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'm not worried about it. I'm just talking about the economic outcomes of tax policy and personally I'd much rather live in a society where wealth is well distributed throughout the entire society and flat-taxes don't result in such a society.
You're again asking me "what is wrong", I didn't say anything was wrong with it. I only stated that a flat-tax would result in a high degree of wealth concentration in the top 10%. If you think that is wrong then you shouldn't support flat-taxes. If you think those on top are superior, for whatever reason, then perhaps you'd think its just right to allow them a greater share of the national wealth.
And just to note, a federal flat-tax of 5% would be utterly insufficient. I think that is why some people support it though, they think a low figure like 5% would work. If the federal government switched to a flat-tax regime it would be between 15~20%. Heck, some states have a flat-tax close to 5%. When I was in PA I paid a combined state/city flat tax of 6%.
You might want to pack your bags for a communist country.
[sigh] More wage cuts for California workers! And before anyone wants to jump about the "lucrative pensions", we have -- for many years -- earned less than our counterparts in the private sector with the trade-off being that of our pensions upon retirement. With that being said, our salaries have been chopped by 5% every time they need to balance the budget on the backs of the state workers.
The public has always cried about the pensions of state workers, but what many do not know is that we do actually earn less than our counterparts in the private sector with the hope, and I say "hope" because there may not be a pension when some retire, that we will receive, in the form of a pension, compensation for earning less upon retirement. For many State workers the thought is... "I don't mind earning less now, because I'll get it in the end in retirement which is far better than working private and earning more up front with a not-so-nice retirement plan in the end"
Another myth. Firstly, many state workers would have no equal job in the private sector because the jobs only exist with the state. Secondly, the trade-off is also VERY lucrative benefits. Mostly, the trade-off is job security.
Welcome to the real world, where most of us live with the reality that a loss of revenue means our jobs are in jeopardy. And if you didn't see it coming, you should have. There is no way a system can survive when you need 2 workers to pay for the pension one retiree. Ponzi scheme is what it is.
And to say it once again....I never suggested that the top earners are superior. Instead I stated that if one considers those in the top percentile in wealth and/or income superior, then a flat-tax could make sense because flat-taxes concentrate wealth in the top percentile.
The distribution of wealth shouldn't be equal, its a question how you want the distribution to look like. Do you want the distribution to be lopsided towards the top few percent? Do you want the distribution to have a bell-like curve where the middle-class own most wealth. And so on.
So, as before, you're asking me questions for things I've never asserted. This isn't difficult, flat-taxes promote wealth concentration in the top percentile where as progressive taxes promote a more even distribution of wealth (i.e., a strong middle-class). Therefore, which tax systems you prefer comes down to how you feel about the nature of the top percentile. Namely, whether there is something about the top percentile that makes them deserving of far more wealth than everyone else.
Well, you wish to avoid a direct answer and that is fine.
It seems you prefer a system where you get what others give you rather than what you provide for yourself. That works well for those that do not wish to provide for themselves. I have more faith in people's ability than to just beg from others.
Now, let's flip it. You must feel the low earners are superior if they should have wealth that others earn. Otherwise, a flat tax makes sense.
It is interesting that you define superiority based on who has the wealth. None of us is truely superior to another.
If you like to dance, why not sign up for a class at Arthur Murray?
If you like to argue philosophy, why not go to the philosophy forum?
The nonsensical "babble" here is your cute attempt to insert your sophomoric version of Socratic method. For a discussion such as this, commonly held dictionary definitions of words entirely suffice. You want to know what the common usage and definition of the word truth is? Look it up yourself.
This discussion is about California's budget and the various challenges people perceive to it. Much is made of taxes. Much is made of welfare costs. Yet in both issues there has been misinformation, faulty logic, and faulty stereotyping presented. Your contribution so far has been tied to your asking a number of irrelevant, tangential questions. A bit of wandering in these threads is inevitable and entertaining. However it is apparent that you are intentionally trying to engage so with an ulterior motive. State your position or your beef, whatever it is. Work with common-usage definitions like the rest of us.
-- OR --
If you want to explore the nature of the concepts of truth and knowledge, go to the philosophy forum and start a thread. There you can also bring the definitions of words like "fact" and "reality" into Socratic question and indulge in mental gymnastics to your heart's content.
You certainly do not have to respond if you are uncomfortable with my questions are comments.
The Cali budget shares the same math as all other budgets. The real discussion and debate comes when it comes to who should be the takers and who should be the givers and to what degree for each. Surely you understand that.
You obviously slept through civics class. This country was founded on freedom of the individual. We fought for our independence because "society" taxed and taxed and taxed, then redistributed the money to those in power.
The only ones not sharing in the burden are those that pay NOTHING, yet take and take. It's called the entitlement mentality.
Personal freedom. That means anyone can vote with their feet.
This country was founded on a number of concepts and issues ... but no, individual freedom from taxation wasn't one of them ... taxation without representation was.
With regard to "[redistributing] the [taxed] money to those in power", that is also not how American taxation is theoretically applied. While it can certainly be argued that a lot of tax money applied to defense ends up in the private pockets of military industrialists -- and that a number of those people are powerfully influential -- taxes are redistributed generally throughout the national economy. This is particularly the case with welfare dollars. Welfare payments of cash or voucher go to very localized economies and work their way up. None of it stays in pocket or portfolio development of the recipients. It goes immediately to food, clothing, transportation, housing, medical, and education. All of which support all levels of those businesses from corner mom-and-pop stores right up to Archer-Daniels-Midlands type agricultural conglomerates -- and all the salaries of all the workers within those businesses on which the American economy thrives and has risen to be the top economy in the world.
As for "those that pay NOTHING", if you refer to working age welfare recipients, their numbers are pretty small as a percentage of population -- except in times of economic crisis, such as now ... which crisis was created, and is perpetuated, by members of the highly educated, very wealthy elite classes. Yet many today prefer to blame the poor and uneducated for our state's and nation's problems.
There simply aren't enough jobs for all the people out of work -- more and more of whom are forced to turn to welfare through no failure of their own. Welfare also serves the disabled and elderly and children, none of whom can work. Shall we put them on the street starving?
And in times of low unemployment, the numbers on welfare are growing smaller and smaller. At such times, those doing well still enjoying deriding folks who have fewer skills or lack of sufficient personal discipline to compete or who simply have fallen into a variety of misfortune -- yet it is not a cry of impending disaster blamed on the "small people". But let educated, wealthy sociopaths crash the economy and threaten the future of our government -- watch the citizens turn on the poor as if they are strangling society.
As for "voting with your feet" ... I have no idea what your feet have to do with any of this.
You certainly do not have to respond if you are uncomfortable with my questions are comments.
The Cali budget shares the same math as all other budgets. The real discussion and debate comes when it comes to who should be the takers and who should be the givers and to what degree for each. Surely you understand that.
It's not a question of my comfort ... it's a question of relevance and disingenuousness.
Yes, the real discussion and debate is as you say -- finally ... not about the meaning of commonly used words. See, that wasn't so hard was it? To just state your opinion.
...The only ones not sharing in the burden are those that pay NOTHING, yet take and take. It's called the entitlement mentality...
"Entitlement mentality" is an interesting sub-topic ... it appears over and over that there are many who feel entitled to take as much benefit from the society as they wish, with little to no regard for the healthy balance of society.
Quite curious that the entire history of civilization is marked by policy development and control dominated by an extremely small percentage of sociopaths. Why do I continually refer to the ruling elites as sociopaths? Because their actions are anomalous to the very nature of our species -- which is a social animal. And one of the products of the sociopaths' behaviors is their influence on the reptilian brain of a sizable percentage of the nominal population. The sociopaths convey fear of being socially responsible -- as something that is threatening to the security and benefit of all. When the opposite is true. And our culture lionizes and emulates these mythical demigods. In this way fear-based conservative values of self-interest are adopted by those for whom those values are actually anathema.
But that is the strength of the reptilian level response. The reptilian brain is the basic building block on which all more advanced creatures' brain evolved. Yet it remains the foundation: fear response.
It's not a question of my comfort ... it's a question of relevance and disingenuousness.
Yes, the real discussion and debate is as you say -- finally ... not about the meaning of commonly used words. See, that wasn't so hard was it? To just state your opinion.
Well, I see you like to deflect and distract rather than discuss. It is not uncommon.
The main financial problem with the Cali budget is a lack of expense control relative to revenue. It is really that simple and something you should be able to recognize.
You might want to pack your bags for a communist country.
Why is that? There is many shades of gray between a communist system and a pure capitalist system.
A capitalist system with a progressive tax system is a compromise where you allow some differential in wealth distribution but prevent it from getting lopsided. This compromise can be seen in tax policy after the depression, namely between 1940~1970 when the top tax rates were ~80%. This era was not only marketed by strong in American industry, plenty of people getting rich....but also a very strong middle-class. What happened when in the 1980's when the tax code started to be flatted? Increased wealth distribution on top and a decline in the middle-class both in terms of wealth and income.
Well, you wish to avoid a direct answer and that is fine.
You are asking why I would think things that I've never asserted....of course I'm going to avoid an answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNEC_Dad
It seems you prefer a system where you get what others give you rather than what you provide for yourself.
Nope, instead I prefer a system where wealth (and income) are well distributed throughout society. I don't want to dine on caviar while millions are rotting in misery.
I pay more in taxes than most Americans make, so this is hardly a matter of self-interest for me. And, at the end of the day, if the American middle-class refuses to "get it" well then....I'm not going to fight it too hard. I'll eat the caviar....
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNEC_Dad
Now, let's flip it. You must feel the low earners are superior if they should have wealth that others earn.
Except that low-earners aren't obtaining wealth that others earn, they are instead generating wealth for those in the top percentile which is precisely the point. A balanced system allows wealth to be more appropriately distributed to the folks that actually generate it....
Every quarter I receive dividends that annually are more than what many Americans make each year. And what did I do to generate this income? Well....nothing. So where does it come from? The workers of the corporations that I own stock in.... I am, via stock ownership, receiving a share of their productivity.....their wealth.
Low tax rates on the poor, or welfare, simply allow some of that wealth to be distributed back down to the people generating it.
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.
