Quote:

Original post by Chris Reynolds It has been said many times, and it's the truth: The problem here is a spending problem, not a tax revenue problem. I wish the green "sustainability" people would apply that mentality to the economy.

But it's both. The wealthy are not getting unfairly taxed. The wealthy do not have a tax burden. The wealthy do not have to wait until April to pay bills or have extra capital to buy things. The wealthy did not and should have not gotten a tax cut in 2001 and 2003. That decreased tax revenue. The same people who promoted and passed those tax cuts, then took the country on an overseas expedition and spending money left and right to fund it. These same people took the surplus and made it into a deficit before embarking on this overseas expedition. These same people said that if the wealthy do not receive these tax cuts then jobs will be lost. Well we all saw how that went. These same people then bailed out the financial institutions who were receiving this gracious tax cut. 3 to 4 years later these institutions are making record profits, sitting on trillions in reserves, but are barely hiring again. At the same time, they are receiving these gracious tax cuts.

Personally, I say: when the economy gets better again put everyone's taxes back to pre-9/11 rates, end the wars, and cut back on unnecessary earmarks (if not eliminate them altogether). Then fix the tax system. Don't keep letting businesses hold us hostages by threatening to move jobs elsewhere. As anyone can see, it's a global economy. What's affects us, affects them. Making us poorer will not make there profits rise in the medium to long term. Though I must admit, it's working in the short-term (ie. now).

Quote:

Original post by way2lazy2care Quote: That wasn't really the point of what I wanted to know. No matter what you want to call it, the result of not having progressive taxation (or having less progressive taxation) is that the wealth distribution becomes more unequal. The empirical evidence for this is overwhelming. Given that, I suppose I have to rephrase my question: Why on earth are you in favour of increasing wealth inequality? I'm not in favor of increasing wealth inequality. I'm in favor of treating people equally.

Two things:

(1) The different levels of income taxes have nothing to do with treating people equally before the law. Okay, only a small part of the population is in the highest bracket. So what? Consider the fact that only a small part of the population is in prison. Does that mean that people are not treated equally? So I guess your statement above should be corrected to "I'm in favor of taxing people equally regardless of income."

(2) More equal taxation leads to an increase of wealth inequality, which will work against your own interests (unless you happen to belong to the top 2% or so as far as income and/or wealth is concerned).

The really amazing thing about all this is that something in your past caused you to adopt a world view that causes you to favour economic policies that work against your own interest.

Now I would understand it if you accepted an inconvenience on your part for the greater good. But how is enabling the rich to become even richer ever part of the greater good? Societies with extreme wealth inequality have existed in the past and they still exist in the present, and they suck for everybody - even for the people at the top, compared to the more equal societies of the present. So it stands to reason that enabling the rich to become even richer will cause your society to become suckier as well. Again, it's just hard to fathom how anybody could be in favour of that.

From a detached, coldly analytical perspective, this is all absolutely fascinating, because it indicates that there are very strong formative mechanisms in place that prevent the lower and middle class from significantly improving their own welfare. It's fascinating because they aren't prevented by force, but rather by some kind of mental block in their own brains and belief systems that causes them to work against their own interests. The jailers don't have to do anything, because the prisoners are keeping themselves locked up.

If these mechanism have been designed and installed on purpose, then that is a truly impressive piece of social engineering on a societal scale. It also raises the question of what can be done to fix this.

Edit: By the way, of course I realize that there is a trade-off somewhere. Complete equality cannot be reached. However, just looking at the numbers, it is clear that the countries of the West used to have significantly better wealth equality in the past, and that was typically during times that are associated with economic success on a large scale. Today, we are in a position where wealth inequality is clearly too high, simply compared with historic data.

Quote:

Original post by Prefect (1) The different levels of income taxes have nothing to do with treating people equally before the law. Okay, only a small part of the population is in the highest bracket. So what? Consider the fact that only a small part of the population is in prison. Does that mean that people are not treated equally? So I guess your statement above should be corrected to "I'm in favor of taxing people equally regardless of income."

that's right. I forgot making money was something that needed to be punished...

Quote:

(2) More equal taxation leads to an increase of wealth inequality, which will work against your own interests (unless you happen to belong to the top 2% or so as far as income and/or wealth is concerned).

SO WHAT?! as long as I can make a decent living why the hell do I care what the richest people in the world are doing? putting aside completely that a lot more people are self made wealthy than people think (majority of billionaires on the forbes 400 are self made billionaires), why does it matter that they make more money than me?

I mean bill gates just pumped 35 billion dollars into charity as well as a lot of other millionaires/billionaires agreeing to give the majority of their estates to charity over the course of their lifetimes, but I suppose it makes sense that on top of that I should ask him to fund a larger percent of our military and put more money into our roads and pay for our healthcare.

Quote:

Original post by way2lazy2care I mean bill gates just pumped 35 billion dollars into charity as well as a lot of other millionaires/billionaires agreeing to give the majority of their estates to charity over the course of their lifetimes, but I suppose it makes sense that on top of that I should ask him to fund a larger percent of our military and put more money into our roads and pay for our healthcare.

Actually Bill Gates is on record saying that he wants the gov't to raise the tax rate. He doesn't need to the tax cut. He's not poor. He's not middle-class. He does not have any financial burdens. So the gov't doesn't need to go out of its way to make him richer.

Quote:

Original post by way2lazy2care Quote: (2) More equal taxation leads to an increase of wealth inequality, which will work against your own interests (unless you happen to belong to the top 2% or so as far as income and/or wealth is concerned). SO WHAT?! as long as I can make a decent living why the hell do I care what the richest people in the world are doing? putting aside completely that a lot more people are self made wealthy than people think (majority of billionaires on the forbes 400 are self made billionaires), why does it matter that they make more money than me? I mean bill gates just pumped 35 billion dollars into charity as well as a lot of other millionaires/billionaires agreeing to give the majority of their estates to charity over the course of their lifetimes, but I suppose it makes sense that on top of that I should ask him to fund a larger percent of our military and put more money into our roads and pay for our healthcare.

Wealth inequality is exactly the reason why many people cannot make a decent living.

I think that when we speak about wealth inequality we are talking about a people who can't find a job or have a crappy one, sick people, un-educated ones AND people who has such an amount of money that it's nearly impossible to expend it all.

It's simple. If there are 10 people and 10 pieces of bread and one of these people has 9 pieces for himself, there are going to be 8 people who won't be able to eat.
If there was an 11th person responsible for making all the 10 people survive by distributing wealth then he has to ask the guy who has 9 pieces of bread more bread-tax than to the one who has 1 piece of bread.

Quote:

Original post by Alpha_ProgDes He doesn't need to the tax cut. He's not poor. He's not middle-class. He does not have any financial burdens. So the gov't doesn't need to go out of its way to make him richer.

If he wants to pay more in taxes he can. Anyone can pay more then they owe, but I doubt many of the higher tax advocates will do that.

Quote:

Original post by tstrimp Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes Quote: Original post by way2lazy2care I mean bill gates just pumped 35 billion dollars into charity as well as a lot of other millionaires/billionaires agreeing to give the majority of their estates to charity over the course of their lifetimes, but I suppose it makes sense that on top of that I should ask him to fund a larger percent of our military and put more money into our roads and pay for our healthcare. Actually Bill Gates is on record saying that he wants the gov't to raise the tax rate. He doesn't need to the tax cut. He's not poor. He's not middle-class. He does not have any financial burdens. So the gov't doesn't need to go out of its way to make him richer. If he wants to pay more in taxes he can. Anyone can pay more then they owe, but I doubt many of the higher tax advocates will do that.

Wow. Way to twist that up. We're not talking about writing 0 for your deductions. Your response still doesn't address or even counter the issue that the gov't does not need to go out of its way to make the rich richer.

Quote:

Original post by owl It's simple. If there are 10 people and 10 pieces of bread and one of these people has 9 pieces for himself, there are going to be 8 people who won't be able to eat. If there was an 11th person responsible for making all the 10 people survive by distributing wealth then he has to ask the guy who has 9 pieces of bread more bread-tax than to the one who has 1 piece of bread.

It's not nearly as simple as you make it out to be. If you cut all of the CEO salaries in the USA in half, not all of the employees are magically going to get paid more. People typically get paid what they are worth. You're never going to get rich pushing shopping carts, washing dishes or flipping burgers, and you shouldn't. There are plenty of people willing to do the work and it takes no skill to do.

How much should people get paid for a job that practically anyone can do with 30 minutes of training?

Quote:

Original post by irreversible ... trouble understanding how it could possibly be possible for, what is it - 41? - Republicans (out of how many, again? 50?) to not only oppose, but vote against the 9/11 health bill on grounds of a 2-3% (it was from 37 to 39%, wasn't it?) tax increase for anyone who makes over $250K a year. ...

The number is 43 Republican Senators. They held up voting on any bill until the tax cut bill was passed. The $7 billion for health care for 9/11 first responders was paid for with the closing of a tax loophole. For all their many years pontificating about how great 9/11 first responders are, those 43 Republican Senators still can not offer any good reasons for why they are blocking a vote on this bill. It appears that they simply don't want President Obama and the Democrats to get any credit for passing the bill. Beyond base partisanship, this is another clear example of how the Senate is broken. The way the rules are set up in the Senate, these sanctimonious fools don't even have to stand up and make the case for why they are blocking a vote. They don't have to hold the floor to maintain a filibuster either, they way it was portrayed in the movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". At any rate, it's crap like this monkey business with the 9/11 first responders bill that explains why I frequently bash Republicans. They're a bunch of ripe bastards.

Quote:

Original post by Alpha_ProgDes Wow. Way to twist that up. We're not talking about writing 0 for your deductions.

Neither am I. Gifts to the United States Government.

Anyone who thinks that they are not taxed enough should put their money where their mouth is and send it in.

Quote:

Original post by Alpha_ProgDes Your response still doesn't address or even counter the issue that the gov't does not need to go out of its way to make the rich richer.

No, they don't. The rich are obviously good enough at that themselves. Not exactly sure what sort of response you were expecting.