# Rich Get Rich and Poor Get Poorer



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 14, 2005)

Is this the Republican way?

The house has just voted a large tax break for the wealthy people. To compensate for this cut they are cutting programs that offer assistance to people in the lower classes. They are also cutting financial aid for students for college and many more programs to help people...just so the rich can get more rich....if this is the Republican way i want no part of it.

President Bush and the republican congress are causing a deficit that future generations will have to pay back....since they will likely be dead or out of office they don't care about the future.

What are these tax cuts going to do....I garentee the excuse that it is going to place more money in the economy is bullcrap.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 14, 2005)

well, keep in mind that the gang of thugs known as Bush & Co., are not really republicans.  They are neo-conservatives disguised as republicans, and they have hijacked the republican party and are using it to further their agenda.

Their agenda was spelled out by Wolfowitz back in the 1980s.  In a nutshell, their agenda includes the liberal and premeditated use of the US military around the globe to establish control over the resources of the world, which would be for the benefit of the US (in reality, the WEALTHY within the US).  Essentially, they believe it is the role of the US to globally give orders, and other nations are to obey.  

An invasion of Iraq was listed as part of this plan back in the 1980s.  They only needed a reason they could use to justify the invasion to the public.  One year before 911, their internal memos expressed that this would be a hard-sell to the US public, unless we had another "Pearl Harbor".  One year later, we had 911, and these clowns were in business.

Yes, their plan is for the rich to get richer, and the poor to get poorer, and they do it thru committing atrocities around the world.  This is why Bush's second term is such a tragedy, because all the signs were there but the general public refused to recognize them.  They voted him in (well, he helped by stealing the election again, but enough people voted for him to make that possible), and now we are stuck with him again.  Hopefull, he is becoming more and more a lame duck.  But then, when his term is over, he and his henchmen will walk away with all their wealth, and they will never be held accountable for what they have done.  Hopefully, the International community will declare them as war criminals, and may be able to do something to them if they ever leave the country.  Probably wishful thinking.  Welcome to the good old USA.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 14, 2005)

BlueDragon1981 said:
			
		

> Is this the Republican way?
> 
> The house has just voted a large tax break for the wealthy people. To compensate for this cut they are cutting programs that offer assistance to people in the lower classes. They are also cutting financial aid for students for college and many more programs to help people...just so the rich can get more rich....if this is the Republican way i want no part of it.
> 
> ...



Do you have a link to somewhere that we can read the report or the bill?


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 14, 2005)

Yes, while its always enjoyable to bash large groups of people, it would be nice to see some sources before we engage in bashing anyone. 

7sm


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 14, 2005)

Well I can't really post a link to a CNN news reel and a radio conversation....but i will try to find a link for you.

Why do people deny what the Bush administration is doing? Deficit at all time high. Tax cuts have been mainly for the rich....why deny it.


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 14, 2005)

These have something to do with the cuts...not exactly what I'm looking for but they will do....

http://www.cbpp.org/6-2-04tax.htm

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=34039

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1031/p15s02-cogn.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/10/congress.taxes.ap/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-10-taxcuts_x.htm


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 15, 2005)

Flying Crane laid out an intelligent, cogent explanation of the factors underlying his feelings about the Bush White House.  That isn't "bashing."  That's an intelligent argument.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 15, 2005)

I simply asked for sources before joining the discussion. Calm down everybody.

7sm


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 15, 2005)

I was calm....found links. Sources on tv and radio are hard to justify i know, sorry for not researching it before i posted it. Should have realized not everybody hears or watches the same thing I do.


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 15, 2005)

Thanks for the anonmous point by the way....I would say that both republicans and democrats are making the whole system inefficient because the only thing they can agree on is not to agree and it is going over to the public.....I'm not buying the democratic items just I'm looking at issues that many Republicans (not all) refuse to see.

The deficit is increasing....records show the largest decrease is going to the rich...what is wrong about posting comments based off of those facts.

Back up how much money the "tax cuts" are actually putting into the economy. If you want to cut taxes cut it on your largest portion of people. The middle class...specifically the low middle class. They are a larger group and will spend more.

If I'm totally democratic like you think then you should know that I am for repealling the marriage tax...and other things they propose. I'm just saying if you are going to cut taxes...cut it say 5% across the board. Not 20% to the rich, 5% to the middle class, and 2% to poor (yes ... those are not real figures, just for  illistrasion purposes.)

I'm not going to retaliate with a negative point just because you disagree or are arguing against me. (Yes I have a good hunch to who gave me the point)


----------



## ginshun (Nov 15, 2005)

The more money you make the higher the percentage you pay in taxes, and the top 10% of people income wise pay 65% of total income tax revenues.

How exactly would you change the system?


I think it is safe to say that the rich are getting richer, but I don't see the poor getting poorer.  Poor 50 years ago was not being able to eat.  Poor now is that your family only has two TV's.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 15, 2005)

Lets leave out assumptions as to who or what people are and just argue the points listed. As to reputation points, this is not the place for that discussion. If you received a negative rep you think is abusive, contact one of our admin team and we can look into it, otherwise, lets leave that discussion out of this thread. 

On topic, tax breaks dont necessarily equal getting richer or poorer. What would you propose aside from the current taxes? Giving a higher taxed bracket a tax break isn't making those in lower brackets poorer.

7sm


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 15, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> How exactly would you change the system?


 
What I would do is tax the wealthy and the super-wealthy on a graduated rate, for income over certain amounts.  for example:

income of 250,000 to 500,000, tax at 40%.
income of 500,001 to 1million, tax at 50%
income of 1million and 1 to 5 million, tax at 65%
income of 5million and 1 to 10 million, tax at 80%
income of 10million and 1 and over, tax at 90%

My numbers here are just sort of random numbers that I came up with in a hurry, but it captures the essence of my message.

I don't have a problem with wealth in the abstract, but I believe that the super-rich need to be willing to take a step back and recognize that they have enough.  Money becomes a game for them.  It is monopoly money and is meaningless.  Yet many of them just keep on hoarding more and more.  This is what I object to.  So, I think that when you move into the realm of the super-wealthy, you should pay most of that back in taxes, and take some of the burden off the poor and midle class.  When you make an annual income of tens of millions of dollars, paying a rate of 90% or so shouldn't really make much difference in your lifestyle, if you live a REASONABLE lifestyle (I know, REASONABLE is subject to interpretation, but these are my views I am expressing).  By contrast, a poor family is affected much more directly and heavily by the taxes they pay, even tho the percentage is much smaller.   20% of a $20,000 annual income is a lot harder to swallow in concrete ramifications, than 80% of income earned between 5 and 10 million.

I work in the financial brokerage industry, so I do have exposure to this kind of thing on a daily basis.  My opinion is based on what I see, working in this industry.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 15, 2005)

here is another example:  In the last couple of years, Bush has signed into law changes that affect the maximum contributions to tax-sheltered retirement funds.  The annual maximum IRA contribution has increased from $2000 to $4000.  The maximum annual 401K contribution has increased from 15% of your salary, to 50%, and I think the actual dollar ceiling was raised for 401K as well.

At first, this looks like a good thing.  We all get to make a greater annual contribution to tax-sheltered retirement savings.  But take a closer look at what this means.  Who has the disposable income available to put 50% into a 401K, and $4000 into an IRA?  Not the poor and middle class.  They need most of their income just to make payments in life.  The rent, or the mortgage, buying groceries, paying the utilities, paying for the needs of their children, etc.  These expenses leave very little extra cash for the poor and middle class to invest in retirement savings, no matter how enticing it is because of the tax-shelter.  If the money just isn't there, you can't save it.  If the choice is buy food to feed the baby vs. tax-sheltered retirement savings, I think the baby wins out every time.

So who benefits from these changes?  The wealthy.  They are the ones who have the extra cash lying around to put into this kind of savings.  But the real kicker is this: these are exactly the people who DON'T NEED IT!  They are already wealthy.  They don't need the special savings. they have PLENTY already.

This is also true of Social Security.  The wealthy get to collect social security benefits just like the poor and middle class.  But once again, THEY DON'T NEED IT!  They are already wealthy.  I think the wealthy should pay in to social security like everyone else, maybe even at a higher rate, but when they reach retirement age their assets should be scrutinized.  If they have assets with a value greater than a certain amount, then they should be disqualified from receiving Social Security payments.  Those funds should be available to people who need it, like the poor and middle class.  People who are wealthy should never collect a penny of taxpayer's money.  Ya don't see Bush making this suggestion as a fix for the Social Security problem.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 15, 2005)

Could you explain why one person should pay 90% of their hard earned money to the government while the next only has to pay 10%? Thats targeting minorites....aren't we against that here in america?

7sm


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Nov 15, 2005)

I lived in Belgium for a spell. Flat tax at around 55-60% for all income levels. Everybody hates it till they retire, and find their living expenses paid for in full, with the dictum of the law that the state pay for the individual to maintain their standard of living. Middle class when you retire? Middle class when you die, etc. Cost of living goes up? No biggie...you stay at the lifestyle you worked to create for yourself.

Of course, there are upsides and down sides (socialized medicine, etc.), but I can't help but wonder why there is so much objection to a straight pecentage tax here in the U.S.

Regards,

Dave


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 15, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Could you explain why one person should pay 90% of their hard earned money to the government while the next only has to pay 10%? Thats targeting minorites....aren't we against that here in america?
> 
> 7sm


 
because someone who makes $20 million per year can afford to pay 90% much much much much much much easier than someone who makes $20,000 can afford to pay 10%.  People who make this kind of money usually have made it at the expense of lower-paid workers.  Without those workers, he would not have made $20 million.  He should shoulder a much greater share of the tax burden because he has reaped a much much much much much greater share of the profits.  It is time for people to stop hoarding.

Keep in mind, by my plan, he would only pay 90% on the amount exceeding $10 million.  The lesser amounts would be taxed at lower rates.  His actual net income would be $4,149,998.80, not including the first $250,000 gross income that would be taxed at a lower rate.  For the sake of argument, let's say this amount is taxed at 30%.  This gives him a total net income of $4,324,998.80, if his annual gross income was $20 million.  You don't think this is enough?

Now, the percentages that I threw out were pulled out of my butt in a hurry.  They were used just to convey the idea.  Maybe they would be adjusted, but this is the type of tax system that I think would be somewhat more just and fair.  Someone making $20 million per year certainly qualifies to be counted among the super-wealthy, and I think he should shoulder the burden.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 15, 2005)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> I lived in Belgium for a spell. Flat tax at around 55-60% for all income levels. Everybody hates it till they retire, and find their living expenses paid for in full, with the dictum of the law that the state pay for the individual to maintain their standard of living. Middle class when you retire? Middle class when you die, etc. Cost of living goes up? No biggie...you stay at the lifestyle you worked to create for yourself.
> 
> Of course, there are upsides and down sides (socialized medicine, etc.), but I can't help but wonder why there is so much objection to a straight pecentage tax here in the U.S.
> 
> ...


 
Well, if I was taxed at that rate, I could not even pay the basics of life, like the rent and groceries.  Of course, I also live in San Francisco, one of the most expensive places to live on the planet...


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 15, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> because someone who makes $20 million per year can afford to pay 90% much much much much much much easier than someone who makes $20,000 can afford to pay 10%. People who make this kind of money usually have made it at the expense of lower-paid workers. Without those workers, he would not have made $20 million. He should shoulder a much greater share of the tax burden because he has reaped a much much much much much greater share of the profits. It is time for people to stop hoarding.


 
first, why did he make that money? more than likely its not been "given" to him and he worked his butt off to get into that situation. Those "lower paid workers" are likely to include many readers on this board. You tax 90% of the empolyee, guess who is going to feel the crunch? the employees. Can't hire as much as a business owner.

What does this guy do with his cash? reinvest it in his business? thats great for the business and he can hire more employees. Buy a yatch? not likely, but if he does, who made that yatch? how many people did he indirectly employ to build it? does it have a crew? aren't those employees? Buy a mansion? Who built it? Those things don't just magically appear. I imagine a broker made a nice penny off of the sale too. Buy nice cars? Good for GM, which employs a large amount of people.

so, the "hoarding" you refer to is not hoarding at all... do people stick it in the bank? I doubt it, but even so, its employing people at the bank. stocks/bonds? he is supporting government/business.

I've got a mental game for you to play... imagine everyone in the world has -exactly- the same amount of money. you give everyone 1 million dollars! Now, go down the road 5 years and tell me where the money is. Its going to be back in the hands of the people who had it in the first place! Its the people who have the guts to take the risks, the people who have the knowledge that they need an education and the people with the drive and hard-work attitude that are going to do good and get it all back.

This is part of what made our country great... I would despise seeing something like this 90% tax you propose, it would strangle many of those "horrible" people and companies that made this country as great as it is. On the other hand, they might just spend more on tax attorneys to figure out a way around it LOL

btw, I'm not rich, I'm pretty broke. However, I don't plan on staying that way my entire life. Neither does any small business owner. I don't care to crucify them for their success.

btw, they "rich" already shoulder the bourden, paying the lions share of the taxes. This is part of what I find funny when people complain about tax cuts for the rich. statistically, they are the ones paying most of the taxes! btw, the Bush cuts cut taxes on everyone, not just the rich.. we can argue that is you want... This is class warfare at its finest.

MrH


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 15, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> This is also true of Social Security. The wealthy get to collect social security benefits just like the poor and middle class. But once again, THEY DON'T NEED IT! They are already wealthy. I think the wealthy should pay in to social security like everyone else, maybe even at a higher rate, but when they reach retirement age their assets should be scrutinized. If they have assets with a value greater than a certain amount, then they should be disqualified from receiving Social Security payments. Those funds should be available to people who need it, like the poor and middle class. People who are wealthy should never collect a penny of taxpayer's money. Ya don't see Bush making this suggestion as a fix for the Social Security problem.


 
I'd be in favor of allowing the rich to opt out of SS with a drastic reduction in the amount they pay. Say cut it 50% or 75%. They still put in a heck of alot, just agree to never take out. Those with money can do a heck of alot better than the 2% from SS. Heck, anyone can. stick the money in some CD's. Long term CD's are better than the crappy 2% SS gives you.

I'd also be in favor of total privitization of SS. The less money in DC the better. a 4% CD would do so much better... or a nice 401k if you have access to one and want a small risk for better return.

heck, I'd like a waiver to stop SS withdrawls. I'd sign it... or for complete privitization, make a test for people, maybe a little class, so you can educate people on how to save for retirement. let them decide how to save their money. People who don't pass the test or don't want private investments get your lovely 2% SS checks when they retire. Works well for all. The only problem would be the transition years. That would reek... financing that is going to be a bear anyways, regardless of the plans that are made.

MrH


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 15, 2005)

That's the classic "trickle down economics" argument:  give more to the people at the top, and they will hire more people, pay higher wages, give better benefits.  The problem is, it doesn't work that way.  Since 1965, the compensation of CEOs of major corporations has skyrocketed, while the wages of the average workers has actually dropped.  In 1965, the ratio of CEO salary to factory workers' wage was 44:1.  Now it's about 200:1.  CEOs don't share, and the wealth isn't "trickling down."

As for taxes, the guy making 20 million probably makes a good part of it as dividend, not wages.  The tax on dividends is 15%, not the 35% we workers pay on our salaries.  Basically, we're penalized for working hard;  they're rewarded for investing.  But most of us workers don't have that kind of money to invest where it would make a difference.  That's a bonus for the ultra wealthy.

As for social security, it's the only way most of us can retire, AND it's guaranteed.  I lost my job a couple of years ago, and had to sell some stock immediately.  At that point in time, it was 35% LOWER than what I paid for it.  But I needed the bucks, and took the hit.  Good thing I didn't have to retire at that time.  And BTW, it was a blue chip--no amount of investment "classes" would have "educated" me enough to avoid that.


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 15, 2005)

Why were the biggest increases in the deficit during Reagan's term and Bush #1's term. I'm not saying tax the heck out of people. I'm saying if you cut taxes cut them across the board....why do the rich deserve more of a tax break, because their rich....i don't think so. Don't we also try to fight against poverty and other ill effects of life....you cut taxes other programs suffer and the first ones to suffer are those that help the poor and education....is that fair....only the rich can have an option to go to school. Cut taxes you cut these things....is that what you want. Even Greenspan is warning that the trade deficit and the national debt have to stop growing at such a substaintial rate.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 15, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> because someone who makes $20 million per year can afford to pay 90% much much much much much much easier than someone who makes $20,000 can afford to pay 10%. People who make this kind of money usually have made it at the expense of lower-paid workers. Without those workers, he would not have made $20 million. He should shoulder a much greater share of the tax burden because he has reaped a much much much much much greater share of the profits. It is time for people to stop hoarding.
> 
> Keep in mind, by my plan, he would only pay 90% on the amount exceeding $10 million. The lesser amounts would be taxed at lower rates. His actual net income would be $4,149,998.80, not including the first $250,000 gross income that would be taxed at a lower rate. For the sake of argument, let's say this amount is taxed at 30%. This gives him a total net income of $4,324,998.80, if his annual gross income was $20 million. You don't think this is enough?
> 
> Now, the percentages that I threw out were pulled out of my butt in a hurry. They were used just to convey the idea. Maybe they would be adjusted, but this is the type of tax system that I think would be somewhat more just and fair. Someone making $20 million per year certainly qualifies to be counted among the super-wealthy, and I think he should shoulder the burden.


You have *got* to be kidding me! Because Dr. Joe has more money than you he should be forced to get rid of 90% of it? Thats the most asinine and absurd thing I've ever heard. You can give no more reason to steal 90% of someones money than, "They can afford it"? 

Wow, I can't believe what I'm reading. Your offering to punish those who suceed while still managing to attack the minorities (those who make that much money). Its not anyones place to tell me or anyone else how much money is "enough". Wow, I dont even know what to say but wow.

7sm


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 15, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> You have *got* to be kidding me! Because Dr. Joe has more money than you he should be forced to get rid of 90% of it? Thats the most asinine and absurd thing I've ever heard. You can give no more reason to steal 90% of someones money than, "They can afford it"?
> 
> Wow, I can't believe what I'm reading. Your offering to punish those who suceed while still managing to attack the minorities (those who make that much money). Its not anyones place to tell me or anyone else how much money is "enough". Wow, I dont even know what to say but wow.
> 
> 7sm


 
in this example, $4.3 million net, per year, isn't somehow enough?  I'm just talking about some basic social responsibility.  When do the ultra rich have enough?  I would actually like to see them recognize this on their own and decide to stop taking compensation, or at least drastically reduce it.  And based on this example, with the graduated tax rate, this is really closer to 80% overall, not 90%.

Why does this nation think that the ultra wealthy need protecting?  They aren't setting a place at their table for you, my friend.  They won't let you join their ranks.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 16, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> first, why did he make that money? more than likely its not been "given" to him and he worked his butt off to get into that situation. Those "lower paid workers" are likely to include many readers on this board. You tax 90% of the empolyee, guess who is going to feel the crunch? the employees. Can't hire as much as a business owner.
> 
> What does this guy do with his cash? reinvest it in his business? thats great for the business and he can hire more employees. Buy a yatch? not likely, but if he does, who made that yatch? how many people did he indirectly employ to build it? does it have a crew? aren't those employees? Buy a mansion? Who built it? Those things don't just magically appear. I imagine a broker made a nice penny off of the sale too. Buy nice cars? Good for GM, which employs a large amount of people.
> 
> ...


 
Keep in mind, I am not talking about their business assets that they have, as a business owner.  I am talking about their private personal income and assets, which come in after all business expenses have been paid.  I am talking about the CEOs of the big companies who are paid bonuses of tens of millions of dollars, in addition to a multi-million dollar salary.  This is all personal, private wealth that is cycled back into the economy only very sparingly.  And these are also the people who can take advantage of every tax loophole that exists.  They often actually pay a lower tax rate than the middle class.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Nov 16, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> What I would do is tax the wealthy and the super-wealthy on a graduated rate, for income over certain amounts. for example:
> 
> income of 250,000 to 500,000, tax at 40%.
> income of 500,001 to 1million, tax at 50%
> ...


 
No, way, don't even think about it. Really, I despise the neocons as much as the next guy, but confiscatory taxation takes the life out of an economy. The United Kingdom tried this in the post-WW2 era and they ABSOLUTELY destroyed their competitiveness by doing so. A number of productive people with dual British citizenship renounced their citizenship and returned to their native lands. 

Forcibly redistributing the pie doesn't make the system more equitable because it shrinks the size of the pie.

I think the real issue are the subsidies and large tax write/offs given to large corporations that are already making record profits. Again, there is nothing wrong with making a profit - just don't give an already profitable industry a special tax break while at the same time raising education costs and making education grants and loans more difficult to obtain. That is eating your seed corn and will ultimately diminish our competitiveness.

I would like to note that the gruesome working and living conditions in early industrial Manchester, England that so angered Marx and Engels had largely disappeared fifty years later and the people there ended up with a far greater standard of living than they had in pre-industrial times - with its famines and unavailability of finished goods. On the contrary, the redistribution ideology they championed caused Russia wide scale want, famines and bloodshed.

No, the answer, IMO, is to promote an industrial and education policies that favour BOTH the working class and the wealthy. Right now the middle class is being reduced by an economic policy that, in the short term only, favours the wealthy (tax breaks, loopholes during times of record profits as well as tax incentives to MOVE jobs and factories overseas while at the same time reducing education opportunities for the average American).


----------



## arnisador (Nov 16, 2005)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> I lived in Belgium for a spell. Flat tax at around 55-60% for all income levels. Everybody hates it till they retire, and find their living expenses paid for in full



An interesting bargain...I might make it, given the chace.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 16, 2005)

I, too, think a flat tax, with no loopholes, breaks, or subsidies is probably the most fair system of taxation we can come up with.  If we institute it, we can adjust the rate based on what we want the government to spend.  And lastly, if we are going to give corporations the rights of the individual, they can be taxed like an individual.


----------



## modarnis (Nov 16, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> What I would do is tax the wealthy and the super-wealthy on a graduated rate, for income over certain amounts. for example:
> 
> income of 250,000 to 500,000, tax at 40%.
> income of 500,001 to 1million, tax at 50%
> ...


 
So in your model, success should be punished?  How much would these rich folks  reinvest through your brokerage if the government was taking 40% or more away? How many people who live on commissions in your industry would lose jobs if these people just stopped investing their money, and let it sit in their bank accounts at the minimum rate?

The economic multiplier effect is real.  Removing large sums of money  in the form of tax as wealth redistribution for government programs, takes money out of an economy and causes market failures in both a macro and micro economic analysis.  In the end it hurts the middle class more by stifling job growth and causing pricing and supply problems with the goods and services average people use.

While the overemphasis on tax breaks is also problematic, tax gouging to level the playing field will only chase money away from the economy


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 16, 2005)

First of all, our taxes don't go to "the government," they go to us.  I kind of like my schools, roads, libraries, police, fire department, ambulances, bridges, and parks.  And the rich and corporations take advantage of those things, too, and in most cases, in far greater capacity than the poor do.

Walmart is a particularly excellent example.  They pay people low wages (average $14,000 annually), and find every way possible to avoid benefits, generally by keeping people at part-time status.  (And a recent memo leaked that Walmart was actually trying to hire employees who were unlikely to need health care!) That way, Walmart's employees are forced to use more tax-supported services, like Medicaid.  Walmart has more employees on Medicaid than any other corporation in America.  Meanwhile, Walmart's profit was more than $9 billion, and Walmart's CEO raked in nearly $23,000,000 in salary, bonuses, and stocks last year.  Now that's what's called "Corporate Welfare."

And don't forget the government (read "tax dollars") subsidies to ExxonMobil, who earned more profits last quarter _than any corporation in the history of the world _while they gouged us at the gas pump.  And the pharmaceutical industry, who, as of yesterday, will be getting billions of tax dollars in drug benefits for seniors, with no provision whatsoever for bulk discounts. 

The average check for Aid to Families With Dependent Children ("welfare") was less than $400/month.  Frankly, I'd rather my tax dollars go to give a few hundred dollars worth of food to poor children than to some extra stock options to an already lavishly compensated CEO.

What I'm trying to say is this:  you can't look only at "welfare" and "medicaid" without also factoring in corporate welfare.  The rich get BIG, generally disporportionately big, benefits from our tax dollars, and yes, they should pay big dollars in taxes.

(BTW if you want references, you can go to the Dept of Labor, Dept of HHS, IRS and the AFL-CIO websites, and the front page of your local newspaper)


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 16, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> in this example, $4.3 million net, per year, isn't somehow enough? I'm just talking about some basic social responsibility. When do the ultra rich have enough? I would actually like to see them recognize this on their own and decide to stop taking compensation, or at least drastically reduce it. And based on this example, with the graduated tax rate, this is really closer to 80% overall, not 90%.
> 
> Why does this nation think that the ultra wealthy need protecting? They aren't setting a place at their table for you, my friend. They won't let you join their ranks.


And so therefore we have the right to take their money! Thats a great philosophy, anyone who has "enough" money by my standards is open game to take from! I can't wait until the next time I see Paris Hilton!

I can't even begin to understand this logic.

7sm


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 16, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> First of all, our taxes don't go to "the government," they go to us. I kind of like my schools, roads, libraries, police, fire department, ambulances, bridges, and parks. And the rich and corporations take advantage of those things, too, and in most cases, in far greater capacity than the poor do.


 
The taxes don't go to government? Then who the heck is taking them out of my paychecks? Stop! Thief! hehe

seriously, all money taken out of taxes is filtered through government, which is mostly wasted. Do you think its 100% efficient? think every tax dollar you spend (if you do pay taxes) comes back to you? See bottom



> Walmart is a particularly excellent example. They pay people low wages (average $14,000 annually), and find every way possible to avoid benefits, generally by keeping people at part-time status. (And a recent memo leaked that Walmart was actually trying to hire employees who were unlikely to need health care!) That way, Walmart's employees are forced to use more tax-supported services, like Medicaid. Walmart has more employees on Medicaid than any other corporation in America. Meanwhile, Walmart's profit was more than $9 billion, and Walmart's CEO raked in nearly $23,000,000 in salary, bonuses, and stocks last year. Now that's what's called "Corporate Welfare."


Walmart in most cases (at least I would think!) does not offer terminal jobs. you don't grow up thinking "boy, I'd love to work at Walmart ALL MY LIFE!" Go out, get an education, and get a better job if you want one! The government subsidized public universities/community colleges. Take advantage of them!

Its not suprising that Walmart has the most employees on Medicaid. They are the biggest employeer? Lets look at the demographics and statistics of who is on Medicaid, then we can talk.

When you head up a multi-billion dollar company, have millions of employees working for you, have people at your neck every day wondering why you have lower profits then they want, get no sleep because you work 18 hours a day, worked for 30 years to get in your position, got your MBA or other high level degree, tell them you want to be paid 18k a year. Class warfare. Plain and simple.



> And don't forget the government (read "tax dollars") subsidies to ExxonMobil, who earned more profits last quarter _than any corporation in the history of the world _while they gouged us at the gas pump. And the pharmaceutical industry, who, as of yesterday, will be getting billions of tax dollars in drug benefits for seniors, with no provision whatsoever for bulk discounts.


Darn those nasty capitalist! How dare they make a profit! nasty! BTW, gas prices went up due to effects outside of the realm of Exxon. From my understandings, their margins percentages staid the same as always, just the cost of fuel went up. Pharmaceuticals have programs now for free drugs for some people, and if we ever do see welfare drugs (hope this never happens), I'm sure the government will use their big stick to force bulk prices.



> The average check for Aid to Families With Dependent Children ("welfare") was less than $400/month. Frankly, I'd rather my tax dollars go to give a few hundred dollars worth of food to poor children than to some extra stock options to an already lavishly compensated CEO.


Send a check to the IRS, telling them you want to pay more. They might even let you specify where you want it sent. You can also find some local poor families who need help and donate to them. I know I have in the past.



> What I'm trying to say is this: you can't look only at "welfare" and "medicaid" without also factoring in corporate welfare. The rich get BIG, generally disporportionately big, benefits from our tax dollars, and yes, they should pay big dollars in taxes.


they already do pay more. Taxing them -more- will just succeed in redistributing wealth to the government and the poor, which will do great in strangling the economy in the long run.



> I, too, think a flat tax, with no loopholes, breaks, or subsidies is probably the most fair system of taxation we can come up with. If we institute it, we can adjust the rate based on what we want the government to spend. And lastly, if we are going to give corporations the rights of the individual, they can be taxed like an individual.


 
But it sure as heck better not be at that 90% level. Even 50% is ridiculous, unless you want the government to be everything for you, and want DC to decide everything for you... thats one reason I asked what people thought the role of government was. I don't want DC telling me what doctor to go visit, what car to drive and where I should live. These are my decisions and I want them to stay my decisions.

personally, I'd be all in favor of consumption taxes. I think that would be the fairest system. Makes too much sense to pass in washington though. It fortunately does have some advocates.

btw, who adjusts the rate of taxation? sounds great, but the same lunk heads up in DC who are spending our taxes are also the same ones setting the rates. It will never go down. Why? Lets look at an example from the Department of Education. They get 100 dollars to spend (just a for instance). The end of the year comes around, they have spend 75. What happens to the other 25? think it comes back to those taxed? sure not! they get desperate, realizing that if they don't spend it, the government might take it back next year! so they go out and spend that extra 25, and report they need -at least- that much next year. So, moral of the story. They should get in this case 75 a year for two years, but in fact they get 100 each year, maybe more. Make sense? My wifes in education, I'm a student, and I know alot of people in the education system and state government... this happens frequently. This is the inefficiency I pine against. The more money that circulates through DC and other governments, the worse off we are.

I'd be scared to death for 50% of our taxes to be in DC. There is a reason we are the worlds economic super-power and Denmark is not (granted, not the only reason, but one of them).

MrH


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 16, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> And so therefore we have the right to take their money! Thats a great philosophy, anyone who has "enough" money by my standards is open game to take from! I can't wait until the next time I see Paris Hilton!
> 
> I can't even begin to understand this logic.


 
class warfare my friend, class warfare. However, it is baffling that people do believe it.

You know, the way you state it can be termed another way... its called theft! You take stuff away from someone (the victim ie the horrible rich) and give it to someone else. If I were to do it personally, its called theft and I go to jail. If the government were to do it, its called taxation, and we all smile and think its the most wonderful thing. Its strange...

MrH


----------



## Brother John (Nov 16, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> What I would do is tax the wealthy and the super-wealthy on a graduated rate, for income over certain amounts. for example:
> 
> income of 250,000 to 500,000, tax at 40%.
> income of 500,001 to 1million, tax at 50%
> ...


 
I'm no economist...but I really don't think that this heavy a taxation will work and in the long-run it would totally sap people's drive to be "successful" if we pay for those who don't achieve by the sweat of those who do. 
Seems too much like socialism or communism... just too close. 
Not wanting to be "argumentative"...but this is how I see it.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Nov 16, 2005)

Flat-tax, no loopholes, no exceptions... simple, doable, fair and much more effective than our current, messed up, system.

just my thoughts...



Your Brother
John


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 16, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Flat-tax, no loopholes, no exceptions... simple, doable, fair and much more effective than our current, messed up, system.
> 
> just my thoughts...
> 
> ...


 
scaled?

I'll vote for consumption tax. whoever spends more pays more. much simpler.

but I'll agree, our current system is so screwy LOL

MrH


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 16, 2005)

Well, ok.  I threw out there a suggestion that not many people seem to be happy with.  Let me clarify:  I pulled these numbers out of my butt.  I threw this together on the spur of the moment, so I am not suggesting this is the real answer.  I am suggesting that there needs to be some kind of redistribution of wealth in this nation, and perhaps a different approach to taxation is part of the answer.  This suggestion was really intended to spark some thought about the bigger picture.

Let me give you a scenario:  "Dan" is one of the top two executives in a large, wealthy corporation.  This corporation has about 20,000 employees, and has a presence in all 50 states of the US, plus an international presence.  

Dan is compensated to the tune of several million dollars a year.  He has been a very successful business man for many years, and holds personal assets worth tens of millions of dollars, including vacation homes around the nation (maybe even around the world, but I don't know).  Arguably, Dan would never need to work again in his life, if he chose not to.  He has more money than he can spend, even if he never collects any interest on it (in my opinion).

Dan screws up.  He is a lousy executive, and the company is not thriving the way the Board thinks it should be.  And Dan, a married man, is also having an affair with a junior level VP in the company.  Given this situation, the Board decides to fire Dan.  So what kind of severance package does someone like Dan deserve, in the eyes of the Board?  Keep in mind, he is a failure at being the executive he was hired to be, and he has caused a scandal by having an affair within the company.  Well, the answer, according the the Board, is that Dan deserves $10 million dollars for being fired.  This is a true story. 

If I was fired from my job for performance issues and having an affair with a co-worker, I would be escorted to the exit by Security personnel, and I would get my last paycheck for work already done.  Nothing more.  Zilch.

This is an example of the runaway finances that big corporations and wealthy executives get to play with.  I find this kind of financial behavior objectionable.  How people can make these kinds of financial decisions is what I just do not understand.

Here is another thought:  Let's take the above described company and recognize that it is successful and wealthy.  The top level of executives are compensated with several millions, maybe even tens of millions in some cases, of dollars each year.  The company has 20,000 employees.  The employees, while not being _poorly_ paid, are certainly not _well _paid.  They are paid just well enough to think that it would be difficult to find another similar job that pays enough more to make it worth making the jump.  

OK, so according to the market, they are reasonably well paid.  But I suggest that the company could do better than that for the employees.  If the top brass are paid many millions of dollars, then I suggest the employees are not paid well enough.  Some of this profit should be redistributed at least to the employees, since without them, there would be no profit for the top brass to get.  When the top brass is compensated some 200 times more than the line employees, I think something is out of balance.

Let me restate:  I don't have a problem with people becoming wealthy, but I think our notion of what is acceptable in wealth has become distorted.  I think it is unfair, socially irresponsible and morally reprehensible.  

Some people argue that this money gets cycled back into the economy, so the wealthy should just be allowed to keep it.  I say that it would be cycled back into the economy much more if it was distributed to the workers thru better wages, rather than sitting in the hands of the few wealthy.  This would also spark greater company loyalty among the employees, and make the company stronger in the long run.  

Even if a company pays its employees a wage that is in line with the industry, I believe this is not enough.  If the company is successful and wealthy, then the employees should be paid better than the industry average.  After all, without the employees, the company would not have the success.

My numbers may be a bit off, but I believe some 80% of the nation's wealth lies in the hands of some 10% of the people.  I think this is unacceptable.

Meantime, since my bid for the Presidency has not yet been successful, you all can breathe easier about by proposed tax initiative...


----------



## modarnis (Nov 16, 2005)

Not sure how the Dan example fits into a redistribution of wealth for the common good theory.  If a company (through its board of directors) agrees to pay someone severance, in free societies, that is called a business decision.  The only need to answer to their shareholders.  Customers who dislike these decisions can choose to take there business elsewhere which will provide real feedback to those decisions.

Truth is, guys like Dan with many vacation homes pump lots of money into the economies of the various states in which they own homes.  They employ lawcare persons and decorators and caterers and all sorts of other people benefit from their spending.  Wealth when pumped into an economy creates jobs and generates revenues through the multipler effect.  Overtaxation impedes this process.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 16, 2005)

mrhnau, I hope you are really young, because if you're not, your arguments and your suggestions ("Send a check to the IRS") bespeak a naivete of the direction things have been taking in this country in the past few years.

The middle class is losing jobs.  People in good paying jobs are being laid off, and they have no place to go but low paying Walmart-type of jobs, because that's the main type of job being created in this country. Many jobs are being outsourced.  I personally have a doctoral degree and more than 20 years of experience in my field, and when I lost my job a few years ago, specifically because of the economy, all I could get was two PART time jobs, which neither made up the money nor the benefits of one FULL time job.  In fact, it's hard to get a decent FULL time job, because no one wants to give benefits or a pension plan.  The "community college" recommendation you made is worthless to the already well educated individual who's lost a job--and there are many.

And I'm lucky.  I grew up with a family that cared about me.  And I hope you are also blessed to be intelligent, able-bodied, and have caring parents.  But what if you're not?  What if your parents died in a car accident, and you didn't have the luxury of a good education? Or brain damaged? Walmart MAY be your terminal job, and you still have to support yourself and your family.  And I believe if you work hard--even if you work hard for Walmart--you should be able to support yourself and your family.

Many people in this country now have the "every man for himself" mentality.  But there are lots of us who have a different vision for America, where we do better because everyone does better.


----------



## Brother John (Nov 16, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Well, ok. I threw out there a suggestion that not many people seem to be happy with. Let me clarify: I pulled these numbers out of my butt....


Wow....
then THAT explains why the stunk....




hahahaha....
sorry, just couldn't help myself, ya made it toooooo easy.

It's good to see WHY you think the way you do, even if we don't agree. 
Have a good one.


Your Brother
John


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 16, 2005)

modarnis said:
			
		

> Not sure how the Dan example fits into a redistribution of wealth for the common good theory. If a company (through its board of directors) agrees to pay someone severance, in free societies, that is called a business decision. The only need to answer to their shareholders. Customers who dislike these decisions can choose to take there business elsewhere which will provide real feedback to those decisions.
> 
> Truth is, guys like Dan with many vacation homes pump lots of money into the economies of the various states in which they own homes. They employ lawcare persons and decorators and caterers and all sorts of other people benefit from their spending. Wealth when pumped into an economy creates jobs and generates revenues through the multipler effect. Overtaxation impedes this process.


 
The Dan example is just meant to show the unreasonable things that happen when people are dealing with this kind of wealth, and I am suggesting that there are greater social ills at play that the taxation situation is only a symptom of.

I still say that more money will be pumped back into the economy if workers are better paid, then if a few people on the top keep it and use it to buy luxury items.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 16, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Wow....
> then THAT explains why the stunk....
> 
> 
> ...


 
yeah, i knew that one was coming...


----------



## Brother John (Nov 16, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> yeah, i knew that one was coming...


You Knew....without knowing.....

I can teach you no more!    
(ref. "The Last Dragon")


Your Brother
Sum-Dum Goy


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 16, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> mrhnau, I hope you are really young, because if you're not, your arguments and your suggestions ("Send a check to the IRS") bespeak a naivete of the direction things have been taking in this country in the past few years.


 
I get tired of people telling me that I need to send MY money to the IRS to help those poor people. The people telling me to send my money to them are themselves doing nothing and paying statisticaly less than me. I'd love to see them donate more to the IRS. Not naivete, just an observation of the hypocrasy of taxation and those imposing the taxes.



> The middle class is losing jobs. People in good paying jobs are being laid off, and they have no place to go but low paying Walmart-type of jobs, because that's the main type of job being created in this country. Many jobs are being outsourced. I personally have a doctoral degree and more than 20 years of experience in my field, and when I lost my job a few years ago, specifically because of the economy, all I could get was two PART time jobs, which neither made up the money nor the benefits of one FULL time job. In fact, it's hard to get a decent FULL time job, because no one wants to give benefits or a pension plan. The "community college" recommendation you made is worthless to the already well educated individual who's lost a job--and there are many.


not important, but whad degree? pm if you want. working on my PhD at the moment, so I'm interested.

Alot of jobs have been outsourced, but we are still at 5% unemployment, and by almost every source, thats full employment. If you want to say its lower level jobs, thats fine. The reason jobs are being outsourced is because its cheaper! We can help keep jobs here by lowering the tax burden on companies employing those people. I'd love to see some of those jobs come back. It won't unless prices to employ here come down or there is some kind of tax break for these companies to encourage them to bring employees back.

Education is helpful, but not the final answer. I agree with that. However, you are going to go further w/ an education w/out. We pay for alot of education costs, so take advantage of it.

Alot of jobs have been lost, but some of them are on the way back. Repeal the Bush tax cuts, and they won't. It takes time for money to work the way back into the economy and companies to have enough confidence that its staying.




> And I'm lucky. I grew up with a family that cared about me. And I hope you are also blessed to be intelligent, able-bodied, and have caring parents. But what if you're not? What if your parents died in a car accident, and you didn't have the luxury of a good education? Or brain damaged? Walmart MAY be your terminal job, and you still have to support yourself and your family. And I believe if you work hard--even if you work hard for Walmart--you should be able to support yourself and your family.
> 
> Many people in this country now have the "every man for himself" mentality. But there are lots of us who have a different vision for America, where we do better because everyone does better.


I'd rather be "every man for himself" rather than communism, which is what the 50%+ taxation would do to us. Capitalism is one thing that made this country great. I'm not sorry when someone does well, nor do I think they should be punished for their success. They get a 8 figure job? Well done! I wish I could do that! I imagine you wish that too. Isn't that the american dream? To succeed? Not just in an 8 figure job, but to do well.

Part of what we have lost in the past 100 years is the sense of family. Used to be that if your parents died, a relative adopted you and raised you. Brain damaged? Raised by your family and taken care of, or taken to a place that could. These days we have girls getting pregnant at 15 w/out family support, we in general have no real family ties, and we ask the government to become our parents, the emergency line that make sure everything will work out ok. Gone is the sense of personal responsiblity and drive that made us great. I've known many people who have faked injuries at work so they can get their government checks and stay home doing nothing. Government is trying to do what families and churches have done in the past. Bush tried to make a small step a few years ago in recommending volunteerism and greater roles of religious institutions in helping people. Many churches have volunteers that do these kind of things for free. They donate food for the hungry, help educate people, visit those in prisons. They do it for free. So, you are telling me that the government should not help this movement, since they can do a better job? Should there be limits? sure, things need to be verified for organizations, but I'd love seeing churches/mosques/synagogues/covens/whatever helping out.

An example of my old church. we had a member whose husband left her. took everything in the house, plates, dishes, electronics, sofas, bed, EVERYTHING. The church rallied behind her. before the week was over, her house was refurnished. not with old stuff that people were throwing out, but with new stuff! Think the government could do that? I'd love to see that kind of compassion take place more often, and the church is the perfect place for this to happen.

Now consider, this was a small church. some member had disposable income. you tax them at 50%, most of them would strugle just to make it. could they afford to help in this way?

I know the logicistics are tough. but I'd love to seesomething like this happen... *waits for the imminent complaints* LOL

MrH


----------



## ginshun (Nov 16, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> What I would do is tax the wealthy and the super-wealthy on a graduated rate, for income over certain amounts. for example:
> 
> income of 250,000 to 500,000, tax at 40%.
> income of 500,001 to 1million, tax at 50%
> ...



Thats a bunch of crap.
Who the heck are you to tell anyone how much money they should have?

And when is it going to be enough?  Exactly how much is any one person allowed to net after taxes?  $100,000?  $1,000,000?

Who gets to decide how rich is too rich?

Your talking about "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

No thanks.


----------



## ginshun (Nov 16, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> This is also true of Social Security. The wealthy get to collect social security benefits just like the poor and middle class. But once again, THEY DON'T NEED IT! They are already wealthy. I think the wealthy should pay in to social security like everyone else, maybe even at a higher rate, but when they reach retirement age their assets should be scrutinized. If they have assets with a value greater than a certain amount, then they should be disqualified from receiving Social Security payments. Those funds should be available to people who need it, like the poor and middle class. People who are wealthy should never collect a penny of taxpayer's money. Ya don't see Bush making this suggestion as a fix for the Social Security problem.



So you expcet people to pay into SS a % of their income for there entire working life, and then when they retire, if they have too much money the government isn't supposed to give the anything back?

Thats a bunch of crap too.  Again, who gets to decide whether someone NEEDS that money or not?  And why should it matter?
Just because person A has done well in life and made himself a lot of money, your going to take his money and give it to somone else?

No thanks again.


----------



## Shaolinwind (Nov 16, 2005)

BlueDragon1981 said:
			
		

> Is this the Republican way?
> 
> The house has just voted a large tax break for the wealthy people. To compensate for this cut they are cutting programs that offer assistance to people in the lower classes. They are also cutting financial aid for students for college and many more programs to help people...just so the rich can get more rich....if this is the Republican way i want no part of it.
> 
> ...


 
Isn't that a little Reaganesque? You know, trickle down..


----------



## Shaolinwind (Nov 16, 2005)

BlueDragon1981 said:
			
		

> Is this the Republican way?
> 
> The house has just voted a large tax break for the wealthy people. To compensate for this cut they are cutting programs that offer assistance to people in the lower classes. They are also cutting financial aid for students for college and many more programs to help people...just so the rich can get more rich....if this is the Republican way i want no part of it.
> 
> ...


 
Isn't that a little Reaganesque? You know, trickle down..


----------



## ginshun (Nov 16, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Here is another thought: Let's take the above described company and recognize that it is successful and wealthy. The top level of executives are compensated with several millions, maybe even tens of millions in some cases, of dollars each year. The company has 20,000 employees. The employees, while not being _poorly_ paid, are certainly not _well _paid. They are paid just well enough to think that it would be difficult to find another similar job that pays enough more to make it worth making the jump.
> 
> OK, so according to the market, they are reasonably well paid. But I suggest that the company could do better than that for the employees. If the top brass are paid many millions of dollars, then I suggest the employees are not paid well enough. Some of this profit should be redistributed at least to the employees, since without them, there would be no profit for the top brass to get. When the top brass is compensated some 200 times more than the line employees, I think something is out of balance.
> 
> ...



So under your system, if a company is successful enough, the government steps in and tells them how they have to distribute its profits?  Its not up to the company leaders anymore, the people who built the company from the ground up, but rather the government gets to deside?  And again, when does a company qualify to be taken over by government watch dogs?  Once thier profits total a million a year?  $10,000,000  $100,000,000

Where do you come up with this stuff? 

 If I wanted to live in a communist country, I'd move to one.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 16, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> So under your system, if a company is successful enough, the government steps in and tells them how they have to distribute its profits? Its not up to the company leaders anymore, the people who built the company from the ground up, but rather the government gets to deside? And again, when does a company qualify to be taken over by government watch dogs? Once thier profits total a million a year? $10,000,000 $100,000,000
> 
> Where do you come up with this stuff?
> 
> If I wanted to live in a communist country, I'd move to one.


 
Actually, no.  In this kind of case, I am simply pointing out that there are things that are grossly wrong and unfair with how things work.  I really was suggesting that the companies themselves should wake up to this, show a little enlightenment and make some changes.

relax, dude.  stress is a killer.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 16, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> So you expcet people to pay into SS a % of their income for there entire working life, and then when they retire, if they have too much money the government isn't supposed to give the anything back?
> 
> Thats a bunch of crap too. Again, who gets to decide whether someone NEEDS that money or not? And why should it matter?
> Just because person A has done well in life and made himself a lot of money, your going to take his money and give it to somone else?
> ...


 
so what you are really trying to say is that you respectfully disagree?


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 16, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Thats a bunch of crap.
> Who the heck are you to tell anyone how much money they should have?
> 
> And when is it going to be enough? Exactly how much is any one person allowed to net after taxes? $100,000? $1,000,000?
> ...


 
Just a suggestion for discussion, and to stimulate a little introspective thinking.  You can agree to disagree, if you like, I have no problem with that.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 16, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> I'd rather be "every man for himself" rather than communism
> 
> MrH


 
I think really that neither way, in it's pure sense, works.  There is a common ground between the two that I think would make life better for more people than we see now.  The best successes in communism were when they incorporated aspects of capitalism.  The best successes of capitalism also have aspects of communism.


----------



## ginshun (Nov 16, 2005)

I can agree that there are problems with the way this country works, and I don't personally claim to know how to salve them.

What I am pretty sure of, is that the government playing Robin Hood and stealing from the rich to give to the poor isn't going to solve anything.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 16, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I think really that neither way, in it's pure sense, works. There is a common ground between the two that I think would make life better for more people than we see now.


 
I don't think a totally free capitalistic system works, but I think the government role should be very minimal, making sure certain rules are enforced, ect.. Don't want a oligarch type system happening...



> The best successes in communism were when they incorporated aspects of capitalism. The best successes of capitalism also have aspects of communism.


 
Really? examples?

MrH


----------



## Marginal (Nov 16, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Thats a bunch of crap.
> Who the heck are you to tell anyone how much money they should have?


 
One does wonder just what 40 billion in your bank account does for you that 39 billion does not....


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 16, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> I can agree that there are problems with the way this country works, and I don't personally claim to know how to salve them.
> 
> What I am pretty sure of, is that the government playing Robin Hood and stealing from the rich to give to the poor isn't going to solve anything.


 
well, I think I can agree with you here.  really, I think the best scenario is if the wealthy, both individuals, and corporations, wise-up and decide to be more reasonable on their own.  I agree, when the govt. gets involved to enforce these things it is often problematic.  They are, unfortunately, the only ones with any actually authority to MAKE thinkgs happen, so that is sometimes all we are stuck with.  But for me, the ideal would be for the private industry money-holders to voluntarily change their ways.  One problem with strict capitalism is that there are few incentives for them to do this.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 16, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Really? examples?
> 
> MrH


 
1. China opening up to more free industry.
2. The US has social security.  While it is a messed-up system, I think it is better than not having it at all.  Not everyone is as adept at creating financial success.  But those people shouldn't have to spend their old age in the gutter.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 16, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> 1. China opening up to more free industry.
> 2. The US has social security. While it is a messed-up system, I think it is better than not having it at all. Not everyone is as adept at creating financial success. But those people shouldn't have to spend their old age in the gutter.


 
I'll give you china opening up. still, it has its limitations. Once it really opens up, watch out!

social security is more of a socialism thing, not communism from my understanding. I'm not a fan of SS either way, but thats neither here nor there 

MrH


----------



## Brother John (Nov 16, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I think really that neither way, in it's pure sense, works. There is a common ground between the two that I think would make life better for more people than we see now. The best successes in communism were when they incorporated aspects of capitalism. The best successes of capitalism also have aspects of communism.



OK....I'll bite: When was this?? What communistic principles were employed with real success w/in Capitalism?? ....and vice versa............???
Think I might have to respectfully disagree again, as a brother...
BTW: Why are all the "disagree'rs" so rude all of a sudden? WOW...
play nice...


Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Nov 16, 2005)

ok...so I just needed to scroll down further...
still...I disagree.

I think that China "opening up" doesn't show that communism benefits from a little capitalism....but that capitalism is slowly being introduced and works WAY better than the communism.
Not a 'balance'....but showing that one is "better" than the other.

my .02

Your Brother
John


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 16, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> ok...so I just needed to scroll down further...
> still...I disagree.
> 
> I think that China "opening up" doesn't show that communism benefits from a little capitalism....but that capitalism is slowly being introduced and works WAY better than the communism.
> ...


 
well, you may be right.  I am not trying to promote communism or socialism.  I am really only trying to point out what is wrong with capitalism.  In many ways it works, and it provides many incentives to succeed.  But I think that in many ways it has gotten out of control and I think that in the long run, if something doesn't change, it will damage this country.  And I think the current Bush regime (getting back to what started this thread in the first place) continues to favor the wealthy in an unbalanced way.  Back in the campaign days, he did call them His Base, after all...


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 16, 2005)

Well, this thread has become MUCH more lively than I had anticipated.  I honestly had no idea that my earlier post would cause such a response.  It was just kind of a knee-jerk reaction to someone else who asked for suggestions on how to fix things.  Yes, I had thought about these issues before, but it is usually just my disgruntled side coming out when things like the ENRON scandal were getting a lot of press.

It's been fun and interesting, everyone, thanks for playing!


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 17, 2005)

I'm not arguing for or against flat tax....

My argument is why do the rich get so much of a decrease and the other classes don't.

Cuts will happen that make the poor even more poor. The education systems, and environment programs will take the biggest cuts.

If you support the tax cuts then aren't you supporting less education in the U.S. Are the rich the only ones who should have the option for education? I know a great number of people whom if they had the finances would have probably graduated from college and earned more money....thus putting more money in the economy through their higher tax rates, and spending more...because its a well known fact that the more money someone makes the more they spend. (Look at a book dealing with MacroEconomics if you need a source for that)


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 17, 2005)

oh...and holy crap this thread has exploded in the past day or two....I don't log on one day and booom.


----------



## Brother John (Nov 17, 2005)

BlueDragon1981 said:
			
		

> why do the rich get so much of a decrease and the other classes don't.
> 
> Cuts will happen that make the poor even more poor. The education systems, and environment programs will take the biggest cuts.
> 
> ...


 
I'd have to say that this is a good thing to think about, but in some ways, for political reasons, many have put this argument forward in a scewed way that misleads. For instance that the poor in our country didn't get a tax break. But the fact of the matter is that the large percentage of poor in our country DON'T pay taxes.... and didn't.....so when you look at it...they didn't get a tax break. The people at the highest end of the bracket did get a good sized tax break. I'm not going to argue against well known numbers/facts. But they also pay the GREATEST percentage of our nations tax.... most of the taxes that flow into our nations coffers (sp?) come from the welthiest end of the spectrum. So...when there's a tax 'break'...those who pay the most are most affected by it. In this case it appears that the wealthy were favored....when really......it was merely 'even'. Did they get a greater percentage off? Yes. Why? Because they pay the Greatest percentage in the first place. The poor DID get a tax break, commensorate with the percentage of the taxation that they contribute in the first place. The most poor....don't pay taxes. Can't get much more of a break than zero.

Who drives our economy? The average guy. The middle income families who simply steadily consume. Who employs them? Generally....the upper income folks. Who then provides the jobs? Those who got more of a break or less? 
Those who's break was greater. What was this designed to do? 
Stimulate employment and thus the economy. 
THe very last line of your post that I quoted makes my point for me:
Who spends the most?
Those who make the most.
When taxed less, the spend more.
stimulates the economy...
stimulates employment....etc. etc.

....just one way to look at it.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 17, 2005)

BlueDragon1981 said:
			
		

> oh...and holy crap this thread has exploded in the past day or two....I don't log on one day and booom.


 
geeze man, yer tellin' me!


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 17, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Who spends the most?
> Those who make the most.
> When taxed less, the spend more.
> stimulates the economy...
> ...


 
I would say that the real answer to the above question would be not "those who make the most" because they are a tiny minority, but rather the collective workers spend the most because of their sheer numbers.  If you want money cycling back into the economy to help keep it strong, it will cycle much more strongly if it is in the hands of the wage-earners.

The wealthy need to recognize this and be willing to pay their employees better, if big profits are being made.  I understand that if a company is faltering or struggling it cannot do this, but for a strong, highly profitable company, the wage-earners should be paid better than the industry average.  The top executives and business owners who are making huge personal profits need to be willing to spread this wealth around a bit.  But they have no incentive to do so.  Greed has become the ruler.  To me, this in an obvious place where improvements could be made, but the wealthy need to be willing to give up a bit of their wealth (really, for at least some of these people, it would not make a bit of difference in their own lifestyle).

Maybe taxing them heavily isn't the answer, but in the spirit of being a decent human being, they could do so willingly.  I think there is very little that is more shameful than a company that posts record quarterly profits, but hasnt' given its employees decent benefits, or an actual raise (beyond simple inflation) in years.


----------



## Brother John (Nov 17, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I would say that the real answer to the above question would be not "those who make the most" because they are a tiny minority, but rather the collective workers spend the most because of their sheer numbers. If you want money cycling back into the economy to help keep it strong, it will cycle much more strongly if it is in the hands of the wage-earners..


Exactly... good point. 
It's the wage earners, who are employed and paid by (not the poor) those in the Upper economic levels...
When over taxed, businesses move (aka: outsource). When overtaxed, raises don't/can't go out....etc. 

You make a good point 





> The wealthy need to recognize this and be willing to pay their employees better, if big profits are being made.


Yes.. that's good business practice. Pay well when you can so that you get better quality work and workers, and keep those that are good and can demand more from those that aren't doing their best work.
Excellent point.
BUT: When they do start working harder and achieving more and are therefore compensated in kind......their taxes shouldn't go to a Higher Percentage just because they are getting more money in. That would be to punish hard work and accomplishment....
such as in....


> What I would do is tax the wealthy and the super-wealthy on a graduated rate, for income over certain amounts. for example:
> income of 250,000 to 500,000, tax at 40%.
> income of 500,001 to 1million, tax at 50%
> income of 1million and 1 to 5 million, tax at 65%
> ...


 
Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Nov 17, 2005)

I know that those are numbers that you just pulled "out of your butt"
but I just used them for example...



Your Brother
John


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 17, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Exactly... good point.
> It's the wage earners, who are employed and paid by (not the poor) those in the Upper economic levels...
> When over taxed, businesses move (aka: outsource). When overtaxed, raises don't/can't go out....etc.
> 
> ...


 
Hey, fair enough, I am willing to move past my unpopular tax proposal 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





I do think we need to recognize, however the difference between company assets/profits, and personal income of the super wealthy.  The CEO who takes home $20 million in compensation does not use that money to further the business.  This is his personal income and he spends it on groceries, the utilities, and the hypothetical luxury items.  So arguing that the super wealthy need all their money so that they can offer jobs to the rest of us I think just doesn't hold water.  Yes, some of the wealthy actually own the business so there may be some gray area, but the CEO of the wealthy, publicly traded firms are not owners.  Their compensation is completely separate from any money that would be used to further develop business, unless the CEO has his own private business on the side.

Given this, I still see gross abuse in how capitalism is carried out.  It has certainly provided for growth in the economy, and many of us have viable jobs because of it, and maybe it is the best thing going so far, but there are also tremendous abuses that really are unfair, and that is what my main point is.


----------



## The Kai (Nov 17, 2005)

How about when the business owners use thier money to move the jobs overseas, destroying the middle class alltogether?


----------



## Brother John (Nov 17, 2005)

The Kai said:
			
		

> How about when the business owners use thier money to move the jobs overseas, destroying the middle class alltogether?


agreed...
that's one of the Worst things for our economy!!! Bar none...

two of the principle reasons sighted for doing so are:
#1. They can usually pay their new employees less and give lower 'packages' in benefits.
#2. They can get away from the High taxation.
Both of these need to be looked at and remedied....
NOT that the American workers need to be paid less or given less benefits. Not by any means. But....still....something has Got to be done. There must be a good business reason or incentive for business people to keep business in the US.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 17, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> agreed...
> #2. They can get away from the High taxation.
> 
> Your Brother
> John


 
This can become a form of blackmail.  Wealthy corporations threaten to weaken the US economy by moving overseas if they are not exempted from taxes.  If they are not allowed to maximize profits to the fullest degree possible, then they will just leave altogether.  I understand that business cannot be taxed to the point of preventing healthy business growth, but I do feel that corporations have an obligation to pay their fair share of taxes as well.


----------



## Brother John (Nov 17, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> This can become a form of blackmail.
> 
> I understand that business cannot be taxed to the point of preventing healthy business growth, but I do feel that corporations have an obligation to pay their fair share of taxes as well.


conceeded...

Dang F.C.
If we keep finding things to agree upon, people are gonna start to talk...

Your Brother
John


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 17, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> conceeded...
> 
> Dang F.C.
> If we keep finding things to agree upon, people are gonna start to talk...
> ...


 
And just yesterday, I thought I had a worthy enemy...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Michael


----------



## Brother John (Nov 17, 2005)

Worthy? ...ok

Enemy??
Nah... not me.

One of the biggest things to make our country great is the free exchange and COMPETITION of ideas.

...how about "Worthy competitor"...
sort of like sparring.... we can hit hard and give it our best, but after class the looser has to buy the beers....


This time.....we'll go Dutch.

Your Brother (who doesn't actually drink "Beers")
John


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 17, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Worthy? ...ok
> 
> Enemy??
> Nah... not me.
> ...


 
actually, I was thinking more on the lines of "worthy friend".  We just dont agree on everything.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 17, 2005)

We need a reality check here:

Clinton RAISED taxes, but overall, the economy did better, we recovered from the recession of 90-91, jobs were created.

Bush LOWERED taxes, and hasn't created a single net job, and people are hurting.  But CEOs and corporations are doing great.

This trickle down concept doesn't work.  The wealthy don't voluntarily make it better for their workers or hire more people.

You can't hypothesize that if taxes were lowered it would stimulate the economy, increase jobs, etc, because if you look at the evidence, it simply isn't true.


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 17, 2005)

MacroEconomics....according to the book I have....

Taxs only gain revenue until a certain point then you take to much out of people and spending in the economy is less. It works the other way to...cutting taxes to much allows for to much savings and that is not being spent in the economy. 

Some taxes are good for the economy....to much is not.....to little is not also.

Just think of it this way...if you never had the perception of republican or democrat do you think your political thinking would be the same...

Take politics out of it and reason with other ideas....that is what I call for the U.S people to do...not be given this crap from politicians....that is for both sides....


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 17, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> We need a reality check here:
> 
> Clinton RAISED taxes, but overall, the economy did better, we recovered from the recession of 90-91, jobs were created.
> 
> ...


 The reality is that presidents take credit and blame for the economy, but really have little power over it. 

There are a lot of reasons why the 1990's had the economy it did, some of it was as a result of the peace dividend following the collapse of the soviet union, expanding high-technology, etc.  The idea, however, that a president directs these things is simply incorrect.  You can't really plan an economy anymore than you can the weather.

You can take advantage of conditions, and some decisions will have an outcome, though usually not a predictable one.  Economies are turbulent and chaotic and are ruled by dynamics that are far too complex to predict and control.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 17, 2005)

Maybe that's what the book says, but it doesn't seem like the economy has read the book!


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 17, 2005)

Yeah sometimes.....but the economist does not just argue about the economy....


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Nov 17, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The reality is that presidents take credit and blame for the economy, but really have little power over it.


 
They have a lot of control over the Federal Deficit, though, and the fiscal irresponsibility of this Administration is staggering (with PLENTY of help from Congress and a Republican party that is only conservative when in opposition and a Democratic party that luvs spending too).
%-}


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 17, 2005)

True Johnathan....

Jimmy Carter wanted to do something called 0 based budgeting...which means that they can't project costs after the year before and raise it by 2%. They would have to come up with a budget and why they spent the money. Now their are many reasons this didn't fly....

One being it would leave paper trails and .... well the government doesn't want to do that.

Two it was a lot more work....and we know they don't want to do more work.

I think if done right this would be a good strategy. Take everything back to 0 and justify your costs. Only spend what you need with a small reserve in case something else happens. A lot of other things would have to go in place to make sure key government agencies didn't "underestimate" to much so they cause a major shortfall.

What do you think....with 0 based budgeting....a slight tax increase....take away marriage tax....lower land taxes....campiagn to buy american...do you think the deficit would decrease...at least in terms of the percentages it is going up. (i.e say its going up 10% .... do you think this might lead it to go up only say 2%....)


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 17, 2005)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> They have a lot of control over the Federal Deficit, though, and the fiscal irresponsibility of this Administration is staggering (with PLENTY of help from Congress and a Republican party that is only conservative when in opposition and a Democratic party that luvs spending too).
> %-}


 I think i've dealt with all of that before....President Bush is not in any sense of the word a fiscal conservative (and really never claimed to be).  Bush never saw a spending bill he didn't like, whether now or in Texas.  Many people really misunderstand Bush's policies on spending.  He, like many other politicians, use entitlement programs to generate votes (a tool I detest).  Again, you are right that he isn't alone, and many Republicans seem to embrace the same kind of "spend it all" attitude that Bush does.

Of course, lets not forget that the VAST majority of Democrats never met a spending bill THEY didn't like either (unless, maybe, it was military spending).  Again, Democrats are likely never to be the party of fiscal responsibility...and now, apparently, neither are the Republicans.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 18, 2005)

So I have been thinking some more about this whole issue.  I keep thinking that there has to be some way to reasonably incentivize the wealthy to spread the wealth more among the working class.  Somehow the thought of a higher tax rate for the very wealthy keeps coming back into my head.  Not like my previous, extremely unpopular suggestion of before, but rather something that allowed for a greater massing of wealth (like I said, I am not against wealth inherently, but I am looking for a way to bring it into reasonable bounds).   I keep thinking that the normal rates could be taxed up to a certain, higher limit, but over that limit, a higher rater would kick in.  This would only be effective on the earnings that accually exceed that limit, while the previous earnings would be taxed at the normal rates.

Keep in mind also, that I am not talking about taxing business assets that could be used to further develop business and hopefully strengthen the economy.  I am talking about the personal compensation that the super wealthy take home and use in their private lives.  This is money that arguably is not used to further promote business growth or actively stimulate the economy (and no, I don't believe that buying a fleet of lamborghinis and a 200 foot long yacht qualifies as actively stimulating the economy).

My reasoning in this is that it would discourage the paying of the huge and outrageous compensations and bonuses that people like the big CEOs get on a regular basis.  And if they are still paid this rate, well then they get to pay more taxes on it.

But then it hit me:  rather than discouraging these huge payouts, what this would do is probably just the opposite.  It would actually encourage even bigger, more outrageous compensation packages and bonuses, in order to make up for the larger taxes.  This of course results in even less money being redistributed among the employees of the company.  

what a bummer...


----------

