The Debate To Raise The Retirement Age (relative, blogs, Santa Claus)
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.
X2 Why, people in these here parts would be beside themselves to have incomes of 75K. That's about double the local median and the statewide is only $45K.
The "moral" argument is ludicrous as history and exerience have shown that trying to legislate morality is a losing proposition. I can only guess that the proponent of this largesse is suggesting that anyone earning over $75K should limit themseles to that amount and give their "surplus away to others to help them achieve that same level of comfort. I'm sure that's what he does.
How do you compare the impact of not being able to afford preventive health care (an impact on "the poor") to the ability to afford another HDTV, or a vacation, or extra Christmas presents (an impact on "taxpayers")? An honorable, distinctly liberal yardstick, would size those impacts on the poor to be several orders of magnitude larger than the impact on taxpayers - that the securing of human dignity within society for all its members comes before all discretionary considerations. A moderate perspective is to acknowledge that that priority is both far too extreme for society, overall, to accept peaceably, and in some ways counter-productive. A liberal perspective would exempt families earning less than $75,000 a year from sales tax, property tax (i.e., the portion of rent that goes to pay property tax), as well as income tax. A moderate perspective would leave the current system of sales tax and property tax in place.
Clearly all these decisions are societal decisions. No individual suggestions have any real weight. My point above is to draw the comparison between the offensively low threshold of $32,000 for families, posted by golfingduo, and a more amenable threshold of $75,000. Perhaps that should be $72,000, or some other number, but the point is that numbers like $32,000 reflect elevation of the privilege of affluence over basic decency.
No need for me to be disrespectful, we agree to disagree as I expected.
A threshold of $75K/yr is absurd to me, when median income is in the $40-$50K/yr range. While I agree that income inequality has gotten out of hand, society simply can't afford to somehow subsidize everyone up to a level well above the median., nor should we. You have far more faith in human nature than I do I guess, you would largely destroy citizens desire to work productively even further - whether you agree or not, I suspect you understand the arguments.
What almost always goes unsaid/unspoken by the 'personal responsibility' crowd - they do want to help those truly less fortunate, but they do not want to support others who could stand on their own. It's one of the reason they'd rather see smaller, local groups help the less fortunate instead of federal/state governments, who can't begin to sort out who's truly in need, and who's not. I don't know how many fall into each camp, I don't think anyone really does, but providing a greater safety net will increase the latter group, at the expense of remaining others. Like it or not, it's a legitmate concern. Those who say the benefits all go to worthy recipients are kidding themselves, just as those who assume the benefits mostly/all go to unworthy recipients are likely kidding themselves as well.
It would also appear we have a fundamental disagreement over what citizens are entitled to (health care in your example), and what they are not. The problem with affordable health care is cost more than access IMO. Full implementation of PPACA may reveal that more clearly, and maybe lead us to address cost and access, instead of simply accepting costs and forcing access.
But again, I see no reason to argue here, we're on very different ideological pages...
As unprogressive as I am with taxes why are we excluding the majority of American tax payers.
Several posts have explained it to you, but you don't respond to any of the substantial replies you get.
But on the off chance there is anyone else reading this thread who may think "the 47%" is all just a bunch of slackers as your broad brush self-serving statements suggest.
So overall: 53% pay federal income taxes & payroll taxes 29% pay no federal income taxes but DO pay payroll taxes (often called working poor) 10% elderly (though projected to increase) 3% disabled 3% students 7% early retirees & unemployed 100% total
I think we need to remember the effort and risk people take to make the money we do. Yes some folks may make very high salaries but they often had to study hard spend a lot of money to get the degree to qualify for that job. They may work 60-80 hour weeks and multiple jobs to get ahead and to have a sizable nest egg. When we invest we take risk and we have had many conversations about losing money in markets, so when we make money we are suppose to give it away to someone else regardless of the effort and risk we took in making it? What free markets do is to reward risk taking when successful along with hard work and effort. We are able to realize the fruits of our effort and we need to realize that taxation regardless of the value of the program being financed is taking away the effort someone else put out to obtain something. So when someone works overtime to buy a 60 inch hdtv or a BMW ought they not to be able to obtain and enjoy the fruit of their effort? To take away incentive and the reward for risk would create a smaller pie to be shared.
I think we need to remember the effort and risk people take to make the money we do. Yes some folks may make very high salaries but they often had to study hard spend a lot of money to get the degree to qualify for that job. They may work 60-80 hour weeks and multiple jobs to get ahead and to have a sizable nest egg. When we invest we take risk and we have had many conversations about losing money in markets, so when we make money we are suppose to give it away to someone else regardless of the effort and risk we took in making it? What free markets do is to reward risk taking when successful along with hard work and effort. We are able to realize the fruits of our effort and we need to realize that taxation regardless of the value of the program being financed is taking away the effort someone else put out to obtain something. So when someone works overtime to buy a 60 inch hdtv or a BMW ought they not to be able to obtain and enjoy the fruit of their effort? To take away incentive and the reward for risk would create a smaller pie to be shared.
You maybe right. However, its not as easy to gauge human reaction to incentives and disincentives as you think. The reaction to raising someone's tax rate from 30% to 33% may simply be to make them work harder. If they want to enjoy the same lifestyle they had prior to the increase, the natural thought may simply be to find ways to obtain new business or to seek out new opportunities. That, of course, will increase "the pie". It may also encourage people to find ways to "game" the tax system and look for legal methods of tax avoidance. However, the solution here is simply eliminate deductions and loopholes and strengthen alternative minimum tax provisions.
Also, what about the person (who like me) finds work to be fulfilling and enjoyable. A modest change in what I earn (via tax rates) isn't going to affect whether I choose to work. As long as I derive satisfaction from my employment I will be there solving problems and employing others to help me.
Your example about the "BMW" is a poor one. At least it is for me. I'm much happier when the rich or well-to-do use their money to buy a product made domestically and I know that their wealth is being used to put other Americans to work. The best justification for allowing the accumulation of wealth is the benefit that is bestowed on society at large--through jobs and tax collections--rather than the libertarian argument for "personal freedom". And, this comes from someone who regularly pays taxes large enough to pay the entire salaries (notice the plural) of government employees.
You maybe right. However, its not as easy to gauge human reaction to incentives and disincentives as you think. The reaction to raising someone's tax rate from 30% to 33% may simply be to make them work harder. If they want to enjoy the same lifestyle they had prior to the increase, the natural thought may simply be to find ways to obtain new business or to seek out new opportunities. That, of course, will increase "the pie". It may also encourage people to find ways to "game" the tax system and look for legal methods of tax avoidance. However, the solution here is simply eliminate deductions and loopholes and strengthen alternative minimum tax provisions.
Your example about the "BMW" is a poor one. At least it is for me. I'm much happier when the rich or well-to-do use their money to buy a product made domestically and I know that their wealth is being used to put other Americans to work. The best justification for allowing the accumulation of wealth is the benefit that is bestowed on society at large--through jobs and tax collections--rather than the libertarian argument for "personal freedom".
Mark for my purpose in saying it the BMW example is a poor one. Many people when they buy a car especially a more expensive one are doing so for their own benefit/pleasure and not that of society. They really don't give a rats rear end about your or other peoples thoughts on the appropriateness of. A Beemer is a Beemer and that in itself makes it a worthy purchase to many. Not all, not most but many and since it is their money the fruit of their efforts ought to go to what they want.
The best justification for allowing the accumulation of wealth is the benefit that is bestowed on society at large--through jobs and tax collections--rather than the libertarian argument for "personal freedom".
Good point, begs a question for the redistribution proponents here.
Hopefully we would agree that the more truly productive society is in the aggregate, the better off that society is overall. Does anyone disagree with that?
We may disagree on inequality, but reducing incentives for individuals/everyone to be productive hurts the aggregate when all is said and done. The debate is striking a balance, something most reasonable people can disagree on.
You maybe right. However, its not as easy to gauge human reaction to incentives and disincentives as you think. The reaction to raising someone's tax rate from 30% to 33% may simply be to make them work harder. If they want to enjoy the same lifestyle they had prior to the increase, the natural thought may simply be to find ways to obtain new business or to seek out new opportunities. That, of course, will increase "the pie". It may also encourage people to find ways to "game" the tax system and look for legal methods of tax avoidance. However, the solution here is simply eliminate deductions and loopholes and strengthen alternative minimum tax provisions.
Your example about the "BMW" is a poor one. At least it is for me. I'm much happier when the rich or well-to-do use their money to buy a product made domestically and I know that their wealth is being used to put other Americans to work. The best justification for allowing the accumulation of wealth is the benefit that is bestowed on society at large--through jobs and tax collections--rather than the libertarian argument for "personal freedom".
Mark for my purpose in saying it the BMW example is not a poor one. Many people when they buy a car especially a more expensive one are doing so for their own benefit/pleasure and not that of society. They really don't give a rats rear end about your or other peoples thoughts on the appropriateness of. A Beemer is a Beemer and that in itself makes it a worthy purchase to many. Not all, not most but many and since it is their money the fruit of their efforts ought to go to what they want. They are working and saving to enjoy their life within the limits of the law and reasonable personal fiscal responsibility. The affluent are the ones who contribute and sustain most of the charitable efforts in our country and they are happy and enjoy giving to the charities of THEIR CHOICE.
At least it is for me. I'm much happier when the rich or well-to-do use their money to buy a product made domestically and I know that their wealth is being used to put other Americans to work. The best justification for allowing the accumulation of wealth is the benefit that is bestowed on society at large--through jobs and tax collections--rather than the libertarian argument for "personal freedom".
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP
Many people when they buy a car especially a more expensive one are doing so for their own benefit/pleasure and not that of society. They really don't give a rats rear end about your or other peoples thoughts on the appropriateness of. Not all, not most but many and since it is their money the fruit of their efforts ought to go to what they want.
While your intentions are good markg, that train left the station long ago. Despite all the rhetoric about employing Americans, Americans themselves put low cost/value ahead of supporting fellow Americans a long time ago. And there is no sign that'll change as Americans all feel more squeezed every day.
Some people like to claim, 'no the merchants put foreign goods in front of us and left us with no choice.'
That's not what happened. American shoppers, always looking to get the lowest cost to maximize their standard of living, sought out cheaper goods. So merchants put cheaper goods in front of them, which came from other countries. No merchant, or American for that matter, decided to buy foreign goods to spite fellow American workers - they were driven by lower costs. Finding the lowest price is a national obsession, people drive miles to save pennies. Short sighted maybe, but it's clear how/why we find ourselves with foreign goods.
Any doubt in your mind that if most Americans demanded and consistently bought American made goods (at higher prices), that merchants would have no choice but to comply? I'm not holding my breath though...we get what we deserve.
Having charts and statistics showing how many people pay federal income tax is worthless w/o subtracting the people who get more back than they paid in.
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.
