Taxing the rich

[ruthiechan]

There's a good book out there called Sales Dogs. It'll help you figure out what kind of salesperson you are. Sales is vital in a homebased business. There are also MLMs which are good. I know a few good ones are Quixtar, Creative Memories, Pampered Chef and Mary Kay. There's a tupperware one and some other ones too.

[Guest HEthePrimate]

I'm tellin' ya. Everybody should pay taxes like we pay tithing. Everybody pays 10 %. Easy, short, and equitable for all.

Short, definitely.

Easy to figure out, yes. Less easy for the poor person to pay than for the rich person.

Equitable? Well, I'll just say that 10% means a lot more to a poor person than to a rich person... (think of the "widow's mite").

[Guest HEthePrimate]

According to the US Census Bureau (2006), the bottom 25% of American households make anywhere from $0 to $22,500, and the top 25% of households make $77,500 and up.

Let’s take someone from the top of the bottom 25% who makes $22,500 and compare them to someone at the bottom of the top 25%, who makes $77,500. Without going into the complexities of how much a person would actually pay (I don’t have the necessary materials at hand to figure out what portion of their income is taxable, to take into account deductions, tax credits, etc., etc.), let’s just say the person making $22,500 will pay 15% and the person making $77,500 will pay 25%:

$22,500 - $3,375 = $19,125

$77,500 - $19,375 = $58,125

This still leaves the higher-income person with $39,000, or more than three times, more than the lower income person. Now I don’t know about you, but it’d be a hell of a lot easier for me to live off of $58,125 a year than $19,125 a year. If some of the extra taxes paid by the higher earner go towards helping the lower earner make ends meet, that’s fine by me, and it doesn’t exactly lead the higher-income person into a life of misery and deprivation.

I know it’s taboo to say this in the U.S., but I am in favor of income redistribution, as long as it’s done sensibly. The wealthy benefit more from the system and it doesn’t seem unfair to ask them to contribute more (Luke 12:48). I am not against rich people, and I don’t think all poor people are saints, and a little income inequality is not the end of the world. However, it seems to me that in the U.S. we’re taking the inequality thing too far—there’s no reason why some people should live in poverty while others can make virtually unlimited amounts of money (even if they do pay 35% in taxes!).

More often than not, it’s the upper management and owners of business who make the largest amounts of money. Although it’s ok with me that the owners and CEOs make more money than the regular workers, I think that often they take too large a piece of the pie. Some people talk about poor people who receive tax breaks or welfare benefits and call them “freeloaders.” I call “freeloaders” people who get rich off of their employees’ work, especially when those workers are not adequately paid and thereby kept in poverty.

[RachelleDrew]

I have no problem with taxation or even higher taxes if it's helpful to the well being of the American people as a whole.

That being said, I wish that I could have more of a say in how that tax money is distributed. Some of the stuff they spend their, no OUR money on, is just stupid.

[hordak]

According to the US Census Bureau (2006), the bottom 25% of American households make anywhere from $0 to $22,500, and the top 25% of households make $77,500 and up.

Let’s take someone from the top of the bottom 25% who makes $22,500 and compare them to someone at the bottom of the top 25%, who makes $77,500. Without going into the complexities of how much a person would actually pay (I don’t have the necessary materials at hand to figure out what portion of their income is taxable, to take into account deductions, tax credits, etc., etc.), let’s just say the person making $22,500 will pay 15% and the person making $77,500 will pay 25%:

$22,500 - $3,375 = $19,125

$77,500 - $19,375 = $58,125

This still leaves the higher-income person with $39,000, or more than three times, more than the lower income person. Now I don’t know about you, but it’d be a hell of a lot easier for me to live off of $58,125 a year than $19,125 a year. If some of the extra taxes paid by the higher earner go towards helping the lower earner make ends meet, that’s fine by me, and it doesn’t exactly lead the higher-income person into a life of misery and deprivation.

I know it’s taboo to say this in the U.S., but I am in favor of income redistribution, as long as it’s done sensibly. The wealthy benefit more from the system and it doesn’t seem unfair to ask them to contribute more (Luke 12:48). I am not against rich people, and I don’t think all poor people are saints, and a little income inequality is not the end of the world. However, it seems to me that in the U.S. we’re taking the inequality thing too far—there’s no reason why some people should live in poverty while others can make virtually unlimited amounts of money (even if they do pay 35% in taxes!).

More often than not, it’s the upper management and owners of business who make the largest amounts of money. Although it’s ok with me that the owners and CEOs make more money than the regular workers, I think that often they take too large a piece of the pie. Some people talk about poor people who receive tax breaks or welfare benefits and call them “freeloaders.” I call “freeloaders” people who get rich off of their employees’ work, especially when those workers are not adequately paid and thereby kept in poverty.

If joe schmoe making 22,000 a year messes up at work he losses his job, his family is affected. If a top CEO messes up. Thousands can lose there jobs, and shareholders lose money. A CEO has more responsibility and more education and therefor deserve more money.How much more? What ever the market decides. God bless America.

(note i'm not talking about all careers.)

Edited July 15, 2008 by hordak
cant spel

[california_ave]

A CEO has more responsibility and more education and therefor deserve more money.How much more? What ever the market decides. God bless America.

(note i'm not talking about all careers.)

If there is a correlation between a CEO's compensation and his/her education and responsibility, how do we explain the skyrocketing trend in CEO compensation relative to workers? In 1980, CEOs earned, on average, 42 times the earnings of the rank-and-file employee; in 2006, the wage divided widened to 364 times! Has there been a 9 fold increase in CEO education and responsibility relative to the individual worker? Look at any Board of Trustees and you will see more incestuous relationships than the royal families.

[california_ave]

I'm for a gradated flat tax a la Jerry Brown: 5,10,15%. No deductions. The tax return would be completed on a postcard--this includes corporate taxes. CPAs and tax attorneys would be out of jobs.

[bytor2112]

CEO compensation doesn't bother me. Rappers, Movie Stars and Pro athletes make some pretty ridiculous money. I am all for being entertained and I know that not everyone is blessed with super athletic ability and no one needs to rap..IMHO. But most people can't run a Fortune 500 company either.

[Islander]

CEO Compensation HAS been regulated for a very long time. The board of Directors of those companies submit and disclose the CEO pay every year. The shareholders can vote up or down the item on the general stakeholders meeting. The stock options were written 5-10 years ago and they came due now. So they are cashing in.

During the high flying years of the Real Estate bonanza all the mortgage company's CEO had fat comp packages that just happen to become news these days. The same with all the other F500 companies. The economy slowed down and a sector of it got hit. Well, that is the price of capitalism. Let's not whine about it now. When RE agents, notaries, mortgage brokers, appraisers and all the other folks (I know some of them) were getting fat during those years nobody complained.

Just a thought.

[bytor2112]

I am a registered Republican. My political views are really libertarian....small l ...not the Libertarian Party. Though I sometimes have to hold my nose when I vote GOP nowadays, I could never vote (D) and sleep well at night. The Democratic party today is NOT the party of JFK. I think that less is more when it comes to Government....the founding Fathers certainly agreed with limited government. How many pages is the tax code anyhow? I mean honestly the formula to calculate our taxes is comical. Simplify the tax code, flat tax or whatever. I get so fed up with the idea that raising taxes on the "rich" is somehow going to really benefit anyone, besides the fact that it is grosslyunfair. In order for the economy to grow and flourish we need to lower taxes for everyone. This will allow business to grow and increase employment oportunities for everyone. The Government wastes so much money.... all of these ridiculous programs and foreign aid makes me ill. Stay out of my wallett and I will buy my own healthcare, etc. It is time for people to be self sufficient and quit waiting for Uncle Sam to help you. It is amazing to see immigrants who come to America and through sweat equity and ingenuity seize the American dream. I wish that everyone could see what they see and we would appreciate what great opportunities await the ambitious in this great Nation. The sky is not falling, the glass is not half empty..... we are just a bunch of lazy whiners and have been spoon fed the belief that we can't make it without good 'ole Uncle Sam. President Kennedy the last and maybe only great Democrat President said,"Ask not what your Country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Wow....what happened to the Dems......bonkers. They went bonkers and moved way left. They idealize France and Germany....where by the way, unemployment is huge and the economies stink. We need a new JFK or Ronald Reagan..... and it it sure isn't Barrack Obama and sadly it isn't John McCain either. SIGH.......... Edited July 16, 2008 by bytor2112

[TheyCallMeMom]

I support the fair tax.. have for many years..

I dislike career politicians.. aqnd their greedy little hands

political office should be a "calling" not a job sought for KWIM

[kona0197]

I still say that taxing purchases instead of income solves most if not all of the problems posed in this thread and then some.

Agreed. Oregon has an income tax. If we got rid of it and had a sales tax things would be better. :)

[TheyCallMeMom]

I still say that taxing purchases instead of income solves most if not all of the problems posed in this thread and then some.

agreed

[hordak]

If there is a correlation between a CEO's compensation and his/her education and responsibility, how do we explain the skyrocketing trend in CEO compensation relative to workers? In 1980, CEOs earned, on average, 42 times the earnings of the rank-and-file employee; in 2006, the wage divided widened to 364 times! Has there been a 9 fold increase in CEO education and responsibility relative to the individual worker? Look at any Board of Trustees and you will see more incestuous relationships than the royal families.

This is what drives Capitalisam. Income equality is a GOOD thing.

[palantir]

It's a simple principle, imho. Everyone has an equal right to own and control their own property. When you demand a greater percentage of that property from one group than another you cross into a state of injustice and violate the very purpose of government's existence. Tithing is 10% for all, for a reason. It's a good pattern for taxes. Though the taxes themselves also need to be just, but that's another thread

[MarginOfError]

It's a simple principle, imho. Everyone has an equal right to own and control their own property. When you demand a greater percentage of that property from one group than another you cross into a state of injustice and violate the very purpose of government's existence. Tithing is 10% for all, for a reason. It's a good pattern for taxes. Though the taxes themselves also need to be just, but that's another thread

I wish it were that simple. I do agree with what you're saying, but I'm not sure it applies. A 10% tithe makes sense for a religion that exists to improve a person's soul. But the improvement of one's soul can be accomplished regardless of economic circumstances, upbringing, demographics, etc.

Prosperity in a temporal sense is much more difficult, and is heavily influenced by demographics, economies, and other things that an individual has no control over. The idea of taxing the rich is fueled by the vision of 'Social Responsibility,' meaning when one person has the resources to make him and his family capable of reaching their full potential, then he can give a little more to help those who don't have the resources. For instance, if someone earns $20 million in a year, is he really going to be that much happier with $14 million after taxes than he would be with $10 million?

Conservatives would argue that ownership is more important, and Social Responsibility should be a choice, not a legislated cause. They're right. But the choice that is made is to keep the money, eventually causing greater separation between the rich and the poor. This process gave us things like the French Revolution. So why not strike a compromise somewhere.

Oh, and by the way, the Church does ask more of the wealthy than 10%. But they do it quietly, as when a poor family can't afford to send their son or daughter on a mission, the Bishop will ask a wealthy member to contribute. Or sometimes, when a family can't pay a dentist bill, the Bishop may ask a wealthy member to cover the costs (either directly or through Fast Offering).

[palantir]

Conservatives would argue that ownership is more important, and Social Responsibility should be a choice, not a legislated cause. They're right. But the choice that is made is to keep the money, eventually causing greater separation between the rich and the poor. This process gave us things like the French Revolution. So why not strike a compromise somewhere.

I can understand that a large separation between rich and poor can cause an environment where wicked people stir things up to cause problems (which was the case in the French Revolution - by a very small group I mght add) - but that justifies nothing.

Oh, and by the way, the Church does ask more of the wealthy than 10%. But they do it quietly, as when a poor family can't afford to send their son or daughter on a mission, the Bishop will ask a wealthy member to contribute. Or sometimes, when a family can't pay a dentist bill, the Bishop may ask a wealthy member to cover the costs (either directly or through Fast Offering).

These are requests, though and even in those circumstances where the Lord might direct someone or group to give more as a matter of commandment then that is His right as we are but stewards. But Government is not God and has no such power. It derives its power from the people, and just as I cannot force someone to give me money then neither can the government acting on my behalf. The Church also would not throw you in prison or curtail your liberties

The problem with "compromise" is that you violate the principle. There are many arguments for forcing people to do the right thing but they invariably lead to more misery because such action runs counter to the purpose of life which is to grow from being responsible and choosing to do the right. Being forced to be "charitable" is thus counterproductive and seems founded upon the ideas of the Adversary.

It is pretty darn hard to be responsible when we do not have the choice. And to have that choice property must first be secured.

[bytor2112]

Is there a correlation between a movie stars compensation and his/her education and responsiblity, how do we explain the skyrocketing trend in movie star compensation relative to workers? Please insert politicians who write books while still in office, Professional athletes, musicians, rappers, ambulence chasing attorneys, land developers, TV evangelists and anyone else who makes you GREEN with envy because they make more money than you. Maybe we should put a cap on their income and anything they make over the cap is automatically given to Uncle Sam to dole out to the lazy....I mean less fortunate people who can't seem to figure out that if someone can string a "rhyme" together and be wildly succesful that they could actually make it without Uncle Sam. Hey, I k now, lets put a box on the tax form that reads, "check here if you would like to contribute more of your income to Uncle Sam to suport the Governments efforts to brainwash people into believing that they are victims, people who work hard or have talent owe the Government more money and that people just can't make it today without Uncle Sam coming to the rescue. Oh yeah and "big" corporations are EVIL.... even though they provide you with a job that you were initially thrilled to have since you were unemployed.

Just a thought............

[MarginOfError]

And thus you run into the fundamental challenge of government: as a people, we know what has to be done, but as individuals, we rarely want to do it. This is what government exists to do, by the way; balance the communal interest against the individual interest.

In a somewhat ludicrous argument, we can say that if government has no right to infringe on personal freedom, then it has no right to punish a man who kills another. Under that argument, the government should back of of NAMBLA too. But we as a society would never allow such things to happen because we inherently understand that such behaviors, in the long run, prove detrimental to society. We impose restrictions on personal liberties in order to ensure a better future for our society.

Now, the big question is, will proper redistribution of wealth provide a better future for our society? I believe it will. I believe it would be worth while to tax more from the rich to fund better schools in low income areas, or something of that nature.

Also, saying compromise is founded upon the ideas of the Adversary is just ridiculous. The point of compromise is to come to a common concensus, upon which people choose to give up certain liberties because they see the eventual benefit. Compromise is in no way coercion.

Just for the record, more taxes on the rich under current tax codes seems absurd to me, and I don't think it would do much. I do think a kind of flat tax would be much better, where the more money you make, the higher the percentage gets, but you don't get to take nearly as many credits and exemptions.

The best idea I've heard yet, though, is a national salary cap. Cap the salaries somewhere, and then let the businesses figure out how to spend the money saved. You'd likely see a lot of creative ways to pay CEO's more, but you'd also see a lot of additional investment into the company.

[palantir]

And thus you run into the fundamental challenge of government: as a people, we know what has to be done, but as individuals, we rarely want to do it. This is what government exists to do, by the way; balance the communal interest against the individual interest.

I agree with how Ezra Taft Benson summed up the purpose of government, quoting the Alabama Constitution:

"That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression." (Art. 1, Sec. 35)

And with Jefferson who wrote: "the idea is quite unfounded that on entering into society we give up any natural right."

So I would disagree with your definition, which probably means we may never agree. We have no common starting point here. Government is no more than a small group hired to constantly protect our property and the means to punish those who do not respect property in body, liberty and possessions.

In a somewhat ludicrous argument, we can say that if government has no right to infringe on personal freedom, then it has no right to punish a man who kills another. Under that argument, the government should back of of NAMBLA too. But we as a society would never allow such things to happen because we inherently understand that such behaviors, in the long run, prove detrimental to society. We impose restrictions on personal liberties in order to ensure a better future for our society.

Yes, but I did not imply or say that. Liberty is that state of freedom in which we do not violate the exercise of the rights of others. People can be punished via the people (through Juries assenting to the same), preserved by Government, for the very reason that an individual has the right to protect his life. The individual right to self-defence is the basis for this just power afforded by government (which is the organized right to self-defence on a large scale of those individual rights).

Imposing restrictions on liberties - except perhaps in temporary or very extreme situations such as invasion - is certainly not the role of government.

Now, the big question is, will proper redistribution of wealth provide a better future for our society? I believe it will. I believe it would be worth while to tax more from the rich to fund better schools in low income areas, or something of that nature.

OK, let's look at this from another angle then. Would you go to your neighbour and threaten them with prison unless they paid for your children to go to school? Do you not see that in supporting redistribution of wealth you are essentially getting government to do the same thing on your behalf?

Also, saying compromise is founded upon the ideas of the Adversary is just ridiculous. The point of compromise is to come to a common concensus, upon which people choose to give up certain liberties because they see the eventual benefit. Compromise is in no way coercion.

Well, I actually was saying that force was the method of the Adversary. I agree with social contracts - that people choose to give up, or not give up, as they so please but this is not the way it works in our society. People are forced. Indeed, unless someone has committed a criminal act (and by that I mean a malicious violation or attempted violation of another's rights), then no one should be forced to do anything. Of course, they may agree to act in a limited way when such contracts are *freely* made. Examples of this of course exist in the business world. This leaves liberty intact, but unjust government often violates that right to contract freely about our own affairs.

Just for the record, more taxes on the rich under current tax codes seems absurd to me, and I don't think it would do much. I do think a kind of flat tax would be much better, where the more money you make, the higher the percentage gets, but you don't get to take nearly as many credits and exemptions.

Would that be graduated tax/tax banding? I would support a flat tax for the reasons already mentioned. Though I think that beyond the military and provisions for courts there would be very little to be taxed for in a truly free and just government similar to the one established by the Framers of the Constitution (and sadly ignored or twisted for the past century).

The best idea I've heard yet, though, is a national salary cap. Cap the salaries somewhere, and then let the businesses figure out how to spend the money saved. You'd likely see a lot of creative ways to pay CEO's more, but you'd also see a lot of additional investment into the company.

Again, it is not the role of government to tell employers how much they pay either themselves or employess. I cannot tell you how much to pay your babysitter, and in like manner cannot therefore delegate any such power to government.

Government must be based on principle if you believe that growth in life comes from making free choices and being wise stewards. And, as I implied before, when force is used people just become tools of those in power and growth and happiness decline.

[MarginOfError]

You're right, we never will agree on this topic, simply because we will never agree on how involved government should be. But hey, I do appreciate your viewpoints. You have said some things I'll consider and that may even refine my opinions some. I don't for a second think I have all the answers...how could anyone? the problems are too complex, and it's entirely impossible to do what will provide the absolute best results for everyone.

What I mean by a graduated tax was something to the effect of (and i'm pulling these numbers out of my ear)

If you make less than $10,000 you pay no tax

If you make $10,000 to $20,000 you pay 5%

If you make $20,000 to $30,000 you pay 7%

If you make $30,000 to $40,000 you pay 9%

If you make $40,000 to $50,000 you pay 11%

If you make $50,000 to $75,000 you pay 13%

...

If you make over $3 billion you pay 40%

Of you could even get creative, and have a linear function that specifies an exact ratio between income earned and tax paid. This makes it less painful to move from, say, $49,000 to $51,000.

[bytor2112]

The Government is inept and full of largess and people whose egos could fill the immensity of space. They take in too much of our money as it is... the rich included. It has been proven time and again that lower taxes increase tax revenues.... its a fact. The idea that rich people should be obligated to pay a higher percentage is ridiculous. If person (A) earns $100,000 per year and person B earns $1,000,000 per year and they each pay a flat rate of 10%. Person B would still be paying 10 times as much as person (A). I would much prefer someone earning huge amounts of money expand their business and "redistribute" their hard earned wealth through economic expansion. The Government will WASTE the money. Government programs do not create economic growth. Look at Medicare and Social Security. Social Security is a ripoff... it is criminal. Amazingly the government has found away to tax a tax!! I don't have a solution... a flat tax would be better than the mess we have now.... even Russia has a flat tax. But until the Government stops all of the wasteful spending, nothing will ever change. Why is it that politicians think that have more of a right to our hard earned income than we do? Arrogance. It's way to much fun to play the class envy game than to really fix the problems. Throw the Bums out.... all of them ® and (D)!... Then start over

[bytor2112]

We are taxed the same way in the USA.

[MarginOfError]

The fear of moving up a tax brackets is because of the following hypothetical, yet plausible situation.

Say you earn $49,000 and owe $4,000 in taxes. You net $45,000.

The next year you get a raise to $51,000, putting you in a higher tax bracket, and you now owe $7,000 in taxes. You now only net $44,000.

I actually experienced this when I served tables in college a few times. If I worked 36 hours, I would get a paycheck each week of about $210. If I worked 38 hours, I hit the next tax bracket, and my weekly paycheck totaled about $125. I always found that kind of annoying.

[ruthiechan]

After reading some of the posts here, I have to ask how your country's tax system works. It sounds like you have tax brackets where your entire rate jumps up at each threshold. In Canada it works more like this:

All of the money you make up to a certain amount is untaxed.

Then all the money you make after that, up to the next cutoff is taxed at one rate.

Then the money after that, up to the next cutoff, is taxed at the next higher rate.

And so on.

So let's say one of the cutoffs was $50,000, and you made exactly that. If you had made one dollar more, only the one dollar is taxed at the higher rate... you don't suddenly pay more on your entire balance.

I believe we pay more on our entire balance.