression Lake and drowning us all. And this compromise he just cut will add another $900 billion to that debt in 2 years.

It may actually help stimulate the sluggish economy. We did need more stimulus, and there is no earthly way Obama could have gotten a second stimulus of near a trillion dollars through Congress. This may do the trick. But the time is fast approaching when we are going to have to pay for all the largess we’ve been putting on the national credit card. And the Republican ideology of magically self financing tax cuts simply is a bunch of elephant poop at this point. Back when the top rates were over 70%, a tax cut did stimulate the economy and actually raise revenue. But with the current top rate at half of that, cutting it further will not raise revenues, it will cut them and therefore raise the National Debt.

I like low taxes too, but I hate running up trillions in debt and borrowing the money from the Saudis and China. We cannot possibly keep digging deeper into that hole.

@ETpro @jaytkay-Just what is it that distinguishes a question from a rant? I figure I have not been around here as long as you two, so maybe you could bring me up to speed? I don’t want to accidentally lower the community standard.

@josie “Rant” is in the eye of the beholder. Besides, if our fellow Flutherites are like the people I’ve dealt with face-to-face today, then I think we’re all a bit cranky tonight.

Oh wow. I feel so badly for you.

NOT!

You make more money, you should support more of the public infrastructure. No two ways about it. You’re barking up the wrong tree. Progressive taxation is the only right way to go.

@wundayatta So if one of these days I support more of the public infrastructure than you, should I get the priviledge to use it more than you, or do I merely pay for your equal time?

@josie

I feel like rather than addressing the excellent points brought to this thread, you’re kind of just nitpicking. (As in @ETpro wrote a nice lengthy post and you responded to: the second word.)

Which coincidentally is why people are viewing this as a rant rather than as a legitimate question meant to provoke discussion.

How to figure out if your question is actually a rant:
Ask yourself “Is there more than one answer to this question?”
If the answer is no, and the only other possible answers end much like when a woman asks a man “Do I look fat?” and he answers “Yes”, then your question is a rant.

@josie Pretty much the dictionary definition of rant. A rant in Fluther questions is a question plus details that make it clear that the questioner is angry about one side of the question. A ranting question is one where you ask us Jellies to take one or another position, but make it abundantly clear in the question and details that you consider one position valid and the other completely off base. In other words, you already have the answer you want in mind, and you are not really asking for free discussion, but for agreement.

But as far as I know, there is no Fluther rule that says you can’t rant. I have sure been guilty myself. I can’t speak for other Jellies, but I say if you feel strongly about something, rant on. As long as we remain respectful of differing opinions and don’t degrade into silly insult contests, it’s fine to have strong opinions and argue for them. When it comes to something as important to our nation’s well-being as tax policy, it would worry me if you didn’t take it seriously.

One of the stated purposes of government is to promote the general welfare; paying one’s taxes is not buying government services solely for oneself—that’s the province of campaign contributions.

@josie Here’s a ranting question I asked a while back, and my rant here is just about diametrically opposed to yours in this question.

@ETpro: It is nonetheless kind of amusingly representative of the general Fluther cohort that your ‘rant’ received 5 GAs and @josie‘s has received 0. I imagine it’s tough being conservative here.

What if the President only chose to tax billionaires, and no one who earns any less?

Does this mean that billionaires have the President’s enmity?

It’s just a cutoff point.

When you tax the first $25,000 a person earns in a year, you are taxing their ability to eat food, their ability to get medical care or insurance, their ability to get a car and make payments or get repairs…. all these things are destroyed when we tax those who only earn $25,000.00 a year.

Those who earn more than $250,000, however, already have enough money to meet life’s basic needs. It doesn’t pinch them as much to tax them. And at a certain point (probably higher than $250,000), there’s no pinch at all.

It’s not the concept of taxing the rich that is wrong. It is the taxation of those who cannot afford to pay the tax, that is wrong.

It makes sense to disagree with the $250,000 cutoff level. Maybe it should be higher. Perhaps other factors should be taken into account, such as location, number of houses owned, and their cost.

But it is silly to question the value and logic of taxing the rich. They are the most logical source of public revenue collection. Nobody has a God Given Right to excess resource ownership. I realize nobody can define “excess”, but at the same time the sentence before this one remains true. The least harm and most good comes from using the excess funds of the rich to finance the operation of the government including the promotion of the general welfare of the People.

And if people don’t like their government, they have no excuses until they vote beyond the Republican-Democrat paradigm.

I find it interesting that liberals always say that the only way to pay off the debt is to raise taxes. Look at Massachussetts, California, Illinois, and New York. those states have some of the highest taxes in the country, but the total of their debt probably reaches $55–60 billion. So it seems to me that raising taxes is not the cure all.

Why is no one talking about cutting spending? We have a huge debt, so lets look at cutting back on our budget. Leave nothing off the table.

@cletrans2col, the concept of taxing the rich is sound. But that sound concept is predicated on the government spending the money wisely, which they do not.

The largest welfare programs are connected to the Pentagon and Drug War. Food stamps and the cost of illegal immigration are a distant 3rd or 4th to the military/security complex.

I’m not saying to cut the budgets of the armed services. I’m saying to cut the pentagon’s budget by half, since a lot of it goes to corrupt contractors.

All other waste should be addressed as well. The biggest waste should be hit first.

Also, California would have a major surplus and no debt, if the money we paid in taxes was kept in Sacramento instead of going to America.

@Kraigmo: that should be the case for all tax dollars, the idea of wisely spending money.

Along that vein, New Hampshire seems to do just fine without sales tax, income tax, or huge taxes on cigarettes our alcohol. On the other hand, Washington state has a ridiculous sales tax (9.5% here in King County, once you add in the local rate), charges nearly double what NH does for booze and smokes, taxes some items that are considered “groceries”, and yet spending fuses faster than revenue.
Unfortunately, @cletrans2col, government historically hasn’t been known for wisdom, especially not put government in the last fifty years or so.

It is amazing that anyone would think advocating the Clinton-era tax rate for rich people means one thinks rich people are “enemies.”

Do you know what the marginal tax rate for wealthy people was during Nixon’s presidency?

I don’t think Obama considers wealthy people his enemy, since he has repeatedly kowtowed to wealthy people and his economic policy advisors all seem to drink the monetarist kool-aid.

I consider wealthy people who bitch about taxes my enemies because I think they are sociopathic in their lack of empathy for lower classes and their ignorant belief that they somehow have “earned” their riches in a vacuum.

California is a terrible example.

Saint Reagan made it impossible to raise taxes in that state, but made it easy to enact costly state-run programs. It’s the classic Republican pathology.

Illinois has had a fair share of Republican governors. New York’s legislature is saturated with Republicans. Mitt Romney was the governor of Massachusetts for a time.

Touchy subject there @Qingu! 4 of our last 5 Governors were Democrats who were convicted of all sorts of illegal activities!! And now Pat Quin is doing a stellar job of nose diving our State economy further into the ground!

The moral of this story is to just be mediocre because if you become a bigg success, then big brother will just take it away from you.

Actually, that is the problem; they won’t take from you! The ones who wind up taking it in the ass are those in the $50–150K brackets since making the to brackets pay their fair share and making taxation progressive is un-American.

You might have some traction with that argument if the top tiers actually paid even 30%, but with the low rate on capital gains, it’s closer to 20–25%.

Some say it is unfair for 10% of the people to pay 40% of the taxes. Those top 10% earn 50% of the income though. The bottom 47% don’t pay at all, not can they really afford to a they earn only 15% of the income.

That leaves the 43% in the middle who earn only 35% of the income to pay 60% of the taxes, yet somehow that is considered more fair than making the rich pay their share?

WTF?

@josie If one of these days I support more of the public infrastructure than you, should I get the priviledge to use it more than you, or do I merely pay for your equal time?

Of course you pay for other people’s equal time (certainly not mine) as you put it. What part of progressive taxation do you not understand?

We are a community in this nation. We help each other out. People who have more should pay more of the burden. People who have less pay less, or nothing, and are beneficiaries of the assistance. In a way, it’s like mandatory charity. It allows things to be done on a fair basis. It’s not random. It increases efficiency.

It is unfair that 1% of the population controls 25% of the wealth in this country.

Maybe we should step back and ask who, or what, determines what is “fair” in terms of income. A quote from this article:

“It is easy to find a man in almost any line of employment who is twice as efficient as another employee, but it is very rare to find one who is ten times as efficient. It is common, however, to see one man possessing not ten times but a thousand times the wealth of his neighbor.”

I believe that rich people often work hard, perhaps even harder than poorer people. But what is a “fair” reward for their extra work, and how is such a reward determined?

Is fairness determined solely by the market, an emergent, chaotic entity cobbled together out of messy human behavior and often to a large extent controlled by rich people? I think if this is your answer, you are worshiping a false deity.

Many measure the worth of an individual by how much money their company makes aa direct result of their actions divided by the number of people at the same level. That second part is why when a “grunt” comes up with an idea that saves a large company millions, the company might give their workers enough to cover the increased cost of health insurance (if they’re lucky) but a CEO will get a multi-million dollar “performance bonus”.

How fair that is is an argument that will follow party lines.

4 of our last 5 Governors were Democrats who were convicted of all sorts of illegal activities!! And now Pat Quin is doing a stellar job of nose diving our State economy further into the ground

Nope, 3 of the last 5 Illinois governors were Republicans, including current federal prison inmate George Ryan. And there is a worldwide economic crisis, blaming it on Quinn is silly.

Previous to Quinn:
Rod Blagojevich ( D )
George H. Ryan ( R )
Jim Edgar ( R )
James R. Thompson ( R )
Daniel Walker ( D )

@jaytkay ~Don’t muddy the waters by trying to present actual facts :p

@absalom You can always go over to Sodahead.com where the most vicious, slander-filled untruths imaginable about Democrats will get tons of raves, and any defense of liberalism will be answered by accusations of being a communist, socialist, idiot, sociopath liar. If that’s your cup of tea, that is where they are serving it. Or is it not enough till all websites are like Sodahead?

@cletrans2col You got a good, honest answer about California from @Qingu. As a resident of Massachusetts, I can brag that our state has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation and is a leader nationally in higher education, research and development, and medical technology. Sure there is room for improvement, but I’m pretty happy with the way ths state is run. I wouldn’t trade what we have for Louisiana, Alabama, or a host of other states dominated by Republican rule.

@gondwanalon The evidence is exactly the opposite of that statement. Before the great depression, during the guilded age of laissez faire Republican capitalism, the wealthiest 1% kept gaining wealth till they held ⅓rd of all the nation’s assets. Then the depression brought them down to about 24% and they stayed pretty close to that till Reagan slashed taxes from 70% to 28% on the top bracket. After 30 years of Reaganomics, the wealthiest 1% now hold 38% of the nation;s total assets, and are fast on their way to having 50%. And while the top rate on income is 35%, virtually nobody in the top 1% pays anything close to that. Most pay an effective rate of 15% or less. If we stay on that course, we will eventually wipe out the middle class and transfer virtually all the wealth of the nation to a tiny oligarchy. That is what a solidly progressive tax system is meant to prevent.

@wundayatta: No, it’s redistribution of wealth.

@Qingu: Many rich people create jobs; without someone taking a chance and create products and opportunities for people, we wouldn’t have this conversation. So yes, they have earned their wealth. And how is California a ‘terrible example’? Democrats control the state and have effectively neutered Arnie, and under their leadership the state is reduced to IOUs to their citizens. They are broke, and I’m sure Gov. Moonbeam will be asking the Feds to bail him out.

@ETpro: With schools like Harvard, BC, and MIT, I am not surprised that your state has that. But if you’re happy with being there, good for you. I’d much rather have more of my money in my pocket.

@cletrans2col I forgot to mention that we have one of the highest per capita income levels in the USA as well. Yes, I’m happy being here, and my small business has been able to weather the recession and is now on the growth curve again. I’m a realist and not an economic masochist. The folks in the bottom 99% who keep voting to transfer as much wealth as possible to the top 1% strike me as the ones that are either unrealistic or economic masochists? I should study to propaganda the Republican leaders use to get them to do such a stupid thing.

@ETpro

If that’s your cup of tea, [which it very obviously is not] that is where they are serving it. Or is it not enough till all websites are like Sodahead?

Not sure what you mean by this. Did I come across as Sodaheadesque or otherwise conservative? If Fluther became that place I would leave for MetaFilter.

@absalom I was reacting to your apparent lament that a conservative would be taken to task here. I actually participate on sodahead.com as well as here. That’s how I know how the predominant crowd there reacts. I am thankful that there is at least one Internet destination where I can engage conservatives in dialog and debate instead of just being excoriated by vicious name calling. I stay active over on Sodahead just to keep up with the latest far right conspiracy theories and because now and then I do run across someone there able to discuss policy rationally rather than just resorting to name calling.

@cletrans2col “I’d much rather have more of my money in my pocket.”
At the price of taking money out of the pockets of those who earn less than you do? That is how our current system works. I don’t know how far you are along that path, but for all I know, you are one of those who believe that there should be zero taxation and that only the rich should be entitled to police and fire protection or roads. So please enlighten us as to how selfish/altruistic you are. Then again you are apparently so hyper-partisan that I am inclined to believe that you are entirely immune to reason or facts.
By your logic, all of the intelligence is also in the top income brackets while 90+% of Americans are stupid. The truth is that there are people who have great ideas and/or work hard at all income levels, and there are also lazy, stupid bastards. So tell me how that is? If all of the rich earn it, then how are there so many people who work just as hard and come up with just as many good ideas starving in the streets? And how is it that there are morons who do nothing but be in the right place at the right time with fat paychecks?

Are you in favor of giving all of our money to one person? According to your “logic”, that would be the ultimate greatest thing that could ever happen to our economy; 310,875,081 homeless people starving with one fatcat on top, creating enough jobs for everyone to liv… oh, wait, that would require an anti-American redistribution of wealth. But they would also spend a lot and stimulate th… umm..err.. that woudl also require money leaving their coffers.
The truth is that if you don’t leave enough of a base and suck all of the money upwards as we have been doing, then the elite are going to rule over a barren dust-bowl. And guess what? Unless you earn at least eight figures, then you will be living under bridges and eating out of dumpsters with the rest of us :D

But if that is what you want….

@ETpro Don’t take me seriously because I don’t. Who really pays taxes? The top 1% (making and adjusted gross income of at least $250,736) pay 33.2% of all income taxes. Also get this: the top 5% (making at least $108,046) pay 51.9% of the total income tax. That is not progressive enough for you? How about a solidly flat tax for everyone with no tax loop-holes? That should level the playing-field and stick it to all of those eeevil filthy rich SOB’s.

@gondwanalon We are talking two different things when we talk income and wealth. The top 1% in wealth do not pay a huge share of the taxes because they mostly do not work, do not earn income like you and I do, and invest in tax shelters. Many of them have never worked. They made their money the old fashioned way, they inherited it.

The wealthiest 1% have gone from owning 24% of America in 1980 to owning 38% today. How much more do you think they need before they have enough? So long as that trend continues, we are on the road to being a banana republic, and our tax system is seriously broken. It is destroying the middle class, which most of us are a part of and which all small business in America relies on for its survival.

The top 1% of income earners did pay 38% of the federal taxes in 2008, but they also earned over 20% of all the income in the USA. That’s not a very progressive tax. It’s not a flat tax yet. Lord knows poor Republicans have largely been duped by their rich handlers into yearning for a flat tax. But it’s pretty regressive, and that is why, after remaining at around 25% of wealth, the top 1% are rapidly consolidating control of all the assets in the nation.

I am not sure who to best address this question to, maybe @ETpro. I am definately not an economist, but I am having a hard time understand what the percentage of income you are assigned to be taxed plays a role in widdening the gap between the richest and the rest of the wages earners. Does someone have a reference I could read to help me grasp what is being meant by that?

@cletrans2col, walk me through how a rich person creates jobs.

@gondwanalon I find it interesting that you, like many others, focus on how much taxes the top earners pay and conveniently ignore how much they earn. I think that a group that earns over half of the income and paying only one-third of the taxes is getting a free ride at the expense of the working class. I don’t like the modestly successful being raped for the benefit of the oligarchy.

@cletrans2col It would appear that you know little about what government does. When we run a justice system, is that redistribution of the wealth? When we build highways, is that redistribution of the wealth? How about the military? Or health care? Or housing? Or education?

These are all things everyone benefits from, and you can’t tell me if someone benefits more or less, because what we are talking about is the commons.

It makes sense for those with more to contribute more to the commons. If we rely on the poor, we won’t have money for anything that is in the common good. The rich will run off thinking only of their own good, and we’ll turn into a nation of corporate fiefdoms, with a few individual fiefdoms thrown in here or there.

If the rich take no interest in the country, and only take the benefits of being located there and none of the responsibility for building that country, then we have failed. You probably don’t understand that, and that’s why you call it redistribution. In my mind, that’s pretty sad.

@sleepdoc Sure. Let’s take a purely regressive tax system as an example. If we had a flat tax the percentage would need to be around 20% of total income with no deductions allowed.

Let’s take a janitor with a wife and two kids bringing home minimum wage. If he’s fortunate enough in these times to stay employed full time, he earns a total of $15,080 a year. So we lop 20% off that and he now has to feed, clothe, and house 4 people on $12,064 a year, or about $1000 a month. So your flat tax would leave this poor guy, hard as he works, with the choice of being homeless or starving.

Now let’s take a more fortunate worker whose parents were able to send her through college. She’s married to a fellow college grad, and between them they bring home ten times as much as our hapless janitor, or $150,800 per year for their family of four. They pay $30,160 in taxes, leaving them $120,640 a year or $10,053 a month to live on. Now if they live in an expensive part of a major city like New York, that’s barely enough to get by, but they can manage. If they live in any less costly area, they can get by very well. They can, if they manage their income wisely, put some investments away for a retirement nest egg.

Now let’s look at one of the 1%. That bracket starts at an income of $350,000 per year. But let’s pick one in the middle of that bracket, a CEO of a major corporation with income of $35,000,000 a year. The 20% flat tax hits this family for $7 million. That’s a bunch of tax. But it leaves this family with $28 million to live on. Now even with several homes and a yacht and a country club membership, one can still save many millions from a salary like that. Invest those millions off shore in tax-sheltered, high-yield investments; and next year you earn $50 million but are still just taxed on $35 million of it. And the year after that, earnings jump to $75 million. Wealth rapidly flows to the top earners in a flat tax system. They don’t need to spend more than a tiny fraction of what they earn in order to live. They can use the rest to buy up everything in sight so they earn ever more each successive year.

What’s the one other thing besides progressive taxes all good Republicans have been trained by their rich handlers to hate? The dreaded death tax. Great talking point calling it that in an effort to dismantle the one barrier left to generational wealth in a society trending ever closer to a regressive tax system. Institute regressive taxation and eliminate the estate tax or eviscerate it, and you have the perfect formula to convert America into a banana republic. And the comedy is that people who will end up being serfs in the dreamed of new feudalism are being duped into voting to destroy their own economic future to help billionaires get richer faster.

@ETpro… Ok I am having some trouble still, so the janitor whether you tax him at 0.01% or 50% still makes below the poverty level. And what does the tax from the richest of the rich do specifically to increase that janitor’s income?

A flat tax, is different than what you are talking about for the rich as well (at least I understand it so). There is no tax-sheltered investing if you are really using a flat tax system is there? I am not talking about what we have currently in the US, but rather a flat tax.

That point aside, what amount of money you collect from taxes, in isolation, does nothing to help those who are making very little, right? Are there countries out there which really tax the upper income brackets more and then give that money directly to those who make very little? That system seems to make even less sense to me than the socialist management of government wages and funds.

Taxes from the rich pay for Medicaid, the public schools and lunch programs that the janitor sends his kid to, and the library that his kids can study and entertain themselves at.

It’s not about “income” it’s about ensuring that citizens can survive at a basic level in our society, and that their kids have equal opportunities to succeed.

Also, the loopholes exploited by wealthy people with time and money to afford it have absolutely nothing to do with the “flatness” of the tax rate. It is an entirely separate issue.

@Qingu That is how they government spends money, ie. how they spend what taxes they collect. Funding the programs we want to have for our kids and families is a what do we do with the money we collected. Any family in the US can make use of the public schools (although the funding for the lunch programs requires qualification), the library as well is an asset that anyone can use.

When I asked for an explanation, it was asking about how a flat tax system (not a flat tax rate @Qingu I know there is a difference) increases the gap between the richest of a society and the rest of the society. Wouldn’t it be better to have a flat tax without all the loopholes? The way I see it if the highest paid individuals are going to earn what they do, there will always be a disparity in how much of their income goes towards essentials compared to the rest of the society. The amount of tax as a percentage of income is not going to change that is it really? Or is there an economic tennant I am missing there.

I understand that how funds get utilized and where they are utilized can benefit different subsets of the society more than others, but that is different than how much of your income goes into the system, it simply tells you what you have at your disposal for programs.

Progressive tax rates will not eliminate humanity’s tendency as social animals to form dominance hierarchies and class structures, no.

I’m not sure what your point is, at this point.

@Qingu… I am simply trying to understand some of the economics of this.

@Qingu I want you to think about what you said about three posts back. You realize that most of the taxes are actually paid by the middle class, right?

I’ll come back to this after work, if I can stop laughing.

@jerv, yes… sorry for the confusion, I was responding to the “what does the tax from the rich” comment.

@ETpro and @jerv Relax comrades. Don’t worry. Capitalism is on it’s way out and soon all the fat cat rich SOB’s will on their knees begging for bread like the rest of us surfs. P.S. It might be a good idea to start leaning Chinese. Ney ho mah?

China is basically a capitalist client state and the capitalists are doing quite well in America and Europe, notwithstanding the violent protests in the latter which will no doubt be used as justification for greater austerity measures.

Don’t get your hopes up.

I personally am actually quite a big fan of Capitalism. I think we should try it here in America!

Seriously, Capitalism is a system where people get rewarded for providing something of value to those who are willing to pay a fair market price. Some may argue that a CEO provides jobs and such and thus generates enough revenue to be worth an eight-figure salary, but how can they do that if they don’t have people to implement their plans? The average worker generates at least enough revenue for their employer to be worth a roof over their heads and food on the table, yet many employers won’t offer even that.

Capitalism also requires a market; people who can afford what you are offering. Without customers, you can’t sell, and people who are barely scraping by are unlikely to buy much from anyone while an increasing number of people can’t even buy the basic necessities of life.

If the rich want to continue being rich, they have to give a little back. The current situation is unsustainable, and it won’t be long before they have to subsidize a vast majority of the country because they will be the only ones with enough money to live independently.

So what’s it going to be; give a couple of percentage points now, or make your grand-children pay pre-Reagan tax rates later?

@sleepdoc Taxes from us all go into a kitty we then divvy up to do things that benefit us all, such as building Interstate highway systems, maintaining, expanding and improving air traffic control and airports, building hydroelectric systems, maintaining the Center for Disease Control and for those below poverty, assisting them with food, education and medical care. I would think it would be obvious to even Simon Legree that is someone is already below the poverty line, taking 20% of what little he earns away from him is not going to improve his lot unless you give all that and then some back to him. What;s the point of that?

I suppose you could design a flat tax any number of ways, but most apply to wages, tips and other compensation as we currently have reported on our W2s. Even if it were to apply to investment income, those who earn millions per year still earn so much more than they need to live that their net worth rises rapidly under a regressive tax system, while those in the low brackets are taxed so heavily by a regressive tax that they are hard pressed to keep a roof over their heads.

Here is a list of countries that currently have a flat tax. Please point out to me which one you think is such a model of prosperity for all its citizens that we should throw out a progressive tax system that has served us well for almost 100 years and emulate their tax model instead.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Albania
Czech Republic
Estonia
Georgia
Guernsey
Kazakhstan
Iraq.
Jersey
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Mongolia
Montenegro
Mauritius
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Ukraine
Note that Iceland has a modified flat tax that includes investment income, but has a long list of deductions and exclusions for low income earners, and so I did not include it. Since their banking system is bankrupt, it wouldn’t make a great example if we did throw it in.

I totally agree it would be a good idea to cut out the loopholes, and just doing that one thing would make figuring our taxes at the end of the year drastically simpler, particularly for folks like me who own small businesses. I am all for that. But as @Qingu pointed out, loopholes can be written into or out of any tax system. We don’t need to switch to a regressive tax to get rid of loopholes. As I have pointed out by math, and by the examples of the countries where it is used, regressive taxation benefits the most wealthy. We went form a steeply progressive tax system before 1980 to a nearly regressive one since then. In the 30 years since that switch, the wealthiest 1% went from owning 25% of the nation’s wealth in 1980 to 38% today, You want to accelerate that transfer of wealth? The only rational reason I can see for supporting that is if you are one of the top 1% who will benefit massively from such a plan, and you feel that having even more is important enough to let the lower echelons starve so you can get what has been going to them.

@gondwanalon I am hardly an advocate for communism and I hold absolutely no enmity toward wealthy people. Quite the opposite. Those who are self made, I admire and study. I own a small business and am working my butt off to get rich.Warren Buffet’s certainly no communist, but just as I do he also says our tax system is too regressive and needs to be de-rigged so the top echelon pay more. Our best years in American capitalism were the postwar boom years from 1945 to 1980. We had a steeply progressive tax rate from WWII forward to the Reaganomics revolution. Before that misguided piece of Republican class warfare, the rich were doing quite well. We made lots of new millionaires and a few billionaires between 1945 and 1980. And we were paying down the national debt. Since Reaganomics, the poor have gotten seriously poorer and swelled dramatically in number, the middle class have seen their real, inflation-adjusted income stagnate, and only the top have benefited. And we have run up 13.7 trillion dollars in debt to make people who were already wealthy far wealthier. The day is coming when that debt must be paid. Do you think the multinationals will stick around to pay that debt back down?

Considering how much Bank of America and many other large multi-nationals paid in US taxes last year, there really is no thinking required :/

@ETpro It is easy for some folks to sit on their perfumed pillows and point fingers at Republicans as the reason for all of the our economic problems like Democrats had nothing at all to do with this mess.

Don’t worry, it is OK if some very hard working and big risk taking people are managing to earn a huge mountains of money. (Why that seems to bug you some much is another topic). Simply taking more money from the successful people and giving it to a bloated out of control government will not likely help and more like hurts the situation.

@gondwanalon, as opposed to bloated, out of control rich people. They’re doing so much to help the situation with their millions and millions of dollars that they’ve obviously “earned” in a moral sense, as defined by God’s own Invisible Hand in the Free Market.

@gondwanalon The more money we get from the rich, the less we have to take from the hard-working middle class who earn far less yet pay far more. Or are your math skills forgotten in favor of ideology?

Also, the longer this continues, the more poor people we’ll have in need of government assistance, thus the more money the government will need to take from everyone still capable of paying taxes.

Wealth is a right. And a responsibility. I think the enmity is about wealthy people shirking responsibility, for example when viewing taxes as a bad thing. They don’t want the US Army in Iraq depend on charity, but promote this model for pregnant women without health insurance who can’t afford prenatal care.

@mattbrowne, I agree, but I think it’s deeper. I think the ideology here sees the marketplace not as a manmade, chaotic thing (that’s also completely susceptible to human manipulation), but a kind of deity that justly doles out rewards and punishments. Rich people “deserve” or “earn” their riches, and poor people simply need to work harder and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Sort of like how Calvinists believed that wealthy people were literally being rewarded by God.

It is hard to understate both how pernicious and counterfactual this view of reality is.

@Qingu Excuse my nematocysts. Apparently I must have fired off a few stinging organelles in your direction. Just relax and put some ice on it. The pain won’t last very long. Really I mean no harm.
Good health to you.

@Qingu Thank you for the math lesson. I’m thankful that you are here to help me to see the light (darkness) of liberalism. May the tax man be kind to you.

@ETpro Thanks for explaning for me. I am not advocating that the rich should be getting richer just to be clear. I am just trying to figure out if there is such a thing as a “fair” tax system at all.

@sleepdoc Well, we managed to have hard-working visionaries become millionaires before Reagan was even born, so I think that the answer is “yes”. Granted, the fairest system is likely in between the old ways and what we have now, but that still means that the rich pay more than they currently do.

Another thing to bear in mind here is that the tax system was never really designed to handle the huge incomes we see nowadays. The top tax bracket starts at about $373K, which is less than 1% of what some people earn, and like any other mathematical model, the structure of the tax rates breaks down once you plug in extreme values. So in effect, even those earning $250K-$10M are giving those above them the same free ride that the anti-tax crowd accuses the pro-tax crowd of wanting. The difference is that their free ride means more control and gold-plated toilets for their 16th mansion whereas the “free ride” that the poor want is extended unemployment benefits so that they can get food and shelter in an economy where there are far more unemployed people than there are jobs available.

Just wondering, what would be an appropriate tax bracket for the left-wingers here>

Also, I’ve been looking back at the previous posts, and some you liberals are the biggest bunch of drama queens ever. Nowhere in my posts have I said I wanted no taxes; I just believe that the highest tax rate should not be high, more like 30%. I’ll be interested to see what some of ya’ll we answer to my previous post.

@gondwanalon I have exlained why the allegations you make above are completely false. Despite what I have told you about myself, you seem to “know” everything I say ha to be a lie because it doesn’t fit your ideology. So be it. I see no point in carrying on a conversation with someone who ignoresn what I say and just responds with unfounded and highly inacurate insults. If you knew me well, there are plenty of things wrong with me that you could legitimately take me to task for. But you don’t know me at all and yet seem to think facts are not needed, ideology makes truth. It doesn’t. Facts are what is left over when all our false beliefs and ideologies have failed.

Way back up in this thread, I asked you “The wealthiest 1% have gone from owning 24% of America in 1980 to owning 38% today. How much more do you think they need before they have enough?” You have not answered that. If you would like to debate me, let’s take one point at a time and state our positions on them. If all you do is respoind with insults defining the person you imagine me to be, I will no longer reply.

@sleepdoc I would guess there is no such thing as a fair tax system. Some are fairer than others to be sure,m but no matter how carefully designed and how high minded the designers, there will be some who get hit rather harder than they should and others who catch a lucky break. None of us wants to pay higher taxes. That liberals do is one of the biggest lies today’s conservatives convince themselves of., What I want, as a liberal, is a tax policy that generates sufficient revenues to pay down our ridiculous debt and make the investments in technology, infrastructure and education that will keep our country a world leader into the 21st century and beyond; but that will tax none of us any more than is needed to do that. I would like to see a combination of progressive rate structure and estate tax that lets people get very rich if they have great ideas and work hard, but that avoids a continuous concentration of wealth in the hnds of a timy group of elites who end up the new Feudal lords in a land of peasants living at near starvation levels.

@cletrans2col I am not about to pull a number out of my ass the way you did. Tell me, how do you propose to cut the top rate 5% lower than Bush’s rates and still afford to meet the governments financial obligations? What would you cut? And how many would be homeless and starving if your answer is the same as many people of your mindset?

Given that the wealth distribution is changing constantly and income disparity is far more dramatic than ever, we are going to need more brackets to cover the wide range, but given your 30% number, I question whether you would understand why if I spent a while typing it all out, so I won’t unless/until you tell me what sort of math skills you have particularly calculus and statistics.

I think that the rates on the middle class ($50k-$250k) are actually too high, but they have to be as the top bracket starts at a relatively low figure compared to the incomes of the people causing problems here, hence my belief that we need more brackets.

Beyond that, I await your math credentials before going into detail since I won’t bother typing anything you won’t understand.

@jerv The argument of the GOP that raising taxes on those making $250,000 a year would hurt small businesses has some merit. Not much, mind you, but some. The facts are these. Only 3% of the nation’s small businesses would be impacted at all. Add to that the fact that the GOP definition of “small business” is any business that has 100 or fewer owners. Under that definition, Bechtel Corp. is a small business, even though it is the world’s largest heavy construction company with revenues of over $25 billion last year. But you could easily put in an exception for small businesses (real ones, not Bechtel) and let the Clinton years rate kick back in on all who are not going to have to cut hiring because of the higher tax rate.

@jerv: You sure told me! I’m sure all your internet pals are giving you e-high fives for all that snark.

But to answer your question, I’m sure that there is enough to cut in the budget were it would not be a problem.

”But to answer your question, I’m sure that there is enough to cut in the budget were it would not be a problem.”

@cletrans2col: Perhaps you’re correct. Could you give examples?

@Qingu – Yes, it’s deeper. There are many forms of Christianity from Calvinism to the Franciscan Order that doesn’t believe in accumulating wealth. Ultra-conservative Republicans and the Christian Right rely on a strongly biased interpretation of the Bible to morally justify their worldview. A lot of mainstream Christians in Europe are shocked by this.

@cletrans2col Details. Where are the details? I have yet to see any from your side, merely dogmatic cries of “Trim the pork!”, but never any details. I fyou can’t go there then why should we take you seriously? I mean there is no way you will ever agree with us anyways (even if we say “The sky is blue.”), and you probably won’t even listen unless you want to try and pick us apart.

@ETpro I typed the last comment on my way out the door, so I didn’t get to you. But the way I see it, if we add more brackets above our current top bracket to accommodate those who earn $2M, $5M, etcetera, then we can actually lower taxes on those who only earn $250K, like many successful small business owners.
I believe that hard-working people with good ideas should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor and be rewarded. That is why I am in favor of taxing the super-rich who are rewarded merely for existing, as I believe that busting your ass should get you more than merely sitting on it, and quite honestly, I don’t see how the uber-rich really contribute more than the middle class.

Some will say that someone has to have the money to buy the bonds that fund our municipalities, but I counter that I would rather have 2,000 people buy $10K worth of bonds each than one guy buy $10M worth, but that would require having a larger number of people in a position where they could afford to invest such a sum.

I also know that suply and demand has led to employers underpaying their workers since an underpaid job is still better than none at all; why do you think I only earn about half of what a normal person in my field at my level makes?

And yes, you have to take into account the current economic situation in America, as things like 10% unemployment, lower incomes for most Americans, and rising poverty rates directly affect how much tax revenue we need to take in and how many people can afford to pay how much.That means that you have to also set ideology aside and do some non-partisan math. Numbers don’t lie. History doesn’t either.

@ETpro I don’t know all the answers, or any answers. I don’t mean to insult you or anyone. I like to TRY to inject a little humor and humility into this topic. You make a good point with the rich people owning so much of the U.S.A. You think that taking their wealth away from them and giving it to the IRS is a good thing. I think not as the rich people have more power to generate new jobs that helps the economy. The fact that some people are smart enough and talented enough and hard working enough and lucky enough to amass huge fortunes seems to bother you. I’m OK with that. More power to them I say. But who am I? I’m just a worker bee who knows only my own misfortune. Maybe you are right but perhaps we are both wrong. Human nature and the vast complexes of our government must be some how factored into this convoluted equation. Thank you for you input. You are a very interesting individual.

@gondwanalon This topic tends to make some people (often myself included) lose their sense of humor.

But I think that the point here is that the IRS is just a means to help level the playing field a little bit. How would you feel about giving so much of your paycheck to taxes so that someone 1,000 times richer than you can pay a lower percentage of their vast income? The IRS is a means to make things fair… or to fuck them up entirely.

BTW, one common misconception is that rich people create jobs by investing in companies. Not entirely true. If companies gave their CEOs less, then the companies would have more money to expand and create jobs without the money hanging hands a couple of times to get the same net result. Or maybe they would be able to make the income of average workers like you and I at least keep pace with inflation, if not reward us for continued service by outpacing inflation.

I think everybody on all sides here honestly wants a fair system, but some want a system that is only fair for the elite whereas others want something that is fair for all hard-working Americans, regardless of income.

If anyone is interested in this discussion…

@cletrans2col, I think we should keep tax rates on poor and middle class low, like they are now, and raise the tax rates on 200k earners back to what they were under Clinton. Raise rates on $1mil earners 10% higher than that. $10mil, 10% higher, and so on, until we get to the same marginal tax rates for the super-rich that we had under Nixon and during the 50’s and 60’s, you know, the time of the greatest prosperity and expansion of wealth in American history.

OK this is no joke. Do mind if I spill out my guts? Warning: Are you ready for another conspiracy theory? Well, I’ve got a gut feeling that the foundation of the U.S.A. money system and Wall Street investing is all based on a some sort of a huge investment fraud (Ponzi-like schemes). And the U.S.A. Congress somehow acts as the facilitator. I am no big success story but I’m in very good financial shape. My investments continue to grow while I rake in substantial amounts in dividends. I feel that my job in the healthcare industry is paying more than I’m worth (Thanks to a very powerful labor union). I can’t shake a guilty feeling that I achieved what I have way too easily while I see many poor soles really hurting.

So to lighten my guilt, I give a pass to those who are really big success stories. So there you have it. But who is going to pay for all the monster spending and bills our government has raked up? Some of us say tax the super rich but the problem likely has inoperable cancerous roots that may prove terminal to the U.S.A. economy.

It all reminds me of “Monster”, an old 1970 song from STEPPENWOLF:

The blue and grey they stomped it
. They kicked it just like a dog. 
And when the war over. 
They stuffed it just like a hog
....

And though the past has it’s share of injustice. 
Kind was the spirit in many a way. 
But it’s protectors and friends have been sleeping
. Now it’s a monster and will not obey
...

The spirit was freedom and justice
. And it’s keepers seem generous and kind. 
It’s leaders were supposed to serve the country. 
But now they won’t pay it no mind. 
‘Cause the people grew fat and got lazy
. And now their vote is a meaningless joke
. They babble about law and order
. But it’s all just an echo of what they’ve been told…

Our cities have turned into jungles
. And corruption is stranglin’ the land. 
The police force is watching the people. 
And the people just can’t understand
. We don’t know how to mind our own business. 
‘Cause the whole worlds got to be just like us. 
Now we are fighting a war over there
. No matter who’s the winner. 
We can’t pay the cost…

‘Cause there’s a monster on the loose
. It’s got our heads into a noose. 
And it just sits there watching

....

@gondwanalon You keep coming back to the claim that people being rich bothers me. I have not said this. I do not think it. I have even told you that I am a small business owner trying to become rich. But you seem determined to believe your class warfare fantasy about me in the complete absence of any evidence supporting it. And I said previously, if you are going to debate with your own straw man and ignore what I say I don’t care to carry the conversation.

I also never said we should take all the wealth away from the wealthy. I don;t believe that either. I am trying to get wealthy, and if I do, I think I should be able to stay that way so long as I don’t squander my wealth.

New conservatives seem to be stuck with strictly digital minds. You are either 100% for or 100% against something. If I think we need a bit more progressive tax code to prevent the wealthiest from ending up owning everything, then “obviously” hate the rich and want to take everything away from them. That’s ridiculous. I just want things back more like they were before Reaganomics. The rich did fine then The rich are a valuable class. They just aren;t the only valuable class.

@ETpro These days, if you aren’t 100% for our against something, you are wishy-washy and spineless. The fact that you and I can even see grey makes us weak and immoral in the eyes of some.

@ETpro From what you wrote earlier it SEEMED like you hard a bit of a struggle accepting that rich people have so much money to keep. Excuse me again if I interpreted that wrong.

Our tax laws are insane in its complexity and massiveness. This a far cry (literally) from a simple straw man X,Y,Z situation. Please don’t expect our feuding and corrupt Congress to make things fare.

I realize that this topic is very troubling. But please try to calm yourself. Relax and assume the position and enjoy the ride. After all there is not much that us worker bees can do about any of this colossal mess.

Interesting discussion but there is so much misinformation here it is hard to tell where to start. First for those that think making $250,000.01 won’t change your tax by more that a few cents, get a grip. There are limits on deductions that change as you make more. With out knowing the deductions it is impossible to tell how much change there would be but it is likely to be significant.

Just for the record, the top 10% of income earners pay about 70% of all income tax. I find it interesting that many of the Democrats seem to have no problem with movie stars or sports stars making large sums of money but in business, it needs to be limited. How much was a Sam Walton, Steven Jobs, Bill Gates, or Arthur Blank really worth. These guys all made incredible amounts of money and created millions of jobs. Not to mention many millionaires along the way. And I might mention, they all did it in my lifetime. Do we really want to limit this kind of success?

There seems to be little understanding of how wealth is created or why. The implications of the tax code are both substantial and subtle. When we feel the top income earners should share the wealth, do we understand what really happens? For instance the list of $million incomes changes substantially each year. About 30% will be new names each year. Typically on time earners either through selling a business or cashing in for retirement.

Our inheritance tax has a detrimental affect on our continuity. We all seem to complain about the power and size of corporations but then we encourage corporations to consume more and more of our economy. Corporations don’t die and therefore have no inheritance tax to deal with. If however I die, my business will go to my son. Since he won’t be able to pay the inheritance tax, he will have to sell it, probably to some corporation. Corporations are consuming our economy this way and we continue to scream for higher inheritance taxes to help push this faster. For god’s sake think it through.

Bottom line is, the democrats hate rich people because they honestly believe they make thier money by screwing the poor people. It’s simply not the case. The rich get rich by creating industry, by creating jobs. Why in hell do we want to make that stop?

@Jaxk You are a brave individual to enter into this “discussion”. I concur with all that you wrote above so get ready to defend your conservative reasoning.

I wish that I could convey to @ETpro that if/when his small business gets to be a big business and he has a very good year. Lets say he rakes in $200 million clear, just think what he could do with that money. He could expand his business operations by hiring many more workers, open up a charity fund like Bill Gates, donate to many needy causes etc. On the other hand if the government took the majority of his profits for various wasteful welfare programs designed to keep folks dependent on old Uncle Sugar, then what good comes from that?

@Jaxk Long time, no see! Glad to see you made it, and now I am going to jump right in an ask you to cite your source(s) for a number that is pretty different from any numbers most of is have seen from the IRS our census bureau… or any site that doesn’t continue by claiming that Obama is Muslim.

Well, not to reign on the conservatives congratulating each other for their bravery, but:

• Income tax =/= tax

• Democrats do have a problem with movie stars and sports people making millions of dollars, we want to tax them too.

• Whining about your small business re: the inheritance tax is a bullshit point; only 5% of such businesses are even affected by it. The sheer dishonesty that conservatives display when using “small business!!!11” to shield their fundamental greed is astonishing.

@Jaxk, please walk me through the process of how Steve Jobs or Bill Gates “created millions of jobs.” Step by step. Let’s see if your understanding of how wealth is created holds up.

@Qingu I think it is safe to say that Apple and Microsoft created more jobs than Jobs or Gates, and make enough money to be self-sufficient. Hell, those companies make enough money to pay the sorts of salaries they do and not go bankrupt, so that argument doesn’t fly.

Sure. But that’s not even my point. How do Apple and Microsoft create jobs? As far as I know, these companies and the technology they use didn’t spring into existence out of nothing; the people who work at them don’t teleport to work on company-owned teleporters; the products they sell are not connected through company wires and wireless spectrums to company-owned networks of networks….

@Jaxk I can’t speak fro all Democrats, and I am sure you are right that some begrudge business executives their 7 and 8 figure incomes while applauding the sports heroes and movie stars who earn an equal amount. Just one more time for the record. I don’t hate nayone because they make a lot of money. I think Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are great guys and have done a great deal for the betterment of all Americans. I am discussing tax policy, not personalities. The trickle-down tax policies we instituted in the 1980s have not trickeld down. They are causing wealth disparity to grow disturbingly large. They need to be changed. That has NOTHING to do with the personal integrity of business executives, sports stars or celebrities.

Inheritance taxes need to be indexed to inflation and always allow passing a small business or farm to one’s heirs. But they do need to kick in somewhere shout of $10 million and prohibit generational massive wealth from being passed on. I agree totally with Warren Buffet when he said he wanted to leave his kids “enough money so that they would feel they could do anything, but not so much that they would do nothing.”

@gondwanalon This much, we are both in complete agreement about. “Our tax laws are insane in its complexity and massiveness. This a far cry (literally) from a simple straw man X,Y,Z situation. Please don’t expect our feuding and corrupt Congress to make things fare.”

There are many wealthy Democrats. Just sayin’.

My ex-husbands grandfather was a self-made multi-millionaire, and a die-hard liberal. I don’t think hating rich people for being rich comes into play, here.

@Qingu I think we are mis-communicating here.

@jerv
You’re really reaching with your Muslim argument. I can’t for the life of me understand where that pertains. The tax receipts are the tax receipts. If you have contrary figures, I suggest you post them (please don’t make me argue with the Huffington post) and I will show you how they are skewed.

As for how Steve Jobs and the rest of the people I named created jobs, I’m really amazed that you don’t understand how jobs are created. These guys were entrepreneurs. They started companies that filled a need where none existed before. They assembled venture capital, created products, and hired people to make and sell those products. They created a business where none existed before and did it with their own ingenuity. When Fred Smith came up with the idea for Federal Express, he wrote a business plan in college. He got a ‘C’ on that paper and no one believed it would work. FedEx is now a $32 Billion business and he created it from scratch. He took chances and risked everything to make it happen. Even to the point that he went to Las Vegas and gambled to make payroll at one point. Quite an inspiring story. But for every story like his there are a thousand that didn’t make it and lost everything. If I understand the Democratic philosophy, they would take from Fred and redistribute to all those that couldn’t or didn’t make it. Kind of level the income field.

Mark Levine (I think) did a comparison with someone earning $14.5K and someone earning $60K. As it turns out the person making $14.5K is entitled to about $35K in government subsidies (rent subsidies, food stamps, health care, etc. etc.). The person making $60K is entitled to nothing. Effectively level the income at $60K. I think we are out of control.

Lowering taxes does not create debt. Spending creates debt. And just for the record, if anyone doesn’t have a problem with the salaries in sports or entertainment, then denounce the Salary Czar.

@Jaxk That remark was a dig at the Far Right extremists who are detached from reality and make up their own facts as opposed to using actual facts and merely viewing it through an ideological lens.
I agree that the Huffington Post is biased; that is why I fact-check, and in this instance, the US government themselves posts data that I feel I can trust. (I can’t post the links right now since my phone is rather limited compared to my home computer, but I’ll get them when I have a moment.)

As for your wanting to richly reward the entrepreneurs as being the “first cause”, by that logic you should reward the market as a whole for creating the demand. I don’t buy the “right idea at the right time“argument, and wish I could be more eloquent as to why.

Besides,i think you misunderstand; I think that most will agree that we don’t want total wealth redistribution, just enough so that everyone can live on without government assistance. If you can fight your way into a mansion and a fleet of luxury cars then great, but you shouldn’t have to fight for three hots and a cot like millions of Americans must.

@jerv

I totally disagree. You must fight for everything. I don’t see much of a future for either the country nor the individuals that receive a comfortable (or even sparse) living by doing nothing. Hell, even socialism requires you to contribute, from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs. You want to eliminate the risk and limit the rewards. That’s the result of income redistribution and it’s what the democrats have been pushing. When you limit the rewards, you reduce innovation. When you eliminate the risk, you create wild ineffective speculation. Every plan has an upside and a downside. When you give people something for nothing, they neither appreciate it nor feel compelled to repay it.

And just for the sake of clarity, I don’t want to reward anyone for their entrepreneurial activities. I just don’t feel obligated to penalize them either.

@ETpro

I would also agree with Buffet that he should leave his kids enough to do anything but not enough to do nothing. The problem I have is who gets to decide? You, me, the President, congress. It’s awfully easy to tell other people how much they need.

As for the inheritance tax, a $10 million farm in the midwest is not all that large. And may not be producing a huge annual income for the owner. But once you make the kid that worked the farm his whole life, pay half the value in inheritance tax, it’s gone. Probably sold to some large agricultural corporation. But at least we could create another government bureaucracy with the money. Maybe to study why we are losing family farms in the US. A department that is sorely needed because the idiots in congress sure can’t figure it out.

I was not aware that millions of jobs sprung fully-formed out of the brains of entrepreneurs. I think you maybe left out some steps?

And please cite the Levin thing because Lord knows you’ve mis-cited figures before.

@Qingu

I am afraid that time and space limit the explanation. If you don’t understand how business works, I have a garage full of business, management, and economics books from my past life. Maybe I could send them to you.

As for the Levine comment, it was on the radio. Would you like me to send you one? And if you think I misquote figures, I’m afraid you’ll have to back that up. I do a lot of research before posting anything.

I understand how business works. Do you understand that businesses are built on infrastructure?

I’m glad you do a lot of research, but as recently as yesterday you posted something about inheritance taxes (that they would penalize people passing on their small businesses to their kids) that was almost complete bullshit, so pardon me for being skeptical.

@Jaxk By your logic, most of the country should give up now. I am not advocating free rides for all, but if you are against living wages for the working class then there is no chance of us seeing eye to eye. I don’t like giving handouts to the lazy any more than you do, but I think that those who are willing and able to work should be treated fairly

Maybe you misread my use of the word “fight” as “work”?

@Qingu

You seem to think that saying “nah uh” somehow gives your argument weight. If you think it was bullshit it would seem that you have an obligation to say why. As for the Mark Levine show, I looked it up. Here is the reference he used.

Currently the Estate Tax (inheritance tax, death tax) goes to 55% of anything over $1 million as of Jan 1, 2011. Do you disagree?

@jerv

I have no problem with a living wage. I don’t know where you get this stuff. I also don’t know what you consider a living wage nor what you think it takes to get one. I further have trouble with this issue of being treated fairly. Who exactly is not being treated fairly (a very subjective argument). Is it your contention that everyone, working or not, should receive this “fair”, “living wage”?

And yes I do read the comment ‘fighting’ as ‘working’. Why would you think that high earners fight for their money while low earners work for their money? Does this say something about your attitude?

I cited an article explaining why. It only applies to 5% of small businesses.

Mark Levin is not a valid source. He is a conservative commentator (and a moron). Likewise for “Tyler Durden.”

I googled around for Wyatt Emmerich of the Cleveland Current. So this is your source:

“The Cleveland Current is a weekly newspaper published on Sunday mornings that is distributed in Cleveland and Bolivar County, Mississippi.”

Truly journalism at its finest.

The article also makes several weird assumptions; that the poorest column has a third as much childcare cost (wtf?), that the poorer people would take advantage of every single deduction and program available to them and the wealthier people would take advantage of nothing, that food stamps, utility benefits, etc, and other non-liquid benefits (with notable costs in time and opportunity) are equivalent to take-home pay.

You need to stop getting your news from talk radio.

I’m also curious as to what alternative you’re proposing.

Like, do you want to get rid of the school lunch program? Starve poor children so as to incentivize their parents to work harder? Or are you advocating for extending school lunch programs to people making 6-figures?

@Qingu

So you don’t like the source. Understandable since it contradicts your preconceived notion of the world. Still it doesn’t change the facts. This money is available to those that make $14.5K and it is not available to those that make $60K. and it provides compensation to bring the low earners up to the same or better income of the $60k family. I’m not sure why you wanted the source if you already know you’re going to discount it. Hell you could have done that with your comment about Levine. By all means don’t address the issue, belittle the person.

As for your alternative, I believe everyone should work for what they get. Handouts don’t provide incentive they kill it. Afterall, why should some rich kid get a new Mercedes for their 16th birthday and poor kids don’t even get a bicycle. Hell we should by them BMW or at least a Chevrolet. Hell if we can’t afford it, we’ll just borrow it.

Sorry I got carried away with my last post. We can’t buy them a BMW or just any Chevrolet. It must be a Volt or some similar ‘Green’ car.

I don’t like the source because it is talk radio, citing a weekly newspaper from rural Mississippi, which in turn does not even cite its figures.

If I cited the Daily Kos, quoting from The Weekly Vancouver Chronicle, you presumably would be skeptical—and for good reason. Not all sources are created equal.

You failed to address anything I said. You failed to acknowledge that the chart—even if we accept it as factual, which I am not ready to do—has the bizarre assumptions I listed, you failed to acknowledget he fundamental difference between a liquid asset (like take-home pay) and an illiquid asset (like food stamps) ... you said “people should work for what they get,” well, in America, it is illegal for kids to work. I asked what should be done about the school lunch program, which was cited in your source as an example of liberal tyranny.

Are you interested in having a back-and-forth discussion about this or are you just going to recite talking points?

Just to be clear: I agree with you that the government should incentivize work.

The problem is that this is a trivial position. Of course the government should incentivize work. tHe question is how in the hell do you get there without fucking over people who are out of work through no fault of their own. Economic darwinism that you’re advocating has not been kind to such people.

@Qingu

Actually you didn’t read what I wrote. I said that the person making $14.5 was ENTITLED to about $35K in handouts. Not that they took them. The real problem here is that those that are OK with not working, OK with taking the handouts, know about all the government giveaways. Many don’t know and consequently don’t get them. We have created a system where those that want to manipulate the system are given free reign to do so. Those that really need the help don’t always get it. But we use them to create even more entitlements.

Through our compassionate bleeding hearts, we continue to make it easier and easier to game the system. You don’t have to go and get your unemployment we’ll mail it to you every week. You don’t have to get real food stamps we’ll give you a credit card. Each step we take to make this easier, only makes it easier to game the system. That’s why we find welfare credit cards being used in Las Vegas and Hawaii. And if your at or below the poverty level, what incentive do you have to go to work if you can make up to $60K without doing so?

Currently we tax at ever increasing levels those that are most productive and subsidize those that are the least productive. If you tax something, you get less of it. If you subsidize something you get more of it.

@Jaxk The only reason I am remotely okay with people not working is that the unemployment figures the last few years have been ridiculous, especially if you look at the U6 numbers, which tend to be approximately double the “official” (or U3) figures. There hasn’t been nearly as much job creation as one who honestly believes that giving the rich more money creates jobs would expect, which tells me that it takes more than giving the rich more money to invest to create jobs. Last I checked, there were about six unemployed people for every opening, and a rather disappointing number of “ninety-niners”, many of whom are actually still looking for a job, and many millions who are totally S.O.L. due to expired/exhausted benefits without any jobs in sight.

If there were enough jobs for all of those who wanted one to get one (even if it’s a minimum wage “shit job”) then my thinking would be more in line with yours there. However, we are in a rather extraordinary situation at the moment, so I am a bit more lenient than I would otherwise be.

Besides, as I’ve said before, in no way am I for giving people a free ride. I drive a $300 Toyota for a reason, and I bust (and risk!) my ass for what little I have. Unlike many Americans, I actually do earn enough to have to pay income tax, and even I have a bit of trouble keeping a modest roof over my head and food on my table sometimes. I generally go into discussions such as this looking at the tens of millions that have it rougher than I do through no fault of their own; the very types that many say choose to be that bad off.

Do we agree that anybody who is capable of working should work if there is a job available that they are able to do? Would you be opposed to throwing them a little hand-up like, say, a pair of steel-toed boots bought at taxpayer expense so that they can take a job that requires them and then turn around and earn an income that generates more tax revenue? I get the feeling that we may not be quite as far apart as you think.

As for your argument about incentive to work, I think you are making examples out of the worst cases, the type of people that would never work at all, and painting everybody with the same brush there. I know quite a few people personally myself included that literally lost or are losing their minds as a result of not working. I don’t want to turn this into a discussion about the effects of clinical depression or anything like that; I just want to tell you that you are wrong about that. And even if you were entirely right, I would think that the potential for prosecution would dissuade at least some of them. I am cynical as hell, and even I think that there are more honest, law-abiding people than you seem to think.

You are correct that we tax the upper brackets at ever increasing rates, but you may also want to mention that they are receiving an ever increasing percentage of the income as well. And as more and more people slide down the economic ladder that situation will only get worse, so in effect, the rich are causing their own pain there.

As for the rich being the most productive. that could cause a whole shit-storm right there. If having an idea is all it takes to be considered “productive” then we have a lot more people out there that deserve to be multi-millionaires. If being born to the right parents is all it takes, well, that is a whole other can of worms. I think that your definition of “productive” is one that measures the worth of a human being solely by their net worth, and I hope you prove me wrong on that.

I agree that if you subsidize something, you get more of it though. How about subsidizing hard-working Americans so that we can buy the goods/services that the fat-cats had the ideas for? And hey, if the top tiers earn a smaller percentage of the income, then there will be an excuse to shift the burden down to the lower brackets, so it would be a self-generating tax cut for the rich!

As for the fight versus work thing, I think we agree that it takes more work to become a multi-millionaire than it does to merely survive, and that is as it should be. My point is that you shouldn’t have to put the same amount of effort into getting basic necessities as Fred Smith did to get FedEx going either, but it seems that it’s getting that way. It used to be that working 40–45 hours a week would at least allow you to get by, even if not comfortably, but those days are vanishing fast.

@jerv

I think you’re right in that we’re not at opposite ends of the scale on these things. The problem always comes when you try to talk degrees. For instance, let me pick apart your sentence:

“There hasn’t been nearly as much job creation as one who honestly believes that giving the rich more money creates jobs would expect, which tells me that it takes more than giving the rich more money to invest to create jobs.”

First, you’re not giving the rich anything by not raising taxes. I didn’t rob your house today so how much did I give you by not doing it? If you don’t take something away, that doesn’t mean you gave them something. As for job creation, you’re right, there has not been as much as there should be. We spent almost a $trillion on stimulus to do just that and got very little (if anything) for it. There were too many actions that were counter productive. Takeovers of GM and Chrysler. The deal that screwed bond holders and rewarded unions. That created a chilling effect for investment. The incredible debt brought on by the spending has also chilled both business and the public. No one wants to spend when they don’t have confidence that they’ll survive the next drop. We’ve forced banks to hold more cash (right or wrong), that means they are not able to lend as much (and with the financial regulation), as cheaply. Not to mention energy regulation hanging over everybody’s head and what will that cost. And let’s not forget health care and what that will cost. Who would invest in their business with all this hanging over their head. Most will horde their cash and not surprisingly, that’s what their doing. Both business and the public.

The incentive to work is a complicated issue. I have no problem agreeing that many would like a job and can’t find one. I also know that many could find one but see no reason to take a position below where they were before. After two years of unemployment you learn to live on that salary, so why work.

As for the rich being the most productive, not strictly so. My point was that those working were the most productive, those not working are the least productive. The point you miss on the entrepreneurs, is the risk and the ideas. Who doesn’t know someone that says “I had that idea before Jobs (or some other so and so)”. it’s not just having the idea but actually putting it into practice. And having the guts/faith/cojones to risk everything on that idea. When Jobs or Smith did this they not only got rich but they made everyone around them rich as well. The engineers that helped build it hell even the secretary. Because they were willing to take a chance on that idea, work long hours to create the product, and quite often work for small or non existent salaries. The founder risked the most and got the most reward.

“And hey, if the top tiers earn a smaller percentage of the income, then there will be an excuse to shift the burden down to the lower brackets, so it would be a self-generating tax cut for the rich!”

So your idea is to take the money from the high income earners so that they will be in a lower income bracket with everyone else and that way they get lower taxes. Think it through!

One last point. Job postings have been rising. The problem is they are not getting filled. We’re still short of sufficient jobs but if job posting are rising, why isn’t unemployment falling? There are a number of reasons that all pertain.

1. Unemployment is delaying the those able to take a job but decide to wait while they’re still being paid. Some economists estimate this adds about 1% to the unemployment figure.

2. Jobs are open in areas where unemployment is low but the workers are in other areas. Moving to take a job is more difficult especially if you have a mortgage that is under water. Worker mobility has been especially low in this recession.

3. Job skills required don’t match the skills of the unemployed. For instance an unemployed construction worker is a poor candidate for health care or high tech. If you want to help, provide training rather than money. Some where, some time the unemployment check has to run out. By simply sending a check every week, we’re not solving anything.

Sorry for being so windy.

@Jaxk I have no issue with being windy as long as you are coherent.

My idea wasn’t to put the rich into lower brackets; it was to free up enough money to put more people in higher brackets. Taxes are a bad way to do what a free market should be doing itself though, so I wish there were a better way to get companies to invest in themselves rather than in their executives. There is a graph and a few other related thoughts in my head that I wish I could explain, but it’s been a long day so I am not exactly in top form.

You make a valid point about worker mobility and skills. I myself moved cross-country because my main skill was in higher demand and paying better here than in NH, at least when I bought my plane tickets. Now, demand for machinists is a bit low, the local market flooded, and I am earning about half of what I would have made had I had better luck with my timing. Still, out beats the hell out of collecting unemployment which was about 60% of what I currently earn like I was for over a year, and returning to work improved my mental health greatly. C’est la vie.

Sadly, many of the jobs I saw when I was unemployed may seem like anyone can do them but I lack the skills for. Most of them involve some form of customer service, and that is honestly harder for me than calculating the proper feeds and speeds for a carbide cutter going into a hunk of 15–4 alloy.
But the biggest issue was mobility; how far would you commute for only $10/hr, especially in urban gridlock with gas in the $3.50/gallon range? I got lucky by finding something only 25 miles away, so I can earn my daily gas money back in under an hour.

@Jaxk It is in nation’s best interest to avoid concentration of all wealth in the hands of a tiny oligarchy. THerefore, our elected representatives get to decide where to place the estate tax limit and what percentage it should be. I completely agree with you that entrepreneurs provide jobs and things of worth. I agree they should reap a healthy benefit from that. But I would remind you that people were able to make millions and build huge commercial enterprises before Reaganomics went into effect. Howard Hughes did pretty well for himself.

I’m very open to rational debate about how taxes should be structured and where we could reduce spending to reduce the need for high taxes. But I am not open to a tax policy that is rapidly transferring the wealth of the nation to the richest 1%, many of whom are already multibillionaires. In the 30 years since Reaganomics went into effect, the wealthiest 1% have increased their hold on the nation’s wealth from 25% to 38% and the curve is climbing logarithmically. This is not good for America. It’s not good for your small business or for mine. It’s only good for those at the very top, and their water carriers whom they reward for blessing them.

@ETpro

I have seen those numbers on the wealth before. The problem is I can’t verify since they never tell you what they are measuring or how. How much is owned by corporations or foriegn investors. And the crucial point is how do you change that if you believe it is a problem. We know that more and more of America is being bought up by foriegn investors, how does the Estate tax fix that problem?

When assets are inherited, only a small portion of that is cash. Most is in real estate or stocks/bonds or maybe a business. When you tax that at a high rate, the heirs generally have to sell some or all of the assets to pay the taxes. Those assets when sold get bought by corporations, foriegn investors, or the rich. As the smaller guys get sold to pay the taxes, you wind up concentrating even more of the nations wealth into fewer hands.

Even if you think the government taking that money to redistribute to the masses is a good thing, it doesn’t address your stated issue. Or worse, it moves the ownership out of the country. If I died and left my business to my heirs, they would have to sell it to pay the property tax. Who do you suppose would buy it. the homeless guy that has nothing or the businessman that already owns several businesses like it? And to make matters worse, it would likely be a fire sale (the government doesn’t like to wait for their money) so the rich get a better deal and buy it below market value. Hell, you’re making the problem worse not better.

@Jaxk Would your example be different if there were a middle ground between the bum and the business tycoon? Like maybe some young optimist with just enough money to pick up your former business and make their first million?
Also, I think we are overlooking how many estates really get gutted by the estate tax. Face it, most Americans aren’t really worth much. Hell, many of us aren’t worth enough to even leverage a loan to invest in our own country!

@jerv The young optimist is an unlikely scenario but to answer the question, no I would have no problem with that. I would still have a problem with the fire sale aspect, typical business sales of similar businesses take about two years to consummate. Therefore my heirs lose significant value in the need for quick cash. And it doesn’t change my main issue which is I would like to have my son inherit the business to provide him a chance to be his own boss.

As for your issue of how many are affected there is an article here that gives a reasonable history of the estate tax. It turns out that most years only about 2% of all estates fall into the taxable category. It peaked in 1976 at about 8% when they changed the estate/gift tax laws.

@Jaxk… I would be interested in hearing your vision of a fair tax system. If you feel that the climate of the discussion on the page would allow it.

@Jaxk, I agree that people gaming the welfare system is a problem.

I disagree on the scale of this problem, relative to other problems facing this nation. For example, I think a bigger problem with our country is that financial institutions can game their own little system by subsidizing their risks and claiming every cent of rewards; that a self-interested, secretive cabal essentially controls the huge derivatives market. Unlike your problem with welfare, this problem caused a massive recession.

I also have a problem with wealthy oligarchs who spend billions of dollars electing politicians with the expectation that the politicians will cut their taxes, because this is simply bribery.

@sleepdoc

Good point and it gets complicated. First I would do nothing right now. Extend the existing tax rates and give the economy a bit of stability. Moving to a Flat tax or a consumption tax right now would through way to much confusion and uncertainty into the market. Change can be a great thing but even the best, well thought out changes cause disruption. If you’ve ever gone through a massive change at work, maybe new computer systems or massive automation, you know the first thing that happens is that everything slows down while you learn the new systems.

Whether you Republican or Democrat, Liberal or Conservative, you have to know we’ve gone through massive changes in the past two years. Health Care, Bailouts, Takeovers, Financial Reform, Cap N Trade, the Green Agenda, all contribute to the uncertainty and are in a large part responsible for the continued slowdown. Individuals are saving rather than spending. Business likewise is saving, almost $2 trillion on the sidelines. We need some stability and predictability in the economy.

Once we have that, I favor a consumption tax. Not in addition to the income but a replacement for it. Disband the IRS. Basically, a national sales tax. Foodstuffs would be exempt. I’m leery about housing since a sales tax on homes would hit the housing market hard in the beginning and mobility would be impacted but I think it would settle out over time. The numbers being kicked around are somewhere in the 17–18% range. You can find a reasonable explanation here

What would you do about the inevitable and giant black market that would quickly emerge?

@Jaxk A very interesting idea.

The thing that aggrivates me most about this when I try to figure out what the heck in going on is the disconnect between spending and available funds. So often they are dealt with by the US government in mutually separate fashions that it drives me crazy. There are too many analogies to grasp at here, but I can’t even fathom approaching my financial responsibilities they way the government does.

@Jaxk If we can get a consumption tax in place that is not totally regressive then that could be good. The Devil is in the details.

Consumption taxes are inherently regressive, though. Poor people spend far more of their income than rich people.

Did I forget my sarcasm tags again? D’oh!

Then again, I already pay what is for all practical purposes a consumption tax; most things I buy have 9.5% tax nailed on. Some think that setting a limit and only taxing purchases in excess of, say, $30k/yr would eliminate that, but the fact remains that the rich spend less of their income than most people, so it would still hit the middle class hardest.

The sales tax is not really regressive if you measure it over a life time. The article I posted explains this. Also if you exclude basic food stuff, you eliminate most of the disparity.

@Qingu – The black market would be dealt with the same way it is now. Liquor, cigarettes, drugs all have the problem currently.

@sleepdoc – Any tax scheme doesn’t address the drunken sailor spending we see out of congress. You would still need to get control over the spending.

@Jaxk I can see a few problems there, and that is without getting into the issues of transition.

BTW, how many people these days are even able to retire? That is a luxury that few can really afford.

More later when I have a full computer in front of me.

@jerv

According to census figures there are 33 million retired people and still growing

@Jaxk There are certain right-wing code words that are sure-fire ways to avoid even talking about an issue constructively., Redistribution is one of those. The redistribution that is going on right now is going upward, not downward. Our poor are nto poor because they have so much money. And the number of the poor has grown dramatically. The US Government keeps as good statistica as it is reasonable to keep on whealth and who owns it. Throwing all meansurements out the window because y9ou aren’t personally sure thay are accurate enough seems strange. Are you thne cure that whatever enters into your own head is far more accurate, and should be adopted by the whoe country as a guiding light for public policy? Why not what enters into my head instead. I think my thoughts are better. @jerv probably trusts his moe than he does yours or mine.

Foreign ownership would not have an effect on the IRS figures on the wealthiest 1% of Americans. I agree that the increasing foreign ownership of US property and business is disturbing. That’s a problem that could and should be addressed by tax regulations. But it is no explanation of the growing disparity of wealth, and the growth of poverty here.

@ETpro

A complete misread of my point. Unless you know what makes up those numbers, you can’t possibly figure out how to fix it. You all love to throw out these numbers and then bash the group you dislike the most and call it fixing the problem.

Here’s my problem. If you owned a property in Manhattan, it may has increased in value 1,000 fold over the past 30 years. If you owned a property in Kentucky, it may have doubled in the past 30 years. Is that the reason for the widening gap or merely a piece of it. If you don’t understand where the numbers come from or how they were created, you can’t address the problem. Hell you can’t define the problem. You don’t even know if it is a problem.

@Jaxk The 38% quoted is from Hurst Social Inequality : Forms, Causes, and Consequences, 7th Edition page 34. I have found similar numbers on multiple sites, some of them US Government statistical reviews. The numbers over time are indeed hard to find. This article on Slate.com states sources and is careful to work in inflation adjusted dollars. However difficult getting at the numbers may be, it is a worthwhile endeavor because it tells us a great deal about where we are heading. Certainly, you couldn’t[‘t find many Americans who would like the country to become more like Haiti, with a handful of fabulously wealthy families that have always held the wealth, and the vast population living in abject poverty. So I refuse to ignore what the statistics clearly show because real estate has gained far more in vlaue in Manhattan than in Memphis.