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.
(That's why I have everything in my ROTH 401K and my ROTH IRA!)
Be advised that my financial advisor has already heard rumblings about the taxation of Roth IRA's, especially given the 2010 TIPRA "bonus" for high-income individuals.
If you are counting on Roth money to NEVER be taxed as part of your retirement strategy, I would discount it by some factor, maybe .20, as we are simply incurring too much debt and obligating too much to Americans for them not to tax Roth money in the future.
I'm still waiting for the economic lesson.... To say it once again Americas most prosperous period occurred when marginal rates on the rich were rather high (~80%). What you are suggesting holds no economic nor historic truth.
The US economy does the best when wealth is well distributed throughout society. Every time wealth becomes overly concentrated you get well....what we are experiencing today! High marginal rates on the wealthy help keep the distribution of wealth reasonable, while not hampering economic growth.
I don't know where you came up with that. High marginal rates kept the great depression going, there was a bad recession after WW2, another in 1958 and the late 60's and 1970's were economic boondoggles.
The government has no place in regulating who has what. A bureaucrat is never going to able to assess the "needs" of individual people as well as they can themselves.
Also this great recession we are in wasn't caused by tax rates. It has everything to do with the government manipulating the housing market with low interest rates and welfare housing programs giving people houses they could never afford and all the funny money inflating the cost of housing beyond realistic levels.
I don't know where you came up with that. High marginal rates kept the great depression going, there was a bad recession after WW2, another in 1958 and the late 60's and 1970's were economic boondoggles.
Why is it that you guys suggest things that are not even historically accurate? Marginal tax rates were rather low going into the depression, they were raised towards the end but the economy was recovering at that point so claiming it kept the depression going is silly.
Recessions are a normal part of an economy, but the period after WW2 to around the 1970's saw the largest (average) growth in US history. Unlike today, the economy came back kicking after the recessions during this period. All of this occurred when marginal tax rates were high, lowing the marginal tax rates did not improve the economy rather the opposite occurred.
If the government does not implement policies to distribute wealth than the wealth of the nation will become overly concentrated into a few hands. Historically this is exactly what has happened with marginal rates are low... But perhaps you want to live in a world where you are a slave unless you are born into a particular family.
It is not credible to conclude based on two variables that high marginal tax rates cause economic prosperity and a fair distribution of wealth/income (what does that mean anyway?). It sounds more like an emotional ideological argument.
My own practical experience suggests that high marginal tax rates come into play when an economy has already developed to a relatively advanced stage and they are okay for the established very rich with high incomes because they can afford lawyers and accountants to set up offshore schemes, and/or buy, bribe, or otherwise control tax officials, as the case may be, and thus pay minimized taxes domestically, and they are okay for the lazy and the poor because any redistribution is better than no distribution. The losers are talented, innovative, independent-minded young people from low/middle-level families trying to set up businesses in their own homeland.
Bill Gates is not from Europe. Figure it out.
There are better ways of achieving acceptable levels of income distribution than high marginal tax rates. By the same token, there are better ways of achieving acceptable levels of income distribution than loose credit and money illusion. There are times when a more reasonable balance is achieved, coupled with innovation. This is cyclical.
You know, from a political economy point of view, it is easier to police than to educate, and it easier to control through illusion than to police. Figure it out.
In any case, higher taxes are not inevitable, it is a question of policy and, most of all, the confidence that one has in the ability, wisdom and sincerity of the policymakers and those who shape them. This too is cyclical.
Therefore, there are also times when even good institutions, based on good practical ideas of whatever the ideology of the day (or century), are toppled by the evil of men. This too is cyclical.
The debate is about what cycle, or cycles, we are in, and at what stage. Each one hedges his bets according to means and ability.
It is not credible to conclude based on two variables that high marginal tax rates cause economic prosperity and a fair distribution of wealth/income (what does that mean anyway?).
Yeah good thing nobody is doing that huh? The reason I'm mentioning the high marginal taxes in the 50's, 60's and 70's is rather simple. Many people suggest that taxing the wealthy will result in some sort of economic ruin, yet not only did this not occur in the past but the periods where marginal taxes were high were some of the nations best.
My claim is not that high marginal taxes cause economic prosperity. It does seem to help with the distribution of wealth though (and there are a number of measures of this, look it up).
I do find it interesting that the two biggest economic crises over the last 100 years each each was proceeded by a period of low marginal tax rates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bale002
There are better ways of achieving acceptable levels of income distribution than high marginal tax rates.
they didn't have negative tax rates in 50's and 60's. about 40% of the filers get back more than they pay into the system. the same thing is occurring on the corporate tax as they've extended the number of past returns to which one can carry back losses.
Well that is certainly the cliche! But is it true? Does not seem to be. The Russians were able to push technology just as much as the US despite being a heavily socialist country.
The bottom line with Russia? Lost an economic system they tried to push on other countries and on their country subjects. What you may call a cliche is a reality. People revolted on an economic system you seem to espouse. Tell me all you want but that is reality. I am talking about an economic system. Technology? I am sure other systems can and have come up with techological inovations. As much as the US? Well, that is questionable. I will tell you that in the military side of the house when the US faced a country, Iraq, with much of Russian military hardware they were no match for our technology.
Once you get beyond cliches and into reality things are much more complicated. Certain things seem to work well with a free market system, e.g., food production/distribution. Some things don't seem to work well with a free market system, e.g., health care. This is something that most of the world is aware of yet Americans are almost entirely privy to it!
I believe you also need to get beyond cliches too. I am not saying that any other system does not work or does not produce certain results. Of course they do. To me there is no perfect system and capitalism falls under the same. My claim is that our system seems to produce better results as far as I am concerned. As I said before the more capitalist the a country is it seems to be the most advance in many areas as far as standard of living. As far as health care we can debate until kingdom come. I can see you use some terms like "most of the world" expressions. Most of the world has national health care? How many countries do we have in the world and of those how many do have national health care? Americans are privy of it? Do not confuse not agreeing with a system with ignorance. I am aware of it. I have lived in six countries and visited 25. I actually worked in hospitals where national health care was the system. In the end people seem to know what is best and tend to migrate where they think life is better. Word of mouth is a great media for information. People tell each other where the best prices may be or where the better quality may be in any type of commodity or service. The same about countries. Where to people even risk their lives to look for a better life, Russia? I hope that is not your answer. Please do not tell me it is.
Ugh, just more cliches. It is pretty obvious that you nothing about the french system. Do you think a system with no choice, long waits, etc would consistently rank one of best systems in on the planet? Of course not, because what you are saying is flat out false. Contrary to your suggest the french system is filled with CHOICE and that is one of the reasons it does so well. In contrast the America system has very little choice, you have to take whatever insurance company your employer gives you (or you sign up for privately), you have to see doctors that are "providers" unless you want to pay extra, etc. The french system does not have long wait times.
Here where I am sure we BOTH may have some selective interpretation. I am trying to be fair to you an I. I have sources of the problems with the French system as I am sure you have yours. Which sources are correct? We BOTH probably filter that data based on our own philosophical views on HOW we may think things should be done. I will leave that one at that. We have something in common, cliches.
But the medical industry loves this thinking! Keeps the money coming in. Did I mention the french system costs nearly half what ours does?
Okay let's look around the world. China is socialist...and they are...err wait. Don't they own trillions of our debt? Most of Europe is socialist and...oh wait isn't Europe doing better than the US right now? I guess that is what happens when you care more about workers than bankers. Go figure.
I would suggest that perhaps you read more closely, nobody in France is fighting for an Angelo-Saxon model! The French largely think its inhuman. The "riots" (going to the streets is common in France, unlike the US) recently have been the result of certain politicians trying to change the system, people don't want the changes! For example, making it easier for employers to lay off employees.
Socialism is not about giving money to people so they can do nothing at the expense of others. That is a cookie cutter cliche that is popular in the US. And I wonder why its so popular? Why do the people that would benefit the most from socialized systems think the worst of them in the US? Isn't that ironic? Could it be perhaps that the corporate powers don't want them to know the truth? Because that would cut their billions upon billions of blood sucking?
Again, tell me all these cliches you are also a victim of. However, where do most of the people migrating to nations of the world go to? That is the bottom line regardless of anything you and I say. That speaks a lot, actions over philosophical/political rhetoric. China? Do you want to compare China immigration influx as compared to the US? After we are in such economic nightamer, who of the rest of the world want to join such people privy of such system as ours with so many problem. I do not know what countries you have visited and lived to talk to people and compare systems but in some ways that is irrelevant. Are you telling me that you would like to live in China? So many people tell me how great it is countries like China and Cuba but I am pretty sure they would never live there. Theory is irrelevant to people, they decide and go where they believe they believe they can have a better life. Do not take me wrong. I am aware we have a mixed economy and countries like France, UK, and Canada have done better than other countries that have socialist programs. I do not know what your idea of freedom is but I just do not share yours. Because not everybody has insurance you think we are so ignorant and our system can't provide for everybody? Well, our system does work. Can we improve it? Of course we can and we must but to make a system to cover everybody even those that do not need to be covered is wasteful. So what are you telling me the french think it is inhuman. Is that your proof our system is bad? What the french think?! Since when the french think what we think of them? Do you think I am concerned with their opinion? I hope you did not mention that to make feel bad, did you?
The bottom line with Russia? Lost an economic system they tried to push on other countries and on their country subjects
The Russian economy did not collapse from within nor was their a revolution, the US was instrumental in the collapse of the USSR. But you are ignoring the point, you are suggesting the cliche that people won't innovate without massive amounts of profit on the line. Russia and a number of other countries shows that this is not true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo
...My claim is that our system seems to produce better results as far as I am concerned....
Yeah, I can't care about things "as far as you are concerned". I care about which system and policies produce the best standard of living for the greatest number of people. The US fails short on many levels. You are again just repeating your inaccurate claim that capitalism -> high standard of living. Yet the US never ranks top in measures of such, for example the US is 13 in the HDI. A number of socialist countries rank higher.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo
Here where I am sure we BOTH may have some selective interpretation. I am trying to be fair to you an I. I have sources of the problems with the French system as I am sure you have yours. Which sources are correct?
No sorry, you stated things that were flat out wrong. Your claim about the french system was just the cliche against socialized medicine, as if every socialized system suffers from the same problems!
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo
However, where do most of the people migrating to nations of the world go to? That is the bottom line regardless of anything you and I say. That speaks a lot, actions over philosophical/political rhetoric.
Where do most people migrate to? To a variety of nations some of which are rather socialist. You do realize that tons of migrants (both legal and illegal) go to Europe as well as the US? So your "bottom line" supports what I'm saying, how "capitalist" a country is is not well correlated with how good that country is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo
Because not everybody has insurance you think we are so ignorant and our system can't provide for everybody? Well, our system does work. Can we improve it?
Ugh you serious? This country is almost bankrupt, medical costs are skyrocketing, the poor are getting poorer, and so on. This country is broken.
....The bottom line with Russia? Lost an economic system they tried to push on other countries and on their country subjects. What you may call a cliche is a reality. People revolted on an economic system you seem to espouse. Tell me all you want but that is reality. I am talking about an economic system. Technology? I am sure other systems can and have come up with techological inovations. As much as the US? Well, that is questionable. I will tell you that in the military side of the house when the US faced a country, Iraq, with much of Russian military hardware they were no match for our technology.....
You have a great day.
El Amigo
This isn't the bottom line with Russia. In regards to the iraqi military, it would be folly to assume the destruction of that military was due to Russians having designed and manufactured the equipment. First with a few exceptions, the Russians like the USA simply doesn't supply its most advanced military equipment to other countries. Iraq after all is only a few hundred miles from the Russian border and Saddam Hussein was not the most trustworthy of partners. Furthermore, most of Iraq's advanced military equipment was destroyed during the first Gulf War with the assistance of the Russians who went as far as providing unlock codes that let the USA shut down much of the Iraqi command and control network.
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.
