S
stinkcat_14
Guest
If you got rid of all of those, we could lower tax rates. You are saying that would be a bad thing?
- Status
E
estesbob
Guest
It would decimate the housing market and Charity.
L
LisaA
Guest
**B]Now, I think a better solution would be to lower pretax income for high earners. They don’t need actually need the money. First, let’s establish a prerequisite for someone deserving something. I say that you cannot deserve what is outside your control. So if a person happened to have rich parents, he didn’t deserve it. He got lucky. This is uncontroversial to say, but it turns out that this is the case about a lot of things.
A modern capitalist system rewards certain properties, and whether or not someone has those properties are in large part outside their control. No one chooses their genes. No one chooses their parents or their environment growing up. But these two factors (genes and environment) constitute the essential variables of personal development in childhood. As a result, your personality is in large part a function of those two variables. Variables you didn’t choose and had no control over.
So we can tell each other fantasy-stories and convince ourselves of our own greatness, but in a very basic sense a financially successful person is a lucky person, and he should never forget it. If he does forget, he runs the risk of hubris and thinking it’s all his own doing. Jesus told us to be humble, so be humble. Is it necessary to get paid 10 million dollars at Goldman Sachs, or can one slash that salary if it frees up money to pay some single mothers at Walmart a living wage?
The best predictor of future income was not grades – it was the economic status of your parents. If that is not disheartening, I don’t what is.
The question is if 10 million is necessary. It’s not, and it’s certainly got nothing to do with morality or being fair.
******Persuader I am posting bits of your original post with which I disagree. You seem to be a utopian dreamer with theories about what someone “deserves” or what is “fair” or what is “necessary.” In that you are demonstrating the hubris which you attribute to those who have succeeded financially in this country.
I believe you are a far Leftist with the typical Leftist views that everyone is a victim of their circumstances, that we have no control over our destiny and the US capitalist system stacks the deck against the unlucky. That is the antithesis of America as the land of opportunity. Strangely enough why are all these people with all these strikes against them coming to America…legally or illegally if there is no hope of success, that we as Gov Christie said “should just sit on our couch waiting for the next government check.”
Although you claim to be speaking about wages, since you decry the market system that rewards certain talents, skills and abilities over others, the only way to get to your Utopia is to have government exert control over wages and undertake a redistribution system whereby the “undeserving Wall Street big shot” has his wages taken and given to the woman at Walmart. So your plans will not work without tyranny and I suspect this would not go over well with the American public.
I also see “spiritual” which is very telling. There is nothing in our faith that claims we should wrest by force the fruits of another’s labor for ourselves…not matter how deserving we may think we are.
Best of luck in your search for Utopia. The trail is well worn and the end is well known.
Lisa
A modern capitalist system rewards certain properties, and whether or not someone has those properties are in large part outside their control. No one chooses their genes. No one chooses their parents or their environment growing up. But these two factors (genes and environment) constitute the essential variables of personal development in childhood. As a result, your personality is in large part a function of those two variables. Variables you didn’t choose and had no control over.
So we can tell each other fantasy-stories and convince ourselves of our own greatness, but in a very basic sense a financially successful person is a lucky person, and he should never forget it. If he does forget, he runs the risk of hubris and thinking it’s all his own doing. Jesus told us to be humble, so be humble. Is it necessary to get paid 10 million dollars at Goldman Sachs, or can one slash that salary if it frees up money to pay some single mothers at Walmart a living wage?
The best predictor of future income was not grades – it was the economic status of your parents. If that is not disheartening, I don’t what is.
The question is if 10 million is necessary. It’s not, and it’s certainly got nothing to do with morality or being fair.
******Persuader I am posting bits of your original post with which I disagree. You seem to be a utopian dreamer with theories about what someone “deserves” or what is “fair” or what is “necessary.” In that you are demonstrating the hubris which you attribute to those who have succeeded financially in this country.
I believe you are a far Leftist with the typical Leftist views that everyone is a victim of their circumstances, that we have no control over our destiny and the US capitalist system stacks the deck against the unlucky. That is the antithesis of America as the land of opportunity. Strangely enough why are all these people with all these strikes against them coming to America…legally or illegally if there is no hope of success, that we as Gov Christie said “should just sit on our couch waiting for the next government check.”
Although you claim to be speaking about wages, since you decry the market system that rewards certain talents, skills and abilities over others, the only way to get to your Utopia is to have government exert control over wages and undertake a redistribution system whereby the “undeserving Wall Street big shot” has his wages taken and given to the woman at Walmart. So your plans will not work without tyranny and I suspect this would not go over well with the American public.
I also see “spiritual” which is very telling. There is nothing in our faith that claims we should wrest by force the fruits of another’s labor for ourselves…not matter how deserving we may think we are.
Best of luck in your search for Utopia. The trail is well worn and the end is well known.
Lisa
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
The housing market was overvalued anyways…
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
The housing market would recover, the market is pretty resistant that way. Of course, you could phase it out over a few years and the effect on the economy would be minimal. In the long run the economy would be better off because funds would be shifted from housing to the productive sector of the economy. In the short run, charitable contributions might be affected, but I am not sure that would be a bad thing. I imagine the church would be affected least, since most people who contribute aren’t going to be affected much by tax laws. In higher education, I think the effect would be larger. But the result of charitable giving in higher education has mainly been to increase the salaries and decrease the teaching loads of professors. If professors had to take a pay cut would that necessarily be a bad thing?
E
estesbob
Guest
So? Do we really want another huge round foreclosures generated by raising taxes on every homeowner in the country?
L
LisaA
Guest
Much as I worry about charities, I think you make a good point, particularly if this were phased in over some years. This morning I saw a panel discussion on tax policy with all these tax wonks and financial experts. Most were suggesting a move away from our tangled web of IRS code and into a consumption tax of some kind. There are problems with this method as well but a cost benefit analysis might be convincing if properly communicated. One theory was that for the first few years people could choose between the old system and the new with the idea that it would become more appealing in its simplicity and cost effectiveness. They quoted how much it costs both the government and the private sector to comply with all these laws and the net ‘profit’ to the Treasury is much smaller than I expected.
As to charities I agree it would perhaps put more focus on true needs as opposed to some of the more self serving charitiable endeavors…I’m thinking of the wealthy people who donate huge amounts to the symphony and art museum so they can enjoy the benefits of the Arts. I know we can argue that the Arts are necessary for an uplifted society but is this government support producing better art than the patrons of the Renaissance? Michaelangelo vs a cross in urine? Hmmmmm
Lisa
P
Pork_Roll
Guest
Nobody wants their taxes raised. However, there needs to be deductions or incentives for families and small businesses. The system should protect the poor and the weak, and not the other way around as it does.
Federal benefits were cut. Employees with less than 5 years of federal service have to contribute more towards their pensions and had their annual pension amount reduced to 0.7% (instead of 1% to 1.1%) of the average of their last five years of salary. Also, inflation adjustment to salaries has been frozen. Inflation is around 2-3% annualized (or more).
The health and wealth gospel spread in the evangelical community and mega-churches has played no small role in promoting tax-breaks and incentives for the wealthy and powerful IMO. I think this is the biggest reason the middle classes would philosophically support tax cuts for the wealthy.
Federal benefits were cut. Employees with less than 5 years of federal service have to contribute more towards their pensions and had their annual pension amount reduced to 0.7% (instead of 1% to 1.1%) of the average of their last five years of salary. Also, inflation adjustment to salaries has been frozen. Inflation is around 2-3% annualized (or more).
The health and wealth gospel spread in the evangelical community and mega-churches has played no small role in promoting tax-breaks and incentives for the wealthy and powerful IMO. I think this is the biggest reason the middle classes would philosophically support tax cuts for the wealthy.
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
You’d counter that by loweirng the rates across the board. In theory anyways.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
In addition, not every homeowner itemizes. Second, the tax benefits for those at the bottom of the income spectrum are minimal, since the deduction only saves taxes when your total itemized deductions exceed the standard deduction. So the biggest gainers from the deduction are higher income earners and if stopped giving them the deduction they might shift their assets from housing to the productive sector of the economy.
E
estesbob
Guest
Those on the lower end pay not taxes. Whether one thinks one believes the Mtg Interest deductions is “fair” or not tens of millions of people bought homes based on being able to make the payments because of the tax savings. I don’t see how we can throw them out of their homes while at the same time claiming we are just being “fair”
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
Where did I say anything about “fair”? I am serious, please quote me.
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
You’re missing my point as well. I’m proposing some sort of compromise of lowering of the rates across the board, as well as closing loop holes.
I’m assuming that for many, the final rate would be somewhere around what they are paying now.
P
Pork_Roll
Guest
One has to wonder how “fair” the Obama administration is when they use tax dollars to pay for the expense of killing the weakest and most vunerable of society.
L
LisaA
Guest
A couple of comments, in reality the current tax system DOES protect the poor in not making them pay any taxes and in many cases getting money FROM the Treasury (earned income credit) even if they paid no income taxes.
Second I think we, as Catholics, should avoid the idea that the GOVERNMENT is the main protector of the weak and poor. It always makes me shudder when the Bishops weigh in on the federal budget demanding more for the poor. That is rendering unto God what is Caeser’s IMO. I think incentivising our better angels and encouraging us to support our neighbors and our community through tax policy is a better route than aborgating our responsibility and foisting it off on the government.
Here’s the reality, there are two main systems for funding pensions, defined benefit and defined contribution. In the private sector virtually all companies have gone to defined contribution plans. The government has retained the far MORE expensive defined benefit plans. That government employees are now expected to pay a portion of their more cushy benefits is hardly unfair IMO. I don’t think government employees should be compensated less than their private sector peers but there is no reason they should get MORE than anyone else.
I read this same theory in Atlantic Monthly and have to call baloney on this. Lower tax rates for capital gains and even dividends preceded the “gospel of wealth” by decades. Tax shelters and “breaks” for wealthy investors were mostly destroyed during the REAGAN era. Many forget that Reagan really tightened up the incredibly shoddy tax shelter industry that was over inflating everything from Arabian horses to ostriches to commercial buildings.
Whenever I hear about “tax breaks” or “loopholes” for the rich or for certain industries, I know the person is simply repeating what they heard from someone else. There is very little opportunity these days to circumvent the objective of the Treasury to feed the beast.
Lisa
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Pork Roll,
I know this is going to sound pretty bad … but ‘fairness’ as it is used by our President is a red herring that has many of the news hounds going in circles as they simply lose Obama’s trail. ‘Fairness’ really is a meaningless word in this economic context. For example:
Growing up with siblings, the idea of sharing and taking turns and learning to play by the rules - and not run with scissors, is standard operating procedures for a family. But, here we have our parent(s)/guardian(s) looking out for us because we are children. Once we are grown up, we are expected to apply these principles as we make a living for ourselfs and our family. I do not think anyone goes out and opens up their bank account for anyone who wants some of our money - because this is ‘fair’ or this is ‘sharing’. We identify which charity or charities we want to support and work with our money in this direction … at least this is what a lot of people do. Income redistribution via governmental fiat is not how ‘fairness’ works in this economy. If you want a role model for how income redistribution works or how total governental control of an economy (ultimate fairness) works - look at Russian before the fall of Communism, and N. Koreia today. People were treated like slaves - unless they were in the Party.
The challenge that Obama has yet to grasp is how do we get everyone to prosper, now how do we sink everyone’s expectations to conform to a failed economic philosophy of Karl Marx.
But, just for the fun of it… imagine that we have all gone along with Obama’s idea of fairness - our money goes into Washington and comes out redistributed … less the fees for the federal government, the waste, fraud and abuse that see with poorly monitored agencies (e.g., GSA) poorly thought out ideas ($500 million additional to the IRS already allocated for ObamaCare although the Supreme Court has yet to rule on it) and the various boon-doggles like the solar panel company Solyndra that went bankrupt after handing our bonuses to the executives… all at taxpayer expense. Now, we are only talking about money here - but, look at principles like how the Congress exempts themselves from the laws they pass on the rest of us. ‘Fairness’ just seem to be taking a real beating when the government gets its hands on it.
Ultimately, we are all made the poorer - both financially and psychologically with such a devious manipulation of the language. Maybe we all should re-read ‘Animal Farm’ to see what other creative uses language can serve.
God bless
I know this is going to sound pretty bad … but ‘fairness’ as it is used by our President is a red herring that has many of the news hounds going in circles as they simply lose Obama’s trail. ‘Fairness’ really is a meaningless word in this economic context. For example:
Growing up with siblings, the idea of sharing and taking turns and learning to play by the rules - and not run with scissors, is standard operating procedures for a family. But, here we have our parent(s)/guardian(s) looking out for us because we are children. Once we are grown up, we are expected to apply these principles as we make a living for ourselfs and our family. I do not think anyone goes out and opens up their bank account for anyone who wants some of our money - because this is ‘fair’ or this is ‘sharing’. We identify which charity or charities we want to support and work with our money in this direction … at least this is what a lot of people do. Income redistribution via governmental fiat is not how ‘fairness’ works in this economy. If you want a role model for how income redistribution works or how total governental control of an economy (ultimate fairness) works - look at Russian before the fall of Communism, and N. Koreia today. People were treated like slaves - unless they were in the Party.
The challenge that Obama has yet to grasp is how do we get everyone to prosper, now how do we sink everyone’s expectations to conform to a failed economic philosophy of Karl Marx.
But, just for the fun of it… imagine that we have all gone along with Obama’s idea of fairness - our money goes into Washington and comes out redistributed … less the fees for the federal government, the waste, fraud and abuse that see with poorly monitored agencies (e.g., GSA) poorly thought out ideas ($500 million additional to the IRS already allocated for ObamaCare although the Supreme Court has yet to rule on it) and the various boon-doggles like the solar panel company Solyndra that went bankrupt after handing our bonuses to the executives… all at taxpayer expense. Now, we are only talking about money here - but, look at principles like how the Congress exempts themselves from the laws they pass on the rest of us. ‘Fairness’ just seem to be taking a real beating when the government gets its hands on it.
Ultimately, we are all made the poorer - both financially and psychologically with such a devious manipulation of the language. Maybe we all should re-read ‘Animal Farm’ to see what other creative uses language can serve.
God bless
P
Pork_Roll
Guest
That’s why the church doesn’t support the welfare system in any papal encyclical on social teaching. It does support unions and social security systems and the protection of the weak and poor but always with the idea of subsidiarity. The church does indeed teach that wealth should be distributed justly. It just doens’t support communism nor un-regulated capitalism.
I agree and would make much more money then. BTW, I forgot to mention that it is 0.7% multiplied by the number of years worked. So if you worked 30 years under FERS then you would get 30 X 0.7% X salary (average last 5 years). This is good, but not nearly as good as the military pension (nor should it).
Suudy
Active member
And as Michael Medved (crediting a caller) mentioned: There is a difference between fairness and justice.
Notice that Pr. Obama is calling for fairness, not justice.
G
gilliam
Guest
The “Buffett Rule” is very popular. My guess is that it will pass into law this spring
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Gilliam,
Well, that is what makes for a horse race - I think the House will kill it very quickly.
God bless
Well, that is what makes for a horse race - I think the House will kill it very quickly.
God bless
- Status