posted
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 410 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 410 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 410 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So if anyone makes more than $500,000 per year, the remainder is confiscated? Or is it taxed at 50%?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the top marginal rate is 38% and starts at $200k?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!"
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
hey... I mixed up the sales tax number, but the points about wealth creation are still valid...
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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). Posts: 410 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
posted
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).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
