Raising taxes on the rich

[sedonaman]

Flat taxes disproportionately hurt the poor. A pair of pants costs the same to both the Rich Man and the Poor Man—however it’s much more costly to the Poor Man as a percentage of effective income.

A progressive tax system ends up with free-riders. It also breeds class warfare and the idea that all wealth inherently belongs to the government [a la “tax cuts are ‘a gift’ to the rich”]. A pair of pants does not cost the same to the poor man as the rich. You can pay anywhere from $15 to $150 dollars.

“It’s much more costly to the Poor Man as a percentage of effective income” ignores the fact that people move up and down the income brackets throughout their careers. A progressive system forces your concept of morality on me. Is that right?

Everyone should pay something so they learn it costs money to run a government and that they have the ability to give of themselves. If a flat tax was ever passed, you’d see a massive shift from the Democratic party to the Republican party, and government would be more accountable … and smaller.

 

[sedonaman]

…
While things like postage stamps, and so forth, are used by many people, the rich consume, per capita, far more government services.

Should they not pay more?

More than WHAT ? They already pay all the taxes. How could they pay more than 100%? You are for taxation for the sake of taxation.

Since you can afford a computer and internet service, you must be a rich person, so I challenge you to PAY MORE.

There are two ways for you to make a contribution to the government. You can make a contribution online either by credit card, checking or savings account at Pay.gov, or you can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it’s a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:

Attn Dept G
Bureau of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

Put your money where your mouth is.

P.S. I won’t go without chocolate waiting for you; the wait would be so long it would kill me.

 

[sedonaman]

Hold on a minute, ‘Cap’,
… We ALL benefit from having a secure country - rich and poor alike.

And he wants the poor to get a free ride. My two sons delivered pizzas while going to school, and they both told me the most expensive satellite TV sports packages are in the poor neighborhoods.

… The poor in this country are effectively insulated from income tax - and as a result, have little appreciation for what is actually involved in paying for government. Because so many are tax insulated, the burden of taxation is not evenly shared - even in the faintest manner.

Amen, baby.

I really do not understand what ‘sense’ you are addrssing - just because it is progressive does not mean it makes sense. …

He’s coming from NONsense. The government considers you “rich” if you are above the median in income. Those above that level pay all the taxes. Hence, any tax reduction naturally will go to the rich because they’re the only ones who pay anything.

 

[Captain_America]

I think poor people could also get mad and make angry noises and such.

I pointly out, simply, that $10 matters much more to a poor man than it does to a millionaire. It is proportionately more of his wealth.

In fact, one of the great quandaries of our time is figuring out how to best motivate high-earning CEO’s! At a certain point, an extra million doesn’t hit the spot. . .

Taxing a poor man at the same rate as a rich man affects them disproportionately. It also ignores the greater economic burden that a rich man has on general government expenditure.

(re: “class warfare,” I think it’s pretty clear that in the past 20 years, the success of the rich in massively lowering the tax rate on corporations and high net worth individuals is a kind of quiet class warfare. . . making the middle class and the poor pay disproportionately more for government than the wealthy.

One must note that poor people can’t afford lobbyists and lobbying organizations. re: “welfare class”, I’m quite familiar with this problem: it’s a complex one, but it is yet separate from the issue of taxation).

I’m middle of the road, but on this issue, I’m willing to say the more liberal political view is right.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ‘Cap’,

So, let me see if I understand this… you would have someone making $1million a year, pay $5 for a regular first class letter, someone making $100,000 a year $1 for a regular first class letter and someone making $10,000 a year could send a first class letter for free. There are toll roads where currently everyone pays the same (a regressive tax on motoring freedom) and surely this could be adjusted in a similar way as the postage stamp example. Taxing by axels is probably a form of regression - so that would be abolsished in favor of a toll based on income. Would that satisfy your requriements?

Exactly which government services do you think the wealthy use more government services for?

Maybe it would be a good idea to supply some references for these statements.

God bless

Study all the workings of the federal government.

While things like postage stamps, and so forth, are used by many people, the rich consume, per capita, far more government services.

Should they not pay more?

In fact, the superwealthy have already indicated that they’re undertaxed!

It’s risible to be called a “soak the rich” person; name-calling, it feels. But seriously, read WHY economists through history find “progressive” (the use of this word here refers to staggered, proportionate taxation, and not contemporary political liberalism) taxation just. This can be an emotional argument without good background.

 

[sedonaman]

I think poor people could also get mad and make angry noises and such.

I pointly out, simply, that $10 matters much more to a poor man than it does to a millionaire. It is proportionately more of his wealth.

In fact, one of the great quandaries of our time is figuring out how to best motivate high-earning CEO’s! At a certain point, an extra million doesn’t hit the spot. . .

Taxing a poor man at the same rate as a rich man affects them disproportionately. It also ignores the greater economic burden that a rich man has on general government expenditure.

(re: “class warfare,” I think it’s pretty clear that in the past 20 years, the success of the rich in massively lowering the tax rate on corporations and high net worth individuals is a kind of quiet class warfare. . . making the middle class and the poor pay disproportionately more for government than the wealthy.

One must note that poor people can’t afford lobbyists and lobbying organizations. re: “welfare class”, I’m quite familiar with this problem: it’s a complex one, but it is yet separate from the issue of taxation).

I’m middle of the road, but on this issue, I’m willing to say the more liberal political view is right.

You didn’t address why you think the poor should get a free ride when they can afford expensive satellite TV packages, et al.

You also failed to explain why you are not going to put your money where your mouth is and write a check to the government.

Maybe tqualey and I can decide how much more you should pay.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Sedonaman,

It took me a while to stop laughing …

I guess the thing that has me concerned about ‘Cap’ & company is that they think that the rich (always defined to exclude one’s self) have vaults … and the super rich have guarded caves - where their wealth is hidden from view (except for certain notable examples of conspicuous consumption) and it never re-enters the the market place.

You know, of all the economists I have read - I am most impressed with old Adam Smith! The Invisible Hand of the Market is still quite active - and the King’s Tax Men were just as oppressive back then as the IRS is today (only the methods have changed… !) Smith counted on vested self interest and knew that if the money was just going to be taxed then evading the various taxes and duties was the way to go - but, if investments (that actually made useable products that were wanted and sold at a reasonable price) were made, then profits were quite likely - and people would actually risk capital.

The operative word here is risk. Notwithstanding the nonsense of ‘too big to fail’ Lehman Brothers, the idea is that success is rewarded and failure isn’t. We have to grow as a country and as an economy - and this socialistic swill about ‘fairness’ produces nothing. If there are people who need to be fed - finding new ways to tax the farmer is not going to help.

Ah, but back to the original chuckle, let’s meet over coffee … ah, ‘Cap’s’ treat … and we can discuss how increasing his taxes is not really all that bad after all… What do you say, ‘Cap’?

God bless

You didn’t address why you think the poor should get a free ride when they can afford expensive satellite TV packages, et al.

You also failed to explain why you are not going to put your money where your mouth is and write a check to the government.

Maybe tqualey and I can decide how much more you should pay.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ‘Cap’,

You are certainly right, $10 to a person making $1,000/year is a higher precertage than that same $10 to a person making $1,000,000. We have now established that 0.01 is larger than 0.00001. The problem is: if you fixate on this you will totally miss the point about what a country’s economy is for.

Do you think that the US got to be the #1 Super Power in the world because of its tax code? Do you think that the US got to the $15 trillion debt level because it valued the productivity of its citizens?

The purpose of an economic system is to enhance and improve the human condition. What makes this so interesting is that every country has its own way of defining and implementing their definition. This past week we were treated to another Greek tragic production of “Don’t Cut My Benefits”. Could Aeschylus have written “Seven Against the IMF” with greater effect than what we saw on tv? Could Sophocles create a charcter with the determination King Creon - and call him Georgios A. Papandreou and demand austerity from the citizens. Will the Irish, Italians or Spanish follow suit? By October we should see more players in this major drama - all wanting the freedom to grant benefits and pay high pension and beneifts - but, now suddenly realizing that just printing the stuff does not purchase goods or services - or inspire confidence. But, who wants to watch ‘foreign drama’ on tv when we can have our very own meltdown in 16 days if the Congress and President can not get their respective acts together (following the example of Minnesota that began their budgetless year on 7/1/11)?

I submit, ‘Cap’, that all this talk about fairness and income redistribution will quickly reach its high-water mark when someone has the political courage to say, ‘Socialism has no moral or intellectual foundation!’ - which sounds a lot more sophisticated than simply, ‘The Emperor has no clothes!’

What is needed right now is less posturing (‘Soak the rich’ is just one of several examples that comes to mind … ‘to each according to their needs, from each according to his ability’ sounds so much better, eh?) and more foucs on getting people to invest in the country and actively encourage people to go our and really create wealth.

God bless

I think poor people could also get mad and make angry noises and such.

I pointly out, simply, that $10 matters much more to a poor man than it does to a millionaire. It is proportionately more of his wealth.

In fact, one of the great quandaries of our time is figuring out how to best motivate high-earning CEO’s! At a certain point, an extra million doesn’t hit the spot. . .

Taxing a poor man at the same rate as a rich man affects them disproportionately. It also ignores the greater economic burden that a rich man has on general government expenditure.

(re: “class warfare,” I think it’s pretty clear that in the past 20 years, the success of the rich in massively lowering the tax rate on corporations and high net worth individuals is a kind of quiet class warfare. . . making the middle class and the poor pay disproportionately more for government than the wealthy.

One must note that poor people can’t afford lobbyists and lobbying organizations. re: “welfare class”, I’m quite familiar with this problem: it’s a complex one, but it is yet separate from the issue of taxation).

I’m middle of the road, but on this issue, I’m willing to say the more liberal political view is right.

 

[valentino]

Hi, ‘Cap’,

You are certainly right, $10 to a person making $1,000/year is a higher precertage than that same $10 to a person making $1,000,000. We have now established that 0.01 is larger than 0.00001. The problem is: if you fixate on this you will totally miss the point about what a country’s economy is for.

Do you think that the US got to be the #1 Super Power in the world because of its tax code? Do you think that the US got to the $15 trillion debt level because it valued the productivity of its citizens?

The purpose of an economic system is to enhance and improve the human condition. What makes this so interesting is that every country has its own way of defining and implementing their definition. This past week we were treated to another Greek tragic production of “Don’t Cut My Benefits”. Could Aeschylus have written “Seven Against the IMF” with greater effect than what we saw on tv? Could Sophocles create a charcter with the determination King Creon - and call him Georgios A. Papandreou and demand austerity from the citizens. Will the Irish, Italians or Spanish follow suit? By October we should see more players in this major drama - all wanting the freedom to grant benefits and pay high pension and beneifts - but, now suddenly realizing that just printing the stuff does not purchase goods or services - or inspire confidence. But, who wants to watch ‘foreign drama’ on tv when we can have our very own meltdown in 16 days if the Congress and President can not get their respective acts together (following the example of Minnesota that began their budgetless year on 7/1/11)?

I submit, ‘Cap’, that all this talk about fairness and income redistribution will quickly reach its high-water mark when someone has the political courage to say, ‘Socialism has no moral or intellectual foundation!’ - which sounds a lot more sophisticated than simply, ‘The Emperor has no clothes!’

What is needed right now is less posturing (‘Soak the rich’ is just one of several examples that comes to mind … ‘to each according to their needs, from each according to his ability’ sounds so much better, eh?) and more foucs on getting people to invest in the country and actively encourage people to go our and really create wealth.

God bless

your reasoning is sound.You make very good points.thanks.

 

[copperblade]

And he wants the poor to get a free ride. My two sons delivered pizzas while going to school, and they both told me the most expensive satellite TV sports packages are in the poor neighborhoods.

I thought you just said if you had computer and internet you were rich. Now you’re saying that the expensive TV sports packages are in the poor neighborhoods?

 

[copperblade]

I pointly out, simply, that $10 matters much more to a poor man than it does to a millionaire. It is proportionately more of his wealth.

Yes, you’re right… but I think a flat tax takes care of that. I’m with you about having someone progressive taxation for the people who are really on the low end, but I think this should be done in the form of a higher standard deduction. Everyone gets the same amount, but it means more if you make less. I think there shouldn’t be any tax brackets.

In fact, one of the great quandaries of our time is figuring out how to best motivate high-earning CEO’s! At a certain point, an extra million doesn’t hit the spot. . .

Yes, that’s exactly right. Thinking that the only reward worth anything is money is what has happened to our culture. Everyone shall take their seat according to their value, by which we mean net worth. Monetary incentives don’t work the same way people think they do–they demoralize the activities they’re trying to reward, making them simply an accounting game.

 

[Rock_Happy]

Why do the republican resist raising taxes on the rich?Its been proven that it won’t produce more jobs to cut their taxes and they can’t say that its unfair because they already pay most of the taxes.When you compare how much they pay %wise compared to the amount of the wealth they control its surely obvious that they don’t pay enough.We know that the tax rate system has benefited the rich making them able to gain such wealth.Is it there lobbying to republican members(the spend much money in their support and actually get them elected through many means)the reasons the members are against it?

It is a social justice issue. It just depends on what you think is fair. Is libertarianism more important than, say, decent health care for everyone who needs it. I don’t know the exact percentages, but it is right around 10% of the population owning 90% of the income and assets in the US, with the gap widening. The wealthy have, in fact, benefited from the recent economic collapse as it has been experienced by the lower class.

Personally, I am fortunate enough to be born into one of these families. I can declare bankruptcy, be sued and a judgement won against me… and so on, and none of these things can effect me financially. I can still go helicopter skiing. I have done nothing to earn this privilege.

I am still forming my own opinion as to what all of this means to me. I have served as an enlisted person in the military during wartime, and deployed several times to combat. I am pursuing studies as a physician because I think it is incumbent upon me to be of service to my fellow man. I mean this not to brag, or anything like that, but to say that I feel a sense of obligation since I don’t need to worry about how to make a living or support myself or any future family (which I probably will not have). I have not yet figured out what role money will play in my life, as far as what good I might do for society, how much of it I should keep or give away, how that should be done, and so on.

My personal view is that the tax system is not equitable. I have seen first hand how attorneys use laws which were written for the wealthy to protect and insulate them from the normal events in life which the average person must deal with. To give you some sense of the complexity of the legalities of these matters, the process of signing documents when I turned 18 years old took over six hours in an attorney’s office. The documents were thousands of pages. In fact, there is a room which is lined on all four walls with binders of trust documents in my family, and an accountant who flies in once per month to spend a week or more bringing the accounts up to date. I filed four tax returns last year, in addition to my personal return. The cost of writing and executing the legal instruments on my behalf significantly exceeded several years of income for the average family in the US. There is nothing fair about that, particularly as it is all inherited.

When I was a kid, a sitting US president would stay at our house periodically. My stepdad was an ambassador, by virtue of contributing large amounts of money through a PAC which he controlled, etc… The entire system is designed by and for the rich.

Somehow, I question whether this is in line with what I think of the ideas and principles which Jesus advocated and practiced in his life.

 

[valentino]

It just appears that rich people seem to know how to profit nto matter what the situation.Even if war was to come here somewho they could find a way to profit.Maybe since whenever some one loses someone else has to gain.Or perhaps when anything fails they always know what caused the failure.I remember when Hemsley made that statement “the rich don’t pay taxes”(she was a wealthy hotel owner)and she got jumped all over and was sent to jail.The people couldn’t stand to hear the truth I guess.I don’t think she was lying but just stating a fact.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

It just appears that rich people seem to know how to profit nto matter what the situation.Even if war was to come here somewho they could find a way to profit.Maybe since whenever some one loses someone else has to gain.Or perhaps when anything fails they always know what caused the failure.I remember when Hemsley made that statement “the rich don’t pay taxes”(she was a wealthy hotel owner)and she got jumped all over and was sent to jail.The people couldn’t stand to hear the truth I guess.I don’t think she was lying but just stating a fact.

The interesting thing about rich people is that they often don’t stay rich.

In the United States, in particular, there is a tremendous amount of “flow” … some poor people learn how to save and how to invest and maybe how to invent and how to innovate … and they become wealthy.

And some rich people invest unwisely or just guess wrong and suddenly they are poor. If they are truly smart, then they bounce back and come up with another new business and do well. By the way, when they do well, they create employment for people like me who are not all that innovative or money smart. We poor people may work at it but we lack the inspiration to come up with the “killer app” that will generate wealth for us and allow us to grow our business (and, incidentally, create a lot of jobs).

And no business is forever. The railroads did well for more than a hundred years … but they had LOTS of dynamism … a euphemism for ups and downs. Just last week, I did a little research project … I was curious if my recollection was accurate that I had traveled with my parents on a passenger train pulled by a steam engine. So I looked up on Wiki … the New York Central Railroad … FASCINATING! … and then the Pennsylvania Railroad. They started in the early 1800’s and employed hundreds of thousands of people and liberated millions of people who, before railroads, could not travel or move their crops or mining results … mostly coal and iron ore, but other things as well … or their manufactured goods. Before railroads, there was an extensive network of canals. For more than a hundred years.

My point of all this is that the railroads made some men into multi-millionaires … and created a lot of envy … BUT, in the process they helped out the “little people” … like me … as Leona Helmsley would call us … because they created a LOT of very good jobs … some dangerous … but they paid very well … versus not doing much of anything before that could bring in income. Besides the train drivers and brakemen, the railroads employed tens of thousands of clerks and civil engineers and boiler makers and a whole system of apprentices … AND the railroads allowed people to get around … truly liberated people … at very low cost. And if some people got very rich in the process, … so what!?! … My ancestors benefitted from the jobs and from the liberation.

But some people just couldn’t let go of the idea that somehow, somewhere, somebody made a lot of money.

John D. Rockefeller … some said … should have retired after he made his first billion. Wasn’t fair that he should make MORE money … but how did he make all that MORE money? He created innovation. He had one really great idea after another. Never stopped having great ideas …and in the process, he reduced the price of oil products to unheard of low prices that made kerosene and other products available to the “little person” like me. No one else thought of those ideas. And when he was done, he gave away all his millions. Well, he gave away most of it. Should have given all of it away instead of setting up those leftie foundations. Henry Ford regretted having set up the Ford Foundation because it ended up espousing the things that opposed the system that allowed Ford to develop low-cost automobiles … that liberated people.

Anyway, Leona Helmsley just enjoyed being a difficult person. I knew people who her husband, Harry, had to fire because she took a dislike to them … Harry would find other jobs for them … AND she paid millions in taxes … some say $50 million per year … but she pushed the system just a little too hard … and went to prison over something like $2 million in personal expenses that she took as business deductions. The IRS always likes to imprison some high-profile person to create an example for the rest of us little people.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Valentino,

Look at this imaginative story as a possible answer to your question: pass our 100 lemons to 100 people - 24 hours later there will be 2 lemonade stands (one serving the drink with ice…) and 1 lemon cookie stand - and 97 people with pursed lips and a soured expression standing in line to sell the lemons they could not use to buy what these three producers have made. I guarantee, of this group of 97 less than 5 will try to learn from the 3, and there will be about 15 who complain that the lemons were not all equal, or that proceeds from the sales should be evenly divided. The remainder will just be looking around no really sure as to what has happened. If it just ended there that would be fine … but, it doesn’t. Of the 15 malcontents, 11 are elected to local, state and federal office and 1 becomes a judge. Of the 5 who wanted to learn the skill, 2 will succeed and 1 of them will be elected to office.

It is just a matter of time before the lemonade and cookie stands are regulated to death - and now who will be taxed? How will the others eat and drink a lemon product? Will the 3 move to a friendlier country - one where they are at least tolerated if not appreciate?

The fact of the matter is that there will always be people with ideas on how to improve whatever they are given - but, just the idea is not enough. Capital investment (something I omitted for the sake of brevity in my lemon story) is needed for the reminement of product, for building a manufacturing facility, providing marketing and distribution outlets. It is big and complex - and no one is stopping anyone from joining in the process! Just pick up the business section of your newspaper, find a company you think will turn a profit and make your own RISK oriented investment. Ultimately, this country was not founded on W-2 wage earners (yeah, that sounds so ‘unfair’) but on those willing to go after their dream. Now it is the W-2 folks who are the backbone of the process - but, there is no living body out there with only a backbone - it must have a head and heart along with other items.

God bless

It just appears that rich people seem to know how to profit nto matter what the situation.Even if war was to come here somewho they could find a way to profit.Maybe since whenever some one loses someone else has to gain.Or perhaps when anything fails they always know what caused the failure.I remember when Hemsley made that statement “the rich don’t pay taxes”(she was a wealthy hotel owner)and she got jumped all over and was sent to jail.The people couldn’t stand to hear the truth I guess.I don’t think she was lying but just stating a fact.

 

[davidmlamb]

Im not talking about communism or making everyone equal.Im saying since the wealthy have beniffited from our unfair tax system shouldn’t they be required to help out this country to get out of the mess were in?Im not advocating taking all their wealth or make them equal to everyone else.But when the top 2% control 65%of the wealth in the nation Don’t you believe we are a little out of balance and it will continue so if the republicans do you they have been debating about?thanks.I read St.John’s quote.but he isn’t talking about what im referrring to.

Hear what Pope Paul VI had to say on this matter:

1. “He who has the goods of this world and sees his brother in need and closes his heart to him, how does the love of God abide in him?” (21) Everyone knows that the Fathers of the Church laid down the duty of the rich toward the poor in no uncertain terms. As St. Ambrose put it: “You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich.” (22) These words indicate that the right to private property is not absolute and unconditional.

No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life. In short, “as the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good.” When “private gain and basic community needs conflict with one another,” it is for the public authorities “to seek a solution to these questions, with the active involvement of individual citizens and social groups.” (23)

1. However, certain concepts have somehow arisen out of these new conditions and insinuated themselves into the fabric of human society. These concepts present profit as the chief spur to economic progress, free competition as the guiding norm of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right, having no limits nor concomitant social obligations.

This unbridled liberalism paves the way for a particular type of tyranny, rightly condemned by Our predecessor Pius XI, for it results in the “international imperialism of money.”(26)

Such improper manipulations of economic forces can never be condemned enough; let it be said once again that economics is supposed to be in the service of man. (27)

But if it is true that a type of capitalism, as it is commonly called, has given rise to hardships, unjust practices, and fratricidal conflicts that persist to this day, it would be a mistake to attribute these evils to the rise of industrialization itself, for they really derive from the pernicious economic concepts that grew up along with it. We must in all fairness acknowledge the vital role played by labor systemization and industrial organization in the task of development. Pope Paul VI

Redistribution of wealth is just when it is comes in the form of just wages and benifits. The Republican party undermines labor unions and effectively defrauds the working class out of a living and just wage. The result is dysfunctional families that leads to dispair, distress. divorce, and even abortions. Right wing conservatism is evil desguised as an angel of light, but in reality it is self serving and contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the social justice teachings of the Church.

Peace, David

 

[valentino]

It is a social justice issue. It just depends on what you think is fair. Is libertarianism more important than, say, decent health care for everyone who needs it. I don’t know the exact percentages, but it is right around 10% of the population owning 90% of the income and assets in the US, with the gap widening. The wealthy have, in fact, benefited from the recent economic collapse as it has been experienced by the lower class.

Personally, I am fortunate enough to be born into one of these families. I can declare bankruptcy, be sued and a judgement won against me… and so on, and none of these things can effect me financially. I can still go helicopter skiing. I have done nothing to earn this privilege.

I am still forming my own opinion as to what all of this means to me. I have served as an enlisted person in the military during wartime, and deployed several times to combat. I am pursuing studies as a physician because I think it is incumbent upon me to be of service to my fellow man. I mean this not to brag, or anything like that, but to say that I feel a sense of obligation since I don’t need to worry about how to make a living or support myself or any future family (which I probably will not have). I have not yet figured out what role money will play in my life, as far as what good I might do for society, how much of it I should keep or give away, how that should be done, and so on.

My personal view is that the tax system is not equitable. I have seen first hand how attorneys use laws which were written for the wealthy to protect and insulate them from the normal events in life which the average person must deal with. To give you some sense of the complexity of the legalities of these matters, the process of signing documents when I turned 18 years old took over six hours in an attorney’s office. The documents were thousands of pages. In fact, there is a room which is lined on all four walls with binders of trust documents in my family, and an accountant who flies in once per month to spend a week or more bringing the accounts up to date. I filed four tax returns last year, in addition to my personal return. The cost of writing and executing the legal instruments on my behalf significantly exceeded several years of income for the average family in the US. There is nothing fair about that, particularly as it is all inherited.

When I was a kid, a sitting US president would stay at our house periodically. My stepdad was an ambassador, by virtue of contributing large amounts of money through a PAC which he controlled, etc… The entire system is designed by and for the rich.

Somehow, I question whether this is in line with what I think of the ideas and principles which Jesus advocated and practiced in his life.

Yes,i agree.Also I can’t decide which party is best.The dems.certainly don’t have the right approach.It just seems that the reps.could do a better job at making things more equitalble.It appears that they are just controlled to much by the big money lobbyist.In the end I will probably still have to vote republican.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Raising taxes on the rich accomplishes several things:

It destroys industry.

It forces businesses to ‘outsource.’

It concentrates power in the hands of the state and federal government.

It destroys even the desire to succeed.

It places in the mind of the public the false notion that money and wealth are in themselves evil.

It robs work of its natural dignity.

It renders unto Caesar what is God’s.

It ultimately harms the poor and middle class.

If you’re fine with that—the church isn’t. Those who foment such economic thuggery know well what they are doing.

Class envy is a stalinist trick. It is not Catholic; the church cautions against it. Although it’s sad, it’s not surprising that so many Catholics cherry-pick church teachings, much like Bible-only Christians ignore the Bible when it proves the basics of Catholicism.

This country is already on its way to becoming a stalinist cess-pit. The very mention of GOD, from whom our rights are bestowed, is under further assault with each day. They want to remove His Holy Name from our money, from our Constitution, from our Pledge of Allegiance (which has been done several times already).

Our turncoat reps now ignore the will of the people and continue to steal power and dignity from us and from the church. If things continue like this, it won’t be long until the stalinist dream of dragging priests from the churches and executing them will come true.

And the tax-the-rich crowd can point proudly to themselves and say, ‘We helped!’

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Yes,i agree.Also I can’t decide which party is best.The dems.certainly don’t have the right approach.It just seems that the reps.could do a better job at making things more equitalble.It appears that they are just controlled to much by the big money lobbyist.In the end I will probably still have to vote republican.

Maybe this excerpt will help:

Lefty’s Logic

Remembering William F. Buckley
by Lefty Schaeffer
Published: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 1:29 PM CDT
My adult children have often reminded me, with good nature teasing, of my conservative philosophy of limited government and a constant defense of the American free enterprise system. My disdain for a growing public sector is also part of their teasing when they tell their friends while I’m within earshot, “In the Schaeffer household, we were in the third grade before we learned ‘goddamnedbureaucrat’ was not one word.”

With this conservative philosophy revealed, many of you may question my periodic reprimand of gas industry practices in developing the Marcellus Shale.

Several friends, already aware of my political philosophy, questioned my praise/criticism approach to industry strategy in developing this important domestic energy resource. My defense of apparent paradoxical behavior is to quote the father of the modern conservative movement, the late William F Buckley who said in 2005,*** “Every five years I state that the trouble with socialism is socialism. The trouble with capitalism is some capitalists. I hope that five years from now someone will remember to quote this in my memory.” ***Mr Buckley died in 2008 and I’m a year late in filling his 2005 request but better late than never. What William F was comparing was the guaranteed failure of socialism with the less than perfect, but better, capitalistic system.

I’m an unapologetic capitalist but don’t want to fall into a strict dichotomy growing today around the topic of domestic energy development.

 

[MarkInOregon]

23 countries have made the Flat Tax work.

And here is how it would work for corporations and for individuals … and with a 17% rate.

So, I guess more reading is needed.

Flat tax with deductions [from Wiki]
US Congressman Dick Armey has advocated a flat tax on all income in excess of an amount shielded by household type and size. For example, draft legislation proposed by Armey would allow married couples filing jointly to deduct $26,200, unmarried heads of household to deduct $17,200, and single adults, $13,100. $5,300 would be deducted for each dependent. A household would pay tax at a flat rate of 17% on the excess. Businesses would pay a flat 17% rate on all profits. Others have put forth similar proposals with various rates and deductions. Armey defined income to include only salary, wages, and pensions; capital gains and all other sources of wealth appreciation were excluded from taxation under his proposal.[4]

While campaigning for the American presidency in 1996 and 2000, Steve Forbes called for replacing the income tax - which would have included a repeal of the 16th Amendment - by a tax at the flat rate of 17% of consumption, defined as income minus savings, in excess of an amount determined by the type and size of the household.[citation needed] For example, the exempt amount for a family of four would be $42,000 per year.

Modified flat taxes have been proposed which would allow deductions for a very few items, while still eliminating the vast majority of existing deductions. Charitable deductions and home mortgage interest are the most discussed exceptions, as these are popular with voters and often used.

Link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax

Nice bolding–but what are business profits? Defining this is one of the reasons the tax code is so complex–thats what all the fighting is about. And that’s what people don’t seem to get.
Now when you say businesses do you mean all businesses? What about those that aren’t separate legal entities from their owners–i.e. sole proprietors? They currently are taxed at their owners rate. They also pay self-employment tax–will that still come into play? Or will you require them to file a new and separate business tax return rather than a schedule with their individual tax return?

I am not saying it can’t work–but everyone acts like it takes all the complexity out of the tax code–I am saying it doesn’t.

Peace,
Mark