My #1 social point in America is for the economy to work properly we must TAX the richest people in our society the greatest, I'm talking about thos 284 BILLIONAIREs in America.
If I was PResident, I would tax every billionaire %50, on the dollar for every dollar they made over their 1 billion dollar net worth.
I have the hardest time convincing people WHY this is so important, they call me communist, socialist, idiot, or what ever, BUT COME ONE PEOPLE, oh you Christians, how on Earth can we continue to support a system that again and again and again gives breaks to those with MULTIPLE BILLIONS of Dollars.
Conservatives love to get worked up over Homosexuality, a topic Jesus talks about ONCE, but how about GREED?
Does the word greed still exist in the conservative American lexicon???????
[ July 01, 2005, 01:43 AM: Message edited by: The Silverblue Sun ]
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
How about millionaires? 50%?
-Katarain
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So anyone over 45 with a half-funded retirement account, Katarain?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I was asking him for his opinion on millionaires. It wasn't a suggestion.
-Katarain
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
yeah, I'd much rather encourage savings and tax buying on credit heaviest, like with a national sales tax... but that might not sit well with our sales and advertising oriented economy.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I think there's a big distinction between millionaires and billionaires.
1,000,000,000 dollars. One thousand million. You can spend a million bucks. Heck, in 50 years you may not be able to retire on that.
But a billion is a whole different issue. 4 generations could live on a billion dollars (assuming they are smart enough to invest it, not just liquidate it and bury it in the yard).
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: yeah, I'd much rather encourage savings and tax buying on credit heaviest, like with a national sales tax... but that might not sit well with our sales and advertising oriented economy.
I buy virtually everything with my credit card and then pay it in full at the end of the month. I certainly wouldn't appreciate a sales tax on credit. Plus, how do you distinguish between credit and debit? Many stores don't.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Not to mention that all people would do is change how they purchase stuff, without actually changing how their use of credit was structured -- cash advances from the credit card instead of using it directly, for instance.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and many businesses practically run on their heavy use of credit.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure everywhere distinguishes between debit and credit.
The credit card companies charge a certain percentage to the stores for their use. I don't think debit does. So they would separate them for that, if for no other reason.
I know what you mean, though, that you can use your debit card as a credit card, i.e. you sign the receipt, you don't use your pin. That's still a debit, though.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
At the backend, yes, but I know I was told as a retail clerk that if used like a credit card the credit card processing fees were used for debit cards.
Hence why banks have all those promotions for people to use their debit cards by signing instead of with PINs, since they get a percentage of the processing fees.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Makes sense. That would explain the shiny Visa logo on my debit card.
They probably share that revenue between the bank and credit card company.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Silverblue Sun: My #1 social point in America is for the economy to work properly we must TAX the richest people in our society the greatest, I'm talking about thos 284 BILLIONAIREs in America.
If I was PResident, I would tax every billionaire %50, on the dollar for every dollar they made over their 1 billion dollar net worth.
I have the hardest time convincing people WHY this is so important, they call me communist, socialist, idiot, or what ever, BUT COME ONE PEOPLE, oh you Christians, how on Earth can we continue to support a system that again and again and again gives breaks to those with MULTIPLE BILLIONS of Dollars.
Conservatives love to get worked up over Homosexuality, a topic Jesus talks about ONCE, but how about GREED?
Does the word greed still exist in the conservative American lexicon???????
what you said reminds me on a song by barry mcguire, called "the eve of destruction", it has one line that goes something like: "you can hate your neighbor, but don't forget to say grace" .. i love that song.. so poignant
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
No one needs to make more than $500,000.00 a year just to live more opulantly than that already is.
No one.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I agree.
However, there's no rule that millionaires make a million dollars annually. Millionaire, to me, means someone with a million dollars net worth.
You can achieve that by 50 if your salary is anywhere in 5 figure territory by savvy investment and living modestly. Those people don't need to be heavily taxed.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Really? My salary is within the 5-figure territory and it doesn't even cover my (modest) bills.
Maybe you mean upper 5-figures.
-Katarain
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Depends on where you live, but more importantly, how you live. I mean mid to low 5 figures, and a serious commitment to your retirement.
I mean off brand toilet paper, 10 pound bags of rice, turning off lights when you leave the room, using public transportation, and taking care of your stuff.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Yeah. Five figures is a pretty big range, all the way from abject poverty to upper middle class.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I read an article, a couple of years ago, about a woman who was a schoolteacher her whole life, single, lived in the same house for 50 years, but was a millionaire when she died in her eighties.
Her secret?
She owned stocks, but that wasn't the secret. She had a bunch of slow and steady stocks, built a dollar at a time, but the key was she always reinvested her dividends.
She didn't take fliers, didn't go after start ups, just stuck with Anheiser Busch and GE for 50 years (just a guess, I don't actually remember what she had).
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
You do realize that 10,000 has five figures, right?
-Katarain
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Heck, in 50 years you may not be able to retire on that.
If you retire at 65 with 1,000,000, spend 50,000 per year adjusted at annual inflation of 2.5% and earn 4% on the remainder, you will run out of money at age 88.
Enough people live past 88 that this isn't a safe retirement plan.
Of course, I ignore social security in that. The point is, though, 1,000,000 isn't that far from being "unable to retire on that" now. If you cut the original annual amount to 30,000, then the pot will last until 111.
This also assumes constant 4%. One bad year could knock 10 years off the length of time it lasts.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Yeah, I realize that it would be hard to save on 10 grand a year. I just kinda figured anyone with a high school diploma could earn at least 20 a year. No offense.
I have a buddy who works part time at CVS (20-30 hours a week) who made 24,000 last year while going to school.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Okay. Explain to me how to make it on 20,000 a year, because I have a little more than that.
-Katarain
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
You're married, right?
I assume your husband is employed?
Your two incomes put you right on my level (well, above actually, but whatever). I don't know what your bills are, but you can always save something. And you can always live cheaper than you're living.
Don't take what I said above literally. I'm not hawking JT's Ways to be a millionaire on 20 grand a year. I'm just trying to say if you are careful, and a little lucky, you can make a middling salary and retire with a nice nest egg.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I think a better thread title would be use "covetousness". But still, I'm on you with this one Thor. Just goes to show if you hang around hatrack long enough, you will align with everyone at one point or other.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
$5.15/hour is the minimum wage.
Let's assume someone works full-time for minimum wage. $5.15/hour x 40 hours = $206/week.
Let's say they take no vacations and work 52 weeks of the year. $206/week x 52 weeks = $10,712.
That doesn't even take into account taxes, insurance (if they're lucky enough to have it), and vacation time. Plus, whoever is paying them minimum wage probably only gives them about 38 hours a week anyway to avoid paying benefits.
So they make five figures... how exactly do they make it?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
To save 1,000,000 starting from age 21 by age 50, assuming 8% returns each year, one needs to save 7,000 the first year and inflate that contribution 2.5% each year, for a 14,683 contribution in year 50.
Of that, 322,002 will be direct contributions, the rest earnings. Also, if one started 10 years later, one would only have 382,808 at age 50.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
My husband is dealing with several illnesses, while trying to be a full-time student. So no, he doesn't work. If, however, he were, of course it would be better. WE are making it with student loans... but I'm skeptical that anyone with a 5-figure income could make it.
Sometimes, for whatever reason, both spouses can't work.
-Katarain
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
At this point, I'm thinking back with fondness to the days I made $30,000 when I was still a teacher. Frankly, $40,000 seems like a fortune.
I'll have my masters degree in another year and hopefully will get one of those high paying jobs.
-Katarain
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I think you might want to recheck with your friend. Based on working 30 hr/week and assuming he does that year round, your friend would have to make over $15/hr to make $24k in a year.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
BTW, if one keeps saving on that plan until one is 65, the final figure is 3,746,594 with only 584,878 of that from contributions.
Time is crucial to financial planning. I wish demonstrations of this could be given in high schools.
It's true not everyone can afford to save that much. But the results are directly proportional to the initial contribution amount. Small changes at a young age have far greater effect than big changes at an older age. There's a lot of just out of college people who are over-consuming and throwing away hundreds of thousands of dollars from their retirement in doing so.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: If you retire at 65 with 1,000,000, spend 50,000 per year adjusted at annual inflation of 2.5% and earn 4% on the remainder, you will run out of money at age 88.
Do you really need $50,000 a year when you're retired?
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
My husband works full time, and I stay at home with the children. He makes less than $25,000 a year, and we're doing fine.
We drive used cars, we live in a modest home, and we eat in most of the time. We actively look for ways to save money on things. We put money in savings every payday, before anything else gets paid, and that's periodically dumped into a higher-yield account.
We're making it, on the lower 5-figure spectrum. It's about the choices we make. We choose to live where we do, etc. So yes, it's possible.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Do you really need $50,000 a year when you're retired?
Many people find they do, yes.
Prescriptions.
Long-term care insurance.
Housing.
Medigap coverage.
Plus taxes, of course. Unless one saved everything in a Roth.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
you can forget taxes, you're below the poverty line. Luckily for you, at 10 a year you're entitled to government cheese and cheap housing. I'm assuming that someone at this level is working at minimum wage for a reason, and will never get promoted.
Of the 900 a month, you can figure:
150 rent 100 electric 100 disposable income
That leaves 450 a month to invest, assuming several things:
1) Someone who is gonna be a minimum wage worker for their whole life couldn't possibly handle the responsibility or the expense of a car, so that's out. Plus, you work at the closest convenience store to your home, so you walk to work.
2) Welfare covers all food (that's what it's meant for, anyway).
3) Medicare covers insurance (here's where the luck comes in, let's be reasonably healthy)
4) If you make minimum wage, you can't afford to go to the movies, or to Olive Garden, or have a cell phone. If you decide you want these things, find a better job.
450*12 = 5400 a year invested in a Roth IRA at 8% (nice median, I think).
If you never get promoted, but never get seriously ill, congratulations, you're a millionaire in 2038.
*Someone may wanna double check those calcs (talking to you, Dag), I modified my own retirement spreadsheet.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I think you might want to recheck with your friend. Based on working 30 hr/week and assuming he does that year round, your friend would have to make over $15/hr to make $24k in a year.
I did his taxes. He makes 17/hr, but he started at minimum wage, 8 years ago. An example of how you can make decent money with no college degree.
You really have to try hard not to make more than minimum wage (out in the world - I'm discounting on campus jobs, which typically always pay min. wage).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You forgot payroll taxes. Medicare does not cover poor people. Medicaid covers somewhat.
Where are you getting 150 rent?
Plus, minimum wage does not increase anywhere near the cost of living.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Pulled it out of my @ss. I figure this person has section 8 housing, or lives in a friends basement. Why not, since I have to make him a millionaire on $5.15 an hour?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
We keep getting around to "need" but what about "earns"?
I have a good friend who worked his tail off for a long time. TI got his first patent while he was still an intern. He graduated from MIT in four years, aged 21, with a MS in Computer Science. He went to work in a few places, including for Steve Jobs at NEXT, and then some people called him and said "we're making a company... we need someone to do the programming and you are awfully good... want in?"
And he became the sixth employee of Excite. He got married and took a year off to tour the world. When he came back, excite was happy to pay him a LOT of money to, essentially, sit on the beach and answer his pager once in a while... because he was that good/competent/knowledgeable.
He finally couldn't take it anymore... it was boring him to death... so he signed on with another small upstart company to be their director of operations. They offered him a handsome stock package along with his compensation. They went public not too long ago... that company was Google. He bought his stock options at a ridiculously low price and had a LOT of liquid assests to sink into it. As it's up over $300 a share now, I don't even want to calculate his net worth... suffice it to say, he will never spend it all, and his daughter might have a tough time with what she inherits.
He is well aware of the financial difficulties I have had and has never once offered me a dime or a job or anything... to hear some of you speak, I should be offended, miffed...he's being unfair, isn't he? having all that money while I suffer along? He could clear out my debt with his pocket change. I could retire on the money he made from selling his first house. He is lucky, incredibly smart, focused, hard working, and dedicated. He is most definitely NOT greedy.
What does he owe anyone else? what reason do we have to go in and start confiscating his money? Why shouldn't he be allowed to sit back and enjoy his good fortune?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Oh, I forgot... re: the Credit thing... I just meant a sales tax hit people buying on credit the hardest because it taxes you on money you don't even necessarily have... I didn't mean a separate rate for credit card use.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Katarain,
If you husband has medical problems, and you're both in school, that's a whole separate ballgame. If you two can save anything before you're both out in the real world, that's lagniappe. My statement applies more to full time workers than students, for reasons I'm sure you know.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Jim-Me: So you're talking about loans and mortgages? Or maybe just loans and not mortgages?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
El JT de Spang, We're in the real world. I work full-time and am a full-time graduate student. We're very much in the real world.
Boon, I applaud your ability to support a family on less than 25 grand a year. We do not live richly here, but we're also renting. We own his car, and I make a lease payment on mine. Leasing was a bad idea, but there were circumstances influencing that decision--and once done, not easily undone. I think, perhaps, that your ability to live on so little must have a lot to do with where you live. I have no idea where that is, so it's pure assumption on my part. I was under and unemployed for a year last year, so my credit stinks. Perhaps if we're able to buy a house, we could pay a mortgage that's more within our means than our rent is.
We're trying to spend less on food, but considering the bills BEFORE food and household expenses eat up my entire income, I hardly think this is a livable wage.
-Katarain
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Jim-Me: So you're talking about loans and mortgages? Or maybe just loans and not mortgages?
I think he means: There should be a sales tax. Sales taxes discourage people from using credit.
The credit reference was an effect of the sales tax, not part of a description of how it is applied.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Thanks, Dag... that's it exactly.
Edit to address your specifics: Mortgages wouldn't be affected because there is a property tax already... no need to add a sales tax on top of it... Loans might or might not be, depending on what you spend it on.
The point I like about a sales tax is that any savings account becomes a tax shelter... and all those fancy attempts to come up with expenditures go away-- you consume, you support the country, directly.
Hopefully the flat tax benefits to the upper classes would offset the detriment of being unable to hide income enough so that they'd keep purchasing and not send our economy in the toilet...
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Ah. I understand.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
I work full time at a bookstore.
I've worked there for 2 years.
I make 7.34 an hour.
I pull in about $450 every 2 weeks.
So.
Rent $330 This months electric bill $240 (my share $120) Phone bill $80 (my share $40) Teeth Bill ($65 min) Credit Card bill ($30 min) Water bill $25 Gym $40
so I make $900 after taxes and my bills are about $630.
My truck is paid off and mom pays for my car insurance.
$270 dollars a month = $65 a week for food and fun.
Wow.
Wow.
Oww.
I'm not sure how any people can really support MORE tax cuts for Billionaires. 40% of the American work force makes less than $10.00 an hour. This is BS.
And for the People pushing the Tax cuts for Billionaires to be Christians is down right absurd.
What's my solution? get a better job or a second job.
Umm, somebody has to work those $10.00 or less an hour jobs.
So you can't expect EVERYONE to get a "better job".
Why don't we look at who RIPS ME OFF time and time again, The Phone company, they've screwed me so many times in so many ways it's not funny, or look at the FREEAAAAKING EVIL electric company.
I leave my apartment on 80 all day long, my roomate neeeds the apartment at about 75 at night to sleep.
What was my bill this month in Houston this month??????
$240. Almost HALF of our RENT.
Freaking Socialize ENERGY.
To charge me that much for sooooooo little is evil, totally wrong.
I do not pick on "millionaires" that much because let's face it having 2 million at 40 isn't exactly living High off the hog, or gaurantee an easy retirement for a family.
But when we talk of the 284 BILLIONAIRES in america, ENOUGH is ENOUGH.
These people deserve ZERO breaks from our government.
quote: "Making a lot of money is easy if all you want to do is make a lot of money" - pennyworth from Citizen Kane
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I don't understand your ending quote. If it's easy to make a lot of money, then the only reason for not making a lot of money is because you don't value money enough to put forth the required effort. And if it's not worth the effort for you, why should you get to take money from the billionaires who do put for the effort?
Posted by AC (Member # 7909) on :
I think he used that quote to try to say that the people who have made so much money have done so by being unconcerned with such things as family, community, or anything else other than aquiring personal wealth.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
quote: I don't understand your ending quote.
The way the game works. GOD put enough resources on Earth for all of mankind to share and live from.
We've all paid trillions of dollars for what?
Oil. Capitalism's water.
What else floats at the very top of the money power heap?
We must figure out a system that allows 10 billion human beings to live, eat, mobilize, house and be healthy.
Allowing a singluar capitalism King to have $100 Billion dollars while 2 billion people live on less than two American dollars a day is not the best way.
In this country MONEY writes the Law.
Soon people will not be able to afford to live.
I work 40 hours a week, does that not deserve simple living of the basics?
quote: If it's easy to make a lot of money, then the only reason for not making a lot of money is because you don't value money enough to put forth the required effort.
I'm a good man and a good writer and a good artist. Why am I poor? I work a full time job, and havbe worked since I was 15.
quote: I think he used that quote to try to say that the people who have made so much money have done so by being unconcerned with such things as family, community, or anything else other than aquiring personal wealth.
We must look at each case individually.
J. K. Rowling made a billion dollars from a book that I love, and i own a few copies of.
The saudi arabian princes have billions and billions of dollars because they were born into a family that controlled the land under which the oil rests.
Jenna Jameson has millions of dollars because she was born beautiful, and then chose to use that beauty to make video of her having sex with hundreds of men.
Or, how about the brave business men who decided to tack on commercials ahead of movies in the theatre.
You pay $8.00 to see the movie. You pay $10.00 for the popcorn and coke.
So shouldn't the theatre be paying us somehow to watch the stupid commercials???
Or how about the gentlemen who make billions off of Viagra, a pill that costs less than a penny to manufacture, is sold at $5.00 to $10.00 and its function is to give erections to 70 year old men.
Money has become larger than man, man must become larger than money.
There is enough resources on Earth to house, feed, care for, clothe and even car everybody.
We must build a system that gives everyone their basic needs, and then individuals can bust their asses if they want to own 50 cars, 10 homes, 2 jets and 5 wives and 23 mistresses.
<T>
<<<edited for html surgery>>>
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
God bless everyone. Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I would put forth to you that no human system will ever allow an even distribution of resources... the best we can do is what we have done-- put a limit on power by preventing monopolization to the extent of our ability to do so.
Any system you put in place is going to create haves and have nots because people are smart enough and greedy enough to game the system... and always will be.
You can't do it, Thor. No one can.
I take that back... your new title is right-- Greed *is* good!
There are resources. There will always be people who want and use them. Capitalism is merely the most efficient way to turn them over to the common people because it gives anyone a chance to make it happen for them. Ross Perot started in his GARAGE and built an empire. So did Bill Gates and Steve Jobs... two separate ones... and BTW, between the three of them, how many high-paying jobs have they created? How many millionaires have they made? compare that effectiveness and their combined net worth to the money we've spent on Welfare since LBJ's Great Society and the net result of that: how many job has welfare created? how many people has it raised to the luxury and comfort of "millionaire"?
284 billionaires is too much? I say it's not enough!
quote:"Too much capitalism" does not mean too many capaitalists, but too few. -Chesterton
It is *NOT* a zero sum game, people. Quit treating it like one.
Edit: and with my rhetorical questions above, I'm only talking about direct job creation. Given the amount of money these guys probably spend in a year, their economic impact is probably much wider ranging than that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What's my solution? get a better job or a second job.
Umm, somebody has to work those $10.00 or less an hour jobs.
So you can't expect EVERYONE to get a "better job".
You aren't supposed to be working that job for your lifetime, THOR. Also, since you brought it up, how long has your mother been footing part of your bills?
Maybe your problem lies a little closer to yourself than it does with the tax status of billionaires.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I work full time at a bookstore.
I've worked there for 2 years.
I make 7.34 an hour.
I pull in about $450 every 2 weeks.
So.
Rent $330 This months electric bill $240 (my share $120) Phone bill $80 (my share $40) Teeth Bill ($65 min) Credit Card bill ($30 min) Water bill $25 Gym $40
so I make $900 after taxes and my bills are about $630.
Not doubting you, cause I've lived under similar or worse conditions (through college) but here's an alternative budget.
Rent $330 (or, look for a cheaper place to live, with more roommates or utilities included)
Electric $120 (your share)...Umm, tell your roommate to get a fan and start turning lights off or you have to move out, because you can't afford an electric bill that's 13% of your income. Also, call the power company and ask them about budget billing. They can take your average demand over the last 12 months and bill you the average, rather than the actual kW hours. This makes electric cheaper in the summer, and more in the winter. Might help a little.
Phone Bill $40 (your half) - 80 bucks is a big phone bill. You can get a phone line with no frills for 30 bucks a month. Use a prepaid card for any long distance, which you can easily minimize.
Teeth Bill $65 - Not sure what this is. My teeth came already paid off.
Credit Card Bill $30 - What goes on this? Let's leave it for now, but it goes in disposable income, not a bill.
Water Bill $25 - Nothing you can do about this, unless you have a neighbor who leaves their sprinklers on.
Gym Bill $40 - There's a way to work out that's free, it's called jogging. Also, check out a YMCA near you for a cheaper place to work out.
quote:My truck is paid off and mom pays for my car insurance.
$270 dollars a month = $65 a week for food and fun.
So your new budget could look like this: (All figures are monthly)
Rent $330 Electric $75 (I live in a 3 bedroom house in Louisiana, and can easily keep my electric in the $150 range, even without budget billing). Phone $15 (you can trim this down to zero if things get really tight. It's not that tough to survive without a phone.) Teeth $65 Water $25
Income $975 (you make 450 per pay period, that's 975 a month, not 900 a month) Bills $510 Disposable Income $465
Congratulations my friend! You're living the good life!
Sorry for such a long quote, but, just for fun, I wanted to show Silverblue (and others) that it is possible to trim some bills. While carefully staying out of the argument that the distribution of wealth is a bit skewed (I'm a hard-core capitalist).
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
I support Thor in this.
The argument that it takes work to earn the billions is just ludicrous as a reason that they should keep the billions. They will never use all of it, and, really, what we are talking about is common resources of the people of the United States now tied up in a single person's assets. They should donate that extra income. Or, since they are not socially generous enough, be taxed for it. We need those resources.
As for our Google guy, yeah, he's not greedy. But he should give up his extras to increase the general well being of the public good.
I'm talking about income over $500,000.00 a year. A figure which should be re-evaluated with inflation, surely, but a good starting point.
America will never have a Democracy that works until our economy moves to democratize as much as our politics. Capitalism needs limits.
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
Oh, and while we're on the subject: Corporations are out of control. They need stricter limits on their activities. They are rolling over labor in America, and who knows what else those shifty guys are up to!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm talking about income over $500,000.00 a year. A figure which should be re-evaluated with inflation, surely, but a good starting point.
Are you saying 50% of all income over $500,000? It's not clear which part of Thor's proposal you're agreeing with.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
That's the point, No. 6. These *aren't* the common resources of the United States. Every cent he's gained is his private property to do with as he sees fit... taxable to be sure, but *his*.
What we need those resources for is to sink them back into the economy... which is precisely what those people do... which was the whole point of my second long ramble.
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
I was referring to my own selfish post on the other page. I used that number.
And Jim-Me: They are the common resources of the United States, removed from the common pool and stuck in some guy's portfolio.
And those resources don't go where we need them to go. Most of the time we are talking about investing in Global Corporations, not putting those funds back into circulation. We need to re-examine "private property". We need to put income caps on people, within limits.
Right now, there are no limits.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So if anyone makes more than $500,000 per year, the remainder is confiscated? Or is it taxed at 50%?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
No. 6,
Just how many people do you think these global corporations employ?
I gave you three concrete examples of people that made themselves billionaires... and in the process created uncountable jobs and enabled many, many, I would bet even over a *thousand*, other people to improve their standard of living well beyond the Millionaire mark.
Will you please explain to me how the government could have better spent that money, when they have so miserably failed with the over TRILLION dollars they have thrown at poverty since the great society.
Again, it's not a zero sum game. Wealth can be created and destroyed... and I would put forth that based on the track records of the Billionaire vs. the track record of government social programs, I'll go with the Billionaires every time to be more effective at creating wealth for everyone.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the top marginal rate is 38% and starts at $200k?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I think it used to be 39 percent, but it was eliminated and combined with the next-highest bracket, which is now 33 percent. I have no problem with lowering taxes, but why do we need to eliminate the highest bracket?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Because rich people are more important that poor people. Which is obvious, since they have more money. They're also better people because they work harder. That's why they are more successful. Therefore, since they are more important, better, and more successful, they should pay less tax.
Duh.
-Katarain
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Alright, there's no reason to be that way, Katarain. It's really an unfair way to tar people who disagree with you about tax policy.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I don't really HAVE a tax policy. I thought it was slightly humorous. My mistake.
If I had to choose a tax policy, I'd probably choose something like a straight 10% in addition to some huge government cuts.
-Katarain
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
We didn't eliminate the highest bracket... we expanded it to include a lower one
seriously, when you increase the top marginal rate too much, people quit making salary and start hiding their income in tax-deferred or sheltered paths.
One of my favorites is that supposedly non-profit organizations spend millions on luxuries for their boards, but since they are all owned by the "non-profit" company, no one has to pay any taxes on it, and since the company is not realizing profits from them, they make a nice little tax shelter because the corporation deducts the expenditure.
Which is why I favor a sales tax on all non-essential items (i.e. not food)... it hits everyone who consumes and there is no way to hide from it, except by saving, which is a sound thing for people to do.
On the other hand, most of the flat tax proposals have, after a basic exemption of $30k or so, one rate and NO deductions, which would produce the basic same effect except it relies on people still reporting their income.
It doesn't prevent the dodge of compensation other than income, but it at least prevents the double dipping of giving unreported compensations *and* allowing a deduction by the company.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I would even favor a sales tax on non-essentials and a flat income tax that kicks in at a high level of income but is much lower.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
The thing that scares me about a 30+% sales tax in place of an income tax is that I don't really trust that any new taxes will ever be replacements for old taxes. I'm more inclined to believe that they'll add a federal sales tax (probably less than 30%) and KEEP the income tax, too.
-Katarain
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
WHOA! who said anything about 30%?
I was under the impression it was more like 10-12%?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Isn't the "Fair Tax" proposal something like a 30+% sales tax?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
A 10% sales tax wouldn't come anywhere near funding the federal government -- think about it, people as a whole necessarily spend less than they earn; current taxes on earnings by the federal government take quite a bit more than 10% per person for most people, therefore the amount collected by a 10% sales tax will be substantially less than that currently collected by income tax.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, it's 30% at replacement levels, but I've seen estimates of 23% for replacement.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Oh, fine, post a link after asking the question. Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Well, I didn't know... so I googled it.
fugu, I said 10% AND drastic cuts in government.
-Katarain
Posted by RoyHobbs (Member # 7594) on :
Where is no6 and Mr Sun now?
Will they rebut JimMe's arguments, or are they unable too?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
In all fairness I am taking helpful examples and over simplifying... but not oversimplifying nearly so much as "those people just make too much money! punish them!"
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Unless you've got some specific drastic cuts to propose, you're building a proposal on pipe dreams.
I doubt a 10% sales tax would pay for debt servicing + the military, much less anything else.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
fugu, You don't get any points for proving ME wrong. I said I didn't have a plan. -Katarain
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Then stop trying to name numbers.
One of the tenets of responsible finances is cutting your expenditures before giving up income, not after. That's one of the biggest problems I have with the current tax-cut mentality, this notion that if you cut taxes everything else can be worked out, which is nonsense.
Taxes shouldn't be cut without a firm understanding of where the cuts are coming out of.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
hey... I mixed up the sales tax number, but the points about wealth creation are still valid...
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Fugu, you *do* know enough math to realize that increasing the tax rate does not necessarily mean raising revenue, right?
Not to mention that most of these proposals utterly do away with the means by which the wealthiest (the people this thread was complaining about) hide large portions of their income. That in itself can allow for greater revenue from a lower overall rate.
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
quote:Just how many people do you think these global corporations employ?
Just how many Americans do they employ? Why are they trying to strip our labor laws, and offshore the workforce?
quote:Will you please explain to me how the government could have better spent that money, when they have so miserably failed with the over TRILLION dollars they have thrown at poverty since the great society.
If you will explain to me why the ungodly rich comprise such a small portion of our population.
quote:Again, it's not a zero sum game. Wealth can be created and destroyed... and I would put forth that based on the track records of the Billionaire vs. the track record of government social programs, I'll go with the Billionaires every time to be more effective at creating wealth for everyone.
The automatic idea that they actually are creating "more wealth for everyone" is the thing that I really don't buy. Even if the billionaires we are talking about paid 50%, as Thor suggested, they would still have more wealth than they knew what to do with.
When money is power, and that money lays in the hands of the few, then we have created a feudal cast system that is socially unfair. The playing field needs to be leveled.
Granted, I'm playing devil's advocate. And I apologize for the lateness of my reply, but I do work. I only post during breaks or, as in this case, my lunch.
(Nice discussion, by the way). Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think I favor the sales tax idea. But I hate the idea of lots of different tax brackets for items. One of the reasons internet retailers are adverse to charging sales tax is how complicated it actually is to categorize each item for all 40+ states with sales taxes.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
10, 20, 40, 5, 32, 78, 91, 106. There, I'm naming numbers. Whatcha gonna do about it, huh???
I made it perfectly clear that if I HAD to choose a tax policy I would choose 10%, along with government cuts. I happen to think government is way too big. And it's my opinion, and I've already made it clear that I'm not skilled or knowledgeable in this area. You're overreacting as if I have any real power to implement my "system."
-Katarain
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
"Harlan Pepper, are you namin' nuts again?"
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I don't get the reference...but I'm sure it's amusing. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's from Best in Show. One of the owners names nuts, and that was how he remembered his mom getting on his case about it.
"Hickory nuts, macadamian nuts, Brazil nuts, hazlenuts..."
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
[movie reference] Best of Show [/movie reference] 8)
Oops, late!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Decreasing the tax rate doesn't necessarily mean increasing population retained wealth in real dollars, either .
For instance, if a government service such as education were to disappear due to tax cuts (in this case they would be required at multiple levels), the impact on society would overall likely be bad (there's certainly some debate on this, but its hard to deny that at least in the short term -- five to ten years -- the US economy would go down the drains).
The question of whether or not a tax cut or increase is beneficial is extraordinarily complex considered abstractly. Sometimes situations manage to conflate the situation to a simpler one, but only sometimes.
My general position right now is the federal budget is at about the right size for the time being. Certain tax cuts may be possible through restructuring, but restructuring should be tackled from a "best way to do things" standpoint rather than a "cut it and then make do somehow" standpoint (like the approach chosen for Bush's tax cuts).
And even then, gains from restructuring should more likely be funneled into debt reduction, saving this nation from far more taxes in the long term.
There must be different tax brackets for items if a sales tax plan is implemented, or direct subsidies to the low income. A uniform sales tax would be massively regressive, and the poor in this nation would not be able to purchase needed goods.
Of course, the brackets could be a 0% and an x% bracket, with the 0% bracket applying for certain categories of purchase (most foods, household staples, et cetera).
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Of course, the brackets could be a 0% and an x% bracket, with the 0% bracket applying for certain categories of purchase (most foods, household staples, et cetera).
Fugu, that last is how I picture it... though I wouldn't object to three tier: necessities (zero), ordinary purchase (low to mid), and "luxuries" (high).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I opposed "lots of different brackets."
Not more than one bracket.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
For Thor: Greed, by definition, is hunger for something you neither need nor deserve. As it's clear you're not starving and have a roof over your head, how exactly do you keep yourself from being defined as Greedy when you suggest that those with more should give you some? It is possible to have a great amount of wealth without ever having been greedy for it. That it came by fortune of birth or work that proved profitable.
no 6:
quote:If you will explain to me why the ungodly rich comprise such a small portion of our population.
This is like saying "someday all students will be above average". Even poor Americans are astonishingly wealthy by comparison to the poor of Haiti or India. I hope America never becomes a place where our poor live like those of Calcutta. Only a small percentage of people in a country can be the super-rich -- because they're only super-rich if they're the ones with more than almost everyone else. It's a matter of comparison.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ah, gotcha, misread the emphasis.
Yeah, a few brackets would by far be the way to go.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)