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.
The high marginal taxes rates just encouraged dubious tax shelters and tax avoidance on a large scale and created vast inefficiencies in the economy.
Sure it will encourage these things....and? In terms of "vast inefficiencies" well the economy grew faster with high marginal tax rates than with lower ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanneroo
It's not the governments place to decide who has too much or too little.
Its the governments job to maximize the well being of its citizens. Both in the 20's and recently a drop in the marginal tax rates as resulted in a poor distribution of wealth which leads to suffering of most people at the benefit of a few.
If a government allows mass misery at the hands of a few, whats the point of government?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanneroo
Imposing high taxes is just going to send more companies and jobs overseas to better markets.
Out-sourcing is a non-issue. And I'm talking about the marginal income tax rate, not the corporate tax rate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanneroo
As a microcosm just look at all the capital flight out of California and New York due to high taxes.
California and New York remain the most wealthy states.
This post is ironic. While you claim the taxation issue to be obvious, you smugly proclaim your hedge is the ROTH. Here's an obvious observation, even my car mechanic knows a ROTH is the swiss account of the 21th century working stiff. As such, do you REALLY believe the government is not going to summarily pull that rug under ya in a decades time? Borrowed time my friend, ROTH will be gone by the end of the '10s, and certainly by the time you reach retirement age. How's that for obvious...
The money in the ROTH has already been taxed. It cannot be taxed twice. If they want to stop the system in the future, fine - I'll just stop contributing towards retirement.
Higher taxes are not inevitable....the government does not need to tax to spend! Any tax increase under Obama will be on the rich and it will be more so under philosophic grounds (redistribution of wealth) rather than budgetary grounds.
Its funny that during Americas best days the top marginal tax rate was 80%+ and that the lowering of the marginal tax rate has correlated a worse distribution of wealth. Interestingly, the last time the marginal tax rates were this low it was the 20's and it also resulted in a rather poor distribution of wealth. Of course most of the general public is doped into thinking that high tax rates on the rich is bad for the economy/country.
the US consumer represents 70% of US GDP, and given the size of the US economy this translates into about 16% of global GDP. The importance of the US consumer cannot be overstated. The top 20% of US earners account for 50% of all income and 50% of all consumption. They are also the households which respond positively to a rise in stock prices.
why do you think the stock market is being pumped? why do you think we are looking at an across the board insurance tax and an across the board energy tax?
Higher taxes are not inevitable....the government does not need to tax to spend! Any tax increase under Obama will be on the rich and it will be more so under philosophic grounds (redistribution of wealth) rather than budgetary grounds.
Its funny that during Americas best days the top marginal tax rate was 80%+ and that the lowering of the marginal tax rate has correlated a worse distribution of wealth. Interestingly, the last time the marginal tax rates were this low it was the 20's and it also resulted in a rather poor distribution of wealth. Of course most of the general public is doped into thinking that high tax rates on the rich is bad for the economy/country.
However, putting that to the side sometimes people complicate logic so much.
Bottom line, if the people want more services, SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE AND SOMEONE HAS TO PAY. The taxpayer is the only one that has to support services so it the government increase them, it must increase taxes and a socialistic type system eventually busts at the seems with lower quality and higher expenses.
Also, simple logic. If you own a store and have to pay higher taxes, you must choose to either fire someone, produce less, reduce prices thus loosing profits, less income means less chances of expanding, etc. Again, something has to give and someone has to pay.
However, there are a lot other factors like political decisions and also protection by all kinds of interest groups, not just the rich but the rich tend to be the scapegoat on economic issues.
I just do not agree to use the muscle of the government to make people give money to others on issues that have to do with personnal choices most of the time thus taking away choices and freedom to select how we want to live life.
The top 20% of US earners account for 50% of all income and 50% of all consumption. They are also the households which respond positively to a rise in stock prices.
What is your point? The higher marginal tax rates in the 50's, 60's and 70's applied to the rich. The top 20% include people that are very far from being rich.
Consumption was about 64% of GDP when marginal tax rates were in the 80% range. Not dramatically different from today. Doesn't suck when the facts don't support your ideology?
Bottom line, if the people want more services, SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE AND SOMEONE HAS TO PAY.
Sure, but you are paying anyways. What difference does it make whether you pay uncle sam or Blue Cross insurance company? Of course, the typical line is "the government can't do anything right" and the anti-socialist ideology:
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo
it must increase taxes and a socialistic type system eventually busts at the seems with lower quality and higher expenses.
Oh yes, like France's medical system which is around half the cost of ours yet ranks much avoid ours. Oh and their educational system....err wait.
The idea that "socialistic type systems" result in "lower equality and higher expenses" is a myth with no basis in reality. It would be just as true to say that capitalistic systems result in "lower equality and higher expenses".
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo
Also, simple logic. If you own a store and have to pay higher taxes, you must choose to either fire someone, produce less, reduce prices thus loosing profits
This is not simple logic, its not true at all. Businesses pay taxes on their profit, if business X is currently generating an after tax profit of $100k and the government decides take an additional $5k the business won't need to fire someone, produce less, or anything else. The only time this would occur is if the additional tax would make the business activity no longer worth it. But that is exactly why its much better to increase the top tax brackets.
Sure, but you are paying anyways. What difference does it make whether you pay uncle sam or Blue Cross insurance company? Of course, the typical line is "the government can't do anything right" and the anti-socialist ideology:
The difference? A big difference. My view allows choices for people and governement system creates a bureaoucracy we have to support also and eventually very much care for job sustainment. Open market systems allow competition and competition is an incentive to more research and reasearch results in inovations. There is most inovations come from the nations that most support open markets and the least government intervention. Socialism tends to create a general dependency on the government from the people. I saw the results in Berlin, Tbilisi, and Kiev.
Oh yes, like France's medical system which is around half the cost of ours yet ranks much avoid ours. Oh and their educational system....err wait.
Have you read the flaws of their system also like the long wait for medical procedures because you do not have the choice of doctors? How many deaths do these long waits happen and are not part of statistics? Also, is it OK to basically tell the elder they will not live much longer so some procedures they cannot get so the younger who still have more life can have them? Educational system? I am surprised you bring this up. I believe we are failing on education is a lot factors, one of them is because pretty much the system is run by the government. The very few systems that allow for more choices seem to fair much better when parent have a chance to choose what they want for their children.
The idea that "socialistic type systems" result in "lower equality and higher expenses" is a myth with no basis in reality. It would be just as true to say that capitalistic systems result in "lower equality and higher expenses".
The bottom line is this. Your rhetoric and mine means nothing. For the sake of argument I will go that that.
However, look around the world and history. The countries that tried a socialist mentality are broke or the people revolted. The less a country is socialized the better they fair economically and socialy and the less social upheaval they have. France? read more closely in the news how more and more people are fighting to change a system that is placing a big burden on taxpayers becuase it is becoming more and more expensive and the same in Canada. Yes, initially your philosophy is a great thing but as time goes by the seems start to slowly bust and eventually the people realize there is need for a change to have the freedom to choose. Some people praise Cuba for their medical system also, do you honestly want to try that? After all EVERBODY is covered.
This is not simple logic, its not true at all. Businesses pay taxes on their profit, if business X is currently generating an after tax profit of $100k and the government decides take an additional $5k the business won't need to fire someone, produce less, or anything else. The only time this would occur is if the additional tax would make the business activity no longer worth it. But that is exactly why its much better to increase the top tax brackets.
You can slice it all you want. I also have business administration education. The bottom line the more you allow a system to be open to competition with the least possible intervention, the better they fair and more people get the benefits due to competition. Bottom line, it is a plus and minus. What complicates things are tax systems, too much government intervention, interest groups wanting the government to use its muscle on others.
They bottom line is what Jefferson said how it tyranical for a group of people to pay with their own efforts for many others that do not do thair fair share of labor.
Now, I am for helping people with less needs and those that have had bad luck in life. I am not for letting people rut on the streets but there are many other ways to help them, the poor, the elders, and the children without using the cookie cutter (socialism) mentality.
To me your view seem to support the mentality that if some teens out there in the neigborhood are giving a hard time in the city to have a curfew. That is the easy way out of solving problems.
The bottom line the more you allow a system to be open to competition with the least possible intervention, the better they fair and more people get the benefits due to competition.
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.
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!
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo
Have you read the flaws of their system also like the long wait for medical procedures because you do not have the choice of doctors?
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.
But the medical industry loves this thinking! Keeps the money coming in. Did I mention the french system costs nearly half what ours does?
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo
However, look around the world and history. The countries that tried a socialist mentality are broke or the people revolted.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo
France? read more closely in the news how more and more people are fighting to change a system that is placing a big burden on taxpayers becuase it is becoming more and more expensive and the same in Canada.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo
I am not for letting people rut on the streets but there are many other ways to help them, the poor, the elders, and the children without using the cookie cutter (socialism) mentality.
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?
Some things don't seem to work well with a free market system, e.g., health care ...
... In contrast the (US) system has very little choice
user_id, you write many interesting things, but you contradict yourself here.
One of the reasons that the US health care system sucks is because it is neither a free market system nor a socialist (single-payer) system, instead it is a special-interest driven hodgepodge hybrid of the worst kind in an advanced industrialized country.
Though I would prefer a true free market system even in health care, that is further from a real possibility than a single-payer system.
I am also aware that the European systems cost half as much as the US for, on balance, the same level of care.
But because of the propaganda that you refer to, very few leaders in the US have the guts to advocate a single-payer system, and the current efforts at "reform" are just more special-interest dominated manipulation of the hodgepodge.
On a long shot, perhaps passage of a strong "public option" could be a precursor to a single-payer system.
Again, in my view, a single-payer system would be second choice to a true free market system, but it would certainly be better than the shameful hodgepodge that the US has right now and will have for at least the next 10 years or so no matter what happens with the current attempt at "reform".
Back on topic, I do not think that much higher taxes are inevitable, there are other ways to handle the debt. Instead, it is a political choice, and what is most worrisome is the quality of current political leadership now and into the foreseeable future.
In the meantime, I invest as much as I can abroad.
user_id, you write many interesting things, but you contradict yourself here.
What exactly is the contradiction? The US system is as close to a "free market" system as I can think of, sure its not totally a free market system. But there are, I think, good reasons for that. Free market health care does not work so the US system has been patched up to take it at least semi-workable. The underlying idea is still "free market" though, drop that idea and you can remove the patch work and create a real health care system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bale002
and what is most worrisome is the quality of current political leadership now and into the foreseeable future.
Was their a period of time outside of the founding of the country that the political leadership was particularly good? I can't think of one.... Gotta hand it to the founders though, they created a system that has at least remained semi-workable despite being run by special interests and morons.
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.
