And the rich get richer... by Niki2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Sorry Geezer, I reject your argument. A LOT of those got rich by hedge funds and playing the market...that's not work. Look at the disparity in salaries between Wall Street and the rest of the country.

Either way, you know, they would still have a tax break for the first $250 thousand they make. I can't believe you actually want to give them the tax break, and add another $700 billion to the national debt! That's amazing to me.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 2:01 PM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Sorry Geezer, I reject your argument. A LOT of those got rich by hedge funds and playing the market...that's not work. Look at the disparity in salaries between Wall Street and the rest of the country.

Either way, you know, they would still have a tax break for the first $250 thousand they make. I can't believe you actually want to give them the tax break, and add another $700 billion to the national debt! That's amazing to me.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

Well, if it is so easy, why don't you do it? Most Hedge funds lose money historically compared to most investments. But go ahead risk some of your hard earned money instead of wasting it on pot.

Going down to the pub to gamble $1000 on the Uconn game and drink 5 or 6 Jim Beams...life is grand.

I think, if the game goes my way, I'll throw a hundred dollar bill out of the window for you.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 2:19 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Let's give those multi-millionaires their tax break; they need it SO much more than the rest of us."
"A LOT of those got rich by hedge funds and playing the market...that's not work."

Hello,

I hear these arguments a great deal, and they always lose me.

It implies:

A) If you have more money than I think you should, then I should be allowed to take it.
B) If I don't value what you do to earn money, then I should be allowed to take it.

Talk to me about tax equality, and you'll have my ear.

Say something like, "Nobody pays taxes on the first $25,000 they earn, and then they pay a flat 10% tax on all earnings after that," and I'll be listening.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 2:47 PM

WHOZIT

...and NIKI's butt gets bigger

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 2:51 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"...and NIKI's butt gets bigger"

Hello,

I don't think your fixation on Niki's body parts is germaine to the discussion.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 3:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I don't think your fixation on Niki's body parts is germaine to the discussion.

ROFLMAO!!!

You're a gem, Anthony. You're a gem.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 6:48 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Let's give those multi-millionaires their tax break; they need it SO much more than the rest of us."
"A LOT of those got rich by hedge funds and playing the market...that's not work."

Hello,

I hear these arguments a great deal, and they always lose me.

It implies:

A) If you have more money than I think you should, then I should be allowed to take it.
B) If I don't value what you do to earn money, then I should be allowed to take it.

Talk to me about tax equality, and you'll have my ear.

Say something like, "Nobody pays taxes on the first $25,000 they earn, and then they pay a flat 10% tax on all earnings after that," and I'll be listening.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

I'll be happy to talk to you about tax equality, but you have to include ALL forms of income. Inheritance, capital gains, stocks, stock options, bonuses, etc.

The hedge fund managers who are making multi-millions aren't getting that money as "income" - they get it as "capital gains", taxed at the much lower 15% rate instead of the current top rate of 35%.

If we're going to talk "equality" in taxation, let's really talk EQUALITY.

Also, let's extend that Social Security payroll tax to ALL wages while we're at it, instead of the current system which caps out at 5.2% up to $106,800 - and not a penny on earnings beyond that.

But a funny thing happens every time I bring it up: "lefties" tend to say "HELL YEAH!", and "conservatives" who claim they want a "fair tax" or "flat tax" tend to disappear.

One might begin to get the idea that they don't really want to discuss real equality in taxation at all.

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 6:57 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I am very, very interested in tax equality.

I won't disappear.

I am willing to posit that some taxation may be necessary to maintain government (although the level of government each of us is comfortable with is likely a matter for future debate.)

If we continue on the premise that Income shall be taxed, then I agree that all income should be treated equally for this purpose. One universal rule for all taxpayers.

If we agree that Social Security is to be compulsory (I don't agree with this, but I am allowing it to be the basis of argument) then we must discuss how the benefits scale.

If the benefits scale infinitely, then the donation rate should not be limited. If the benefits cap, then the donation rate should cap.

Social Security is, after all, an investment I make in my own future.

Does that sound fair?

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 5:32 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Sorry Geezer, I reject your argument. A LOT of those got rich by hedge funds and playing the market...that's not work. Look at the disparity in salaries between Wall Street and the rest of the country.

This seems to me to be another example of Jon Stewart's "Bush as war criminal" comment in another thread you started. It just kills any chance of having a discussion. You have no idea how folks who make, say, $250,000 a year or more make their money, but you BELIEVE it has to be Wall St sharks and Hedge Fund cheaters to the point you'll accept no other opinions. Sort'a precludes any response.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 5:53 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

And the rich get richer...

Yeah? So? I fail to see the point of this thread.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 6:01 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Sorry Geezer, I reject your argument. A LOT of those got rich by hedge funds and playing the market...that's not work. Look at the disparity in salaries between Wall Street and the rest of the country.

Either way, you know, they would still have a tax break for the first $250 thousand they make. I can't believe you actually want to give them the tax break, and add another $700 billion to the national debt! That's amazing to me.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

Well, if it is so easy, why don't you do it? Most Hedge funds lose money historically compared to most investments. But go ahead risk some of your hard earned money instead of wasting it on pot.

Going down to the pub to gamble $1000 on the Uconn game and drink 5 or 6 Jim Beams...life is grand.

I think, if the game goes my way, I'll throw a hundred dollar bill out of the window for you.

Uconn made me richer last night. I did not throw $100 out the window, however I did buy the bar a shot. Freedom baby freedom. I'm thinking of doubling up tonight. Maybe a half and half par. Or should I go to Mohegan Sun and throw some dice? Hmmmmmm.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 6:11 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Half of all jobs come from small businesses, and half of all small businesses fall into what Liberals call "the rich." As was stated above, "the rich" pay a huge chunk of the taxes in America, while 50% of Americans pay no Federal taxes at all. That is fundamentally unfair and socialistic, but it's also suicide for the country to keep driving "the rich" and their businesses and their jobs overseas. Want to make the big bucks like they do on Wall Street? Then go apply for a job there. Of course you'll need education and experience, and some luck, but hey, go for it. Just stop whining about it and demanding to take their money.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 7:36 AM

That just isn't what has happened at all Jong. Every time the rich have gotten a huge tax break, they've used that money to send more jobs overseas. We used to have tarrifs. We used to have an economic powerbase that would have enticed employers to create jobs here just for a good piece of that action. We have instead let them destroy the middle class by not investing in it any more.

It used to be that companies would hire people and then teach them the skills they needed to do the job. I remember watching Bill Gates in front of congress years ago explaining to them and us how essential it was for them to create more work visas in the field because there weren't enough qualified americanswhich i've also heard was bs, but even if it had been true, wouldn't it suggest that maybe these multimillion dollar companies should invest in our infrastructure a bit?

Also not true about who we claim are small business. You should actually take a look at the companies that happily claim they are small businesses...household names, juggernauts...its absolutely the other way around.

Auraptor...."so?"

So you think its cool that we are all supposed to be born into a game of monopoly where everything is already owned by 5 people. The board is finite, or nearly so. If a few people have everything, and aren't parting with it, but millions are playing(indeed there's not even an estate tax to support the American vision of meritocracy vs aristocracy any more and we have created our own defacto royalty), then what are the rest of us even playing for?

To scrape by. To survive. the American dream is getting less and less practical, upward economic mobility is the exception...downward trend, the rule. In the mean time the companies that have implored us that what they need are tax breaks so that they can employ more people here in this country have posted record profits in the last quarter. They didn't need record profits to survive. Their claim has always been a lie. They would have done fine, they would have continued on successfully, and the rest of us would have gotten a little piece of the pie for our work as well.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 8:00 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Weird. You don't care about the deficit, apparently. You want to "burden our grandchildren" with another 700 billion so that the rich can get richer, eh?

What Mike said, and especially what Righteous said. What they call "small business" isn't small; I've posted about that before. It's a misnomer used to benefit huge corporations which end up paying little or NO taxes at all.

Plus, when a President gives tax cuts which benefit the rich more than the rest of us, is THAT fair? And what's wrong with, when those tax cuts expire, returning them to the pre-gimmie level for the rich, since they disproportionately benefitted for 10 years?

Also, what about loopholes and off-shore and the other ways the rich keep more of their money than the rest of us? I asked that question before and was told well, I could take the same tax benefits; but most of us don't have the MONEY to invest. As the saying goes, you gotta HAVE more to KEEP more.

So how are those fair, exactly? I know you guys don't like taxes, but me, I have no problem paying mine, and think they should be fair. It's not about "you've got more, give me less", it's that they have more ways to MAKE and KEEP what they get than we do, and that's not fair.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 8:27 AM

Hi Antony,

I think tax equality is a reasonable goal, but it seems like we see what that would be entirely differently. I would argue that the rich are taxed disproportionately now, on the low side.
I would do that because they get the lionshare of benefits from our government and infrastructure.

The rich get more use of the roads and bridges, it is their products being moved on them, whether they own stock or the company.

The rich get more use out of our legal system, from the courts to the cops on the ground. They have more assets to protect, more stores, and you should see how blazing fast a cop gets to a big store in the event of a call.

The rich have the hold on our government, and direct control over laws and policies. Our politicians are bought, and the more disposable millions the rich have, the more entrenched that financial mechanic will become. Nobody is fighting very hard for campaign finance reform to get money out of the process any more, and nobody in Washington is likely to pick up that fight. That of course is also why the rich aren't likely to pay any more taxes any time soon, but it certainly isn't why they shouldn't.

The rich have clearly benefitted more from our economic system. It is popular to say that their success could have only happened in America. If that were true, I would certainly expect that given their great success because of our system, they would owe more back to it. This by the way, takes nothing away from their own success. Success is good, and success is still absolutely rewarding, and the tax rates that have been suggested (and used to be in place..in good times) would never make people not want to be successful...

And even if, according to capitalism, we decided that the rich didn't have an obligation to give back a significant portion of what they make, I would argue that the American organism would and is dying under the stinginess.

I picture the economy somewhat like the hydrologic cycle. The clouds should pour. The ground should feed, and the water should evaporate, it always does, back up into the clouds. If there were just a few gods up there sticking their straws into the clouds and drinking deeply, maybe jostling them a bit, causing some "trickles," most of the earth's ecosystem would die.

As to social security, mismanagement aside, and it doesn't matter what we give the government, there is always a 50 percent chance of that, the system has been a success. It has absolutely changed the percentage of impoverished seniors for the better. The rich have the money and can afford to help make the safety net solvent, again, because they have benefited exponentially more than the rest of us for the system our nation has provided. Again, that doesn't mean they weren't a significant part of their own success, just that America was the bigger part.

I also believe that social security might have a positive side-effect of keeping essential products lower in cost. I know that people don't think the government should have a say in forcing us to save our own money, that as responsible adults we should not be nannied into doing the smart thing and saving on our own terms. I would first disagree with this by saying that we are the government, inso much as we vote for our representatives, and that we as a whole are happy with our social security, meaning WE choose to have this piggy bank.

I would also suggest, theoreticaly, since I haven't done any research on this, and also because I'm not an economics major, that by skimming a certain amount of our spendable monthly or yearly earnings off the top, costs for essential goods stay lower. If that were not taken off the top, whether we were responsible savers or not, those who weren't saving would drive up the costs for all of us in proportion to increased demand. Those savings that we wanted to put aside would less of a reality.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 8:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
If we continue on the premise that Income shall be taxed, then I agree that all income should be treated equally for this purpose. One universal rule for all taxpayers.

I liked the gist of the Fair Tax Act.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

Quote:
The FairTax:

* Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
* Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
* Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
* Allows American products to compete fairly
* Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
* Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
* Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
* Abolishes the IRS

No legal loopholes. No legal tax cheating. The KISS rule allows for maximum transparency.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 8:34 AM

Just out of curiosity. Do any of you who LIKE taxes ever donate extra? I mean, if you believe in where this money goes and how necessary it is, do you (or anyone you know) ever give more tax than the IRS is owed? You know, for the cause?

I'm not being snarky. I am truly curious if this happens at all.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 8:58 AM

What does "like taxes" mean?

I really don't make much money. I don't travel, I don't buy things for myself very often. I have occasionally "loaned" money to work acquaintances that have needed money in a hurry, in quantities that have hurt.

Being that I don't make much money, I don't pay much taxes on the grand scale of things, but some of my money goes to the government. If I made more, and when I made slightly more I was absolutely okay with more of my money going out for taxes. Like everybody else though, if I have money, I would rather choose where that money is spent.

I have a small small insignificant voice in where my money is spent once it goes to Washington, so I certainly wouldn't write them a check for more, but I don't see how that's relevant to whether or not our government needs to have a certain amount of money in order to function, in order to keep up our infrastructure and be a fertile enviornment for future generations. Is the money often stolen? Absolutely. Of course that's made easy when people knowingly elect people who flat out tell them they will fight against our self-interests...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
What does "like taxes" mean?

I mean, in favor of taxation. I mean, when there is a choice on the ballot to increase taxes, people who "like" taxes vote yes.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:01 AM

Federally ? No.

I have thrown a few bucks at local things, like trying to run up funding to get that goddamn bridge on Stadium fixed before it falls down completely - Dingell did secure federal funds for that, but before that we had a small and growing pool of funds from folk who were concerned about it, and I did personally contribute - infrastructure is one of the things generally well worth the price.

The two reforms I think most important however...

1. Tax relief for the poor - anyone makin under $20k simply cannot AFFORD the bite, when you're paying taxes out of your food budget there's just no damn excuse for it, especially since often enough when that happens they have to apply for public food assistance, which comes out of those taxes, but only after the administrative costs have chewed it to the goddamn bone...
So why TAKE the money in the first place ?

Seriously, you cut the taxes on them people, a lot of the public assistance salaries, overhead, paperwork costs, they GO AWAY, removing the NEED for a lot of them taxes, neh ?

I mean, it's common damn sense, isn't it ?

AND...

2. Allow people to VOTE where their tax money goes, use a modified 1040 form and allow them to select what is funded with their money, not only would this pacify folk like me, who SERIOUSLY object to foreign aid, and warfare-welfare, it would also pacify folk who do not wish to fund things for religious or personal reasons.

Also, it would once again give we-the-people the influence we're SUPPOSED to have, but do not, in our government, on a wholesale basis - if nobody wants it, if nobody funds it, it does not get done.

And I *would* let corporations and lobbyists play, in exchange for barring direct political funding - you want it, you pay directly for it, cut out the middle man, as it were, they're *going* to have influence, they will find a way, so why not channel it into a useful path instead of pretending otherwise - let them use their own avarice to benefit themselves and others, instead of wasting that money on annoying the hell out of folk with political ads ?

Also that would call to heel CEOs and Boards, because what they choose to fund or not would be held for or against them by their customers - instead of just giving to this candidate or that one with plausible deniability, they'd have to answer to their stockholders and consumers for what, specifically, they did or did not choose to fund.

Problem with this is that the established order has worked for a couple hundred years to REMOVE power from the peoples hands, and no way would they give it back without some kind of fight - but done wisely, that one could be over before they even realized it, and Ron Paul, George Miller, and a couple other members of Congress would throw in and get behind it without a lot of pushing.

Anyhows, that's my input on it.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
..but I don't see how that's relevant to whether or not our government needs to have a certain amount of money in order to function, in order to keep up our infrastructure and be a fertile enviornment for future generations.

Like I said, I'm not trying to be snarky. I wasn't trying to make a point, or be relevant.

I was just wondering if people who like taxes give more.

But you did bring up an interesting point.

Quote:
Like everybody else though, if I have money, I would rather choose where that money is spent.

If I may ask, why not just choose where your money is spent with ALL your money?

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I have thrown a few bucks at local things,

Cool. That makes sense.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:11 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I don't give extra taxes, but I contribute to a good number of nonprofits. I believe one of the things I hear a lot on the right is that we should take more responsibility so that the government needs to take less. I think that fits. I actually pay MORE taxes for benefits received than the rich do. They get things such as disproprtionate tax cuts, loopholes, off-shore accounts, subsidies, and more--all of which lessen what the government gets, ergo my taxes get raised along the line, my benefits get lessened.

I pay for education tho' I have no children. I pay for the roads and ferries here, tho' I don't commute and I drive very little. There are myriad benefits I pay for which I do not receive. So the rich pay proportionally LESS for all those things. Was it Warren Buffet who was shocked to discover he paid less taxes than his secretary? I can't remember who, but it's a perfect example. I can't afford lobbyists to get the government to take less or give me subsidies. In many ways they have advantages not available to the middle or lower class.

It's easy to say the rich pay a higher rate of taxes. But it's a fallacy. If you take into account all the benefits they receive which the rest of us don't, you would find they pay proportionately LESS taxes than we do, I wager.

So let's discuss it on a reality basis; find out what the top 10% of Americans actually PAY in taxes on an annual basis, as opposed to what the middle and lower classes do, THEN it's a reasonable argument. To say that "on the books" they play a higher percentage is a fallacy compared to how it actually works out.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:16 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

"The rich get more use of the roads and bridges, it is their products being moved on them, whether they own stock or the company."

Unless 'the rich' are also the sole consumers of these moved products, this is a falsehood. Businesses will always transfer the costs of doing business to the customer. We already pay for their costs in moving their product. If we charge them more for the infrastructure, they will charge us more for the product. Maintaining good road infrastructure means that it is less expensive to move goods, and so my bread costs $1 instead of $2. We all benefit from infrastructure, because we all use it directly or indirectly.

"The rich get more use out of our legal system, from the courts to the cops on the ground. They have more assets to protect, more stores, and you should see how blazing fast a cop gets to a big store in the event of a call."

This is again a falsehood. If the legal infrastructure was not available to businesses, they would create their own security framework and transfer the costs of that framework to the customer. Also, when I dispatched officers in Hialeah, I promise there was no prioritization given to X business over Y business. Calls were categorized by type and by time, not by complainant.

"The rich have the hold on our government, and direct control over laws and policies. Our politicians are bought, and the more disposable millions the rich have, the more entrenched that financial mechanic will become."

This is true, but only because we allow it. The main power of 'the rich' is not the money itself, but the ability to organize non-monetary resources. If 'the poor' organize on any topic, the thunder shakes the earth. The complacency of 'the poor' can only be blamed on money to the extent that 'the poor' don't have as much free time, and spend their little bit of free time on pursuits other than shaping the nation according to their vision and benefit.

Let us talk again about fairness and equality, because pointing at 'the rich' isn't working for me. It makes as little sense to my mind as when Piratenews blames problems on 'the Jews.' We are all people, and I'm not interested in segmenting us and treating us differently. Not by class, race, or any other designator. People often complain that 'the rich' treat us like dirt, or insects, or trash. That may be true, but I'm not about to adopt identical measures. 'The rich' can be given the same deal as the rest of us. The exact same deal.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:17 AM

How about because if we left Americans, in our current malaise of "self-reliance" and the tired notion of manifest destiny that hasn't really ever died, to do the "right thing", and put money into "good causes," most of us would fail to do so, and because government has more power to impact any given cause, with legislation.

I find Frem's plan interesting. I don't entirely know how it would work, but I see some merit there, and think that would be an interesting way for taxpayers to truly fund what they believe in directly...but like him, I agree that there's no way this is going to happen with the current stock in washington, or with the machine that is our political system so entrenched.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:33 AM

Anthony,

Your argument is that the rich cannot be taxed more because they will just charge us more for the privilage?

that just isn't true. You can't get water out of a stone. They would still charge what they could get, what the market would bear. One of the reasons they would do this is because if you make sure there is more capital for the rest of us, more of us will be entrepreneurs. More competition will exist in the market place, tax breaks and government assistance can go into making startups more viable, and thus more competitive, even while the removal of the corporate tax breaks at the top might mean one more walmart isn't built in some other city's back-yard.

I'll retract my statement about cops showing up at malls. it has been my experience, but that certainly isn't enough information to make a blanket characterization of the system.

What is it I'm doing that is "pointing at the rich." I'm pointing at the money, and that's where it ALL is.

I don't think companies or the people who run them are evil. People are people, truly, and generally people like to think of themselves as good. They also generally tend to let their world view support their own self-interests and ego. That world view is somewhat uniform in rich circles, and it is disproportionatley influential.

.....

edited to ask, because maybe there is a different way of looking at this, what do you see as the cause of wealth disparity in this country today, specifically the fact that the gap has widened so greatly?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:46 AM

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/627111#ixzz16EFfBEMa

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Again: The percentage of [u[federal individual income taxes for the rich is higher; that’s what’s always quoted in the argument. However,

Quote:
There are large differences between the tax rates for earned income money than capital gains. Most working people do not earn a substantial amount of their money from capital gains. Capital gains can easily be understood as money that is earned from buying something and selling it for more than you purchased it.

Capital gains are currently taxed at a rate of 15%. The tax structure is an escalating structure where money that is earned over $31,850 is taxed at 25% or higher. This is how rich people pay less tax (as a percentage of their total earnings), than working people.

Most people don't understand statistics very well, so a misleading statement is used, "the rich pay the majority of all taxes." This is true, but they also make substantially more money than most people. As a percentage of the wealth they earn, often rich people pay less in taxes than middle class people. The poor in no way pay more taxes, most don't pay any.

Quote:
Under current law, income from investments gets taxed at 15 percent. Income from work gets taxed at up to 35 percent.

http://www.alternet.org/story/136592/

Income is income; they did nothing but put money into something which then profited them. No work involved, no “earning” of that money. Why should it be taxed at a lower bracket? To say “well, they earned the income to invest in the first place, which was taxed” doesn’t work for me. They were taxed on the income they earned; they earned MORE income from investing; that money should be the same as money earned from work.

Quote:
In their entertaining 1994 book, America: Who Really Pays the Taxes?, investigative reporters Donald Barlett and James Steele note that the number of filers reporting incomes of $200,000-plus who paid no tax, presumably through outrageous but legal tax dodges, has risen steadily, from 155 in 1966 to 1,081 in 1989, despite numerous attempts to plug the loopholes.

Barlett and Steele make the point that most efforts at tax "reform" are really attempts to reduce the tax burden on the wealthy. The most blatant recent example of this was the tax act of 1986. Between 1986 and 1987 the effective tax rate on millionaires fell from 40 percent to 29 percent, and as a result they paid $3.6 billion less in tax. Meanwhile people making from $50,000 to $75,000, a reasonably prosperous but hardly rich crowd, paid $7.6 billion more.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1118/do-the-rich-pay-very-lit
tle-tax

Yes, it’s dated; but you’d have to show me that it’s any different today.

Can anyone tell us how much ACTUAL taxes the rich pay in proportion to what “individual income tax” they are supposed to pay? THEN you’d have an argument. As it is, hypothetically they pay more; in reality, how much/what percentage do they ACTUALLY pay?

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:49 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"I find Frem's plan interesting."

Hello,

I find Frem's plan interesting, too. It offers viable solutions for everybody, rather than just saying, "Tax the rich more, they deserve it and can afford it."

I would not use phrases like 'tax relief for the poor' and instead use 'universal tax relief - the first 25k earned every year is tax free!'

After all, if everyone gets it, then it's not for anyone in particular.

I have also in the past advocated the ability to prioritize tax spending on your tax forms. This is a democracy, so you should be able to vote where your money goes.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 10:01 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Your argument is that the rich cannot be taxed more because they will just charge us more for the privilage?
that just isn't true. You can't get water out of a stone. They would still charge what they could get, what the market would bear."

Hello,

That's not as simple as it appears. Businesses will operate for maximum profitability no matter what. So you have two possibilities.

A) Transportation costs increase, so the costs are transferred to the customer. The customer wants the product and pays for it.

B) Transportation costs increase, so the costs are transferred to the customer. The customer doesn't want the product at that price, and won't pay for it. Distribution is either cancelled or reduced to accommodate people who will purchase the product as a luxury item for top-dollar.

If profit is pinched because of ANY factor, the business will either seek a way to circumvent the pinch or will switch to a different product or market. Only in the complete absence of all other options will the business simply accept reduced profitability.

I have rarely seen a business swallow a fee that wasn't immediately transferred to the customer. You need only use your Debit card around town to see evidence of the phenomenon. Turns out the stone usually has a bit more water than anyone guessed.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 10:07 AM

But Anthony, while what you say is all true, a business will not shut down a product or service that is still profitable. Companies just posted record earnings. I think that if some of those earnings were redirected, they would still turn a profit, don't you? They were still plugging along just fine before they posted those numbers, year after year.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 10:17 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"But Anthony, while what you say is all true, a business will not shut down a product or service that is still profitable. Companies just posted record earnings. I think that if some of those earnings were redirected, they would still turn a profit, don't you? They were still plugging along just fine before they posted those numbers, year after year."

Hello,

As long as

A) The product is profitable

And

B) Company efforts can't be redirected to a more profitable product or market

Then this is true.

Essentially, the company must have no choice apparent to it rather than to absorb the loss.

Take a look at the Airlines right now. We are in a horrible economic slump, and yet airlines are nickel-and-diming their customers for every penny they can get. You can't get blood from a stone, but they keep squeezing us anyway.

I can't remember a business ever saying, "Oh, look, the cost of business just increased. Oh well, we'll just enjoy less money."

That is the last decision they'd ever make, and only at the end of a long line of other failed options.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 10:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"The rich get more use out of our legal system, from the courts to the cops on the ground. They have more assets to protect, more stores, and you should see how blazing fast a cop gets to a big store in the event of a call."

This is again a falsehood. If the legal infrastructure was not available to businesses, they would create their own security framework and transfer the costs of that framework to the customer. Also, when I dispatched officers in Hialeah, I promise there was no prioritization given to X business over Y business. Calls were categorized by type and by time, not by complainant.

Gotta call you on this one, many local police "know what side their bread is buttered on" and will indeed dispatch their responses with additional, though often informal, priorities in the mix - I've seen a service call redirected from an assault & battery in the bad part of town to a larceny in the nice part of town before, to deny this happens is to deny people are human.

There's also an institutional component to it, in part because of the police attitude towards the citizens they protect - if a resident of site three calls them, the response is going to be between 30 to 90 minutes, but if *I* call them, the response will BE here in 10 minutes, less if they can manage it - they know I don't like em, and if I am calling them it's a no-bullshit "situation" at hand.

They have themselves acknowledged this, so there is a prioritization which goes on there which isn't likely to find itself on official paperwork any more than abuse within the catholic church did, just because it isn't out right and up front admitted, doesn't mean the public isn't aware of it however - I think anyone who's ever lived in a bad neighborhood knows their service call is going on the bottom rung of the priority list if it's anything less than shots-fired.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 10:58 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Gotta call you on this one, many local police..."

Hello Frem,

I won't call your experiences a lie, but neither are mine.

When I tell you that the complainant never factored into officer dispatch, I mean it. Type of call and Time of call. That's it.

It was never even subtly suggested to me that I should dispatch calls in any other way.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 2:15 PM

Certainly a better grade of town than I am used to living in then, absolutely.

I'm also as certain that your presence on dispatch helped make it so, from my knowledge of you as a person.

It does make me think, sometimes, just how often folks with a natural protective instinct, on a social level, wind up in security work - although I've seen as many burn out as prosper via working for corrupt companies...

My solution, well, If you want it done right...

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 2:32 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I suspect working for your security organization would be refreshing, though I doubt you'd ever have any positions for a turtle such as myself. My response to stress is to downshift into low gear, whereas a crisis usually demands swift, snappy judgment. It is why I ended up being unsuitable for dispatch. In an emergency, they like things to proceed more quickly, not with plodding deliberate steps.

To this day, I wish that Channel 2 (the information retrieval channel) had been completely divorced from Channel 1. I could've retired a gray-haired public servant on Channel 2. Though I am largely bereft of personal ambition, there was a nice sense of community service involved in working towards the safety of my city.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 2:58 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Niki -

The rich pay more than their fair share. A lot more.

It's not your money, it's theirs.

It's not that folks don't want to pay ANY taxes, ( and you know this ) but they don't want to keep getting taxed to death, only to see our Gov't waste money on pork projects , intent on only keeping public officials in office and in power.

That's not the proper function of government, to 'make things fair'. Dear lord... don't get me going down that road....

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 3:45 PM

Rap, your only definition of that money being theirs is that they have it. There are quite a few posts on it that discuss the matter in more detail than that shallow statement of yours.

That doesn't mean you don't have a point...just that saying the rich pay more than their fair share is not in itself convincing.

Just to understand where you are on this issue, you are absolutely 100% certain that the rich have earned every penny of what they have, or at least that it is theirs by right of inheritence because somebody else earned that money, kind of like one might inherit the crown from somebody who conquered a kingdom, and so on and so on from generation to generation.

I would assume then that you are just as certain that the majority of people at large are also making what they earn, no more and no less. The fact that the standard of living is going down for them, for us, is directly related to the fact that we are not worth as much as the generations before us, while our rich people are worth more and more to society.

I would characterize you as the horse in animal farm, but I'm interested in how you would disagree.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 3:53 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

For my own part, I am not prepared to be the arbiter of whether or not people have earned what they have. I am not content to sit in judgment over it, nor mete out justice based on my opinions.

I do wish everyone could have more than they've got, and be happier, and healthier, and enjoy world peace and long lives and good sex.

But none of that is pertinent.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 4:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I suspect working for your security organization would be refreshing, though I doubt you'd ever have any positions for a turtle such as myself. My response to stress is to downshift into low gear, whereas a crisis usually demands swift, snappy judgment. It is why I ended up being unsuitable for dispatch. In an emergency, they like things to proceed more quickly, not with plodding deliberate steps.

Hell, you could sub for me at Site Three - the closest thing we've ever had to an "emergency" in over a year was the damn tornado sirens going off.

That's not including minor stupidities like leaving ones BBQ unsupervised at 2:35am - the question of why the hell someone was BBQing at such an hour is answered handily by the "Company Mantra" regarding inexplicable client behavior...
"These people are all crazy, but they ain't out here freezing their ass off, so who's crazier ?"

Seriously, this site is BORING, you'd love it.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 4:11 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Boring AND service to a community? Sounds like a peachy gig. :-)

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 5:08 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Because they got their money by FRAUD.

How's that for a reason?

Quote:
For my own part, I am not prepared to be the arbiter of whether or not people have earned what they have. I am not content to sit in judgment over it, nor mete out justice based on my opinions.

Good. then you can live by the opinions of those who have the most to gain.

Sucker.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 5:33 PM

Well, what I think is pertinent is how people might actively support a point of view that suggests that 1 percent of our population should have 90 percent of our wealth, while people suffer or die for lack of health care that modern science is capable of providing.

For me it's not a matter of justice either, per say. First, its a matter of decency, and we as a society should choose to be decent, and as voters have an obligation to steer our laws and our codes and our tax policies towards something decent

Second, it's a matter of pragmatism. America will be reliant upon its future genrations, and it will be at the mercy of its failing infrastructure. Decadence for the few and poverty for the rest is not something we should ever shrug our shoulders at as some natural and healthy pecking order.

AS the result of weakened unions, crippled overburdened over administrated school systems, outsourced and insourced employment over training at home, wars for the military industrial complex, a prison industry with a vested interest in laws that result in incarceration, an insurance industry with a vested interest in not providing care while taking everything a family has, news and opinion media that is directly owned by companies with vast financial interests, we are in some big fucking trouble.

People who have benefited from the system when it was good, could be called upon to help get us out...hell, enough of them certainly helped to get us in it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 5:40 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

People have fully... and I mean fully... bought into sociopathic ethics.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 6:58 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

If you want to talk to me about decent laws and policies, you will have my ear. If you want to talk to me about equality, you will have my ear.

If you want me to seize the contents of Scrooge McDuck's vault and re-distribute it according to your ideals, you will lose me.

If you will forgive my language, the argument I continue to hear is, "They're fucking us, so we should fuck them."

Well, I don't want anybody fucking anybody else. Just because I'm getting fucked doesn't mean I want to start retaliatory rape. I want a fair shake for everyone, and that fair shake does not begin with unequal treatment, punitive measures, or theft.

"Good. then you can live by the opinions of those who have the most to gain.

Sucker."

I am indeed living by the opinions of those who have the most to gain. You see, I have the most to gain. Me. I am not a wealthy man. Taking the money from rich people and using it to improve my community would be personally very good for me and almost everyone I know. It would be a boon the likes of which I've never seen in my lifetime. A golden age of hope for the everyman.

But just because it would benefit me does not mean I consider it good. I don't do lots of things that would benefit me. Only sociopaths do what benefits them without considering the moral implications.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 7:45 PM

why is that the message you hear?

Maybe we have a fundamental disagreement on the premise still...somehow. There is a pie. a few people have most of the pie. how they got it, and whethr they deserve it is irrelevant. Other people are starving who have no slice of the pie.

How do you propose that should change?

Do you believe it should?

If not, why not, and if so, how slow do you want that change to take place?

Why do you believe that taking 10 to 20 percent more of somebody's millions is screwing them? In my opinion it is simply supporting national interests, WITHOUT eliminating merit or motivation or reward.

You want to make this some sort of persecution, which is patently ridiculous. I simply want healthy capitalism to thrive so that more people benefit, and the country competes better globally because its people are better fed, better cared for, better educated and better motivated, because they have a better chance of winning, even if the payoff isn't quite as staggering.

Let me take your perspective to an extreme and see if you would still stick to it. Say hard times have befallen America's states and they are in an absurd ammount of debt. I know this is far fetched, but try to suspend your disbelief. Say that what they decide to do is sell off their assets, their public lands, their public utilities, their lakes, their streams, their resevoirs...

Some philanthropic company steps in and pays to keep the government going, buying the resevoirs. One day they decide that water is just too damn cheap. They raise the price...it hurts, but people need water so they pay it...and maybe some have to really ration it. Fine. Suppose all of a sudden a richer state tells this corporation it will pay much more for that water, if its just rerouted across the border, and the company decides to rerout half of it, leaving a worse situation at home, but then, there were no strings attached to the deal.

My question to you is, given that the stock-holders own the resevoirs, given that they technically earned the money to buy them, and in good faith did so from a short sighted local government, would it be persecuting, in your view, those poor helpless rich folks, to force the corporations to do a specific thing with that water supply after the fact, or regulate how much they charge for THEIR resource, or just sieze these resources back? Would this just be the misfortune of everybody else raised into that state, that other people gave away the store?

I ask this because money is almost as essential as water in this world. Indeed for somebody in need of health care, it is as much a matter of life and death. If a system has mistakenly propped up a handful of people, shouldn't we do something to rectify that, or are we all supposed to be good sports? The things is, there were some strings attached to this money, they just happen to have all been snipped in the last 30 years.

I probably should have asked this first, but then the other questions would be moot. do you believe that there is a pie?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 8:04 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You see, I have the most to gain. Me. I am not a wealthy man. Taking the money from rich people and using it to improve my community would be personally very good for me and almost everyone I know. It would be a boon the likes of which I've never seen in my lifetime. A golden age of hope for the everyman.

But just because it would benefit me does not mean I consider it good. I don't do lots of things that would benefit me. Only sociopaths do what benefits them without considering the moral implications.

In a nutshell: You won't do something that would benefit a lot of people (even- by the way- the wealthy. I've read a number of papers which show that and will get to that later), something that will lead to a veritable Golden Age because it's somehow "wrong"; it crosses the morals of sociopaths.

Wow.

You lost on on that one, Tony!

If you can, could you please explain what morals you feel are being violated?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 8:28 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
Rap, your only definition of that money being theirs is that they have it. There are quite a few posts on it that discuss the matter in more detail than that shallow statement of yours.

That doesn't mean you don't have a point...just that saying the rich pay more than their fair share is not in itself convincing.

Just to understand where you are on this issue, you are absolutely 100% certain that the rich have earned every penny of what they have, or at least that it is theirs by right of inheritence because somebody else earned that money, kind of like one might inherit the crown from somebody who conquered a kingdom, and so on and so on from generation to generation.

You're kidding, right? See, you're dealing in class envy, and not taxable income. You're wanting to fleece the 'super' rich
, the multi billionaires, simply because there's no real justification for folks having 3, 5 ,or 7 homes, right?

Like the Kennedys, or the Kerrys of the world.

Quote:

I would assume then that you are just as certain that the majority of people at large are also making what they earn, no more and no less. The fact that the standard of living is going down for them, for us, is directly related to the fact that we are not worth as much as the generations before us, while our rich people are worth more and more to society.

I would characterize you as the horse in animal farm, but I'm interested in how you would disagree.

I'm not sure what you mean, that folks are 'making what they earn'. I'm not sure where you get your facts from, that today's 'rich' are any more wealthy than the super rich of our past. In fact, I'd say there are far MORE #'s of 'rich' these days than ever before.

I doubt very much that "Boxer" would be voicing such discontent at the level of taxation that we have here, so it's my opinion you might want to re-read Animal Farm again.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 8:43 PM