Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
stonecircle
2052 Followers
Phil Perspective
9366 Followers
Phil Perspective
9366 Followers
Kelli Miller
153 Followers
Kelli Miller
153 Followers
doctor zloba
366 Followers
anomaly100Aug 15, 2010
I'm a little dot. Trickle down, my ass.
brucealmightyAug 15, 2010
Trickle Down...aka...Piss on the Poor...
homercles337Aug 16, 2010
Trickle Down...aka...rob the middle class blind...
lippyAug 16, 2010
Your comment has no relation to the graph.
If the Rep plan had the >$1M $500K more than the Dem would that make you better off?
mxm111Aug 16, 2010
You mean if republicans run even more deficit due to tax cut to the richest?
I am fortunate enough to be in the circle that benefits from republican plan, but will I vote for it? Hell no! I want to have good life not just this year, but 20 years later.
5urr3al5amAug 16, 2010
7 trillion dollars
5urr3al5amAug 16, 2010
besides this graph is flawed -- if you gave each bracket a %1 bracket .. of course the people who make over a a million dollars will get more back.. the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of ALL TAXESComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
betteroffedAug 16, 2010
"Trickle Down" Economics actually made sense in this country thirty years ago when captains of industry re-invested capital and had to hire american workers in order to expand and drive production.
Now when people expand, they outsource or co-source all of the labor to different countries. If all of your IT, back-office accounting, etc. is being done in India, Bangalore, etc. then we're "trickling down" to those people.
This country's workforce is kinda f**ked in that regard.
kildurinAug 16, 2010
Not anymore, we have reached equity with India. We laid off our entire IT dept and rehired them through HP. Accounting and purchasing is done through some company called SHI. And we have been burned hiring software designers in Russia or China. Now they are too risky.
rkthoadanAug 16, 2010
It's also relevant that the wealthiest people are frequently no longer the "captains of industry" but the captains of finance, who invest primarily in derivatives and other instruments of high finance which don't generally create jobs anywhere at all.
betteroffedAug 16, 2010
@rkthoadan: Couldn't agree more. Eventually, America will be a solely service-based economy made up of only "front-office" people (salesmen, PR reps, etc.) and financiers.
andyswanAug 16, 2010
Most jobs created are created by "small businesses", of which a majority are NOT C-corps. They are LLCs or S-corps, which have profits automatically passed through to shareholders (owners) when they file (and pay) taxes. These are the people that typically write a check to the US Treasury either annually or quarterly based on the profitability of the business they own, regardless of how much they have withdrawn.
So the fact is, most jobs are created by people that make a lot of money owning a business that DOES pass the tax obligation directly to them.
Summary: You have no idea what you're talking about.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
betteroffedAug 16, 2010
HA.... *I* have no idea what I'm talking about?
My friend, I will definitely concede that "small businesses" trickle down to local employees, namely Americans. But the entire point of a business is to grow. And once any Mom & Pop operations grows to a certain production or profit point, outsourcing / co-sourcing / partnering will undoubtedly be a consideration for them. And even if they don't give in to that consideration (probably to their detriment), due to the advanced trend of corporatization in this country, chances are that they will be bought out by a bigger company. Which will then turn that Mom & Pop operation into just another division of a large conglomerate.
The point of ANY business is to turn a profit---as much profit as possible. There very few "small business" left whose entire goal or mission is to remain a "small business." This ain't Main Street America circa 1955, my friend.
andyswanAug 16, 2010
@BetterOffEd
A small business is typically a business with up to $10m in revenue and 500 employees: http://www.sba.gov/contractingopportunities/officials/size/summaryofssi/index.html
The successful ones accelerate quickly and hire extremely quickly. Their owners and decision makers feel the pinch of higher taxes immediately and directly.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
peppermintpigAug 16, 2010
Because nobody ever reinvests with their profits anymore... ok.
homercles337Aug 16, 2010
Trickle down has never made sense to the middle class or the poor. Its only intent was to enrich the wealth and corporations.
s73v3rAug 16, 2010
@PeppermintPig: They probably do. Just not in this country.
wojjieAug 16, 2010
I think you guys all make valid points.
One thing I don't understand is, the type of business I run, I get taxed on my personal income, and the money I spend on business expenses and investments typically don't get taxed, but only, essentially what I live off of.
Now I know that corporations also have a taxes on their profits, which is typically a different taxation than individuals and lower. Now, from what I gather, the tax cuts publicized are mainly for tax brackets for individuals, or am I wrong? Also, any investments corporations make back in, can be written off as expenses, which in certain cases has to be depreciated over x amount of years, or does the tax system work radically different with companies and corporations?
GlenPierceAug 18, 2010
Corporations are taxed on profits, regardless of whether or not they are re-invested into the firm. However, if that re-investment happens to be in the form of a taxable expense, for example the purchase of new equipment that can be subject to a Section 179 deduction, which would make the firm's growth effectively tax free. If the firm however holds those profits or pays them out to shareholders or invests in projects that cannot be expensed within the tax year, then there will be some taxation on those profits. While such taxation could in-theory slow down the corporation's growth rate, the impetus to spend the money within the tax year to get the deduction is a strong one which could help fuel faster growth.
thecaminoAug 17, 2010
*"Trickle Down" Economics actually made sense in this country thirty years ago when captains of industry re-invested capital and had to hire american workers in order to expand and drive production.*
Actually, trickle down has NEVER worked. As a child of the eighties, it didn't work then. Companies offshored as early as then.
This has been going on since '81, and working man's wages since that time have not moved even with cost of living through today. Thirty years of this, and thirty years of NO advancement for the working class.
To say that any aspect of trickle down works, is well, a joke.
It didn't work in '81. It doesn't work in 2010.
wilywondrAug 17, 2010
What makes you believe that it worked 30 years ago?
It was started 30 years ago and it did not work right from the start.
berationalAug 18, 2010
AndySwan I've been a partner of two LLCs and a C corp. Your logic has a flaw.
"These are the people that typically write a check to the US Treasury either annually or quarterly based on the profitability of the business they own, regardless of how much they have withdrawn."
Just because you haven't withdrawn money from your LLC doesn't mean you are not gaining from it. If an LLC could hold money and only pay taxes on it when you take the money out, then it would be able to grow tax free and you could just pay yourself when you need it.
All the partners in an LLC still "own" all the money in the LLCs bank account.
I don't buy this argument that we should keep taxes low for the $250K+ group because that will affect small businesses. If a small business is investing in itself it wont have overly high profits to pay taxes on. If I have an LLC and it profited $500K, I only took $200K as salary. I still gained $500K this year. I just chose to invest $300K into my business. ( as a LLC owner you wouldn't do this anyway, you take the distribution or you buy things or hire employees which lowers the profit number.)
That is no different from a salaried employee making $500K and taking $300K to invest in Google Stock.
ursaAug 21, 2010
Exactly the same thing happening in Norway. BUT it has to be said that maybe enough is enough? If there are no longer any way to hinder money dripping out from a country, maybe that's a sign the country is just too filthy rich? I know I long for the day when Norway returns back to "normal" values, instead of throwing my life away on an insane house loan (Norwegian average per square meter is $4000, and one m2 equals 10.8 square feet)
masamunecyrusAug 21, 2010
@rkthoadan:
Well said. I actually looked at the list of the 500 richest people in the world. Only about 80 created things; most were bankers, investors, or heads of similar financial firms. The US only had a few super-rich people who had actually created things (like Bill Gates), but many of the Asian billionaires were founders and CEOs of supermassive tech or chemical conglomerates that, you know, actually produce useful things to get their money.
tastypasteAug 16, 2010
Trickle down is a flawed notion that assumes wealthy people hire lower class people using their personal income. They do not. In our current corporatist economy, people are hired using business funds from companies. Cutting personal income on the rich does not create new jobs because the rich do not hire people using their own money. They create jobs using corporate payroll. Cutting corporate taxes might create new jobs, cutting personal taxes will not. And this is demonstrably true. After 30 years of Reagan/Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, unemployment is at record highs. There is not a shred of evidence that tax cuts for the rich is good for the economy, and $14.5 Trillion in public debt says it's not good for our budget either.
betteroffedAug 16, 2010
And just how do you think corporate payroll is bolstered for expansion? It's either through venture capital or stock issuance. And exactly who puts forth venture capital and buys stock? Rich people. Rich people become more bullish (ie more risk neutral) when they have more idle income.
In your opinion, what exactly contributes enough to "corporate payroll" for expansion when a company expands? Where do companies go for additional funds to grow?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rkthoadanAug 16, 2010
Venture capital and selling stock are only options for a small set of companies in the grand scheme of things. The majority of companies, especially small businesses who still employ the majority of the workforce, get necessary expansion capital via business loans from their local banks.
deathfiredAug 16, 2010
It's not under the notion that wealthy people will hire lower class workers using their personal money. It under the notion that wealthy people will spend their money on US made products and services which then gets those lower class workers paid. Unfortunately wealthy people seem to go out of the country when they want to enjoy themselves and they tend to buy expensive things that are not American made or managed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
andyswanAug 16, 2010
Most jobs created are created by "small businesses", of which a majority are NOT C-corps. They are LLCs or S-corps, which have profits automatically passed through to shareholders (owners) when they file (and pay) taxes. These are the people that typically write a check to the US Treasury either annually or quarterly based on the profitability of the business they own, regardless of how much they have withdrawn.
So the fact is, most jobs are created by people that make a lot of money owning a business that DOES pass the tax obligation directly to them.
Summary: You have no idea what you're talking about.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
xenotekAug 16, 2010
I can't dig this comment enough. This is one of the most fundamental and astute observations in the tax debate.
sivyrAug 16, 2010
@AndySwan
I agree that most jobs are created by small businesses and that from that point of view, your criticism of tastypaste is valid. However, you missed something critical. The only major differences between the two tax plans occurs at incomes greater than $500,000/year personal income.
How many small business owners do you know that make that much money each year? Is there a reason you don't know of many? Most likely because if they made that much personally from their business in a year, it's not a small business anymore.
When a small business owner suddenly jumps up to making over $500,000/year, it means he's struck on a fantastic deal or idea and his company is in a hiring craze to expand to fill demand, rocketing into the world of large business.
If you'll take note, the real tax break in the Republican plan is only above $1,000,000/year income, exacerbating this divide between small business owners and corporate execs. Any income group beneath $500,000/year gets a lesser cut than in the Democrat plan.
So who's doing the greater thing for small businesses? The Democrats.
Don't act like you know what you're talking about either.
wojjieAug 16, 2010
I'm sorry AndySwan, but did you really have to do an exact copy/paste of your previous comment?
Also, don't venture capitalists get taxed differently on investments? Wouldn't that fall into capital gains tax?
Also, what stops them from also investing their extra cash over seas? Ive seen one man set up a programming company in India, and another a call center.
jerbakerAug 21, 2010
Conservatives refuse to treat a tax cut as an expenditure when budgeting and this is why they are destroying our economy. Fine if you think tax cuts are the way to go, but enacting a $100 billion tax cut is no different than enacting a $100 billion increase in welfare. You have to pay for it somehow, somewhere. They just don't have the balls to make the cuts necessary to fund their anti-tax rhetoric.
jaxxbatDec 2, 2010
Where do you get this BS from?.. I wont even honor it with an argument.
lukeatronAug 16, 2010
Ew, what's trickling down your ass?
Hehehe.
rattusrattusAug 16, 2010
I think you know what it is.
mhuntAug 16, 2010
I thought it was some sort of Olestra joke.
tarantulusAug 19, 2010
nothing, but it's obvious the best part of you trickled down your mothers leg...
oxidaneAug 16, 2010
trickle down your ass....sounds like a creampie
teamgwhoAug 16, 2010
s**t rolls downhill.
bigtacobillAug 16, 2010
As one of the smaller dots, why do you even care? The difference would be $2 dollars a year at most.
elisevilleAug 16, 2010
Scam of the millennium. It's time to break free.
bigtacobillAug 16, 2010
Break free from what? Because someone makes more money than you, you just want to make sure they make less? Sounds like people are just jealous they aren't in the big dots.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tiduAug 16, 2010
So both tax plans are nearly identical unless you're making over $500,000 a year? I hear so many complaints about Obama raising taxes (which he hasn't done), I didn't know so many people were that wealthy.
wojjieAug 16, 2010
They are either complaining about the theoretical future, assuming that the government will quickly stab them in the back in a couple years to offset spending, or they are just focusing on these tax cuts, which you will never hear them specify who exactly gets taxed more. They will just say that they are raising taxes, which is theoretically true, and lead you to believe it's on everyone, when it's only on the high tax brackets.
redeyeprodAug 16, 2010
They're not. They just think they are. They, not rich right-wingers, are essentially fighting for the people that do make a ton of money that really don't care that they get taxed a little more.
pseudononymistAug 17, 2010
I think the real problem with either tax plan is that if we're not collecting these taxes, how do pay off our ridiculous amount of debt? Obama wants taxes that are relatively higher than Bush's, but is spending waaaay more. Bush on the other hand offered the opposite--way lower taxes on the wealthy, while not spending as much but still spending way too much. Both parties want and will continue to overspend, and neither has a solution to pay for it. That's what concerns me.
mlw4428Aug 17, 2010
@pseudononymist
Actually Bush & Co spent tons of money themselves. Look at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...they're prime examples. Obama spent money on healthcare and unemployment benefits to those who need them. Bush invested billions upon billions in countries that we will never see a return from. Not in taxes (due to longer living people or formerly unemployed people who didn't have to start living on the streets while waiting for a job) or investment from Afgan/Iraqi companies.
tiduAug 17, 2010
@mlw4428 agreed. We pissed hundreds of billions away on Iraq. Obama is "spending way more" because it's a stimulus; that's the point. If anything I'd rather that money be spent here. Once things level off spending will drop. Just look at the end of Clinton's second term.
jerbakerAug 21, 2010
What trips me out is that people like Warren Buffet WANT THEIR TAXES RAISED. The only people you hear complaining when taxes on the wealthy increase are f**kING POOR PEOPLE. There is this 20% in the United States stuck in perpetual idiocy. They believe Obama is a Muslim, George Bush was doing a bang-up job, Iraq attacked the United States on 9/11, and that taxes on the wealthy will hurt them. I wish there was a Hurricane Katrina that only drowned stupid people.
nappythrill22Aug 21, 2010
foxnews is why so many people complain about obama raising taxes. just like gun owners saying that hes taking away gun rights. thats absurd. Im a big 2nd amendment supporter but im not asinine enough to start hoarding ammo cuz a black dude got elected prez.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
I'm sure Mommy and Daddy's money is still trickling down to most of the libtards here on Digg.
wojjieAug 16, 2010
Yes, because everyone that disagrees with you are little kids... isn't that, itself, a childish thing to say?
trey9128Aug 21, 2010
Ooh. Touche!
spankbotAug 16, 2010
The only people you will *ever* hear mention "trickle down" are partisan Democrats.
danistheman03Aug 16, 2010
You may not see a direct benefit in your wallet from "trickle down" economics, but have you ever had a job from a poor man? Lower taxes for companies and give incentives for them to keep work in the US; then unemployment would drop, and everyone would in essence have more money. Therefore, I say trickle down economics works quite well.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tiduAug 17, 2010
It looks good on paper. But has it been working?
wojjieAug 17, 2010
The main point is that the tax plans seem to be comparing personal income taxes, not company/corporations.
What theoretically could work better in my opinion is giving more money to the masses, as they will have more money to buy, and with that money they will decide on what the stronger products are, and deserve to flourish. Then when those businesses make more money, they will expand, and it would be a matter of getting them to keep most of the new jobs within the country.
LoGiCBuGGSep 11, 2010
No man this may be well said but not practical. I believe this is a better tax plan esp when 95% of American wealth is concentrated to 1% of American people
xel565Aug 17, 2010
The problem with this graph is that it doesn't show the amount of taxes that those people already pay. A $1119 cut for me is about 11% of my taxes. A $909 cut at 50K is about an 11% cut, so really the percentage cut matters more.
jerbakerAug 21, 2010
Why is labor taxed at all? Why do we punish work by taxing it? Imagine the incentive to actually work for a living if wages were not taxed and only income derived from non-labor sources were taxed.
xel565Aug 23, 2010
Ask the people that voted for the 16th Amendment. I would guess because the Government can tax it.
diggcensorsAug 17, 2010
most low income brackets dont pay any income tax due to earned income tax credits. Its hard to cut taxes when they arent paying any to begin with. Easier to target the top. JFK explains the concept in a speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU
Tax the rich... they will just hide their income else where instead of reinvesting it. Like John Kerry docking his million dollar yacht in RI instead of MA, because of a yacht tax.
jaxxbatDec 2, 2010
My relatives,neighbors and friends have been hiding and hording it for decades, until things change in a big way it will continue..If you have not woken up by now it is likely you never will. Keep voting for more gov and less business and you will be all the poorer and lesser of a human for it..
xel565Aug 17, 2010
@diggcensors,
It can be even worse than that. Because of refundable tax credits, people can actually have negative tax liability, meaning they get back more in taxes than they paid in. Talk about redistribution of wealth.
bjornstadAug 19, 2010
Can you say "JOBS!?" Hello liberals, democracts and the economically illiterate! All together now "J O B S!!!" Then call your bosses if you have one and thank him for not firing your ass because you have no respect for him giving you the option of earning ANY money at all. Mkay.
jaxxbatDec 2, 2010
While your at it scream "happy" ..." happy"
Closed AccountAug 15, 2010
Wow. That certainly doesn't explain anything at all.
Here are some dots and some numbers. We are right, you are wrong.
Is that it?
Closed AccountAug 15, 2010
Assuming the underlying data is accurate: what's telling more than anything else is how minuscule the differences are for all but the highest earners, and how those differences are nevertheless cast as "redistribution of wealth".
eliot2000Aug 16, 2010
Here's a more complete analysis:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/us/politics/11tax.html
And if you want to read the actual report in all it's incomprehensible glory:
http://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=download&id=3702&chk=e4b64755c09042186aa6f272981d99ae&no_html=1
keithlolbermannAug 16, 2010
Libtard doesn't even recognize his own propaganda. 'Tis a sad day for Diggerals.
tk0680Aug 16, 2010
Could you rephrase that in language that might be used by an adult, rather than throwing out hackneyed buzzwords that aren't nearly as clever as their users think?
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
So you bitch about Emmanuel calling someone a retard, but you think joining the words liberal and retard are acceptable? You = hypocrite.
keithlolbermannAug 16, 2010
Are you talking about Rahm Emmanuel? What exactly did I say about him again?
tk0680Aug 16, 2010
I guess not.
sabinAug 17, 2010
Dude, you are retarded. BTW, I'm not American so you can't even label me using you limited comprehension of politics brought about by your two party system. On the other hand I can say conservatard only sees thing in black and white.
keithlolbermannAug 17, 2010
Sabin, wat? What kind of logic is that? Libtard Logic?
kazbaedenAug 16, 2010
That's the things about graphs. You're supposed to look at the data and interpret it. If all you see is dots and numbers, you're not thinking.
iluvpiAug 16, 2010
this^^
dopreAug 16, 2010
It is a well known fact that graphs/data/dots and all that science/books/reading stuff has liberal bias. If the graph says that Republicans care only for the rich and shows data to prove it we will call it elitist, liberal bias.
keithlolbermannAug 17, 2010
dopre,
Are you really that dense? Nobody is refuting what's in the infographic, we're just pointing out that it's highly misleading without listing tax revenue paid as context.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
xmarcovinzxAug 17, 2010
algaeturd, i had the honor to be the 100th to digg you down. not only to give you back the favor, but also cause your comment sucked.
savbyroyAug 17, 2010
It definitely lacks some context, such as where they are pulling the data from, etc.
soc7Aug 15, 2010
That's a big cut for them rich Republican guys. I'll be expecting a bigger tip when I'm shining their shoes and carrying their golf clubs.
viol999Aug 16, 2010
The tax cut "is" your tip.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
I was about to say, that graph is potentially misleading. I wish people would specify which "average" definition they're using. Is the graph showing the mean or median cut? If it's the mean, then 99% of people are probably getting a $1,000 cut while 1% is getting a $10,284,500 cut.
ikorkyiAug 16, 2010
the *expiration* of the tax cut is your tip
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
But...but, if the rich don't get a hefty cut, then how are they going to stimulate the economy by buying luxury yachts? That's what they do with all their money, right?
prosequiAug 16, 2010
"the top 5% of Americans by income are responsible for 37% of all consumer spending -- about the same as the entire bottom 80% by income (39.5% of consumer outlays)." The no BS answer to your question is yes.
cite: http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/growth-leave-95-americans-behind/19591079/
The question that remains is whether spending on bread and water (essentials) is better for the economy than spending on homes, yachts and cars.
carbonfilamentAug 16, 2010
@prosequi: There is a difference here. A one dollar bill has a much higher economic value than a 20 dollar bill. In one day, that one dollar bill might change hands hundreds of times (in a big city), but the 20 will only change hands a couple times.
Buying a mega yacht or multi million dollar home is similar. It means that money is passed between very few people, which is much different than going out and spending $250 million on main street.
tiakAug 16, 2010
@Prosequi
Being responsible for 37% of consumer spending is somewhat less impressive when you control 57.5% of the wealth.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2006/200613/200613pap.pdf (page 11, though this is a 2004 number, the proportion is probably much greater now, as that is the direction of the trend)
prosequiAug 16, 2010
I'm always surprised (thought I should know better by now) that when a fact is posted that is not in line with people's perceptions that it will be buried. I didn't spin the fact of consumer spending one bit, yet people still recoil in horror that spending is the province of those that have worked and saved (the large majority of people pulling down more than $210,000/yr are just educated working stiffs similar to you and are not the Warren Buffets or Bill Gates of society).
@Tiak, the difference in your percentages is simply reflective of a life of saving and investing. Hardly an endeavour to be curbed or vilified.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
Yes, that's absolutely right. Kenseyn economics just don't work like liberals would like it to.
fountaindewAug 16, 2010
@Prosequi: I think you made a good point with your first fact. I think the two who replied to your facts made good points as well. I think you are actually taking too much of a defensive position to their rebuttle.
Nobody is horrified, and this is not a popularity contest. Its about debating with your peers and learning something you may not have already know.For the record, i did not digg you down because your comment allowed me to learn a thing or two. You made your point and people are free to digg / bury as they please.
tiakAug 17, 2010
@Prosequi
Saving and investing are one of the few things that you can do that don't stimulate an economy, you've just said that this top 5% of yours does it in a much higher proportion. The only other thing to do with your money that doesn't stimulate the domestic economy is spending it abroad... And guess who does that more than anyone else?
carbonfilamentAug 17, 2010
@FountainDew: You win the internet moderator badge.
No srsly, Well put. Thank you.
luckyscsAug 21, 2010
@Tiak
Saving and investing are some of the most important things you can do to stimulate the economy. Investing loans money to corporations and other institutions that use that added to capital to finance growth. Without investing almost every major company would not be around or be the size they are. Spending your money outside of the Us is a trade deficit, this is true. Yet, the US is still the most profitable economy in the world so the money that flows out tends to get reinvested in the US the form of stocks and or business ventures. ITs more economic when people invest and that is why the government offers tax breaks on investing. It may make corporations richer but that money is passed to you in the form of savings. It promotes greater social welfare than that of sticking your money in the mattress.
nappythrill22Aug 21, 2010
@lucky: what you said is true but it doesnt change the fact that the primary motivation of corporations is profit, so relying on them to spend money to help the working stiff is like trusting BP to self-regulate the safety of their oil rigs.
crytekemployee3Aug 16, 2010
go to college s**thead, then you might not be shining shoes you uneducated prick.
soc7Aug 16, 2010
Your college education is betraying you.
mas514Aug 16, 2010
you mad?
poonchowAug 16, 2010
Ah, blissful irony.
coalescence44Aug 16, 2010
Now who's elitist?
imaxamiAug 17, 2010
You will get nothing and you'll like it! /ted night
monodedeAug 17, 2010
Rich people tip well?
Closed AccountAug 15, 2010
I don't understand what this is supposed to show...an image of "Average cut ($) per taxpayer under each plan" out of context has absolutely no meaning and is downright manipulative at best. Why wasn't the original source of the image shown and what are the marginal tax rates now? (without them, this plan doesn't do much good) When was this "tax cut" plan proposed?
beratebirthersAug 16, 2010
The rich already have all the wealth. We already let them keep plenty.
legopacificAug 16, 2010
"The rich already have all the wealth. We already let them keep plenty."
This is exactly what's wrong with most Dems and quasi-socialists: they think they're entitled to money they had nothing to do with earning.
tastypasteAug 16, 2010
Our tax money pays for the infrastructure the rich used to get rich. We subsidize corporations, farm, roads, education for their workers, the phone system, their internet, their electricity. We gave them everything they needed to create their businesses for free on tax payer money. We even gave them federal loans for college and startup money to start their companies. Believing that they ought to pay us back is not unjust, it's just a simple fact.
fallofdayAug 16, 2010
@legopacific.
1. If you've ever worked for any large organization, you'll understand that they take more from you than they give back. Profits are what the guy down at the bottom, who is making the widgets, should be getting in his salary, but he's not.
2. Whichever country you live in, you're expected to follow that country's rules. Everybody being equal etc. That is socialism by coercion.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
thetxiAug 16, 2010
All of the time people bring up the "they should pay more because the infrastructure is there for them to be successful" and most of the time this will fall on deaf ears.
Another direction would be saying that if you continue to concentrate all of the wealth and all of the tax cuts on those who least need them, the weaker and weaker the spending power of the lower and middle classes have. This will directly translate into fewer customers for businesses, which would lead to a much greater negative impact on big businesses than it would to just give them a bigger tax cut.
Also, someone brought up the good point that rich people aren't hiring out of their own pocket. Money to pay for workers doesn't come out of an individual or a family's income, it comes out of a company's payroll.
blqysmgAug 16, 2010
tastypaste, if you are not in the top 10 percent of the income earners, then they are not using money you paid in anyway. If you are an AVERAGE American (somewhere near the 50 percentile) you paid in less than $6,000 in taxes and you consumed about $20,000 in federal money. THEY (those in the highest brackets) paid in millions of dollars in taxes. So, they got a $100,000 tax cut, where you got a $200 tax cut. They are still paying more than they consume, and you are still paying less than you consume. You want to bitch that they are paying too little? Match them in percentage.
If you are not willing to do it, why should they? Oh, because they have more? That's envy, pure and simple.
divisiblebyzeroAug 16, 2010
"you consumed about $20,000 in federal money" [citation needed]
lordbuddyloveAug 16, 2010
@FallOfDay
"If you've ever worked for any large organization, you'll understand that they take more from you than they give back. Profits are what the guy down at the bottom, who is making the widgets, should be getting in his salary, but he's not."
Sorry, but that line of thinking is BS. My wife (and RN) just quit a union hospital for a non-union hospital because she was so fed up with the people with this mindset. She took matters into her own hands. She thought:
"I don't like working here. But you know what? I am free to find something else, so I will. Or I am free to start my own business if I like -- if I have a good idea for a product of service."
It's absolutely absurd for people to whine about what they are not getting from their employer. You are free to find something else at any time. No one is forcing you to work anywhere.
Also, the person MAKING the widget should be getting the money? No. The person who came up with the idea for the widget should be making the most. You know, the person who is providing jobs and coming up with ideas?
With that said, if that person is smart and values their employees they will treat them well -- thus incentivizing workers to stick around and be productive.
kasjogrenAug 16, 2010
Ugh, there is Randian puke all over this thread.
kaelyiestaAug 16, 2010
Randian puke aka acknowledging that voluntary interactions are the only sane and rational and decent way to live. Most importantly however, is that it is the only possible way to live. The degree to which violence is the norm in society is the degree to which it is held back from providing better quality of life for both the richest and poorest.
All of this populist hatred of the rich and this entitlement to others money is misunderstanding the source of the problem that plagues us. Being rich in and of itself is not justification for stealing others property. Wealth isn't necessarily a zero sum game; it can be created and traded for just as it can be taken or destroyed. The problem with the rich is not that they have money, but how they get it.
Our society has over the past 200 years increasingly abused violent authority. Some group or another always wants something it is too lazy to earn so the government is happy to step in. This has lead(as it always does) to the rich paying the government to point its guns somewhere else. Our system now suffers from the fascistic corporatism that has moved more and more of the wealth into the hands of a few, not because they have earned it and have traded equal wealth in exchange to society, but through laws and ever increasing regulations(yes, increasing, despite the popular bromide that deregulation is occurring it is not at all),
BerateBirthers is right. The rich have all the money. http://www.businessinsider.com/22-statistics-that-prove-the-middle-class-is-being-systematically-wiped-out-of-existence-in-america-2010-7
Where he goes wrong is in the implicit point he makes about 'letting them keep it'. This idea of right to others wealth is what caused the rich to seek the violent monopoly of the state in the first place. So the problem isn't in having wealth. It is in taking it.
chahrlie5Aug 16, 2010
"Let them keep".
I'm sorry, but I can't even begin to explain how scary that sounds.
fallofdayAug 16, 2010
@lordbuddylove
So an idea is more important than hard graft? I hope it works out for you. I was led to believe that getting things done is about 1% inspiration & 99% perspiration. Sure, the idea is important, but it's nothing without the hard work - & by hard work I don't mean typing on a computer or flower arranging. Any old dimwit can have an idea!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
aliengoodsAug 16, 2010
I'm guessing anyone who makes $1 billion in a year does so through capital gains, and thus only pays 15%.
pfenixfireAug 16, 2010
I wish I could digg you up more. Most Millionaire don't get paid entirely in cash and thus don't pay their fair share (35% for every dollar over 373,650).
vitriolandangstAug 16, 2010
And if you have a multinational corporation, you pay more for some widget that a subsidiary makes, and then REALIZE the profits in a Tax Haven. The money goes to an un-named account in Bermuda (or some such haven), and you are far wealthier than anyone really knows.
The riches people in the world are NOT on the Forbes list -- and Bill Gates has NEVER been the wealthiest person in the world. War and Banking suck out far more money than Microsoft Windows applications.
This dude is so in the dark he has to look at daylight through the back of his teeth.
autokadAug 16, 2010
you pay your income tax rate for capital gains that have not been held for one year.
pfenixfireAug 16, 2010
@autokad
I'm not sure what you are getting at. Does waiting a year make a difference? Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Sergey & Lawrence of Google Have their Billion's in the form of stock which they sell off when they need the cash. They are still rich and they still only pay 15% when they sell after a year.
autokadAug 16, 2010
waiting a year makes a huge difference for traders and hedge fund investors. its nearly impossible to know whats going to happen a year from now...
as for steve jobs, if he is given 200 million $ in stock, he should be taxed on that 200 million. and then when the stock pays a dividend, which it wouldnt because Apple has basically stated they haven no such intention, then it would be taxed again at 15%Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
s73v3rAug 16, 2010
@autokad: But he won't. He'll only be taxed on that $200m or so in stock when he sells it, and that'll only be taxed at 15%.
subductionAug 16, 2010
Huh? This is taxable income, not asset wealth. No one makes a billion dollars in taxable income in a single year.
So you're right, you don't understand what this is supposed to show.
vitriolandangstAug 16, 2010
I will trade incomes with any Rich SOB who thinks it is unfair for them to have to pay more in taxes. What a bunch of whiners. They also need more police than we do because all the starving people in the future will be knocking on their gated communities and trying to kidnap their kids. The record industry also gets a freebee with the FBI spending all its time going after music downloaders rather than Banksters. The Oil Magnates get a freebie with our military going after Bin Laden because he has a vacation home in a country that is strategically important for Gas pipelines. Lot's of regulations, restrictions and rules to lock us down and benefit the big corporations. Those cost tax dollars you know. How about Homeland Security to spy on us and make sure nobody gets organized to "take back America" -- since I don't own America, they sure aren't looking out for me -- another FreeBie for the Elite.
Propaganda has obviously worked TOO WELL and none of you bootlickers screaming "rich people pay more in taxes" -- don't GET how it is supposed to work. When our country was first established ALL TAXES were paid for by the wealthy and imports. Educated people, roads, prisons, electricity, water, mail, armies, all sorts of things create an environment for businesses to make money. So far, we've been coasting for 30 years with an "All Gain -- No Pain" Santa Claus policy. When it's time to pay the piper, the guys throwing the party will have their money in offshore accounts. Maybe you can make a donation then?
Now, about 1/3rd of corporations pay taxes via loop holes adding to less than 9% of the burden, and we have things like Income Tax, self-employment tax, sales tax (really, consumer PURCHASING tax), and Social Security transfer payments. That said, we have the LOWEST net tax burden in about 100 years. It's just shifted from the top to the bottom. You dummies just pay attention that the RICH PAY MORE TAXES, because they are 1,000x more wealthy than when we had 90% taxes on the wealthy after the last time they bankrupted the economy.
People who work shouldn't pay ANY TAX -- they create what has value. Being in Investor Class now, however, is the best way to make money. This is explained by them having to carry the risk. Like a man working for a living doesn't risk his home and his family?
As allengoods mentions above -- Dividends pay 15% in tax, while WORKING, pays about 14% tax just for Social Security UNTIL you make about $140,000 -- and then it's capped. Then add in all the other taxes and Reagan's Double-whammy on the Middle Class with Self-Employment. Your corporation pays that for you unless you employ yourself. But Reagan raised taxes on the Middle Class but most Conservatives don't seem to know this.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
autokadAug 16, 2010
oil companies could care less about covering the cost of 'protecting their pipelines', if they were greedy bastards as you say, since they would just push the cost to YOU. yeah, where else are you going to buy oil from? All they do is find the oil, the market determines the price.
i think our tax system could be more progressive on the rich, but I am under no impression that they dont already pay the lions share of our tax income. in fact, most people in the united states the government is taking a loss on. I dont know the specific numbers, but its something like the top 1% pay 50% of all the revenues.
The dividend tax rate is 15%, but its taxed at the corporate tax rate of 30% before its paid out. That means it already has an effective tax rate of 45%. If they let it rise back to 40% like demies want, it would be an effective 75% tax rate. meanwhile bonds that pay 5%+ interest rate to holders is tax deductible, rewarding companies that leverage and dont pay dividends. We shouldnt be declaring war against dividends, they should be encouraged. 15% is enough, 40% is way out of hand.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
vitriolandangstAug 16, 2010
The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is at $1 Trillion in costs -- it will likely go to $3 Trillion when all the medical bills and loss of work from returning vets is factored in. We already PAY the costs for Oil companies.
Or did you buy the excuse that we went there to spread Democracy?
vitriolandangstAug 16, 2010
As to those other points--
"The dividend tax rate is 15%, but its taxed at the corporate tax rate of 30% before its paid out. That means it already has an effective tax rate of 45%." Oh, the old "double-taxation" whine. That would mean that Employees are TRIPLE-taxed. Dividends are paid off of PROFITS. The GROSS income is taxed less all sorts of expenses and write-offs. That gives you the NET. The NET for a Multinational can be NEGATIVE year after year. Anyway, the DIVIDENDS are not taxed at 45% nor is the company. It's 30% of NET PROFITS -- which is a magical number that Accountant Fairies make disappear. A company can show a profit on Wall Street and a loss on their taxes. That's why 65% of them pay NO TAXES.
The stockholder/ executive receiving Dividends gets the dividends and pays 15% MINUS losses and tax write-offs. Did something take a chunk out of the Dividend? Sure; employee salaries -- but likely the BIGGER chunk is executive pay, bonuses and perks. They also had to pay to light their offices -- is THAT a tax on Dividends? Sure. If we would only light and heat all the offices of multinationals, and everyone would just voluntarily work for them, then they wouldn't have ANY impediment to their Dividends. This concept of Double-taxation is nonsense because it's never put in context -- you could add ANY cost to a company and it would be something that effects dividends -- or anything else. You could add in corporate taxes to my pay check AND add in the employment tax and unemployment insurance and show that the worker is quadruple-taxed. However, I have take-home pay, and most people look at their tax burden from that. If the company had any profits -- will I get a bigger cut? Not likely.
If you want simpler system; End Multinationals and make corporations have to all be LOCALLY operated and controlled just as China has SENSIBLY done. Add Tariffs on imports for differences in labor and pollution controls and because they damage your economy. Just tax people making $300,000 and more a progressive rate. Tax corporations on Gross revenue and index it by industry. Make it illegal for ANYONE working in government to EVER work for the industry they've regulated. The country would be in the black, and you and I wouldn't have to worry about all this crap.
autokadAug 16, 2010
virtrio, your only looking at it from the angle of the corporation for one. Look at it at the investors point of view. you invest 1000$ into a company and hope they use it to make a return. Those returns are first taxed at the corporate tax, then another 15% when its given to you. You see, the corporation is yours, so your paying the 30% marginal rate, but an additional 15% before you can collect your money. You think its unfair that you cant claim your gas bill and only get taxed on your net gains through income, but again, we are talking about your invested money. You take your taxed money to put to work to make you a return, and its taxed another 2 times. I'm not saying that is wrong, I'm saying 15% or so is probably a fair rate, where as 40% is not.
I'm sorry, but I look at a lot of income statements from the companies I invest in, and they all pay taxes. Maybe I have just been unlucky to have only invested in the 35% of companies you say pay taxes. Companies cant simply say they are profitable in their income statements and tell the IRS that they are not making money. They can get creative with their tax structure, like Goldman Sacs has done in the past, and those loopholes should be shut/punished.
i agree loopholes for paying CEO's and hedge fund managers should be closed, but thats another issue.
China doesnt force their companies to only do business inside of china, how else do you think all those chinese goods get here? I agree that tarifs should add on differences in pollution controls and labor rates more effectively, but not simply 'ending multinationals'. global trade should be about taking advantage of efficiencies, technology, and innovation. not a game of musical chairs on who can steal the most jobs from their trading partners by playing with currency prices and labor rates.
jackmiracleAug 16, 2010
You started out strong,
but by the end it was a rant. a pity.
zeitgeist6149Aug 16, 2010
trivia question: does cutting taxes increase or decrease gov't revenue?
zyphronAug 16, 2010
Wall of Text...
s73v3rAug 16, 2010
@Zeitgeist6149: Trick question; it depends on the circumstances involved. Armchair libertarian economists love to point at the Laffer curve as evidence that we should cut taxes. However, they forget that on half that curve, raising taxes increases revenues.
mulcher2Aug 16, 2010
Wah. I'm jeolous of the rich. Give it all to me. That will fix our economy for sure. If the rich can't keep what they make I'm sure they will just work harder
slimjimwormAug 16, 2010
I think whomever created this is trying to show what would happen if they let the "Bush" tax breaks expire for people over $250,000.
Basically under "Obamas" plan the rich would only see a $7k tax cut vs a $100k tax cut (so really a $93k tax increase).
mfolchAug 17, 2010
The grammar of your sentence demands you use the nominative "whoever" not the oblique "whomever."
99butcher99Aug 16, 2010
It is an AVERAGE. That would mean that the 1,000,000 would not get 100,000 but the billion dollar guy would get much more.
ern3sto09Aug 16, 2010
Source: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/the_bush_tax_plan_vs_the_obama.html
tekdemonAug 16, 2010
I also think that it's a bit ridiculous to just mention the cut amount without mentioning how much each bracket is paying in taxes. For example, the top 1% of earners in the U.S. pay 40% of all the taxes collected. The top 5% pay 60% of all the taxes collected.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=15117
The numbers are probably even higher now for the top 5% due to changes in the tax structure. Sure they're getting a cut but they're also the people who have to fork over half their income to begin with due to federal plus state plus local taxes which basically add up to almost half your income. Do the ultra-rich do just fine anyways? Yes, but it's a bit silly to just look at the cut graph and ignore the fact that even with the cuts they'd be paying most of the taxes still.
mulcher2Aug 16, 2010
I wish it were only half. Most are biz owners who pay double ss and fica. When you add all the layers of taxes it approaches nearly 75% and this isn't enoigh for the communists on Digg
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
Dugg for Mr Burns
glbernsAug 17, 2010
This is the Republican vs. Democratic plans to deal with the Bush Tax Cuts that he enacted in 2000. They expire in 2010 (now) and each side wants to keep most of them. The only difference, as you can see, is the Democrats don't want to keep the tax cuts for those making more than 1000000.
amishrefugeeAug 16, 2010
I agree with the concept here, but the complete lack of sources or explanation makes this dubious at best.
lippyAug 16, 2010
So according to you, you think:
A guy making $10M a year should pay $3M under the Dem plan and $2.9M under the Rep plan.
Are you an economist and understand the impact of the extra $100K? By "agree[ing] with the concept" the concept is really, "tax people richer than me as much as possible."
Just clarifying it for you.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ell0boAug 16, 2010
Sure I do, their spoiled brat little 16 year old can't get a new Ferrari for their birthday.
I mean, come on man. Do you really think for someone making 10M, if they bring home only 7M instead of 7.1M they're going to change their spending habits?
Pop quiz... if you give one person making 10M 100k, or 100 people making 40k 1k, which has the greatest odds of being spent in a distributed manor, and thus largest economic impact?
And if you start screaming about redistribution of wealth I'm gonna slap you.
lippyAug 16, 2010
"Do you really think for someone making 10M, if they bring home only 7M instead of 7.1M they're going to change their spending habits? "
No. They will stick it in the bank and the bank will loan it to the guy who wants to open a pizza store. That's a good thing, right?
"being spent in a distributed manor, and thus largest economic impact?"
Being spent in a distributed manor does not equal largest economic impact.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pfenixfireAug 16, 2010
@lippy
No it will go into derivatives which have little to no positive impact on society.
westri17Aug 16, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
mxm111Aug 16, 2010
And I disagree with the whole concept here. ADDITIONAL TAX CUT? When we have HUGE deficit? No tax cuts unless either new income is identified (duh, as if it will happen) or spending is reduced (we still have military base in Germany? Why?!)
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
I don't understand this infographic, it seems to be lacking too much information for it to make sense.
boogieordieAug 16, 2010
This is the same chart that was shown on Rachel Maddow.
Clip - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#38685229
They cite it as from the Joint Committee on Taxation via Washington Post, August 12th
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/08/11/GR2010081106717.html
bennygeoAug 16, 2010
There is an optimum tax rate. We are no where near it. Coupled with out-of-control spending, we are doomed.
Oh, and it's the "Democrat" vs Republican tax plan. Not "Democratic".Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
thinkforaminuteAug 22, 2010
The source is the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/11/AR2010081105864.html
Ezra Klein (or his graphing sidekick Dylan Matthews) created it here:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/the_bush_tax_plan_vs_the_obama.html
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
Not even the Democrats want to tax the rich hard enough. Seriously, no one NEEDS that much money.
lippyAug 16, 2010
How much money do I need? What amount should I be allowed to keep per year? Please let me know
pfenixfireAug 16, 2010
How about the top marginal rate is taxed at 91% like under Eisenhower. OK I'll go lower, How about 70% like under Nixon. No? does 50% sound reasonable, like it was when Reagen was president?Even with the top tax rate going up from 35% back to 39% (like it was under the c**ton Admin.) taxes are incredibly low now than they used to be.
lippyAug 16, 2010
I am not saying that the rate shouldn't be 91% or any other value. I just hate the sentiment of: "they aren't taxing the rich hard enough. More from the rich!"
I think going to 39% would be okay, but needs to be justified and maybe explained in a fair manor. Maybe it should be 60%. I don't know. It's all very complicated and many well renowned economists can't agree on the correct course of action. Maybe the country would be better off with the tax rate for the wealthy at 10%, maybe at 80%. I don't know and neither do you. We can all spout what we think we know from learning basic Econ and what we know about business and government but at the end of the day, the entire system is way to complex for most people to understand the impact of anything. People spend there whole lives studying this sort of stuff and dont really get it. You and I spend our days working, reading digg and all that and then form some opinion about this?
Saying: take all the rich people's money and tax them 90% (as writeonly seems to think) is just as silly as saying tax the rich at 10%. Yes, there is a magic optimal rate, but I don't know it and neither do you.
pfenixfireAug 16, 2010
Where have you been the last decade? The Bush tax cuts were a temporary cut. No justification needed. The Dems are not raising them, but instead are letting them expire for the top tax bracket. By your failed logic it should be proven why we need to renew them.
cglassAug 16, 2010
I do, I'm building a planet :D
kazbaedenAug 16, 2010
Slartibartfast?
tehprophetAug 16, 2010
If they earned it the money belongs to them, it doesn't matter how much they "need" that's not how this country works.. You work hard so you can make the amount of money you WANT. The government has no right to redistribute wealth.
rattusrattusAug 16, 2010
@TehProphet
Have you watched The Hills? Please--explain to me how these people have earned their money. While you're explaining things to me, explain how a single mom, working, and going back to school so she can earn more, isn't working hard? How is it she and her children deserve to be hovering over the poverty line, while the Kardashians deserve to have money for doing nothing? The concept of "hard work" only applies when people have actually worked, which isn't the case for a lot of the rich people out there.
Here's a new concept: rich people have more money the less money we have, and dicking over the poor is really easy. This is why a surgeon I know doesn't see Medicare/Medicaid patients; he would lose money. That's also why you wait 40 minutes for an appointment, because if he isn't busy, he's losing money. The middle class doesn't have as much disposable income as it used to. Is this because they don't work hard, or is it because their companies are paying them less and their CEOs more? Nothing exists in a vacuum, unless we're talking about nerds and their particle smashing.
frygarAug 16, 2010
The rich need the poor. The poor don't need the rich. This has been demonstrated time and again throughout history when the rich engage the class warfare against the poor, who then rise up and lop off their heads.
pfenixfireAug 16, 2010
" if they tax the rich so much that they aren't making more than the lower brackets after taxes"
@TehProphet
I take it you have no idea how income taxes work, so let me explain them to you:
Taxes are bracketed. So, hypothetically, if we take two people, one making $35,000 and another making $1 million and the tax rate up to $35,000 is 15% and anything over $350,000 is 35%, than both the first guy's AND the millionaire's first $35,000 are taxed at 15% it is only every dollar *OVER* $350,000 that is taxed at 35%. So a rich person will NEVER make the same as a middle or lower class individual in a bracketed tax system!
kazbaedenAug 16, 2010
Paris Hilton gets paid $100,000 just to show up at a club. Just saying.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
While I do understand your point Rattus, you are failing to acknowledge that those people from the Hills have at least one person in their family who busted their ass or worked hard to obtain all that wealth in the first place. While it may not seem right or fair, that one person busted their ass so that future generations of the family could have an advantage over the general population. I'm sure if that single mom hit the lottery tomorrow she wouldnt say "f**k my kids, they can work their own way through college they dont deserve my help!". I'm sure she would spoil her kids as you see with the people on The Hills. Maybe they didnt earn it themselves, but they definitely have the right to the advantages the generations before them worked for.
moogleAug 16, 2010
@Kazbaeden:
Thank all the idiots who were willing to go see her for that price tag.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
@Chrisdodges.
Reading your post made me want to punch my laptop. So because Heidi Montag's great-great-great-grandfather probably invented the water cooler (or maybe he won a s**tload of money in the lottery, f**k it, it doesn't matter right??), then Heidi Montag is entitled to all that money (and, god forbid that vapid bitch spawns children)?? So all it takes is 1 generation to bust their ass and the rest of the generations are fine to just "chill", while the poor have to bust their asses generation after generation without seeing any upward mobility??
This Republican thinking is nauseating and is a main reason why America sucks (and I consider myself very patriotic).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bastiphanAug 17, 2010
@goomb323
Yes to all of your questions except the last one.
The poor that bust their ass but don't see upward mobility just aren't busting their asses efficiently/properly/in the right way/ or with the right opportunity. Maybe they aren't shrewd business people. Maybe they aren't as inventive or creative as they think they are. Maybe they haven't found their calling. Maybe they want their calling to be something that it wasn't meant to be. Maybe they decided to screw off in their youth, decide not to get an education or learn a trade, have kids before they were allowed to even drink, blow their money on crack. Maybe they just have s**tty luck.
The list can go on and on and on. But that doesn't change the fact that the people that hit the right opportunity and become rich are entitled to do whatever they want with what they acquired. If they want to give it away, that's their choice. If they want to burn it, their choice. Bury it, their choice. Give it to their kids to that they can snort up half of the world's cocaine supply -- again, their choice.
Remember, no matter what you think or how you feel about it, that's just the way the world works.
markglAug 16, 2010
Can't believe you said that!
vbullingerAug 16, 2010
I want to sincerely thank the liberals for burying this douche, thus proving - once again - that you're not really socialists or communists.
Except for the (so far) 18 people that thumbed him up...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
moderntenshiAug 16, 2010
So you mean to tell me if you were making a 6 figure income, and the company you work for decided to toss you another 5 to 6 figures in addition to what you already make, you'd be all, "Naw, that's cool, I don't need that?"
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
I've always said there shouldn't be BILLIONAIRES.
Ok, you're making millions of dollars a year, I get that. You're a famous sports star or an actor. You've raked up maybe 100 million, maybe 300 million in your career so far (for playing a game or pretending to be someone else, all that "hard work").
But once someone has network in the BILLIONS, I have a problem with it. Because you would find it hard to spend that all in your lifetime (even if you tried). You have 20 yahcts, 30 high class cars, 5 mansions, and still have hundreds of millions of dollars. It's just unnecessary.
Now you can claim "But, goomba323, he earned it, and he will be able to pass it down to the next generation", and I say to you "Paris Hilton".
Sean Connery has the right mentality. He isn't giving a DIME to his son when he dies. He wants his son to actually earn his own money. And I think the world would be a better place if more millionaires/billionaires did that to their children.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tehprophetAug 17, 2010
Billionaires are among the few people that can actually make major changes in the world. Bill gates and warren buffet for example have spent BILLIONS on charity. Most people with that kind of money are pretty generous, It should always be up to them what they do with THEIR money.
bastiphanAug 17, 2010
And look at what the world thinks of your wonderful opinion, or the fact that you have a problem with someone with a high net worth. There are still billionaires in the world. Always will be.
I guess your opinion isn't influential as you think it is.
swordedgeAug 16, 2010
It is not about need. And why should I vote for someone that will punish my success by taking most of my money away from me to help poor people?
ShovelbabyAug 18, 2010
It's not even to help poor people. Charities do a much better job at that. Government wastes money and lines the pockets of their political cronies.
fredpilotAug 16, 2010
wheres the Digg Patriots on this one?
princetrunksAug 16, 2010
looks like at least 12 of them have dugg you down. I added +1 for but not sure for how long until one of those morons make a dup account and bury us both.
redmannineAug 16, 2010
wow, Fredpilot's at +40 / -24 now
princetrunksAug 16, 2010
yep, looks like about 32 DP idiots buried him now... 8 morons buried me. Hopefully the digg admins get these guys. I've had non political comments get only -1 on each of them...almost as if the Digg Patriots go into every one of my commented posts and bury me -_-
prlmeAug 16, 2010
i dont know i'm from reddit
tao52nycAug 16, 2010
Moving their money to offshore trusts.
s73v3rAug 16, 2010
How "patriotic" of them.
zomgondoAug 16, 2010
31 trailer-park citizens who make their money buying and selling crap on eBay and feel oppressed by the income taxes they don't pay have buried you so far.
retrodigg123Aug 16, 2010
My oh my, there's 37 of them it seems at this point, luckily there are 95 sane people to digg you back up.
thenorwegianAug 16, 2010
They really must have nothing better to do. By the way, if you need entertainment, go to foxnews and read the comments. Some of them are quite scary. Concerning the building of the Mosque, one idiot wrote "if they build it,,,,we will burn it down" complete with commas instead of periods.
whitegripesAug 16, 2010
They're here fredpilot and it was only a matter of time before a group like them would form. As Digg gained in popularity the liberal leanings of the site would garner attention from the right wing nuts and they would form a group like DP to "even things out" by any means necessary. It's sad but true that Diggs popularity would bring on negative impacts whether it be DP or the dumbing down of the site.
zomgondoAug 16, 2010
By "liberal leanings" do you mean our bias towards reality?
negative4Aug 16, 2010
Damn those rich people for being smart and successful and taking my slice of the pie. Oh wait, economics doesn't work like that at all.
diadelsuerteAug 16, 2010
Yea the DPs did a great job keeping all these anti-republican stories off the front page before they were outed.
/s
cptbuckAug 17, 2010
http://www.csmonitor.com/Money/Tax-VOX/2010/0806/The-Bush-tax-cuts-and-small-business
They come down on the other side of the small business debate, for the most part.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
zomgondoAug 17, 2010
o rly?
http://blogs.alternet.org/oleoleolson/2010/08/05/massive-censorship-of-digg-uncovered/
cptbuckAug 17, 2010
@Zomgondo
Lovely ad hominem. How does that discredit what I said in any way?
Also notice that I'm not on that list and I'm not friends with anyone on that list. And if you want to check my profile history I'm obviously not a dupe of anyone on that list.
In three years I've dugg 188 things and left over 2000 comments. I'm not part of any bury brigade.
-----
But again, try to respond to substance. If that's supposed to be a conspiracy to benefit the rich, it obviously isn't. Considering this is digg and everything is pseudonymous even that article hardly qualifies as a conspiracy.
penguintopiaAug 16, 2010
Bogus statistics. Of COURSE those who pay more in taxes get a larger tax cut! This has always been the Democratic lie - that somehow an across the board tax-cut of say, 5%, is 'unfair' because the people who make more get a bigger tax cut!
The lowest 50% of income earners pay NO tax, and the bottom 25% have a net negative tax (getting money back for earned income credit, child care credits and other refundable credits).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
50% of people dont pay income tax?
timoumdAug 16, 2010
Nope, but they have about 1% of the country's wealth too. So yeah Ill give em a pass on the tax, especially since they still pay payroll and sales taxes, so their tax burden to wealth ratio is probably higher than millionaires.
99butcher99Aug 16, 2010
That is not even actually true although it keeps getting repeated as gospel.
The bottom 50% pay no taxes if you take in all the subsidies and breaks they get because they are such low income people. A lot of them still pay taxes but with breaks they get on other fees, they break even.
The same could be said for a huge percentage of corporations.
wildAug 16, 2010
Speaking of the great "lie", lets talk about misdirection and leaving out the whole picture.
Ezra Klien (Washington Post) explains why you are "biased toward [your] own experiences" and gives you a chart that shows how proportionate taxes really are:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/do_the_poor_really_pay_no_taxe.html
And David Leonhardt (NY Times) helps you get all the details on why these numers are "untrue"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html?ref=todayspaper
Read long form explanations, don't just listen to TV soundbytes.
pfenixfireAug 16, 2010
Yep. Saying that the top 10% pay the most taxes doesn't mean anything when you leave out how much the top 10% hoard of the nation's wealth. They hold 70% of the wealth, so I don't want to hear them complain until they are at least paying 70% of the taxes.
brainflakesAug 16, 2010
Income tax is not the only tax, even without paying any income tax the poor are taxed a larger proportion of their income than the rich
http://blogs.courant.com/rick_green/2009/04/worlds-collide-on-tax-day-at-t.html
thegreat0neAug 16, 2010
Are you saying you'd be happy if the poor continued to be taxed at the same rate as long as the rich were forced to pay more?
brainflakesAug 16, 2010
Err, @TheGreat0ne the point is even without any more tax cuts for lower and middle earners the rich still pay less tax overall.
I'm not sure where you've got this forced to pay more thing from too, we were talking about the rich getting a small tax cut vs the rich getting a large tax cut.
Of course as recently as 1980 the top rate of income tax was 70%Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
thegreat0neAug 16, 2010
Do you really think anyone paid 70% of their income? Reagan was able to say he was cutting taxes without decreasing revenue by drastically reducing the income tax level and closing loopholes.
My point is that it's terrible that the poor pay more percentage-wise than the rich, but that the solution is to lower taxes on the poor, not increase taxes on the rich.
stackoleeAug 16, 2010
Everyone pays "taxes". If you make a purchase at a store or restaurant, if you're legally employed, if you own a home, etc...
You probably meant to write 50% of income earners don't pay income tax. Which in my case for instance generally boils down to: I pay extra in payroll tax, so I haven't made an income tax payment in years.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
As someone in the lowest 50%, I can say I'm definitely paying Federal tax...
ontainAug 16, 2010
"The lowest 50% of income earners pay NO tax,"
i'm sure you mean income tax.
you realize that this just means that the top 1% pays the rest far too little. They have gained much more from GDP growth than everyone else.
jarjarjanksAug 16, 2010
it's not bogus. it's the fact that the guy making a million dollars doesnt NEED another extra 100,000. an across the board cut IS unfair because exactly because it creates MORE income inequality by giving the most to those who need it least. it should be the other way around smart guy
thegreat0neAug 16, 2010
No, it shouldn't be either way. The rich should not be using the government to plunder the poor, and the poor should not be using the government to plunder the rich.
bastiphanAug 17, 2010
Another person who knows what a stranger needs or doesn't need. You've breathed plenty of oxygen. I don't think you need anymore. Let's cut you off.
cntlscrutAug 16, 2010
geee... i want the one that won't widen the deficit gap by another thirty percent.... democrat, please.
also, just randomly throwing up inforgraohics with no sources cited or really any info at is only for catching the rubes that didn't need to be swayed.
if you really want to make some conversions start using Real FACTS and DATA that isn't cherry picked. Rhetoric may sway some voters but, only Reality will keep them.
thegreat0neAug 16, 2010
Why not cut spending? Has the government really done such a good job in the past few decades that you think they deserve that 30%?
johnmosbyAug 16, 2010
While I agree that a source would be nice, is it that hard to believe that infographic? If I had to sketch my own guess at what the opposing tax plans would look like, I would probably have drawn something similar.
s73v3rAug 16, 2010
Cutting spending alone won't help the problem. I agree it's needed, but cutting revenue at the same time isn't a good idea.
ppalumboAug 17, 2010
You have demonstrated clearly that Reality won't sway anybody once they are emotionally invested in the Rhetoric, particularly the sort that spews from the republicans.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
yurmutha412Aug 17, 2010
This is hard for people to understand, but rich people don't have to sell and make capital gains. They can hold and keep their money in unrealized gains. They won't pay as much more as foreseen. The economy will slow because they shifted their money to more favorably taxed areas and held longer. I really wonder at what point in the downturn the Dems will figure it out, but I think it may be never. They don't buy and sell stocks, they don't put their money at risk, so they have no idea that there are other ways to deal with higher taxes. The really funny thing is that it will keep getting worse as the year progresses because they are already adjusting for next years taxes. Perfect timing for the elections.
homercles337Aug 17, 2010
"if you really want to make some conversions start using Real FACTS and DATA that isn't cherry picked."
The conservatives never have and never will do this. Why are facts held up to a different standard than lies and empty rhetoric?
betteroffedAug 16, 2010
In all fairness, this is a bit misleading. Where's the graph that shows the tax rates paid by each of the groups?
jarjarjanksAug 16, 2010
or is it the tax rates that are misleading and that is why they were purposefully left out?
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
betteroffedAug 16, 2010
You're absolutely right. The graph in the submission tells complete and accurate story.
/s
rmxzAug 16, 2010
Why the focus on income anyway.
Most of the really rich don't get most of their new wealth from income, but rather from not-quite-like income sources like capital gains and similar sources that are taxed at much lower rates; and from totally not like income sources like inheritances and trust funds.
Income taxes mostly protect the very top class from middle-class people entering the upper class through hard work (which produces income).
Want to really tax the rich and help the middle class -- focus tax increases on assets (like property taxes) and luxury spending and large (>$10mil) gifts and inheritances (like trust funds) .
betteroffedAug 16, 2010
I agree with almost all of what you'd said here... Capital gains are indeed taxed though, just not always at the same rate.
But I do take issue with inheritance taxes. For example: Henry Ford invented the automobile. Perhaps one of the greatest inventions in the history of mankind. As long as the planet is using a product similar to what he invented, shouldn't his descendants continue to make those profits?
I honestly go back and forth on the inheritance tax idea. I feel like the world is currently skewed to whatever private citizens (aside from charities) get Bill Gates' money when passes away, but shouldn't it be? I mean, the man changed the world we live in.... Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
boneheadfarkerAug 16, 2010
@
What was that you said in a previous post? "All the cash with none of the work or planning." Yet you believe that Ford's descendants deserve to be paid for every single car on the road, despite having absolutely nothing to do with planning or actually working to make a car. What kind of hypocrite are you?
deserttrailAug 16, 2010
@BetterOffEd - Point of order: Henry Ford most certainly did NOT invent the automobile.
And even if he did, why should his descendants profit from it? What did they do exactly but happen to be born?
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
Why should anyone BUT his descendants benefit from it?
Do you have children or plan to? Do/will you try to put money away so that they might have a head start in life?
Of do you just say "f**k 'em!"
Unless Henry decided to give it all to various charities, why should anyone else benefit from his hard work?
dalittleAug 16, 2010
the taxes paid as a percentage of income would be better. The rich pay a small fraction of their incomes in taxes compared to the middle class.
betteroffedAug 16, 2010
How do you figure that?
The income tax brackets are currently set up as follows....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Year_2010_income_brackets_and_tax_rates
It's actually the opposite. The more income you make, the higher the percentage federal tax you pay. Admittedly, there are tax shelters, but other than that we are far from a flat tax in this country.
dalittleAug 17, 2010
even Warren Buffett has commented that he does not pay even close a percentage of his income in taxes compared to his secretary. Tax loop holes, etc makes it so the rich pay very low taxes. Fair is fair, the rich should pay at least the same percentage as the Middle Class.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
betteroffedAug 17, 2010
And exactly what percentage is that?
stormwernAug 16, 2010
Why are rich people's taxes being cut at all?
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
Because this is America where our social classes represent that of the gilded age statistically and 3rd world countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficent
danisthAug 16, 2010
I want to move to sweden...
xel565Aug 16, 2010
@Foozy,
Last I checked capitalism wasn't a system designed to promote equality of income distribution. What you should show me is a statistically valid measurement of the opportunity to rise in social class/income. Just because incomes aren't evenly distributed doesn't mean something is wrong.
For example, Sweden has a low Gini coefficient for income distribution but a significantly higher Gini coefficient for wealth (for instance 77% of the share value owned by households is held by just 5% of Swedish shareholding households). So just because income is more evenly distributed doesn't mean wealth will be either.
corruptdonkeyAug 16, 2010
Interesting that China and USA have the same Gini coefficent.
It´s also interesting that Russia has a lower Gini coefficent than USA. I tought that everybody pays the same income tax in Russia, 13%, the oligarc and the poor farmer pays the same percent...
xel565Aug 16, 2010
@danisth,
You sure about that? I'm not sure you'll enjoy paying around 45% of your income as income taxes, not to mention the VAT of 25% (12 and 6% on some goods).
stormwernAug 16, 2010
@Xel565 If you're not rich, you'll likely get everything you pay in taxes back, and if you are rich; clean enviroment, low crime rate etc should mean more to the level headed person that that extra million.
xel565Aug 16, 2010
@stormwern,
Ok so how does that differ from the U.S. where 47% of people pay no federal income tax?
Closed AccountAug 17, 2010
@ Xel565: I'm tired of hearing Republicans telling me that if I want to move to another country do it, that America is the land of opportunity where their father came to this country (My grandfather is a testament to this statement) with one dollar and turned that into the American Dream. That reality took place under FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, that reality didn't take place during the Gilded Age (which our economic policies have reverted to and our social classes statistically are now identical to during the Gilded Age, read Krugman's, he makes this point all the time) In fact immigrants to this country languished for quite sometime, there was no upward mobility. Read the Jungle by Upton Sinclair for one famous take.
So what type of Capitalism do you love? Obama's "socialism" is a mere 3 percent increase on taxes on the rich which are statistically nothing compared to taxes on the rich in this country during the Baby Boomer generation. Republican politicians frame to their constituents that Obama represents socialism and class equality, nobody is talking that. However, no politician acknowledges a lower class in this country and instead of economic mobility there is the opposite. Class equality is going to an extreme that nobody is discussing.
jjason1985Aug 16, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
jarjarjanksAug 16, 2010
no the rich are the ones who dont spend their money on the economy, instead hoarding it so they can accumulate more money simply because they already have money. this money is given to them by the banks so that they can engage in lots of socially dangerous, useless and unproductive activities such as gambling, meanwhile artificially raising and lowering the cost of goods and services so they can make a profit and then do it all over again. 1 dollar given to a poor person does far more to stimulate economic consumption than 1 dollar to the rich.
johnmosbyAug 16, 2010
Please. We all know that Reaganomics doesn't work. We've had 16 years of it and the result is a staggeringly large gap between the rich and the poor.
I never understood why people couldn't understand the deception of Reaganomics. You assume that a millionaire with more money will invest it or use it to start a company, when in reality they have a good chance at sitting on it or doing nothing productive with it.
mooretedAug 16, 2010
Yeah, the mega rich investment bankers and brokerage firms have done a bang up job for our economy so far.
xel565Aug 16, 2010
@Johnmosby,
Potenitally but where did they get that million dollars in the first place? Someone at some point had to do something useful in order to accumulate it. Besides having a million dollars and earning a million dollars are much different tax issues. If I'm bringing in one million dollars a year I must be doing something to earn that money.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 17, 2010
@Xel
If you make over a million a year, then you have probably done something ethically dubious or outright illegal. But you only need to worry if you work on your own. (Bernie Madoff).
If you work for a corporation like AIG then you have nothing to worry about. You can commit ten times the fraud and smash kittens heads in with a hammer and still get a 20 million dollar bonus. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jjason1985Aug 18, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
jarjarjanksAug 16, 2010
because they are the ones who get the politicians elected.
betteroffedAug 16, 2010
Because percentage-wise, they pay the most already?
dalittleAug 16, 2010
but the rich don't pay a fair share of taxes per a percentage of their incomes compared to the middle class.
betteroffedAug 16, 2010
The "rich" at the top currently pay 35%:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Year_2010_income_brackets_and_tax_rates
If this is not fair, then what would be a fair share? 40%? 50% federal?
deserttrailAug 16, 2010
You're forgetting that rich people (depending on your definition or rich, of course) aren't typically wage earners, thus do not pay much in income taxes. Steve Jobs famously makes one dollar a year in salary. Would you say he's rich?
Most people in the truly rich category make their money via long-term capital gains. Those are taxed at 15%. How does it feel to know that, assuming you make over $34k, you pay more in taxes, as a percentage, than Steve Jobs? Does he pay his fair share?
xel565Aug 16, 2010
@Deserttrail,
The top 10% pay 71% of all federal income taxes and the bottom 50% pay 2.9%. Is that not fair, or have you forgotten that 47% of people don't pay any federal taxes as well?
Most rich people do not earn their income through shares in their companies like Jobs. Some of Apple's top executives are paid around 600K a year. Picking out Steve jobs (or Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, etc) are exceptions to the more general case of income taxes.
jimv1983Aug 17, 2010
@deserttrail: "Would you say he's rich?"
It depends on how many people you have to support. If you are single with no kids I would say anything over $80k a year is rich. If you are married with kids to support I would say anything over about $175k - $200k a year is rich.
deserttrailAug 17, 2010
@Xel565: Given that the top 10% own ~80% of the country's wealth, I'd say they're getting a pretty sweet deal. The reason 47% of people don't pay taxes is because 47% of people are poor.
Yeah, Jobs was an extreme example but do you really think those apple execs are making their real money from their salaries? No, stock options are where the money's at. And the low taxed money at that.
@jimv1983: You and I have different definitions of rich. Someone making $200k a year is upper middle class in my book.
xel565Aug 17, 2010
@deserttrail,
That's somewhat false. Not all 47% of those people are what you would consider "poor". In fact, every income class has people that do not pay income taxes. Most people that don't are in the lower income brackets though (< 50K income). My question though is it right to get back more in taxes than you pay? With refundable tax credits this is a very real situation.
You're also getting wealth and income confused. Income is not wealth. Wealth (generally long term capital gains earning) are not taxed like regular income, so someone earning 300K a year may be taxed as a rich person, but if that person also spends 300K a year (on non-assets) they won't have any wealth.
Also I'm not surprised that the top 10% owns most of the wealth. That's why they're in the top 10%. Those people know both how to earn money and how to keep it. Are some of them only interested in themselves and their bottom line, of course. You will find this in any group of people though. Some people are poor due to circumstance, and some are poor due to lack of ability. Why is it the rich's responsibility to take care of those that can't manage for themselves?
deserttrailAug 18, 2010
@Xel565: I missed where you talked about refundable tax credits. You asked if it was right that 47% of people didn't pay federal taxes. I say it is.
I'm quite aware that those two top 10 percents are not necessarily the same 10 percent. I find it quite sickening that someone who is in the top of wealth ownership may not being paying their share. That's actually my point. A lot of the truly wealthy don't pay sufficient income taxes because their true wealth isn't represented by their income.
zyphronAug 16, 2010
Because we are supposed to live in a capitalist country, not a socialist one?
jsebrechAug 16, 2010
Capitalism and socialism are just methods to an end. What's the underlying principle of the U.S. economy that it should strive for?
xel565Aug 17, 2010
Efficient distribution of goods and services.
ray4389Aug 16, 2010
I believe the rich tend to f**k over the poor often, and I have no issues with that. In a capitalist society, that happens, and over time, they will lose their wealth to a new up and coming guy.
stormwernAug 16, 2010
From a purely practical standpoint: You need to get money from somewhere to pay off the debt, and the rich are the only ones who still have any.
relengaAug 16, 2010
Because they pay the great majority of taxes. If you cut their taxes, they will invest and hire people.
neutron7Aug 17, 2010
in china
Closed AccountAug 17, 2010
People keep saying that they'll invest... these are income taxes, not business taxes. HP's CEO isn't taking his year end bonus and hiring secretaries with it.
xel565Aug 17, 2010
Shulkman,
No one said they would invest in their own businesses. There's this thing called a stock market where you can invest in OTHER companies. I'm sure no one uses that though.
soaveAug 17, 2010
Despite what this graph is trying to get you to believe, such "giant" tax cuts are really a movement toward a more even percentage (i.e. towards a flat tax). The rate change would be much more honest to show.
ultar6Aug 17, 2010
Because the income that fits within the lower income brackets gets taxed at those lower levels.
elryanooAug 16, 2010
We should all have to pay a set % on taxes this country would be a whole lot better.
prlmeAug 16, 2010
i see common sense is not your strong point.
flammablewaterAug 16, 2010
If you make $20,000, and you pay 10% tax, you lose 2000 dollars (that's a lot of money, and you're left with only 18,000 to live on. If you make 200,000, you lose 20,000, but you still have 180,000 left. The top end can afford to lose a little more than those at the bottom. That's why the system is that way in every single country. Unless you're in the top 5-10 of earners, your statement would not benefit you. Stop thinking that one day you'll be super rich just like your Republican idols. In all likelihood, it wont happen, and their policies only serve to ensure that it can't.
betteroffedAug 16, 2010
Just because I won't grow uber-rich from this system, doesn't mean that it's unfair? Where is it written that I'm guaranteed wealth just by virtue of being born on American soil?
jcalteauxAug 16, 2010
but that persons cost of living is also much higher. Things like property and possibly private education cost a lot more than it does for someone making 20,000. Don't people who work hard and make good money have the right to enjoy it as they wish? They will most likely not be able to get the same types of scholarships for financial assistance in college so their parents will have to pay even more. People think that everyone who makes over a certain amount are rich but when you have kids and education to pay for that doesn't leave a whole lot left to roll around in or whatever you think rich people do.
meatball402Aug 16, 2010
@jcalteaux the people who make 20,000 pay a larger % of their money for just survival than the rich do. Living is expensive. Those who have more have benefited more from the college education that they got from loans thanks to the US gov't, and the education system of the U.S. government.. They have become rich thanks to the financial rules of the U.S. government. Especially people in finance, defense, and healthcare.
Those who benefit more from the rules and regulations of the U.S. government, and it's policies are expected to pay more, since they got more from the system. You think the guys at Goldman Sachs would have made half the money they made last year if the U.S. didn't support their business so much (deregulations), as well as relaxed taxation rules for a generation?
I often think that rich people are more entitled than poor people. Poor people want jobs, safe streets, and good healthcare. Rich people want a big house, yachts, and millions and millions of more money.
(and for reference, I don't mean small business owners who take half a mill a year, I'm talking about hedge fund managers who make 17 million a year).
Both want the government to provide it (job legislation for the poor/Medicare/SS, and tax changes for the rich). The main difference between them is one simply wants to survive, and one wants to make sure that their kids never have to work. Notice how all the people who want to remove Medicare/SS are not going to use it.
The profit motive can be as addicting as heroin, don't ever forget that. And it's just as destructive.
captzomborgAug 16, 2010
@jcalteaux, yeah, it really sucks to be them. I mean, that private education and giant house (and probably a cleaning service) is really expensive. The cost of ordering food or going out to dinner every night gets expensive. It really sucks they have to work so hard at their 9-5 job to bring home the bacon and have it taken away by the government.
Meanwhile the people in the lower class who work 2-3 jobs to scrape by with the rent and bologna sandwiches for dinner have it so easy with all their tax breaks and government assistance.
cl1mh4224rdAug 16, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
meatball402Aug 16, 2010
Oh, and if someone who makes $200,000 can't make ends meet, I'm not going to cry about them. They tell people who have a $27,000 salary to save money and tighten their belt, but the rich need tax cuts, they pay too much money already!!
zyphronAug 16, 2010
@Cl1mh4224rd
Actually, if you look at the way that FAFSA works, it rewards those with low income and little savings with more money. Really, it is the middle class that gets the rough end here. Upper class can generally pay for school without problem, lower class gets it almost all paid for. Middle class gets an 'expected contribution' that assumes your parents will mortgage their house and use up all their retirement money. In addition, merit based scholarships are added to your 'expected contribution' and subtracted from the government need based aid.
All that being said, I recognize the rich will get taxed more because they can 'afford it' and realize that is a necessity. Still though, why do we all resent the rich so much that we want to take their money. They earned it. If they earned it through bad practices or abuse, then maybe we should focus on stopping those abuses. Otherwise, they earned their millions of dollars, they deserve to keep it. Who are we to decide otherwise?
cl1mh4224rdAug 16, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
jcalteauxAug 17, 2010
@Cl1mh4224rd
I still don't think you understand the difference I was trying to explain. You keep using in your examples the people who are multi millionaires or more. I'm talking about the people who are in the upper bracket making 150,000-200,000 who have kids. The government still sees these people as "rich" but relatively they aren't. If I move into a nice neighborhood to raise a family that suits my income that percentage is likely equivalent to someone who has less money in a worse neighborhood. But, when we are taxed more that means we still have to pay that same amount of money so we have less to spend. We make sacrifices to send our kids to private schools so they can make a good living for themselves one day(they aren't getting my money). By doing this I'm taking burden off the public schools but I still have to pay the taxes for them. I'm not saying the poor have it easy but stop acting like everyone deserves to get money for their sometimes non-existant contributions to society. So dont throw around the word "rich" so easily.
ultar6Aug 17, 2010
Add to that the public infrastructure is behind the financial success of the uber-wealthy. They take advantage of publicly-funded eduction, transportation, communication, health care, protective, legal, conservation, natural resource, commerce, financial and legislative systems to a far greater degree than any individual in one of the lower tax brackets.
Their workforce is educated largely by the government. Transportation systems are built and supported by the government. Communication systems are subsidized by the government. Gaps in health care are covered by the government. Police and fire protection are covered entirely by the government. Conservation of resources is enforced by the government. The legal system, which is used liberally by corporate America, is solely run and funded by the government. Corporations pay next to nothing to extract the natural resources contained in land owned by federal and state governments (aka, the people). International, interstate, and local commerce enjoy much promotion and facilitation by the government. Large corporations take advantage of financial tools provided by the government and actually benefit from the standards set and enforced by the government. Corporate America have the resources and lobbyists to enjoy greater access to the legislative branch at the federal and state levels, so use them FAR more than the average Joe.
If someone becomes incredibly wealthy through entrepreneurship, or trading on the stock market, or being an executive of a wealthy corporation, why shouldn't they pay a higher share of taxes?
I'm sure there are plenty who will say all this infrastructure should be privatized and the taxes lowered. To that I say - you'll need to get the government out of infrastructure before you can lower taxes on the wealthy. Good luck with that.
vbullingerAug 16, 2010
But that would close all loopholes, remove 99% of the tax code, eliminate 99% of all tax enforcers, save the government billions and billions of dollars per year and get the economy humming again!
You fascist!
jarjarjanksAug 16, 2010
yes because making everyone pay the same rate would completely eliminate the incentive for people to cheat their taxes. changing the rate does nothing to change the rules on what constitutes income in the first place.
you are a f**king moron!!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cyclonusripAug 17, 2010
Nobody's calling him a fascist. People call him small minded because he and you both have no clue why the tax system is the way it is. Why should you have to make it a flat tax rate across the board. Is it that much harder to map an income of between X and Y to Z tax rate? So basically you're argument for a flat tax works just as well for getting rid of all the tax cuts and exemptions for the rich and just making people pay a tax based on their income. But that also ignores why we have exemptions in the first place doesn't it? Who do you think all those bureaucrats spend time auditing anyways? You think they audit the guy making $22k net income or you think they spend time auditing the guy who is writing off $22k? I guess then you're main thesis is that if we said f**k all to any sort of economic policy we would have a really simple tax code and probably end up with 3/4 of the country in poverty,
soaveAug 17, 2010
You all realize that the Republican plan is closer to a flat tax than the Democrat plan, right?
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
Its called a flat tax. Everyone pays the same percentage. How is that unfair in any way?
thetxiAug 16, 2010
Depends on your definition of fair.
Is it "fair" that a family making $40,000 a year pays 20% (or whatever number you want to use) of it's income, leaving it with less money to spend towards necessities like food, mortgage/rent, and utilities while a family making 400,000 a year pays 20% and it has no discernible effect on their standard of living?
deerpusherAug 16, 2010
Yes, that is fair
thetxiAug 16, 2010
@deerpusher
So you are in favor of a tax system that has more negative impact (in terms of spending power and standard of living) on the middle and lower classes just so everything can be even in pure dollars?
kinneas12Aug 16, 2010
It shocks me that rich people are too dumb to realise that you are better off in many ways when poorer people prosper. You'll generally end up living in a nicer society. Check out Canada or parts of Europe for an example.
markglAug 16, 2010
Like Greece, yeah they're doing fantastic!
infinitenothingAug 16, 2010
Consumption is a huge part of the economy. If you tax it, you are discouraging it. You'd be better off just taxing wealth.
seraph1982Aug 16, 2010
Whatever it takes to get rid of the mother f**king IRS. Also, no tax dodging, and no crooked tax evadors like Harry Sonuvabitchbastard/Retard/assh**e Reid.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hivoltage815Aug 16, 2010
Most proposed fair tax systems provide rebates for lower income still by the way. Just throwing that in there.
pakobedejoAug 16, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
kingofshadows92Aug 16, 2010
I completely agree. 20% to a wealthy family is nothing, but 20% to a poor family of 5 is absolutely everything. People need to learn a bit of empathy.
jcalteauxAug 16, 2010
If you are that poor and necessities are an issue then why do you have so many kids? Personally I think it can be selfish to have a lot of kids and make them suffer through poverty. I come from a reasonably well off family and my parents thought private education was important and a lot of money went towards that. We weren't buying expensive cars but we were still getting taxed like crazy and i couldn't apply for financial scholarships because when you combined my parents salaries their gross income before taxes were too high. If my dad worked hard to make money why shouldn't he be able to use it the way he chooses. When you have 3 kids in college 150000 isn't that much but you still get taxed a s**tload. But since we are "rich" then we don't need any financial assistance. So that 20% isn't nothing. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
captzomborgAug 16, 2010
@PakoBedejo, I don't think shaving jobs is really what people need right now. It's not like those jobs are what is causing this country to be in a deficit. Even if you cut the employment of the IRS by half, it would be a drop in the bucket compared to what we pay defense contractors.
pakobedejoAug 16, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
mikeytagAug 16, 2010
Here's why it's fair. Tha 40K person is already spending more than 20%! They currently would spend ~$8,238.58 in federal taxes for the year. At a 20% rate they would only pay $8,000 even. Now granted everyone's situation with deductions etc will vary this amount, but we are currently charging are lower and middle classes more than we should.
Point 2: (semi rant here) Why should we have a tax system that seeks to penalize extra people that move up from one bracket to another? If we are truly concerned about creating jobs, boosting GDP, etc. Why do we create extra penalties for achieving more success personally? There are several cases in the tax code where you can work harder, earn more, and net receive less because you actually kicked into a higher bracket! WTF?! How is it fair for you to set out to accomplish something and then get penalized for it when you do? The natural response of a person at this point is to work less hard and earn more by falling back into their lower bracket.
"and it has no discernible effect on their standard of living?" Why should the marker be that you should pay so much taxes that you have to stress about your financial situation? The idea of the American dream is that you are "free to move about the cabin" and make whatever career, financial, etc. decisions you would like to hopefully achieve financial freedom. The government should not play a role of punisher. "Hello Mr. Brain Surgeon. You racked up hundreds of thousands in debt and wasted 20 years of your adult life, but you make a lot of money and that's not fair! Waiters can never hope to make as much as you and that's simply unfair in this society!"
Rich people earn more. Poor people earn less. If we are all supposed to pull our weight in this country, shouldn't everyone be considered equal in terms of tax percentages? In your example the $40K person would pay $8K and the $400K person would pay $80K. That's seems pretty fair to me. It's easy to forecast what you need to pay and easier to plan for the future. I think the net effect would be increased efficiency and output throughout our economy.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
s73v3rAug 16, 2010
@cenarta: Our current tax system doesn't do that. We have a marginal tax system, meaning you only pay the % of tax dollars on the amount in that bracket. Jumping tax brackets will not cause you to take home less than what you were before.
ray4389Aug 16, 2010
I can't believe I live in a country where a person does not understand a percentage of any set number of dollars is fair, but instead thinks it's fair for the wealthier to pay more just because they managed to earn more money. Capitalism is fair in the sense everybody has the ability do earn as much as they want, and in taxing, if you set a percentage, it increases your taxes at a rate proportional to your income. Logarithmic and exponential functions are unfair to both sides.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
poesprogenyAug 16, 2010
In the eyes of the law, what you do with your family and what expenses you have should be none of my business and vice versa. So, why should it matter "what's fair"? Government wasn't established to make life fair so that everyone had equal outcomes.
Make different choices and make more money or put off that mortgage and family until you can actually afford them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jsebrechAug 16, 2010
Mathematically, to keep the same level of overall taxation, a flat tax system with rebates for the poor implies a tax hike for the middle class. If you take away the rebates, again by mathematical necessity, you raise taxes on the poor. In short, a flat tax system is always a tax hike on the poor and middle class compared to a progressive tax system. This is not a matter of political opinion, it's a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation.
Where most flat tax proposals get fuzzy with their math is that they combine flat tax rates with overall tax cuts. Of course, if you cut taxes, it's easy to lower rates on the middle class. But they never admit the consequences of those tax cuts. And they never admit that the poor and middle classes would benefit more in a progressive tax system with the same cuts.
In short, favoring a flat tax system means wanting to take more from the poor and middle classes to be able to take less from the rich. There's nothing wrong with such an opinion, but people should be honest that this is what they are saying. Also, to all those people defending people on wealthy tax brackets, I would advise to stop buying into the fantasy that they're going to beat the odds and get wealthy. More than half of all americans reaching the age of 65 are essentially broke, so they've got less than a 1 in 2 chance at not being broke by the end of their life.
pakobedejoAug 17, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
cyclonusripAug 17, 2010
The flat tax is not fair in any way. Sure it seems fair if you don't think about it, but when you really analyze what it does it's the furthest thing from it. Ignoring the increased financial strain on the lower and middle classes which has already been mentioned countless times above, you can still make a compelling argument against a flat tax based on who uses/benefits most from government services. Don't pretend welfare and medicare are the only government programs out there. Let's talk about the court system. Who benefits most from the court system? You think the guy who can't even afford a lawyer is benefiting a lot from the protection the court system provides his business? No he's not. The business owners and wealthier people who can afford to use their court benefit from it.
The reason the USA has been an economic powerhouse is because of the protections our country provides for people doing business. The people who do well in America are the ones who benefit most from those services and should therefore have to pay a larger share to support those services. People like to complain and complain about red tape and government regulation, but like to ignore the fact that the government provides the environment for doing business in this country. The government enables businesses to be successful in this country and those who take the most advantage of that should be the ones who pay the most to maintain it.
mikeytagAug 17, 2010
@s73v3r
What you fail to recognize is that our tax system is not made up just of rates. Rather it is the combination of rates along with deductions and credits that make up a person's total tax liability. Credits and deductions phase in and out at different brackets so it is entirely possible to be making an amount at the top end of a bracket and then a few thousand sends you over the line nullifying several thousand in deductions that you would have received at the lower bracket. At the end of the day you receive less money overall. I have actually spoken with a woman that this happened to. In short, our tax code is waaaay to complicated.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
deerpusherAug 21, 2010
So your in favor of the a system that can gauge its effects by the level of poverty its citizens are in? That if you make 40 G a year, it places you into poverty by a little, and if you make 400 G, it places you in poverty a lot? is that the goal of the tax system?
captzomborgAug 22, 2010
Whether you believe our taxation system is fair or not, a change to that system will not bring us out of a deficit. It will be a drop in the bucket. Look up how much money we spend aiding other countries' corrupt government, fighting wars (that includes the drug war), and keeping troops and bases in many countries around the world.
nouveaugosseAug 16, 2010
Fair Tax is better. Tax consumption, not earnings and you will have a truly just tax system.
s73v3rAug 16, 2010
Except the rich can afford to shop outside of the country to avoid those taxes. The poor cannot.
nouveaugosseAug 16, 2010
That argument is a canard; it will cost more to import those products than paying a 1% VAT. No one is going to do that. The U.S. government does not want a fair tax system, it wants a tax system that leaves people confused and scared, and it's doing a splendid job.
calber1111Aug 16, 2010
Fair tax would effectively be a flat tax anyway, only even more imposing on the poor because they often don't make enough money to save and invest (which would not be taxed by a sales tax).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nouveaugosseAug 16, 2010
It's absolutely not a flat tax. You are only taxing the consumption of goods, therefore the less you buy, the less you will be taxed. That is in no way a flat tax.
It doesn't matter how little money you make, everyone makes enough money to save some. If you're having trouble doing this then you are living beyond your means, plain and simple
eraptorAug 16, 2010
A consumption tax is anything, but "fair".
The reason is simple, a consumption tax consumes a LARGER proportion of a person's disposable income as their income DECREASES, thereby creating a LARGER BURDEN on middle class families than a progressive tax system. By shifting to such a tax system, the wealthy elite in the U.S. would essentially shift the tax burden to that portion of the U.S. population which could least afford to shoulder it. That hardly makes it a "fair" tax.
The same goes for a "flat" tax. They are essentially the SAME idea and don't work in a capitalist society, contrary to the propaganda in support of them.
negative4Aug 16, 2010
Abolish income and sales taxes, raise property taxes. Now that's a fair system.
cyclonusripAug 17, 2010
The fair tax is the worst idea for tax reform ever proposed. It goes one step further than the progressive tax system and makes the poorest the most heavily taxed. If you are living on a subsistence wage, basically just making what it takes to pay the bills you will have that sales tax applied to every dollar you earn. As people continue to make more money they have more money to save and are only taxed on the percentage they spend making your overall tax rate decrease with the amount of money you earn. So instead of a progressive tax system you have a regressive one. You'll basically destroy the consumer class and turn the US into a 3rd world country if that were to ever happen.
savbyroyAug 17, 2010
"Abolish income and sales taxes, raise property taxes. Now that's a fair system. Abolish income and sales taxes, raise property taxes. Now that's a fair system."
That only works if people own things outright... the way things are currently going, people are moving away from property ownership and renting.
jmunjrAug 17, 2010
Renting from whom? Ghost property owners? Somebody owns the property...
nouveaugosseAug 17, 2010
@CyclonusRip
Everyone already pays a local sales tax on what they purchase. If adding a 1% Federal Tax to that is going to keep anyone from paying the bills, then they need to manage their finances better or they cant really afford those things in the first place. Again Taxing what a man consumes and not what he earns is the only moral and just tax system.
spinoza76Aug 16, 2010
That would be fair if everybody start with the same asset, but the world is unfair, so unbalanced taxes helps to make it even (we are still really far from that).
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spinoza76Aug 17, 2010
digg me down, lol. smart people.
rahazAug 16, 2010
Progressive tax makes it so that taxes don't affect standard of living as much for the lower brackets. No matter how high the tax rate is the super rich won't need to change their lifestyle because they make more money than can possibly be spent without getting ridiculous anyway.
nybluesguyAug 16, 2010
if you don't understand how a flat income tax is inherently unfair than you're an idiot!
austrologiAug 22, 2010
if you don't agree with me you are dumb
ace00000Aug 16, 2010
The problem with a flat tax is in order to generate the same tax revenue as the current progressive tax system 95% of taxpayers would have their taxes increased. Right now the top 5% of the tax bracket pay a large portion of the entire income taxes. If we were all taxed at the same rate the vast majority of us would have to pay more taxes to compensate for the taxes the super-rich would no longer be paying.
pakobedejoAug 16, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
pakobedejoAug 17, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
eraptorAug 18, 2010
@PakoBedejo,
You need to take your medicine as the paranoia is kicking in. Progressive taxes are NOT designed to punish the wealthy, they are intended to match the country's infrastructure costs to the wealth/revenues it generates.
I realize that some of the wealthy elite in the U.S. believe they are SOLELY responsible for their wealth (fyi - that's their oversized ego's talking), but try making the same money in a country which uses the tax system you favor and you won't be so lucky. I should know as I've lived in countries with the social policies Republicans insist upon pursuing in the U.S. They're considered impoverished third world countries with bleak infrastructures and NO economic future.
zenmojoAug 16, 2010
If you tax consumption, you tax poor people and the middle class more because rich people spend most of their money on luxuries while poor people spend most of their money on necessities.
If you give a flat tax, you tax poor people and the middle class more because rich people spend most of their money on luxuries while poor people spend most of their money on necessities.
How hard is this for people to understand? Unless it's not difficult to understand and rich people are just trying to game the system.
pakobedejoAug 16, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
afastingartistAug 16, 2010
A regressive tax rate (everyone pays a fixed amount) is more fair than a flat tax rate, which is more fair than a progressive tax rate.
We accept a certain amount of unfairness in the name of collective altruism, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that it is fair.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sludgeporpoiseAug 16, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
detroiter7Aug 16, 2010
When I'm a wealthy guy I'm going to want a big fat military and strong courts. I'll have a lot to lose, and I will want a government that will insure that my wealth stays mine. At the present though, not so much. And that's how much me and most Americans should pay: not so much.
I wish the debate was not about whether to extend the tax cuts for the rich. I should be about how to make them pony up for the services they so gracelessly consumed during the Bush years and escaped paying for.
nidstylesAug 16, 2010
Libertarian's are not Progressive's.
donotclickjimAug 16, 2010
"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more in proportion." - Adam Smith (a.k.a. Father of Capitalism)
austrologiAug 22, 2010
I don't think the top 5% paying 53% of the tax burden is what he had in mind.
poonchowAug 16, 2010
http://www.apttax.com/
eraptorAug 16, 2010
The problem with proposing a flat tax is that it plays on the incorrect perception of wealthy "victims".
A progressive tax system is not only necessary, but required in a capitalist society. The reason is simple. In a capitalist system, we don't place limits on the amount of wealth that one can earn and accumulate. As a result, a capitalist nation's wealth eventually concentrates within a smaller segment of its population in time. This concentration of wealth eventually prevents the nation from supporting its infrastructure unless the tax system employed is able to fairly acquire the financial resources necessary to sustain it (which a flat tax is incapable of achieving).
Want proof of the theory, pick up a newspaper and read about public sector deficits across the board and the decline of the U.S. middle class. They are both a direct result of lower tax rates for the top 1-5% in the U.S. You know, the same segment of the population which controls over 85% of the nation's assets and which has increased it's share of the country's economic growth while the remaining portion of the U.S. populations wage growth has stagnated. By lowering tax rates for this segment of the population, Republicans have effectively starved the nation's infrastructure to the breaking point. Furthermore, upon examination of current federal income tax rates, they approximate a flat tax due to the insignificant differences.
In the end, I suppose it depends upon what one defines as "fair". Paying the same amount of taxes as one's "down on their luck" neighbor OR paying one's fair share commensurate with the economic benefits derived from society. Personally, I believe the country's infrastructure costs should be matched to it's revenues and assets. It's a fair distribution of the liability created.
mistermysterAug 18, 2010
A flat tax sounds nice, but it would be a complete disaster if it was implemented in this country given the huge huge disparity we have.
http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4bbcb3f17f8b9a562fb70000-590-450/half-of-america-has-25-of-the-wealth.jpg
A flat tax can only work to everyone's benefit if the wealth is evenly distributed and the average income per household isn't something as pathetic as ~$46,000 a year.
http://fedupusa.org/2010/01/07/how-much-does-the-average-american-make-breaking-down-the-u-s-household-income-numbers/
And the Repub's plan is not even a f**king flat tax when those make over a million a year get a 10% tax cut while the other income brackets are all under 5%.
mrn111Aug 16, 2010
Come on, there is no source listed for these stats.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
I buried it for inaccurate. There was no button for Bury: Liberal propaganda
wilc3685Aug 16, 2010
Liberal Propaganda a.k.a. Facts
Conservative propaganda a.k.a. Delusion
trigonometronAug 16, 2010
Wait a sec- instead of trying to find some actual data, you just assume it's wrong? Please, stop reaffirming your own beliefs.
atarioAug 17, 2010
Someone posted above.
http://digg.com/politics/Democratic_vs_Republican_Tax_Plan?t=34348442#c34352647
nickbgsuAug 16, 2010
It's difficult, while I understand the argument that if you make a million in gross income every year, you're not typically going to miss 100,000 dollars that much, I don't think it's a fair system, especially since the assumption is that the government would do something better with the money than said wealthy person, which isn't always true. I generally lean towards the left (I'm forced to because I'm an atheist), but in all actuality this is an issue that is easily settled by a standard tax rate. The one caveat I will place on that though, close all the ridiculous loopholes in tax laws, just take everyone's yearly salary and tax it at 10%. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
thetxiAug 16, 2010
So you are in agreement then that the lower your income, the more negatively you should be impacted by taxes? How is that a successful formula for economic success? The lower and middle classes are who keep the economy chugging by actually buying things. The harder they are hit tax wise, the less and less spending power they have to keep those rich people in business.
If people could look at the big picture they would realize that calling for disproportionate tax breaks for the rich and/or all around flat taxes is economically suicidal.
keithlolbermannAug 16, 2010
Atheist, fiscal conservative here. Just saying.
powderedtoastyAug 16, 2010
I don't know what the flat tax rate would have to be to keep bringing in the same tax dollars we are now, but it's very very obviously not 10%.
thetxiAug 16, 2010
I was going to mention the same thing, but I figured it was just another random X% thrown out there.
Then again he could be serious and is hoping to either bankrupt the country or force it to cut every social program along with half the defense budget.
pmkenny1234Aug 16, 2010
How about cutting none of the social programs and 80% of the defense budget? We'd still be spending more on our military than any country in the world, and we might even be able to balance a budget.
thetxiAug 16, 2010
@pmkenny1234
Why do you hate America? Do you want the terrorists to blow up your mother?
Why do you hate your mother so much?
/s
lethulianAug 16, 2010
I agree- a flat tax is definitely the wrong way to go. It impacts low-wage workers much worse than it does top wage earners. Imagine you earn $24,000 (2000 a month) - a difference of a few hundred dollars in taxes makes a huge impact on how much disposable income you'd have, or whether you could afford to keep the A/C on in the summer, etc. Whereas, if you earn $240,000, more taxes isn't going to eat into your ability to put a roof over your head.
jaybird1905Aug 16, 2010
Even though this graph is a bit obfuscated, I do agree that the rich in America need to pay more taxes than they already do.
Even Warren Buffet, the third-richest person in the world has clearly outlined the deficiencies in the current system. Here's just one example: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
poesprogenyAug 16, 2010
First, I don't believe what he said here unless his personal secretary was making over $100K per year. If she was making $100K, then he's saying that she actually paid $30K in federal income tax. I call bulls**t on that. Show me her tax return and not the word of some pompous do-gooder that wants to lecture others on what they should do with their money.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cyclonusripAug 17, 2010
You can not believe it all you want, but that won't make it any less true.
thundercat1971Aug 17, 2010
yeah. The problem with that is what the government considers "rich". 2 income house more than $150k joint? You're rich and didn't even know it!
cyberbeastAug 16, 2010
So Republican want to steal less from the citizens.
What's new?
thetxiAug 16, 2010
If by steal less from the citizens they mean concentrate even more of the wealth in the hands of the richest, then nothing has really changed in the past 40+ years.
marx2kAug 16, 2010
comprehensionfail
s73v3rAug 16, 2010
So the poor people aren't citizens now?
thetxiAug 16, 2010
I think they prefer the term "serfs"
kip9999Aug 16, 2010
How about: Niether.. Flat tax on everything for everyone. summed up in one word: Fairness.
Mich167Aug 16, 2010
Agreed.
thetxiAug 16, 2010
Flat tax sounds fair and lovely until the middle and lower classes end up paying more taxes that would have otherwise gone towards buying groceries and paying rent and utilities and the richer citizens see no discernible difference in their standard of living.
seraph1982Aug 16, 2010
Yes, but percentages are relative to totals, so it self-adjusts. Did you take math?
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
@seraph1982, a person's standard of living is not linearly proportional to their income, so a flat tax doesn't "self-adjust". Please study economics. Going from "poor" to "rich" increases your standard of living, but the richer a person becomes, the less their standard of living increases. There's a point where, say you're making a billion a year, that increasing your income by another million isn't going to improve your life.
betteroffedAug 16, 2010
@Cerin: But why theoretically is it the government's job to set your standard of living? For example, how much does Bill Gates "need"? And how much should he have at the end of the day?
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
Think about that for a second. Say a flat tax rate were 10%. Someone living in poverty on $10,000, needs to spend 99% ($9900) of that just to cover basic housing, food, utilities, etc just to survive. A 10% now means they can't buy food for a month, or electricity, or they can't pay their rent.
Contrast that with someone living on $1,000,000 a year who only needs to spend 10% of their income ($100000) to live very comfortably. Paying 10% in taxes has virtually no effect on their standard of living. A flat tax is fair only if you're rich.
seraph1982Aug 16, 2010
Sure, but it also means that they're paying a hell of a lot less because their total income is a hell of a lot lower anyway. Plus, you have a lot of lower-class income spent on retarded bulls**t like cigarettes, hooptie wheels, and fast food. Taxing on consumption is the only way to go - lest we be burdened with the subsidy of their complete retardation.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
wesssssssssssskAug 16, 2010
still missing the point. Yes, percentages are by definition proportionate. But 10% of 10,000 is much more harmful to a standard of living than 10% of 1,000,000 (this was explained in a previous post).
And the assumption that poor people waste their money is not only unfounded but even slightly retarded. You could claim that they spend a higher percentage of their income directly on consumer products and services, which makes the lower-classes a greater asset to our economy...
But no, "poor people smoke cigs, flat tax gooood." Perfect.
betteroffedAug 16, 2010
That means they should get a better f**king job. Otherwise, what incentive do you have to do so? A REAL flat tax would be that everyone pays X amount. seraph1982 is correct, at least in theory. If we all pay the same *percentage*, then we all pay the same proportion of income. That part is really almost irrefutable.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
wesssssssssssskAug 17, 2010
and no one has refuted it. No one is advocating throwing so much money at poor people that wealth is redistributed. Poor people will stay poor and rich people will stay rich under a progressive tax code.
"Go find a better job" is pretty f**king easy to say, isn't it? America, and every other developed nation, found out the hard way, through eras of slums and ruling wealthy classes, that there needs to be higher responsibility towards poverty than wealth. Pure "fair" capitalism will break down and polarize classes. It's even happened in the United States, so this complete lack of hindsight just doesn't make sense.
tehnicoAug 16, 2010
@Cerin Well I'm sure I'm not the only one that gets tax credits based on my yearly income. Why would this change? In your example, the rich person would qualify for zero tax rebates, where as the poor person would get virtually all of their paid taxes back. Not to mention that someone living in such poverty would qualify for countless other government programs, assisted housing etc...
hivoltage815Aug 16, 2010
Damnit people. Before your criticize a flat tax or fair tax, please do a little research. All reputable proposed tax policies include rebates and/or credits to make sure lower income people are able to cover their necessities.
rizzosbackAug 16, 2010
We're not talking about a real plan though, we're talking about the nebulous concept of "fairness" in a flat tax, which is simply not realistic.
thetxiAug 16, 2010
So flat taxes and fair taxes have hidden gems in them to provide credit or assistance to those with smaller incomes?
And this is ultimately different from a progressive tax system in what ways?
hivoltage815Aug 16, 2010
www.fairtax.com
That is my favorite plan, I suggest you read it.
@TheTXI
Saying "everyone pays 38% but you also get a refund of $500 a month to cover your base expenses" is different than creating marginal tax brackets in that it is still a fair distribution. The only diference is that $500 refund is negligible to a rich person and is actually a revenue for someone earning less than 1,315 a month.
vaktathiAug 16, 2010
Flat tax? Fairness?
Marginal value of money would like to disagree.
Taxing someone making $25,000/year 25% is not the same as taxing someone making $25,000,000/year 25%
That person making 25,000/year is going to miss that 25% a lot more, that money has a much greater need and use, not to mention it's going to get spent and go through the economy at a much faster rate. That 25% income tax will make a very real and very powerful impact on their standard of living.
That guy making 25 million isn't going to miss that 25% really at all in terms of his standard of living. Oh darn, his yacht will have to wait a year.
Charging the guy making $25,000/year 10% and the guy making $25 million 30% is going to result in a much better net benefit to society as a whole with much less impact on the taxpayers. The guy making $25,000,000 still is going to have his stately pleasure dome and Bugatti and humongous investment portfolio, totally set for life. His standard of living still won't be affected. Meanwhile, that guy making $25,000 is going to have a much easier time ensuring bills get paid and he has gas and that he can afford food and whatnot. His standard of living will increase. Additionally, the government will benefit from increased revenue for services over the so called "fair tax".
Flat Rate "Fair Tax"...isn't.
agonytuesdayAug 16, 2010
...and yet it costs the same to feed a rich person as it does a poor person. why should they get a bigger tax break?
craigreedAug 16, 2010
cause they donate $10,000 per year to keep their congressman elected.
thetxiAug 16, 2010
Because they are somehow more successful examples of humanity and their richness is proof that they deserve to be made more rich.
zerocubedAug 16, 2010
Actually, costs more to feed a rich person. No frozen chicken nuggets and cheap drinks.
Only the best chicken cordon bleu made by their personal chef and designer water from the arctic or 200 year old champagne from France will do for the taste buds of the rich.
javacodeguyAug 16, 2010
There are no 200 year old champagnes. That would taste awful. Pérignon is only ~10 years old.
wiseguy1020Aug 16, 2010
@javacodeguy
Thats not entirely accurate....
http://news.suite101.com/article.cfm/230-year-old-drinkable-champagne-found-on-shipwreck-a262828
samweAug 16, 2010
That chart displays the tax cut in absolute $'s not relative. This is intended to misrepresent the issue.
For some people the tax cut, however small may actually be more than they previously paid. While another person may get a huge tax cut, but still pay a high rate.
The top 10% already pays 60% of income tax. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
The top 25% already pays 86% of income tax.
The bottom 50% pays only 2.9%
How can anyone say that the rich do not pay their share?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
evildeadashAug 16, 2010
None of the above.
glockenspiel69Aug 16, 2010
"...f**k it!
cut the cord!
Lights out!
Guerrilla Radio!
Turn that s**t up!"
plobenAug 16, 2010
Dugg up for RATM
bartboy919Aug 16, 2010
It's that type of attitude that got George Bush elected in 2000. Congratulations. You are part of the problem.
stopbrorapeAug 17, 2010
@Bartboy919
Rage Against the Machine = George Bush?
thanatostriggerAug 16, 2010
Ya'll are stupid. I make 32k a year and I got back more than I paid in last year. So how are they going to cut my taxes. The top 10% make all the money anyway. Cut their taxes and they will spend more money. STOP LOOKING FOR HANDOUTS YOU BUMS!!!!!!!!!!!!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
thetxiAug 16, 2010
Yes, because every dollar of federal tax revenue goes directly to feeding a wino or putting a free roof over the head of a drug addicted prostitute.
jaybird1905Aug 16, 2010
Are you saying it doesn't?
pmkenny1234Aug 16, 2010
Are you saying it's a bad thing to rehabilitate such people?
1sammyAug 16, 2010
jaybird - that's exactly what TheTXI is saying -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg
kornbred79Aug 16, 2010
"I make 32k a year and I got back more than I paid in last year."
Nice story bro.
ayeroxorAug 16, 2010
"Ya'll are stupid."
Says the f**king redneck who can't even spell "y'all"
lightinggodAug 16, 2010
The man who in one sentence says he got a handout, tells others in another sentence to stop looking for a handout. Perfect.
thetxiAug 16, 2010
Apparently a handout is only cool if you weren't actively looking for it at the time it was given to you?
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
simplify the tax code:
1. Count all income as income, regardless of the source
2. Eliminate most itemized deductions, especially the scam of the home mortgage interest deduction and get rid of the standard deduction of $5700 completely and replace it with point 3 below
3. Restructure the progressive income tax so that the first 15,000 of all income has 0% marginal tax rate, the next 15,000 of income has 5% marginal income tax rate...(This is just an example, not a pattern to follow)
4. Small Businesses and Farms will need to keep two sets of books from now on and complete two tax returns, one for the business income and one for the salary they pay themselves (the salary they pay themselves will fall under the simplified tax code, while the business income will fall under a simplified small business tax code, under the small business tax code, businesses and farms that qualify will be allowed to be passed onto inheritants tax free)
hivoltage815Aug 16, 2010
95% of Small Businesses and Farms are already file on separate documents (Schedule C) and the other 5% are corporate entities that file separately. Unless you are looking to double tax that first 95% (once for profits and again for income), I don't understand your point. And if that is your point, then your idea sucks because that is the last thing we should be doing.
Corporate taxes are mostly moronic to begin with. A company by itself is nothing but an economic driver. Less taxes = more investment capital, more raises, etc. Individual taxes should be increased at higher tax brackets and corporate taxes should be reduced to below 10% just to cover the cost of enforcement agencies such as EPA, FDA, etc.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
One of the major arguments against letting the Bush tax cuts expire is that it will hurt small business owners. That's what I was trying to eliminate.
wiseguy1020Aug 16, 2010
"Less taxes = more investment capital, more raises,"
Used to be. Now it is :
"Less taxes = more profits for me"
lightinggodAug 16, 2010
Less taxes = more speculation. More taxes = more money invested for the long term. Just look at the last 20 years as compared to the 30 before that. How many bubbles were there between the end of WWII and 1980?
hivoltage815Aug 16, 2010
You guys are missing my point unfortunately. I am talking about simple logic in business structure and tax code.
If you re-read what I said, I advocated increasing income taxes for the higher brackets. If the business returns the money as dividends, bonuses, income, etc. then it will be taxed appropriately at a higher amount for the rich and a lower amount for the poor.
Consider this: Microsoft goes from paying 35% tax on profits to 10% tax. This savings of 25% can go in 3 places: dividends to shareholders, retained earnings, or compensation and bonuses. If it is paid in dividends, your grandfather will receive a check in the mail and will only be taxed at whatever income bracket he is in. Of course Bill Gates will receive dividends too for his shares, but it will be taxed at a much higher bracket. If it is retained earnings, it is used for future investments which is great economic stimulus. If it is compensation and bonuses, again it will be taxed on the personal income of the individuals that receive it.
When you a tax a business, you are taxing the employees and the customers of that business and leaving it up to the corporate officers to choose who absorbs that. If you tax the individuals, then you are more appropriately assessing who pays what percentage. So let me ask you: who would you rather decide what the effective average tax rate should be? The business owner or the elected government? I choose elected government.
vitriolandangstAug 16, 2010
I think there should be NO income tax.
What you make on a pay-check is something you did as a productive job, ostensibly, this added something to the economy and well-being of Americans.
Taxes SHOULD BE on Dividends, wealth, assets and imports (tariffs). Everything imported has a negative impact on this economy. The idea of fighting Mexicans at the border because they work too cheap is silly if you haven't stopped businesses from offshoring the jobs. At least those people crossing the border help your economy.
This is how the country USED TO DO IT. The Civil war and banksters pushed it on the public.
hivoltage815Aug 17, 2010
@Vitriol
If you showed me proof that we would be able to take in enough money without instituting 90%+ taxes then I might be on board. And sales taxes are commonly instituted on state and local levels. How do you propose they collect taxes?
Guess what I am saying is do you have any good sources to backup this plan? I am curious.
altorAug 17, 2010
It's... Hong Kong I think, where they implemented a flat 15% tax for everyone. Their economy is booming and the simple flat tax is a big part of that. No sales tax or anything like that, IIRC no property tax, just 15% off the top of every paycheck and you're done. I don't know if there are exceptions for dividends or bonuses or inheritances, but that's beside the point. Stuff like luxuries (cigarettes, alcohol) and gas probably have a built-in tax as well.
Since it's 15% off EVERYONE, it's not a burden on the poor and the upper-middle class and upper class people are the ones that pay the most by far overall. Compare that to the American system and it seems a lot fairer and easier to comprehend.
"This is how the country USED TO DO IT. The Civil war and banksters pushed it on the public."
Anything that was "pushed on you" by THE CIVIL WAR is too old to blame the broken economy on. From what I can tell, America used all that added tax to become... oh right, the most prosperous and powerful nation on the planet.
"Oh if only things had been done differently hundreds of years ago, we wouldn't be in this mess." Uh-huh... riiiiight.
agent13xAug 16, 2010
You didn't have to separate Small Businesses and Farms. A farm IS a small business...
vitriolandangstAug 16, 2010
Nickolassc, I LIKE your idea here. Especially the "two tax filings for small businesses."
The PROBLEM that will scare most small business owners is that scamming taxes has been the ONLY way to make owning your own business profitable. You are double-taxed on "self-employment tax" which was the biggest tax hike ever on the middle class and small business -- FROM REAGAN.
I'm a home-owner, but renters do get screwed. It's a penalty for not having enough money -- like how Loan rates go up if you've got poor credit. So if you couldn't pay BEFORE we jacked up the price... Credit ratings are another scam to rip off those with less. Why don't they have a different "security charge" for people who look dangerous on airplanes -- it's about as fair. How about the "we don't like you tax" for people who have bad breath? The banks had a good run on this concept of "helping create businesses and jobs" but they've only acted as parasites and destabilized the value of our currency -- but THAT is another conversation.
If we had a fair tax code, small businesses wouldn't be the most hammered with taxes -- but you have to prevent abuse of the system -- and ANY PAYCHECK is a paycheck, regardless if it is your own business. The same loophole helps an Executive have a home paid for by the company that isn't listed as his home.
>> But I'd disagree with the $15,000 mark. I'd say; Make it $300,000. You don't even FILE until $200,000. Of course, that would mean fewer jobs for Accountants -- but do we really need this make-work that has no productive utility just so we can play games with numbers and the "clever" person gets to retire, and the hard-working but NOT clever person goes broke? Money is too much of a game already.
ONLY the wealthy and importers paid taxes in the beginning of our country. And corporations should pay the biggest share of the burden as they go beyond a local state business. So, along with the middle class worker -- make a small, one-state business have NO TAX as well.
You've just reduced the "nexus of taxation" to about 500,000 businesses and about 200,000 people -- that's a LOT easier to track and deal with than every business, every sale, and every person with a roof over their heads as our current system does. So you've got savings on tax collection and enforcement and now small businesses have a major leg up to compete with the collosal interstate businesses that push our government around.
>> Of course, neither of our ideas will be implemented. The current system however will crumble as the elite finally get rid of the pesky American middle class. Your kids will get to choose between; Mercenary, Security Officer, or Radio Talk Show pundit for a decent living.
lantzaAug 16, 2010
Should probably show the cut as a ratio to total taxes for the bracket, not the absolute value.
rpatrick819Aug 16, 2010
Kind of do by having an income range, but good point.
rxbudianAug 16, 2010
That will probably show that the higher income tax will get less deduction than the low income ones.
umdiggerAug 16, 2010
Either one works for me as they are only a few dollars different, and chances are I won't be making 500k + in the near future.
thetxiAug 16, 2010
That's pretty much the point of the graphic. People bitch and scream about how the Democrats want to raise your taxes back up, but the plan being put forth was for the tax cuts to expire on the rich while keeping them for those under the 250,000 level. The two plans show the disparity between what the Republicans want to give the rich and what the Democrats do. Everything is pretty much the same until you hit the snowman's fat ass at the bottom.
trigonometronAug 16, 2010
the dirty little secret of the GOP is that they know they will have to raise taxes at some point. But they are willing to gamble with America.
aliengoodsAug 16, 2010
Exactly. For most people, it doesn't matter, but Bush's tax cuts still account for one third of the deficit. This country is going bankrupt for the benefit of the few, and that's f**ked up.
anakastAug 16, 2010
I don't see any problem with the republican side, it's actually the more realistic.
thetxiAug 16, 2010
They get lower cuts because their tax cuts to begin with were so massive the first time they were passed in 2001. There's a reason the Bush tax cuts are called "tax cuts for the rich" because they were the most generous towards those in the highest income brackets.
zerocubedAug 16, 2010
anakast, I think you're mistaking the infograph a bit. With the Republican tax plan, the rich hardly pay any taxes, because in the end their tax cuts nearly nullify whatever taxes they had been paying. It's like paying 100 in taxes, only to get 90 of it back.
With the Democrat tax cuts, the rich won't be getting so much of their tax money back, making it a more even field for the rest of us. Percentage-wise, with the current tax plan, the rich pay LOWER taxes in comparison to those with lower incomes.
barrettandersonAug 16, 2010
"Percentage-wise, with the current tax plan, the rich pay LOWER taxes in comparison to those with lower incomes."
Not true. At all. My gosh. Where do you get this information?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kornbred79Aug 16, 2010
"I don't see any problem with the republican side"
Except that it accounts for about 30% of our current Federal budget deficit.
thetxiAug 16, 2010
Deficits are only important on things that don't involve tax cuts for the rich.
bastiphanAug 17, 2010
Tax cuts account for 0% of the deficit. Spending accounts for 100% of the deficit.
If you tax 0, and spend zero, no change to the deficit. If you tax 100% and spend 0%, no change to the deficit. If you tax zero and spend 100%, change to the deficit.
Next time you say tax cuts account for any part of the deficit, remember how much of an idiot you are. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
anakastAug 21, 2010
Our deficit results from overspending from the state, not a lack of taxes.
phramusAug 16, 2010
Why do so many people think a flat tax rate is "fair" and a graduated rate is "unfair"? There seems to be a consensus that this is just common sense, but there's no logic to that view. If you define "fair" to be "flat tax rate", then ipso facto. Otherwise, you can only discuss "fair" and "unfair" in terms of operational semantics. What does it mean to say that something is "fair" or "unfair"? Time to brush up on your critical thinking, folks.
thetxiAug 16, 2010
It all depends on the definition of fair.
Some people want to take the incredibly shortsighted view of things and look at fairness in terms of absolute dollars ($)
Others want to look at it as fairness in terms of spending power and standard of living impact.
If you want everyone to pay the same %, you are going to adversely impact the spending power and standard of living moreso the lower the income you go.
thegreat0neAug 16, 2010
Fair would be letting everyone take home all of their income.
thetxiAug 16, 2010
Your fantasy resembles more of a nightmare to me.
thegreat0neAug 16, 2010
That's because you're terrified of a world where people aren't forced to do what you want them to do.
thetxiAug 16, 2010
If by
"terrified of a world where people aren't forced to do what you want them to do"
you mean
"terrified of a world where people live without the comforts and security that a modern society can offer to everyone regardless of income level or station in life"
then yes. I prefer living in a modern world that is capable of providing the best quality of life for all (or nearly all) of its inhabitants.
If you prefer to keep every penny you earned and not have to worry about the rest of society, I guess there is always places like Afghanistan, Somalia, and Antarctica.
thegreat0neAug 16, 2010
That sure is a pretty looking false dilemma you've got going on there. It's almost like you're convinced that an income tax is the only think separating the US from Somalia. Here's news for you: the US didn't look anything like Somalia before the income tax was created.
If you want to throw in some irrelevant comparisons, did you know that Nazi Germany had an income tax??Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
s73v3rAug 16, 2010
No, we're terrified of a world where we don't have police protection, fire protection, roads, postal service, etc.
thegreat0neAug 16, 2010
Funny, I thought we had police and fire fighters and a postal service before the income tax existed. But what do I know? I wasn't alive back then. And what sense is there in charging people a percentage of their income for roads when it would be far more fair to charge whoever uses the roads when they use them?
cyclonusripAug 17, 2010
We could list the differences between the US before income tax and after income tax all day, and in the end all we would discover is that the comparison is completely pointless. Things we didn't have or at least not to the same extent before the income tax were social security unemployment and several other social welfare programs, compulsory education for all of our citizens, an interstate highway system, and a large number of public works programs.
stilesjaAug 16, 2010
No one ever thinks about the fact that if the rich have a higher tax rate, even a vastly higher tax rate they will spend that money on things which are deductions to reduce it. For example, personal assistants. Say you are a rich dude and If you made about 50k less per year it would knock you to a lower tax bracket and you would actually bring home more money. Well you'd become an employer and hire a personal assistant, or a driver, or f**king butler or some other crazy s**t because that is all of a sudden a no brainer thing to do. Bam, you just created a job and you are bringing home more money. Its win/win. A low tax rate encourages rich people to hoard their money. A high tax rate encourages them to spend it creatively on ways that will benefit them and others. These rich people today just don't remember the times back when the rich had all these service people. They don't understand that went away not because it was out of style to keep a personal staff, it went away because they had no tax incentive to do it. Taxing the rich creates jobs. It makes them spend money to get under the limit.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
wiseguy1020Aug 16, 2010
Someone misses his servants.
thegreat0neAug 16, 2010
Someone doesn't understand how the progressive tax is implemented in the US. If there are three tax brackets, 0-50,000, 50,0001-100,000, 100,000+, and you make over 100,000, you pay the lowest rate on your first 50,000, the middle rate on your next 50,000, and the highest rate on the rest. You don't pay the highest rate on all of it, so it doesn't help to drop down in to a lower bracket.
amaoicanAug 17, 2010
@stiles - see TheGreat0ne
@Great - high income tax is still a relative incentive to purchase tax deductible goods and services. If your marginal rate is 50% and you really want to hire that hot sexy college chick to be your personal assistant but she won't work for under $50,000... well, hot damn! The government's going to subsidize that new hiree! If you don't hire her, you'll pay $25k in tax and if you do hire her you'll pay no tax. If you hire her, you'll net a $25k loss, but you're still more likely to hire her than if the tax rate was 0% (meaning the net loss of hiring her would be $50k).
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
Or you can take your ball and move to a country with more favorable tax rates.
Rich people have a nasty habit of figuring out how to keep as much money as possible.
etathetaAug 16, 2010
Its simple economics, People who have more money spend more money. So if you give the people who have the most money more back they spend more which puts it into our economy which helps us dig out of the recession. Since the levels that matter to the majority of people are pretty much the same. Might as well try to get the rich to spend more money. I'd rather have the people who earned their money keep it then our corrupt gov't and Obama have their hands on it to take more of our freedoms away.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
phramusAug 16, 2010
You hit the nail on the head when you said "simple economics", but perhaps "simplistic economics" says it even better.
zerocubedAug 16, 2010
Eeeeexceept that they don't. Instead the rich prefer to invest and buy elsewhere. People that have money will spend more - not necessarily in America. Trips out of the country, expensive imports, designer everything from a designer or several that may not all be American (and even then, buy their fashion materials out of the country or even have a studio out of the country). Basically the only in-country spending is with domestic services like maid and lawn service, transportation and other similarities.
thegreat0neAug 16, 2010
Oh, I get it. So you think that living within the borders of the US somehow entitles you to money made with the US, whereas it should be hard for people outside of the US to get that money even if they provide a better product or service than your lazy entitled ass ever could. You sound like a nationalist piece of s**t.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
zerocubedAug 17, 2010
Actually, you sound like you agree with outsourcing, oh Great0ne. You do realize that jobs and most products are handled overseas in order to avoid taxes and for cheap labor? Trust me - America had very fine carpenters, potters and other artisians. But because we have something called worker's rights and minimum wage, companies decided Americans were expensive and thus started outsourcing everything overseas. These days, American artisians cater to a niche economy - especially when you can just get cheap furniture from IKEA.
thegreat0neAug 17, 2010
I completely agree with outsourcing. The reason is that I am not a nationalist. I do not think that people in this country deserve jobs over people in other countries. If people in this country want a higher standard of living then they had better increase their productivity so that they deserve it. Being born within certain borders should not entitle you to a standard of living.
I have as much sympathy for American artisans as I have for the manufacturers of horse buggies. The artisans products have been replaced by products that are do the same thing but are far, far cheaper. And this is a good thing. It means people can buy furniture and have more money left over to do what they want with it. Their standard of living has increased.
The marketplace is very dynamic, and that's a good thing. If we force people to continue buying furniture made by artisans to keep artisans in business, everyone's standard of living goes back down. If we force companies to hire Americans that cost more but do the same job, everyone's standard of living goes back down. Americans just like the artisans need to enter in to new markets that they have an advantage over the rest of the world in if they want to stay on top.
vaktathiAug 16, 2010
People who have more money do spend more, but not as a % of their income.
10 people making 50,000/year will spend more of that $500,000 than one person making $500k. More expenses, more desires, more wants, more needs. That money goes through the economy at a much faster rate creating more economic activity than the single person making $500k.
monvalleyAug 16, 2010
Gee, I wonder which of these catagories start businesses and create jobs? It's obvious by this chart that the democrats do not want job growth.
fuse13Aug 16, 2010
which part is the customers? which part buys the goods and services? where does the profit come from for these businesses?
both sides are part of the same system. look at the imbalance in that system, and look at its historical change. if it was too far the other way, id be arguing with you, but it is not. you are buying the bulls**t.
monvalleyAug 16, 2010
Wait and see. I never saw a poor man employ anyone or start a business to create jobs. It's money, man
fuse13Aug 17, 2010
@monvalley i never saw a business succeed without customers, either.
shewflyshewAug 16, 2010
Tax cuts for the top 2% will create huge job growth. . . . wait for it..... IN CHINA. Republicans are still stuck in this mysterious mode where they actually believe the rich reinvest their tax cuts into the American market.
thegreat0neAug 16, 2010
So you admit that America is fundamentally uncompetitive with China? Why not stop trying to patch the system by robbing people before they can spend their money overseas and focus on actually solving the problem, i.e., making America more competitive?
monvalleyAug 16, 2010
Why do you think the jobs are going to China? It's too expensive for companies in the US due to high taxes.
s73v3rAug 16, 2010
No, they're going over to China because they can go back to treating the workers like s**t, and pollute to their heart's content without having to worry about the impacts of either of those, cause they're happening halfway across the world.
monvalleyAug 16, 2010
Uh huh. Business men are just plotting to see how bad they can treat employees and pollute the earth; are you stupid? So what do you think the solution is, government ownership of all business? I think you have drunk too much of obamas cool aid and believe the flim-flam man in chief.
fuse13Aug 17, 2010
@monvalley lol, are you in business? treating employees badly and polluting the earth are just side effects.
hivoltage815Aug 16, 2010
We need to start identifying the difference between the rich and the ultra-ridiculously-wealthy.
The rich are small business owners who love what they do and reinvest in this country. I know for a fact that if my boss was given a tax cut, he would just increase everyone's income in the company.
The ultra-ridiculously-wealthy are a different story and I agree with the sentiments about where they would spend the money.
wiseguy1020Aug 16, 2010
Just curious, what would you call the line?
jdenzerAug 16, 2010
Well we have had these Bush Tax cuts for 10 years now. Please show us that awesome chart with the huge jobs created by the rich. We don't have the technology to see those imaginary charts floating in your head yet.
thegreat0neAug 16, 2010
The rich invest their money where they think their investment is going to make money. Isn't it a little bit telling and perhaps frightening that they've decided not to invest as much in America?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
s73v3rAug 16, 2010
No. It does show that it doesn't make sense to cut their taxes if they're not going to invest it here in America.
monvalleyAug 16, 2010
That away, you know how to get even with these evil employers. Wonder if you have a job?
s73v3rAug 16, 2010
Your point is that cutting taxes on the rich leads them to reinvest that money and create jobs. I'm pointing out that most, if not all, of that additional investment is happening in China, creating jobs for Chinese citizens, and doing nothing to help, if not actively hurting, American job prospects and the American economy.
thegreat0neAug 16, 2010
Really s73v3r? It doesn't bother you that the rich are deciding that America is no longer a good place to invest their money? You don't think that hints at some serious long-term problems?
yellowsnowconeAug 16, 2010
So basically, up to $200,000 you get a bigger cut under the Dems and a small cut under the GOP.
Over $200,000 you get a small cut under the Dems and a bigger cut from the GOP.
I think I like the Dem version better.
divisiblebyzeroAug 16, 2010
It's not like there's some huge difference between the two at lower incomes. "Oooh, if I vote democrat, I could save $7 a year!"
yellowsnowconeAug 16, 2010
Sure ... but it puts lie to the claim that the GOP is looking after our interests.
They are only looking after the interests of the very well off.
What reason do I have to vote for the GOP tax cuts? I have none.
jdenzerAug 16, 2010
So you would rather give the GOP that $7 a year, while the top 1-2% get 90k a year? That makes
kornbred79Aug 16, 2010
True, from a pure income standpoint, it is not that big of a difference.
However, the difference between cutting spending to avoid sustained deficits will have a much higher effect on the lower incomes.
Much of the social services lower incomes depend on is pay for via tax revenues. Less money for stuff like Medicaid, food stamps, public education and public transportation will surely negatively effect their day to day lives.
divisiblebyzeroAug 16, 2010
@jdenzer, fair is fair. I'm sure we'd all like to pay $0 in taxes while some other guy foots the bill for us. Sure would be nice.
kornbred79Aug 16, 2010
And even from $200K to $500k, the average tax increase is only $400. I highly doubt that an extra $400 a year in taxes is going to break the back of a family making $300k per year.
yellowsnowconeAug 16, 2010
Do you know how the rich get away with paying less in taxes?
It's because they pay themselves in dividends. Dividends are taxed at a rate of just 20%. There are no other pay-roll taxes due on that income.
Salaries tax, on the other hand, is much higher. The rich are no fools. They won't take a salary. They insist on ownership and dividend income. That is why they always pay less in tax than you and I.
poesprogenyAug 16, 2010
Hmmm, how about you post your income tax return online for us to review? Show us after all your deductions and adjustments where you paid more than 20% of your income in taxes.
If what you said was actually true, then (according to the stats found at IRS.Gov) then 5% of the population wouldn't be paying around 80% of the taxes.
oxidaneAug 16, 2010
I'm curious if the proposed tax cuts/reforms match the *actual* taxes paid be each group.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
END ALL TAXES! REVOLUTION! HACK THE PLANET!
armedrebelAug 16, 2010
I see your /s
jsutherAug 16, 2010
A progressive tax system is one of the ten planks of communism. How many have already become true or are becoming true in this country.
From the Communist Manifesto
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fuse13Aug 16, 2010
Um... just the tax?
Have you got an argument or are you just trying to associate progressive tax with a "bad" ism? This is a bit like the mustaches are bad because hitler had one argument.
phramusAug 16, 2010
Damn those mustaches!
jsutherAug 16, 2010
My argument is that we are on a path to communism and many people including yourself don't realize it. That may sound like a cliche but, when you actually read the communist manifesto parallels between the communist ideal and our current government system, you can see that they are not that far apart.
Planks 1, 2, 5, and 10 are already true, the rest are on there way to becoming true.
1. Is true because, a person can not own land anywhere in the country without paying property tax. If you have to pay another party the equivalent of rent to use your you think is your own property than you don't really own it.
2. You're not arguing that one.
3. Often the state claims often as much as 50% of inheritance at death. Part way there.
4. Civil asset forfeiture laws, eminent domain, money over $10K has to be declared when entering the country and you have to pay taxes on it. Part way there.
5. It already true. The Federal Reserve is the central bank of America. During the bailout all first tier bank were forced to borrow from the federal reserve. All banks are required be part of the FDIC insurance system.
6. The FCC controls who can have a television or radio station. Newspapers are currently getting bailed out (Claremont, NH) and ownership is regulated in some cities. The FAA control the air space. Federal, state, and local governments controls all the roads. Amtrak is federally owned and operated. All phones can be wiretapped without warrent thanks to the patriot act. The internet is the only real exception to this and it is under pressure to be censored. I'd say we are 95% true on this.
7. GM now partially owns GM who is the largest industrial manufacture in the US. If they can own them, what is stopping them from own all industry in the US? Partially there.
8. I'll admit this is the least true of the ten. Equal liability of work means equal pay. The minimum wage does exist but in practice real market wages are use usually higher than minimum wage. Mechanized farming has also removed much the need for industrial armies for agriculture.
9. Farmers are bribed into not growing crops today. Farm subsidies are used to created industrial used of corn to create ethanol. There's many more examples of this. Partially true.
10. Are you even going to deny #10 is not already true?
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jsutherAug 16, 2010
Even I have to laugh at the "Damn those mustashes" comment.
mrmoo2002Aug 16, 2010
If you want to call "free public education" a communistic idea then by all means, do so. But nobody will deny that it is essential. Choosing to designate yourself as pro- or anti-communism means that you are essentially backing yourself into a corner by having to say "that is bad." I'm assuming that by listing those reasons you are suggesting america move away from communist ideals by avoiding whatever is listed in the manifesto. To be truly anti-communistic, then, you'd have to be against free public education (cause it's in the manifesto). ...
It's so easy to just gloss over the principles that "make sense" to you and dissociate them with the -ism that you hate. People do this all the time with socialism. Many will say they hate socialism but at the same time collect medicaid checks, rely on a government-run fire department, etc. Those are all socialized institutions. The same people that rally against socialism will at the same time never deny the fact that these socialized institutions should be that way.
Many of your points also fail to recognize the fact that there are government-run institutions in place that compete alongside the private industry. Many of the organizations you point to are merely regulatory bodies designed to set standards so that there is some form of consistency across the nation. If the FAA didn't exist, there would be massively different boarding procedures for getting on an airplane from one company to the next.
tl;dr; The point is that to simply declaring an -ism to be entirely bad ultimately forces you to say a lot of principles in that -ism which work are also bad.
propethicAug 16, 2010
You have no idea how communism works, sorry. Fitting any of those points does not make you a communist government, please understand what the word centralization means and how it worked IN PRACTICE under communist governments.
As long as my paycheck for my work comes from my employer and not the government, this isn't a communist society with a communist government. Being any part "there" on those points doesn't make a government communist.
If we didn't meet any of those points at all, we would be living in abject anarchism with complete decentralization of power. You really think that's better?
flammablewaterAug 16, 2010
OH NO! IT'S THE COMMUNISTS!
Get a new talking point. That one's boring now.
jsutherAug 16, 2010
It was starting to be a dead issue 20 years ago, it not my fault it has increasing relevance again.
lightinggodAug 16, 2010
I guess Adam Smith was a communist before there were communists, since he advocated progressive taxation.
futebolloungeAug 16, 2010
Free education for all children is also part of the ten planks of communism, yet capitalists stole the idea loooong ago.
jsutherAug 16, 2010
Who are these capitalists you are referring to?
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich? You HAVE to vote, it's your duty.
yottoAug 16, 2010
Sign me up for the douche. Unless I don't have to eat the sandwich.
flammablewaterAug 16, 2010
In this case, I'll take the Giant Douche. I'm not rich enough for the Turd Sandwich.
plainoldfoolAug 16, 2010
Vote or die muthaf**ka, vote of die!
6502samAug 16, 2010
It works if you're a single issue voter. Unfortunately, I'm concerned about other things including taxes. What the Dems screw over the Reps support.
What the Reps screw over, the Dems support.
For people like me, voting is a wash: vote for one issue I care about; another issue isn't addressed.
I'm for gun rights, the environment, pro-choice, fiscal responsibility - preferably low taxes and austerity, small Government, the Bill of Rights is cast in stone: Freedom of Speech including the right to bash religion or to be a bigot if I want. ...
Anyway, you get the hint: I'm f**ked regardless how I vote. So, I just vote against the incumbent even if the only choice is a Nazi or radical Black Muslim who wants to kill all whites.
vbullingerAug 16, 2010
^^ Wow, they actually have a preference. They don't get that at all, do they?
richmomzAug 16, 2010
Either way you go, the only thing for certain is a s**tty, douchy after-taste.
misscellaniaAug 16, 2010
What? Poor people spend 100% of their money -or more, as they go into debt. Rich people save, invest, bequeath, shelter, donate, hide, hoard, and do all sorts of things with their money in addition to spending some of it.
kevenmAug 16, 2010
Ok, this is lame...
brogrimmAug 16, 2010
And your SOURCE for this information?? This means nothing without credibility of the source.
Flat tax. Period.
flammablewaterAug 16, 2010
Fact: you do not and will not make enough money for a flat tax to benefit you. In fact, your taxes would likely go up to cover lost revenue. You people really need to think before you speak. And hopefully before you vote.
vbullingerAug 16, 2010
"you do not and will not make enough money for a flat tax to benefit you."
Yes, because I am only for or against something solely due to its direct benefits/consequences to myself. I care not for anyone else, I don't care about fiscal responsibility, I don't care about the fundamentals of liberty whatsoever.
Just give me a bigger piece of the pie. That's my only concern.
newms32Aug 17, 2010
But it's sooo wrong for the poorer 50% of the nation to pay proportionally less in taxes when they contribute a full 1% of total tax revenue! That 1% increase in tax revenue is certainly worth taxing the s**t out of them! Fairness!
chuckdeesAug 16, 2010
The rich would pay higher taxes in other western nations for the services their tax money provides. I think the top progressive tax rate should be higher than the 39% it will be in 2011.
If the top one percent had to pay out of pocket for the services that they depend on every day. Services which provide them the opportunity to be wealthy. It would cost a lot more out of pocket than the taxes they pay. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spinningheadAug 16, 2010
It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. - Adam Smith
miffelplixAug 16, 2010
Case for a progressive income tax:
Let's say you make $100 per week, and your neighbor makes $100,000 per week. If both of you were taxed at a flat rate of say 10%, you would bring home $90 per week, and your neighbor $90,000. That change in income will matter little to your richer neighbor, but such a reduction to you might be the difference between having a roof over your head or not.
The principle of a progressive tax rate is that money is more valuable the less you have of it.
thegreat0neAug 16, 2010
Ok, suppose that 5 friends go to a bar every week. They rack up a tab of $100 each week, and decide to pay it fairly. The richest man pays $85. The second to richest pays $15. The third to richest pays $5, the fourth to richest pays nothing, and the poorest actually gets $5. However this week, the four poorest decide that their burden of the bill is too high, and demand that the richest man pay even more. What happens when the richest man decides not to come any more?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
trifoldAug 16, 2010
Oh this old argument. Well, where's he going to go? The bar across the ocean that's even more expensive, or the really cheap s**thole bar that has zero security and a rich American will likely get kidnapped or murdered?
Please, if the wealthy are willing to completely uproot their extremely prosperous lives and give up all the freedoms and opportunities America provides because of a slightly higher tax bill, then good riddance. Something tells me this isn't so much a threat to leave as much as whining about not getting what they want.
thegreat0neAug 16, 2010
You think if you push them they won't figure out new and better ways to keep more of their income while still living in the US? They have the resources to do things you and I can't do.
You won't be saying good riddance when their money goes and stays overseas.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
A lot of their money is ALREADY going and staying overseas.
thegreat0neAug 16, 2010
Correct. And do you think squeezing them here is going to make them want to keep more of it here?
trifoldAug 16, 2010
Oh please, if the rich are willing to illegaly hide their money, they've already moved the most they could possibly move without arousing suspicion. And I highly doubt a couple extra thousand in taxes is going to be the great impetus to risk an audit similar to when UBS divulged their client list at the behest of the IRS a while back.
No, here's what'll happen. The rich will whine and make loudly make threats, and then come tax day will begrudgingly pay their taxes while trying to think of new ways to trick the nation's uneducated poor into fighting for the rights of the wealthy.
thegreat0neAug 16, 2010
"The rich" is a bunch of individual people. You seem to forget that. They don't act in unison. Increasing the tax rate a couple of percents won't cause all or even most of them to change their behavior, but it will cause some of them to do that. What is uniform is that you're pushing them all in the same direction, and for some of them it will be enough. Push them more, even in a different way, and a few more will go.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
vbullingerAug 16, 2010
Case against a progressive income tax:
- MUCH more costly for the government.
- Flat tax would eliminate loopholes.
- It's part of the Communist Manifesto.
- The point is that it's always small to everyone, regardless of income level.
- Saves everyone money, so they have more to put into the economy.
- Flat tax suggestions usually include provisions for the poorest people: i.e. tax cuts or no taxes at all.
- Doesn't punish people for being successful.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
thegreat0neAug 16, 2010
Case against any income tax:
-Before the US decided to police the world at its own expense and guarantee people it would pay for them cradle to grave, it was unnecessary.
-While the country might be worse off without some of the infrastructure the government has created, normally you pay for what you use when you use it rather than paying some percentage of your income to whoever created it whether or not you use it. There's no reason why the government can't recoup its infrastructure costs by charging the people that use that infrastructure. They do this already in a variety of ways, though not very well because they are incompetent.
-The government pisses most of it away anyway.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
calber1111Aug 16, 2010
Public education and the abolition of child labor are also part of the communist manifesto.
vbullingerAug 17, 2010
^^ So, then you're saying that it's a good thing? Universal, non-optional public education is the plank of the Communist Manifesto, even though every single home-schooled kid I've met has been a super genius.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mikeytagAug 16, 2010
Here's why it's fair. Imagine 2 people, 1 makes $40K/year and the other makes $400K/year. Imagine we have a flat rate of 20%.
That 40K person is already spending more than 20%! They currently would spend ~$8,238.58 in federal taxes for the year. At a 20% rate they would only pay $8,000 even. Now granted everyone's situation with deductions etc will vary this amount, but we are currently charging are lower and middle classes more than we should.
Point 2: (semi rant here) Why should we have a tax system that seeks to penalize extra people that move up from one bracket to another? If we are truly concerned about creating jobs, boosting GDP, etc. Why do we create extra penalties for achieving more success personally? There are several cases in the tax code where you can work harder, earn more, and net receive less because you actually kicked into a higher bracket! WTF?! How is it fair for you to set out to accomplish something and then get penalized for it when you do? The natural response of a person at this point is to work less hard and earn more by falling back into their lower bracket.
Why should the marker be that you should pay so much taxes that you have to stress about your financial situation? The idea of the American dream is that you are "free to move about the cabin" and make whatever career, financial, etc. decisions you would like to hopefully achieve financial freedom. The government should not play a role of punisher. "Hello Mr. Brain Surgeon. You racked up hundreds of thousands in debt and wasted 20 years of your adult life, but you make a lot of money and that's not fair! Waiters can never hope to make as much as you and that's simply unfair in this society!"
Rich people earn more. Poor people earn less. If we are all supposed to pull our weight in this country, shouldn't everyone be considered equal in terms of tax percentages? In your example the $40K person would pay $8K and the $400K person would pay $80K. That's seems pretty fair to me. It's easy to forecast what you need to pay and easier to plan for the future. I think the net effect would be increased efficiency and output throughout our economy.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
thegreat0neAug 16, 2010
I agree with you for the most part, but do you have evidence supporting this:
"There are several cases in the tax code where you can work harder, earn more, and net receive less because you actually kicked into a higher bracket! WTF?! How is it fair for you to set out to accomplish something and then get penalized for it when you do? The natural response of a person at this point is to work less hard and earn more by falling back into their lower bracket."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax#Increasing_percentage_rates
Wikipedia says otherwise.
mikeytagAug 16, 2010
True, that just considering rates themselves it is not possible to make less moving up into a higher bracket. The way it works is you are taxed 25% on the first X thousand, 28% on the next thousand above that, etc. The only difference is we live with a tax code filled with credits and deductions. Those credits and deductions are phased in and out at different bracket levels. So depending the way your individual chips fall it is possible.
I know it isn't hard evidence, but I spoke with a woman that this actually happened to. I'm looking on Google to find something more concrete.
mikeytagAug 16, 2010
It seems that this scenario is most likely to occur when you are very close to a new bracket and just a few thousand extra kicks you up in such a way that it affects your deductions and credits.
thegreat0neAug 16, 2010
Oh, ok. That makes sense. I don't know much about the rules for deductions and credits.
emmeronAug 17, 2010
"Let's say you make $100 per week, and your neighbor makes $100,000 per week."
...if I make $100 per week right now, I'm living off someone else.
Most likely that neighbor that's getting 10k taken from him.
" If both of you were taxed at a flat rate of say 10%, you would bring home $90 per week, and your neighbor $90,000. That change in income will matter little to your richer neighbor, but such a reduction to you might be the difference between having a roof over your head or not."
First: you have no right to take it from him under the guise that what he needs can be determined by you.
Second, 10% is absurd. There is no evidence more than 1% or 2% would be needed...
and let's face it, if you're making $100/week or $500/week, at worst you're looking at five or ten bucks. Statistically these are the people already wasting more than that on lottery tickets.... so.... if you want to take the high and mighty "the rich guy doesn't need it" route, those poor folks can give up their stupid lottery too.
"The principle of a progressive tax rate is that money is more valuable the less you have of it."
No, the principle is that someone in government knows best how to use your money. That principle must come first. The next one must be "and no one will help another unless paying for an appointed bureaucracy to do it." Then comes the principle you mentioned, and it is equally flawed as a fruit of a very poor tree.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
footbag01Aug 19, 2010
And it is a time tested fact that no matter how much you are taxed, you will still try to earn more.
shewflyshewAug 16, 2010
I'm still trying to figure out how Bush thought giving the rich massive tax cuts while waging two wars was going to work? That has to be the first in human history. Why does every numb-nut on the right forget the fact that after Clinton the country actually had a SURPLUS, not a deficit? But for some reason the neo-cons are still branding themselves as the fiscal conservatives. Bush just pissed it away.
Remember those stupid "tax refund" checks we all got in the mail for a few hundred dollars? That was nothing but a mechanism to shut everyone up while the top 2% received thousands in tax cuts. Bread and circus. Luckily he didn't succeed in making them permanent.
ayeroxorAug 16, 2010
He knew it would expire under the next president and f**k 'em
pfenixfireAug 16, 2010
It's called 'Starving the Beast'. In essence, bankrupting the country down the road so that we have no choice but to get rid of social safety nets.
kornbred79Aug 16, 2010
Hell, even the GOP demagogue Reagan realized that our economy could not sustain itself after the 1981 tax cuts and incrementally increased taxes through-out the remainder of his presidency.
pfenixfireAug 16, 2010
Actually, no. It went from 70% under Nixon and Carter to 50% during Reagan's 1st term to 28.5% and then 28% When Bush Sr. got into office.
Source: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
kornbred79Aug 16, 2010
Oh, yes, the overall tax rate on the highest incomes went down, but not nearly as much as was first intended by the 1981 tax cuts.
jdenzerAug 16, 2010
To be fair it was the GOP, not just Bush. And they knew exactly what they were doing. They knew that it would expire during a mid-term election. And they knew how easy they could argue the tax cuts. All they have to do is spin it as a tax increase. That way they force the Dems to extend them. Remember the GOP basic argument is "Increase taxes bad, cut taxes good"
shewflyshewAug 16, 2010
Short-term political gains is what it's all about. Bush's whole 2004 campaign bragged about the rate of home ownership in the country in his whole "ownership society" pitch. We all know how that ended. And almost in time for him to leave office. They held out to the very critical end in creating the TARP stimulus. They so wanted to pass that on to the next administration.
jdenzerAug 16, 2010
"They so wanted to pass that on to the next administration."
What is even worse. They have spun it so much that many Americans believe that Obama actually signed TARP into law. Truly sad.
hivoltage815Aug 16, 2010
Let's not distort it too much. Clinton had a discretionary budget deficit close to 0, and it was while Republicans were in control of congress. Furthermore, it was fed by an influx in revenues before the dot com bubble burst - it was fake economic growth.
But yes, you are right, Bush was far from fiscally responsible, just like every other president.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pfenixfireAug 16, 2010
I hope you forgot the "/s" after that last line.
shewflyshewAug 16, 2010
Very true. Clinton was actually very conservative and he did get some help from the gop controlled congress when it came to cost cutting.
He got rid of welfare as we knew it, initiated federal department shutdowns and cut military spending in a time of peace (imagine that). He of course faced incredibly opposition from the right on that last one. He did all this while being called a "bleeding heart liberal".
pfenixfireAug 16, 2010
Edit:
OK you added a new line that makes it clear, so ignore my previous comment.
shawnfromnhAug 17, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
hblaskAug 16, 2010
They are almost identical at each level, except the highest one.
So yeah, if you offer me: Good Thing, or Identical Good Thing Plus More Good Thing, I'll take the latter.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
flammablewaterAug 16, 2010
Yes, but the Republicans are screwing people in every single tax bracket in order to give more money to the rich. You don't see a problem with that? They are forcing you to give your money to someone who's already making over 500k a year. I don't mind taxes, but that sounds like theft to me.
hblaskAug 16, 2010
Uh, you seem to be under the mistaken assumption that Democrats are working for the poor. If this is true, you may want to pay closer attention.
See, both are taking from the poor and middle class to reward their rich friends. Look what Obama has done for unions, bankers, insurance companies. So given a choice between someone who takes a lot of money to reward the rich or someone who takes a little to reward the rich, I'll choose "a little".
hivoltage815Aug 16, 2010
You ignore the cost of the latter one being higher. We are financing this with foreign debt that we pay interest on.
vbullingerAug 16, 2010
Has Obama changed anything at all?
s73v3rAug 16, 2010
Raising the deficit is a "Good Thing"?
hblaskAug 16, 2010
Are you going to pretend that politicians will be fiscally responsible if they raise taxes? If so, you aren't paying very close attention. Look at CA. If they had just held spending at inflation-adjusted per-capita levels for the last 10 years, they would be in the black right now. Instead, additional taxes just encourages additional spending, leading to even larger future commitments.
History is important as a predictor of future behavior. Increased taxes has NEVER balanced the budget -- only responsible spending.
citizenmeAug 16, 2010
And still no way to pay for it.
jdenzerAug 16, 2010
The GOP does have it paid for, we the people pay for it. And lets not forget Boehner plan to raise retirement age to 70.
citizenmeAug 16, 2010
Good luck with that. And I'll be damned if I pay for more tax cuts for the rich with my money.
phydeaux70Aug 16, 2010
Why do you have to pay for me keeping my own money?
I think what you meant to say was, 'Where will the Federal Government cut spending, to make up for what they are not taking in in tax revenue'.
No easy answers for sure, but at least lets get the context right. It's not the governments money first, it's mine.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
citizenmeAug 16, 2010
You're right.
But as we've been collecting revenue this way for nearly a century, I thought we might all be able to have discourse without a billion disclaimers.
But I'm not hearing anything about cutting spending from the right, nor am i hearing anyone standing up for the constitution when the deficit (which I hear plenty about now that there's a black dem pres) when these same tax cuts for the rich were given to create said deficit.
I at least applaud your willingness to note that you can't have it both ways.
phydeaux70Aug 16, 2010
@citizenme
The only way to effectively reduce the deficit is to reduce the size of government. If we are to maintain our current obligations two things have to happen: 1. Reduce the obligations 2. Increase revenue.
Well...the only people that actually generate wealth in this country are the business people who take risks. Take their money and they have less to do so. Yet nobody wants to talk about reducing the obligations either.
My solution would be to eliminate entire departments that have redudent departments at the state level. Most of the Federal Departments are just overhead anyway. Other than that....reduce the size of the federal workforce by 10%. But....nobody would ever get elected by suggesting such things.
citizenmeAug 17, 2010
@phydeaux70
I appreciate a conversation with someone that doesn't include the word "socialism", or the phrase "ram down our throats."
I agree that reducing the size of government is one way of improving finances, but there is a time and a place for government spending, and right now I think it is the only course of action that the common man has to combat problems, and it gets lost in these debates that the gov't is the nation's #1 employer including my mother at the post office, my father in the Army, and both of my sister's at VA hospitals.
I don't believe that tax cuts to the wealthy lead to revenue increases beyond the Maynard curve which was surpassed nearly 30 years ago. My job as well as yours I'm sure doesn't hire until it is more advantageous to hire X employee than it is to work Y employee harder. This is the current falsehood of trickle-down economics.
Business will bring us out of this Recession, but it will be, as you said, risk-takers, and the businesses that the Republicans give breaks to aren't the risk-takers, they're the former risk-takers. Now everyone is scared, thus no lending, no hiring, until the people save their asses once again by spending money they don't have and can't get, quite a conundrum, which is why I am in favor of this administrations efforts to revive small businesses, an known generator of jobs, and encourage innovations in science which brought us the tech booms of the past 60 years.
If we drop taxes for anyone I would like to see a bottom-up approach, along with redundancy in inefficiency checks within the federal administrations. I, nor any "liberal" I know has any problem with reducing waste, we just don't buy into the corporate scheme to privatize everything, because (1) it doesn't work, and (2) it is in the modern era, too easily abused.
My solution would be to reduce waste and programs that don't work. Encourage bold or small businesses, and drastically reduce our military empire, that and let those tax cuts expire for the top income earners back to their 1999 rates. We had a budget surplus with roughly the same amount of departments, with a projected surplus of 8 trillion over 10 years, that is until Bush's tax cuts. Simply and unbiased they didn't work, and now we have a huge deficit.
markglAug 16, 2010
There are no references to this chart or anything I can get out of it. It's numbers and circles. Doesn't even show how they got those numbers.
alphi1Aug 16, 2010
Okay, let's assume those numbers are right (a big assumption as we don't know the source of them). If that's the case, breaking it down to percentages (instead of dollar amounts) we get (Note: I started with a sub-poverty salary of $1000 for the lowest of the first range, and $10,000 as the highest of the top):
Salary Range Dem. Cut % range Rep. Cut % range
$1,000 - $10,000 1% - 5% 1% - 5%
$10,001 - $20,000 2% - 4% 2% - 4%
$20,001 - $30,000 3% - 4% 3% - 4%
$30,001 - $40,000 2% - 3% 2% - 3%
$40,001 - $50,000 2% - 2% 2% - 2%
$50,001 - $75,000 2% - 2% 1% - 2%
$75,001 - $100,000 2% - 3% 2% - 2%
$100,001 - $200,000 2% - 4% 2% - 4%
$200,001 - $500,000 1% - 3% 1% - 4%
$500,001 - $1,000,000 1% - 1% 2% - 3%
$1,000,001 - $10,000,000 0% - 1% 1% - 10%
Now looking at it that way, most of the percentages seem pretty close to equal between the two plans. The only glaring differences I see are:
$50,000-$75,000 range (right in the wheelhouse of the "middle class") - a bigger % cut for the Republican plan than the Democrat one
$75,000-$100,000 range - a bigger % cut for the Democrat plan compared to the Republican one
$200,000 and up - a bigger % cut for the Democrat plan compared to the Republican one
To put it in other words: if you aren't in one of those ranges ($50k-100k and 200k and up), neither plan will make an appreciable difference to you personally.
kornbred79Aug 16, 2010
"To put it in other words: if you aren't in one of those ranges ($50k-100k and 200k and up), neither plan will make an appreciable difference to you personally."
In the short term, no, neither plan will make an appreciable difference.
However, the long term effects of running higher deficits due to less tax revenues from the higher incomes will have massive negative effects on the middle and lower classes.
The biggest problem will be in Social Security and Medicare which middle and lower incomes rely on far more than individuals who consistently made more than $200k per year.
pedoAug 16, 2010
the chart is from the washington post, which got it from the nonpartisan joint committee on taxation
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/11/AR2010081105864.html
isenborgAug 16, 2010
Unless those rich people fire you.
alphi1Aug 16, 2010
If those "rich people" do decide to lay me off, they will need to either: 1) find someone else to do my job, or 2) get by without anyone doing my job
So the real trick is: 1) to have skills that aren't easily replaceable by just anyone off the street, and 2) make sure that the work you're doing is critical to your employer's business
s73v3rAug 16, 2010
Because personal income tax is the deciding factor in a company laying off someone or not.
jnismeAug 16, 2010
Could be. If I am a small business owner and you raise my taxes by 10%, I need to either increase my profits or decrease my expenses in order to maintain my balance sheets. If I can't increase, then the cuts have to come someplace. And with an attitude like that, you may very well find yourself on the short list.
s73v3rAug 16, 2010
So if I don't have the attitude that the poor should be constantly sucking off the rich, thanking them for being kind enough to pay money for my services, that I should be on the list of people to go? f**k you. You need my skills far more than I need your s**tty little company. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
emmeronAug 17, 2010
s73v3r -- you work for yourself, right? I would fire anyone who walked into my office with an attitude like that.
jnismeAug 17, 2010
And that is why you fail. I was just having a conversation with you, and you make it personal. Obviously you don't understand economics at all. Good luck with your business. Oh, you don't own one? Watch the teeth please.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
That's the problem with the upper tier not having a limit and why this graph is highly misleading. It's almost as if it were purposely designed that way to manipulate people. ;-)
See, the 100,000 dollar tax cut is perfectly in line for someone making 10,000,000 as it's 1% and it's a huge tax cut for someone making 1,000,000 (I doubt they actually get that tax cut amount, however they are lumped into that group in the graphic, just like the tax cut on 100,000,000 is also lumped into that group, which only comes out to .1% if you go with the 100,000 number.
tao52nycAug 16, 2010
Hey? How about cutting spending? Hellooooooo!
john1066Aug 16, 2010
Like a war or two?
s73v3rAug 16, 2010
Cutting spending is something that's needed, but alone it won't work. Taxes also need to be raised.
jabbrwockeyAug 17, 2010
Afghanistan just confirmed oil under their sand. We're going to be at war for a while, boys.
ieatskunkAug 17, 2010
What about those of us that make 25,000,000 a year? How much do we have to pay?
lithdovAug 16, 2010
They're exactly the same until you get to the highest tax brackets, which already pay the majority of taxes (the top 5% of wage earners' taxes make up 53.25% of tax returns), so how exactly does the democrat tax plan benefit anyone other than by feeding the fires of class envy? Silly progressives, I know you're easily distracted by pictures and all, but maybe you should think about what you're digging actually shows before you end up throwing up all over yourselves.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lithdovAug 17, 2010
Aww, -7 diggs and not a single little boy or girl with the guts to even try to refute what I said. Poor little progressives.
coloneljessupAug 16, 2010
Here we go with the digg.com tax accountants and economic professors...................................
vbullingerAug 16, 2010
Do you go to every single article and say:
"Here we go with the digg.com _______________.........."
Well? Do you? Do you go into all the sports articles and say "Here we go with the digg.com armchair quarterbacks..........."
Do you go into all the video game articles and say "Here we go with the digg.com video game analysts..........."
Do you go into all the politics articles and say "Here we go with the digg.com politicians..........."
I guess we're not supposed to have any kind of opinion at all, whatsoever, on anything unless we have PhDs in the subject?
pinchduckAug 16, 2010
How about a plan to reduce our unsustainable deficit and reduce our debt burden so we can afford things like health care? What's that I hear? Crickets? Politicians all suck. Every one. Don't get sucked into the "Democrats vs. Republicans" false dichotomy. Both of them have been tremendously bad stewards of our fiscal resources.
newms32Aug 17, 2010
And that should start with a sword to the DoD's budget. With constant funding increases every year, the DoD has never given a moment's thought to efficiency. Bureaucracy at its worst.
pinchduckAug 17, 2010
I have to agree. We just can't afford two wars and a world-spanning empire any more. I would also hack apart our law enforcement apparatus. End the wars on drugs, prostitution, immigration, and other artifacts of the cold wars and culture wars. We just can't afford them any longer.
shawnfromnhAug 17, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
m0dethAug 24, 2010
Thank you
kornbred79Aug 16, 2010
The basic GOP economic formula is this:
-lower taxes
-lower spending
-borrow to reconcile budget shortfalls
Lets take this plan and apply it to a business:
Taxes = prices on goods
Spending = payroll and other expenses
Now, basic rule of business is that as your business grows, so do your expenses. Imagine we are making widgets. Our business is expanding by about 3% per year. We keep our widgets priced low, so our profit margins are thin. Even though demand is his, our supply is restricted because we do not want to hire more people, or expand to a larger facility. At some point, we hit a wall and current production levels can not sustain demand. Since we do not have the necessary cash at hand to facilitate the necessary expansion, we borrow money from the bank.
The cycle continues over and over again, until the business finally collapses.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
This is a somewhat valid analogy however the solution is stop needing to borrow. Which means cut spending.
kornbred79Aug 16, 2010
True, but you can only cut so much.
In the end, the only real solution is to increase revenue, which means you either need to raises prices, or push your product to new markets.
Raising prices would be akin to raising taxes where as opening up new markets would be like having a lower unemployment rate (more people paying into the system).
shauncorleoneAug 16, 2010
"Raising prices would be akin to raising taxes"
I appreciate what you're trying to do, but there's at most a thin parallel here. You're talking about charging a disproportionate price for a "product" used by the collective, and your individual price is based largely on your income. No matter that you don't have access to many of the features included in the product because you make too much money, even though you also paid a much higher price.
"You can only cut so much" is a pretty flimsy argument as well. George W Bush doubled the size of the Federal Government. There's a LOT that can be cut, though admittedly some of it would not be easy.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
Democrats vs Republicans ...
It's like one group of ignorant douche bags arguing in the mirror.
The important take away from this is.... What we have been doing for the last couple decades is NOT working.
Bush did nothing ... Obama is doing nothing ...
But they don't give a s**t because they're both rich and so are their friends ..
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kornbred79Aug 16, 2010
Actually, there are huge fundamental differences between the 2 parties. The problem is you are ignorant of those differences, so you simply assume everything is the same.
The problem with people like you is all you do is bitch and moan, and contribute absolutely nothing to finding a solution.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
Contribute nothing?
I served my country, volunteer my time and donate my money.
I contribute more than most thank you very much.
I don't just bitch and moan, I love my country .. I just hate our politicians.
I'm not ignorant of the differences you're talking about .. I'm talking about the end result of both their efforts ...
because in the end they're both just trying to make the other look bad, make themselves look better and keep us worried about s**t that shouldn't even be an issue like gay marriage and abortion. While they f**k us on the big stuff, like war, the economy and foreign policy.
Don't be so quick to judge my cynicism for ignorance. I'm not that myopic friend.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
overdrivenAug 16, 2010
@Kornbred
My god you are one ignorant f**k. Pathetic.
jnismeAug 16, 2010
Is it just me, or did Kornbred just get Andrejhoward's boot up his ass?
bdigital24Aug 16, 2010
and yet he's being buried
frightening...
digg2point0Aug 16, 2010
"What we have been doing for the last couple decades is NOT working."
What Clinton did seemed to have worked quite well.
OH! By "decades" you mean "Bush's terms + OBAMA!!!"
"Bush did nothing ... Obama is doing nothing ... "
Because every time Obama tries to do something you get outrage mixed with foot stomping and TEH SOCIALISMS! from the right.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mothrogAug 16, 2010
"Because every time Obama tries to do something you get outrage mixed with foot stomping and TEH SOCIALISMS! from the right."
The idiot has the biggest majority in Congress that any party has had in 40 years, and yet he still can't get anything done. That's some great leadership there. If Obama and the Democrats could get their collective asses together, they could do anything they wanted.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kornbred79Aug 16, 2010
"yet he still can't get anything done."
If I stuck my fingers in my ears and yelled "La la la, I can't hear you!" over and over again, it would probably seem to me like he hasn't done anything either.
Unfortunately, I don't live in the same fantasy world like you:
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-kept/
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/compromise/
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/in-the-works/
mothrogAug 16, 2010
"If I stuck my fingers in my ears and yelled "La la la, I can't hear you!" over and over again, it would probably seem to me like he hasn't done anything either."
Yeah, nothing like bullet pointed bulls**t to make you feel good. How about his health care "reform" which was completely stripped of a public option and essentially a hand out to the insurance companies? That sure was great. I suggest you take your fingers out of your ears and take a good look at the idiot's legislation. Also, seems to me as if we're still in Afghanistan, and Iraq, which he's still promising to get us out of, with ever changing departure dates. He still renewed the PATRIOT Act, he didn't do a damn thing about illegal wiretapping, and Gitmo's still open. So yeah, he may have accomplished small nuggets of feel good bulls**t, but at the end of the day all the important things he's needed to do aren't done.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
linuxpersonAug 16, 2010
I think we should fund services provided by society via voluntary interactions.
betweenjobsAug 16, 2010
Shhh... the adults are talking. If you're bored, you could always re-read Atlas Shrugged.
linuxpersonAug 16, 2010
If it considered adult to be a violent primate with absolutely no critical thinking ability, then I'd rather not be an "adult" by your definition.
I haven't read Atlas Shrugged. Even if I had, I don't see how it is relevant to this discussion.
peppermintpigAug 16, 2010
It's possible that the Red faction and the Blue faction are both advocating untenable policies which will lead to violence.
spinningheadAug 16, 2010
Many 3rd world nations agree with you.
linuxpersonAug 16, 2010
Name a few 3rd world nations where goods and/or services are provided on a voluntary and peaceful basis.
spinningheadAug 16, 2010
That's the point. The governments don't do s**t there and expect you to take care of yourselves or others (if you choose) and its not the utopia you envision. Show us a nation without people consolidating power to establish and enforce rules that is the utopia you think it would be in the US.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
linuxpersonAug 16, 2010
"The governments don't do s**t there and expect you to take care of yourselves or others (if you choose) and its not the utopia you envision."
The governments in most third world countries are tribal authoritarian regimes. In the absence of those tribal governments, it is very likely people would be able to establish a better standard of living.
I have never envisioned a Utopian society, merely a free one. I tend to believe that freedom produces the best standard of living for the individual, do you disagree?
"Show us a nation without people consolidating power to establish and enforce rules that is the utopia you think it would be in the US."
So because a truly free society has never existed, we should through the basic tenants of freedom out the window?
spinningheadAug 16, 2010
Hah! Yes, in absence of elected government, you end up with the biggest douchebag with the biggest gun (tribal governments, warlords, etc) taking power. Suggesting that dismantling all government and leaving everyone "free" to do whatever they want wouldn't end up with a few power-hungry nuts taking away that freedom in about 5 minutes is blind idealism.
“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”
-ChurchillComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
linuxpersonAug 16, 2010
"Suggesting that dismantling all government and leaving everyone "free" to do whatever they want wouldn't end up with a few power-hungry nuts taking away that freedom in about 5 minutes is blind idealism. "
Freedom is does NOT mean being able to do "whatever you want". Freedom means being able to do whatever you want so long as you allow others to do whatever they want. Do you see the difference?
And for the record I never once advocated, "dismantling" of the government. What I'm advocating is a government truly by the consent of the governed.
As for the Churchill quote, I would tend to disagree with his speculation. Democracy certainly works better in terms of advancing the ideals of free society than does something like a Dictatorship. That said, we do not have a Democracy in this country, we have a Representative Democracy (aka a Republic).
While a Democracy does tend to create a more free society, it almost never results in freedom in the literal sense mentioned above. When a majority of the people get their way, there is a illusion of freedom. White slave owners certainly felt like they were free considering the majority supported slavery.
spinningheadAug 16, 2010
"Freedom means being able to do whatever you want so long as you allow others to do whatever they want. "
Im sure that freedom will last a long time after the richest dick in the country outfits his army of followers.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
linuxpersonAug 16, 2010
"Im sure that freedom will last a long time after the richest dick in the country outfits his army of followers."
At which point we arrive right back where we are at today, authoritarianism. You seem to be arguing against freedom because it *could* lead right back to the same point where we are today. Doesn't seem like a very strong case against freedom to me.
"I had similar thought after my first year of poli-sci....and then I read a s**t-ton of history."
In other words, you were indoctrinated to believe that a society based upon peaceful, voluntary, and consensual interactions is impractical? Maybe you should have picked up a few humanities credits instead?
spinningheadAug 16, 2010
Ugh. What you describe is where every single society started. Do you not understand that? Vacuums in the power structure will ALWAYS be filled. Thats why it took tens of thousands of years to even get to the point where we get to vote for a representative government no matter how flawed that might be. Even now, the slightest laxening in regulation on action leads to some corporation screwing us all to hell and back. What you are talking about is like anarchy or communism. Its a nice idea.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
linuxpersonAug 16, 2010
"What you describe is where every single society started."
Unless you can name a single society that started out as a free society, then I'll consider this statement false. Most every primitive society I have studied were under the rulership of very primitive authoritarian tribal governments.
"Vacuums in the power structure will ALWAYS be filled."
I agree. Hence why there should be no unnatural power structures. These types of things serve only to hold back the advancement of the human species.
Contrary to what you seem to believe, I believe that all people are inherently equal. I don't believe that one person should have authority over another unless it is compatible with natural law. A parent having authority over an immature child is one of many good examples.
"Thats why it took tens of thousands of years to even get to the point where we get to vote for a representative government no matter how flawed that might be."
As a granted in an earlier post, our system of government in the US is certainly more capable of supporting the ideals of a free society than other types of authoritarian government, but that doesn't mean it is the best.
"Even now, the slightest laxening in regulation on action leads to some corporation screwing us all to hell and back."
That's a totally separate discussion but hopefully you realize that corporations, as they exist today, are government sponsored entities where individuals operators are not personally liable for their actions. In other words, corporations and the free market are not compatible because a free market requires personal liability and accountability of all actors within it.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=corporation
"a business firm whose articles of incorporation have been approved in some state"
Without the state, corporations are not a very meaningful thing now are they?
Corporations are nothing more than a direct consequence of coercive government control of the market. When you advocate for more coercive regulations rather than standards based regulations, you are advancing corporate interests given that corporations control Congress via lobbyist.
"What you are talking about is like anarchy or communism. Its a nice idea."
What I'm talking about is a far cry from communism and, given the ambiguous definitions, anarchism as well. As I've stated numerous times and I'll state again: I advocate for a society where goods and services are provided on a peaceful, consensual, and voluntary basis.
Freedom works.
spinningheadAug 16, 2010
"Unless you can name a single society that started out as a free society, then I'll consider this statement false. Most every primitive society I have studied were under the rulership of very primitive authoritarian tribal governments."
They ALL started that way. Before there was a ruler, there was no ruler. Ten minutes after that, the alpha male picked up a club.
Im now going to advocate for an Oz-based economy.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
linuxpersonAug 16, 2010
"Ten minutes after that, the alpha male picked up a club."
Way to dodge the question, I asked for specific examples and you offer up speculation. Ironically, however, your speculation affirms my point that in each distinct tribe an alpha male becomes the authoritarian ruler and, thus, primitives societies were inherently authoritarian rather than based in the ideals of freedom.
Human beings in a tribe or in a large society don't need an authoritarian ruler to survive, it's a symptom of our primitive mammalian nature that is no longer necessary in the 21st century. Many people still cling on to this primitive instinct to, "follow the leader", but some of us have evolved intellectually beyond this primitive instinct.
I've been diligently responding to pretty much all of your questions and remarks on this thread and yet you haven't responded to a single question that I have posed. Either your argument is really weak, or you aren't reading my posts.
I won't be responding until you make an effort to maintain a cohesive conservation. Here are the questions that you have either completely avoided or skillfully dodged:
1. Name one third world nation where goods and/or services are provided on a purely voluntary and peaceful basis.
2. I tend to believe that freedom produces the best standard of living for the individual, do you disagree?
3. If I want to do something that doesn't harm or infringe on another person's rights, why should the consensus of a majority (ala a Democracy) have any authority over my decision to do so?
4. Without the state, corporations are not a very meaningful thing now are they?
spinningheadAug 16, 2010
"Way to dodge the question, I asked for specific examples and you offer up speculation."
No, I was not here at the dawn of man. All we have is archaeological evidence and the fact that every country that encounters a power vacuum sees it filled very quickly.
"1. Name one third world nation where goods and/or services are provided on a purely voluntary and peaceful basis."
Thats the point. There isnt one. If taxes dont go through the government to provide a safety net, volunteers dont build one.
"2. I tend to believe that freedom produces the best standard of living for the individual, do you disagree?"
Thats an appeal to emotion, not logic. No, I dont believe in absolute freedom.
"3. If I want to do something that doesn't harm or infringe on another person's rights, why should the consensus of a majority (ala a Democracy) have any authority over my decision to do so?"
You mean if you dump toxins in the river or decide your company wants to merge into a monopoly? Who gets to decide if those infringe on me in your "free" society?
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
zaynexzandersAug 16, 2010
LinuxPerson- I completely agree with everything you've said, but I disagree with you bothering to respond to a guy like this. It's pointless, he doesn't trust a free market because everyone except him is evil and out to get him. Big bad evil corporations are takin' all 'ur monies!!! Get 'em Obama!!
spinningheadAug 16, 2010
Is this the college freshmen thread? Some people have more than others. If you have no order, the d**kh**ds without will kill to steal from those with.
See, when you start your little commune, the first thing you would do is kick out people like me and the power struggle would begin. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
zaynexzandersAug 16, 2010
I'm sorry I didn't mean to insult you. If he wants no government thats fine. I support very very limited government that just provides basic infrastructure, courts, police and fire service, and defense.
dream0weaverAug 16, 2010
Wait wait, I have to intervene here. Since when were governments obliged to provide a safety net, and can you please elaborate? I think I have a basic idea what you're talking about, but not all governments do. Oddly enough in Western governments, it is apparently the role to do that now.
spinningheadAug 16, 2010
I think it came out of Europe trying everything possible with relation to unemployment. They realize there will always be unemployment and you must have it to keep labor prices in check. Of course, there are many non first world nations without a net.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
emmeronAug 17, 2010
Oh, I love threads like this.
Person "a" makes a claim, gives evidence.
Person "b" uses rhetoric, won't make a claim
Person "a" shoots apart rhetoric, asks a question
Person "b" dodges from ever making a claim, uses every non-argument possible...
and so on...
SpinningHead, your claim you are missing is that a) people are fools and need to be told what's best for them; b) people need to feel involved so a democratic process helps; c) success of nations means more than what one person wants to do; d) rights of people are only important if they agree with the powers that be and what they want.
That's the claims I'm getting from what you've said. It's fine if you agree with them -- everyone has the right to see things this way. Just own it.
spinningheadAug 17, 2010
Thats not what I said emmeron. You are free to move to one of the many functioning anarchist paradises around the world if you'd like to see the model in action though.
linuxpersonAug 17, 2010
"Thats the point. There isnt one. If taxes dont go through the government to provide a safety net, volunteers dont build one."
Your original reply to my comment about believing that interactions should be essentially voluntary was, "Many 3rd world nations agree with you" yet you can't name a single third world nation where purely voluntary interactions define the market place.
Your are essentially arguing that a belief in the ideals of freedom results in tyranny and that we should therefore just implement tyranny to avoid all the trouble.
Sounds like a REALLY weak argument from where I'm sitting. All I'm advocating for is peace and compassion, rather than violence and retribution. I'm not calling for a dismantling of the government, I'm calling for a cessation to government coercion of peaceful people.
"Is this the college freshmen thread?"
Apparently you never took a introductory logic class at the college you went to because you just defeated your own argument with a classical ad hominem fallacy. If you're going to go around and preach about how educated you are, stay principled and, at the very least, act like your educated.
"Some people have more than others. If you have no order, the d**kh**ds without will kill to steal from those with."
There are certainly people with bad intentions in society, but I would wager that most people are good people who given the opportunity would not steal another persons land.
Self-defense and third-party protection agencies would exist in a free society.
"See, when you start your little commune, the first thing you would do is kick out people like me and the power struggle would begin."
What commune are you referring to? I have no problem with dissenting view points, so long as those view points don't involve using violence against myself, my family, my friends, or my neighbors.
In other words, you can believe what you want to believe. Just don't tell force me to do things via the threat of violence and we won't have any problems. You expect that from me, I should get the same treatment in return.
"You are free to move to one of the many functioning anarchist paradises around the world if you'd like to see the model in action though."
I Nobody was talking about anarchy on this thread. And even if they were, anarchy is an ambiguous term that should be avoided because there seems to be about a dozen different definitions for the term.
I think of an anarchist society as a society void of external governments, but I'm fairly certain no anarchist society exists today.
Please give us an example of one anarchist society that exists today and also give us your definition of the term, "anarchism".
spinningheadAug 17, 2010
""Many 3rd world nations agree with you" yet you can't name a single third world nation where purely voluntary interactions define the market place. "
There are plenty of 3rd world nations with weak or non-functioning governments. Tribal warlords usually fill the vacuum and people don't just pick up the slack and take care of each other.
linuxpersonSep 10, 2010
Tribal warlords are the very definition of coercive government in the most primitive form. You just defeated your own argument.
hereticoftruthAug 16, 2010
Yeah. If everybody behaves like Jesus. When is that going to happen? Even the Christians can't pull that one off.
That is why Communism doesn't work. Capitalism works. But Capitalism works even better if controlled by social values rather than by pure selfishness. Pure selfishness doesn't think about the long term future. Selfishness over fishes the oceans. Imposed social values can keep the oceans harvested at their maximum sustainable yield.
All would benefit.
linuxpersonAug 16, 2010
"But Capitalism works even better if controlled by social values rather than by pure selfishness."
A selfish entity in a truly free market would cease to exist as more selfless competitors enter the market and offer consumers a better alternative.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spinningheadAug 16, 2010
"A selfish entity in a truly free market would cease to exist as more selfless competitors enter the market and offer consumers a better alternative."
In what universe? The guy who can sell you the cheapest s**t (usually from undervaluing workers) will put the other guys out of business?
linuxpersonAug 16, 2010
"In what universe? The guy who can sell you the cheapest s**t (usually from undervaluing workers) will put the other guys out of business?"
If consumers demand quality, the "cheapest s**t" isn't going to cut it.
Take cars for example, they would be much cheaper if it weren't for those pesky doors and windows, yet absent of coercive regulation car manufactures started to install doors and windows to satisfy consumer demand.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
linuxpersonAug 16, 2010
"Yeah. If everybody behaves like Jesus"
A free society does not require that everybody behave like Jesus. Rather, a free society requires a means of arbitration to bring the unruly to justice.
We have such a system here in the United States, its apart of the legislative branch and we often hear it referred to as the, "Justice System" or the, "Criminal Justice System". Unfortunately, however, our governments have created a monopoly out of this market which incompatible with the ideas of freedom.
absurdparadoxAug 16, 2010
You are on fire today, Linux! Good info and good points.
Anyone interested in what Linux is talking about, it might be something like: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html
linuxpersonAug 16, 2010
"Anyone interested in what Linux is talking about, it might be something like:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html
I'm not advocating for a stateless society. If people want a state and want to pay it taxes for services they may or may not uses, they should be able to. All I ask is that people not be coerced into doing things and/or paying for things when they otherwise wouldn't have.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
s73v3rAug 16, 2010
Oh noes! There's only one entity charged with upholding the peace and mediating disputes in a consistent manner. Our society is awful.
Grow up. Having dozens of competing courts wouldn't make things any better, and would probably make things worse. Ever hear of the s**t credit card companies try to pull with "Mandatory Binding Arbitration"? That's what you're arguing for. Anything you do or buy will come with an implicit "licensing agreement" which will say any disputes will be settled by arbitration, and that the company gets to choose which arbitration house hears it. And guess what? Most arbitration houses are much more sympathetic to business needs, cause they're the ones that pay them. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
absurdparadoxAug 16, 2010
lol I love how you idiots always use this "Grow up" argument. If someone speaks out against the government, GROW UP!!
I also love how the people who speak out against corporate monopolies are always the same ones to advocate government monopolies.
OMG LIKE GROW UP1!!1!1one!1!
linuxpersonAug 16, 2010
"Grow up. Having dozens of competing courts wouldn't make things any better, and would probably make things worse."
So you're a claiming that monopolies are more efficient and better at serving the needs of their customers than competing enterprises would be? Interesting theory but it goes against several hundred years of economic precedent.
"Ever hear of the s**t credit card companies try to pull with "Mandatory Binding Arbitration"? That's what you're arguing for."
Last time I checked most credit cards companies were given corporate charters by the coercive entity known as the state... you know, that thing that you keep advocating for so strongly.
Why do you suppose that there aren't more credit card companies to chose from? Could it be that the very corporations that the structure of government you advocate has provided us with have lobbied the government to create entry barriers for the little guy trying to enter the market?
Corporate abuse is the result state recognized corporate liability umbrellas and regulatory capture, two things that you seem to strongly believe in.
"Anything you do or buy will come with an implicit "licensing agreement" which will say any disputes will be settled by arbitration, and that the company gets to choose which arbitration house hears it. And guess what? Most arbitration houses are much more sympathetic to business needs, cause they're the ones that pay them."
Hence the need for interlocking arbiters. What you are saying is irrelevant anyhow, shady companies who use shady arbiters will quickly cease to exist as ethical companies with ethical arbiters enter the market. Of course this isn't possible in the system which you advocate, because that system artificially creates monopolies via the glories of regulatory capture.
s73v3rAug 16, 2010
"Last time I checked most credit cards companies were given corporate charters by the coercive entity known as the state... you know, that thing that you keep advocating for so strongly."
Doesn't have anything to do with the argument. Next.
"What you are saying is irrelevant anyhow, shady companies who use shady arbiters will quickly cease to exist as ethical companies with ethical arbiters enter the market."
Wrong. Nothing saying that a company has to be "ethical" to succeed in the market. They just have to be willing to offer something that someone else wants, at a price they can pay. The main consumer of these arbitration houses are not common citizens, but the big corporations. They pay for the arbitration, and they typically choose to only do business with those houses that will give them favorable judgments. There is nothing stopping someone from opening an ethical arbitration house today, except they won't be nearly as successful, as they won't give their customers the judgments they want. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
linuxpersonAug 16, 2010
"Doesn't have anything to do with the argument. Next."
Then clearly you don't understand how corporation lobbying works. Why do we have three major telecoms? Do you attribute that to the free market?
"Wrong. Nothing saying that a company has to be "ethical" to succeed in the market. They just have to be willing to offer something that someone else wants, at a price they can pay. "
If I decide to start producing slate books to compete with Apple's iPad and I make sure to price it even cheaper than Apple has, does that mean my business venture will be successful?
Absolutely not, creating a product that somebody wants at a price they can pay is only one component of a market transaction. The other big piece you are missing is that the product must be superior to my competitors product at its given price point. I'd say the same thing applies to services as well.
In regards to arbitration we could debate the specifics all day. You seem to believe that a monopoly works best in the case of the legal system while I believe that monopolies are exclusively a bad thing.
Granted there are certain nuances to work through in terms of how a free market would handle arbitration, those nuances are not nearly as significant as trying to prove that a monopoly produces the best results.
s73v3rAug 16, 2010
It doesn't mean your venture will be successful, but it doesn't mean it will flop, either. Given by the sentiment on Digg, there would be a market for a slate that isn't the iPad.
And explain to me how "competition" in the justice system would make things better? Is someone going to compete by being "more just" than someone else? Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
brassbudAug 16, 2010
There is nothing but pure selfishness.
jabbrwockeyAug 17, 2010
"A selfish entity in a truly free market would cease to exist as more selfless competitors enter the market and offer consumers a better alternative."
What the hell am I reading here? Do you have examples, or need I point to business models like Wal Mart, GE, and Abbott Labs?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
linuxpersonAug 17, 2010
"What the hell am I reading here? Do you have examples, or need I point to business models used by Wal Mart, GE, and Abbott Labs?"
Wal-Mart, GE, and Abbot Labs are all apart of the corporate oligarchy, they are not entities that exist within in a free market.
jabbrwockeyAug 18, 2010
"Wal-Mart, GE, and Abbot Labs are all apart of the corporate oligarchy, they are not entities that exist within in a free market."
Oh, I thought we were talking about something relevant here, not pandering to your idealism.
newms32Aug 17, 2010
The economy isn't Linux.
linuxpersonAug 17, 2010
Ahhh... no s**t?