Redistributing wealth is communism

Our "pub" where you can post about things completely Off Topic or about non-silent PC issues.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

blackworx
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 601
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 2:04 am
Location: UK

Post by blackworx » Wed Nov 26, 2008 3:53 pm

@ jaganath - what you say is only too true, and I was mindful of it all whilst typing those words. It's one of these subjects where if you don't say what you mean to say without getting sidetracked by every "but" that pops into your head then it never gets said at all.

Ok, quite a bit of reading to catch up on now...

Aris
Posts: 2299
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:29 am
Location: Bellevue, Nebraska
Contact:

Post by Aris » Wed Nov 26, 2008 5:25 pm

This country has used a progressive tax rate since 1913. Its nothing new. Obama isnt starting something that isnt already in place, he's just adjusting the numbers around. Something every president has done since we implimented the progressive tax rate. The idea that he is a socialist for doing it and no one else in us history was is absolutely absurd.

The wealth gets spread around one way or another, until a day comes when we move to a flat rate tax. The only difference is who the wealth gets spread to. Tax the higher income people, or lower on low income people, more and it gets spread to lower income people. Tax lower income people more, or the rich less, and it gets spread more towards the wealthy. Any way you look at it, it gets spread around.

Also, the progressive tax system is the most popular, and most used in the entire world. A vast majority of the worlds population prefers it to a flat tax rate. The only people who really dont like it are rich people, and i really have no sympathy for them whatsoever. If a day ever comes that i become wealthy, i will gladly pay my extra taxes.
Last edited by Aris on Wed Nov 26, 2008 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

croddie
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 8:52 pm

Post by croddie » Wed Nov 26, 2008 5:26 pm

andyb wrote:You cant be seen as believable if you dont see "Paranormal beliefs" and "religion" as one and the same. So yes there is a contradiction and it lies in the quote below.
Even if I were against religion I don't see the contradiction.
By paranormal beliefs I mean the class of beliefs that are generally called "paranormal beliefs", such as in the first google link:
http://home.sandiego.edu/~baber/logic/gallup.html
You can have other definitions of paranormal other than this and maybe they are better in some ways and maybe using some of those I would believe that some paranormal things are good.
So you are against conspiracy theories, ghosts and god. Seems quite clear to me.
No. Anyway that's a red herring, what I was saying is that I do not like extensive government control of thought and speech, even if some bad thoughts are ruled out. Some good ones will be too, unless you have GOD as your government. :)
Last edited by croddie on Wed Nov 26, 2008 5:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.

croddie
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 8:52 pm

Post by croddie » Wed Nov 26, 2008 5:39 pm

snutten wrote:Why do you think wealth distribution is not only thought of as a bad idea, but even worse - maybe even as morally wrong? Is it just simply the principle of reaping what you sow and all that?
I don't. There are pros and cons but I think you should have some redistribution or at least some money spent by the government on poverty relief within the country, coming from taxes. (I also support taxes for government services.) I don't hold redistribution as the central issue of policy however and there are many other things that are at least as important. A very high tax rate and can act as a deadener on society and it's culture, in the ways I have discussed a bit earlier. (Even regarding poverty, poverty in developing countries is a more important issue than poverty in developed countries.) So I support redistributive tax, but not as much as most and not as much as the Scandinavians :).

When it does tax, I support tax simplification, and maybe even it's extreme form of a flat tax (not to be confused as some have here with a lump sum tax). But that is really a digression in our discussion.

alleycat
Posts: 740
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 10:32 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by alleycat » Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:30 pm

Although I support the idea of big government and extensive welfare programs, I don't think that governments need to meddle in the affairs of its citizens. As such I do not support any form of income tax on individuals. For some time I have preferred the idea of consumption taxes, known as VAT in the UK and GST in my country. To make up for the lack of income tax, the GST rate would need to be, on average, much higher than it currently is. Ideally there would be different tax rates on different products, so that for example, the tax on luxury cars and cigarettes would be much higher than the tax on an apple. Being able to vary the tax rate for different goods would give governments a lot more control in encouraging/discouraging the consumption of certain products.

I believe that individuals shouldn't be punished for producing wealth, and they shouldn't be burdened with complicated tax laws and the intrusions of the tax department. An individual shouldn't need to see an accountant to manage tax. Businesses are already well equipped to collect tax on behalf of the government. At a time when resources are becoming scarcer, and pollution is a mounting issue, it makes more sense that the tax system should be skewed more towards the consumption end of the economy.

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7678
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Post by NeilBlanchard » Thu Nov 27, 2008 3:55 am

Hi,

The whole society (world) benefits if the middle class is strong. We all suffer the consequences if the poor are not "brought along" in the success of society.

Failure and collapse always follow after periods when there is a wide gap between the rich and the poor. Figure it out.
Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/

andyb
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 3307
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: Essex, England

Post by andyb » Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:27 am

Although I support the idea of big government and extensive welfare programs, I don't think that governments need to meddle in the affairs of its citizens. As such I do not support any form of income tax on individuals. For some time I have preferred the idea of consumption taxes, known as VAT in the UK and GST in my country. To make up for the lack of income tax, the GST rate would need to be, on average, much higher than it currently is. Ideally there would be different tax rates on different products, so that for example, the tax on luxury cars and cigarettes would be much higher than the tax on an apple. Being able to vary the tax rate for different goods would give governments a lot more control in encouraging/discouraging the consumption of certain products.
There are as we know an assortment of problems with any single taxing system.

If you put all of the tax into one area another problem crops up, avoidance. People avoid tax wherever they can, but if you avoid one tax you will still end up paying tax to some extent because you will be caught by another tax. If you only have one tax you will need to keep a very close eye on the avoiders as they will manage to avoid paying any tax.

The main benefit of multiple taxes is that its very difficult to avoid all of them, and also some people are savers and some are spenders - no matter what you do with your money you will be taxed. If someone got a good job in a country that only taxed on what they spent, and didnt spend a lot then moved to another country they would be instantly rich. Also people would illegally import all of their stuff from a country that has a low VAT rate thus avoiding tax.

The opposite is also true if you only tax people on their earnings and not on what they buy. If people work for cash they will avoid tax, and as that country has 0% VAT you would be exporting huge amounts of stuff to countries that have a tax system like the one in the above paragraph.

There is simply no perfect tax system, there are always loopholes, pitfalls and unfairness.


Andy
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,400MHz, 512GB 850 EVO, 500 Extreme II, 2x 2.5" drives, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr.
Server, under reconstruction, 380W Enermax Pro82+, positive pressure only.

alleycat
Posts: 740
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 10:32 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by alleycat » Thu Nov 27, 2008 6:10 am

That's true, it wouldn't be an easy transition, and would require changes in other areas such as border protection, which in turn would offer other advantages. There are already countries that have zero or low flat rate income taxes. It takes quite a while to consider all of the follow-on effects of such a tax system.

I certainly understand why governments would like to broaden the tax base as much as possible. The GST in my country was introduced only a few years ago, as was capital gains tax.

andyb
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 3307
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: Essex, England

Post by andyb » Thu Nov 27, 2008 11:38 am

In reality the UK would actually be the easiest place to do such a tax system. We are a small island, so we instantly have an advatage over most countries, we already have the abilities in place to stop people and things getting onto our shores all that would be needed would be to step it up a gear or two.

This however is very unlikely to happen due to the mass protests that would follow, and the chaos that would ensue with tourism and people moving abroad with their cash to make an instant net gain.


Andy
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,400MHz, 512GB 850 EVO, 500 Extreme II, 2x 2.5" drives, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr.
Server, under reconstruction, 380W Enermax Pro82+, positive pressure only.

Erssa
Posts: 1421
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:26 pm
Location: Finland

Post by Erssa » Thu Nov 27, 2008 12:10 pm

snutten wrote:Show me the relevant numbers or stuff it. This is not a question of opinions, it's easy enough to check up on.
Don't say it's easy. Doing a research of such scale would be huge task even for our ministry of social affairs and health. It's hard enough to calculate how much a 80 year olds cost for the government in one year, because ministry of social affairs and health pays only direct costs involved, which are a big fraction, but it's only a fraction nonetheless. For example if every person in Finland is equally responsible for the costs of our defence, then the cost to defend one person is 500 euros a year. 5000 euros during those 10 years. Same goes for costs under ministry of environment. A lot of it also applys to the budget under ministry of transportation and communications etc.

Even if you had the all the goverment statistics, you'd have to know which portion of the costs are caused by smokers and which are the costs by nonsmokers. This would be practically impossible to find out. But some numbers I do know. Smokers have 10 years lower life expectancy. 1 year in retirement home costs 50k. Average pension paid by the goverment is approximately 15k a year. If smokers spend average 10 years less in retirement home and earns pension for 10 less years, these would add up to 650k. And it's only a fraction of the total costs. It doesn't include medical costs generated during those 10 years, or any cost for other goverment provided services they use. My granny has Parkinson's disease and she's been pretty much been in bed care in a hospital for last 3 years, in and out even before that. She's in such a bad shape, that she should be dead already, but I guess she's just too stubborn to die. During the last 3 years her treatment has cost the society probably more then 600k euros, and the number is increasing every day.

The lifetime probability of developing cancer is higher for men (46%) than for women (38%). Heavy smokers have 25% risk of getting lung cancer, and they form 80% of all lung cancer cases. You see even if you are a nonsmoker, you are likely to get somekind of cancer and rack up medical costs. From an economic standpoint lung cancer is actually nice, because it has a higher then average mortality rate. People diagnosed with other cancers have more time, and thus higher chance, to catch other cancers and diseases, for which they have to be treated (expensively).

As for that Statens Folkhälsoinstituts study. My Swedish isn't so good, that I'd really bother to read it, but I'd take those numbers with a grain of salt. These studies tend to list smoking as cause for income shortfalls even if the person is an alcoholic, or drug addict at the same time. And they probably list smoking as a cause of death even if a smoker dies in a car accident or shoots himself in the head... Not to mention Sweden is famous for making these studies which claim that everything from potato chips to cellphones cause cancer...
You think old people are expensive, but that's a piss in Mississippi compared to what is invested in a young person from 0 to 20 years (moneywise).
I know it's expensive, but unlike old people, young people (smoker or not) have many productive years ahead. After you are retired, you are no longer productive and become a burden to the economy.
And any doctor would tell you years of cancer cost a helluva lot more than most old folks ever do even if they live until they are 100.
EDIT: If you pull the John McCain card, I fold. ;-)

So SHOW ME THE MONEY, Erssa. Give us the facts. Serve us a credible link.
Well since you insisted... I've heard John McCain has had cancer 4 times? Old nonsmokers get cancer too. Like I said before, 46% lifetime chance of getting cancer.

I can't prove my theory with direct facts or statistics, because it's very like they don't exist. For the same reason you cannot prove me wrong, unless you present those facts. I don't think anyone has done a complete study on this. Why would anyone even bother, it's not like we'd start killing old people when we know how much they cost us. Studies done in other countries would also be unhelpful, because they wouldn't really apply to Finland (or other Nordic countries), because no other country has the same variables as we do: hereditary diseases, average life expectancy, GDP, cultural factors (heavy alcohol use, high suicide rates, social exclusion etc.) and importantly our all expenses covering generous social system.
[color=blue][size=84]Antec Solo case /w Seasonic S-12 430W, Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-SH2, X2 4850e /w Scythe Ninja, 2x2Gb DDR2800, WD Raptor 150GB, 500GB WD GP in Antec MX-1, BenQ G2400W, Logitech diNovo Laser, Logitech z-680[/color][/size]

andyb
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 3307
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: Essex, England

Post by andyb » Thu Nov 27, 2008 1:15 pm

46% lifetime chance of getting cancer.
Now that a number that has many words associated with it. Ideally though I would like a link, yes I could look it up myself but statistically most statistics disagree with other statistics which I will no doubt find instead of your statistics at which point the statistics will have proven themselves to be correct as my statistics wont match your statistics, so please send me a link to your statistics.

:mrgreen:


Andy
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,400MHz, 512GB 850 EVO, 500 Extreme II, 2x 2.5" drives, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr.
Server, under reconstruction, 380W Enermax Pro82+, positive pressure only.

Erssa
Posts: 1421
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:26 pm
Location: Finland

Post by Erssa » Fri Nov 28, 2008 8:03 am

andyb wrote:
46% lifetime chance of getting cancer.
Now that a number that has many words associated with it. Ideally though I would like a link, yes I could look it up myself but statistically most statistics disagree with other statistics which I will no doubt find instead of your statistics at which point the statistics will have proven themselves to be correct as my statistics wont match your statistics, so please send me a link to your statistics.
As requested.
[color=blue][size=84]Antec Solo case /w Seasonic S-12 430W, Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-SH2, X2 4850e /w Scythe Ninja, 2x2Gb DDR2800, WD Raptor 150GB, 500GB WD GP in Antec MX-1, BenQ G2400W, Logitech diNovo Laser, Logitech z-680[/color][/size]

andyb
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 3307
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: Essex, England

Post by andyb » Fri Nov 28, 2008 9:45 am

Erssa wrote:As requested.
Thanks, I have read the first section, its rather interesting although distressing reading.


Andy
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,400MHz, 512GB 850 EVO, 500 Extreme II, 2x 2.5" drives, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr.
Server, under reconstruction, 380W Enermax Pro82+, positive pressure only.

undertheradar
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:07 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI - USA

Post by undertheradar » Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:21 pm

Wealth 'redidistribution' is needed to maintain a stable economy, otherwise we see a 'rise to the top' of money and a consolidation of economic power... just like playing monopoly. This is not 'communism', as communism would never allow one to make more than another in the first place. This could be considered a form of socialism, but I have news for you... Democracy is a form of Socialism...duh. Democracy and free-market Capitalism are at odds with each other however, since one preaches a fundamental of equality for all, and one preaches an individual's right to gain economic power over another.

John Smith, who wrote 'Wealth of Nations' cited that a 'free market' only works when liberty and equality are maintained for all its citizens in the first place. If classes are allowed to diverge, we revert to a form of economic feudalism... something that monarchies, dictators, and other right-wingers would favor.

Calculus
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:35 am
Location: unknown

Post by Calculus » Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:51 am

It would seem that the "rich" are already paying most of the taxes...

In 2007 the top 25 percent were paying 85 percent of the taxes, when they made only 65 percent of the income...

The bottom 50 percent payed only 3 percent of the taxes when they made 13 percent of the income...

Here is a hypothetical cycle:
1__ Raise taxes on rich
2__ The rich, not liking this at all, move out of the country
3__ Now that some of the rich have left some of the tax burden shifts to the less wealthy
4__ Government gets less money, gets more debt...
5__ Raise taxes!
(repeat)

And, remember that these numbers were for 2007, no clue what they are now... Ill be back with more numbers...

undertheradar
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:07 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI - USA

Post by undertheradar » Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:32 am

Calculus wrote:It would seem that the "rich" are already paying most of the taxes...

In 2007 the top 25 percent were paying 85 percent of the taxes, when they made only 65 percent of the income...

The bottom 50 percent payed only 3 percent of the taxes when they made 13 percent of the income...

Here is a hypothetical cycle:
1__ Raise taxes on rich
2__ The rich, not liking this at all, move out of the country
3__ Now that some of the rich have left some of the tax burden shifts to the less wealthy
4__ Government gets less money, gets more debt...
5__ Raise taxes!
(repeat)

And, remember that these numbers were for 2007, no clue what they are now... Ill be back with more numbers...
The top 5% own 90% of the wealth, and the top 1% own more than 50% of the stock market. Income is a 'relative' term since it often is what is left 'after deductions', and does not cover 'total wealth'. That 65% income for instance, might be for someone who already has 90% of the wealth. In a 'lopsided' economy, this is actually good.

The top 5% pay 60% of the taxes, but control/own 90% of the wealth... seems like if you own 90%, you should be paying 90%, no?

Calculus
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:35 am
Location: unknown

Post by Calculus » Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:08 pm

Ahh...

So you think that the more you own the more you should pay? And that this applies to things stored in your basement? This sounds lopsided... You should not be taxed on what you own, only on what you make. How much that the top 5 percent owns should not have any implication in the matter...

Once again, this type of thinking will greatly reduce the incentive to get rich... If I wanted to get rich (and, of course, I do) I would not want the government to tax me on my savings (yearly...). This would be a problem because then there would also be less incentive to save, because if you did then each year you would get taxes taken out of it.


The ideal system would be just a nationwide flat income tax...

Why do I get the feeling that the rich are not welcome in the United States?

undertheradar
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:07 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI - USA

Post by undertheradar » Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:15 pm

Most objects in the basement aren't worth much, but items that build equity (investments) usually are taxed (capital gains, property tax, etc). If I had gold bricks in my basement, yes, I would expect to pay taxes on them. This does not 'negate' one's incentive to achieve, as its not so much to actually negate an actual increase... we are talking socialism here, not communism... there is a key difference there.

What you ask for is a 'flat tax'... that would mean more taxes for the rich compared to now! Right now, the rich pay less than the middle class, and the tax code looks like a bell-curve. Warren Buffet COMPLAINED that he only pays about 17% due to all the loopholes and tax cuts he gets to cash in on... because he feels its not fair.

Funny, you keep talking about your desire for the rich to be taxed less so that you have more incentive to be rich. Many get sold on this with sayings like 'who better to spend your money than you?' that the 'pubs so often toss out there. The truth is that while nobody likes to have their dreams clouded, most are never going to get into the $250,000+/yr. income bracket that we are 'so concerned about' here. So we end up 'voting against our interests' because we would like to hope we can all get rich. Truth is that in higher taxed countries like the UK, France, and Germany (among others), the 'american dream' (rising through the classes) is actually easier now than in the US. Think about it. IF EVERYONE's income is taxed more, then expendable income is less, and therefore the value of money actually goes up, as prices go down on things because there is less money in circulation. It is after all, a percentage of a percentage... these things are self-adjusting across a whole market.

The 'FLAT TAX' is a joke and hardly the 'FAIR TAX' that it has been pitched as... it actually favors the rich because income sources like investments and such would not be taxed. A kid mowing the lawn would pay income tax, but a stock broker would not (because its already taxed income being invested). Look it up and do the math and you will see that a flat tax is actually very regressive. Just because it 'sounds good' doesnt mean its all 'sound & good'.

How do you propose we handle 'wealth redistribution' otherwise? How do we handle 'divergence of classes' and consolidation of wealth? I already wrote what Adam Smith wrote in 'Wealth of Nations'... in short, if the classes diverge too much, we end up back in the middle ages with a sort of 'economic feudalism' where a minority have a controlling share of the market, which results in a free market that no longer serves its citizens and becomes unstable.

Calculus
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:35 am
Location: unknown

Post by Calculus » Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:45 am

Most objects in the basement aren't worth much
That was merely a figure of speech, I wasn't actually thinking of boxes of useless junk. You still haven't addressed my point about the rich. Fact is, there are LESS millionaires/billionaires in the United States now then there were a couple years ago, while other countries have a steadily growing rate of them.

This country's economy functions best when the following conditions are met:
__People want to make money
__People are willing to work for it
Funny, you keep talking about your desire for the rich to be taxed less...
I think that you misinterpret my thoughts... I desire the system to be fair. Fair does not mean that everyone has the same amount of money. Fair does not mean that everyone who works will get rich. I'm thinking more along the lines of you get what you work for, and taxing the rich to give money to the middle/low class is just one more step toward socialism.
How do you propose we handle 'wealth redistribution' otherwise?
Why, oh why is it that you people think that wealth needs to be distributed? If you want it, work for it. If you want more, work for more. Or, perhaps this concept is way to simple, and therefore thrown away on the basis that something so simply cannot work.

I think I'm beginning to see the picture. It is very logical to think that everyone except the rich want the rich to be taxed, because everyone wants a slice of the pie.

If you don't like the system here, there's other countries that you might prefer...

undertheradar
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:07 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI - USA

Post by undertheradar » Wed Feb 25, 2009 8:21 am

Where do you get your facts from? Your claims are totally false. The US has had one of the largest booms of millionaires in the past 10 years...
http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/25/pf/record_millionaires/

In March 2008, the US had 469 billionaires, then Russia with 87, and Germany with 59. There are many countries with 1-10, and a few with 10-40 (China has 42, India has 53). As you can see, the US almost has more than the rest of the world combined.

This is not a good or bad thing. What counts most is that the country as a whole is richer or poorer... as in, if your populace has a growing number of rich, it shouldnt be done with a growing number of poor. This is the problem in the US... the 'piece of the pie' that the poor have is less and less. Divergence of classes is the real problem.

As far as 'FAIR' tax, the unfortunate truth is that 'FAIR' means that the rich pay more (higher percentage). Redistribution is needed to prevent consolidation of wealth and yes, it is socialist. Guess what... Democracy is a form of Socialism. Taxing the rich to give to the poor is a mathematical/economic reality to maintain a stable economy. It benefits all because as a nation (or world now due to 'globalization') we can not simply 'decouple' ourselves from those around us. We either rise or fall together. If one guy makes all the money, and is surrounded by poor, what good has it done him? Who will he get to invest in his next venture? What will his society (environment outside his own property) look like? Your argument seems very rooted in the selfish individualistic ideals which the right-wing has spread in the US under the name of 'capitalism'.

Wealth needs to be 'redistributed' because 'trickle down' economics doesnt work. If we take away all redistribution, and go with what the 'US Libertarians' want ('Libertarian' in the US has come to mean almost its opposite meaning as in the rest of the world), two things would happen (as has happened in other countries that have adopted such a model): The economy becomes violently unbalanced and inflation runs rampant, and we revert to a form of economic feudalism... where less and less have more and more, and the public at large has less and less. The past 10-20 years of capitalist economic reform in Russia has pretty much put it back into being a 2nd world country... and thats why the Soviets are regaining power. Chile and New Zealand are also economic models where 'ultra conservative' economic ideals were tried out... and guess what? They didnt work. If we regress to an ultra-capitalist free-market (free-markets are really only freedom for the rich), we revert to what we had before Democracy... where a few royals have controlling portions of economic power and the rest are 'allowed' to live in their shadow. Wait... I thought Democracy was started to stop dictatorships and monarchies.

Did you know we actually were allied with the Communists until after WW2? Many US presidents actually openly 'admired' the Soviets like Lenin and Stalin as far as their communist ideals. You might think this is 'un-American', but remember, many of the 'founding fathers' were in fact socialist in their ideals, as their economic model was based on Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations'. If you want economic 'free for all' and 'survival of the fittest' where taxes dont 'redistribute', there are at least a hundred 3rd world countries that you can find which support these ideals. You sound like you are against socialism (without knowing what it means), yet you forget that Kings & Queens, the ultimate form of 'free market' consolidation, were exactly why Democracies were formed. The ideals of Democracy is equality and liberty for ALL. We all either get rich or poor together... that is the truth.

Calculus
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:35 am
Location: unknown

Post by Calculus » Wed Feb 25, 2009 9:37 am

Ahem, sorry for the mistake... I misread the webpage I was reading, what it really said was that the rate was decreasing...

Oh, and remember that information can be found to support anything on the internet.
As far as 'FAIR' tax, the unfortunate truth is that 'FAIR' means that the rich pay more (higher percentage).
This is nothing new, I think most people already know this. I am wondering why we (erh, you) want to make it even tougher, and raise their taxes even more?

What you seem to have forgotten was how the United States used to be! We did not get here by high taxation. We did not get here by making things what you call 'FAIR'.
If we regress to an ultra-capitalist free-market (free-markets are really only freedom for the rich), we revert to what we had before Democracy...
Isn't this the system that was in place from 1776 until recently? Or am I mistaken?..?..? If it worked then, why cannot it work now.

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/no ... -the-taxes
They’ve fallen. In the early 1960s, the highest marginal income tax rate was a stunning 91 percent. That top rate fell to 70 percent after the Kennedy-Johnson tax cuts and remained there until 1981. Then Ronald Reagan slashed it to 50 percent and ultimately to 28 percent after the 1986 Tax Reform Act. Although the federal tax rate fell by more than half, total tax receipts in the 1980s doubled from $517 billion in 1981 to $1,030 billion in 1990. The top tax rate rose slightly under George H. W. Bush and then moved to 39.6 percent under Bill Clinton. But under George W. Bush it fell again to 35 percent. So what’s striking is that, even as tax rates have fallen by half over the past quarter-century, taxes paid by the wealthy have increased. Lower tax rates have made the tax system more progressive, not less so. In 1980, for example, the top 5 percent of income earners paid only 37 percent of all income taxes. Today, the top 1 percent pay that proportion, and the top 5 percent pay a whopping 57 percent.
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/oc ... stem[quote]

We should be happy that the rich are already paying most of the taxes. And it seems logical that if more poeple become rich, then more of the taxes shift to the rich, and this in turn makes it easier on the poor. Now that the poor are better off, more people become rich... Poeple dont become rich by taxing the rich, which seems to be what you are suggesting.

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7678
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Post by NeilBlanchard » Wed Feb 25, 2009 9:38 am

Hi,

A society only succeeds if all the people are "brought along" -- the largest number of people possible must "be successful" in order for the society to succeed, long term. If an underclass is systematically denied the possibility of moving into the middle class, this leads to revolution. Since this would affect everyone, including the rich people -- we all have a strong interest in making sure that a society takes care of all the people.
Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/

Tobias
Posts: 530
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 9:52 am

Post by Tobias » Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:45 am

Calculus wrote: http://www.american.com/archive/2007/no ... -the-taxes
They’ve fallen. In the early 1960s, the highest marginal income tax rate was a stunning 91 percent. That top rate fell to 70 percent after the Kennedy-Johnson tax cuts and remained there until 1981. Then Ronald Reagan slashed it to 50 percent and ultimately to 28 percent after the 1986 Tax Reform Act. Although the federal tax rate fell by more than half, total tax receipts in the 1980s doubled from $517 billion in 1981 to $1,030 billion in 1990. The top tax rate rose slightly under George H. W. Bush and then moved to 39.6 percent under Bill Clinton. But under George W. Bush it fell again to 35 percent. So what’s striking is that, even as tax rates have fallen by half over the past quarter-century, taxes paid by the wealthy have increased. Lower tax rates have made the tax system more progressive, not less so. In 1980, for example, the top 5 percent of income earners paid only 37 percent of all income taxes. Today, the top 1 percent pay that proportion, and the top 5 percent pay a whopping 57 percent.
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/oc ... stem[quote]

We should be happy that the rich are already paying most of the taxes. And it seems logical that if more poeple become rich, then more of the taxes shift to the rich, and this in turn makes it easier on the poor. Now that the poor are better off, more people become rich... Poeple dont become rich by taxing the rich, which seems to be what you are suggesting.
[/quote]

You do realise that that quote of yours discuss the highest rate of marginal taxes only, right? (even though the headline of that section might make you think otherwise). It doesn't say much of anything, really. It doesn't say at what income rate that tax rate is reached, nor does it say anything of how many of the tax payers pay that amount of tax, nor does it say anything about the possibility to do any tax exemptions. All it says is that the highest rate of tax anyone may get to pay is 35%.

Btw, compare this, your own statement, to your quote above:
What you seem to have forgotten was how the United States used to be! We did not get here by high taxation. We did not get here by making things what you call 'FAIR'.
Now please tell me, WHEN exactly was the american growth rate and progress rate at it's biggest? Correct, during the decades quoted above with the highest marginal tax.

And I will leave you with a last tidbit to think about. That ultra-capitalist free-market mentioned previously in this thread was created after the late nineteen eighties. Since then we've had 3 major downspells. The first in early 90ies, the second at the end of the .com era and now this.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but you have to admitt that in the face of this it may seem as if the relationship between low tax, growth and progress might have been slightly over simplified.

jaganath
Posts: 5085
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:55 am
Location: UK

Post by jaganath » Wed Feb 25, 2009 3:20 pm

You should not be taxed on what you own, only on what you make
why should income be taxed more heavily than capital? why should capital be exempt from tax when all other things are not? this is a disincentive to work and favours those who already have inherited wealth. this is regressive and something you would expect from the antiquated folks in Old Europe, not the US. You wanted to get rid of the monarchy and an established elite based on inherited wealth, remember, that was the whole idea? :lol:
What you seem to have forgotten was how the United States used to be! We did not get here by high taxation. We did not get here by making things what you call 'FAIR'
seems to me that's exactly how you got where you are. America offers opportunity to those who have none (cf. the quote on the Statue of Liberty), seems pretty fair to me....

btw, referring to your fellow forumites as "you people" is a guaranteed hackle-raiser, might want to keep a lid on that.
[size=75]JFK:
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean...someone who looks ahead, who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions,who cares about the welfare of the people, who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad...then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."[/size]

undertheradar
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:07 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI - USA

Post by undertheradar » Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:29 am

Quote,
"What you seem to have forgotten was how the United States used to be! We did not get here by high taxation. We did not get here by making things what you call 'FAIR'."

Once again, another person who relies on right-wing propaganda for an education on history. This is not true. Prior to the industrial revolution when taxation REALLY started in this country (I can give you a written history if you like), we 'got rich' by taking advantage of others. If it wasnt for the black slaves, the south would have never developed. If it wasnt for killing off the indians, we wouldnt have the land 'ownership' to claim as our own. Yet, when Hitler did these things... he was an 'evil monster'...lol. Anyways, modern society is what has driven up taxes... transportation, public works, national defense... these are economic realities that didnt exist prior to the 1900's. If you want to go back even further in history to argue that taxes didnt contribute to society's greatness, I suppose you could cite cavemen and their lack of curency all together... but the details you are overlooking are that all they had to worry about was a hut, some bone tools, etc... 'found items' that cost nothing. When the US started, it was an age of agrarian society... so taxes were able to be kept low. If we needed an army, we got a bunch of guys together, gave them rifles, called them soldiers, and told them to go fight... pretty cheap. Now, an army means technology, high cost, and high mortality rates are not accepted by the public. Modern demands mean government needs more productivity/contribution from its citizens. This is true of every country now.

The truth is that the US is very left of center by its Democratic foundation. Many 'right-wingers' like to claim the Dem's are 'communist'... I suppose we should be calling 'pubs nazis then, right? After all, prior to WW2, the Republican party had several of its members and backers in the Nazi party... the party of ultimate right-wingers. Come to think of it, there are still Nazi supporters in the Republican party. So, which would you rather be... a Commie or a Nazi?

jaganath, 'you people' is something right-wingers have used as part of their propaganda for decades now in this country. They need a way to be subtle yet segregate the people they are trying to attract from 'those people'... a subtle form of accepted bigotry to feed an individualistic greed is what they mean to propigate. It was lifted by the Republicans from the Nazi playbook after WW2... prior to which 'those people' were the Jews, Polish, etc.

Calculus
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:35 am
Location: unknown

Post by Calculus » Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:57 am

*grumbles*
What you seem to have forgotten was how the United States used to be! We did not get here by high taxation. We did not get here by making things what you call 'FAIR
Sorry, but I thought it was evident that I was talking to 'undertheradar'... By 'FAIR' I was refering to what he had said, not what I think fair is.

I can see now that I have become the last of a dying generation. Do what you wish... Tax the rich, bring communism on this great country, or what is lef tof it.

I only regret that there is no better place to move...

undertheradar
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:07 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI - USA

Post by undertheradar » Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:30 am

Actually, as I pointed out, because we are a democracy, or rather, representative republic, we are far to the left anyways. By definition we are socialist, yet the one clear difference between what we have now and communism is that socialism does not take away the individual's ability to achieve... to gain wealth based on merit/productivity/innovation. It might allow for a progressive tax, but that tax does not mean there is no incentive to work harder. If the $250,000+ crowd has to pay 39% taxes vs. 35% (which is what Obama is talking about), do you really think its going to hurt them? It really just means they wont be able to get that extra flatscreen for their bathroom... ooooo... life is rough.

Im getting fed up with the republican antics and them trying to call this 'bailout' some sort of socialism. Its a total BS propaganda tactic. Some people are getting all upset that the US government is going to own part of some large banks for a while... like its a bad thing. I suppose they would rather we just give the banks the money without telling them what they can and cant do with it? Yeah... thats been working. And consider this... the US government actually takes over banks all the time: its the very charter that the FDIC is based on. The US government takes over 'bad banks' as a way to offer American's security in the US banking system. And the silly thing is this... Im not 'pointing fingers', but you know damn well that if the 'dems were in office instead of Bush, this economic fallout would likely have never happened. People saw it coming years ago and warned Bush and Congress... but the Republicans didnt want to do anything because they are 'conservative'...lol. I'll interpret that as "Republicans wait until after the problem has gotten bad to do anything, where Democrats try to prevent the problems ahead of time to prevent larger problems later on"... something that is very true when you look at recent history. Sure, Dems might be seen as 'liberal' for taking action 'before its needed' because the opposition says its 'not needed', but some early regulation in the housing market could have prevented this. Americans are their own worse enemy... it takes a leader to tell the people what they need to change about themselves to help themselves.

Calculus
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:35 am
Location: unknown

Post by Calculus » Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:58 am

Im getting fed up with the republican antics and them trying to call this 'bailout' some sort of socialism. Its a total BS propaganda tactic.
Who owns the mass media! Who has infiltrated every single household with its propaganda?! You think that the far right is bad, why dont you look at your own beloved system. It is not the far right that own the big news stations. It is not the far right that is slowly but surely convincing everyone that their way is the only way. You can no longer blame ANYTHING on the far right, because it is no longer in any type of control whatsoever. A minority they have become, and we will see how long you last without us.

Until recently, there has been a nice balance between the right and left... But not anymore. Never fear, you will get your way, and when you do I hope that it works.

undertheradar
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:07 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI - USA

Post by undertheradar » Fri Feb 27, 2009 9:02 am

Oh, you mean like CNN and Fox news? Those are more conservative than ever. Not to mention all the radio personalities... more conservatives on the airwaves still.

Calculus
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:35 am
Location: unknown

Post by Calculus » Fri Feb 27, 2009 9:28 am

If things were truly as you say, then we wouldn't be here. If the republicans were in any way succeeding (which you seem to be saying) then wouldn't things be different?

Two stations is hardly what I would consider the mass media.

FACT is the liberals in control now, and you can't deny it.
but you know damn well that if the 'dems were in office instead of Bush, this economic fallout would likely have never happened. People saw it coming years ago and warned Bush and Congress...
look at how well the propaganda is working...
Please. dont insist that I agree with everything circling around out there. You can hardly blame bush for the mistakes that all the democratic presidents have done to our country. There is more at stake here than just money. The ideals that made this country are no more... To quote LOTR
All has turned to vain ambition...

Post Reply