Raising taxes on the rich

[sedonaman]

So in other words there is just as much wealth in this country as there ever has been its just distributed differently…

Is wealth distributed or created?

My take on this is that this socialists system we have been developing since Wilson are helping the rich and keeping everyone else down.

The middle class has never had it so good with their large-screen TVs, satellite receivers and expensive sports packages, large homes, and luxury automobiles. They have it better than the super-rich did 100 years ago. The fact is the better we have it, the more unbearable are the remaining shortcomings.

…the poor class is growing who are supposed to be helped the most …

That’s because we subsidize poverty.

 

[valentino]

Is wealth distributed or created?

The middle class has never had it so good with their large-screen TVs, satellite receivers and expensive sports packages, large homes, and luxury automobiles. They have it better than the super-rich did 100 years ago. The fact is the better we have it, the more unbearable are the remaining shortcomings.

That’s because we subsidize poverty.

Its both.Wealth is created by producing more natural resources.Its distributed when the people with the most are made by enacted laws to give up what they have earned.The middle class is shrinking.They aren’t maintaining.Yes,i agree that no class in America can stand to have less material goods then it did in the past.We don’t compare our selves to the world just our former generation.America is exemptionally rich but we’re nnot satisfied.We should forever seek how to get more and make our lives easier.Its absolutely unthinkable that another country could have more than us.we aren’t looked upon by so many countries as being greedy for nothing.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Valentino,

Do you meant that these are the groups we should now consider ‘rich’ and just tax them until they are poor again? It is expensive to run a government such as ours - so, do not expect those tax dollars to be redistributed… after all, that would create another crop of ‘rich’.

God bless

Its both.Wealth is created by producing more natural resources.Its distributed when the people with the most are made by enacted laws to give up what they have earned.The middle class is shrinking.They aren’t maintaining.Yes,i agree that no class in America can stand to have less material goods then it did in the past.We don’t compare our selves to the world just our former generation.America is exemptionally rich but we’re nnot satisfied.We should forever seek how to get more and make our lives easier.Its absolutely unthinkable that another country could have more than us.we aren’t looked upon by so many countries as being greedy for nothing.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Its both.Wealth is created by producing more natural resources.Its distributed when the people with the most are made by enacted laws to give up what they have earned.The middle class is shrinking.They aren’t maintaining.Yes,i agree that no class in America can stand to have less material goods then it did in the past.We don’t compare our selves to the world just our former generation.America is exemptionally rich but we’re nnot satisfied.We should forever seek how to get more and make our lives easier.Its absolutely unthinkable that another country could have more than us.we aren’t looked upon by so many countries as being greedy for nothing.

I apologize for taking issue with you.

Niger has an abundance of natural resources, yet it has NO wealth. Niger remains the poorest nation on earth.

What is so unique that the United States is wealthy? I would suggest that the reason the United States is wealthy is that its political structure is unique in that people can innovate and work hard and keep what they earn.

If people were not allowed to keep what they earn, then they would stop working because it would be pointless to work hard and have bullies confiscate it.

THAT is what happens in third world countries.

People do not have personal property rights. They cannot own their land and buy and sell their land. They need permission to do everything and anything. So, being stifled, it is impossible to do much.

It’s NOT that we are not satisfied. it IS that people can innovate and keep the fruits of their labor.

HOWEVER, just in the past few years, things HAVE changed … so that people are faced with more and more restrictions. And as a result in the index of economic freedom, America’s place has slipped dramatically.

The key is ECONOMIC FREEDOM.

That is the essential element.

Read Mark Levin’s book, “Liberty and Tyranny” available from your library or from www.marklevinshow.com

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Its both.**Wealth is created by producing more natural resources.**Its distributed when the people with the most are made by enacted laws to give up what they have earned.The middle class is shrinking.They aren’t maintaining.Yes,i agree that no class in America can stand to have less material goods then it did in the past.We don’t compare our selves to the world just our former generation.America is exemptionally rich but we’re nnot satisfied.We should forever seek how to get more and make our lives easier.Its absolutely unthinkable that another country could have more than us.we aren’t looked upon by so many countries as being greedy for nothing.

Wealth is not a “zero sum game” … meaning that if I have something it is because you don’t have something. In a zero sum game, one person’s wealth comes at the cost of someone else being deprived.

So, then you get into “distribution” … you take from one person and give it to another.

Wealth is not created by producing MORE natural resources, but in how creatively you use those natural resources.

You can take sand … and just bag and sell it to people who need sand. Or you can add water and grow useful plants in it. Or you can take sand and add stuff to it and make concrete. Or you can process sand and make glass. Or you can do a more sophisticated process in a clean room and make computer chips.

Wealth is created by HOW you use the natural resources.

Innovation, imagination, creativity … and in a way that the market will buy those products willingly.

Bill Gates: cheap software.

John D. Rockefeller: really cheap, readily available energy.

“Anybody” could write software. “Anybody” could drill for oil; it’s a natural resource.

But they did it better than anyone else. Then innovated.

Not a zero-sum game.

The same thing applies to most everything else.

Aluminum is the most common element on the planet. Yet it was very expensive until Hall came up with an innovative process to refine aluminum. And then as the price came down people began to fabricate useful items with it. Furniture. Home construction materials. Car bodies. Boats. Airplanes.

Not a zero-sum game.

The PROBLEM is that it takes a really special intellect to do creative and innovate things and the vast vast majority of us just don’t have that skill set.

If we restrict those people, either they will not create or they will go someplace else and do their creative, innovate work someplace else and someone else will benefit.

When you hear criticism, take a close look at the person doing the criticizing … and ask yourself: “what special skills does that person have … apart from criticizing others?” Very often, they don’t actually have skills, except to tie other peoples’ guts in knots with envy at the success of others.

So, what happens when you tax the rich is that you gradually deprive yourself of the ability to take advantage of their creativity and innovation. If they go somewhere else or decide that innovation is too costly to theirselves, they will turn in some other direction.

So, taxing the rich is just counter productive to the rest of us.

 

[valentino]

Wealth is not a “zero sum game” … meaning that if I have something it is because you don’t have something. In a zero sum game, one person’s wealth comes at the cost of someone else being deprived.

So, then you get into “distribution” … you take from one person and give it to another.

Wealth is not created by producing MORE natural resources, but in how creatively you use those natural resources.

You can take sand … and just bag and sell it to people who need sand. Or you can add water and grow useful plants in it. Or you can take sand and add stuff to it and make concrete. Or you can process sand and make glass. Or you can do a more sophisticated process in a clean room and make computer chips.

Wealth is created by HOW you use the natural resources.

Innovation, imagination, creativity … and in a way that the market will buy those products willingly.

Bill Gates: cheap software.

John D. Rockefeller: really cheap, readily available energy.

“Anybody” could write software. “Anybody” could drill for oil; it’s a natural resource.

But they did it better than anyone else. Then innovated.

Not a zero-sum game.

The same thing applies to most everything else.

Aluminum is the most common element on the planet. Yet it was very expensive until Hall came up with an innovative process to refine aluminum. And then as the price came down people began to fabricate useful items with it. Furniture. Home construction materials. Car bodies. Boats. Airplanes.

Not a zero-sum game.

The PROBLEM is that it takes a really special intellect to do creative and innovate things and the vast vast majority of us just don’t have that skill set.

If we restrict those people, either they will not create or they will go someplace else and do their creative, innovate work someplace else and someone else will benefit.

When you hear criticism, take a close look at the person doing the criticizing … and ask yourself: “what special skills does that person have … apart from criticizing others?” Very often, they don’t actually have skills, except to tie other peoples’ guts in knots with envy at the success of others.

So, what happens when you tax the rich is that you gradually deprive yourself of the ability to take advantage of their creativity and innovation. If they go somewhere else or decide that innovation is too costly to theirselves, they will turn in some other direction.

So, taxing the rich is just counter productive to the rest of us.

yes,this all makes good sense.

 

[sedonaman]

…If we restrict those people, either they will not create or they will go someplace else and do their creative, innovate work someplace else and someone else will benefit.

Unfortunqtely, there are too many people willing to hurt themselves in order to hurt the rich.

When you hear criticism, take a close look at the person doing the criticizing … and ask yourself: “what special skills does that person have … apart from criticizing others?” Very often, they don’t actually have skills, except to tie other peoples’ guts in knots with envy at the success of others.

They do have the grotesque special skill to manipulate the alreay envious.

So, what happens when you tax the rich is that you gradually deprive yourself of the ability to take advantage of their creativity and innovation. If they go somewhere else or decide that innovation is too costly to theirselves, they will turn in some other direction.

So, taxing the rich is just counter productive to the rest of us.

It removes captital from the economy thus restricting growth. Since communism doesn’t work, capitalism must be made to fail.

 

[sedonaman]

Its both.Wealth is created by producing more natural resources.Its distributed when the people with the most are made by enacted laws to give up what they have earned.The middle class is shrinking.They aren’t maintaining.Yes,i agree that no class in America can stand to have less material goods then it did in the past.We don’t compare our selves to the world just our former generation.America is exemptionally rich but we’re nnot satisfied.We should forever seek how to get more and make our lives easier.Its absolutely unthinkable that another country could have more than us.we aren’t looked upon by so many countries as being greedy for nothing.

The expression “distribution of wealth” implies that wealth already exists and the government owns it all and “distributes” some to everyone. This is due in no small part to the idea that money is wealth.

 

[sedonaman]

If you study the history of the development of democracy, there was only one major concern that thinkers not attached to some special interest were concerned with. That, as Franklin put it, “[w]hen the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” When half the voters pay no taxes, the only battle is over how much to tax the “rich,” and every attempt to stop government growth is characterized as special pleading for the rich.

…G.B. Shaw famously said that all professions are conspiracies against the laity. Here we have a system that objectifies that principle in lurid detail. With the right lobbyist (professional) and the right spin, you can get a tax deduction. If you just stay home and do your job, you will be punished.

americanthinker.com/2011/07/no_new_tax_cuts.html

Is this what we want?

 

[valentino]

The expression “distribution of wealth” implies that wealth already exists and the government owns it all and “distributes” some to everyone. This is due in no small part to the idea that money is wealth.

I thought that wealth was considered tobe something which very few people had and it was something which should be spread around to everybody.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Where do you think most of the government waste is? I think you might be right, but I suspect the DoD for most of it, and no one wants to deal with that.

I don’t know if there is any single place where most of the government waste is. But I think too, when one considers reductions in government spending, “waste” is a relative thing. In my personal opinion, a lot of entitlements are “waste”, though we usually don’t think of them in that way. When we think “waste” our mind goes to $1,000 toilet seats, welfare queens and such. But in my own mind, a lot of it has to do with whether it truly serves a legitimate public purpose. So, for example, the fact that Billionaire Warren Buffett is “entitled” to the maximum in social security benefits is “waste” on the part of the government. And, really, health insurance subsidies for people making up to $88,000, particularly when anybody making that much almost always has employer-provided health insurance anyway, is “waste”.

“Waste” isn’t always in the form of, e.g., Florentine merchants throwing golden plates into the Arno just to show they could. It can also come in the form of trampling through a single row of a farmer’s beans. “Waste” is at its worst when one takes the property of another and throws it at something that really doesn’t serve a social good of any significance. In my opinion, a very large segment of middle class welfare (which is most of the welfare) is wasted.

No, I don’t doubt there is waste in the DoD. But just focusing on it does not tell us what the best recipe is for reducing deficits.

 

[sedonaman]

I don’t know if there is any single place where most of the government waste is. But I think too, when one considers reductions in government spending, “waste” is a relative thing. In my personal opinion, a lot of entitlements are “waste”, though we usually don’t think of them in that way. When we think “waste” our mind goes to $1,000 toilet seats, welfare queens and such. But in my own mind, a lot of it has to do with whether it truly serves a legitimate public purpose. So, for example, the fact that Billionaire Warren Buffett is “entitled” to the maximum in social security benefits is “waste” on the part of the government. And, really, health insurance subsidies for people making up to $88,000, particularly when anybody making that much almost always has employer-provided health insurance anyway, is “waste”.

“Waste” isn’t always in the form of, e.g., Florentine merchants throwing golden plates into the Arno just to show they could. It can also come in the form of trampling through a single row of a farmer’s beans. “Waste” is at its worst when one takes the property of another and throws it at something that really doesn’t serve a social good of any significance. In my opinion, a very large segment of middle class welfare (which is most of the welfare) is wasted.

No, I don’t doubt there is waste in the DoD. But just focusing on it does not tell us what the best recipe is for reducing deficits.

Someone once said it all depends on whose ox gets gored.

 

[sedonaman]

I thought that wealth was considered tobe something which very few people had and it was something which should be spread around to everybody.

Consider the gold and silver that the Spaniards brought back from the New World. They made the mistake of believing that money [in this case, gold and silver] is wealth. What happened was a massive increase in the money supply resulting in inflation, because the true wealth is the goods and services a country provides itself, not how much money is in circulation. Only people can produce a good or service, so only people can create wealth.

Money is a store of value and a medium of exchange, not wealth itself. If tomorrow people stopped accepting greenbacks as money, wealth would not cease to exist; people would just start accepting something else … or resort to barter.

There have been societies without money but had wealth.

“The Economic Organization of a P.O.W. Camp”
by
R.A. Radford
From Economica, November, 1945
facstaff.uww.edu/kashianr/POWCampRadford.pdf

 

[copperblade]

Is this what we want?

This isn’t really a new problem. This is part of how our monetary system is set up.

Actually, that’s not new. Rush Limbaugh has been using that statistic to prove that only the rich pay taxes since 2009. Before the recession it was 40%. But really it’s a reflection of how far removed normal people are from the true economy. When the top 400 people have more money than the bottom 50%, who in turn makes less than 1% of the money, then there’s no point in paying taxes because you aren’t really contributing to the economy. That’s the problem. Capitalism is based on everyone contributing instead of just the the elite few. In 50 years, the only thing that will be for sell are big screen tvs and golden faucets and Walmart will just be a gigantic dollar store.

Plus this is no more outrageous to me than the fact that Congress is arguing over cutting amounts of money equal to the tax cuts for one or two of the biggest corporations.

 

[sedonaman]

This isn’t really a new problem. This is part of how our monetary system is set up.

Plus this is no more outrageous to me than the fact that Congress is arguing over cutting amounts of money equal to the tax cuts for one or two of the biggest corporations.

The rich are the only ones who pay taxes, by definition. You have to define rich, and according to the congress, the rich are those above median income. They pay all the taxes. Period.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

The rich are the only ones who pay taxes, by definition. You have to define rich, and according to the congress, the rich are those above median income. They pay all the taxes. Period.

And by definition…

And any tax cut or loophole is going to favor those paying the taxes.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

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.

I buy my pants at Wal-Mart. Do you think the Rich Man does?

If there were a 20 percent flat tax, a man making $1 million would owe $20,000 while a man making $20,000 would owe $400. That amount, if spread over 52 paychecks (paid every week) would cost him $7.69 per paycheck – so, instead of taking home $384 every two weeks, he’d be taking home $376 and change.

The Rich Man, on the other hand, is responsible for $20,000 a year – which, if he’s paid every week, would amount to $384 deducted from each paycheck.

Now, if the Poor Man buys his $16 jeans at Wal-Mart (or $4 used jeans at a thrift store) and the Rich Man pays $200 for his designer jeans, isn’t each Man living within his means AND making a contribution he can afford?

On top of that, isn’t the Poor Man now a contributing member of society rather than a ward of the state?

Furthermore, doesn’t the Rich Man now have more money to pump into the economy or to donate to charity – things that society depends upon from Rich Men?

Or, are you advocating (shudder) that the Poor Man ought to have the chance to wear fancy designer jeans, and that it’s not “fair” that the Rich Man can afford them when the Poor Man can’t?

Peace,
Dante

 

[sedonaman]

I buy my pants at Wal-Mart. Do you think the Rich Man does?

If there were a 20 percent flat tax, a man making $1 million would owe $20,000 while a man making $20,000 would owe $400. That amount, if spread over 52 paychecks (paid every week) would cost him $7.69 per paycheck – so, instead of taking home $384 every two weeks, he’d be taking home $376 and change.

The Rich Man, on the other hand, is responsible for $20,000 a year – which, if he’s paid every week, would amount to $384 deducted from each paycheck.

Now, if the Poor Man buys his $16 jeans at Wal-Mart (or $4 used jeans at a thrift store) and the Rich Man pays $200 for his designer jeans, isn’t each Man living within his means AND making a contribution he can afford?

On top of that, isn’t the Poor Man now a contributing member of society rather than a ward of the state?

Furthermore, doesn’t the Rich Man now have more money to pump into the economy or to donate to charity – things that society depends upon from Rich Men?

Or, are you advocating (shudder) that the Poor Man ought to have the chance to wear fancy designer jeans, and that it’s not “fair” that the Rich Man can afford them when the Poor Man can’t?

Peace,
Dante

In fact, the progressive tax was sold as making economic life more “fair”. Eventually, the common worker was in the 40% bracket that even Tip O’Neill conceded was never intended to be for the little man.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I buy my pants at Wal-Mart. Do you think the Rich Man does?

If there were a 20 percent flat tax, a man making $1 million would owe $20,000 while a man making $20,000 would owe $400. That amount, if spread over 52 paychecks (paid every week) would cost him $7.69 per paycheck – so, instead of taking home $384 every two weeks, he’d be taking home $376 and change.

The Rich Man, on the other hand, is responsible for $20,000 a year – which, if he’s paid every week, would amount to $384 deducted from each paycheck.

Now, if the Poor Man buys his $16 jeans at Wal-Mart (or $4 used jeans at a thrift store) and the Rich Man pays $200 for his designer jeans, isn’t each Man living within his means AND making a contribution he can afford?

On top of that, isn’t the Poor Man now a contributing member of society rather than a ward of the state?

Furthermore, doesn’t the Rich Man now have more money to pump into the economy or to donate to charity – things that society depends upon from Rich Men?

Or, are you advocating (shudder) that the Poor Man ought to have the chance to wear fancy designer jeans, and that it’s not “fair” that the Rich Man can afford them when the Poor Man can’t?

Peace,
Dante

Very well thought out.

One can say hand outs hurt the poor more than any tax that they may have to pay. Doesn’t it say in the Bible that those who are unwilling to work should be unwilling to eat?

 

[copperblade]

I think all these arguments really come down to judgements about work, not about money. Religions traditionally have spoken against things like usury and charging interest because when you make money just from having money, you were considered a parasite. The real question is “how did the rich man get rich?” or “why is the poor man poor?” Even though our society has been brainwashed by the global banking industry, we still acknowledge that people like Bernie Madoff are parasites.

I think all of us have a internal sense of fairness by which we judge what we see. When we discuss these things, I bet our fair-o-meter isn’t what’s the most different, but rather what scenarios we’re imagining. For example, if you imagine the price of goods which are relatively cheap such as pants ($8/yr) you will definitely have a different feeling about what’s fair than if you’re imagining the cost of fuel to get to work, and the cost of housing.

But it’s really not the costs that are important I think for most people–it’s the judgement on how you make that 20,000 or how you make that 100,000. We can all feel sympathy for a man who does back-breaking work for 60 hours a week only to make 20,000. I think most of us have an internal sense that something is wrong or the system is broken. However if he’s making 20,000 because he only wants to bother with working 10 - 20 hours a week, and is lazy, we really have no sympathy. The same goes for someone making 100,000 through an 80 hour work week vs through capital gains.

Money is really just supposed to be a tool that helps us trade the things we make or do of value for others. Taxing people based solely on a yearly income ignores a lot of the variables. That’s why I’m sympathetic to flat taxes–the whole thing seems too complex to be making judgment calls about how someone made money. Plus a flat tax makes it really hard to game the system as people can adjust the amount of money they make from year to year, etc. If flat taxes hurt poor people disproportionately (which I agree they do), the answer isn’t progressive tax, but rather I think special compensations for people based on their situation.

Plus all these complicated tax laws and discussions do for the average person I think is just make them feel it’s a numbers game, and they demoralize both work and wealth. At least a feudal lord wasn’t thought to be moral simply because he was rich. There is an illusion today that having a lot of wealth makes you a harder worker. I’m not saying it’s completely random, but no one glorifies the work–they glorify the money. A way to help fix this is to make the system less of a numbers game.

I don’t know if I mentioned it in this thread already, but this year I started a flexible spending account for health care expenses because my company offered it. Looking back, I felt I was “losing” the game by not partaking of a numerically advantaged opportunity. By taking advantage of it, I felt I was getting an advantage. But it’s all a game. Tax adjustments like that are just like a drug to distract you. There is no free lunch unless you are willing to steal it from someone else.

When I looked at buying a house I was told about all the tax advantages, etc. But that’s no advantage to me since I’m sure the housing prices are simply higher because of it. It’s institutionalized dishonesty–telling us we’re getting a good deal, when for example, your tax subsidy for a mortgage is really only a benefit for the bank.