VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 08:47:12 10/15/09 Thu
Author: Paul Davis
Subject: Where will they find it lower?
In reply to: Jeffman 's message, "Ahhh I see" on 08:35:30 10/14/09 Wed

In point of fact, the income tax rates on the wealthiest are lower than any other group save the destitute. I'm talking about the rates they PAY, not nominal top end rates. Buffet says he pays less than 12% of income. I'd be a little shocked if you said you pay a lower rate than 12% on your federal taxes. Good grief, if you offered to cut top tax rates by half, but deny any and all deductions, deletions, tax havens and shelters for anyone making over 250K per year, the wealthy would go MAD fighting it.

There isn't anywhere they can go with lower actual rates, unless they run to some third world country. And the rates there are illusions, because you have to pay out so much to the local boss for "protection".

The world's largest corporations are headquartered in the US, and many of them get more in tax cuts, tax credits and government gifts than they pay in taxes. In other words, they are paid to stay, from the public purse, and we see them toss jobs overseas anyhow, while they press for open borders to force wages lower.

I suppose I could just surrender, and say we should send the wealthy checks equal to their salaries each year, just so they'll stay in the country and keep acting like hogs at the trough, but I'm hard pressed to see a reason why.

Just what is it you see the richest .1% DOING that makes them so necessary? Why do I need football players worth 100 million? I don't want them, cancel the season and I'll yawn. For what purpose do I need any entertainer or sports figure that makes tens of millions a year? What good does Rush Limbaugh or Alan Colmes or Glenn Beck or any of the editorial talking heads serve, besides poisoning the well of public discourse? What useful purpose do recording executives serve, in the age of the Internet? This isn't the age of the robber barons building massive infrastructure and fighting union leaders with clubs, this is the age of technology, and we do things differently now. I cannot see any purpose to the presence of a super wealthy class - and neither does most of the world. Europe has a wealthy class - but they tax the hell out of them and make them pay - and somehow they don't all flee. If they did, where is the harm? What magic piece of production does the wealthy control, that nothing and nobody else can provide?

Investment money is no longer a national thing, it's universal. No matter where these people live, the money will still sit in Goldman Sachs, or whatever other multinational bank is holding it. And they'll put it where ever they see fit.

Why turn the fate of the US over to a handful of people who have no interest in anything but another fast buck? Now they are using the dollar as a carry trade, which is alway destructive to a currency, but we can't block that, oh my no. Somebody with money might object.



>I dont agree that it would limit
political power and
>influence. As long as they have more money or power
>they will have more influence. So unless we go to full
>bore socialism that problem will exist.
>
>The other problem you might find with the global
>economy is that they take their money somewhere else
>where the tax burden is lower. With the uber wealthy
>already paying 90+ percent of all tax revenues
>today... where will the govt replace those revenues?
>
>>Well, I'd say that in that context it doesn't matter,
>>since I'm not in favor of taxing the uber wealthy for
>>REVENUE, but as a means of limiting their political
>>power and influence. There are a number of changes
>>I'd make to the tax system, some that no doubt would
>>surprise you, but they aren't for revenue.
>>
>>Quite a few Congresses have been responsible with
>>money, and there will be more in the future. However,
>>faced with war or economic disaster, they will spend
>>money they don't have. And we've had nearly
>>continuous war since 1950. So what do you expect? If
>>the US quits playing world policeman, then we might
>>manage a balanced budget.
>>
>>>But truthfully... if we had all the taxes on the uber
>>>wealthy that you are talking about, do you think we
>>>would be less in debt or that congress would just
>find
>>>more creative ways to waste the money?
>>>
>>>
>>>>And the current list of tax cuts are stupid as
>rocks,
>>>>but they can't repeal them as would make sense,
>>>>because they want those big campaign checks, yes
>>>>indeed.
>>>>
>>>>While Dems are bad enough, the Repubs have really
>>>>ticked me off on this tax business. McCain in
>>>>particular, he was making his own party angry by
>>>>insisting they needed to balance the budget, and he
>>>>was lying about how it could be done! I can't
>>imagine
>>>>a current Republican (leader) even having a desire
>to
>>>>balance the budget. What I was told, by a delegate
>>to
>>>>the national convention in the 90's, that they were
>>>>intentionally keeping the budget unbalanced, because
>>>>they wanted to force the removal of Social Security
>>>>and other social programs. Apparently this has
>>become
>>>>a total party focus since the time when he was a
>>>>delegate. (This was all closed door stuff, as you
>>can
>>>>imagine.)
>>>>
>>>>Anyhow, given that the discretionary budget, which
>is
>>>>90% of what people think of when they think of
>>>>government, is about equal to the deficit in 2006,
>to
>>>>totally remove the deficit without raising taxes,
>and
>>>>doing it all in two years, as McCain was claiming,
>>>>would require having nothing active but the miltary
>>>>and social security administration. Doesn't seem
>>>>likely, more like impossible.
>>>>
>>>>Make me dictator, I'll put a 105% tax on all
>personal
>>>>income over something like 20 million a year, not
>>>>because of some vendetta against the wealthy, but
>>>>because creating a group of uber wealthy is against
>>>>the best interests of the actual citizens of the US
>>as
>>>>a group. The warping of public policy to please a
>>>>truly minute minority is not in any way something
>the
>>>>founders wanted or expected to be allowed, and it is
>>>>not something that should be permitted. And stock
>>>>option "gifts", "bonuses" or what have you would
>most
>>>>certainly be counted as personal income under my
>>>>regime. If you can spend it or have the use of it,
>>>>it's yours and you'd pay taxes on it, whether title
>>>>was yours or owned by a corporate entity.
>>>>
>>>>And Bill Gates would not fall under that, because he
>>>>hasn't cashed out his stock from Microsoft, and it
>>>>wasn't a gift from the company. He built it, he
>owns
>>>>it, and he hasn't cashed it out and put it in his
>>>>pocket, at which point he would pay taxes on it.
>>>>Anyone with personal expenditures of over 20 million
>>a
>>>>year is crazy anyhow, IMHO, and I really don't care
>>>>how "necessary" they claim this nonsense is. And
>>they
>>>>don't stimulate the economy in any real way, no
>>matter
>>>>how they throw it around, there aren't enough of
>them
>>>>to do that. If it really was necessary, they'd not
>>be
>>>>throwing money in bucketsful to the congress to buy
>>>>votes enough to keep their crazy setup going year
>>over
>>>>year.
>>>>
>>>>Where it really is irritating me is that they are so
>>>>often (Scaife is a perfect example) bent on forcing
>>>>public policy into a philosophical mold to match
>some
>>>>idea they like, even though their money insulates
>>them
>>>>from any bad effects of the policy! IOW, to them a
>>>>policy may appear "perfect", even if it's badly
>>flawed
>>>>or even a disaster, BECAUSE THEY DON'T FEEL THE
>>>>EFFECTS! This is utterly disasterous, and it's
>>>>ongoing right now.
>>>>
>>>>Who do you think spends millions on ads fighting
>>>>public spending on elections? This tiny handful
>>knows
>>>>as a group that's the quickest and most likely way
>>for
>>>>them to lose power, and ten minutes after that
>>they'll
>>>>be taxed from hell, so they'll do anything to
>prevent
>>>>it. Look up how Steve Kangas died sometime.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And yet even in the Obama administration we still
>>>have
>>>>>those tax cuts and he has said that he wont raise
>>>>>taxes until the worst of this recession has gone
>>>past.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ive said it before and I will say it again. The
>>>>>problem isnt that we arent paying enough taxes, the
>>>>>problem is that congress can spend it faster than
>we
>>>>>can send it to them. Is there any doubt in anyones
>>>>>mind that if taxes increased 200% across the board
>>>>>that congress would spend that and increase the
>debt
>>>>>even more? Im all for a few new taxes if thats
>whats
>>>>>required to clean up some debt or even to pay for
>>the
>>>>>war, but as long as congress continues to spend our
>>>>>tax money on crap like a bridge to no where or to
>>>look
>>>>>at the spawning habits of the tree cricket, then I
>>>say
>>>>>no more taxes until you cut spending.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.