Tax the rich!!!

[GePap]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Huh? All I did was point out that the government is not known for creating efficient or effective programs, that the US health care system is currently at or near the top of the world in most categories, that many people who can't afford health care can afford other luxuries, and made some smart-ass comments about the "people's revolution".

Actually, the US is near the top on cost per patient and waste as well as speed. And of course large sections of people are not covered at all, and what luxuries do you speak about? there is a significant difference between say a one time expenditure for say 400 for a new TV, or 900 a month to cover your family with insurance.

[David Floyd]

I got no problem with paying according to my means. If I make more, I have done so in part, due to my own efforts, and in part due to the system that celebrates them and encourages their use, so yeah. Sign me up for paying my fair share.

By paying the same percentage - ie, a flat tax - as everyone else, the rich ARE paying more, in absolute terms. They make more, thus the set percentage means they pay more.

Not that I believe in any income tax at all, but I also recognize that a flat tax is about the best I can hope for.

[Kidlicious]

Moreover, the most affluent 5 percent of all taxpayers paid 45.9 percent of all federal income taxes in 1988—up from 37.6 percent in 1979. Apparent "tax cuts"—from a top marginal rate of 70 percent to 33 percent—became actual tax increases, particularly for "the rich."

The amount of taxes paid is not the same as the percent of their income paid in taxes. The income of the rich increase incredibly during that time period, especially compared to middle class, and the relative size of the middle class was srinking.

What is your source by the way? CATO?

[Velociryx]

Flat tax is regressive and punishing to the lower income brackets.

If we assume that it takes some set rate of dollars to provide for all the basics, then we can safely assume that anything above that level is gravy.

I also got no problem if my "gravy" is taxed more fervently than my "stayin' alive" money, and that's what the current tax system does.

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ming


They did say "Actually, real (that is, inflation-adjusted) federal receipts increased by one-third from 1980 to 1990."

Ahem, what does that have to do with my point? I spoke of incomes of the middle class vs the rich, which would determine the share each group pays. If the incomes of the Rich grew much much faster than those of the middle class, even if total receipts grew, then the shares of the rich would grow as well.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd


You misquoted me. As compared to the average resident of sub-Saharan Africa, for example, 99%+ of Americans would be considered fabulously wealthy.

Why do you compare us to sub-Saharan Africa? What do they have to do with us? We don't cut up the pie with them?

[David Floyd]

Actually, the US is near the top on cost per patient and waste as well as speed.

So? You pay for quality. You want cheapass, ****ty health care? Move to Botswana.

And of course large sections of people are not covered at all,

Of course they are - everyone in the US is covered by a simple system called "You pay for services received." If you invest in a health insurance plan, great. If you can't afford health care, well, it's hardly fair to expect someone else to pay for you, or for doctors to work for free.

and what luxuries do you speak about? there is a significant difference between say a one time expenditure for say 400 for a new TV, or 900 a month to cover your family with insurance.

True, but if you can't afford health insurance, then how is it reasonable for you to own a TV? You should rather take that money, and save it, and maybe spend it towards an education so you can make more money. Eventually, you'll be able to afford health insurance, even if you do wear flip flops and non-designer jeans, and have to quit smoking and drinking. ****, doing the last two will make you healthier anyway

Nothing like someone who claims the can't afford health insurance sitting around smoking and drinking - that dog just don't hunt

[Velociryx]

Yeah, and methinks that the first time things get tough, DF will be crying foul if nobody leaps to his rescue...

-=Vel=-

[David Floyd]

Flat tax is regressive and punishing to the lower income brackets.

It doesn't punish anyone. If poor people pay a certain tax rate - say, 17% - what do they care if rich people also pay that same tax rate of 17%. It's not as if they are hurt by "the rich" having more disposable income. In fact, they are helped - "the rich" are generally the people who drive the economy and create new jobs.

If we assume that it takes some set rate of dollars to provide for all the basics, then we can safely assume that anything above that level is gravy.

Sure.

I also got no problem if my "gravy" is taxed more fervently than my "stayin' alive" money, and that's what the current tax system does.

I do, though - my problem is that I'm paying an unfair percentage. Well, actually, I'm not, I'm probably in that lower income bracket that gets "screwed" by a flat tax. I don't see it that way, though.

Kid,

Why do you compare us to sub-Saharan Africa? What do they have to do with us? We don't cut up the pie with them?

The point is that while the poor in America may be poor relative to other Americans, most of them aren't exactly living in abject poverty. If they want to see real poverty, they should visit Africa.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Flat tax is regressive and punishing to the lower income brackets.

If we assume that it takes some set rate of dollars to provide for all the basics, then we can safely assume that anything above that level is gravy.

I also got no problem if my "gravy" is taxed more fervently than my "stayin' alive" money, and that's what the current tax system does.

-=Vel=-

Good analogy for the diminishing utility of income.

[MRT144]

compare the societies too. In america we are tought (much from calvinism) that work is our purpose. It is what we are put here to do and that wealth is a sign of divineness.

The problem i have with american society, and western society in general is that the emphasis in life is what you can accumulate over your lifetime. What can you do with your means over your life.

Personally i dont believe that the meaning of life is to work. To me a better life is doing what makes you happy, and brings happiness to other people.

Now how does this tie into the taxes of the rich and so on and so forth. I believe that part of making the world and our society a better place is being able to provide for each person basic services that i think are neccesary. Health care, college education are small steps.

I realize that in our society this is a hard task to accomplish because of the people who are so steeped in their own idealism about a perfect society where everything is privatized and work is the most important thing in life.

I want change though. I want a better world and i dont believe the path we are on is the right direction.

[KrazyHorse]

According to the US government the share of aggregate income earned by the top 5% increased from 16.4% in 1979 to 18.3% in 1988

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h02.html

Which explains about half of the increase of share of taxes paid by top 5%

And as I said: 1979 to 1988 were not typical years. Inflation was huge during those years. That would make the effect of tax-bracket creep most apparent then.

[David Floyd]

Yeah, and methinks that the first time things get tough, DF will be crying foul if nobody leaps to his rescue...

Uh, why? My family can't afford to pay for my UT education, nor can they afford for me to live in an apartment or dorm down here. I can't get financial aid for all of that, yet I have to survive. So, I had to make the decision to forgo all financial aid (except for the occasional loan) as a result of going to school half-time, so that I could work full time and support myself.

But I've also found that my job, while adequate, doesn't support the lifestyle I like. So, I found a way to make more money, almost to the tune of a second job - I play poker. A lot. In fact, I've net $300+ since last Saturday playing.

You see, I'm not "crying foul" begging for help from people, I'm finding ways to rely on my own means and own skills.

[Velociryx]

DF - then we gonna have to agree to disagree. No way would I ever cast my vote for a flat tax initiative. I'll be on the other side of the fence on that one.

Like anything else, money DOES have diminishing marginal utility. A guy who's got a 3 million a year salary doesn't miss twenty bucks like you or I do if it comes up missing, and no matter how talented the individual, the guy with the three mil salary owes at least part of that affluence to the system in place that supports and celebrates the use of his skills....making his salary possible. So yeah, when I'm in that boat, I'll pony up and smile all the way to the bank.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
The point is that while the poor in America may be poor relative to other Americans, most of them aren't exactly living in abject poverty. If they want to see real poverty, they should visit Africa.

They live in poverty. That means they don't have money to purchase the basic necessities. That is 'real' poverty. Stop making up words.

And people in Africa are not part of the same social system. Their income has nothing to do with economic injustice in America.