Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even more

[BigRob]

Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

Where in my reply did I scream about the looters and their money? All anyone is asking is that they pay a fair share to the country that provided their great good fortunes.

This whole mantra of "pay a fair share" gets old. What percentage of my income equates to my "fair share"?

Why is that unreasonable?

Because no one can explain what "fair share" means.

(For some reason that is totally mysterious to me, there are people who believe the rich are rich totally on their own befuddles me. Do you believe these very rich people would be very rich if they were born and raised in Somalia? Or Mexico. Or Qatar. Or Finland?

No one chooses to be born where they are born...and to attack someone for making the best of their life's situation in bogus.

 

[BigRob]

Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

I am not advocating that everyone should have the same income, regardless of their intelligence, their contribution to society, or their willingness to work hard.

So most of your exemple do not relate to what my position is on taxation.

Basically I am looking at two items:

One would be how far do you think the current trend (wealthiest getting wealthier, poor and middle class getting poorer) is sustainable? The fact is that, when the poor or the middle class have enough money to spend, the wealthiest, who own most of the production outlets benefit from the middle class spending.

There is no problem with a difference in income. What is the problem is what we have seen: about 15 years ago, the average CEO would make about 200 to 250X more than the average worker in any specific industry. Today, that gap has increased to over 500X! It is the excessive disparity in income that is not healthy nor fair, not the disparity in itself. It is the EXCESSIVE disparity in income that is not sustainable, not the disparity in itself.

The market decides what it can bear...not you, not me. If the market places that value on a CEO, then so be it. Let the free market work.

Second: Imagine a middle class person making $100,000 a year, paying his FICA taxes (that leaves about $86,500 per year), then his income tax after the deductions for his 2 children and his wife (about $20,000 year in Federal taxes). He is left with about $65,000 a year to pay for his housing, to raise his family, to save for vacation, college tuition, and "catastrophic" illnesses or accidents. Depending on where that person lives, he is considered far above the middle income, and yet, I can assure you that he has a little trouble putting aside additional money in his 401K toward retirement (so he doesn't get the tax break for contribution to 401K), and his basic expenses (health insurance, car payment, car maintenance, gas, utilities) are about the same as the person making $1 million a year. By the way, to make that much money ($100,000) this man is obviously fully employed and is a good worker.

Now let's take the person who makes $1 million a year. He/she gets the same FICA taxes (about $13.500 a year), the same deductions for his/her 2 children and spouse, and is paying a little more tax because income above the $250,000 level will be taxed at a higher rate (currently 34.5 %). However, that person, if you consider the same basic deductions, and the same basic taxes, brings home over $850,000 a year. Plenty to increase his spending power (mostly trips overseas, luxury items, maybe even a tax free new condo in the Bahamas or Costa Rica). This still leaves plenty of money to invest. . .thus he builts up wealth, in addition to income (which the previous middle class person couldn't do, or at a MUCH lower level). That wealth is not taxed at all from year to year. The return on investment is taxed at a LOWER tax than the first person's federal tax (15% instead of 20%). In addition, the $1 million earner benefits from a slew of tax shelters, and takes every tax loopholes he can get.

Yet, this person in real terms, even if he/she pays $150,000 in federal tax, while the first pays "only" $20,000 federal tax, pays proportionally less tax than the little guy because he has paid the SAME amount of FICA taxes, has benefitted from every tax loop holes, and dividend taxes, and everything else that lowered his tax bill, and he has not been taxed on this wealth. Therefore, instead of having to live on about $65,000 a year, he lives on a minimum of $750,000 a year.

I am not sure what I am supposed to take from this story...yes the guy making $100,000 is working hard and being a good worker, but what does that make the guy making $1,000,000?

Maybe the guy making a million started a company and built it up from nothing. Does he not deserve more reward than the guy who perhaps just went to work for someone else?

And, because he uses all the services provided by the government (corporate welfare for airports, highways, communication, subsidized development, such as luxury golf communities, lake front real estate, and tax discount on his $1 million mortgage (instead of the $125,000 mortgage the first guy has), he is actually getting a lot more out of the government support than the first person.

He is also paying a lot more in for those services too, in terms of actual cash.

I believe that the big problem is that we focus on basic mathematic to see what is "more tax" or "less tax," not on what the take home pay really represents. It is not about "how much money I pay in tax," it should be about "how much money I take home and what can I do with that money."

It should be all about what the free market says your skills are valued at, nothing more.

 

[ProudLefty]

Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

The market decides what it can bear...not you, not me. If the market places that value on a CEO, then so be it. Let the free market work.



I am not sure what I am supposed to take from this story...yes the guy making $100,000 is working hard and being a good worker, but what does that make the guy making $1,000,000?

Maybe the guy making a million started a company and built it up from nothing. Does he not deserve more reward than the guy who perhaps just went to work for someone else?

And, because he uses all the services provided by the government (corporate welfare for airports, highways, communication, subsidized development, such as luxury golf communities, lake front real estate, and tax discount on his $1 million mortgage (instead of the $125,000 mortgage the first guy has), he is actually getting a lot more out of the government support than the first person.

He is also paying a lot more in for those services too, in terms of actual cash.



It should be all about what the free market says your skills are valued at, nothing more.

All of that presumes a free market. Do you believe there is anywhere near a free market for labor in the US?

This is an opinion, but so near as I can see there is a manipulated market in most things, including labor. The manipulators just destroyed the housing market, the fossil market, and a few years ago destroyed the Savings and Loans industry. The looters are preying on the middle class and the middle class has no protections, but the looters have bevies of highly paid lawyers, politicians, and PR & advertising forms.

To hear BP tell the story on TV, the oil spill was no big deal, right?

There is nothing free about enterprise in America today.

 

[Openmind]

Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

The market decides what it can bear...not you, not me. If the market places that value on a CEO, then so be it. Let the free market work.

30 years ago, I may have agreed. However today there is no such thing as "free market." We have a "manipulated market" that is no longer based on real value, but on perceived value (of products, of inventory, of people, of intellectual properties, of stocks). It is not the real, general market that decides how much a CEO should be paid, it is the small, elite that sits on as many as 20 or 30 of the largest corporations boards of directors, and who "scratch each other's back."
If there was such a thing still as "free market" deciding how much a CEO makes, it would have been very clear that companies such as AIG, BofA, Morgan Stanley, etc. . . .who showed such huge deficits that they had to be bailed out by "the little peoople" in order to save our economy, would have NOT given their CEO's and top directors ANY bonuses, but would have shown them the door. . .maybe even the door of some golden prison!

I am not sure what I am supposed to take from this story...yes the guy making $100,000 is working hard and being a good worker, but what does that make the guy making $1,000,000?

Maybe the guy making a million started a company and built it up from nothing. Does he not deserve more reward than the guy who perhaps just went to work for someone else?

Many people believe that, although most "private enterprise" fail, sometime several time before succeeding. And "success" usually doesn't amount in Millions of dollars, except for a very small percentage of entrepreneurs.

In addition, if you look at the VERY wealthy, most of their wealth doesn't come from "income" but from accumulated wealth. Most don't work at all, but reap the benefits from huge dividends, AND the extremely favorable tax shelters and tax codes that allow them to pay a MUCH smaller tax rate on investment income, and none on wealth.

To support this with factual numbers, here is a extract from Domhoff: Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power in America
sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html - CachedSimilar
Who Rules America? By G. William Domhoff, University of California at Santa Cruz
"We also need to distinguish wealth from income. Income is what people earn from work, but also from dividends, interest, and any rents or royalties that are paid to them on properties they own. In theory, those who own a great deal of wealth may or may not have high incomes, depending on the returns they receive from their wealth, but in reality those at the very top of the wealth distribution usually have the most income. (But it's important to note that for the rich, most of that income does not come from "working": in 2008, only 19% of the income reported by the 13,480 individuals or families making over $10 million came from wages and salaries. See Norris, 2010, for more details.)"

He is also paying a lot more in for those services too, in terms of actual cash.

Are you sure about this? Who do you think is "supposedly" the owner of those jets? The "corporation," who earns money, but doesn't pay tax. So, the "corporation" shows "business expenses and depreciation" for that jet, the wealthy has the free use of it, and even gets the airports subsidized by the government so he can land that jet securely, but HE doesn't pay taxes on anything.

It should be all about what the free market says your skills are valued at, nothing more.

Again, if I believed there was still such a thing as "free market," I would agree. Today, there is no free market. It is manipulated market that is being manipulated by olygopolists who "fix" everything to, obviously, their advantage.

 

[Openmind]

Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

It's always a hoot to see someone screaming in fear over the idea that a few people are being paid a whole lot of money, as though there were something wrong or destructive about that.

It's another measure of just how bad the "hate-the-rich" corrosion has progressed in some people's otherwise-healthy minds.

When the inequalities get to be so extreme that it handicaps the whole economic flow, it IS destructive. You may not have read what I wrote about the huge (and ever growing) disparities in income (I don't blame you, I am not the most exciting writer), but I believe it explains clearly my opinion on this, and it is NOT based on "hate the rich."

In fact, although I am far from being in the top 1% of wealth, I am certainly in the top 5% of wealth, and still I believe the taxation is unfair. And, I am not the only one. Buffett, Gates, and many others who ARE in the top 1/10 of 1% of wealth feel exactly the same way.

I do not see it as a sign of a "healthy mind" for people making anywhere from $40,000 a year to $500,000 a year to consider that they would be doing a disservice to their country (especially in this time of high deficit, two wars, and poor economic climate) if they asked those who could afford to pay an extra 3.5% in tax ONLY on NET Income over $250,000 (or even $1 million dollars, if you insist) to do so. In fact, I see it as a sign that some of those people have been so brainwashed by propaganda that they believe the crap spewed on Fox News and other Murdoch ventures. They are in fact working against their own interest and that of their children and grandchildren.

We have rarely seen a top tax bracket as low as it is now, and we have rarely seen as bad an economic situation as we have now. . .and yet, that economic situation resulted of 7 years of those lower taxes. If those lowest taxes didn't help with unemployment in Bush's 7 years, why would it help now?

 

[Openmind]

Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

Inevitably, we've heard from the fanatical leftists commenting on the "screaming" part of my reply while carefully ignoring the real point: that there'e nothing wrong with being paid a lot of money for what you do, and that every bit of that money is always returned into common circulation, contrary to the wishful thinking of the leftist fanatics.

Followed, of course, by the de rigeur return to the same class-hatred and oh-those-eeeevil-rich rhetoric as though it hadn't just been debunked. But, I guess they know no other songs to sing. Sometimes I feel sorry for the poor leftist fanatics and their forlorn tales.

Now that we've heard from the Marx/Engels wing of the Dem party, would anyone like to comment on the description I gave of people who have money, how they earned it, and what they typically do with it? It is, of course, a reudiation of the entire driving agenda of the Left - the idea that the wealth owe their wealth to the rest of us, and that it's OK for us to take it from them, whether by govt-sanctioned theft or by the old-fashioned kind.

Again, I disagree. OUR economy benefits more of investments made by FOREIGN wealth than they do from our own, homegrown wealth! Our homegrown wealth prefers to reinvest their money abroad, to "diversify," to join in the GLOBAL economy, and right now, the US is NOT a good bet!

I think you should save your "pity" for the Left. I personally feel "pity" for the Right, especially the many people who blindly follow a few crooked leaders in believing that it is to America's advantage to continue to increase the huge gap between the wealthy and the middle class.
Such a huge income disparity is usually an attribute of 3rd world countries.

In answer to your "re-education of the Left," I would like to offer you the following: "Who Rules America": Wealth, Income, and Power
sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html - CachedSimilar
Who Rules America? By G. William Domhoff, University of California at Santa
Cruz.

 

[BigRob]

Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

30 years ago, I may have agreed. However today there is no such thing as "free market." We have a "manipulated market" that is no longer based on real value, but on perceived value (of products, of inventory, of people, of intellectual properties, of stocks). It is not the real, general market that decides how much a CEO should be paid, it is the small, elite that sits on as many as 20 or 30 of the largest corporations boards of directors, and who "scratch each other's back."

Perhaps, I am reading this wrong, but you seem to be saying that you think the value of companies is simply perceived, and not real value, and therefore we need to basically bring in government regulation to "fix" that?

If we want to get back to the free market, why not just get government out of the way?

If there was such a thing still as "free market" deciding how much a CEO makes, it would have been very clear that companies such as AIG, BofA, Morgan Stanley, etc. . . .who showed such huge deficits that they had to be bailed out by "the little peoople" in order to save our economy, would have NOT given their CEO's and top directors ANY bonuses, but would have shown them the door. . .maybe even the door of some golden prison!

Or we could have just not bailed them out...and not created a bailout climate dating back decades that created a mentality for banks they could take horrible risks and know they government would save them.

Many people believe that, although most "private enterprise" fail, sometime several time before succeeding. And "success" usually doesn't amount in Millions of dollars, except for a very small percentage of entrepreneurs.

True, many businesses do fail, but that seems to be more evidence that those who succeed in doing it should be able to keep more of what they earn...after all, bigger risk, bigger reward right?

In addition, if you look at the VERY wealthy, most of their wealth doesn't come from "income" but from accumulated wealth. Most don't work at all, but reap the benefits from huge dividends, AND the extremely favorable tax shelters and tax codes that allow them to pay a MUCH smaller tax rate on investment income, and none on wealth.

To support this with factual numbers, here is a extract from Domhoff: Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power in America
sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html - CachedSimilar
Who Rules America? By G. William Domhoff, University of California at Santa Cruz
"We also need to distinguish wealth from income. Income is what people earn from work, but also from dividends, interest, and any rents or royalties that are paid to them on properties they own. In theory, those who own a great deal of wealth may or may not have high incomes, depending on the returns they receive from their wealth, but in reality those at the very top of the wealth distribution usually have the most income. (But it's important to note that for the rich, most of that income does not come from "working": in 2008, only 19% of the income reported by the 13,480 individuals or families making over $10 million came from wages and salaries. See Norris, 2010, for more details.)"

All of the money that makes these things possible came from work at one point. Take my personal situation for example:

My family was basically penniless coming out of the Great Depression. My grandfather worked his way through school, served in the Navy during WWII, then came home and opened a law practice. He began buying land and created a company to sell timber. He oversaw all of this, while maintaining his firm.

Following this, oil was discovered, and most recently huge deposits of natural gas. The company our family created has been doing eight figure natural gas deals on our land.

So, I have am one of those people with a trust fund etc. You might argue that the money I have invested and bought more land with etc was not "worked" for, but it was all worked for at one point, by my grandfather.

Additionally, outside of all of this, I now own a few outside businesses as well, and my wife and I are well in the $250,000 a year range that will get hit with more taxes. All of this said, I will easily get to a point at which I will feel I am taxed too much and simply stop working. I don't need the money, and if it becomes not worth my while to work, why would I? That would just create a scenario in which me (one of those who is supposedly going to get taxed to balance the budget) will just eliminate my income entirely and pay less.

Looking at it further, if more tax incentives come in place, I may just start another business are hire more people. Someone making $100,000 a year is not going to do that. In my opinion, the money needs to be in the hands of those that can do the most with it.

Are you sure about this? Who do you think is "supposedly" the owner of those jets? The "corporation," who earns money, but doesn't pay tax. So, the "corporation" shows "business expenses and depreciation" for that jet, the wealthy has the free use of it, and even gets the airports subsidized by the government so he can land that jet securely, but HE doesn't pay taxes on anything.

Almost all corporations do pay tax...you can get tricky with the tax code, but it is not easy to show an income of $0.

Again, if I believed there was still such a thing as "free market," I would agree. Today, there is no free market. It is manipulated market that is being manipulated by olygopolists who "fix" everything to, obviously, their advantage.

Well lets advocate for the free market, not seek to impose more regulations in some attempt to level the playing field.

 

[ProudLefty]

Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

The markets today are not free, but that has nothing to do with government interference.

The price of gasoline today is not being set by supply and demand, and is not being set by government fiat. The prices of gasoline today are being manipulated by the seven sisters, and by speculators who raise the prices by creating false shortages.

In more and more areas, large global companies are manipulating supplies, tainting goods, creating addictions, and using their power and influence to defang regulation, allow the gutting of communities, and wrecking the environment in the name of the Almighty God of Profit.

Massey Coal and BP are killing workers and receiving no consequences for their deadly actions. There is no way that we can quietly accept murder as a desired value of free enterprise.

Sorry, but in my opinion, the large companies have sold you a bill of goods and they are expecting you to be the tip of their lance in destroying the middle class.

 

[Openmind]

Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

Perhaps, I am reading this wrong, but you seem to be saying that you think the value of companies is simply perceived, and not real value, and therefore we need to basically bring in government regulation to "fix" that?

If we want to get back to the free market, why not just get government out of the way?

No, this is not what I am saying. I am not necessarely talking about more government regulations. There are current regulations (like regulations against monopoly and olagopoly) that should be applied. In the mean time, we do not have free market. I am open to your suggestion on how to get back to that.

Or we could have just not bailed them out...and not created a bailout climate dating back decades that created a mentality for banks they could take horrible risks and know they government would save them.

Yep, I probably would have preferred that personally. But, apparently, both the outgoing and the incoming President agreed on that one!

True, many businesses do fail, but that seems to be more evidence that those who succeed in doing it should be able to keep more of what they earn...after all, bigger risk, bigger reward right?

What is wrong with this picture is that, too often, the small business fail because they have a sharp competitive disadvantage with big businesses. So, I don't think big businesses should be rewarded with subsidies and the like. Take farm subsidies, they were first implemented to help the mom and pop farm. Today, the HUGE farming corporation took over most of the subsidies through silly loopholes, such as giving a different tax code to different "small" subsidiaries, all falling under a giant umbrella. In the mean time, mom and pop's farms have fallen or had to retreat to a tiny niche market. And the "corporate welfare" that was intended to help them is actually make it harder for them to compete.

All of the money that makes these things possible came from work at one point. Take my personal situation for example:

My family was basically penniless coming out of the Great Depression. My grandfather worked his way through school, served in the Navy during WWII, then came home and opened a law practice. He began buying land and created a company to sell timber. He oversaw all of this, while maintaining his firm.

Following this, oil was discovered, and most recently huge deposits of natural gas. The company our family created has been doing eight figure natural gas deals on our land.

So, I have am one of those people with a trust fund etc. You might argue that the money I have invested and bought more land with etc was not "worked" for, but it was all worked for at one point, by my grandfather.

Additionally, outside of all of this, I now own a few outside businesses as well, and my wife and I are well in the $250,000 a year range that will get hit with more taxes. All of this said, I will easily get to a point at which I will feel I am taxed too much and simply stop working. I don't need the money, and if it becomes not worth my while to work, why would I? That would just create a scenario in which me (one of those who is supposedly going to get taxed to balance the budget) will just eliminate my income entirely and pay less.

Congratulations to your grand father. He worked hard and HE earned the reward of his work. Does that mean that, for ever and ever his descendants, whether or not they deserve it, should inherit tax free wealth? I don't believe in that. I believe that some tax should be paid on inheritance, or the "father" can give his wealth to his heirs when they are alive. I do not believe that it is right for one person to pay less tax on inherited wealth than the other person on income obtained from his/her hard work.

You may be at an age where retirement sounds good to you. That's fine. But there is no way that someone who is still truly a businessman at heart would forgoe a $60.500 net income just because he cannot get $64,000 net income! Unless. . .that person earns more in dividends from inherited wealth than he does from active business. The 3 or 3.5% difference in taxation is not enough to make the potential additional income worthless to a business person, unless he/she is already so filthy rich that he doesn't care, and if that is the case, why not tax more?

Looking at it further, if more tax incentives come in place, I may just start another business are hire more people. Someone making $100,000 a year is not going to do that. In my opinion, the money needs to be in the hands of those that can do the most with it.

I believe you are wrong. A small enterpreneur may start a business with less than $100,000. In fact, many do. On the contrary, bigger business would never invest their OWN money in starting a new business. . .they would take a bank loan and let the bank take the risks.
By the way, from what you said, your grandfather did get his "beginning" luck from the government, and his second drive to create a business seems to have been started with less than the (adjusted for inflation) $100,000 in income.
This seems to contradict your statement. Or maybe, the fact that you have inherited enough wealth to carry you forward without more work makes it less (not more) interesting to take risks.

Almost all corporations do pay tax...you can get tricky with the tax code, but it is not easy to show an income of $0.

I will grant that most corporations pay some taxes. . .but at a MUCH smaller level than individuals and much smaller level if they are big corporations rather than small businesses.

Well lets advocate for the free market, not seek to impose more regulations in some attempt to level the playing field.

So, what is your proposal to assure free market without regulations? Who can you trust? AIG? Morgan Stanley? Madoff types?

I am entirely open to suggestions. Until this happens, we need some involvement from the government. The deregulations under Clinton and especially Bush sure hasn't been successful!

 

[BigRob]

Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

No, this is not what I am saying. I am not necessarely talking about more government regulations. There are current regulations (like regulations against monopoly and olagopoly) that should be applied. In the mean time, we do not have free market. I am open to your suggestion on how to get back to that.

I tend to come down in the realm of "if a monopoly was obtained legally, then so be."

As for how to get the free market back, I do not pretend to have all the answers, but a good first step could be to stop looking to the government for a fix every time something occurs.

Yep, I probably would have preferred that personally. But, apparently, both the outgoing and the incoming President agreed on that one!

I see the argument about a stable financial system, but a financial system that is immune to risk is hardly stable. Sadly, we keep intervening.

What is wrong with this picture is that, too often, the small business fail because they have a sharp competitive disadvantage with big businesses. So, I don't think big businesses should be rewarded with subsidies and the like. Take farm subsidies, they were first implemented to help the mom and pop farm. Today, the HUGE farming corporation took over most of the subsidies through silly loopholes, such as giving a different tax code to different "small" subsidiaries, all falling under a giant umbrella. In the mean time, mom and pop's farms have fallen or had to retreat to a tiny niche market. And the "corporate welfare" that was intended to help them is actually make it harder for them to compete.

I have no problem ending corporate subsidies.

Congratulations to your grand father. He worked hard and HE earned the reward of his work. Does that mean that, for ever and ever his descendants, whether or not they deserve it, should inherit tax free wealth? I don't believe in that. I believe that some tax should be paid on inheritance, or the "father" can give his wealth to his heirs when they are alive. I do not believe that it is right for one person to pay less tax on inherited wealth than the other person on income obtained from his/her hard work.

Well, you can get around the inheritance tax easily enough..but it remains that HE did earn it, and was already taxed on it. What gives the government the right to tax it again?

You may be at an age where retirement sounds good to you. That's fine. But there is no way that someone who is still truly a businessman at heart would forgoe a $60.500 net income just because he cannot get $64,000 net income! Unless. . .that person earns more in dividends from inherited wealth than he does from active business. The 3 or 3.5% difference in taxation is not enough to make the potential additional income worthless to a business person, unless he/she is already so filthy rich that he doesn't care, and if that is the case, why not tax more?

I was looking at the CBO report that was stating that tax rates would need to jump to 90%, and the budget would still remain unbalanced, so that is where that comment came from...such a rate would obviously play a larger role than 3%.

That said, I have no desire to retire, I am still in my 20's. Take all the inherited money away for a moment. Tax brackets do play a role. For example, my wife is a corporate lawyer, and is paid very well. But I can tell you when she was looking at job offers etc a few years ago it was a major factor where we wanted to live, what the pay was etc. In some cases, a job that paid more money, made less sense.

I believe you are wrong. A small enterpreneur may start a business with less than $100,000. In fact, many do.

Agreed, but a person (as in your description) who is barely able to save any money as you indicated is not going to have $100,000 to put up for such a venture.

On the contrary, bigger business would never invest their OWN money in starting a new business. . .they would take a bank loan and let the bank take the risks.

Many small businesses take loans as well.

By the way, from what you said, your grandfather did get his "beginning" luck from the government, and his second drive to create a business seems to have been started with less than the (adjusted for inflation) $100,000 in income.

He didn't get his luck from the government. He worked non stop to attend to school and was then drafted. After this, he started his own firm and worked his way up from there.

As for if he did so with less than $100,000, I would need to look at the inflation adjusted numbers, but I would guess you are most likely correct.

This seems to contradict your statement.

I think there are always exceptions to the rules.

Or maybe, the fact that you have inherited enough wealth to carry you forward without more work makes it less (not more) interesting to take risks.

I would disagree. You will find I am far more likely to take risks than other people my age. I cannot lie, it certainly helps to know you are financially secure regardless of what you do (barring some really stupid moves), but while many of my friends are working 40-50K a year jobs for some other company, I have already built up numerous businesses, (some have failed) and I would think nothing of buying a business if I thought it was a good investment. I think that would not apply to many of my friends.

I will grant that most corporations pay some taxes. . .but at a MUCH smaller level than individuals and much smaller level if they are big corporations rather than small businesses.

If the tax code allows it, you cannot fault someone for taking advantage of it.

So, what is your proposal to assure free market without regulations? Who can you trust? AIG? Morgan Stanley? Madoff types?

I am entirely open to suggestions. Until this happens, we need some involvement from the government. The deregulations under Clinton and especially Bush sure hasn't been successful!

Deregulation coupled with the concept of no risk is not the free market. Had the government let banks fail that made bad decisions, I would bet good money that no other banks out there that survived would be doing it again.

The first step is for the government to stop picking winners and losers.

 

[Lagboltz]

Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

Now that we've heard from the Marx/Engels wing of the Dem party, would anyone like to comment on the description I gave of people who have money, how they earned it, and what they typically do with it?

Yes. Here are my comments.

....If he brings home a new laptop computer for his son at school, and another for the family at home, is there anything wrong with your walking into his house and taking one of them?...

Of course it is not right to steal your neighbors laptop, new clothes, or car, etc.

... How many jobs did your wealthy neighbor support - and pay for, quite directly - on a computer assembly line when he bought two new computers?
... How many seamstresses and clothing designers did he support - and directly pay for - especially considering that he made sure that the clothes he bought had "Made in the USA" labels on every piece, and paid higher prices for them as a result? Compared to you, who last bought a package of Hanes at Wal-mart three years ago?

Sounds like you are talking about the middle class and above. Not the highest 2% that you explicitly state in the title of your thread. The top 2% don't buy as many computers and underwear as the middle and lower classes. Besides most of the computers are made overseas. Why do you think the filthy rich specifically buy American made underwear? That is silly.

... It has gotten to the point where many of these people simply assume that those with more income, are themselves wrong or evil

I have not read or heard a liberal say they "hate the rich" a phrase you frequently use. If they do, shame on them. They should aim their "hate" at the government for lowering the top 2% tax base and allowing Buffett to pay 17.7% taxes on $52,000,000 while his secretary paid 30% on earnings of $60,000.

...No one stuffs a mattress or lights cigars with $100 bills.

Right. It is much more profitable to play the stock market, invest in housing using faulty derivatives, invest in hedge funds, speculate in futures to drive up prices of oil and other commodities, and maybe a Ponzi scheme or two.

 

[BigRob]

Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

I have not read or heard a liberal say they "hate the rich" a phrase you frequently use. If they do, shame on them. They should aim their "hate" at the government for lowering the top 2% tax base and allowing Buffett to pay 17.7% taxes on $52,000,000 while his secretary paid 30% on earnings of $60,000.

Just to point out, if you raise the capital gains rates you are going to hit seniors and retirees the hardest.

If you target it at those making over X amount if capital gains, you will find many "rich" simply move into other investments.

 

[Lagboltz]

Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

Just to point out, if you raise the capital gains rates you are going to hit seniors and retirees the hardest.

If you target it at those making over X amount if capital gains, you will find many "rich" simply move into other investments.

I didn't think of that. However, I still think the capital gains tax should be a progressive tax. What types of investments would escape capital gains that the top 2% could use?

 

[Openmind]

Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

Just to point out, if you raise the capital gains rates you are going to hit seniors and retirees the hardest.

If you target it at those making over X amount if capital gains, you will find many "rich" simply move into other investments.

Many seniors and retirees (actually, 22%) will be a lot more impacted by a decrease in social security and medicare than they would on capital gain rates! Out of the remaining 78%, I would guess that at least half would prefer to give up their tax advantage on capital gain than they would to see their social security diminished.

As you have described your situation, you may be out of touch with the reality. A majority of senior have NO savings, and live from one month to the next on their social security. They have no insurance, except for Medicare insurance.

It is not my case and, yes, my husband and I may get impacted somewhat. But I would gladly give a couple of thousands of dollars every year to see the like of Rush Limbaugh pay an additional $20 millions + dollars in tax every year!

I am willing to pay my fare share to protect those who have less than I do.
Actually, so his Buffett.

And so is my friend, of the Dr. Mudd's descend, who still gets a very sizeable annuity established as far back as the mid 1800's . . .tax free!

Everyone who has money is not selfish. Everyone is not blind to the fact that that redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the top 1% is NOT sustainable for anyone, not for the middle class, and not for the wealthy who need a healthy middle class to continue to thrive.

 

[ProudLefty]

Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even

Warren Buffet is quite clear. There is no reasonable reason why his secretary's tax burden should be greater than his.