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.
People do not have equal capabilities, responsible behavior, or dedication to earning their own way. Mandating equality in wealth is as stupid as mandating equal height, and destined to fail in ways that will be undesirable to all.
A case for addressing issues in corporate compensation is a different issue than taxes, greed, or social benefits.
What a stupid idea. Who exactly gets to decide how much someone can make? What is too much? What a bunch of crap. Protesting wall street, yet every single one of the politicians in DC are big fat cat money types, they should protest them. DC does more to screw the American public than wall street ever does.
The truely obscenely rich people usually pay little or no taxes and that is not going to change unless the government gives up its ability to try to control people through taxes and goes to a flat tax. That is not going to happen, so the Rich are not going to be taxed. The qualified "rich" people are already taxed very heavily. Taxing them more is simply going to eliminate the drive for people to be successful.
I could work harder and make more money, but it is a diminishing return. Instead I am backing off and trying to make less money so that I will make more money per hour of effort by paying less taxes n what I earn.
As the Federal Government raises taxes ont he Rich as a solution to their overspending problem, the State governments will jump on board as well. So if someone can make $230,000 working 2000 hours a year and pay 45% in taxes. Will they bother to work 2500 hours a year to make $260,000 if the extra is going to be taxed at 75%? If someone has a career that could bring them into the $250,000 are they going to make the extra push and take the risks that it takes to get them there, if they are just going to pay most of it in taxes?
People do not have equal capabilities, responsible behavior, or dedication to earning their own way. Mandating equality in wealth is as stupid as mandating equal height, and destined to fail in ways that will be undesirable to all.
A case for addressing issues in corporate compensation is a different issue than taxes, greed, or social benefits.
Just cut off people's legs. Or abort any baby that is genetically destined to be short. Bring back the rack?
I always laugh at the bizzare concept that we are going to legislate fairness through government. It is unfiar that one kid has a heroine addict mommy and no dad while another has two loving parents. Are we going to kill the dads and inject the moms with heroine to make things fair? You can take the kid away from the heroine mommy, but you cannto give the kid two loving parents, so the only solution to make things fair is to bring down those who have a better life. If heroine kid cannot have two loving parents then no one should.
We saw this in schools in California. Public schools were available for better performing students. This was unfair becuase underperformed students were left together in schools that then became "bad" schools. So to be fair, the better performing students had to be moved to poorly performing schools where the better performing students accomplished only mediocre performance, but brought up the schools overall average. The performance of entire district then dropped as a result, but, hey, it was fair. (Of course all of the families that could afford it switched to private schools, so it did not turn out so well. Now the would be high achievers with no money are stuck in poor schools loaded with under performers and will never realize their potential. )
Since the government cannot force under performers to perform better, We can only make things fair by bringing the more successful down to a mediocre level.
The result is that in order to be fair, we must bring everyone down the the lowest level of achievement or accomplishment or well being of any person on earth.
Wait. It is not fair that Bob Jones has cancer and I do not. Since they cannot cure Bob Jone's cancer, the need to figure out how to infect me with cancer. Things must be fair you know.
I will never understand how creating a policy to take money from the rich will help the poor. Only one result will happen - the rich will be less rich. How does that help in either income disparity (the rich still make the same amount of money) or improving the welfare of the poor? It doesn't make sense.
Another point, the Tax Act of 1986 brought on the seeds of this debate. The rich maximum tax was set at 35%, and now people are complaining. But that isn't all that happened. Two other important changes were made - 1.) Corporate tax was increased, alot, i.e rich corporations had to pay much more tax, 2.) The minimimum income rate for tax was raised, alot, i.e. the poor and even moderatly poor no longer had to pay taxes. This was a co-sponsored bill by democrats and republicans. Everyone was happy.
So now we want to change the rules? Why? Where is the balance? We have 50% of our citizens that pay no tax. If we want to increase the taxes why don't we just do away with the 1986 Tax Act? That means - Maximum tax rates for the rich are increased, exactly what people want, right? That also means corporate taxes are decreased, that also mean, YOU BETCHA, minimum income for tax rates are also decreased and we start getting a portion of the 50% of our deadbeat citizens paying income tax again. Is that not fair? I think it is.
Another alternative. The 1986 tax act significantly did away with tax shelters that were used by the rich to avoid paying taxes. It was very effective, such that the 35% rate gained as much revenue as the previous 60% rate, or whatever it was, before 1986 with the numerous shelters were considered. But, in 25 years these shelters and write-offs have crept back in, mostly as the result of poltical reasons. Why don't we simply revisit the tax code one more time and eliminate these tax write offs.
I continue to see the same nonsensical arguments that have perpetrated the growing disparity in income and wealth, and yet not a one of you can explain why from the great depression on to the 1980's we had both the highest tax rates and the best standard of living and wages for middle America that we have ever seen. We had much lower government deficits, we were able to build nearly all the dams, bridges, freeways, levees, and other infrastructure that today are in need of replacement.
We still had wealthy people, just not obscenely wealthy.
The greed of the upper class today is driving a divide between the classes that is going to create a revolution, and yet the irrationally greedy want to maintain their snobbish lifestyles at all expense, even if it means tearing apart the very fabric of the country. The wealthy rant about earning their wealth when in fact nothing could be farther from the truth. Obtaining wealth and earning wealth are entirely different concepts. Being a stock broker or a real estate salesman is worth considerably less in my book than the blue collar workers repairing the electric lines after a storm or the jet engine mechanic who holds the lives of everyone who flies on the planes he works on. In fact I would go as far as to say a significant percentage of the wealthy deserve to have their wealth taken away.
Punitive taxes on the wealthy is uhh, stupid. You're going to punish people for being successful? Really?
We were able to do all those amazing things from the 1940s through '80s because the modern social-welfare/imperial economy was still growing. Today, between the welfare-state and imperial-state, there's less than nothing left for any productive uses any longer. Every last dime, and then quite a bit more, is gobbled up by welfare and military spending.
I agree that it's problematic that the income gap has returned to pre-recession levels (the wealth gap has not, yet, but it will soon). Punitive taxes on the wealth, however, is not the answer. The income gap is due to two primary reasons as I see it. Globalism and the failure of public education to meet the demands of the modern work force. Being a capitalist, I see globalism is a good thing. Much of the manufacturing has moved abroad to countries like China or Southeast Asia. What manufacturing that is doing well here is skilled and capital intensive rather than unskilled and labor intensive. Auto manufacturing and agriculture both come to mind. Unfortunately, the education system is failing the demand for more skilled works. It's churning out graduates who are functionally illiterate and even weaker than that in basic math and science. Combine that with the cost of four year colleges and cuts to junior colleges and it's no surprise we have such an inadequately educated work force.
So if someone can make $230,000 working 2000 hours a year and pay 45% in taxes. Will they bother to work 2500 hours a year to make $260,000 if the extra is going to be taxed at 75%? If someone has a career that could bring them into the $250,000 are they going to make the extra push and take the risks that it takes to get them there, if they are just going to pay most of it in taxes?
That's the equalizing power of a progressive tax system! Hopefully, the person in your sample above would choose NOT to work the extra hours. Instead of one person and/or corporation working to the point of monopolizig the business, someone else, or a start up company would take up the slack, do the required work, and provide the necessary service....and likely at a lower price to the end customer.
[/indent]That's the equalizing power of a progressive tax system! Hopefully, the person in your sample above would choose NOT to work the extra hours. Instead of one person and/or corporation working to the point of monopolizig the business, someone else, or a start up company would take up the slack, do the required work, and provide the necessary service....and likely at a lower price to the end customer.
What? That is the first time I heard that argument for a progressive tax system. In fact it is counter productive. It's an argument AGAINST a progressive tax system. Economies of scale in a free market would allow a person, or corporation, to work those extra hours or produce those extra items at lower cost and an increased rate of productivity. That is benificial to society as a whole.
With your scenario, you are dismissing the laws of supply and demand. Supply, manpower or products, will be artificially reduced. Supply will eventually catch up, but without the economies of scale of the first level. Production will not be as efficient. Cost will be raised until a new equilibrium is achieved with demand. Simply speaking - labor costs will increase, product cost will be raised. The increase labor costs will be good in appearance until we forget we are talking about high income workers and possibly small businesses. Non of this will help the working class, and in fact will hurt. Can you imagine what your theory will do to medical costs?
Can you imagine what your theory will do to medical costs?
I imagine that medical costs would drop significantly if there was real competition in providing those services.
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.
