Did you Vote?

[Ughmahedhurtz]

My apologies for not linking you the data behind that NCPA study. But would me linking that data even matter? I mean, it's just a bunch of right-wing nutjobs spouting talking points, right? It would appear that we can google fight all day long and not get anywhere, as the data can mean whatever you want it to mean, especially so considering it is so freakin difficult to link a specific policy detail to a long-term trend. I believe that the conservative economists like Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell have a better grasp on how to increase the standard of living for all humans than Al Gore, Obama or George Soros. On that point, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, unless I'm missing your angle.

And lastly, Abraham Lincoln, whose words I think speak most eloquently behind the ideas in this thread:

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to tremble for the safety of our country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the republic is destroyed.

A most excellent quote. Do you think it applies to people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and George Soros?

[gfd333]

I didn't vote too.

[pinotnoir]

Shadens and Dons Wall of text just Crit me for over 9000!

Don I had no idea you were a hardcore republican. I still love you! :thumbsup: Your my favorite republican. I hope you find a new job soon. Now come back to wow because everyone is leaving us!

[Shaden]

[quote='Redbeard',index.php?page=Thread&postID=1492 80#post149280]
How is it not a success tax?

...

I guess im just not following you.

Maybe I should go read the Economist?[/quote]
Again, going back to the [url='http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html']resource[/url] I mentioned before:

In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 44.1% of all privately held stock, 58.0% of financial securities, and 57.3% of business equity. The top 10% have 85% to 90% of stock, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.

In light of things like this, yes, I support a tax on extravagantly successful people (the top 10%) disproportionate to the share of tax for the working class, which we can generously for this example call the other 90% of us. Yes, since those people hold a disproportionate share of the wealth in this country, I think they are the most reasonable people to tax, disproportionate to the rest of us.

There's more there, about the estate tax, in fact:

Figures on inheritance tell much the same story. According to a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, only 1.6% of Americans receive $100,000 or more in inheritance. Another 1.1% receive $50,000 to $100,000. On the other hand, 91.9% receive nothing (Kotlikoff & Gokhale, 2000). Thus, the attempt by ultra-conservatives to eliminate inheritance taxes -- which they always call "death taxes" for P.R. reasons -- would take a huge bite out of government revenues for the benefit of less than 1% of the population. (It is noteworthy that some of the richest people in the country oppose this ultra-conservative initiative, suggesting that this effort is driven by anti-government ideology. In other words, few of the ultra-conservatives behind the effort will benefit from it in any material way.)

So you're not a multi-millionaire--it doesn't affect you at all. What convinced you to fight so hard for that ideal, without considering the historical perspective for why the estate tax exists in the first place?

As for being "taxed twice", that happens all the time. Corporations pay taxes on their earnings, and then the shareholders get taxed again. The entire thing about the "death tax" has been horribly distorted, mostly for ideological reasons, but it's another example of bad economic policy. A couple highlights on estate tax myths from Responsiblewealth.org more fully illustrate the hysteria over this benign and completely fair tax policy:

• 98% of Americans who die pass their estate on to their heirs completely tax-free � in fact, they get a valuable tax break on capital gains. Zero estate tax is charged on assets left to a spouse or to charity.
• For 98% of Americans, the Estate Tax takes away nothing, and it actually shields assets from capital gains taxes. For the other 2%, the average effective tax rate is 17%.

It's not a death tax. Death tax is just propaganda. No one lost a family farm because of it, there's not a single documented case of it. That story was just PR, spin, and lies.

[Shaden]

Whether or not someone deserves what they have is totally irrelevant to the situation at hand, or any other for that matter, unless you believe that someone in power ought to be able to determine how much each of us should have and, if necessary, take things away. Do you believe that? If so, how does that influence your support for progressive taxation?

I should have been more clear. When I said they don't deserve their wealth, that was my own personal opinion. I'm not advocating that the government gets involved and starts deciding to start selling off assets of people, purely on whim. I don't think the executives who ran AIG (into the ground) deserve their wealth. Just my opinion. I'm not suggesting that should lead to any government policy. But my point for this example is that these people are extremely wealthy, these are the kinds (and income bracket) of people I think should pay a greater share of taxes. This includes Bill Gates, George Soros, Michael Moore, and any other bogeyman of the left that might happen to fit into that income bracket. (I suspect Michael Moore probably doesn't, though I don't doubt he does well for himself).

I think it's also incredibly selfish and irresponsible to plunder your company's resources and take expensive trips and make cuts to the workforce while expecting no sacrifice for yourself simply because you're a wealthy executive. People "on the bottom" make sacrifices every day, and they are not expecting the wealthy to be brought down to their level. Quite the contrary. The alarmist position here is that liberals just want to move to a communist state in which everyone, at least on paper, has the same amount of money whether they deserve it or not. I think all anybody wants is to know that executives have sacrificed a small slice of their wealth so that those who helped them acquire that wealth can also have a better life. It's a symbiotic relationship, and everybody wins. It has never been to any society's benefit to have a struggling poor or working class during a time of economic hardship, while an exorbitantly wealthy class (who could afford to promote the general welfare at little cost to themselves) sacrifices little.

[Frosty]

Let�s just all put our money into one big pot, then we�ll divide it back out to everyone equally.
It won�t matter if you invented the wheel or never worked a day in your life.

Problem solved.

[Shaden]

Let�s just all put our money into one big pot, then we�ll divide it back out to everyone equally.
It won�t matter if you invented the wheel or never worked a day in your life.[/font]

Problem solved.

I never said to put all your money in a big pot and divvy it up. In fact, I specifically lampooned that very alarmist caricature in my previous post.

Not saying, "spread the wealth out evenly". I'm saying "pay according to your means".

[Frosty]

Let�s just all put our money into one big pot, then we�ll divide it back out to everyone equally.
It won�t matter if you invented the wheel or never worked a day in your life.[/font]

Problem solved.

I never said to put all your money in a big pot and divvy it up. In fact, I specifically lampooned that very alarmist caricature in my previous post.

Not saying, "spread the wealth out evenly". I'm saying "pay according to your means".[/quote]

I wasn't aiming this at you or anyone else for that matter. If I was, I would have quoted you.
I meant it more for an example of no matter how you try to solve this problem, there is always going to be someone who loses. And no one wants to be the loser.

[Shaden]

the data[/url] behind that NCPA study. But would me linking that data even matter? I mean, it's just a bunch of right-wing nutjobs spouting talking points, right? It would appear that we can google fight all day long and not get anywhere, as the data can mean whatever you want it to mean, especially so considering it is so freakin difficult to link a specific policy detail to a long-term trend.

Agreed on your last point. As I said before, too many presidents get the blame/credit for positive changes in the economy during their adminstration. It is fine to argue on a moral level ('is it right for the government to do this versus that?') This is fine, but as soon as statistics and data are brought into the picture, it's important to deconstruct them and be aware of the sources. Definitions of things like 'income' are important, for example. Wealth is not the same as wages.

I believe that the conservative economists like Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell have a better grasp on how to increase the standard of living for all humans than Al Gore, Obama or George Soros.

Well, Obama isn't an economist. Nor is George Soros, really. Al Gore, unless I miss my guess, is a former presidential candidate. So it's not like any of them should be put on the same pedestal as an economist--a conservative one, or otherwise.

Luckily for us, Obama is consulting with economists on how to deal with the economy, rather than George Soros or Al Gore. Noteable economists seemed to prefer Obama to McCain, too...maybe for that reason.

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to tremble for the safety of our country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the republic is destroyed.

A most excellent quote. Do you think it applies to people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and George Soros?

I fail to see what it has to do with Bill Gates, Warren Buffet or George Soros, actually.

[Ughmahedhurtz]

Shadens and Dons Wall of text just Crit me for over 9000!

Don I had no idea you were a hardcore republican. I still love you! :thumbsup: Your my favorite republican. I hope you find a new job soon. Now come back to wow because everyone is leaving us!

Heh, I don't identify myself as a republican (though I usually vote with them as the lesser of two evils). I'm mainly the kind of guy that believes what you earn through fair, hard work is yours and that I'm perfectly willing to give some of it to needy folks that ask but, generally speaking, when you tell me that you and your buddies got together and voted that you think I've made "too much" wealth and you're sending people with guns and flashing lights to come confiscate part of my wealth like it or not, I get all antsy and start cleaning my guns. But hey, what do I know. I'm just glad we here in the US can fight it out over internet forums and on paper/electronic ballots instead of with machetes (like in Rwanda) or machine guns (like in Georgia/Chechnya/etc.). I'd rather lose my shorts in the stock markets than my life at the hands of a Somali warlord's goons.


Oh, and I'll definitely be back on Mag in a couple months. Just bought a new car before the layoffs hit so I'm having to save pennies where I can.