Did you Vote?

[Ughmahedhurtz]

We're not talking about small businesses here. We're talking about people making over $250,000 a year. And the Bush tax cuts affect--hugely disproportionately--the top 5% of the population. We're talking about people making millions of dollars. So unless you're planning on breaking into that multi-million dollar tax bracket, why are you so upset about the "success tax", as you call it?

Uh, what does what I make have anything to do with it? You seem to be making a moral assumption (that rich people are all evil bastards that want to squash poor people) based on a non-moral fact of life (they make more income per year). Correct me if I'm wrong.

While it may be politically "cool" to talk shit about the Bush tax cuts really only affecting the top 5% of income earners, that statement doesn't jive with reality. According to government tax records, the progressivity of the tax system can be measured in four ways: (1) the share of taxes paid by different income groups, (2) the share of income paid in taxes, (3) the change in taxes relative to the change in income over time, and (4) a comparison of inequality of income to the inequality of taxes over time. By the first 3 measures:

• The top 1 percent of income earners pay more than one in every three dollars the IRS collects in taxes. From 1986 to 2004, the total share of the income tax burden paid by the top 1 percent of earners grew from 25.8 percent to 36.9 percent, while the total share of the tax burden paid by the bottom half of earners fell from 6.5 percent to only 3.3 percent.
• During the same period, the percentage of income the top 1 percent of tax filers paid in federal income taxes rose from 18.3 percent to 19.6 percent. By contrast, the percentage of income the bottom fifth of tax filers paid in federal income taxes dropped from 0.4 percent to zero.
• The income share of the top 1 percent rose 7.7 percentage points, from 11.3 percent to 19 percent, while their income tax burden rose even more, by 11 percentage points, from 26 percent to 37 percent.

The "progressivity index" measures, on a scale of 0 to 1 with numbers closer to 1 indicating a steeper rate of increased taxation, the inequality of income to the inequality of taxes paid over time.

• From 1990 to 2000, the progressivity index increased from 0.476 to 0.617, during a period where marginal tax rates increased but capital gains tax rates fell.
• From 2001 to 2004, under George W. Bush's tax reforms, the tax progressivity index continued to rise from 0.608 to 0.664.

It is critical, when arguing tax reforms, to consider the way the system reacts to them vis-a-vis the disretionary nature of the way high-income earners actually earn income and pay taxes. In terms of actual income, the "Bush tax cuts" have actually served to CLOSE the income gap between high-earners and the "poor."

Considering that, according to 2001 data, the top 5% of wage earners paid ~53% of ALL taxes while only earning ~32% of all income, with the top 50% of wage earners paying ~96% of ALL income taxes paid in the US while earning only ~86% of all income, just how much would you prefer the top 5% paid before we have "economic justice?" 75%? 90%? 100%?

The principle of taxation is simple here. There is a certain amount of money required--by necessity--to survive. Those on the lower end of the income spectrum need that money to survive, and taxes necessarily comprise a much higher percentage of their income, so their tax burden is higher than that of a multi-millionaire, who owns 12 houses. There's a difference between necessity and luxury. Similarly, the poor tend to have no savings and spend their paycheck--almost all of it--every month. So giving the poor a tax break leads to them spending more of their income.

Again, why is it inherently evil to have enough money that you have more cushion to protect you from predatory taxation by the imperial federal (and sometimes state/local) government? You're right, the principle is quite simple: government taxes us so they can "run" the government. I don't recall anywhere in our constitution that it says "government shall tax the richest 5% and give that money to ACORN (to the tune of $8billion+) for screwing people out of loan equity."

Meanwhile, "the rich", who are in no danger of starving or trying to figure out how to put their kids through college end up shouldering a larger percentage of the tax burden. So, okay, a person who makes $20 million a year is now paying an extra $200,000 a year in taxes. Boo hoo for them. Do you really expect anyone to get up in arms about this "success tax"?

Sure! Everyone affected by this "tax the rich" mentality who will end up paying confiscatory rates on "real" income. When I say "real" income, I mean income earned from their businesses and investments and risked-money earnings. Now, guess who gets the shaft when the "rich" decide that it's just not worth it to stay in business or invest or risk money any more? Yep, you guessed it, those same "poor" who you think this will help. "Rich" people will just put it in relatively safe low-interest bonds and savings accounts or "tax shelters" such as trust funds for family. Which means they're no longer spending that money on hiring "poor" people or investing in startups started by "poor" people through venture capital and such. In the end, raping the "rich" has always shown the unintended consequence of retarding growth in the US's capitalist society.

Whereas every single time they've reduced capital gains and upper-bracket tax rates, the economy goes into a boom over the next decade. Why do you think Clinton enjoyed such a successful economy? It wasn't because he instantly made it happen, it was the results of the Reagan tax cuts. This stuff always takes years to actually start affecting things materially, so the correlation isn't always obvious, which makes it ripe for demagoguery. /shrug I can't help people being ignorant of the facts; that requires folks to actually go get edumacated.

(cont'd next post)

[Ughmahedhurtz]

The truth is, those who are 'successful' don't get there all by themselves. AIG, the company we're currently bailing out to the tune of billions of dollars, still has CEOs receiving lavish salaries and severence packages while the company that they are running is going belly up. The growing disparity of wealth in this country between the rich and the poor is only increasing, and few but the truly selfish would consider this a GOOD thing. What AIG and others are forgetting is that their wealth comes on the backs of their employees--working-class people who struggle every day to feed their families and make ends meet. Those people are the ones who need the tax breaks. Or to put it another way: 95% of this country (including, I suspect, everyone on this forum) deserves a tax break. The richest 5% clearly need it the least of any of us.

Regarding the wealth disparity in this country, that is absolutely a fact. The problem is when you selectively spout facts like that without telling people about the GOOD things our economy is doing versus the rest of the world. Like that out of 145 surveyed countries ranked by % of population living in poverty, the US is 23rd-lowest. Or that the folks in the US living in so-called poverty haven't known typhoid, rheumatic fever, malaria, AIDS, tuberculosis or a host of other lethal diseases in nearly half a century. Or that the "poor" here in the US have cell phones, running water, controlled waste and free transportation. Can you imagine someone in Mumbai bitching about not having free bus service?!? Or someone in Shen'Zhen whining that the trams weren't on time?

Finally, the Bush tax cuts were passed prior to a war with Iraq. This is the first time in the history of this country that taxes have been CUT during a war. This fiscal irresponsibility is a hallmark of the current economic trouble we find ourselves in, and why our national deficit has doubled over the past 8 years, at 10 trillion dollars and counting. Somewhere, sometime, at some point--people are going to have to get over their kneejerk terror over "OMG taxes" and realize that a tax is your patriotic duty as a citizen--and during a time of economic woe, I don't think you're going to find too many people who will support the ludicrous assertion that taxing those with their own private jet is a "success tax".

Ya know, I have a real problem with this notion of "patriotic duty" to pay taxes. Where is it written that I have to go out, bust my ass to make enough to afford a decent car and then have a third of my pay hijacked to buy some stupid lamer a downtown condo because he needs to be close to the foodstamps and soup kitchens? Remind me again who the largest contributors to philanthropy are in the entire world? Remind me again who the largest per-capita contributors to world charity organizations are? Now you're telling me that on top of my already generous charity, I'm not paying ENOUGH?!? And remind me again how well the government's $3 trillion worth of "bailout" ideas on how to stop this "recession" have been panning out for us, eh?

And back on the moralist track, tell me again why the fact that someone owns a private jet inherently makes them evil? I don't think I've seen you clarify that position, with the possible exception of the ludicrous assertion that everyone that owns one "stepped on the little guy" to get their money in the first place. That wasn't really what you meant, was it?

As for businesses not paying taxes, are you referring to the 60% of US Companies that pay no taxes, either due to tax loopholes or overseas tax shelters? I believe these loopholes should be closed, and incentives for keeping jobs and corporate headquarters in this country should be rewarded. Doing so would decrease the overall tax burden on the American people.

Hmm...I wonder why there's even a need for a tax shelter or loophole or off-shoring accounts. Could it be that the taxes otherwise would be so high that we would fail to compete with the rest of the world on pricing? How would we correct that inability to compete assuming 100% tax compliance, zero loopholes and no off-shoring? Do you think the government would simply reduce tax rates once we "fixed" the ways around paying them? Really?

But to get back to my point there, businesses do not pay taxes because any increase in costs (and taxes are a "cost") are passed on to:

• the consumers of their products and services (in the form of higher prices)
• the employees (in the form of layoffs, outsourcing, reduced benefits and vacation, etc.)
• the rest of the US (in the form of lost jobs, lost income and lost revenue)

It seems like I'm oversimplifying things there but I guarantee you the beancounters at most companies absolutely apply the KISS principle when it comes to money. They, unfortunately, don't have the luxury of injecting politics into the bottom line: they must actually ensure the company stays afloat to be able to pay taxes, pay employees and still manage to evolve the business to stay competitive with new technology upgrades, better processes, more expensive upstream supplies, etc.


So, basically, the point I'm making is that your entire argument is predicated upon false assumptions, abrogation of responsibility and disproven generalizations about the "obvious targets" such as tax cuts. Do a little historical research and you'll begin to see which types of policy actually increase wealth and standard of living and which stagnate it.

And remember over the next year or two who the last president was that actually brought us "stagflation" due to completely moronic fiscal policies much like the bailouts we're seeing now. Hint: it wasn't Bush or any of his cronies.

[Frosty]

I voted but don't care who wins the election. The important thing is our condition. What will happen to us if Obama or Mccain is the next president?.Is it bad or good condition?.Hope it will be a good condition or else.

You know somebody already won, right? :P

[elsegundo]

I voted but don't care who wins the election. The important thing is our condition. What will happen to us if Obama or Mccain is the next president?.Is it bad or good condition?.Hope it will be a good condition or else.

You know somebody already won, right? :P

lol omg thats so funny.

frolicz... im sorry but i dont think you made much sense. we vote because we think the candidate that we choose will make the condition better. we put the power in our own hands to make change or to keep the status quo. you voted but you dont care? wtf?

[Redbeard]

Wow omg took what I said and put some brains behind it, lol.

Well said.

[Shaden]

[quote='Ughmahedhurtz',index.php?page=Thread&postID =148775#post148775]Uh, what does what I make have anything to do with it? You seem to be making a moral assumption (that rich people are all evil bastards that want to squash poor people) based on a non-moral fact of life (they make more income per year). Correct me if I'm wrong.[/quote]
You mention that a couple times in your replies. I never said the rich are 'evil'. There's a straw man here, so yes, I feel the need to correct you on it. All I'm really saying is that the ultra-rich can afford to pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes. It's not a 'success tax' (any more than the estate tax is a 'death tax', except through creative PR), it's simply the core principle behind progressive taxation. As for what you're currently making? You're right, it doesn't have anything to do with the argument itself. I just happen to be amused at how red states traditionally vote against their own interests in supporting the policies of Republicans--who quite frankly do more to support the ultra-rich than the working joes in the Bible belt. In fact, red states largely [url='http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html']receive more money in federal spending[/url] in their state than they actually pay in taxes. Blue states like my own home state? We receive less money from the government than we pay in taxes. In essence, we're subsidizing the South. You actually have to go to the wayback machine to find the original article, but it's not a 'point' per se, and not something central to this argument, just something I find interesting.

Your post is impressive at first glance, particularly in your statistical references, but unfortunately for you I have to call into question your sources and several of your assumptions, and break down your statistics a bit. Yes, it required me to get "edumacated" in a few cases, but I think this works both ways.

[quote='Ughmahedhurtz',index.php?page=Thread&postID =148775#post148775]While it may be politically "cool" to talk shit about the Bush tax cuts really only affecting the top 5% of income earners, that statement doesn't jive with reality. According to government tax records, the progressivity of the tax system can be measured in four ways.... [snip][/quote]
For everyone else's benefit, let's disclose the source that you just plagiarized (pretty much word for word) as the National Center for Policy Analysis--a right-wing think tank. Your entire list of bullet points can be found [url='http://www.ncpa.org/prs/rel/2008/20080121.html']here[/url].

I have a two main problems with this source:

• First off, you mischaracterized the source. You said, "according to government tax records", but they aren't government tax records that sourced what you posted. The NCPA is the source, and as a conservative think tank, they have nothing better to do than spend their time coming up with talking points for Republicans. If these numbers were in some way sourced by the government, I'd ask you to provide links to sources.
• The definition of 'income'. This is what's fun about statistics, you can read them so many ways. What is meant by income? Do you (or the NCPA) mean 'wages'? Because wages don't include capital gains or CEO bonuses or stock options or severence packages--all of which are actually the main sources of wealth for the ultra wealthy. In fact, stocks comprise a disproportionate source of wealth for the top 20% of this country--something that the capital gains tax cuts of Bush were so keenly directed towards. Capital gains tax cuts really adds up when you are dealing in the sales of tens of thousands of shares.

[quote='Ughmahedhurtz',index.php?page=Thread&postID =148775#post148775]It is critical, when arguing tax reforms, to consider the way the system reacts to them vis-a-vis the disretionary nature of the way high-income earners actually earn income and pay taxes. In terms of actual income, the "Bush tax cuts" have actually served to CLOSE the income gap between high-earners and the "poor."[/quote]
From the above source: "Its important when discussing tax reforms to consider how the system reacts, because of the great discretion high earners have in how they earn income and therefore pay taxes," said Stroup. "Bush's reforms have helped diminish the income gap between rich and poor, rather than make it worse." Sound familiar? I can quote admittedly liberal sources as well, like [url='http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/01/14/taxes-at-the-top/']this one[/url], which claims:

The taxes paid by those at the top matter a great deal for government finances. As of 2005 the top 1% accounted for 28% of federal government tax revenues. That isn’t because they are taxed at an outlandish rate; an effective tax rate of 30-40% is hardly confiscatory. Instead, it’s because they get a very large share of the country’s income — 18% as of 2005.....But not so fast. It is commonly objected that higher tax rates on the affluent will reduce incentives for saving, investment, entrepreneurialism, and hard work. Economic growth will slow. Thus, taxes will be collecting a larger share of a less-rapidly-growing economy. In the end, higher tax rates will yield no increase (and perhaps a reduction) in government revenues...

His overall conclusion, primarily, is: "The effective tax rate on the richest appears to have had no noteworthy impact on economic growth. Averaging growth over several years does not change the picture." I'd encourage you to follow the link, however. One of the most interesting things he brings up is the change of the tax code over time. The top 1% certainly pay a much smaller percentage of their income now than they did in the 1950s - mid 1980s.

Considering that, according to 2001 data, the top 5% of wage earners paid ~53% of ALL taxes while only earning ~32% of all income, with the top 50% of wage earners paying ~96% of ALL income taxes paid in the US while earning only ~86% of all income, just how much would you prefer the top 5% paid before we have "economic justice?" 75%? 90%? 100%?

Again, the statisics hide a few relevant facts. I'll admit that this time you are sourcing actual IRS records, however, so I think your statistics are accurate, but they don't comprise the whole picture. Again, first question: "What is income?" For the 'average joe', income primarily includes wages. But how much of the country's wealth do these people own? As it turns out, I have an excellent source on the topic of wealth. I'd encourage you to read the entire thing.

I'd like to quote a few important bits, however, because I think they are very important in this discussion.

The income distribution also can be used as a power indicator. As Table 6 shows, it is not as concentrated as the wealth distribution, but the top 1% of income earners did receive 20% of all income in the year 2000. That's up from 12.8% for the top 1% in 1982, which is quite a jump, and it parallels what is happening with the wealth distribution. This is further support for the inference that the power of the corporate community and the upper class have been increasing in recent decades.

The most recent findings on income inequality come from the New York Times' analysis of a November, 2006, Internal Revenue Service report on income in 2004. Although overall income has grown by 27% since 1979, 33% of the gains went to the top 1%. Meanwhile, the bottom 60% were making less: about 95 cents for each dollar they made in 1979. The next 20% - those between the 60th and 80th rungs of the income ladder -- made $1.02 for each dollar they earned in 1979. Furthermore, the Times author concludes that only the top 5% made significant gains ($1.53 for each 1979 dollar). Most amazing of all, the top 0.1% -- that's one-tenth of one percent -- had more combined pre-tax income than the poorest 120 million people (Johnston, 2006).

A key factor behind the high concentration of income, and the likely reason that the concentration has been increasing, can be seen by examining the distribution of what is called "capital income": income from capital gains, dividends, interest, and rents. In 2003, just 1% of all households -- those with after-tax incomes averaging $701,500 -- received 57.5% of all capital income, up from 40% in the early 1990s. On the other hand, the bottom 80% received only 12.6% of capital income, down by nearly half since 1983, when the bottom 80% received 23.5%.

A few important things to mention: The power of the upper class and corporate community has been increasing. Their influence on the political process has been increasing, and their designated party for influencing pubilc opinion is the Republican party. When you quote and paste a lot of specious arguments promulgated by propaganda factories for big business, you're helping do their work for them. Additionally, relating to capital gains, this was a Bush 'tax cut' that inarguably affects the rich more than the poor--and particularly the ultra rich.

The same article mentions that the top 1% of the country owns 33.5% of all the stock in this country. The next top 19% owns 55.8% of all stock. That leaves 10.7% of all stock owned by the lower 80% in this country. And no, you won't find stock ownership in the definition of 'income', but it DOES count as wealth. Sell it off, you might have to report your proceeds as income, but that particular type of 'income' has a Bush-mandated exception provided for it. Funny how that works.


(continued in next post)

[Shaden]

If you are the kind of person who just wants to read the summary, rather than the entire article, here is the main point the author is making:

And now we have arrived at the point I want to make. If the top 1% of households have 30-35% of the wealth, that's 30 to 35 times what we would expect by chance, and so we infer they must be powerful. And then we set out to see if the same set of households scores high on other power indicators (it does). Next we study how that power operates, which is what most articles on this site are about. Furthermore, if the top 20% have 84% of the wealth (and recall that 10% have 85% to 90% of the stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity), that means that the United States is a power pyramid. It's tough for the bottom 80% -- maybe even the bottom 90% -- to get organized and exercise much power.

There are many other interesting points in that article, I strongly encourage you to read it. Among them is the huge discrepancy between CEO salaries versus the lowest-level production worker. It's out of control in this country, and applies to what I said before regarding AIG. These people do not DESERVE their wealth--not while they are cutting pensions and laying off employees and taking all-expense-paid trips to some sunny locale. I don't think that the rich are evil. But those who are willing to lay off employees so that they can tuck an extra million under their arms--when an extra million might have saved those jobs--are selfish, spoiled, and completely undeserving of my respect.

[quote='Ughmahedhurtz',index.php?page=Thread&postID =148775#post148775]Again, why is it inherently evil to have enough money that you have more cushion to protect you from predatory taxation by the imperial federal (and sometimes state/local) government? You're right, the principle is quite simple: government taxes us so they can "run" the government. I don't recall anywhere in our constitution that it says "government shall tax the richest 5% and give that money to ACORN (to the tune of $8billion+) for screwing people out of loan equity."[/quote]
Or you could get up in arms about the U.S. military, who consequently spends more money in our national defense than every single other country in the world COMBINED. There's a lot of waste and excess in our spending, and we could both argue where that waste is found--but that doesn't invalidate the concept or need for taxes. You don't think that our military spending is out of hand? We spend almost 500 million dollars a day in Iraq alone. That's your tax dollars at work right there. And the U.S. Army has never, ever, successfully passed an audit. There are billions of dollars unaccounted for, that they can't explain where the money went. Why don't we demand some accountability for those expenses? Why aren't people up in arms about our socialist military's out of control spending habits? Because military expenses are politicized, that's why--largely by the Republican party, who insists on framing every cut in the miltary budget as the opposition party being "soft" on national defense. The only winners in this scenario are the arms manufacturers, who consequently have a strong lobbying arm in this country, like just about every other major industry. War profiteering is rampant, and criminal, and everyone should be outraged by it. But instead we'd rather chase down bogeymen, like the throughly discredited "welfare queen with a cadillac" scenario that Reagan just made up--or your equally implausible scenario of someone owning a luxury condo and living on foodstamps. Sources, please.

Also, I never used the word 'evil'.

[quote]Sure! Everyone affected by this "tax the rich" mentality who will end up paying confiscatory rates on "real" income. When I say "real" income, I mean income earned from their businesses and investments and risked-money earnings. Now, guess who gets the shaft when the "rich" decide that it's just not worth it to stay in business or invest or risk money any more? Yep, you guessed it, those same "poor" who you think this will help. "Rich" people will just put it in relatively safe low-interest bonds and savings accounts or "tax shelters" such as trust funds for family. Which means they're no longer spending that money on hiring "poor" people or investing in startups started by "poor" people through venture capital and such. In the end, raping the "rich" has always shown the unintended consequence of retarding growth in the US's capitalist society. [/quote]
Says you. I actually provided sources that seem to indicate otherwise. Where are your sources?

[quote]I can't help people being ignorant of the facts; that requires folks to actually go get edumacated.[/quote]
If you mean plagiarizing unsourced conservative think-tank reports and Rush Limbaugh, I'd rather get educated elsewhere.

As for your ludicrous assertion that Clinton enjoyed a boom because of Reagan's tax cuts, you're really stretching it there. I agree that presidents receive too much credit overall for boom/recession during their term as president, but let's back up a moment with [url='http://www.pkarchive.org/column/81600.html']some reasoned analysis[/url] and some perspective on the saint of the Right, President Reagan:

But Ronald Reagan does hold a special place in the annals of tax policy, and not just as the patron saint of tax cuts. To his credit, he was more pragmatic and responsible than that; he followed his huge 1981 tax cut with two large tax increases. In fact, no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people. This is not a criticism: the tale of those increases tells you a lot about what was right with President Reagan's leadership, and what's wrong with the leadership of George W. Bush.

The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton's 1993 tax increase.

The contrast with President Bush is obvious. President Reagan, confronted with evidence that his tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, changed course. President Bush, confronted with similar evidence, has pushed for even more tax cuts.

Nothing like a little historical perspective, eh?

poverty,[/url] ....

Okay, now I have to call you out on this one. I was talking about how there was a wealth disparity. You agree, and then say it is a 'problem' that I haven't mentioned all the GOOD things our economy is doing versus the rest of the world. Uh no, it's not a problem. It's actually a distraction from the point. I wasn't saying that our economy screws over the rest of the world. I was saying that our country--this one, not some other one--has a huge wealth disparity between rich and poor. This doesn't invalidate the good things we do around the world. Far from it. In fact, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with that.

(continued in last post)

[Shaden]

Finally, the Bush tax cuts were passed prior to a war with Iraq. This is the first time in the history of this country that taxes have been CUT during a war. This fiscal irresponsibility is a hallmark of the current economic trouble we find ourselves in, and why our national deficit has doubled over the past 8 years, at 10 trillion dollars and counting. Somewhere, sometime, at some point--people are going to have to get over their kneejerk terror over "OMG taxes" and realize that a tax is your patriotic duty as a citizen--and during a time of economic woe, I don't think you're going to find too many people who will support the ludicrous assertion that taxing those with their own private jet is a "success tax".

Ya know, I have a real problem with this notion of "patriotic duty" to pay taxes. Where is it written that I have to go out, bust my ass to make enough to afford a decent car and then have a third of my pay hijacked to buy some stupid lamer a downtown condo because he needs to be close to the foodstamps and soup kitchens? Remind me again who the largest contributors to philanthropy are in the entire world? Remind me again who the largest per-capita contributors to world charity organizations are? Now you're telling me that on top of my already generous charity, I'm not paying ENOUGH?!? And remind me again how well the government's $3 trillion worth of "bailout" ideas on how to stop this "recession" have been panning out for us, eh?

There you go again, off topic. What does the charity that the US Government provides around the world have to do with providing compassionate (if not conservative) care for our OWN citizens in this country? But since you brought it up, and since statistics are so fun, I'd ask you to check out this page, which really puts things in perspective. To quote:

• USA’s aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP has almost always been lower than any other industrialized nation in the world, though paradoxically since 2000, their dollar amount has been the highest. (Only since 2004 have they move up from last place, by just one or two places.)
• Since 1992, Japan had been the largest donor of aid, in terms of raw dollars. That was until 2001 when the United States reclaimed that position, a year that also saw Japan’s amount of aid drop by nearly 4 billion dollars (as tables and charts below will also show).

Sure, we pay a lot of dollars. We have, after all, lots of dollars. But as a percentage of our GNP, we pay a paltry sum. It's generous charity in the same way that a billionaire gives $1000 to a bum on the street, whereas a poor college student working 3 jobs to afford his tuition might give the same guy his last $20. Who is more generous?

But okay, fine. This is the rest of the world we're talking about, maybe you don't care. But what's wrong with being generous among our own people? What's wrong with providing a safety net for the poor or increasing the take home pay of working families, when that money is just going to get funneled right back into circulation anyway? It's not going to be hoarded or put into tax shelters by these guys, so let's get that money moving, eh?

And remind me again how well the government's $3 trillion worth of "bailout" ideas on how to stop this "recession" have been panning out for us, eh?

*shrug* I don't know? Not well, probably? If I had to give you an answer, I'd say that there's probably no stopping a recession, though maybe we can lessen the damage caused if we put some wise economists in charge of the thing. What else are we going to do? Are you just trying to come up with a long list of things that tick you off in the hope that I'll disagree with you so you'll have something else to quote at me? You're ranging really far afield from what we were originally discussing, namely that "the rich" are not a poor aggrieved minority because we expect them to pay a whole lot of taxes since they make a whole lot of money.

[quote='Ughmahedhurtz',index.php?page=Thread&postID =148775#post148775]And back on the moralist track, tell me again why the fact that someone owns a private jet inherently makes them evil? I don't think I've seen you clarify that position, with the possible exception of the ludicrous assertion that everyone that owns one "stepped on the little guy" to get their money in the first place. That wasn't really what you meant, was it?[/quote]
*sigh* Seriously, I never said "someone owning a private jet makes them evil". There's no position for me to clarify, because I NEVER SAID IT. Nor did I make an assertion that everyone that owns a jet "stepped on the little guy" to get their money in the first place. Probably the closest thing I said was that the rich don't make money by themselves. They have workers in their business that help them achieve their wealth. They might be visionaries, have great ideas, etc, and certainly the workers don't deserve credit for their ideas. But at the same time, I think there is definitely an obligation to those workers. Those workers don't deserve a whole lot, really--just fair treatment, decent living wages, safe working conditions--you know, everything that we've expected the government to help regulate since the Industrial Revolution, since corporations clearly weren't willing to regulate it themselves.

[quote]Hmm...I wonder why there's even a need for a tax shelter or loophole or off-shoring accounts. Could it be that the taxes otherwise would be so high that we would fail to compete with the rest of the world on pricing?[/quote]

Hmmm, could be. But is it? I have an alternate proposal: It /could/ be that corporations believe in profit over people. It could be that corporations believe that their first obligation is to produce record profits, year after year, and make as much money as they possibly can, within the law (and sometimes outside of it). No, I'm not talking about Joe Bob's store here (because Joe Bob's store pays taxes), I'm talking about the multi-national corporations. It could be that there are loopholes in the first place because our government is overrun with lobbyists and greedy shills who serve the corporations, whose job is to pass public policy and deregulate industries so that these profits can continue to skyrocket, and CEO salaries can continue to rise.

It could be, but since neither of us provided sources for these things we're saying, I guess we'll just have to call these opinions.

[quote='Ughmahedhurtz',index.php?page=Thread&postID =148775#post148775]So, basically, the point I'm making is that your entire argument is predicated upon false assumptions, abrogation of responsibility and disproven generalizations about the "obvious targets" such as tax cuts. Do a little historical research and you'll begin to see which types of policy actually increase wealth and standard of living and which stagnate it. [/quote]

The point I'm making is that your entire argument, when it's not plagiarized outright, is based on a straw man argument ("rich people are evil"), petulant selfishness ("I want all my money!!"), and disproven generalities about the "benefits" of tax cuts. I've done my research. Have you?

[quote]And remember over the next year or two who the last president was that actually brought us "stagflation" due to completely moronic fiscal policies much like the bailouts we're seeing now. Hint: it wasn't Bush or any of his cronies.[/quote]

I guess I'll have to take the [url='http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/10/nber-for-obama.html']National Bureau of Economic Research[/url]'s word for it, then. A survey by the Economist (I'm sure you read the Economist, right?) found that 80% of NBER members supported Obama's economic policies over McCain's. (Btw, McCain, as a Bush crony, supported the bailout, too)

I'll leave you with the words of two prominent Republicans. The first, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who warned of the rise of the military-industrial complex:

We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

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.

[Redbeard]

I dont have sources, I dont have articles to quote by economists.

How is it not a success tax?

Look. Joe Millionaire uses the same public services as John the Pauper. Why does Joe pay more in taxes than John? Notice I didnt mention who could afford more. That's irrelevant here. If you think its not, then you support a tax on successful people.

For the record, I am not a multimillionaire, though I do make a decent living. It doesnt hurt to think about things logically though, regardless of your own situation.

You bring up the death tax... uhhh taxed on money that youve already paid taxes on?

I guess im just not following you.

Maybe I should go read the Economist?

[Basilikos]

I don't intend to hop into the debate as it stands right now, despite agreeing with Ughmahedhurtz, but I thought I'd pull something out and expand on it.

Among them is the huge discrepancy between CEO salaries versus the lowest-level production worker. It's out of control in this country, and applies to what I said before regarding AIG. These people do not DESERVE their wealth...

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?

Also, and this is just a matter of principle despite it's immediate relevance, it's NOT a right-wing thing to do (and I ought to know, since I self-identify as a right-winger) to cut taxes and not eliminate what those taxes were going towards. Borrowing and spending is even worse. If we're going to spend, I'd rather pay for it now since it will only get worse later. This might seem obvious to everyone here, but I thought I'd bring it up as a reminder of what is really being debated (i.e. neo-conservative ideas versus outright left ideas).