I almost spit out my coffee.... (Chicago, Kansas: racist, working, America)

[emathias]

Originally Posted by andrew61

Not this Illinois voter. I'm with you, lenniel.

There's too much "wealth envy" in this country, and I can't stand politicians who pander to it.

I think the argument can be made that screaming crazy people that Fox presents as "the left" notwithstanding, people advocating for progressive tax structures aren't envious - they're pragmatic.

We live in a complex, modern world where no business operates without making use of transportation infrastructure, education infrastructure, courts infrastructure, and, yes, even military infrastructure. Is there a direct correlation between business success and utilizing those national advantages? No, at least not for most business. Is there a clear, easily demonstrated, correlation between the size of businesses and how much of those infrastructures they benefit from? Absolutely. So asking those who, as a class, benefit the most from those infrastructures to pay more is not "envy," it's pragmatism. It's honesty. It's justice.

[cubssoxfan]

Originally Posted by andrew61

Except that now in Europe it's all starting to unravel. The countries are going bankrupt and they can no longer afford their lavish social programs. Look at what's happening in Greece -- government is so broke it's finally being forced to cut spending, and the people, who have come to see their "entitlement" programs as a right, are rioting.

As Margaret Thatcher once observed, the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. Do we really want to emulate countries that are going belly up?

And by going straight to the unworthy models you miss the point like so many other "blinder wearing" critics. I picked Germany because they made the cuts about 10 years ago, have a penchant for saving and have remained an exporting oriented country even with relatively high labor/manufacturing costs.

[cubssoxfan]

Originally Posted by emathias

I think the argument can be made that screaming crazy people that Fox presents as "the left" notwithstanding, people advocating for progressive tax structures aren't envious - they're pragmatic.

We live in a complex, modern world where no business operates without making use of transportation infrastructure, education infrastructure, courts infrastructure, and, yes, even military infrastructure. Is there a direct correlation between business success and utilizing those national advantages? No, at least not for most business. Is there a clear, easily demonstrated, correlation between the size of businesses and how much of those infrastructures they benefit from? Absolutely. So asking those who, as a class, benefit the most from those infrastructures to pay more is not "envy," it's pragmatism. It's honesty. It's justice.

You bring up a good point. When the flat taxes were proposed by Perry and Cain, from what I read and investigated, the super wealthy would not have been terribly hurt by the flat tax proposals-it was the middle and especially upper middle class that would have been hammered. I still am amazed at how some Republican candidates play the 2-sided game of claiming they are for the middle class when in reality most of their policies benefit the wealthy and sometimes at the expense of the middle class.

[Logic87]

The tax rate isn't the real issue as long as loopholes via deductions and other methods are allowed to be taken. A person may make 1 million dollars of income but after all the deductions and loopholes the person may have say 700k of taxable income and would only be required to be $239,814 of taxes (an effective tax rate of around 24%) instead of the $327,314 (an effective tax rate around 33%) the person would be required to pay.

A middle class worker making say 40,000 would pay $6,125 in taxes and around 15% of his income. This individual would most likely not have any credits or deductions to limit his taxable income or taxes paid unlike richer individuals.

Hypothetically you could raise the tax rate to 90% and the wealthy could pay a fraction of that rate if they were able to lower their taxable income.

Therefore, I do think a minimum 30% for all wealthy is a decent proposition. But IMO the current tax system in place needs to be abolished. I think a marginal flat tax rate adjusted by income for all individuals needs to be set in place. Say individuals making over 100k pay 20%, under 100k 10% and so forth. Limit deductions, credits and all the other crap.

In the current system the poor do not pay any taxes and are subsidized via government funds, the super rich are able to limit their tax rate by a significant % while the middle class has to pay their share and do not receive any government funding.

[SJaye]

Originally Posted by Chicago60614

I honestly don't have a problem taxing people making more than $1M by a fair share and then cutting spending. Should we cut taxes to the rich? They're paying a lower share now than they have been since income taxes came about 100 years ago.

The top tax brackets use to be around 90%. They were cut by Regan down to the 50's, and then with Bush they went to the mid 30's. That's also when you saw the rich becoming richer at a much quicker pace. Rich people make money out of money. Also corporations got crazy with their hundreds of millions in compensation packages trying to one-up one another once the tax issue was gone. Basically the money is piling up amoung a few who have the ability and means to make vast amounts of it.

No one likes taxes, but if you're making $50 million a year, I really don't feel bad if you pay a few million more.

Wrong...

The 1986 Tax Reform lowered the top rate to 28%. Bush I raised that rate into the lower 30s to pay for Iraq war I, and they were subsequently raised into the upper 30s by Clinton. The '86 reform also set only two tax brackets, but at no point was the tax rate on the "wealthy" higher than than the income tax rate on the "poor".

The 1986 tax reform also set the tax rate on Capital Gains to 28%, the same as the top tax bracket. Since the first tax increase by Bush I, the Capital Gains tax has been lower than the highest income tax bracket, with subsequent cuts under the Clinton and Bush II administrations making the difference significant.

There are also a lot of loopholes/ tax breaks that makes everyone pay different rates. To me it seems that if you wanted everyone to pay their "fair share", you should find a way to have everyone pay around the same amount of their income, through either one flat tax rate with no loopholes/deduction/special rates allowed on income, or simply an import tariff (ala pre-1913) and allowing States to collect taxes and perform many of the functions of the Federal Government.

[It'sAutomatic]

Originally Posted by jdiddy

These are the kind of comments which make discussing politics on the internet worthless.

Maybe it was unnecessary, but I wasn't trying to disrespect him. Conservative media eats up these economic (and other) disaster scenarios that are based on either willful ignorance of the facts or lying. What he said is a good example of that, how countries in Europe going under for numerous reasons is a failure of socialism. Another example is that the current debt of the USA is going to sink the country... I agree with the principle, but there are countries out there with a much higher debt (compared to their GDP) and are doing alright.

That's how our country is though, everyone's opinion is equally valid and everyone has a right to their own facts.

[nana053]

What fascinates me is how many poor people vote against their own interests

The Locust Fork News-Journal » Blog Archive » Why Do Working Class People Vote Against Their Economic Interests?

and

Amazon.com: What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America (9780805077742): Thomas Frank: Books

By focusing attention on culture issues, the Conservatives not only distract their followers from economic concerns, they remove capitalism itself as an issue. For Red Staters, capitalism is a natural force, and free markets are an absolute good. Concerns about environment, globalization, estate taxes, Wal-Martization, health and welfare all disappear, since laissez-faire is an inviolable principle. Capitalism cannot and must not be regulated in this worldview, and any restrictions and regulations designed to "thwart" it are necessarily wrong if not evil. The fact that culture itself -- MTV, Hollywood, Howard Stern, Fear Factor -- is a capitalist product that follows the same profit motivations goes unnoticed. In Kansas, as in most places, there is no connection in people's minds between culture and capitalism.

[It'sAutomatic]

Originally Posted by nana053

What fascinates me is how many poor people vote against their own interests

The Locust Fork News-Journal » Blog Archive » Why Do Working Class People Vote Against Their Economic Interests?

and

Amazon.com: What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America (9780805077742): Thomas Frank: Books

The New York Times recently had an article that focused on some economic conservatives and Tea Party advocates who draw heavily on government benefits. There was also a note about how people in red states receive more government benefits than people in blue ones.


Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It

[nana053]

Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic

The New York Times recently had an article that focused on some economic conservatives and Tea Party advocates who draw heavily on government benefits. There was also a note about how people in red states receive more government benefits than people in blue ones.


Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It

Yes, Texas under Governor Perry gets a lot more federal money than it gives back to the feds.

[j_cat]

Originally Posted by lenniel

I know this is a sore subject for many and divides people among idealogical, political, and socioeconomic stances, but this whole thing about 'fairness' and 'wealthy paying their fair share' is really starting to ruffle my feathers.

IMHO, what it really demonstrates is the general public's lack of understanding of taxation and the consumption of whatever the mainstream media is spoonfeeding.

In short, because we don't agree with you, therefore we don't understand. Then add in some vague notions about the mainstream media, and I'm left truly humbled by your unimpeachable powers of reasoning.