Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have been thinking that what we have now is like the old Roman Empire, there were slaves and citizens. To become a citizen you could be born to it or you could buy it or you could be a slave for a useful lifetime and then retire as a citizen.
Now you have two kinds of people, those that live off of interest and those that work for their money. As in the old Roman Empire you can be born to the moneyed class, or you can buy your way in, or you can save up from a life time of working, and retire into it.
A Billionaire Philanthropist is an oxymoron.
The accumulation of money and the creation of wealth are two very different things. A billionaire philanthropist should look at the creation of wealth first and then helping those less fortunate than themselves out second.
What I was responding too was this: If you tax a billionaire philanthropist then he can't help those less fortunate than him out. What I said was that if you pay people to do useful stuff then that is a good thing and is better than philanthropy, and a high top end tax rate doesn't stop you from doing this.
I agree, except there is a slight flaw in your thinking. Many billionaires are not philantropist and many of them are strictly takers and have not intentions on "giving back" to society. So how do you handle these folks?
There are people that are not billionaires nor millionaires but give what they have to the less fortunate where do they fit in? You can always provide tax incenitive towards hose who choose to give back to society and tax those who take jobs overseas and/or ignore society's ills.
What I do not understand is that there are some people that feel that the poor should be helped by society's well off instead of the government but yet do not give them any incenitive to do so
I agree, except there is a slight flaw in your thinking. Many billionaires are not philantropist and many of them are strictly takers and have not intentions on "giving back" to society. So how do you handle these folks?
There are people that are not billionaires nor millionaires but give what they have to the less fortunate where do they fit in? You can always provide tax incenitive towards hose who choose to give back to society and tax those who take jobs overseas and/or ignore society's ills.
What I do not understand is that there are some people that feel that the poor should be helped by society's well off instead of the government but yet do not give them any incenitive to do so
Hi simetime,
There are not new problems and many people studied this problem in the past. The best way to to extract what is known as economic rent, unearned income etc. I think its pretty clear that setting up a toll gate is not the sort of incentive we need. Just take a look at who is sitting around doing nothing for some guidance for tax policy.
Most, actually every wealthy person I may know, have earned it- went to college,or worked 100 hrs a week at a business, they paid the piper, resulted in divorce, not seeing their kids ballgames, and early health issues (always working)
I remember being in my early 20's most of my friends, loved to party, drank beer smoked dope, ect, while a few of us, was always working on the weekend, had 2-3 jobs, couldnt justify wasting money on beer, dope, we were saving for a house,
well, some of the go-getters did well, while the dope-smoking crowd did not- no drive was content to "get by" usually with their parents or livin with a girlfriend.
and it's this crowd, who never really applied themselves, that end up throwing rocks at the go-getters that earned it.
Until this crowd goes after the government entities which gives themselves bonuses without earning it
I wont listen
what are the salaries of goverment agency officials, that have failed policies, that perform poorly? yet still get paid handsome salaries and benefits???????
Congress is a great example, they get paid well for screwing up our economy with a golden parachute retirement/benefits package
until i hear the "outrage" and accountability from our own government (which is our tax dollars)
then I may pay closer attention to the other "outrage"
one last thought, the department of energy was created in....1977? 41 years ago, to get our dependence off foreign oil/energies
wtf????????????????? we are all now paying 3.50 gallon for gas/oil from foreign countries, and for 41 yrs, the execs of the dept of energy, made big bucks while accomplishing what?????????????????
until the whiners start addressing that, and hold our own government accountable, then we may start listening
also, be careful attacking the rich, the large companies is where many want to work because they have benefits.......
anyone who is already rich, can close their companies, and move away, the rich buy new houses that contractors work, they buy new vehicles, and services, that benefit many
so when you start disparaging the rich, keep hiking up taxes, keep this in mind, they can all just move away from what they are doing, shield all their monies so it doesnt get taxed and retire somewhere
we need the so called rich to keep investing in new businesses to grow the economy- not say "ok I'm outta here" shut down their businesses putting many more out of work and more sucking off the government nipple
and it's this crowd, who never really applied themselves, that end up throwing rocks at the go-getters that earned it.
Until this crowd goes after the government entities which gives themselves bonuses without earning it I wont listen
You did read, right, that in a recently conducted poll some 85% of the OWS people are employed, and only some 60-something % of the Tea Partiers are?
True or not---what both groups are doing is protesting the gross imbalances of wealth through taxation (lack of) as well as corporate welfare, billions in bank bailouts, exports of jobs on an unprecedented scale, all of which are creating a very sorry state for our country. What's not to agree with?
PS--Anyone throwing a rock appears, from videos taken at the scene, to be doing so in outrage against police brutality (not enforcement, but brutality).
Most, actually every wealthy person I may know, have earned it- went to college,or worked 100 hrs a week at a business, they paid the piper, resulted in divorce, not seeing their kids ballgames, and early health issues (always working)
All the wealth in this country in the hands of the 1% is all real estates, publicly granted monopolies, and mineral rights, leveraged with finance . People know something isn't right. They don't quite see it the way I do yet, but it will become increasingly difficult to hide until we end up much like Britain where a few thousand people owned the island. As this continues to happen, they will see this argument and wonder why they missed it.
All you need to do as compare the economic flow from anywhere you choose. The standard "good ratio" is no more than 30% of income should be spent on housing. That means in good times, 30% of all money in residential real estate alone. Of course much of this goes to finance as a mortgage tax. Any property tax relief you can be sure is being pushed by finance who plan on loaning the money for higher bids. The people who first moved in didn't pay anything for land did they? So right now 30% of all labor is being funneled into the FIRE economy when things are working well. That does not even include the capital side of the balance sheet who is paying into the FIRE economy.
When you add up the wealth of real estate, state granted monopolies, mineral rights, toll gates, governmentt subsidies, very little of this wealth is being earned. Outside of this, yes there is a sub culture in the 99% who can earn in this shrinking sector of wealth.
I agree, except there is a slight flaw in your thinking. Many billionaires are not philantropist and many of them are strictly takers and have not intentions on "giving back" to society. So how do you handle these folks?
My opinion is that this is the rule rather than the exception. First what you can do is count all compensation as income and tax it as such. Then you have two tax systems one for the very rich and one for the rest. You tax the very rich based on a number of parameters, total debt, trade deficit or surplus etc. If you set the tax rate for the very top end so that growing the middle class gets them the lowest tax rate then that is what they will do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by simetime
There are people that are not billionaires nor millionaires but give what they have to the less fortunate where do they fit in? You can always provide tax incenitive towards hose who choose to give back to society and tax those who take jobs overseas and/or ignore society's ills.
Providing work for people to do is the best way to help people out. Let them help themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by simetime
What I do not understand is that there are some people that feel that the poor should be helped by society's well off instead of the government but yet do not give them any incenitive to do so
I come from Utah, the Mormons have a very effective welfare system. If you want help you work for it. Utah tends to lag national recessions and recover faster. This is probably a side effect of the Mormons welfare system. The extra cash that is dumped into circulation at the start by paying rent and bills helps to slow the progression of a recession.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
