Who Will Be the 2012 Republican Presidential Nominee?
10-19-2011
, 10:28 AM
10-19-2011
, 10:38 AM
10-19-2011
, 10:55 AM
10-19-2011
, 11:18 AM
10-19-2011
, 11:27 AM
10-19-2011
, 12:09 PM
Quote:
I've never thought this. I think the rich got richer by the system. It's set up so that the people who started with the most get to astronomical amounts of money. I've stated this many times with many examples. You lower the tax rate on someone making 10k a year from investments, they do well. You do that to someone who has 10 million, he makes out like a bandit. It's simple math. After a certain amount of time the guys who started with the most have such ridiculous amounts of money it skews EVERYTHING. Proof? The top 400 people in this country have the equal amount of wealth than the bottom 100 million. Think about that for a second, in all seriousness. You could fit 400 people in a city block. What kind of space do you need to fit 100 MILLION ****ing people?
Current levels of taxation are ******ed in my opinion. I'm not blaming people from benefitting from it. I'm saying the game is screwed up. Like Bodie said "this game is rigged".
A widening income disparity implies that the tax rate should be, in your terms, "more progressive". This is where things get a bit hairy. Do I believe that people should be punished for their success? Absolutely not. Do I think that the richest people in America, over time, will get to such a gargantuan amount of wealth that it would be detrimental to the good of the country?
Yeah.
Current levels of taxation are ******ed in my opinion. I'm not blaming people from benefitting from it. I'm saying the game is screwed up. Like Bodie said "this game is rigged".
A widening income disparity implies that the tax rate should be, in your terms, "more progressive". This is where things get a bit hairy. Do I believe that people should be punished for their success? Absolutely not. Do I think that the richest people in America, over time, will get to such a gargantuan amount of wealth that it would be detrimental to the good of the country?
Yeah.
Quote:
What you're argued is in favour of a progressive tax system. But nothing about what you've said provides any evidence of where to draw the line. You believe that higher taxes have benefits such as reducing the chances of large fortunes emerging, but you presumably also believe they have costs (otherwise you would support a 100% top tax rate). Where do marginal costs = marginal benefits? You could make arguments for 0.1% or 99.9%.
For more on why this and other arguments miss the point, see my thread.
For more on why this and other arguments miss the point, see my thread.
Quote:
I've having a lot of trouble here because with most positions I can come up with an answer very quickly. With what you posted, I'm actually struggling. But I'll try.
Actually, I think it does. By the very nature of your statement you are saying if the gap is getting larger, it doesn't prove that taxes should increase. I would say the opposite is true. If the gap is getting larger, the top end should increase to slow down the growth rate. Yes, I'm saying the more you make the more you should be taxed. The alternative, because of the concept of compounding returns, would be self-destructive. Warren Buffett's wealth increase faster than others. Eventually, something has to give. Agree? Or am I nuts?
This would depend on what the tax rate is on the lower amount of income. I might not be conveying my thoughts well here. What I mean is that the lesser amount of money you have, the easier it should be to benefit by having a lower tax burden. The higher amount, the harder it should be. The alternative, over time, is a collapse somewhere. Not sure how many years, but it'll happen.
I'm having a lot of trouble with this post, I hope someone can expand on my theory more eloquently than I can.
Actually, I think it does. By the very nature of your statement you are saying if the gap is getting larger, it doesn't prove that taxes should increase. I would say the opposite is true. If the gap is getting larger, the top end should increase to slow down the growth rate. Yes, I'm saying the more you make the more you should be taxed. The alternative, because of the concept of compounding returns, would be self-destructive. Warren Buffett's wealth increase faster than others. Eventually, something has to give. Agree? Or am I nuts?
This would depend on what the tax rate is on the lower amount of income. I might not be conveying my thoughts well here. What I mean is that the lesser amount of money you have, the easier it should be to benefit by having a lower tax burden. The higher amount, the harder it should be. The alternative, over time, is a collapse somewhere. Not sure how many years, but it'll happen.
I'm having a lot of trouble with this post, I hope someone can expand on my theory more eloquently than I can.
The fact that the rich are getting richer is not an argument for more progressive taxation. I don't have an issue with a rich person making more money, and that's not really what people are up in arms about protesting. The problem is that the poor, these lucky duckies who don't pay any income taxes, are not getting any less poor, despite not paying income taxes. The lower-middle class aren't getting any richer either. Neither are the middle class. That's what people have an issue with. It's **** like this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/b...pagewanted=all
Workers are increasingly productive, and our GDP has been growing (with the exception of the last few years). However, the proportional compensation to the workers has been going down since 1970, and esp. since 1980, with a brief period of reprieve in the late 90s. That's indicative of something wrong with the system. The average American should not expect to work increasingly hard but get decreasing amounts of compensation for that work, esp. while watching the people at the very top rake it in. That's not being jealous of success. It's that it takes more than just capital to make new wealth. It takes labor, too, but only the people with large amounts of capital are the ones gaining that new wealth.
So yeah, if you got better ideas about how to fix this than a more progressive tax code, Americans will be all ears. However, what we are hearing about is that the federal government can't pay its bills, and the solutions being offered by the GOP are tax cuts on the richest people despite their taxes being quite low and that a vehicle that lots of rich people use to get fantastically wealthy, and a vehicle that's only really useable by the rich -- capital gains -- is being taxed at a much lower rate than what the average American pays. Plus, the GOP is then wanting to cut things that benefit poor people, like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Wait just a damn minute here. Workers have been getting poorer despite increased productivity, the richest people have gotten richer, and now those rich people want to take away government benefits AND make themselves even richer on top of that? Or else, our country will collapse under its debt?
How about another idea. How about taxing people on the top more? How about a return to Clinton-era levels of taxation, which, despite what rich people might tell you, were levels of taxation under which the economy grew and both rich and poor got richer. What we're looking for is a level of taxation that can sustain the country, sustain our social safety nets (not that they can't be improved, but they should be there), and that allows both rich and poor to benefit as the economy grows. The lowest and least progressive tax system that allows for that is the target. What we have now isn't right. We have a system that is clearly too regressive. I'm not sure what "the line" is, no one does. But the line where taxes on the rich are so high that they're not getting rich enough is really far from where we are now.
10-19-2011
, 02:49 PM
Quote:
Wil, Nichelmn,
The fact that the rich are getting richer is not an argument for more progressive taxation. I don't have an issue with a rich person making more money, and that's not really what people are up in arms about protesting. The problem is that the poor, these lucky duckies who don't pay any income taxes, are not getting any less poor, despite not paying income taxes. The lower-middle class aren't getting any richer either. Neither are the middle class. That's what people have an issue with. It's **** like this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/b...pagewanted=all
Workers are increasingly productive, and our GDP has been growing (with the exception of the last few years). However, the proportional compensation to the workers has been going down since 1970, and esp. since 1980, with a brief period of reprieve in the late 90s. That's indicative of something wrong with the system. The average American should not expect to work increasingly hard but get decreasing amounts of compensation for that work, esp. while watching the people at the very top rake it in. That's not being jealous of success. It's that it takes more than just capital to make new wealth. It takes labor, too, but only the people with large amounts of capital are the ones gaining that new wealth.
So yeah, if you got better ideas about how to fix this than a more progressive tax code, Americans will be all ears. However, what we are hearing about is that the federal government can't pay its bills, and the solutions being offered by the GOP are tax cuts on the richest people despite their taxes being quite low and that a vehicle that lots of rich people use to get fantastically wealthy, and a vehicle that's only really useable by the rich -- capital gains -- is being taxed at a much lower rate than what the average American pays. Plus, the GOP is then wanting to cut things that benefit poor people, like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Wait just a damn minute here. Workers have been getting poorer despite increased productivity, the richest people have gotten richer, and now those rich people want to take away government benefits AND make themselves even richer on top of that? Or else, our country will collapse under its debt?
How about another idea. How about taxing people on the top more? How about a return to Clinton-era levels of taxation, which, despite what rich people might tell you, were levels of taxation under which the economy grew and both rich and poor got richer. What we're looking for is a level of taxation that can sustain the country, sustain our social safety nets (not that they can't be improved, but they should be there), and that allows both rich and poor to benefit as the economy grows. The lowest and least progressive tax system that allows for that is the target. What we have now isn't right. We have a system that is clearly too regressive. I'm not sure what "the line" is, no one does. But the line where taxes on the rich are so high that they're not getting rich enough is really far from where we are now.
The fact that the rich are getting richer is not an argument for more progressive taxation. I don't have an issue with a rich person making more money, and that's not really what people are up in arms about protesting. The problem is that the poor, these lucky duckies who don't pay any income taxes, are not getting any less poor, despite not paying income taxes. The lower-middle class aren't getting any richer either. Neither are the middle class. That's what people have an issue with. It's **** like this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/b...pagewanted=all
Workers are increasingly productive, and our GDP has been growing (with the exception of the last few years). However, the proportional compensation to the workers has been going down since 1970, and esp. since 1980, with a brief period of reprieve in the late 90s. That's indicative of something wrong with the system. The average American should not expect to work increasingly hard but get decreasing amounts of compensation for that work, esp. while watching the people at the very top rake it in. That's not being jealous of success. It's that it takes more than just capital to make new wealth. It takes labor, too, but only the people with large amounts of capital are the ones gaining that new wealth.
So yeah, if you got better ideas about how to fix this than a more progressive tax code, Americans will be all ears. However, what we are hearing about is that the federal government can't pay its bills, and the solutions being offered by the GOP are tax cuts on the richest people despite their taxes being quite low and that a vehicle that lots of rich people use to get fantastically wealthy, and a vehicle that's only really useable by the rich -- capital gains -- is being taxed at a much lower rate than what the average American pays. Plus, the GOP is then wanting to cut things that benefit poor people, like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Wait just a damn minute here. Workers have been getting poorer despite increased productivity, the richest people have gotten richer, and now those rich people want to take away government benefits AND make themselves even richer on top of that? Or else, our country will collapse under its debt?
How about another idea. How about taxing people on the top more? How about a return to Clinton-era levels of taxation, which, despite what rich people might tell you, were levels of taxation under which the economy grew and both rich and poor got richer. What we're looking for is a level of taxation that can sustain the country, sustain our social safety nets (not that they can't be improved, but they should be there), and that allows both rich and poor to benefit as the economy grows. The lowest and least progressive tax system that allows for that is the target. What we have now isn't right. We have a system that is clearly too regressive. I'm not sure what "the line" is, no one does. But the line where taxes on the rich are so high that they're not getting rich enough is really far from where we are now.
The TEA party seems to think that the debt is our single biggest problem facing the country. The left seem to think tax fairness is. I reject both claims, we need growth.
10-19-2011
, 03:01 PM
10-19-2011
, 03:03 PM
10-19-2011
, 03:47 PM
