toldailytopic: Is increasing taxes on the wealthy a wise economic plan for this natio

[Newman]

That is the myth that needs to be exposed. One does not amass millions or billions on a wage or salary. The smart learn how to game the system. The key is ownership whether that be of the stock in a company or resources such as an oil field or a coal mine. Our economic system rewards those who are smart enough to gain control and then multiply wealth through the Wall Street markets. You might say that Bill Gates worked hard but it was his business smarts to retain controlling stock interest in Microsoft that made him a billionaire. If he had gone to work as an IBM employee he would still be just a well paid employee not a multi-billionaire.

Here's the rub. Smart is a relative term and by definition a small percentage of any population will be smarter than others. So we have a system that domes the majority of its population to being either a working stiff or unemployed.

So it's wrong if somebody makes more money than they presently need and then invest their excess in other firms?

 

[bybee]

That is the myth that needs to be exposed. One does not amass millions or billions on a wage or salary. The smart learn how to game the system. The key is ownership whether that be of the stock in a company or resources such as an oil field or a coal mine. Our economic system rewards those who are smart enough to gain control and then multiply wealth through the Wall Street markets. You might say that Bill Gates worked hard but it was his business smarts to retain controlling stock interest in Microsoft that made him a billionaire. If he had gone to work as an IBM employee he would still be just a well paid employee not a multi-billionaire.

Here's the rub. Smart is a relative term and by definition a small percentage of any population will be smarter than others. So we have a system that domes the majority of its population to being either a working stiff or unemployed.

And a majority of people on welfare are there because of poor management of their time, talent and money. I have family members and their friends on welfare. All drink, smoke and toke. All spend their money foolishly. None of them save a dime.

 

[fool]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for November 15th, 2012 08:32 AM

toldailytopic: Is increasing taxes on the wealthy a wise economic plan for this nation?

For me it's not a question of whether it's wise or not.
It's a question of right and wrong.
Why should anyone pay a higher percentage than anyone else?
The liberals will say "they don't need all that money!" but they used up their life and energy making it. Why should they be enslaved to a higher degree just because their succesful?

 

[The Berean]

That is the myth that needs to be exposed. One does not amass millions or billions on a wage or salary. The smart learn how to game the system. The key is ownership whether that be of the stock in a company or resources such as an oil field or a coal mine. Our economic system rewards those who are smart enough to gain control and then multiply wealth through the Wall Street markets. You might say that Bill Gates worked hard but it was his business smarts to retain controlling stock interest in Microsoft that made him a billionaire. If he had gone to work as an IBM employee he would still be just a well paid employee not a multi-billionaire.

Here's the rub. Smart is a relative term and by definition a small percentage of any population will be smarter than others. So we have a system that domes the majority of its population to being either a working stiff or unemployed.

This guy has earned $325,416,252 in salary so far in his career. As far as I know he's doesn't own any companies, factories, or mines. He's only 37 years old.

 

[Tambora]

A few random thoughts:

Taxes are theft. Even if the social planner believes he is doing good by spending other people's money, it is still other people's money.

But even if you don't believe in private property, taxes inhibit economic growth. They take money out of the private, productive, entrepreneurial sector and flood the public, bureaucratic, destructive sector.

But even if you don't care about long term growth, taxes distort markets. They impose costs on either buyers or sellers (depending on how you look at it and how the tax is set up) that disfigure market signals like prices and quantities of output into meaninglessness.

But even if you don't care about markets and trust the government instead, to believe increasing taxes will increase government revenue, you must be making an assumption that our economy is operating on the left side of the Laffer curve.

But, even if we grant you that we are on the left side of the Laffer curve, and increasing taxes will increase government revenue, then you still must prove that that money is better spent by a bureaucrat (who was probably appointed by somebody *cough*friendsandfamily*cough* elected by lying to the citizenry) than an entrepreneur motivated by profit opportunity.

If you are still on board, then you are telling people "You do not have the right to earn/have/save/spend your own money because I can vote for people that know how to spend your money better than you."

...which means that it takes a person of great delusions of grandeur and intelligence to think that taxes are a moral and beneficial thing in a supposedly free and prosperous society.

Yeeeeeeeeeep.

 

[Stripe]

Taxes are theft.

A flat tax rate in order that government can do its job is not theft.

 

[eameece]

A few random thoughts:

Taxes are theft. Even if the social planner believes he is doing good by spending other people's money, it is still other people's money.

But even if you don't believe in private property, taxes inhibit economic growth. They take money out of the private, productive, entrepreneurial sector and flood the public, bureaucratic, destructive sector.

Private property is theft, and in any case it is a huge government program. The public sector is productive too, and it benefits the public. The private sector locks up profits in the hands of a few, sanctioned by government laws and policy.

But even if you don't care about long term growth, taxes distort markets. They impose costs on either buyers or sellers (depending on how you look at it and how the tax is set up) that disfigure market signals like prices and quantities of output into meaninglessness.

We don't need just market signals. We need other signals too like evidence on how business behavior hurts the environment, and how wealth concentration creates poverty.

But even if you don't care about markets and trust the government instead, to believe increasing taxes will increase government revenue, you must be making an assumption that our economy is operating on the left side of the Laffer curve.

Supply side economics is a fraud. The left side of the Laffer curve is where a prosperous economy operates.

But, even if we grant you that we are on the left side of the Laffer curve, and increasing taxes will increase government revenue, then you still must prove that that money is better spent by a bureaucrat (who was probably appointed by somebody *cough*friendsandfamily*cough* elected by lying to the citizenry) than an entrepreneur motivated by profit opportunity.

Bureaucrats are just people working within the civil service doing work for the public. Government is needed, and bureaucrats are just people carrying out the mandates of the people.

If you are still on board, then you are telling people "You do not have the right to earn/have/save/spend your own money because I can vote for people that know how to spend your money better than you."

...which means that it takes a person of great delusions of grandeur and intelligence to think that taxes are a moral and beneficial thing in a supposedly free and prosperous society.

Taxes belong to the state, not to you, and the people voting for taxes are not people taking money from you personally. Taxes are a moral and beneficial thing--- or at least they can be if fair, and if the money is used according to the peoples wishes, and if the peoples wishes are correct. "Freedom" is not free enterprise; get over the delusion foisted on you by Reagan.

 

[PureX]

A few random thoughts:

Taxes are theft. Even if the social planner believes he is doing good by spending other people's money, it is still other people's money.

But even if you don't believe in private property, taxes inhibit economic growth. They take money out of the private, productive, entrepreneurial sector and flood the public, bureaucratic, destructive sector.

But even if you don't care about long term growth, taxes distort markets. They impose costs on either buyers or sellers (depending on how you look at it and how the tax is set up) that disfigure market signals like prices and quantities of output into meaninglessness.

But even if you don't care about markets and trust the government instead, to believe increasing taxes will increase government revenue, you must be making an assumption that our economy is operating on the left side of the Laffer curve.

But, even if we grant you that we are on the left side of the Laffer curve, and increasing taxes will increase government revenue, then you still must prove that that money is better spent by a bureaucrat (who was probably appointed by somebody *cough*friendsandfamily*cough* elected by lying to the citizenry) than an entrepreneur motivated by profit opportunity.

If you are still on board, then you are telling people "You do not have the right to earn/have/save/spend your own money because I can vote for people that know how to spend your money better than you."

...which means that it takes a person of great delusions of grandeur and intelligence to think that taxes are a moral and beneficial thing in a supposedly free and prosperous society.

I'm sorry Newman, but this post is ridiculous in just about every way possible.

"Taxes are theft".

Anyone past about the age of 5 can understand why taxation is not "theft". ... If they wanted to understand, I mean.

"Taxes inhibit economic growth".

Taxation inhibits the income of some as it provides an income for others. And in the meantime, it builds roads and bridges and all kinds of physical and social infrastructure that EVERYONE needs to increase their economic condition.

"Taxes distort markets".

Once we get past our absurd worship of the sacred 'markets' we might begin to recognize that not every commercial endeavor is desirable or even viable. Much of the stuff we produce in this country we don't really need, and if the cost of producing it (after paying taxes, and a decent wage, and for a safe work environment, etc.) is too high, then we probably shouldn't be producing it at all. Because the fact is that the well being of the people involved in its production is more important than most of the junk we produce for the market. Market profits are not gods that must be served at any and all social or human cost.

"You still must prove that that money is better spent by a bureaucrat".

As opposed to whom? We live in a representative democracy. That means we elect people to represent us regarding decisions as to who pays taxes, how much they pay, and what the money is spent on. If we don't like their decisions, we can always elect someone else. And given that most people re-elect the same people they elected the last time, we must assume that they are OK with the decisions their representatives have been making.

If you are assuming that people should keep the tax money and decide for themselves how to spend it, well, that's patently absurd. We are all far too selfish and short sighted to ever spend our own money on things that we need as a collective society, and this has been proven true since the dawn of humankind.

"You are telling people, "You do not have the right to earn/have/save/spend your own money because I can vote for people that know how to spend your money better than you."

Grown ups understand that they live in a society of human beings, to which their own well-being is integrally connected. Grown ups understand that when their tax dollars are spent on roads that they will never or rarely ever actually travel on, that it's still a positive use of the money because the mobility those roads provide for others, helps everyone in the end. This is why grown ups band together and form governments and endow those governments with the power to collect taxes and spend that money on things that a selfish individual would never pay for, but that society as a whole needs and wants to survive and thrive. Grown ups recognize their own flaws, and so understand why this must be done.

If a child were made to pay taxes, he would likely cry and whine about how his money is being "stolen" from him because he has no sense of his responsibilities as members of any larger group of people. All he thinks about is himself. And what he wants. And what he thinks belongs only to him.

But as we grow up we must learn that we are not each the little kings of our own little universes. We are in fact just one member within a whole group of people like ourselves who's lives and well-being are all tied to each other. And that the decisions we make will effect others, just as the decisions other's make will effect us. Learning to be an adult means learning to think about the welfare of the whole group, as well as our own.

Sadly, it's a lesson that has not been taught very well, lately, in the United States. There are a lot of spoiled children running around in adult bodies, behaving like they're little baby kings of their own little baby universes, owing nothing to anyone, and whining and crying like 5 year olds because someone else has taken away one of "their" toys.

 

[WizardofOz]

Raising or lowering taxes is irrelevant unless the federal government significantly curbs spending. And yes, that means both military and welfare.

Nothing should be off the table.

 

[eameece]

And a majority of people on welfare are there because of poor management of their time, talent and money. I have family members and their friends on welfare. All drink, smoke and toke. All spend their money foolishly. None of them save a dime.

There are very few people on welfare anymore. There isn't such a thing.

 

[HisServant]

All the evidence supports the wisdom of raising taxes on the wealthiest 2%, but the intense bias of most of those participating in this thread will preclude them from ever being able to recognize it. So I'm not sure what the point is in asking the question, except to start yet another 'lets hate on the evil liberals some more' thread, in the form of a question.

I guess the astounding idiocy that I see on the left is that they think that the rich will just take the tax increase and roll over. The fact of the matter is that any tax will be passed through to the cost of goods and the poor will be paying the tax in the end.

It's fundamental economics 101. We are beginning to see it with the mandatory health insurance coverage. Which will end up raising the prices of things produced in america and push more jobs overseas.

So much stupidity.

 

[eameece]

For me it's not a question of whether it's wise or not.
It's a question of right and wrong.
Why should anyone pay a higher percentage than anyone else?
The liberals will say "they don't need all that money!" but they used up their life and energy making it. Why should they be enslaved to a higher degree just because (they're) succes(s)ful?

Because the poor need all their income for necessities, while the rich get a lot of extra income they don't need. Because the rich benefit more from what society gives them (IOW "you didn't build that" (alone) ). Because wealth is power, and too much power in too few hands destroys democracy-- as it is currently doing in the USA (witness Citizens United). Because most of what the rich make, they don't earn, but get through extortion (like unfairly-high CEO salaries, ownership of real estate, inheritance, and gambling winnings on the Wall St. casino), while the poor earn every bit of what they make and more because their wages are kept low by Republican presidents and congresses.

So, let the rich be rich, and by all means let's have some rich people, but have them contribute their fair share, and having them pay at the Clinton rates is perfectly fair, and good for the economy too. Your trickle-down policies have led to the results we see.

 

[WizardofOz]

There are very few people on welfare anymore. There isn't such a thing.

Welfare is now called "entitlement" so no one has to feel bad about it anymore.

But yeah, it's expensive.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Raising or lowering taxes is irrelevant unless the federal government significantly curbs spending. And yes, that means both military and welfare.

Nothing should be off the table.

That's another good point. Raising taxes isn't an economic plan.

After all... if you are trying to add to the private sector how does taking away from it help?

 

[PureX]

I guess the astounding idiocy that I see on the left is that they think that the rich will just take the tax increase and roll over. The fact of the matter is that any tax will be passed through to the cost of goods and the poor will be paying the tax in the end.

This is why price caps are necessary for goods and services that are essential to survival (captive markets). Price caps are how other nations on the planet can provide their people good national health care for half of what we now pay for ineffective and spotty health care. Maximizing profits to the wealthy capitalist is not a sacred command from God, nor is it a law of nature. Any human behavior that causes harm to other people, or violates their equal right to life, liberty, and opportunity can be justly defined as criminal behavior.

The cost of products and services that are not essential to survival are self-regulated because we can simply refuse to buy them if they cost too much.

It's fundamental economics 101. We are beginning to see it with the mandatory health insurance coverage. Which will end up raising the prices of things produced in america and push more jobs overseas.

We should choose one of the many already established models for good quality national health care. But we can't do this because the various corporate lobbies working for the health care industry in the United States can buy off the government, and have done so. The mess we currently have, and that we are calling "Obamacare", in not a good solution. It's the solution we got after massive bribery of the Congress and Senate by corporate lobbyists.

Don't mistake that mess for real national health care. All it really will be is the government forcing people to pay private insurance companies for private health insurance, which will create an even MORE captive market than they already have, and will drive up costs even further. This is why the corporate lobbyists, working for the insurance companies, allowed "Obamacare" to happen.

An expanded version of Medicaid that covers everyone is the solution, WITH price caps to keep the costs reasonable. But there is no way the corporate lobbyists will allow that to happen. We'll have to reform the legislature before we can ever really fix our hopelessly messed up health care situation. And until we do, it's going to continue to cost us dearly, as it already is. And we will continue to have terrible health care nationwide.

It is stupid, indeed!

 

[Doormat]

All the evidence supports the wisdom of raising taxes on the wealthiest 2%, but the intense bias of most of those participating in this thread will preclude them from ever being able to recognize it.

Why does anyone need to pay taxes? It's not like the only solution a country has to financing government is borrowing money and taxing its citizens. See the award winning documentary The Secrets of Oz.

Instead of talking about forced wealthy redistribution, why not start talking about the government creating it's own currency again? Why not talk about using U.S. notes again?

Presently, for some strange reason, the government lets banks (like the one on your street) create money out of thin air and lend it to you. The government borrows that bank-created money from the banks. Only monumental greed and stupidity can sustain such a system.

 

[Sherman]

That's another good point. Raising taxes isn't an economic plan.

After all... if you are trying to add to the private sector how does taking away from it help?

Raising taxes is a attempt to fund the huge debt. What the government needs to do is cut out all the fluff--Money sent overseas to perverts and abortionists, the raises congress and the senate gives to itself, money given to planned unparenthood ect.

 

[HisServant]

This is why price caps are necessary for goods and services that are essential to survival (captive markets). Price caps are how other nations on the planet can provide their people good national health care for half of what we now pay for ineffective and spotty health care. Maximizing profits to the wealthy capitalist is not a sacred command from God, nor is it a law of nature. Any human behavior that causes harm to other people, or violates their equal right to life, liberty, and opportunity can be justly defined as criminal behavior.

The cost of products and services that are not essential to survival are self-regulated because we can simply refuse to buy them if they cost too much.
We should choose one of the many already established models for good quality national health care. But we can't do this because the various corporate lobbies working for the health care industry in the United States can buy off the government, and have done so. The mess we currently have, and that we are calling "Obamacare", in not a good solution. It's the solution we got after massive bribery of the Congress and Senate by corporate lobbyists.

Don't mistake that mess for real national health care. All it really will be is the government forcing people to pay private insurance companies for private health insurance, which will create an even MORE captive market than they already have, and will drive up costs even further. This is why the corporate lobbyists, working for the insurance companies, allowed "Obamacare" to happen.

An expanded version of Medicaid that covers everyone is the solution, WITH price caps to keep the costs reasonable. But there is no way the corporate lobbyists will allow that to happen. We'll have to reform the legislature before we can ever really fix our hopelessly messed up health care situation. And until we do, it's going to continue to cost us dearly, as it already is. And we will continue to have terrible health care nationwide.

It is stupid, indeed!

Price caps lead to companies going out of business and the gap having to be filled by the federal government. Within our lifetimes, Obama Care will cause the federal government to have to step in and expand medicare/medicaid to fill in the void left by companies getting out of the health care business.

Medicare/Medicare already reimburses doctors at a LOSS and the goverment has been threatening to cut the reimbursements by an additional 75% but gets postponed in the budget stop gap bills. This is why you see doctors practices limiting the number of medicare/medicaid patients simply because they cannot afford to operate at a loss. This is also the reason why private insurance is so expensive.. because it has to pick up the gap from deadbeats and medicare/medicaid or their subscribing doctors will be out of business.

Obamacare has set the stage for the perfect storm... one that I don't think our governement is in the position to absorb right now.

 

[PureX]

Why does anyone need to pay taxes? It's not like the only solution a country has to financing government is borrowing money and taxing its citizens. See the award winning documentary The Secrets of Oz.

Instead of talking about forced wealthy redistribution, why not start talking about the government creating it's own currency again? Why not talk about using U.S. notes again?

Presently, for some strange reason, the government lets banks (like the one on your street) create money out of thin air and lend it to you. The government borrows that bank-created money from the banks. Only monumental greed and stupidity can sustain such a system.

I agree whole-heartedly with eliminating the National Reserve Bank and this nonsense of borrowing money from a group of unelected private bankers who are themselves just printing it!

But I don't think that can eliminate taxation. It could certainly help cut it down to reasonable size, though.

 

[WizardofOz]

I agree whole-heartedly agree with eliminating the National Reserve Bank and this nonsense of borrowing money from a group of unelected private bankers who are themselves just printing it!

But I don't think that can eliminate taxation. It could certainly help cut it down to reasonable size, though.

Looks like both sides can agree on common sense. Now it's guaranteed that the government won't do it!