Tax us more, say wealthy Europeans

[Darryl1958]

These rich who clamor for higher taxes do so not because of their benevolence, but because they have already made and invested their money and their standards of living would not be impeded. Their business endeavors would enjoy monopolistic protection because their competitors’ successes would be punished by confiscatory government policies.

Covetousness masquerades as altruism when misers want to be philanthropists with the wealth of others.

When rich people start doing favors to government, that is a warning sign, true enough.
People in general don’t get rich through making poor business decisions. Paybacks from government are the biggest windfall of all for many businesses.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Then tax them.

The rich should be taxed more (but not a LOT more).

 

[stinkcat_14]

People in general don’t get rich through making poor business decisions. Paybacks from government are the biggest windfall of all for many businesses.

Ken Lay got rich despite his stupidity, so did Angelo Mozilo from countrywide, Bob Nardelli made millions while Home Depot shareholders made nothing. The incidence of stupidity in business is much more widespread than people think. And some people do manage to get their hands on some lute before the company files for bankruptcy.

 

[Trader]

“None of us are in Buffett’s or Bettencourt’s league,” said the founder, Dieter Lehmkuhl, a retired doctor with assets of €1.5m (£1.3m). “We’re a broad church – teachers, doctors, entrepreneurs. Most of our wealth is inherited. But we have more money than we need.”

QUOTE]

The part that struck me is that this is very different on our side of the pond. A very high percentage of American billionaires are the first generation of rich. The founders of Microsoft, Apple, Walmart, Google, Facebook, Oracle, and many others were innovators who actually earned their money, so maybe they have less reason to feel guilty about their wealth.

I am also proud that many American business moguls were innovative in giving away a large portion of their wealth, like Rockerfeller, Carnegie, Ford, Mott, Turner, Gates and Buffett. Even if I don’t agree with their giving priorities, I applaud them for doing it without waiting for the government to do it for them.

 

[rlg94086]

Ken Lay got rich despite his stupidity, so did Angelo Mozilo from countrywide, Bob Nardelli made millions while Home Depot shareholders made nothing. The incidence of stupidity in business is much more widespread than people think. And some people do manage to get their hands on some lute before the company files for bankruptcy.

Well, at least they are playing pleasant music.

 

[Darryl1958]

Well, at least they are playing pleasant music.

The music of Nero comes to mind at moments like these.:harp:

 

[CMatt25]

Did I state otherwise? Does it matter?

Yes you asked what part of Europe Palm Beach was in but the article I linked to referred to patients throughout central Palm Beach County.

And yes it matters because I doubt many of the residents in the town of Palm Beach have a need to use clinics being adversely affected by the federal budget cuts and federal curb in spending, such as the one addressed in the article.

 

[ishii]

I just assumed you understood the budget includes programs. And I’m not about to list for you all the examples of the hurtful affects. But here’s one.

“after $600 million was cut from the program amid the 2011 budget wrangling in March, the plan to add 350 new federally qualified community clinics was forced to shrink to just 67”

“After 2014, when the Affordable Care Act’s mandatory health insurance and health exchanges are slated to open, such clinics were expected to play a big role in absorbing the influx of Medicaid patients looking for doctors.”

“Simmons and many others worry that funding for community health centers will take harder hits in the near future as the congressional debt reduction “super*committee” convenes.”

“It is important to remember that for every $1 million in funding cuts, health centers lose the ability to serve 8,300 people,”

palmbeachpost.com/money/federal-budget-cuts-hurt-foundcare-health-center-in-1802239.html

Perhaps rather than always seeing the solution to the problem is by raising taxes on the evil rich, we should focus on those government programs that are a waste of money? Stop funding those programs! Why do millions of kids get their lunch and breakfast paid by the govt. year 'round? Since when are parents absolved of their responsibility to feed their own kids? How about all of the fraud and waste with foodstamps? Why are graduate students eligible to receive foodstamps? Why should a waiter working in a restaurant pay for the meals of a grad student? Why do we allow retired teachers who get pensions in six figures and receive free medical care for life collect social security? In some cases where both parents were teachers, the combines pension is over $200k and they still collect social security. Why do folks receiving food stamps get to buy their food on one order, and their big screen tv on the other order? Maybe, just maybe, instead of always repeating the same mantra - “tax the rich, tax the rich,” we should reform entitlements to make sure that one, the truly needy are getting help, rather than the truly lazy. Two, the entitlements aren’t creating more poor.

Cmatt, I truly hope that you consider the possibility that compassion is not measured by how much one is willing to support the confiscation of others’ wealth, but on how much each individual is willing to do themselves to help others. Compassion is not measured by how often one pulls the lever for the demagogue who rails, “tax the rich!” but by how effective the programs are in helping the poor. A safety net is one thing, and I think even most conservatives believe in some form of a safety net. But programs that make no sense, cost billions, require exhorbitant confiscatory taxes that make the problems worse, are not worth supporting. And supporting those programs are not any measure of compassion or charity, but stupidity. And refusing to open your eyes to the fraud, waste, and abuse of these programs is a sign of hardened ideological stubborness.

Ishii

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Please discuss the issues, not each other

Please post charitably

No name calling

 

[Warrenton]

How about the fat rich bankers repent of their sin of usury?

You scored a bullseye.

The institution of usury has served to accumulate wealth in companies and governments, in short, in the hands of anyone who can charge usurious rates.

Usury acts like a tax on everyone. The government pays usurious rates, and we have to be taxed to more to pay the usurer. Without usury, the government would not have to tax so heavily.

Also, usury has created the situation where poverty is not an absolute status, but rather is a concept of a somewhat subjective distance between the richest and others (in the West - not necessarily elsewhere). Poor people in Germany and the US may have a car, a decent place to live, plenty of food. But relative to Bill Gates, they have nothing. Since they know about Bill Gates, they feel poor. People like Bill Gates, however, are a product of usury. The massive government contracts that enrich companies are paid for by loans at usurious rates, which the people must repay via taxes.

Because the rich in a usurious system are perpetually getting richer, the poor are always getting poorer, relatively speaking. Hence, government must do more to placate them.

It has to stop sometime, but right now, the discussion has not really even begun.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Interesting.

OK, without interest, why would I loan to you, or anyone? (Assume for the sake of discussion that I don’t have a religious bone in my body).

Put another way, why would I loan you, say, $10,000 if I would only get $10,000 back? Wouldn’t human nature say “the heck with that, I’ll take a trip (or whatever) with the money”)?

 

[Carlan]

Interesting.

OK, without interest, why would I loan to you, or anyone? (Assume for the sake of discussion that I don’t have a religious bone in my body).

Put another way, why would I loan you, say, $10,000 if I would only get $10,000 back? Wouldn’t human nature say “the heck with that, I’ll take a trip (or whatever) with the money”)?

Yes, very interesting.

But usurious doen’t have a religious bone in its body.
You know, like loan sharking!
Peace, Carlan

 

[Saburo]

If the rich were to mind losing a tax deduction in order to donate to charity, then I suppose that would speak volumes about their true priorities.

Wow. Did you really write that? I can’t help but wonder if you understand that a tax deduction does not fully reimburse you for the charitable expense being deducted. There is no such thing as “writing it off” in the way that liberals think. In other words, donating to a charity still costs you a lot more money than you get back by the deduction. Therefore, nobody changes their mind about donating to a charity because they lost a tax deduction or it becomes tedious to document. They simply donate LESS so they can pay the taxes!

All your wasteful, failed, big government, nanny-state programs do is siphon money from effective charities and feed it to bloated government bureaucracies that squander it and indirectly punish the poor! That has a much worse effect than a budget cut to a useless program that benefits no one but a bunch of lazy government employees.

 

[SamH]

You scored a bullseye.

The institution of usury has served to accumulate wealth in companies and governments, in short, in the hands of anyone who can charge usurious rates.

Usury acts like a tax on everyone. The government pays usurious rates, and we have to be taxed to more to pay the usurer. Without usury, the government would not have to tax so heavily. .

You think 4% and 6% interest rates are usery? Do you even know what the word means?

It’s because of the the government we will soon see the return of 10% and 20% interest rates.

 

[stinkcat_14]

It’s because of the the government we will soon see the return of 10% and 20% interest rates.

What is the date when those interest rates will return?

 

[Darryl1958]

Interesting.

OK, without interest, why would I loan to you, or anyone? (Assume for the sake of discussion that I don’t have a religious bone in my body).

Put another way, why would I loan you, say, $10,000 if I would only get $10,000 back? Wouldn’t human nature say “the heck with that, I’ll take a trip (or whatever) with the money”)?

It is legitimate to be expect to be paid for ones services and risks. It is a question of what is excessive. There is no firm answer to questions such as these. Supply and demand is generally the mechanism to find the price that is fair to all parties.

As an analogy it is not unreasonable to be charged a premium for a bottle of water in the middle of the desert. But to demand 1000 dollars for a bottle of water that normally costs 1 dollar from a man dying from thirst is the kind of behavior that defines usury.
To take advantage of a hot market is good business sense. To take advantage of someone’s desparation is usury.

 

[Trader]

Interesting.

OK, without interest, why would I loan to you, or anyone? (Assume for the sake of discussion that I don’t have a religious bone in my body).

Put another way, why would I loan you, say, $10,000 if I would only get $10,000 back? Wouldn’t human nature say “the heck with that, I’ll take a trip (or whatever) with the money”)?

You are correct, of course, but the actual situation is even worse. Excessive spending and borrowing by the government and the money created to finance that debt debases the currency. Even if you are lucky enough to be repaid your $10,000, it will have less value than when you made the loan.

Market interest rates are determined by the decisions of billions of individuals who have to consider the credit risk of being repaid, inflationary expectations, and the alternatives they have for that money. It is way too complex for any one individual or government to determine what a fair rate of interest is.

If you decide to take that trip instead, pay for the round trip in advance. With the politicians now in charge of world currencies, you may not be able to pay for the return trip.

 

[Warrenton]

without interest, why would I loan to you, or anyone? ()?

Usury is excessive interest, or interest on an unproductive venture. Usury is not fair interest on a productive investment.

It was fine to get a return on a productive loan. It was not fine to charge interest on the necessities of life, or too much interest on unproductive ventures.

4% interest to buy a farm? Fine. 42% interest on a credit card debt for consumer goods? Usury.

Therefore, you would loan money on a proper investment, not on an improper one. In short, you would evaluate the loan.

 

[Warrenton]

Market interest rates are determined by the decisions of billions of individuals who have to consider the credit risk of being repaid, inflationary expectations, and the alternatives they have for that money. It is way too complex for any one individual or government to determine what a fair rate of interest is

The market rates are not set by billions of people. They are set by thousands of people in the position to set the rate.

They set those rates, therefore it is demonstrably not too complex to set. If companies can set it, so can other entities.

Were it otherwise, any area of conduct that the populace engages in would be deemed “too complex” to legislate.

 

[Warrenton]

You think 4% and 6% interest rates are usery? Do you even know what the word means?

(A) No, not ordinarilly. (B) Yes.

Based on your comment regarding the government, you and I probably agree as to the practical effect of usury. The taxes we pay are in large part interest on usurious loans. I for one do not appreciate paying them, since the payment is not commensurate with the yeild on the initial investment.

If you do not pay taxes, then I grant that you would naturally take a different view of the matter. Creditors usually do.