For those who want the rich to pay more...

1. 92

   peeplesposted 12 years ago

   For those who want the rich to pay more...
   
   what are your thoughts on this photo?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 67

   AJReissigposted 12 years ago

   I would love to see our current tax system scrapped and replaced with a flat tax. No deductions, no subsidies for anyone,  any corporation or any industry.  Companies like Solyndra shouldn't get government handouts, and neither GE nor any oil company should pay no taxes. The same for individuals ; there should not be 40+ percent of the population paying no tax. But neither party would go for it. Republicans get too much money from big oil; the Democrats get money from green energy and lawyers who thrive on complicated tax laws. But I can still dream!

   replyreport
   1. 92

      peeplesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I agree, I think that would be a perfect system.

      replyreport
   2. 65

      SportsBetterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Real flat, like zero.  If you got rid of the income tax, government would have the same amount of revenue as 2006.  Worry about the inflation tax.

      replyreport
3. 67

   LandmarkWealthposted 12 years ago

   Who determines what is "fair share"  The reality is that 70% of all income tax is already paid by the top 10% of earners.  50% of those gainfully employed pay 0% in Federal income tax.  How much more lopsided can it get. Perhaps they don't wish to simply pay taxes to fund a bunch of wasteful programs riddled with fraud.
   
   The biggest myth is that higher marginal rates produce more tax revenue.  There is no such evidence.  For more than a century no matter where marginal rates are set we collect no more than about 17% of GDP annually as an effective rate for the nation.  An economy can not function with any signfigant prosperity much higher than that.  It would be so much more effective to just set a flat tax at somewhere near the effective rates with no itemized deductions, since that is all we collect anyway.  JFK and Reagan both proved this by lowering marginal rates and producing more revenue not less.  That is the only way to stimulate capital formation. At some point above 20% people of means simply defer, or fail to declare income.  Either that or they alter their economic activity to produce less.  This simply produces nothing more than wasteful debate and empowers politicians to demonize people. We have had marginal rates since the end of world war 2 between 90% and 28%.  Yet the Effective rate never changes. This is simply a political charade to complicate the system and confuse the public while pitting people against eachother.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   2. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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

      replyreport
   3. 61

      Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The Us has the 31st quality of life in the world... http://nationranking.files.wordpress.co … 1-qli2.png

      replyreport
   4. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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

      replyreport
   5. 61

      Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   6. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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

      replyreport
   7. 61

      Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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)

      replyreport
   8. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   9. 61

      Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   10. 82

       Mitch Alanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Josak, "your personal choice is irrelevant"?? That is the basis of our Constitutional Republic. You can chose.

       replyreport
   11. 61

       Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
   12. 67

       LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
4. 71

   lburmasterposted 12 years ago

   I agree with Thomas Sowell. Wonderful photo and comment.

   replyreport
5. 0

   An AYMposted 12 years ago

   I agree with this photo, but I don't think we as a people are going to cohesively change our majority position on it.  The simple concept of economic inequality makes us angry enough to take to protests.  I think it's a reflection of our society's massive sense of entitlement to be so angry and find it so unfair that someone else has more, that we think we should have it too.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      AJReissigposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
6. 60

   ginosblogposted 12 years ago

   Tax for all not just the citizens and then give illegals money or citizenship for having sex on our soil. I say ours because i am an American Citizen.  Flat tax such as the Fair tax would work well, but it looks like tax and Natural Resources are off the table with Obama.

   replyreport
7. 60

   umbertoobrianposted 12 years ago

   Doctor Thomas Sowell is a brilliant economist and teacher and he is absolutely correct.  We have come to believe that it is reasonable to demand that others surrender the product of their toil to us.  It is an immorality that has become twisted by false ideas about justice.  How can it be greedy to keep that which one has produced through one's own efforts?  How is it not greedy to take the property of the one who produced and give it to someone who did not?
   
   Sometimes truths are plain.

   replyreport
8. 78

   daskittlez69posted 12 years ago

   I agree with you to a point, and there are many people out there, that have money, that donate it and their time to others.  But you have to know, if you took a 1000 people and put them on a deserted island, and you give each one a $1000.00, within a years time you would have the rich, the middle class, and the poor.  It is just the way it works.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Mitch Alanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Great classic analogy. Always holds true.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      to an extent it's true, not that it means anything.

      replyreport
   3. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   4. 61

      Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      No it means there will be some who exploit others and some who do not.

      replyreport
   5. 82

      Mitch Alanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   6. 61

      Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   7. 82

      Mitch Alanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   8. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
9. 82

   Mitch Alanposted 12 years ago

   "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" ~ Marx.  If you make more money you should, by way of charity and personal choice, help your fellow man as a moral obligation...you should NOT have your wealth confiscated by the government to be given to someone who did not earn it. The first is true charity and the second is economic servitude. Marx has no place in the United States of America.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   2. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   3. 61

      Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   4. 82

      Mitch Alanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   5. 61

      Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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

      replyreport
   6. 82

      Mitch Alanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   7. 61

      Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   8. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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

      replyreport
   9. 82

      Mitch Alanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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...

      replyreport