Tax the rich!!!

[OzzyKP]

Well John Edwards just said that 35 million Americans live in poverty.

I dunno about that.

[KrazyHorse]

There's a government-mandated definition of poverty which is fairly reasonable (it is also a pretty good standard to compare internationally, at least among developed countries.).

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap
2 horror stories from the front lines:

I'm gratefull. btw, what is your job?

[Velociryx]

I'm firmly in Ming's camp where the estate taxation is concerned. Doesn't matter to me if it only applies to a relatively small minority or no....it's double taxation no matter how you slice it. The government has already taxed the money....done deal.

And while I'm all for increasing marginal tax rates as incomes increase, so that the wealthiest individuals shoulder an increasing percentage of the tax load (and therefore against the flat tax scheme entire), that's a far, far cry from espousing some of Kid's (and others...definitely not singling you out Kid, you're just generally the most vocal proponent) ideas 'bout equality.

Wealth is power.

Power carries responsibility. Now, rightly or wrongly, the government has stepped in to take on the mantle OF that responsibility, by way of taxation to fund social programs. It could be (and has been) argued that if left to their own devices and NOT harshly taxed, the wealthy would, of their own accord, fund charities and the like which would step in and accomplish the same goals that our government programs currently meet (or attempt to).

The underlying problem of such a "hands off" approach is that it is not predictable. One year, giving may soar, and the next, it may all but dry up. Less variance in the funding of government social programs, especially the most established ones, so from a stable, predictive standpoint, inefficient or not, government mandated programs seem the best option (though clearly there is a GREAT DEAL of work that can and should be done to increase the efficient operation OF said programs, and *this* is where the greater bulk of our efforts should be focused...the problem ain't the money, it's the waste).

Equality and Justice does NOT mean reducing everybody to the lowest common denominator. It doesn't mean taking (forcibly, if needs be) from those who have, and outright giving to those who have not. It doesn't even mean that everybody should have to work for their "benefits." What it means is that everybody has a shot. A chance for betterment. To attempt to define it any more precisely than that invites anything but a utopian society....one where everybody feels compelled to watch everybody else over their shoulders to make sure that nobody's "getting more" than me. It breeds a sick kind of societal paranoia that we can frankly do without.

No...this form of equality does not guarantee each and every individual that he/she can achieve Gatesian-style wealth....nor should it. What it DOES guarantee is that everybody has a shot at improving where they are, and with the right kind of taxation system in place, those who find success can leave the security that they built over the course of their lifetime to their loved ones, and that's important because the familial bond is the strongest and most basic/fundamental of our societal ties...yes, even in the face of massive divorce rates and unwed mothers, and all that other jazz. I look out for my FAMILY first and foremost. I don't look after yours, cos frankly, that's your job, and as with any other job, if you don't perform, you're the one that gets the reprimand....not me. Government funded programs are there (and there by majority consent) to assist folks who are down on their luck, not to provide a lifetime's supply of leisure and luxury (and despite a few well publicized cases of abuse, they don't).

Our current system is far from perfect, but it has proven itself over time, and has a demonstrated robustness. It can withstand tinkering and incremental improvement, and that is the surest path to success. To take that robust system and dismantle it entire for something different (especially if that "something different" is either unproven/untested, or based on strange notions of "equality," with arbitrary and inflexible underpinnings) is the purest form of folly, IMO.

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

I don't buy the "double taxation" bit- my income is taxed, and they I pay sales tax- hence, "double taxation". You know what? Quadruple taxation is no different than single taxation- the issue is not how many times something is taxed, but at what rate things are taxed that matters.

Kid: I work for a local legislator in NYC.

[Kidlicious]

Is this officially communism v. capitalism 4? Or is it 5? Maybe I missed some.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous


So no, you don't have kids.

Fair enough.

Are you going to claim that when I have my kids I will decide that the death tax is a bad idea? I do have parents with a sizeable estate. Strange that this hasn't effected my opinion so far.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ming


Then I repeat, this isn't a socialist country. That's not how we do it. Fair... maybe not... but our system is based on you being able to earn a better life for youself by working hard and smart... not "everybody gets the same" no matter how hard you work or how lazy you are.

This statement seems somewhat at odds with your stated opposition to a death tax. "our system is based on you being able to earn a better life for youself by working hard and smart" certainly implies that hereditary wealth is not the natural way we would expect people to make their living.

(Gepap I call it death tax because I tire peeps always changing it back to 'death tax' in any coversation in which I use the term "estate tax". At least by calling it a "death tax" I know they won't waste time attacking the label I put on it.)

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Geronimo


This statement seems somewhat at odds with your stated opposition to a death tax. "our system is based on you being able to earn a better life for youself by working hard and smart" certainly implies that hereditary wealth is not the natural way we would expect people to make their living.

That's why he said 'you' earn a living by working hard, not his family.

[Geronimo]

To attempt to define it any more precisely than that invites anything but a utopian society....one where everybody feels compelled to watch everybody else over their shoulders to make sure that nobody's "getting more" than me. It breeds a sick kind of societal paranoia that we can frankly do without.

People seem to do that instinctively in our current system anyway judging by the widespread phenomena of purchasing 'status symbols' intended to advertise ones financial success. Anyway your objections sound an awful lot like the old regimes objections to introduction of fairness to the politcal system.

Why is an effort to craft a political system that best promotes equal voices in the formation of government laudable while an effort to craft a tax policy that best promotes equal opportunity in the economy is not? If Equal political opportunity is a good and even necessary thing then why not equal economic opportunity?

[Saras]

Re: Ozzy

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Come to Baltimore.

Stand on the corner of 23rd and Greenmount

That's poverty.

Come to Didziasalis.

[atomant]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Apparently they don't have an equal right though.

I thought it was common knowledge that all people are equal, just some are more eual than others. My present tax bracket is 48%. To put that in context, the montly income tax I pay equals the salary of two government ministers. Now under normal circumstances I wouldn't mind paying tax as long as I am getting value for money (as is the case in Sweden for example). On top of this my employer has to pay my private health insurance because going to a government hospital here is like going to a mortuary.

In regard to death tax, I agree with Ming, why should I or my estate have to pay tax twice on money I have earned. The government taxes my, salary, savings account, I get taxed on every deposit and withdrawal, I pay VAT on all purchases, I get taxed on investments I made etc etc etc. To those leaning slightly left of center, I started with nothing and everything I have I worked damn hard for. The reason I work hard is so my children will have a good start in life. Simple, not your children or anyone elses.

If that makes me a miser, or a scrooge, so be it. One thing people often forget is that wealthy people employ others to work for them, thereby creating employment and injecting further money into the economy for the purchase of goods and services. Are we saying we wish to tax until death (and beyond) those people who allow the rest of us to enjoy a life?

[atomant]

Re: Re: Ozzy

Originally posted by Saras


Come to Didziasalis.

Come to africa, were people earn less than a dollar US per day. That is poverty. There was a picture on the front page of teh national newspaper of a guy skinning mice for his evening meal.

[Saras]

Re: Re: Re: Ozzy

Originally posted by atomant


Come to africa, were people earn less than a dollar US per day. That is poverty. There was a picture on the front page of teh national newspaper of a guy skinning mice for his evening meal.

There's no winter in africa although I'm not comparing africa.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
More like redefining terms back to reality. It is bizarre how someone with a big screen TV, two cars, lots of DVDs, video games, etc, etc, etc is considered poor. It just really throws the whole discussion out of whack when a person who makes $40,000 is considered poor.

You forgot, poverty is relative.

You can make a million a year and still be poor when everybody else makes at least 2x as you. You can make 1,000 a year and be filthy rich when everybody else makes $10 a year.