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.
You missed my point. It wasn't in regards to raising taxes, it's in regards to confiscating wealth, which one poster advocated. I don't have a problem with tax increases, especially if it's in exchange for a balanced budget.
No one's going to want to work hard and build something if the government starts going around confiscating people's property and businesses to pay down the federal debt. Do you disagree with that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CK78
This is something I never understood. This mentality I highlighted. In other words everytime a proposal is raised to raise taxes on the very wealthy, top 1-5%, we hear cries of,"No, we can't do that or else rich people will stop 'creating' jobs and quit working because all their wealth will be confiscated." In other words if they only make 2 million instead of 3 million they'll quit working cause it's not worth it.
But if a low wage worker or seasonal worker finds it not worth it to work because he/she can't even afford basic necessities to live on their own and independently from the salary they make in a year than they're potrayed as lazy leaches, parasites and bums of society.
At least the rich man has a few million or hundreds of thousands left over if they find it "not worth it" to keep working if their taxes are raised. But the poor man has nothing and ends up in a tent city or the streets. And he's an outcast.
Why is it O.K. for the elite to need millions of dollars in incentives in order for it "to be worth it" to them to keep working. But if someone does not want to work for under subsistence level wages they're the devil.
I know it has something to do with the darwinian/calvinist/W.A.S.P mentality/worldview.
Which year and which rate? Tax rates went up and down between 1913 and 1931. (the early 20th century).
Between 75-90%. After all, taxation on "money" shouldnt be a huge deal, since, really, wealth is in the ownership of capital assets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom123
I agree, in exchange for a flat tax that taxes all income at the same rate. I'd even agree to a tax floor at the poverty level, so the poor pay zero.
Flat tax is absolutely regressive. I would have nothing to do with that. Never should someone making 40k be paying the same rate as someone making 4 million. The marginal utility of 10,000 of someone making 40k is far greater than 1 million from someone making 4 million
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom123
How will you tax good under 35K? Also, will you get rid of the personal income tax?
Im a big fan of the prebate, in other words, every person would receive a check for the taxes on 35k.
Income tax would also be gone in this scenario.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom123
Once again, you're using cherry picked examples of famous people, and making a stretch to prove your statements occur for all successful and wealthy people. I don't disagree with your JFK and GWB examples, I'm simply saying it's not the norm.
Situations to that degree are not the norm, however, a great deal of people benefit in some way other than a cash inheritance at their parents death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom123
Ok, that's for one generation. How about we look at next generations and see if people are moving from middle upward or not?
Actually its being projected that Generation X will be the first generation to die worse off then their parents in US history, which doesnt bode well for generation Y.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom123
Also, if people are moving up from dirt broke to middle class and their next generation stays there, why is that a bad thing? My main goal is to ensure most people aren't in poverty, not to make everyone wealthy. It's just not realistic.
Wealth is a zero sum game. The reason why so many people are broke, is because so much of the US prosperity gained over the past 30 years has went almost exclusively to the super wealthy.
The rest of us watched our jobs be sold down the river to south east asia, Walmart take over the world, eliminating dozens of mom and pops in its wake, and nearly all of our financial legislation gutted.
Our decreasing incomes, and increasing struggles have done nothing but shift more true assets to the hands of the wealthy. Banksters and rich investors scooped up mainstreet when we got evicted for pennies on the dollar. Banksters came in and scooped up all the shares after you had to cash out your 401k at the bottom to cover your expenses when you were unemployed.
Even if you managed to get a job again, you have nothing. The banksters have everything of value.
You missed my point. It wasn't in regards to raising taxes, it's in regards to confiscating wealth, which one poster advocated. I don't have a problem with tax increases, especially if it's in exchange for a balanced budget.
No one's going to want to work hard and build something if the government starts going around confiscating people's property and businesses to pay down the federal debt. Do you disagree with that?
No. But then why do you and others expect people to "work hard" when they have nothing to show for it at the end of the year or a couple years. As much as some people wish not many people are going to be motivated to work for no assets and no quality of life.
Between 75-90%. After all, taxation on "money" shouldnt be a huge deal, since, really, wealth is in the ownership of capital assets.
Go ahead. I'm not a chicken little on that one. I know the same thing will happen as the last time, the number of people in those tax brackets will decrease sharply. People who were previously at that level will simply hide their money, reduce their income, lobby for loopholes, and invest in tax free bonds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
Flat tax is absolutely regressive. I would have nothing to do with that. Never should someone making 40k be paying the same rate as someone making 4 million. The marginal utility of 10,000 of someone making 40k is far greater than 1 million from someone making 4 million
Fine, set a floor for the flat tax so the poor aren't affected. You can't argue for fairness and then push for something that isn't equal. If you argue for a property tax rate, sales tax rate, gas tax rate, etc that is much higher for some and lower for others, then you'd be intellectually consistent at least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
Im a big fan of the prebate, in other words, every person would receive a check for the taxes on 35k.
I'm against the prebate, I don't want Americans all receiving a check from the government every month. Why not have built in exemptions for food, medicine, and other goods the poor depend on?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
Income tax would also be gone in this scenario.
Good, that is my end goal as well.
Debating solutions are more important to me, so I'll let most of the rest of your points stand (and my previous points), so I deleted them from my response. I'll respond to these:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
Wealth is a zero sum game. The reason why so many people are broke, is because so much of the US prosperity gained over the past 30 years has went almost exclusively to the super wealthy.
The rest of us watched our jobs be sold down the river to south east asia, Walmart take over the world, eliminating dozens of mom and pops in its wake, and nearly all of our financial legislation gutted.
This was a bi-partisan effort, and much of the catalyst for this was signed by a Democratic President. I'm for a repeal of NAFTA, I'm for a reinstatement of Glass Steagall, etc.
The remainder was simply due to the global economy catching up after World War II. Much of our post 1940s prosperity was due to our competitors being destroyed in war, so we were the only game in town for many sectors of the world economy.
By the way, if wealth is a zero sum game, who is the loser when the US economy increases? And, why do those on the left seem to advocate a growing economy if they speak for the downtrodden?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
Our decreasing incomes, and increasing struggles have done nothing but shift more true assets to the hands of the wealthy. Banksters and rich investors scooped up mainstreet when we got evicted for pennies on the dollar. Banksters came in and scooped up all the shares after you had to cash out your 401k at the bottom to cover your expenses when you were unemployed. Even if you managed to get a job again, you have nothing. The banksters have everything of value.
Well if we agree on solutions, you'll get what you want and I'll get what I want, even if our focus are different or I disagree with some of your points.
No. But then why do you and others expect people to "work hard" when they have nothing to show for it at the end of the year or a couple years. As much as some people wish not many people are going to be motivated to work for no assets and no quality of life.
I don't speak for others, I speak for my own opinions, and actually, I don't expect anyone to work hard. They have the freedom of choice not to work, I just prefer a social safety net that holds them responsible for not working, such as a workfare system with guaranteed jobs, and permanent career training for any able bodied person who needs help.
So, what are your solutions? Randomdude has posted his, and we agree on most of them. Does all this other crap really matter if we discover our policy positions are mostly in agreement? We're both getting what we want in the end, regardless of what we think the source/problem is.
So, let's hear your solutions to see if we agree or if we can find common ground.
All income from any source, any characterization is taxed at the same marginal tax rate we had during Clinton, 39%???? No cap gain games, not carried interest games.
An all but guaranteed living wage private sector job for everyone able to work. How? Mandate hiring, other these job creators start creating jobs or we tax that pile of cash they're sitting on. Either employers hire workers and exploit them or pay a tax that equals the costs the government bears to support them. I suspect we'd be at full employment in a year. This all but ends the need for public assistance, food stamp, etc. Spending savings.
Means test SS benefits, cap benefits if you're earning three or four time your bennies. SS was never meant to be an extension on private pensions and 401k's. If you'd be living well without SS you don't get it.
Remove income cap on SS, taxes all income sources, raise employee rate a bit and zero out employer's share. Net result, modest increase in SS revenue, tax break for employers.
Inheritance taxes back to the levels in the 1960. When you start a new Monopoly game the winner doesn't start where they left off. Creating generational billionaire dynasties is unfair to the millions that are born with zero. The game is rigged for most, the end of life decisions for everyone but the uber wealthy involve watching the medical establishment and the government burn thru your life savings. The wealthy insulate themselves to that while most middle class families are forced to pay down their wealth to receive care.
Solutions! See, none of that heated rhetoric really matters when solutions are placed on the table. On many of your solutions, we agree.
At the end of the day, not even you seem to be for wealth confiscation, so there's no need for the hate the rich and "exploit" rhetoric to support your policy positions. All it does is alienate people who may agree, like I do on many of the solutions you just gave.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27
All income from any source, any characterization is taxed at the same marginal tax rate we had during Clinton, 39%???? No cap gain games, not carried interest games.
Do you mean top rate of 39% or tax rate for everyone? If you mean top rate, I am 100% fine with this rate if you're willing to agree to balanced budgets like Clinton had in his last four years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27
An all but guaranteed living wage private sector job for everyone able to work. How? Mandate hiring, other these job creators start creating jobs or we tax that pile of cash they're sitting on. Either employers hire workers and exploit them or pay a tax that equals the costs the government bears to support them. I suspect we'd be at full employment in a year. This all but ends the need for public assistance, food stamp, etc. Spending savings.
This seems similar to my guaranteed jobs program, except I'm not going to mandate that companies hire. Maybe we can find common ground on this issue without the mandate. Instead of mandates, we can simply work with companies that want to hire through the program, and the shortfall can be covered with temporary government jobs, public works projects, etc. These jobs should all be temporary because there will be a permanent career training component, using in-demand fields as a guide for what fields to offer training.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27
Means test SS benefits, cap benefits if you're earning three or four time your bennies. SS was never meant to be an extension on private pensions and 401k's. If you'd be living well without SS you don't get it.
Remove income cap on SS, taxes all income sources, raise employee rate a bit and zero out employer's share. Net result, modest increase in SS revenue, tax break for employers.
I am 100% for this solution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27
Inheritance taxes back to the levels in the 1960. When you start a new Monopoly game the winner doesn't start where they left off. Creating generational billionaire dynasties is unfair to the millions that are born with zero. The game is rigged for most, the end of life decisions for everyone but the uber wealthy involve watching the medical establishment and the government burn thru your life savings. The wealthy insulate themselves to that while most middle class families are forced to pay down their wealth to receive care.
I can compromise with the idea of an estate tax under the condition of a balanced federal budget, and that no one loses their primary residence, farm or business due to a forced sale to pay the taxes. Can you agree with that?
I don't speak for others, I speak for my own opinions, and actually, I don't expect anyone to work hard. They have the freedom of choice not to work, I just prefer a social safety net that holds them responsible for not working, such as a workfare system with guaranteed jobs, and permanent career training for any able bodied person who needs help.
I don't know what a "workfare system" is but it sounds good and I agree with the last part too. How it would be implemented I don't know but it sounds like a plan.
Of course you would have to find enough work for the workfare and newly trained but it is a good concept.
I don't know what a "workfare system" is but it sounds good and I agree with the last part too. How it would be implemented I don't know but it sounds like a plan.
Of course you would have to find enough work for the workfare and newly trained but it is a good concept.
When I use the workfare term, it's just a shorthand to use as a contrast to welfare. Here's how it would be implemented:
1. Use existing welfare and unemployment insurance funds to give people jobs, anyone who walks into their State's Dept of Labor or unemployment office, walks out with a temporary job. We could give all of the 12.7 million unemployed as of June 2012 a temporary job at $30,000 a year using less than we already pay in welfare and unemployment.
2. While working in that temporary job, people will have enough time allocated to seek a permanent job, or to train/go to college in an in-demand field. We already have funds for these programs. (Pell grants, etc). There will be a time limit or space priority given to new entrants, to discourage people from riding the system for years.
3. Child care would be provided for single mothers, since this is a hurdle to getting people into jobs. Some of the these jobs could be filled by mothers in the program. I'd probably place the centers within the public school system to piggyback off their infrastructure.
4. Temporary jobs would be in any field where employers need people. Priority goes to government agencies, nonprofits, public works projects, etc. I don't even care if it's "make work" jobs, I'd rather see someone pushing paper and getting trained for a career instead of sitting at home getting checks for doing nothing.
5. I've reluctantly considered private companies as a last resort when all government and nonprofit jobs are filled, but they'd still have to pay a portion of the salary, it wouldn't fully on the state. Many states already have job databases for their workforce commissions or State Dept of Labor. We'd simply turn these jobs into direct placements in exchange for the govt funding some of the salary. There was/is already a program like this created in Louisiana after Katrina where the state paid 50 to 100% of a new employee's salary for 6 months in exchange for the company agreeing to keep them permanently (they had to sign a contract).
There are other parts of this idea I've listed in other threads, but this is a general outline that can always be improved upon by those who disagree with certain components. The main goal is to give a job to anyone who wants one, using the same funds we already spend on welfare, unemployment and education.
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.
