Quote :

"I bet if we dig far enough there are lazy fucks in your genealogy who sucked on the governments teat you prick. "

back at you

I am sure Warren Fucking Buffet and George Dubya Bush himself have teh same somewhere

3/25/2009 12:11:45 AM

Quote :

"I thought I heard/read a stat during the Joe the Plumber bullshit that said the majority of small businesses don't make 250k a year. "

Of course they don't, or rather, at least most of their owners don't generate that much yearly income for themselves.

...but if they do, that doesn't mean they aren't "small business owners".

Quote :

"The people on wall street earning $10 and $20 million a year are more like the top 0.001% "

Yep.

Quote :

"And you have to go back to the idea of what taxes are for - to run the government and to "spread the wealth""

What? Who says that taxes are for "spreading wealth?"

I mean, we do that with them, yes, but it's not like the Hand Of God wrote it on the wall that doing so is a legitimate action. I would argue that it's largely a result of tyranny of the majority.

Quote :

"What about the people who got rich by playing the stock market in the short term,"

What about them?

...other than that they are few and far between?

Quote :

"Large sums of money does not logically imply that its acquisition was through hard labor alone. It's the assholes who scammed their way into the upper class or otherwise didn't "earn" their money that Obama is mainly referring to. "

Large amounts of wealth are almost NEVER the result of hard work alone. Hardly anyone has that kind of income generating ability. Conversely, you don't need a huge income to generate a huge amount of wealth.

Also, putting your money on the line by investing it is a perfectly legitimate means of generating wealth, and it certainly doesn't make you an asshole. It makes you not an idiot. People who "scammed their way into the upper class" are a COMPLETELY seperate category, and they are very, very few in number (although pretty high profile and deserving of the hammer being dropped on them).

Quote :

"I think the best way to "attack the rich" is with extremely high, yet progressive, sales taxes on luxury goods and services: Wanna legally buy an hour with a super-model quality hooker? 40% tax Wanna legally play the slots in all 50 states? 50% tax Wanna buy a yacht? 55% tax. Wanna buy a diamond tennis bracelet? 60% tax Wanna buy a multi-million dollar mansion on a mountain-top? 65% tax Wanna buy expensive business or industrial equipment? 1% tax (And I'm a libertarian. If we can pull off no taxation at all, great... but until then, fuck the top 0.1%)"

I don't even know where to begin with this, other than to just say I don't know how you could possibly think this would be a good idea.

Also, you are an odd sort of so-called "libertarian". I mean, you're all for extensive freedom...as long as you're a tree-hugger without a ton of money. Oddly enough, that sounds a little bit like another political party...

Quote :

"Its called moving it out the US, which of course is a boone for the economy here"

Boon, you mean, and it means the opposite of how you're using it.

Quote :

"The lower classes should at least chip in for all these free services they feel they deserve but are unable to responsibly budget enough to provide for themself. "

That would certainly scale back our incessant growth of government. Lots of things don't seem like such great ideas when a price tag gets attached. Anybody remember that old game show where people had a certain amount of time to run through a store and fill shopping carts? You might remember that they weren't exactly concerned with bang for the buck--they were concerned with running down the aisles, blindly raking stuff off the shelves into their carts.

Quote :

"250,000 is not really that much money for two married professionals anyways I mean, it's more than my future wife and I will probably have but everybody acts like households that make over 250k are high-rolling, mansion-living fatcats"

Yep. I mean, it's a lot of income, and generally a very comfortable lifestyle, and I can't wait to get there (although I'm nowhere close and have quite a while to wait), but it's still just upper middle class. It's not even close to being a mansion-living fat-cat.

Quote :

"How exactly do you expect the looming $60 trillion debt to be handled without raising taxes? "

Well, at this point, it's probably gonna take a combination of taxes and inflation, and probably some spending cuts somewhere (Iraq drawing down will help, for one, even if Afghanistan ramps up)...but running up that kind of debt to begin with is the root of the problem. Since most people don't really pay for it (either at all, or at least to a significant degree), most don't have a concept of what government actions and programs cost, so a sizeable majority to vote for dumbass things is almost impossible not to assemble. We should've never gotten ourselves into this mess, and now that we're in a hole, the first thing we ought to do is stop digging.

Increasing the tax burden on the upper brackets isn't a fair solution. They aren't using the benefits as much, and they're already doing the lion's share of the paying. The only exception are the truly rich (not the few-hundred grand per year/few million in net worth crowd) who make most (or at least a huge %) of their income from capital gains. However, taxing capital gains at the marginal tax rate across the board is also a terrible solution.

I think that we should weight much more heavily towards some sort of consumption tax (either a modified sales tax system, or possible even better, a euro-style VAT). In the interim, I think that we should make the income tax system significantly less progressive, but look at making a somewhat progressive capitals gains tax.

Quote :

"And, if only 5% of "the rich" were dishonest in their acquisition of wealth, what percent of the "non-rich" are fat, lazy leeches on society? "

I'd be surprised is 5% of "the rich" were crooks. As far as your question, I'd put that number higher than you'd expect, because you don't have to be on welfare and in and out of the unemployment line to be a lazy leech, in my book. Running up debt and getting your house or car repossessed or foreclosed? Lazy leech. Going to the ER for routine stuff because you don't have health insurance? Lazy leech (although, granted, that whole system is screwed up in a variety of ways). Filing bankruptcy? Lazy leech. Not having anything saved for retirement and perpetuating Social Security and Medicare, and even then not having enough to live off of? Stupid, undisciplined, lazy leech.

Let's be real here--the people who fraudulently scammed their way to the top should be thrown in the slammer for a long time, but let's stop acting like that tiny handful of people are the only ones screwing the pooch. Most Americans are fiscally irresponsible--it has become so ingrained in our culture that people just don't know any better (which we need to start fixing, starting, ohh, about 3rd grade or so). It isn't popular to point the finger at Middle America, but it's time to face facts.

Quote :

"I go to work proud everyday knowing that LaShaeda is counting on me to provide her and her 6 children with their foodstamp payments, gov't funded housing, and free health care services. "

But on the other hand, will you stop making racist comments in every thread on this subject? Following it up with one about rednecks doesn't make it OK. There are people in both groups out there who aren't making a ton of money, but they're being responsible with it. They are few and far between, but it isn't because they are black or rednecky. It's because our whole culture is screwed up on the matter.

Furthermore, foodstamps and welfare are abused, no doubt, but they're inconsequential and just convenient whipping boys. Medicare, Social Security, and business subsidies are the 800-lb gorillas. That and the tax code--I'll bet that the difference in what I pay in taxes over someone in the bottom bracket FAR exceeds the little bit that's given out in food stamps and welfare, on average. On top of all that, I have no real problem with food stamps and welfare per se...just when they're poorly administered and/or made into a way of life.

Quote :

"I am sure Warren Fucking Buffet and George Dubya Bush himself have teh same somewhere "

Warren Buffett isn't the greatest example for your point, due to the fact that he's a Democrat.

3/25/2009 1:26:03 AM

QUOTE BOOOOOOOOOMB

3/25/2009 7:40:22 AM

Quote :

"back at you I am sure Warren Fucking Buffet and George Dubya Bush himself have teh same somewhere"

Well no shit. But you don't see me all up in these thread ranting on about black people like they are the only ones that don't work and eat welfare like candy.

3/25/2009 7:46:47 AM

Quote :

"boone for the economy"

The economy would have a really good college for educating educators?

[/kidding]

Quote :

"250,000 is not really that much money for two married professionals anyways I mean, it's more than my future wife and I will probably have but everybody acts like households that make over 250k are high-rolling, mansion-living fatcats"

At my current lifestyle, which admittedly is largely dictated by my current income, I could retire after about 4 years making that much, so yeah. I see someone with a family income of 250k/year as a fatcat.

3/25/2009 11:34:53 AM

Repudiate the national debt! Woo! Repudiation!

That's the anarcho-capitalist suggestion, anyway.

3/25/2009 11:50:57 AM

Quote :

"I see someone with a family income of 250k/year as a fatcat."

oh well, I guess I have a different opinion because of how many tax returns I've done this tax season of family incomes over 250k and how many come close to that number.

maybe we have a strict fatcat-client policy only or something

3/25/2009 12:06:27 PM

Scratch them behind the ears for me. They like that.

3/25/2009 12:11:06 PM

Quote :

"Boon, you mean, and it means the opposite of how you're using it."

Yes I spelled boone wrong (accidentally) but come on Duke, pick up on my sarcasm! I used it properly.

3/25/2009 12:46:07 PM

Quote :

""Bequeathing your wealth to someone you value benefits society as a whole" Please elaborate. . ."

People are not willing to work to maximize wealth creation without being able to dispose of it the way they choose. As such, depriving individuals of the right to dispose of the wealth they create will cause them to stop creating it, leaving society as a whole poorer.

3/25/2009 1:39:37 PM

Damn. I had no idea the rich work their entire lives to give their entire wealth to their offspring. And all along I thought they were wanting to take vacations, live in nice homes, have nice cars, clothing, and accessories, and so on and so forth.

3/25/2009 1:41:35 PM

^^This is one of those things that comes off as sound in theory, but for which there is, to my knowledge, no actual evidence, and a healthy dose of common sense to the contrary.

Raising the estate tax or otherwise interfering with processes of inheritance will almost certainly alter people's behavior, but not in the direction of, "Well, I might as well make less money now."

They might spend more during their lifetimes. They might put money into finding loopholes and various alternatives to inheritance to help their kids after they're gone. They might spend increasingly large amounts of money as they get older, so they can make best use of it before they die and the government takes it. But you're asking me to believe that a wealthy, productive citizen is going to look at changes to inheritance laws and say, "I'd rather the rest of my life be shittier than see my wealth go to the government after I die."

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 2:09 PM. Reason : People's death does significantly influence their priorities]

3/25/2009 2:08:23 PM

Quote :

"There have been business owners and talk show people encouraging businesses to do what they can to make just under $250,000 so they "aren't taxed more" or aren't "punished with higher taxes" or whatever. i heard a quote from some woman business owner saying she was going to do whatever possible so that her income next year was "$249,999". These people are obviously just hurting themselves, and denying themselves more money, and probably don't deserve to own their own businesses if they don't understand how the tax structure works."

What do you say about a person who would intentionally make less money because they don't want their success to benefit others, especially when they completely misunderstand how the tax system works? How can you make that much money and be so stupid?

Talk about "class warfare"

3/25/2009 2:38:35 PM

^ They must have missed the note that income is progressively taxed higher and just because a person is in the 33% tax bracket does not mean they pay an effective 33% on income.

Just the income above the threshold of that bracket.

Income Dollor 249,999 may be taxed at 33%

and the 250,000 is tax at 35%.

A whopping 2 cents extra.

I do not necessarily agree with a progressive tax but believe many people are very uninformed on how it works to begin with.

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 5:04 PM. Reason : a]

3/25/2009 5:03:07 PM

3/25/2009 7:44:11 PM

^ Haha. Nice.

3/25/2009 7:44:57 PM

^,^^

Quote :

"2) Obama also makes the mistake of ignoring income mobility. As per a study by the Treasury Department, there is hardly a set group of individuals who perpetually remain in the top 1%. On the contrary, the vast majority of those in the top 1% were not in that group 10 years later. To treat the top 1% as a bunch of wealthy families may make Obama sleep better at night, but it is inconsistent with reality. https://treas.gov/press/releases/hp673.htm"

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 7:53 PM. Reason : .]

3/25/2009 7:50:58 PM

Quote :

"What do you say about a person who would intentionally make less money because they don't want their success to benefit others, especially when they completely misunderstand how the tax system works?"

They're doing it out of ignorance, not spite. In other words, the latter, but not the former.

That, and maybe a few people are willing to exert themselves enough to earn a certain amount of money, but it becomes a proposition of diminishing returns as taxes take a bigger and bigger chunk away...at some point, they say "Screw this, I'd rather just chill out."

3/25/2009 7:55:13 PM

I would love to hear what some of you people on the right would call Teddy Roosevelt if he were alive today. Not only was he a champion of the environment but this excerpt from a speech would surely ruffle some feathers.

Quote :

"The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the state because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government. Not only should he recognize this obligation in the way he leads his daily life and in the way he earns and spends his money, but it should also be recognized by the way in which he pays for the protection the state gives him. ~ Theodore Roosevelt - 1906"

Wow, what a socialist!

3/25/2009 8:33:52 PM

How is that at all relevant to the discussion?

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 8:51 PM. Reason : .]

3/25/2009 8:49:47 PM

Very if you have reading comprehension skills. When a hero of American history as well as the Republican Party (granted it could be debated which incarnation of the Republican Party we're talking about) says that the "Rich" have an obligation to society then you, as a detractor, are shown to be on an island of thought.

3/25/2009 8:59:02 PM

who knows

i like to yell FOUNDING FATHERS, ABE LINCOLN or FDR when cornered

3/25/2009 8:59:39 PM

Quote :

"Very if you have reading comprehension skills. When a hero of American history as well as the Republican Party (granted it could be debated which incarnation of the Republican Party we're talking about) says that the "Rich" have an obligation to society then you, as a detractor, are shown to be on an island of thought."

First, this is still not at all relevant to any of the points put forth in this thread.

Secondly, you are presupposing that Republicans share homogeneous beliefs that must be adhered to by each voting member. I'm disappointed I am even responding to this.

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 9:04 PM. Reason : ,]

3/25/2009 9:03:49 PM

^^i love it when republicans say the "we are the party of lincoln" line

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 9:04 PM. Reason : speaking of abe...]

3/25/2009 9:04:32 PM

I don't know, man. It sure seems like good ol' T.R. is "attacking the rich" to me. That alone makes it relevant.

3/25/2009 9:10:18 PM

Quote :

"they don't want their success to benefit others"

Perhaps they want to be able to decide who gets to benefit from their success.

3/25/2009 9:24:36 PM

I can certainly sympathize with that honestly. The conflict comes when those same people also look down their noses at the rest of society and demand that they "pull themselves up by their bootstraps". You can't have it both ways unless you enjoy being a hypocrite.

3/25/2009 9:28:01 PM

^^ you know, a common threat among the rich (or rather, people who aren't rich but have some preoccupation defending the rich's every move) is that if the US Gov't taxes all their money, they'll just up and leave and go to another country.

You know what? Fucking fine - i'd like to see that. Really. Let's see what other country these people want to go to that gives them the freedom and opportunities of the US and taxes them even less.
Yes, it's been shown that businesses and the wealthy will move their HQ and bank accounts to off-shore accounts to try to dodge taxes, but why don't they, themselves, follow their money? Go live on Bermuda! All of them! It's a beautiful place.
Oh, wait..... once they move to Bermuda, then it will make it kind of hard to continue making money hand over fist in the US....

3/25/2009 9:38:46 PM

Quote :

"The conflict comes when those same people also look down their noses at the rest of society "

Agreed. There is no point in looking down your nose at anyone because they don't match your definition of hard work. As long as they don't make a claim on your wealth in the name of social justice or something...what difference is it to you.

Quote :

"Let's see what other country these people want to go to that gives them the freedom and opportunities of the US and taxes them even less. "

While some of the rich have left the country, many of them have simply stopped working and producing. The very-rich have already made their money. They live off dividends and investments. If income taxes get too high, they simply stop working..sit on the side..and wait.

Right now, there are trillions of private capital sitting off to the side...waiting for the table to get hot again. Whenever congress tries to punish the rich, the punishment almost always skips them and passes on down to the middle class. The best example being, of course, the income tax of 1913.

3/25/2009 10:31:48 PM

Quote :

"If income taxes get too high, they simply stop working..sit on the side..and wait."

please, please show some evidence of this.
I have no doubt that there are lots of people who are "rich enough" and live off of dividends and don't have to work a day for the rest of their lives.

But please show some evidence that 1) these people "gave up working" because taxes were too high, and 2) they're simply waiting for taxes to go back down before they start generating income again

3/25/2009 10:38:50 PM

http://www.examiner.com/x-3339-Republican-Examiner~y2009m3d16-Who-is-John-Galt

(While not happy about how much $ is taking out of my check every week, and how much more I pay taxes I pay each week, I am and will continue to go to work to make more $$)

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 11:01 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 11:02 PM. Reason : ]

3/25/2009 10:58:45 PM

Quote :

"I am and will continue to go to work to make more $$"

yeah, well apparently that urge to go to work to make more money changes all of a sudden once you pass an arbitrary point and you decide you're tired of the gubment tukin' ur muney

3/25/2009 11:25:50 PM

what kind of person stops working when taxes get too high?

3/25/2009 11:27:12 PM

^ i don't know. Ask E-Dogg and probably LoneShark and Hunt. That's pretty much the basis of their anti-tax hike stands

3/25/2009 11:31:02 PM

Quote :

"Really. Let's see what other country these people want to go to that gives them the freedom and opportunities of the US and taxes them even less. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaco

Applies to Europe mostly, but don't think that if we get to Europe's levels of taxation that we won't see more of it here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven

Quote :

"what kind of person stops working when taxes get too high?"

They may not stop "working" but they will look for ways to stop having income. They'll seek forms of compensation that aren't taxed or taxed at significantly lower rates. In other words, they stop working at producing and start working at avoiding taxes. And the higher the taxes go, the more people that see a large benefit spending an hour avoiding taxes vs. an hour working.

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 11:46 PM. Reason : jhlk]

3/25/2009 11:40:53 PM

^ i'm not saying places like that don't exist.
And i'm not saying that some people choose to live there, obviously.

But I am saying that even with places like Manaco existing, most successful and wealthy people from America will choose to continue to stay and work in America, even if their taxes go up. The expansion at the beginning of the 20th century was done under incredibly high tax rates for the wealthiest of people, but that didn't stop the Fords and Carnegies and Rockerfellers from creating vast empires and accumulating untold amounts of money

3/25/2009 11:45:11 PM

Quote :

"once you pass an arbitrary point"

You know, that's a telling remark. It is an entirely arbitary decision on Obama's part to decree that once you pass the $250K mark..you're officially rich and ripe for the raping.

How did he arrive at that amount? Did he use his years as a community activist? Did he use the financial expertise accumulated after years of being steeped in socialist dogma?

And just making $250 is all it requires to be rich? No taking in consideration that it costs different amounts to live in New York City vs Butte Montana.

And if Obama's spending spree starts to take its toll on the country, will Obama wave his wand and lower the $250K mark? What will that be based on?

Mitch Rofsky, the former chairman of Business for Social Responsibility, stated that if you consider income on a global perspective, anyone making just $50,000 is in the top 1% of earners. Why not make that the 35% rate level? After all, we want to be really fair don't we?

3/25/2009 11:52:08 PM

oh, my, what was a "telling remark"
oh lordy, i've done gone and showed my hand!
YOU WIN THIS ONE, EARTHDOGG, BUT I'LL BE BACK!

3/26/2009 12:02:39 AM

rich people suck.

no one on this site is rich so i dont know why everyone is sucking their cocks.

ok maybe that lame ass who created quake online who posted on here for awhile is rich but he was so disgusted by us he lelt.

[Edited on March 26, 2009 at 12:08 AM. Reason : lEFT]

3/26/2009 12:08:08 AM

^^?

^ I do not smoke pot, but support the legalization of marijuana. I am not gay, but believe gays/lesbians should share the same rights. Why would I have to be in the top income bracket to make an economic argument against taxing the top income bracket?

Quote :

"HockeyRoman: The conflict comes when those same people also look down their noses at the rest of society and demand that they "pull themselves up by their bootstraps". You can't have it both ways unless you enjoy being a hypocrite."

There is a huge difference between helping those who really need it and trying to help just about anyone who makes less than the median income. Case in point: the recent SCHIP bill, which disingenuously played towards emotions by purporting to “save” the children, allows families earning up to 400% of the poverty level. By trying to help everyone, many democrats end up helping no one.

There have been studies that show government insurance to merely crowd out private insurance. (http://www.nber.org/cgi-bin/printit?uri=/digest/dec03/w9781.html). All this serves to do is insulate these families from spending responsibly and increase the long-term commitments that the government cannot keep.

Also, the top 1% already pay over 40% of taxes while the bottom 50% pay only 3.3%. For some reason this is not progressive enough for you. At what point, then, would you eventually claim that this is either destructive to economic growth and/or morally wrong? I would be interested in hearing a specific percentage and justification for why it would not affect long-term growth, why it is not antithetical to the principles our country was founded upon and how it will actually solve whatever goal you have in mind.

Quote :

"agentlion: please, please show some evidence of this"

Can you do the same for 60+ years of increasing redistribution of wealth?

[Edited on March 26, 2009 at 7:11 AM. Reason : ,]

3/26/2009 7:07:15 AM

^ are we making money illegal and having money illegal?

dumb argument.

3/26/2009 8:42:13 AM

Quote :

"At my current lifestyle, which admittedly is largely dictated by my current income, I could retire after about 4 years making that much"

If you think you can retire on less than 400k, then you got another thing coming. Because after taxes and your current expenses, you'd be lucky to stash away 100k a year.

Quote :

"The expansion at the beginning of the 20th century was done under incredibly high tax rates for the wealthiest of people, but that didn't stop the Fords and Carnegies and Rockerfellers from creating vast empires and accumulating untold amounts of money"

Yes, it didn't stop the Fords from making money. It just stopped the next would-be Fords from doing so.

Quote :

"I would love to hear what some of you people on the right would call Teddy Roosevelt if he were alive today. Not only was he a champion of the environment but this excerpt from a speech would surely ruffle some feathers."

What an idiot. The proper question would be to pose to TR what Obama is suggesting today and see what he thinks. To compare TR's ideas as suggested by a quote from 1906 is wholly disingenuous.

Quote :

"i love it when republicans say the "we are the party of lincoln" line"

As much as I hate to say it, Lincoln was hardly a conservative, so calling him a "Republican" is a bit of a stretch.

Quote :

"you know, a common threat among the rich (or rather, people who aren't rich but have some preoccupation defending the rich's every move) is that if the US Gov't taxes all their money, they'll just up and leave and go to another country. You know what? Fucking fine - i'd like to see that."

Be careful what you wish for. If they left, then who would pay for all of your liberal wet dreams? The people in the new "top 1%." And that would probably be YOU.

Quote :

"Really. Let's see what other country these people want to go to that gives them the freedom and opportunities of the US and taxes them even less. Yes, it's been shown that businesses and the wealthy will move their HQ and bank accounts to off-shore accounts to try to dodge taxes, but why don't they, themselves, follow their money? Go live on Bermuda! All of them! It's a beautiful place. Oh, wait..... once they move to Bermuda, then it will make it kind of hard to continue making money hand over fist in the US...."

Actually, they'll probably continue to make that money hand over fist, AND in the US. They just won't be paying ANY taxes on it.

3/26/2009 9:16:19 AM

when we say "rich" how much are we talkin about?

3/26/2009 9:30:27 AM

it probably depends on who you are talking to. Talking to a crowd of welfare queens? 100k is rich. Talking to your special interests? 1b is rich

3/26/2009 9:33:26 AM

Quote :

"Can you do the same for 60+ years of increasing redistribution of wealth?"

what, is this opposite day? Have you seen how the tax rates have been adjusted over the past 70 years?

Well, you are right in one way, i suppose..... the last 30 years have seen the biggest redistribution of wealth in the history of the world - vast amounts of wealth going from the working class up to the wealthy!

Quote :

"Yes, it didn't stop the Fords from making money. It just stopped the next would-be Fords from doing so."

yeah, yeah, of course it did.
That's always the argument - "yeah, well, maybe XX was successful, but if the government hadn't stepped in, he would have been more successful! DAMN YOU GOVERNMENT!!!!"

[Edited on March 26, 2009 at 9:52 AM. Reason : .]

3/26/2009 9:51:04 AM

Quote :

"But you're asking me to believe that a wealthy, productive citizen is going to look at changes to inheritance laws and say, "I'd rather the rest of my life be shittier than see my wealth go to the government after I die.""

No, be more sensible. It is the same answer to this assertion:

Quote :

"what kind of person stops working when taxes get too high?"

There is a point to the assertion that someone somewhere will quit working when taxes get too high. I have spoken with some individuals who claim creeping tax rates in the 70s convinced them to quit working; but that was less an issue of pure tax rates than a combination of tax rates and inflation, which combine to truely decimate any investment opportunities.

No, the real problem is not people quitting, but driving people to change what they do. For example, while you are right that investors are unlikely to throw their money into a matress, they are likely to stop investing in business and lobby their local governments to let them invest in tax-free bonds. As to workers, high tax rates can on the margin drive people towards sectors that are less productive for society but have the benefit of being easy to hide from the IRS.

The objection is that high taxes, even estate taxes, change the focus of people's minds from "what is the most productive way to deploy my efforts" towards "what is the least taxed way to deploy my efforts", and the two are almost never the same activity.

Now, this is an acceptable tradeoff when it comes to a low marginal tax rate because we need the money from somewhere, so the damage inflicted upon society by the tax is less than the damage that would be inflicted by not collecting tax revenues. However, a 100% tax has the problem of not only inflicting major damage to the economy, but it does not raise any revenue as the payers of the tax would happily destroy 99 cents of every dollar to avoid the tax. Society is 99 cents poorer, and the government didn't collect a single penny.

3/26/2009 10:06:06 AM

Quote :

"As to workers, high tax rates can on the margin drive people towards sectors that are less productive for society but have the benefit of being easy to hide from the IRS."

Such as?

3/26/2009 10:14:50 AM

agentlion

Quote :

"Mitch Rofsky, the former chairman of Business for Social Responsibility, stated that if you consider income on a global perspective, anyone making just $50,000 is in the top 1% of earners. Why not make that the 35% rate level? After all, we want to be really fair don't we?"

This is a points you seemed to have over looked.

The question here is why does altruism end at our nation's boarders?

It can't be because some people think foreign aid is ineffective. Look at the recent stimulus package. The nature of our "crisis" demanded that we couldn't debate the effectiveness of the proposal because we had to do something NOW. It seems to me raising global living standards is an even worse crisis than you or me losing relatively comfy jobs. Where is the call to action?

If you think about it, America hasn't always took such a hands-off approach to improving the lot of the world's citizens. When countries in Western Europe were demolished after World War II, the US took a major role in rebuilding them. Hmmm. I wonder how countries in Africa (the poorest on earth) are different.

3/26/2009 10:32:28 AM

Quote :

"Such as?"

Use your imagination. Whenever a contractor offers a lower price to be paid under the table or a small business owners offers to pay his suppliers in foreign currency using tax-haven accounts or the poor are forced to take jobs in illegal sweatshops because the owners wish to avoid W2 forms or when an investor opts to invest in municipal bonds instead of productive companies or Tony Soprano decides to start making loans as a loanshark. All these activities inflict dead-weight losses upon all participants, but are often favorable compared to the losses inflicted by taxes and regulation.

3/26/2009 11:52:57 AM

Quote :

"agentlion: Well, you are right in one way, i suppose..... the last 30 years have seen the biggest redistribution of wealth in the history of the world - vast amounts of wealth going from the working class up to the wealthy!"

This is what is very bothersome today, people rely far too heavily on news headlines and campaign rhetoric for their facts.

See the below. Hardly looks like the "working class" is worse off.

Source: table 5 (pg 31) http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09winbulinincome.pdf

Alternatively:


With that settled, what about that proof?

[Edited on March 26, 2009 at 2:16 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2009 2:06:09 PM