The rich get richer, the working people . . . .

[FR7 Baptist]

Lets see - Your good buddy Rush Limbaugh buys a new car for $30,000. The salesman makes a nice commission - extra money he can go out and spend. Of course, Rush wants to keep his car in tip - top shape - so a mechanic makes more money. I'm sure Rush doesn't go to the self service car wash - bingo - another car washer probably makes a nice tip....
Problem is a lot of folks don't want to work extra or harder.... the dream is out there, but it takes a lot of sweat and tears....

Yes, but Mr. Limbaugh spends a lesser percentage of his money than poor and middle class people. If some of his wealth was redistributed downward more of it would be spent which would have a greater effect on the economy. Progressive taxation is a just thing because the societal infrastructure has to be in place for the rich people to get rich.

 

[Steven2006]

We built the middle class in this country during the 1950s-1970s with a top marginal income tax rate between 70 and 90 percent. .

That is a little naive. When the rates were that high there were also a tremendous amount of loop holes and tax shelters because the rates were so high. People were sheltering money in all kind of ways. When we had some serious tax reform, most of those tax shelters were eliminated and the rates were brought down accordingly.

The simpler the tax structure the better. The lower rates the better. It has been proven over and over again that simpler and lower rates brings in more tax revenue. The reason is, because it grows the economy, which helps everyone. Granted it does help some more than others. Ironically however when jealousy and envy of that success blinds people to want to punish those that benefit the most, it hurts those that have benefited less even more. Which creates the downward cycle of those same people getting even more envious and demanding even more of the people that are still fairing better than them.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

The simpler the tax structure the better. The lower rates the better. It has been proven over and over again that simpler and lower rates brings in more tax revenue. The reason is, because it grows the economy, which helps everyone. Granted it does help some more than others.

That is simply not true. With our current tax rates we have the lowest income taxes as a share of GDP.

Ironically however when jealousy and envy of that success blinds people to want to punish those that benefit the most, it hurts those that have benefited less even more. Which creates the downward cycle of those same people getting even more envious and demanding even more of the people that are still fairing better than them.

I'm not jealous or envious of rich people at all. In fact, I don't want an obscene amount of money. All too often connies play the envy card with non-rich people like me who support progressive taxation. Of course, if I were rich I'd just be called a "limousine socialist".

 

[Steven2006]

The rich get richer - why - because they spend money - wisely - to make more money.

Many years ago I remember reading a statement from some type of financial statistic expert. He claimed that if you were to take all the wealth from the people in the top 10% in this country and gave it to the people from the bottom 10% in wealth, that it would eventually all revert back again after enough time had passed.

Spending wisely is a big part of it, but it is also even more than just spending wisely as you said, it is understanding risk reward, understanding the power of compounding. Many wealthy people have failed, they have lost great deals of money, but they understand risk and reward, and go on to many great successes.

A great book I would recommend for anyone interested in this topic it. "The Millionaire Next Door".

 

[Thousand Hills]

:
My dad always said "Poor people have poor ways", this may mean getting their paycheck and buying lotto tickets, beer, etc. QUOTE]

Ok, I'm going to reply to my own post and get back on my soapbox again.

I remember reading a story in a local paper a few months back about a family that rented a house and were being evicted. I do feel sorry for this family and their children, apparently the parents were not able to obtain steady work. However, the article talked about the family's seven dogs that were being displaced in the eviction. Seriously, did they need seven dogs? I can't imagine what it cost in vet bills and feed for seven full size dogs. Could the money not have been put to a better use such as paying rent/other bills, or possibly taking additional classes to gain more job skills?

I'm not trying to judge because I don't know the whole situation for this family, and please forgive me if I come off as being heartless, I don't mean to be, and as I said before I'd gladly help anyone who truly needed it. But to me on the surface this is a prime example that some folks just aren't willing to sacrifice or take personal responsibility for their situations.

 

[Steven2006]

That is simply not true. With our current tax rates we have the lowest income taxes as a share of GDP.

We are in one of the worst recessions of our countries history.

However statistically it has been proven when tax rates are simplified and lowered it brings in more tax revenue. This has happened time and time again.

I'm not jealous or envious of rich people at all. In fact, I don't want an obscene amount of money. All too often connies play the envy card with non-rich people like me who support progressive taxation. Of course, if I were rich I'd just be called a "limousine socialist".

I am not talking about you personally. However for many many politicians and much of the electorate those politicians try and play to it is jealousy and envy. Jealousy and envy are powerful emotions, that is the driving force behind these people.

On a personal level if one wanted to be truly fair he would want to pay the same share as everyone else. On a personal level if one wanted to be truly fair he would never want someone else paying a larger share than he, just to compensate for him not doing so.

 

[Salty]

Yes, but Mr. Limbaugh spends a lesser percentage of his money than poor and middle class people. If some of his wealth was redistributed downward more of it would be spent which would have a greater effect on the economy. Progressive taxation is a just thing because the societal infrastructure has to be in place for the rich people to get rich.

Okay, lets say Rush makes 1 million dollars a years. So lets make him pay an extra 20% in taxes to help people poorer than him.

Paul 3144 makes $10,000 a year, so lets take an extra 10% of his pay to help people poorer than him.

Salty makes $1,000 a a year, so lets take an extra 5% of his pay to help people poorer than him.

Bottom line, who should decide how high to increase someone taxes.

If you are not aware of it,
1. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002.

2. the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes

3. top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay 94 percent of all individual income taxes.

Reference

4. About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes (bold - my emphasis) ... credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax

5. The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes.

#4 & 5 from CBS news

How in carnation can anyone say that the Rich do not pay their fair share??? The 10% actually subsidize the bottom 40%

Time for the Automatic electronic tax

I believe everyone should pay at least some tax!

 

[FR7 Baptist]

We are in one of the worst recessions of our countries history.

However statistically it has been proven when tax rates are simplifies and lowered it brings in more tax revenue. This has happened time and time again.

Not if you adjust for the different kinds of taxes. If you're referring to Hauser's law it fails to take into account that as income taxes have gone down, Social Security, Medicare, and excise taxes have gone up.

 

[Steven2006]

Not if you adjust for the different kinds of taxes. If you're referring to Hauser's law it fails to take into account that as income taxes have gone down, Social Security, Medicare, and excise taxes have gone up.

We are discussing the federal tax rates. I stated the fact that when those taxes have been simplified and lowered it has proven to bring in greater federal tax revenue. Your point doesn't dispute that fact.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Bottom line, who should decide how high to increase someone taxes.

The People through their elected representatives.

If you are not aware of it,
1. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002.

2. the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes

3. top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay 94 percent of all individual income taxes.

Reference

As of 2007, the top 1% of households own 34.6% of the wealth in the country, and the next 19% own 50.5% of it. The top 20% 85.1% of the wealth in the country. The percentages of taxes paid are not grossly disproportionate.

Source

4. About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes (bold - my emphasis) ... credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax

5. The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes.

#4 & 5 from CBS news

That does concern me because I think we all should pay some tax. I'm not sure what the solution is, though. Do keep in mind that these people do pay FICA, Medicare, and Federal excise taxes.

How in carnation can anyone say that the Rich do not pay their fair share??? The 10% actually subsidize the bottom 40%

Let's say Bob earns 800 units and Jeff earns 250. Let's say to support yourself in a fairly comfortable way you need 225 units a year. If there's a 10% flat tax Bob pays 80 units and Jeff 25, and they have 720 and 225 left after taxes. Jeff is in a tough spot while Bob has enough to live off of and then some.

Now let's say you have a progressive tax structure with a 5% tax on income up to 400 units, and 25% above that. Bob pays 120 units in tax and has 680 left. Jeff pays 11.25 units in tax and has 237.5 left. Now Jeff has enough to live off of. Bob still has well above that amount, even after paying more taxes.

That's an oversimplification, but it illustrates one argument for progressive taxation. It collects sufficient revenue with out unduly burdening the non-rich. The other big argument is that the rich need the societal infrastructure to become rich and they make greater use of it and have more at stake.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

We are discussing the federal tax rates. I stated the fact that when those taxes have been simplified and lowered it has proven to bring in greater federal tax revenue. Your point doesn't dispute that fact.

Do you have any evidence for that in inflation-adjusted dollars?

 

[Thousand Hills]

Let's say Bob earns 800 units and Jeff earns 250. Let's say to support yourself in a fairly comfortable way you need 225 units a year. If there's a 10% flat tax Bob pays 80 units and Jeff 25, and they have 720 and 225 left after taxes. Jeff is in a tough spot while Bob has enough to live off of and then some.

Now let's say you have a progressive tax structure with a 5% tax on income up to 400 units, and 25% above that. Bob pays 120 units in tax and has 680 left. Jeff pays 11.25 units in tax and has 237.5 left. Now Jeff has enough to live off of. Bob still has well above that amount, even after paying more taxes.

That's an oversimplification, but it illustrates one argument for progressive taxation. It collects sufficient revenue with out unduly burdening the non-rich. The other big argument is that the rich need the societal infrastructure to become rich and they make greater use of it and have more at stake.

Should Bob be penalized because he ate beans and rice while working full time going college to put himself in a better position to make the 800 units, while Jeff works odds and ends jobs here and there to make 250 units and goes fishing when he feels like it? Is that fair?

The progressive tax takes even more from Bob than the flat tax and still rewards Jeff for getting by? Is that fair?

And I disagree with your comment that "the rich need the societal infrastructure to become rich and they make greater use of it and have more at stake" Bob takes the same highway to go on sales calls that Jeff uses to get to the lake.

 

[Steven2006]

Do you have any evidence for that in inflation-adjusted dollars?

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Should Bob be penalized because he ate beans and rice while working full time going college to put himself in a better position to make the 800 units, while Jeff works odds and ends jobs here and there to make 250 units and goes fishing when he feels like it? Is that fair?

The progressive tax takes even more from Bob than the flat tax and still rewards Jeff for getting by? Is that fair?

It is fair. When Bob was in college, he paid the lower rate.

And I disagree with your comment that "the rich need the societal infrastructure to become rich and they make greater use of it and have more at stake" Bob takes the same highway to go on sales calls that Jeff uses to get to the lake.

They do make greater use of the infrastructure. And as I've pointed out, the rich ultimately benefit from social programs. They may have needed them at other times, or it may be indirect because they benefit from employees who are better because of government programs.

Also, not everything is due to hard work. Take intelligence for example. It is about 70% genetic in nature. Maybe Jeff is a hard worker in a blue-collar job and he couldn't go to college like Bob because he's not as smart. As a society, we shouldn't let people live squalor because they weren't biologically predetermined to be as intelligent as others. There are many other factors beyond one's control such as socio-economic status at birth and place of birth.

 

[Thousand Hills]

It is fair. When Bob was in college, he paid the lower rate.

Assuming they are the same age, he would have been in college for say 4 to 5years but they both will be in the workforce for 30 +

 

[FR7 Baptist]

It is fair. When Bob was in college, he paid the lower rate.

Assuming they are the same age, he would have been in college for say 4 to 5years but they both will be in the workforce for 30 +

That's true. That's also not my argument.

 

[Thousand Hills]

Also, not everything is due to hard work. Take intelligence for example. It is about 70% genetic in nature. Maybe Jeff is a hard worker in a blue-collar job and he couldn't go to college like Bob because he's not as smart. As a society, we shouldn't let people live squalor because they weren't biologically predetermined to be as intelligent as others. There are many other factors beyond one's control such as socio-economic status at birth and place of birth.

Are you possibly saying that our tax dollars which fund public education are going to waste, that the schools are not preparing the students for life in the real world?

I know a lot of people, family included who never went to college and have had very comfortable lives. Why? They worked hard and lived on less than they made. They made modest incomes but had enough common sense not to take elaborate vacations, run down to the mall and buy the newest electronic gadget, eat out at a fancy restaurant all the time because they deserve it. They've got paid for homes and won't have to depend on the government to see them through old age. Believe it or not it can be done IF your willing to do it. The secret is not what you make, but what you do with what you do make.

 

[Thousand Hills]

Heres a few folks that have done pretty well for theirselves, some of which didn't finish High School.

http://www.mint.com/blog/investing/the-first-jobs-of-10-wealthy-entrepreneurs/

http://www.smartonmoney.com/rags-to-riches-millionaire-success-story-jimmy-dean/

http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article.jsp?id=h-2062

 

[targus]

One thing that I have learned from this discussion is that Paul3144 is an unabashed redistributionist.

Not surprising since so far the high spot in his career has been a temporary head counting job with the government.

Paul, my advice to you is to get a job where your compensation is based on your ability to produce.

You will soon see the folly of paying taxes to supplement those who are only marginally productive.

Better yet, try starting a business and employing a few people.

You would soon learn that small business owners don't want government handouts to help them keep marginal employees.

What small business wants is for government to get out of the way.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Not surprising since so far the high spot in his career has been a temporary head counting job with the government.

Paul, my advice to you is to get a job where your compensation is based on your ability to produce.

Done. This Thursday I'm going to lose my private sector temporary job through no fault of my own, but then Monday I start a retail sales job where my pay is partially based on commission.