Oh how I wish I could hear one of the two candidates say they support Fair Tax.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
Tax the Rich
- Thread starter Linda
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Oh how I wish I could hear one of the two candidates say they support Fair Tax.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
Ditto on lifting the SS payroll tax. Does the list include that? Both UI and BI are credible, but both are pretty left leaning. Not discounting the data, but the method it was presented is classic class warfare.
I'd have liked to have seen Cato involved, or see if they respond. Does this take into account the 13% increase in the capital gains rate?
I'd have liked to have seen Cato involved, or see if they respond. Does this take into account the 13% increase in the capital gains rate?
It's always been the case that SS payments are staggered, and the bracket you fall into is generally the one you paid into for the last years you were contributing to the program. That's why many accountants advise self-employed clients to suddenly begin actually reporting their income after years of reporting a low income, so that they get maximum benefits even with minimum input into the system. That's the kind of mindset that results from all this complaining about taxes on the rich, and stoking class envy toward the poor for the handout they are given.
Regarding charitable giving, I'm all for it. I don't, however believe that charities are anymore immune to waste and corruption by a few individuals within the system, Further, I think that charities lack the ability to coordinate and address the big picture. Worse, charitiable giving goes down in times when needs are greatest. Finally, will private charities let children born into poverty go hungry because their parents are pieces of crap content to hold their hand out all their lives? I don't see how they are in any better a position to address the fundamental catch-22 of assisting our fellow human beings. I know that the ranks of the poor have grown drastically over the last 8 years, so I don't think charities are the magic solution. Otherwise, why would we have needed to evolve a welfare system -- alms to the poor a la medieval Europe would have been the solution and poverty would not have been a problem for more than a 100 years. There is a role of both government and private charity.
I agree. I do not understand the statistics of it all. Actuaries always confused me. I imagine that is what is used in calculating the figures.
Source?
I've posted this before but I'm going to post it again for those that just don't get it.
Subject: Bar Stool Economics
>
> Bar Stool Economics
>
> Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for
> all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our
> taxes, it would go something like this:
>
> The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
> The fifth would pay $1.
> The sixth would pay $3.
> The seventh would pay $7.
> The eighth would pay $12.
> The ninth would pay $18.
> The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
>
> So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar
> every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day,
> the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,
> he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.
> Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
>
> The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes
> so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for
> free. What happens to the other six men - the paying customers? How
> could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair
> share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they
> subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the
> sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar
> owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by
> roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each
> should pay.
>
> And so:
>
> The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100%
> savings).
> The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
> The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
> The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
> The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
> T he tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
>
> Each of the six was better off than before . And the first four
> continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men
> began to compare their savings.
>
> 'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He
> pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
>
> 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a
> dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'
>
> 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10
> back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
>
> 'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't
> get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
>
> The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
>
> The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine
> sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the
> bill, they discovered something important.
> They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of
> the bill!
>
> And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is
> how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the
> most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for
> being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they
> might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat
> friendlier.
>
> David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
> Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
>
> For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
> For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
Warren Brookes, now deceased, once noted that envy "is the single most impoverishing attitude of thought." While the Obama tax plan in no way heralds future bread lines, it misses the point for needlessly furthering the politics of envy. Increased taxes on the rich will serve no helpful policy objective, but those taxes will weigh on the incomes of those who would one day like to be rich.
>
>
>
Subject: Bar Stool Economics
>
> Bar Stool Economics
>
> Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for
> all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our
> taxes, it would go something like this:
>
> The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
> The fifth would pay $1.
> The sixth would pay $3.
> The seventh would pay $7.
> The eighth would pay $12.
> The ninth would pay $18.
> The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
>
> So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar
> every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day,
> the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,
> he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.
> Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
>
> The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes
> so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for
> free. What happens to the other six men - the paying customers? How
> could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair
> share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they
> subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the
> sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar
> owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by
> roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each
> should pay.
>
> And so:
>
> The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100%
> savings).
> The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
> The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
> The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
> The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
> T he tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
>
> Each of the six was better off than before . And the first four
> continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men
> began to compare their savings.
>
> 'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He
> pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
>
> 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a
> dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'
>
> 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10
> back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
>
> 'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't
> get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
>
> The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
>
> The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine
> sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the
> bill, they discovered something important.
> They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of
> the bill!
>
> And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is
> how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the
> most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for
> being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they
> might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat
> friendlier.
>
> David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
> Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
>
> For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
> For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
Warren Brookes, now deceased, once noted that envy "is the single most impoverishing attitude of thought." While the Obama tax plan in no way heralds future bread lines, it misses the point for needlessly furthering the politics of envy. Increased taxes on the rich will serve no helpful policy objective, but those taxes will weigh on the incomes of those who would one day like to be rich.
>
>
>
I think that instead of increasing taxes across the board, we should close some loopholes and curb spending - starting w/ turning off the welfare/earmarks/pork spigot!
I don't buy the notion that increasing taxes on the rich does anything but give them incentives to find more ways to avoid paying taxes and lobby for more loopholes. If you think they don't know how/hire people who know how to work the system, you're not living in America, you're living in denial.
People don't become rich (and stay that way) by being lazy or stupid w/ their money. These are the people we should be rewarding, especially since some of the wealthiest people in America are also the most charitable.
I don't buy the notion that increasing taxes on the rich does anything but give them incentives to find more ways to avoid paying taxes and lobby for more loopholes. If you think they don't know how/hire people who know how to work the system, you're not living in America, you're living in denial.
People don't become rich (and stay that way) by being lazy or stupid w/ their money. These are the people we should be rewarding, especially since some of the wealthiest people in America are also the most charitable.
Well, actually the statistics show that 75%- 83% of American families donate to charity. 90% of retirees donate and over 50% of Americans over the age of 18 do volunteer work. By looking at the statistics, if only 1% of Americans earn 600K plus, then it's the lower to middle class making the majority of donations to charity.
http://www.afpnet.org/ka/ka-3.cfm?folder_id=2545&content_item_id=23919
I've also been to these $500-1000 a plate dinners, (paid for by former employers) and they were mainly networking functions while people clapped about what a great thing they were doing for a cause. I am not saying there are ultra-wealthy, well meaning charitable people out there, but lets' not say that by increasing taxes to them, charitable contributions will lessen.
Remember this country was founded by Rich White Men that didn't want to pay their taxes and not wanting to answer to big brother.
Yes, 90% of Americans donate to charity - averaging just over 3% of their income or $1875 per household or $900 per person.
My point was that it takes a lot of $900 donations to match what the "rich" people we are ragging on donate.
Here's a list for the top 60 for the last several years:
http://specials.slate.com/slate60/2007/
Some are huge donations due to a death (like Leana Helmsley's 4 BILLION), but many rich folks are putting massive amounts into charities. Oprah gave $50 million and barely made the top 50 (she's #43).
My point was that it takes a lot of $900 donations to match what the "rich" people we are ragging on donate.
Here's a list for the top 60 for the last several years:
http://specials.slate.com/slate60/2007/
Some are huge donations due to a death (like Leana Helmsley's 4 BILLION), but many rich folks are putting massive amounts into charities. Oprah gave $50 million and barely made the top 50 (she's #43).