Wealth Redistribution

[apple0154]

The reason for posting this article is not just to show the great disparity of wealth but to counter the frequent and bogus argument which goes something like this; "If we tax the rich we'll all end up poor."

As the article explains the majority of Americans have no idea how much money the wealthy actually have. This has a bearing on people making erroneous comments such as "The deficit is too high. We can't afford a medical plan. We can't tax the wealthy any more." The truth is we can tax the wealthy more. A lot more and they will still be wealthy.

The country can afford a medical plan. The country can afford to feed and house the needy. The money is there. Unfortunately, people don't know/understand that.

(Excerpt) In the poll, the vast majority of Americans across the political, gender and wealth spectrum displayed a markedly skewed understanding of how America's money is divided. On average, respondents though that the rich hold only 58% of the nation's wealth, 32% less than their actual holdings. They thought that the middle class controls 13% of the country's wealth, more than three times their actual holdings. As for the bottom 40% of the population, the assumption was that the lower class and poor own a measly 9% of the country's wealth. In reality, these two groups control about one thirtieth of that amount. (End)
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/a...-wealth-redistribution/19684224/?ncid=webmail

 

[cawacko]

First off making $259k a year makes one rich? 'I can barely afford to buy a home but by god I'm rich!'

And Yes We Can soak the rich. Come on apple sing it with me. Put up your little dancing cheerleaders. You can do it big guy.

 

[Onceler]

Ugh. Man, do I hate, hate, hate the idea that we can afford programs like healthcare simply by taxing rich people more.

It takes a lifetime of work for most people to get to an income level that many consider to be "rich."

 

[Cancel7]

First off making $259k a year makes one rich? 'I can barely afford to buy a home but by god I'm rich!'

And Yes We Can soak the rich. Come on apple sing it with me. Put up your little dancing cheerleaders. You can do it big guy.

Why is it I have to keep repeating myself?

If you make 259k a year, your taxes would only be raised on the 9 thousand you made over 250k. So your total tax increase would be a few hundred bucks a year. A few hundred bucks a year on 259 thousand dollars. Oh, let's have a big pity party.

And really cawacko, if you make 259 a year, you can afford a house. Even where you live. Maybe you can't afford a house, a luxury cars, 200 dollar jeans (ahem), vactations, and dinner out once a week at good restaurants, and two kids with designer onsies and private schools.

Boo effin hoo.

 

[Cancel7]

Ugh. Man, do I hate, hate, hate the idea that we can afford programs like healthcare simply by taxing rich people more.

It takes a lifetime of work for most people to get to an income level that many consider to be "rich."

First of all, a lot of the wealth that received the tax cuts we cannot afford under Bush, didn't take a lifetime to earn.

Secondly, no one is talking about going back to 90% top rates.

A few percentage points on the marginal rate isn't going to kill anyone.

Should I get you a tissue too Onceler?

 

[cawacko]

Why is it I have to keep repeating myself?

If you make 259k a year, your taxes would only be raised on the 9 thousand you made over 250k. So your total tax increase would be a few hundred bucks a year. A few hundred bucks a year on 259 thousand dollars. Oh, let's have a big pity party.

And really cawacko, if you make 259 a year, you can afford a house. Even where you live. Maybe you can't afford a house, a luxury cars, 200 dollar jeans (ahem), vactations, and dinner out once a week at good restaurants, and two kids with designer onsies and private schools.

Boo effin hoo.

all else aside $200 jeans are a must. A persons gotta look good.

I'm not claiming anyone making $250k is going hungry. I am saying that hardly makes one rich. And I disagree with the premise that there's so much more room to continue taxing these people higher and higher.

 

[NOVA]

The pinheads only need to learn one simple thing....very simple....

What other people earn is none of your freakin' business....as long as the earnings were lawful .....it is just simply none of your business.....

Your focus should be on what you earn....and what you can do to legally earn more....how you can become more successful....

Its strange your parents didn't teach you that basic rule of life, mind your own business....

 

[Rationalist]

I've never understood the preoccupation with how much money other people make. I am a single man living on about $55,000 per year. Mark Zuckerberg, who isn't much older than myself, has an estimated net worth of $6.9 billion. My response? Good for him!

I do understand the argument that since the wealthy benefit the most from the system we have in place, they ought to pay the most in taxes. My response to this argument is that they already do pay the most in taxes:

http://perotcharts.com/images/taxation/taxation10.png

The top 1% earners account for 22.5% in income tax revenue. The top 10% contributes 62% of income tax revenue, despite accounting for 48% of total reported income. The bottom 50% accounts for about 13% of revenue.

As a libertarian-leaning conservative, I would prefer the Federal government be so small that no income tax is required at all. But as a pragmatist, I also recognize that for the time being anyway, Social Security, Department of Education, and other big government programs aren't going anywhere. This leaves us with the dilemma, how do we pay for it?

Obviously, the current system is not working. It is too expensive to enforce (tens of billions are spent every year simply enforcing the tax code) and much too complicated. A simple solution would be to replace the existing tax code with a flat rate tax. While the exact rate would have to be carefully determined, I think a 15% tax on every dollar in excess of $45,000 would suffice without write-offs, deductions, or credits. I'd also be comfortable with an additional 5% tax on every dollar exceeding $1,000,000, so long as the revenue is earmarked for paying down the national debt.

Such a tax system would be simple, progressive (arguably more so than the current tax code), and would boost investment. Russia and a few of the former Soviet bloc countries have switched to the flat tax with great success. I do not believe there is any reason liberals or conservatives can't come together on this issue. It's common sense.

 

[Phantasmal]

First of all, a lot of the wealth that received the tax cuts we cannot afford under Bush, didn't take a lifetime to earn.

Secondly, no one is talking about going back to 90% top rates.

A few percentage points on the marginal rate isn't going to kill anyone.

Should I get you a tissue too Onceler?

Cut the exemptions, and make it a flat rate, then let's hear them scream!!!!!!!!!

It is why corporations run in fear from the idea, the actual rate they are taxed is not the rate they pay, as is the case with most savvy American investors!

 

[Phantasmal]

I've never understood the preoccupation with how much money other people make. I am a single man living on about $55,000 per year. Mark Zuckerberg, who isn't much older than myself, has an estimated net worth of $6.9 billion. My response? Good for him!

I do understand the argument that since the wealthy benefit the most from the system we have in place, they ought to pay the most in taxes. My response to this argument is that they already do pay the most in taxes:

http://perotcharts.com/images/taxation/taxation10.png

The top 1% earners account for 22.5% in income tax revenue. The top 10% contributes 62% of income tax revenue, despite accounting for 48% of total reported income. The bottom 50% accounts for about 13% of revenue.

As a libertarian-leaning conservative, I would prefer the Federal government be so small that no income tax is required at all. But as a pragmatist, I also recognize that for the time being anyway, Social Security, Department of Education, and other big government programs aren't going anywhere. This leaves us with the dilemma, how do we pay for it?

Obviously, the current system is not working. It is too expensive to enforce (tens of billions are spent every year simply enforcing the tax code) and much too complicated. A simple solution would be to replace the existing tax code with a flat rate tax. While the exact rate would have to be carefully determined, I think a 15% tax on every dollar in excess of $45,000 would suffice without write-offs, deductions, or credits. I'd also be comfortable with an additional 5% tax on every dollar exceeding $1,000,000, so long as the revenue is earmarked for paying down the national debt.

Such a tax system would be simple, progressive (arguably more so than the current tax code), and would boost investment. Russia and a few of the former Soviet bloc countries have switched to the flat tax with great success. I do not believe there is any reason liberals or conservatives can't come together on this issue. It's common sense.

Study shows happiness peaks at $75,000! but people will never believe that, money is status, money is power and these days, money makes you somebody! Money is everything! in this world today! Pink Floyd says it best!

 

[Rationalist]

Study shows happiness peaks at $75,000! but people will never believe that,

I believe it. Happiness is found in the achievement of one's values as well as in those who contribute meaning to our lives. But with wealth one can easily lose sight of that.

 

[apple0154]

First off making $259k a year makes one rich? 'I can barely afford to buy a home but by god I'm rich!'

You should be so lucky. I'm scrambling to afford a one week vacation!

I retired at a relatively young age due to an injury but being fortunate enough to have real estate holdings which I liquidated just prior to the bottom falling out of the market. The Mrs, being nine years younger, has a seasonal business and does consulting the remainder of the year.

Anyway, after she has worked all year I thought it would be nice to get away for a week at Christmas. A simple, one week at a beach.

Wanting to save a few pennies I planned to drive to and fly out of NY as it would be less expensive. After checking United Airlines for plane fare and "InterContinental Hotels" for accommodation I was looking at

$11,637.30 plane fare

$7395.01 hotel accommodation ($1056.43/day X 7 days)

Total: $11,637.30 + $7395.01 = $19,032.02 for a one week vacation in Bali.

Now, when I hear from solicitors on the phone or at the door my response is, "I can't even afford a yearly, one week vacation. I simply don't have any money to give."

Honest, to the point, and it works every time.

And Yes We Can soak the rich. Come on apple sing it with me. Put up your little dancing cheerleaders. You can do it big guy.

OK


O--BA--MA
O--BA--MA
0--BA--MA

 

[apple0154]

Why is it I have to keep repeating myself?

If you make 259k a year, your taxes would only be raised on the 9 thousand you made over 250k. So your total tax increase would be a few hundred bucks a year. A few hundred bucks a year on 259 thousand dollars. Oh, let's have a big pity party.

And really cawacko, if you make 259 a year, you can afford a house. Even where you live. Maybe you can't afford a house, a luxury cars, 200 dollar jeans (ahem), vactations, and dinner out once a week at good restaurants, and two kids with designer onsies and private schools.

Boo effin hoo.

When Joe the Plumber was in the news regarding the tax increase on income from $250,000 to $275,000 it worked out to an $800 increase on a total income of $275,000. The business wizard that Joe was he concluded the $800 increase would discourage him from buying the business.

Of course, we have to realize Joe could no more afford to buy a business than he could to pay his property tax.

Ya got to love Repubs.

 

[DamnYankee]

Apple's jealous of folks who are successful.

 

[Onceler]

First of all, a lot of the wealth that received the tax cuts we cannot afford under Bush, didn't take a lifetime to earn.

Secondly, no one is talking about going back to 90% top rates.

A few percentage points on the marginal rate isn't going to kill anyone.

Should I get you a tissue too Onceler?

A few points here, a few points there. What's the big deal?

People shouldn't be talking about where we can raise taxes. People are taxed plenty, at just about every income level. Fed taxes, state taxes, property & school taxes, sales taxes, SS taxes, capital gains taxes, assorted fees - many end up paying close to half their income when all is said & done.

There is ridiculous waste in gov't, which is so rarely addressed anymore, even by the right. Progressive ideals can be achieved without raising taxes. Slash the military, privatize Social Security and reduce gov't waste & you can afford whatever you want.

And yeah - a few hundred bucks isn't much to someone making a little over $250K, but that's not the point. And I do object vehemently to the idea that people in that range are "rich." Where I live, they're not.

 

[NOVA]

Apple's jealous of folks who are successful.

Actually, its easy to see that all the pinheads here are jealous of folks who are successful....then they compound their image of stupidity by claiming that those "rich" people don't pay their fair share.....
50% of all workers don't pay anything and some of those get refunds, ...
a kinds of bonus welfare check.

Pinheads think that the money the rich earn would somehow magically appear in their bank accounts if those rich weren't getting it....

 

[Cancel7]

Study shows happiness peaks at $75,000! but people will never believe that, money is status, money is power and these days, money makes you somebody! Money is everything! in this world today! Pink Floyd says it best!

I saw that, and I believed it. It makes sense. I think that lack of money only causes unhappiness, when that lack is severe. If you don't know how you're going to pay your rent, or your home is in foreclosure, if you are up nights worrying about bill collectors, how can you have a good life? But once you are able to cover all of your living expenses, then the difference between having a little left over for luxuries and entertainment, and having a lot left over for those things, is irrelevant to actual happiness. It can alleviate boredom, and provide short bursts of happiness. That's probably the very definition of consumerism. And anyone with disposable income is guilty of that at times.

But once you have your basics covered, you're either happy, or you aren't. I also believe that your career has a lot to do with this. I'll tell you, in my opinion and experience, no matter what you are making, if you are working for someone else, that can be a big cause of stress and unhappiness. The fact is, not having to work for any company but your own, is the difference between being in prison and being free. And I bet that has something to do with happiness levels.

 

[Cancel7]

A few points here, a few points there. What's the big deal?

People shouldn't be talking about where we can raise taxes. People are taxed plenty, at just about every income level. Fed taxes, state taxes, property & school taxes, sales taxes, SS taxes, capital gains taxes, assorted fees - many end up paying close to half their income when all is said & done.

There is ridiculous waste in gov't, which is so rarely addressed anymore, even by the right. Progressive ideals can be achieved without raising taxes. Slash the military, privatize Social Security and reduce gov't waste & you can afford whatever you want.

And yeah - a few hundred bucks isn't much to someone making a little over $250K, but that's not the point. And I do object vehemently to the idea that people in that range are "rich." Where I live, they're not.

First of all, bringing taxes back to Clinton-era levels, would fall mainly on the actual rich. The 250k is a red herring. That's not rich where I live either, but so what? So if you make 300k, you get a small tax raise on the 50k over 250.

This country was booming under just those tax rates, and in fact, in the past, it was booming under even higher.

Have you looked at the inequality in this country, which has sky-rocketed? That historically has never worked out well anywhere.

And we're not privatizing SS, which is a social safety net, not an investment plan. Investments go bad sometimes, it's inevitable. The old age pension is an idea that goes back to Thomas Paine, and it since implemented here, it has kept millions of seniors out of debilitating poverty.

This greed that you're going to make it big by destroying the social safety net of SS, is exactly the mindset, nearly unique to Americans, that has caused over 30% of Americans to believe they will one day be in the 2 percentile of earners, and over 20% to believe they are already there.

That delusion has been exploited by the wealthiest families in this country to slash the social safety net, to slash taxes for the 1 percentile, and to be against, among other things, single payer.

If we are number one in anything, it's magical thinking.

 

[DamnYankee]

Actually, its easy to see that all the pinheads here are jealous of folks who are successful....then they compound their image of stupidity by claiming that those "rich" people don't pay their fair share.....
50% of all workers don't pay anything and some of those get refunds, ...
a kinds of bonus welfare check.

Pinheads think that the money the rich earn would somehow magically appear in their bank accounts if those rich weren't getting it....

Darla's jealous too. She probably still lives with her parents.

 

[NOVA]

First of all, bringing taxes back to Clinton-era levels, would fall mainly on the actual rich. The 250k is a red herring. That's not rich where I live either, but so what? So if you make 300k, you get a small tax raise on the 50k over 250.

This country was booming under just those tax rates, and in fact, in the past, it was booming under even higher.

Have you looked at the inequality in this country, which has sky-rocketed? That historically has never worked out well anywhere.

And we're not privatizing SS, which is a social safety net, not an investment plan. Investments go bad sometimes, it's inevitable. The old age pension is an idea that goes back to Thomas Paine, and it since implemented here, it has kept millions of seniors out of debilitating poverty.

This greed that you're going to make it big by destroying the social safety net of SS, is exactly the mindset, nearly unique to Americans, that has caused over 30% of Americans to believe they will one day be in the 2 percentile of earners, and over 20% to believe they are already there.

That delusion has been exploited by the wealthiest families in this country to slash the social safety net, to slash taxes for the 1 percentile, and to be against, among other things, single payer.

If we are number one in anything, it's magical thinking.

1993 -- the year of the giant Clinton tax hike -- was not the turning point in the deficit wars. In fact, in 1995, two years after that tax hike, the budget baseline submitted by the president's own OMB and the nonpartisan CBO predicted $200 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see. The figure shows the Clinton deficit baseline. What changed ?

How about this ......

Newt Gingrich and company -- for all their faults -- have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today's surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP's single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich's finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years.

We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion.

Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four.

Now let us contrast this with the Clinton fiscal record. Recall that it was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign to torpedo the plan -- a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as "pure demagoguery." It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP's balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton administration admitted that "balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities."

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5656