"Seriously though....I never said I thought the elevated tax structure is "fair". I don't. But I do think it is necessary" -- Jenna Banks
The tax structure that liberals/progressives demand is to the economy what laxatives are to a person needing to stop diarrhea.
The rich and super-rich are people too. Like anybody else, "wanting to earn more," they're going to move to minimize tax' affects on their earnings. This includes cutting costs by going to a country that charges less tax. Other factors come to play with their outsourcing decisions.
The tax system can be simplified with a flat tax rate and a national sales tax.
The flat tax lets people know what they own on every dollar they earn.
Part of the reason many people earn money... under the table... is that they're afraid of what they'd owe the government if they reported what they actually earned. Well, the other reason is to completely escape taxes.
But, a flat tax system would make it easier for people to make the leap to starting businesses. They'll know right off the bat what to set aside for federal, state and local taxes. They'll also know what to set aside for self employment taxes.
The "national sales tax" would tax people at their consumption rate. The more you consume, the more taxes you pay. The more you save, the less taxes you pay. The more money you earn, the more you purchase, the more taxes you pay. These are taxes you'd be willing to pay. If you didn't want to pay taxes, you'd cut your consumption.
These rates should also be low.
What's another advantage of the national sales tax? It'd allow the government to siphon more money from the black market.
The flat tax and the national sales tax closes loopholes at all levels--from the super rich to the black market. These tax rates should be on the low end.
Simply saying that we should force the rich to pay more, "than their fair share," doesn't cut it. It doesn't solve many of the problems that lead us to needing more money.
Tax cuts are good fiscal policy. Deficit spending isn't. Both parties are guilty of deficit spending. I don't believe that we should be forced to hand over more of our money to the government. This is especially if the government has piss-poor financial management habits.
"and I find it odd that some of the wealthiest people are often the stingiest, even when it comes to their own Nation's economic health, which will effects them as well." -- Jenna Banks
According to this site:
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nation-of-givers
The more money people make, the more they contribute to charity.
There's a myth that says that the middle class gives more of their money to charity than the rich. That's not true. Their contribution may represent a bigger percent of their income than that of the rich, but they're not giving more money to charity than the rich.
Also, the rich pay more in income taxes. Here's the figure from 2008, the year we debated this:
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
The top 1 percent of the income bracket paid 38 percent of the taxes that the government collected. The top 5 percent of the income bracket includes the top 1 percent of the income bracket. They paid 58.72 percent of the individual income tax that the government collected for the 2008 tax year.
This top 5 percent is part of the top 25 percent of the income bracket. What did they pay? They paid 86 percent of the total tax revenue that the federal government collected for the 2008 tax year.
That's just the top 25 percent. This top 25 percent are part of the top 50 percent of the income bracket.
The top 50 percent of the income bracket paid 97 percent of the total individual income taxes that the federal government collected.
Where does that leave the bottom 50 percent of the income ladder?
They paid a whopping 3 percent of the individual income taxes that the federal government collected for the 2008 tax year.
So, how much more tax burden do you want the rich to shoulder?
The link's data is based on the Internal Revenue's data. That's a fact, no matter how many times you try to dismiss that as an "opinion." It's a fact no matter how many times you try to accuse me of "fudging the numbers" to fit an "opinion."
You've even acknowledged that the top income bracket paid a large percent of the total income taxes collected.
[quote]Originally posted by Jenna Banks
"I always find this typical comment a bit assuming...."Just because a person works hard and makes something of themselves, doesn't give you or anyone else the right to abuse them for their success."
So are you saying that I am abusing the economy? [/quote]
No, that's not what Sean is saying.
Sean is saying that people shouldn't be penalized for succeeding. What really happens when the rich are forced to pay more in taxes? They're forced to give more of their earned income to the government.
That's income they earned for making the right business and investment decisions. That's income they're never going to see again. That's income they're giving to an entity that engages in piss poor financial management practices.
That'd be like the government forcing you to give more of your hard earned money to the bum down the street... a bum with no intentions of getting a job.
That's not saying that you abuse the economy. Sean is pointing out that the government getting in the way of economic progress.
"I pay taxes, just started a small business, work in addition to being a student, contribute to my community in a myriad of social groups in my area, and support my nation. I also don't bitch about it. If I were among the "super rich" who comprise 70% of the Nation's wealth (like Mr. Gates, Oprah, and other GIVERS), -- Jenna Banks
What point did you miss here? Like other people, the rich and supper rich have the freedom of choice.
It's good that you're running a small business and knocking your classes out. It's also good that you're contributing to your community in a way you feel it supports the country. You have to understand that whatever you contribute is up to you. You're doing it on your own free will.
Those making more money than you are also doing the same thing. You suggested such in that quote. Like I said earlier, people making more money than you contribute more than you.
The trend that you'll find, when it comes to contributions, is that these people, and entities, are doing it on their own free will.
Nobody forced them to make their contribution.
Your opinion assumes that most people, above you in the income bracket, aren't contributing what they should be.
This is a matter of freedom of choice.
The government shouldn't grab more of their hard earnings to solve the economic crises. That's not the answer. The government should cut spending, and actually govern with fiscal sense.
The government could definitely cut un-necessary spending.
"I would be appreciative of my Nation and WANT to contribute because it is for the betterment of my country and the people." -- Jenna Banks
It's up to other people to think that way. If they don't want to think that way, it's also their choice.
People have a right to do, with their money, what they wish. Common Law, the concept that gave birth to our Constitution, came about because generations of people stood up for their right to do, with their money, as they wished. This was one of the contributing factors.
"It is so funny, we are willing to fight for our Nation, but opening up our purse is a different story." -- Jenna Banks
I've served the United States in a combat zone, just as every generation of my family before me. One of the rights that I served was our concept of free will. Under Radical Islamic law, we wouldn't have as much free will.
Yes, I'm willing to risk my life for the betterment of my country... and my countrymen's continued freedom and freewill. What I do, with the money I earn for doing that, is up to me. I'll contribute to causes and organizations that I want to contribute to.
Serving the United States in a military capacity is different from opening my wallet.
"And I absolutely HATE the assumption that the superrich "worked hard and made something of themselves" ....Have you ever heard of the sociological perspective of cumulative advantage? Being born into a rich or financially secure position in life automatically gives you an advantage. Just like other Americans, I enjoy a rags to riches story, and I applaud them. But have all of the super rich worked hard to be where they are? I don't think so." -- Jenna Banks
You missed Sean's point.
Just because you were born into a rich family doesn't mean that you'll live rich for the rest of your life. Yes, many people are born into a rich family. They get a head start on the rest of us, who never experienced being rich.
Now, here's the key concept that Sean was getting across.
What do you do with the economic lot you're given in life? Many people are born into a rich family. But, not all of them make the right decision to remain rich. Those that make the right decision continue being rich, like their parents were. Others end up in the middle class, or poor, depending on their decisions.
Instead of talking about "cumulative advantage," you should be talking about "cumulative decision results."
Here's another point that the people on Sean and my side of the argument understand.
The decisions people make in life have a strong impact on where they're at. I wasn't born into a rich family. Did I let the fact, that my parents couldn't pay for my education, stop me from going to college? No!
I found another way to get my degree. Based on your post, so did you. Neither one of us had the benefit of a parent that paid a big chunk of our college classes.
A college degree opens the door for those with those degrees. It increases the chances that they climb the corporate ladder... and end up at the top income brackets.
The main point that Sean made was that these people ended up at the top bracket for making the right decisions. They took the right course of action. They learned how to succeed. What's the reward for that success? They earn more money, they enjoy a better quality of life.
Saying that they should turn over more of their money penalizes them.
They didn't put in the time, effort and sacrifice so that they could "toss their money into the toilet." Giving more money to the government is equivalent to tossing money into the toilet bowl. The government is good at wasting money.
You'll never see that money again... unless you get part of it back as a rebate.
Why even bust ass and commit to a lot of sacrifice for money you're not going to use?
Our ancestor's concept, of "Life, Liberty and Property," came from their fight to enjoy the fruits of their labors... like keep most the money they earned thanks to their God given talents. Our Constitution sets our Republic up to benefit people working toward "selfish" ends.
We humans are "pack rats" by nature. Money is one of the things that we pack... if we don't spend it for something else that we want. The free market facilitates our doing that.
"But I also think of people like my mother. She worked 3 jobs and was a full time student in college to become a teacher after growing up without parents or an abundance of dollars as pillows at night. She struggled and worked hard, and does a job that many wouldn't. She makes a modest 45,000 per year. She has worked harder than a lot of "rich" people ever did to be where she is, without a lot of advantages, and makes considerably less, but do you see her complaining, NO. She has no sense of entitlement or need. She also gives what she has and contributes without bitching." ~Jenna Banks
First, this goes back to my argument on the freedom of choice.
Just because your mother gives, without bitching, doesn't mean that everybody has to give. Your mother made a decision, with her hard earn money. What she does with her money is her right. If she decides to save money, after non discretionary are paid for, that's her right. If she decides to give, that's also her right.
She earned that money; she has the right to spend that money any way she pleases.
Your mother serves as an example to those people who'd walk past a "help wanted sign," then complain that they can't find a job. Your mom made a decision, based on the circumstances she faced. Now, thanks to a series of decisions she made, she's making approximately 45,000 per year.
Second, decisions play a role in where people end up.
Other people did what your mother did. Their decisions landed them in different parts of the income bracket. There are a lot of people that went from being "poor," to being in the upper income bracket. This happened because of the decisions they made, and on how they decided to use their talents.
Look at the many first generation Asians that come to this country.
Many arrive with minimal belongings. Many end up shooting to the upper middle class, and into the upper income bracket. Outside of appearance, these Asians aren't that much different from the whites, blacks or the Hispanics that are already in this country.
Guaranteed, many of these Asians that shot to the top worked as hard as your mother, or harder.
Third, don't count the "mental" aspects of things out.
When I was in the Navy, I started in the enlisted ranks, then I became an officer. Even though
my physical tasks dropped, my "mentally taxing" tasks went up. All of a sudden, all that manual labor was "easy." The added "mental" and "brain" work, as well as increased stress levels, made my enlisted job look like cakewalk.
Human nature doesn't change from the military to the commercial world.
The higher up the career ladder you go, the harder you have to work. Anybody could wipe tables, sweep the floors, or run the cash registers. Not that many people could keep a business operating successfully for a long time. That takes a lot of hard work. There are more stress' and mentally taxing aspects to running a restaurant than there are with mopping the floor.
Guaranteed, there are many people, within the "rich" population, who'd see the floor workers' jobs as being easy.
As a sailor and a soldier, I never lost sleep over whether the floor was clean, or whether the area around the company was properly policed. Those tasks were completed. However, I've lost sleep because the books temporarily didn't balance. I've lost sleep because many of the people under me couldn't plan and act like adults... no matter how many times you try to get them to go in the right direction.
Again, the higher you go, the harder you have to work. The higher you go, the more impact your job, and decisions, have on the organization.
So your mother may have worked harder than a lot of rich. But, the reality is that the majority of the rich worked as hard, or harder, than your mother.
No comments:
Post a Comment