sort by best latest
So would it be fair to assume you are for an equal percentage for all to pay? Such as everyone pays 14% of their income (example only)?
not exactly, because 14% of the income of a minimum wage worker is a larger burden than 14% of a 50,000 per year salary. Tiered, but no loopholes I think would be more fair all around.
Define "Fair share". How much is the fair share for a wealthy person to pay in tax? Is it 25%, 35%, 50%, or 75%? What would be the limit for a wealthy person to pay before it wouldn't be fair?
There is no such thing as a corporate tax. The cost of the tax burden simply gets passed on to the consumer in the price of goods and services. It's a political myth. Any business owner takes into account after tax return. The consumers pay it.
All income tax should be close to 0. It may be possible income tax is used to pay interest to The Federal Reserve. IRS and The Fed were created at the same time. Don't tax the rich they create jobs, but don't tax the poor because they spend the $.
The top 10% of earners in the US already pay 70% of the Federal income tax bill. That sounds like more than a fair share.
That's the top 10%, what about the top1%??
Then it gets more lopsided Top 1 % pays about 35% of all income tax and the top 0.1% pay nearly 17% of all income taxes.
THe point is actually that the wealth disparity between the very rich and the rest continues to grow, what is fair is when the wealth gap stops getting bigger from already being the worst in the developed world maybe even shrink it a bit.
The wealth disparity is a function of the individual skills and the relevant value. If they want more wealth than go out and earn it as I did. I started with nothing and do quite well. I never asked the rich to give me anything.
That's great, I have done OK too, there is A) a function of luck B) a function of injustice. Wealth is not the simple product of hard work, I was a cola miner for years are you honestly trying to tell me that most wealthy people work harder?
A consumption tax, with a "pre-bate", a smaller federal government, legal barter, and more free-market competition...
Well suffice to say the countries with the smaller wealth gaps and smallest growth (or even decrease) are not the nations practicing those policies.
Wealthy people work way harder on average. They use intellectual capital and are willing to take risk. How many of the coal miners took 2nd or 3rd mortgages to invest in another business and risk losing there home to make it work like I did.
'The wealthy 1% of this country can afford accountants and lawyers who can find every loophole in the book' - well they have to atleast pay the accountants & lawyers for that!
That's precisely why the flat tax makes sense. It eliminates the deductions and maintain the same revenue as a % of GDP
Great classic analogy. Always holds true.
to an extent it's true, not that it means anything.
It means the wealth disparity is a function of work ethic, innovation, intelligence and committment to succeed. Not a result of some fixed system that is not providing enough opportunity. Those who focus on this will succeed. Those who don't fail.
No it means there will be some who exploit others and some who do not.
Josak, who is exploited? Name a company, here in the States that is exploiting it's employees. First define, according to you, what constitutes exploitation and then cite your source of exploitation in the U.S.
The vast vast majority. Any person who makes money while not actually producing or laboring in the relevant wealth stream is exploiting others and their work.
So, in other words...you can't give actual examples? Offering someone a job at a specific wage and having it accepted is not exploitation. Nor is a person becoming successful by starting a business that is successful and employs others in that task.
Ofcourse, because someone fails in life they must have been exploited. Its never their fault. Spoken like a true communist. Josak, let me enlighten you. Nobody owes you or anyone else anything. This is why you can't produce an actual example.
Requiring the rich to pay for the poor is greedy, thinking the fortunate should want to help the poor is fair, in my opinion.
I give plenty of money to the "starving, homeless, and destitute" and other less fortunate groups that I chose to give to. I call it charity. I don't need to have the govt decide for me thru taxation.
The problem is we relied on charity and free will to help the poor and it didn't happen so we used the government as a people to organize a way of helping the poor.
Why are the people poor in the first place? They should be getting a job to pay for themselves when most of them don't even try. If that is the case, they deserve where they are because they don't work to eat. Think of this country's foundation.
And yet since the LBJ's war on poverty their has been no improvment whatsoever.
Not true at all, after LBJ and after FDR poverty was significantly reduced and stayed so until the crisis.
This is a complete falacy. Nothing improved under either. Nothing improved after either versions of the new deal. They simply crowded out capital invesment. Read FDR's folly by Jim powell. it wasn't until the end of the war, tax and spending cuts
By pure data the situation increased exponentially, you can claim whatever you want about the causes but there is no proof either way on that. That things improved however is a matter of fact. Not to mention such system working overseas.
There is no such evidence. In 1920-1921 there was a far greater economic contraction than 1929. There was no such gov't intervention and it ended in 18 months. Capital investment is on stike and will remain that way as long as the govt intervenes
So that was totally off topic but there is one thing many people don't seem to understand that the economy is very different now, the countries recovering best from the crisis are the ones who interfered most like Australia.
No the most prosperous places are those with flat tax rates and limited Gov't intervention like Brazil. Emerging markets have better balance sheets because they havent embraced the entitlment state. Australia is driven by commodities, weak US dollar
Fastest growing economies of 2011: Mongolia(communist) Turkmenistan(socialist) China(not free market) Argentina(socialist) Laos (communist) India (socialist) and the best quality of life nations are dominated by leftist economies, facts are facts.
Aside from the fact that most respected economist don't take data out of countries like china seriously, Youtube search "ghost city china" as a reason why. Most of these former command and control economies are finally embracing free market principle
The China comment is simply not true, I am a former economist and I have several friends in the business and there is no such belief and on the contrary, this decade has seen many many countries going socialist, not the other way round.
I worked with hundreds of economist annually and they all feel that way. Just had this discussion with the head of capital markets at Fidelity. Incidently you proved my point for me. Turkmenistan has less gov't spending as a share of GDP than the US
Yes because their economy has exploded, spending has not caught up yet, Turkmenistan is old school socialist so it will soon.
I am not sure where you studied economics but even Keynes did not believe in Gov't spending as long term viable. Socialism alway ends up taking you towards what the EU is now coping with. Sooner or later you run out of other peoples money.
So now you are just reciting meaningless propaganda, socialism doe snot operate on the money of others and actually the European semi socialist economies are doing fine as is the communist one (Scandinavia and Belarus) best quality of life.
After a little epistemological examination it would seems the problem is intractable. It is and always has been the liberty of the individual versus the tyranny of the state. Nothing ever changes.
Umberto I think you might be right, I would call it the expediency of the state against the ideology of self determination the same argument can be found as far back as Julius Caesar and further.
The self is, the state is a construct. This is the problem. Some speak of the self as a construct when it is the only thing real in the conversation. There is the self and nature and EVERYTHING else is a construct. All things stem from the self.
All Govt operates on the money of others since the Gov't cannot create capital. It's simply a question of which system Creates the most prosperity. No place on earth has prosperity been produced to lift people out of poverty like free markets.
Showing ignorance again, socialist governments do produce wealth and use that wealth directly.
No citizens produce wealth. Gov't produces liabilities. gov't doesn't invent or create anything. It simply redploys resources and quite inefficiently. My ingnorance has produced a multi million dollar investment firm that "I" created. LOL
Still not getting it huh? in a socialist system the government does invest, does administrate, does create businesses and does create wealth yes you are completely ignorant on the topic, small business operation not being the topic.
it does this through coercion. It is terribly inefective and dangerous to individual freedoms The per Capita GDP of the US dwarfs that of any socialist system. Most peoplein poverty in the us live better than many middle class around the world
You guys are commenting so many times on one answer that it is started marking you as spam and awaiting moderation. So if a comment doesn't show you know why.
There is a limited amount of words that can be typed, and the history and failures of the central planning Josak is advocating can be condensed into such limited space.
Socialism sucks. Freedom is better.
Which is purely an opinion. If you work hard as an employee of a business then you should not be poor while the guy you works for profits enormously off your labor, it's the balance of two evils.
if your not happy with your wage than quit and start your own company since the poor seem to think it is so easy. It's a relatively free nation. Nobody is stopping you from taking the entreprenurial risk. Otherwise be glad you were offered a job.
Don't be foolish I do own my own business but it's a mathematical fact that most people cannot. No one need be grateful for the fact that they work hard to make someone else money while they don't work.
Josak, and that is also an opinion...
Why shouldn't the person with the knowledge, capital, ideas etc, profit from those? No one is forced to work for less than they are willing to work for. If a worker is worth more they will be paid more.
Again far from true, people are forced to work for what they can to survive and treated poorly for the privilege of a pittance in return for making others money.Very few people in America are paid what they are worth, employee ownership does allow it
Josak, people choose to accept a job or not. A person's worth, as relating to pay, is what someone is willing to pay. If I say I'm worth $200 an hour and no one is either willing to pay me that, then I am NOT worth it. Simple economics.
So people can either "choose" to accept a job or starve/go on unemployment (and people wonder why there are many on welfare). People are worth what they produce but most people are paid a tiny fraction of that.
No they can invent the next Apple Mac and become another irrelevant person in the wealth stream like Steve Jobbs. Please don't tell me about Poverty. I went to bed hungry many nights in my childhood. I just refused to accept failure. Never an option
Josak, so people who have worked hard and advanced in their field...they were not responsible for THEIR success AND those that didn't weren't responsible either? Explain that lack of logic...
I tend to disagree, I have worked with the wealthy my whole career. Most came from nothing and thats where the drive to succeed came from. On the charity side I would suggest a good read "who really cares" by Arthur Brooks
Tax breaks don't create jobs, they create capital investment which in turn creates jobs. The 0.1% already pay more than the bottom 80% of income earners. The bottom 50% pay about 3% of the tax bill, how much more lopsided do you want it ???
By the same token one family owns more wealth than almost 50% of the population so by even measure it's nowhere near lopsided enough.
They have more wealth because they created more wealth. It is simply none of your business what someone else has or owns unless they are commiting a crime to get it or they work for you. One persons wealth does not cause the others poverty.
Bull and bull. Mainly they inherited more wealth and the money they do make is off the backs of others not their own labor. Concentrated wealth does create poverty, concentrated wealth circulates less freely and thus contributes lessto economic grow.
"Off the backs of others"? You mean those that accepted the job at the wage offered? I've accepted jobs in the past at less than what I "wanted" to "get in" and worked my way up. That is the American way, not arbitrary wages set by government.
I mean by doing nothing of relevance and profiting on the wealth produced by the people who actually work. Indeed companies around the world who have done away with non employee ownership see better profits not to mention wages several times higher.
There is no such thing as profiting from doing something irrelevant. If it weren't relevant than the consumer would not pay for your product or service. In order to be compensated, their has to be a demand for your services.
The US has the second lowest effective tax rate in the OECD and the least progressive (as in the one with the highest burden in low earners). Most of those countries are doing better economically.
The point is the effective rate has never changed regardless of marginal rates. There is no country on the planet that rivals our economic output The only countries that compare in terms of standard of living like the swiss depend on our deposits
The Us has the 31st quality of life in the world... http://nationranking.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/2...
That is a very politcally subjective ranking The proof in quality and standard of living is where people migrate to They come to the US for opportunity first above all other places in the world That is why Europeans must win a lotteryto immigratehere
Several European countries have much bigger immigration numbers by population even though their borders are tougher and the economic mobility or "opportunity" is much lower here than in almost all of western Europe.
Less economic opportunity then in Western Europe. You must me kidding, do you want to compare the average net worth of an american to a western european. Average gross domestic product (GDP) in the US is about 40% higher than average GDP of the EU-1
The point is, lower quality of life, higher wealth disparity and most importantly there is lower economic mobility in the US in almost all Western European countries (I believe the UK is equal)
Quality of life is nonsense. I have been all over Europe and would never choose to start a business there. I grew up four people in a 1 room studio and today I am quite successful. It didn't happen by accident. I earned it and didn't expect it.
Your personal choice is irrelevant. A person born to a poor family in Europe has a greater chance of becoming wealthy. Quality of life is simply a fact.
Josak, "your personal choice is irrelevant"?? That is the basis of our Constitutional Republic. You can chose.
So that is the definition of quoting out of context. the point is his personal choice as to where he lives is irrelevant to the economic discussion.
It is quite relevant since my colleagues in Europe are overwhelmed by a larger regulatory and tax burden that make it impossible for them to manuever. I was able to form my firm in substantially less time than it takes in Europe.
A flat tax proponent. Seems to be working in the former communist countries in Eastern Europe. It also works ok in Pennsylvania for their state income tax.
Warren Buffets secretary does not pay less that has already been debunked. The top 0.1% of earners already pay more in taxes than the bottom 80%. And all of those roads are paid for by those who innovate and create new products and technology.
She pays a higher percentage but not more taxes. But remember, we are not talking about your average secretary. Based on what Warren Buffet said, his secretary must be making $388,000 a year (the minimum to be in her tax bracket).
Warren Buffet, like so many liberal millionaires and billionaires is a manipulative,disingenuous,hypocritical phony.He belly aches that his secretary pays a lower rate than he does without revealing that he pays capital gains and she pays income tax.
Also, itsn't it interesting that the man who wants the rich to pay more owns a company that owes the IRS millions in back taxes?
Birkshire-Hathaway owes a $billion in taxes and are fighting the IRS. Buffettt could pay millions more to the government if he wanted-he doesn't.He wants everyone else to live the way he wants them to live.He is a hypocrit and a phony.
She actually does not, he file two seperate returns. Bershire is a C-corp not a pass through entity. So he pays the effective rate on the C-Corp for his proportional share plus his combined personal rate. The two are higher on an effective basis
You have a good point. The people in this country who believe in free markets and hard work to achieve your dreams are now a minority of the population.
I have yet to meet a guy making a million in corp america working an 8 hour day. And I work withmany. More like min 70 hour week. The reality is unless someone works for you,it's simply non of your business how much they make. Work smart not hard.
LandmarkWealth is correct. I have worked for minimum wages and I have owned my own business. I worked a lot more hours running my own business. I would assume anyone making millions worked very hard to get there. Work smart not hard-great motto
The world needs some ditch diggers and it's nothing to be ashamed of But you are paid what the market will judge your skills to be.If you want to make 1 mill then develop the skills.Your worth only what someone iswilling to pay for your service/prod
My wife owns her own business and she averages 80+ hours per week...and that doesn't count the time she is working at home. The average person who works for an hourly rate has no clue on the amount of work business owners/CEOs put in.
So have I. And I knew somebody was going to come back at me with that exact statement. Define that species of "work" for 70 hours a week. I did it and it was not hard at all. It's a myth unless you're running your own business.
CEO's and higher executive often have even more stress than the small business owner. They're dealing with labor issues, larger regulatory issues and so on. If it was easy everybody would do it. If someone is willing to pay them then their worthit
Old Empreario, Someone is only worth (wage wise) what someone is willing to pay them and what they are willing to work for. If your "ditch-digger" can run a company, then he has the freedom to do so if he chooses to try.