Don't bitch that the rich don't pay enough taxes

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'd gladly pay a higher percentage of my income to taxes if it meant I was rich and not poor but that's just me I guess. Never being rich myself I probably have a different perspective on how much I need to live a life of luxury free from want. I guess the rich like the non rich have their worries too, instead of worrying about how they are going to make this months mortgage, pay for the Kids braces et cetera, they worry about which car they are going to drive today or were they are going to go on vacation this month.

To quote John Lennon "They say money can't buy love but what it can buy I can use!"

Hear, hear! I watched a Q&A session Warren Buffet and Bill Gates did at the University of Nebrasksa School of Business. Both agreed the wealthy should pay more in taxes, simply because it impacts them (the wealthy) least and because they gain the greatest benefit from the extraordinary physical, financial, and educational infrastructure we have. Much of that infrastructure was built and is maintained with tax dollars. Yes, the average person benefits from our roads and schools, but your typical wealthy person, e.g., a CEO or investor, benefits a thousand-fold more due to all the productive workers who are available to make wealth for them.

While lopsided reports like the OP's ignore this, it is the real basis for American prosperity. I think most wealthy recognize this and are content with it. They're smart enough to recognize that 60% of $100M is about $59.9M more than they could make in some third-world tax utopia. The people who rail the most against taxes are the greedy, most of whom are wealthy-wannabe's who "know" they could be wealthy too, if only they didn't pay so much in taxes. They're deluding themselves, but they're useful pawns for the greedy who are wealthy.

Nobody? Nobody claiming that the rich pay too much tax willing to explain why Buffet and Gates are wrong? What do you know that they don't?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Darwin333
The person who earned it? Just a guess.

Wrong. If you will read the post:

"Overall, we find that America's lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar, and America's highest-earning households received $0.41."

you will clearly see that all three groups are said to earn. So my question, had you been less thick, was which group benefits by having the greatest earnings.

Don't bite the hand that feeds. That's great. The rich are vampires that depend on a functioning society of millions of others for their wealth. Out in the jungle they would be worth less than a monkey and dead in a couple of days.

hate to break it to you moon, but this is the jungle and only the strong survive...oh wait no...the weak do to because the strong have to carry their sorry asses.

Wow. Get rid of the "weak", watch the "strong" starve to death.

get rid of the poor that are there because they either are:

-too lazy to do anything about it
-or don't care because they get much more from the system than if they apply themselves

the strong will continue to survive, quite heartily I might add.

BS. The Poor are doing the tasks that make the Rich rich. The Rich didn't get that way through their own sweat and tears exclusively. If they tried they would never get Rich.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Darwin333
The person who earned it? Just a guess.

Wrong. If you will read the post:

"Overall, we find that America's lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar, and America's highest-earning households received $0.41."

you will clearly see that all three groups are said to earn. So my question, had you been less thick, was which group benefits by having the greatest earnings.

Don't bite the hand that feeds. That's great. The rich are vampires that depend on a functioning society of millions of others for their wealth. Out in the jungle they would be worth less than a monkey and dead in a couple of days.

hate to break it to you moon, but this is the jungle and only the strong survive...oh wait no...the weak do to because the strong have to carry their sorry asses.

Wow. Get rid of the "weak", watch the "strong" starve to death.

get rid of the poor that are there because they either are:

-too lazy to do anything about it
-or don't care because they get much more from the system than if they apply themselves

the strong will continue to survive, quite heartily I might add.

BS. The Poor are doing the tasks that make the Rich rich. The Rich didn't get that way through their own sweat and tears exclusively. If they tried they would never get Rich.

They don't get rich off the poor, they get rich off of the middle class.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Darwin333
The person who earned it? Just a guess.

Wrong. If you will read the post:

"Overall, we find that America's lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar, and America's highest-earning households received $0.41."

you will clearly see that all three groups are said to earn. So my question, had you been less thick, was which group benefits by having the greatest earnings.

Don't bite the hand that feeds. That's great. The rich are vampires that depend on a functioning society of millions of others for their wealth. Out in the jungle they would be worth less than a monkey and dead in a couple of days.

hate to break it to you moon, but this is the jungle and only the strong survive...oh wait no...the weak do to because the strong have to carry their sorry asses.

Wow. Get rid of the "weak", watch the "strong" starve to death.

get rid of the poor that are there because they either are:

-too lazy to do anything about it
-or don't care because they get much more from the system than if they apply themselves

the strong will continue to survive, quite heartily I might add.

BS. The Poor are doing the tasks that make the Rich rich. The Rich didn't get that way through their own sweat and tears exclusively. If they tried they would never get Rich.

They don't get rich off the poor, they get rich off of the middle class.

The money comes from the Middle Class, Labour comes from the Poor.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Darwin333
The person who earned it? Just a guess.

Wrong. If you will read the post:

"Overall, we find that America's lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar, and America's highest-earning households received $0.41."

you will clearly see that all three groups are said to earn. So my question, had you been less thick, was which group benefits by having the greatest earnings.

Don't bite the hand that feeds. That's great. The rich are vampires that depend on a functioning society of millions of others for their wealth. Out in the jungle they would be worth less than a monkey and dead in a couple of days.

hate to break it to you moon, but this is the jungle and only the strong survive...oh wait no...the weak do to because the strong have to carry their sorry asses.

Wow. Get rid of the "weak", watch the "strong" starve to death.

get rid of the poor that are there because they either are:

-too lazy to do anything about it
-or don't care because they get much more from the system than if they apply themselves

the strong will continue to survive, quite heartily I might add.

BS. The Poor are doing the tasks that make the Rich rich. The Rich didn't get that way through their own sweat and tears exclusively. If they tried they would never get Rich.

They don't get rich off the poor, they get rich off of the middle class.

The money comes from the Middle Class, Labour comes from the Poor.

You think Middle Clas is all White Collar? Hell even common Union Laborers make Middle Class wages.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Darwin333
The person who earned it? Just a guess.

Wrong. If you will read the post:

"Overall, we find that America's lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar, and America's highest-earning households received $0.41."

you will clearly see that all three groups are said to earn. So my question, had you been less thick, was which group benefits by having the greatest earnings.

Don't bite the hand that feeds. That's great. The rich are vampires that depend on a functioning society of millions of others for their wealth. Out in the jungle they would be worth less than a monkey and dead in a couple of days.

hate to break it to you moon, but this is the jungle and only the strong survive...oh wait no...the weak do to because the strong have to carry their sorry asses.

Wow. Get rid of the "weak", watch the "strong" starve to death.

get rid of the poor that are there because they either are:

-too lazy to do anything about it
-or don't care because they get much more from the system than if they apply themselves

the strong will continue to survive, quite heartily I might add.

BS. The Poor are doing the tasks that make the Rich rich. The Rich didn't get that way through their own sweat and tears exclusively. If they tried they would never get Rich.

They don't get rich off the poor, they get rich off of the middle class.

The money comes from the Middle Class, Labour comes from the Poor.

You think Middle Clas is all White Collar? Hell even common Union Laborers make Middle Class wages.

Ok sure, there's overlap. The main point is that the Rich don't get rich in isolation from the others' in society. They only get that way through efforts made by the other classes as well.

 

[Darwin333]

Don't bite the hand that feeds. That's great. The rich are vampires that depend on a functioning society of millions of others for their wealth. Out in the jungle they would be worth less than a monkey and dead in a couple of days.

That is simply absurd. Everyone depends and benefits from a functioning society. The rich, the middle class and the poor. I would wager to say that very few Americans would last long ?out in the jungle?.


So my question, had you been less thick, was which group benefits by having the greatest earnings.

Nothing thick about it, the people who earned it benefit from those earnings. The lower and middle class also benefit from the earnings of the rich but I would never imagine that someone would benefit more from a groups earnings than the group that is actually earning it. Explain how the above is ?thick? please?.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn


Maybe someone in the business can shed light on what the typical labor percentages are when it comes to buildings.

I am sure these numbers differ by area, but here are some quick approximates.

Material: 35% (includes 9% sales tax)
Labor : 25%
Labor Burden: (various insurances we must carry and payroll burden, its actually 50% of total labor cost but for arguments sake lets call it 7.5% of total) 7.5%
Misc. that?s not included in material (equipment rental, warranties, etc..) 5%
Overhead: 20%
Profit: 5%
Payment & Performance bond: 2.5%

5% of a million dollar project might sound like a lot of money but, at least in this market, 90% of the work is publicly bid. So you take the risk that problems might arise or a mistake was made in the bid process and you can very easily loose money on a project. Not to mention, government work is notoriously slow paying. So you have to ?bankroll? that project for 3-4 months before money starts rolling in. I have seen quite a few subcontractors go under because a government project did not process pay apps in a timely manor. Mats, equipment, labor, and overhead still has to be paid on a weekly/monthly basis.

Then we have our best friend ?retainage?. On contracts over $500,000 5% of each billing is retained until the project is 100% completed with all close out docs etc? On private jobs its not that big of a deal, but on government work its not uncommon to wait 6 months after the project is completed to get your retainage which happens to equal the amount of profit in the project. So the company might not see a dollar of profit from the project for well over a year from the start of the project.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Don't bite the hand that feeds. That's great. The rich are vampires that depend on a functioning society of millions of others for their wealth. Out in the jungle they would be worth less than a monkey and dead in a couple of days.

That is simply absurd. Everyone depends and benefits from a functioning society. The rich, the middle class and the poor. I would wager to say that very few Americans would last long ?out in the jungle?.


So my question, had you been less thick, was which group benefits by having the greatest earnings.

Nothing thick about it, the people who earned it benefit from those earnings. The lower and middle class also benefit from the earnings of the rich but I would never imagine that someone would benefit more from a groups earnings than the group that is actually earning it. Explain how the above is ?thick? please?.

Joe gets a penny, Pete gets a nickle, and James gets 95 cents. You are right they all benefit. Now who BENEFITS?

 

[BlancoNino]

Low skill labor jobs are necessary but they should never become jobs that are meant to support a family. They should be temporary...for high school students and college kids or some guy who needs to get on his feet.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Low skill labor jobs are necessary but they should never become jobs that are meant to support a family. They should be temporary...for high school students and college kids or some guy who needs to get on his feet.

I guess you are talking about McJobs. If you are you make a valid point. Easy jobs for those who aren't willing to work hard.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Low skill labor jobs are necessary but they should never become jobs that are meant to support a family. They should be temporary...for high school students and college kids or some guy who needs to get on his feet.

I guess you are talking about McJobs. If you are you make a valid point. Easy jobs for those who aren't willing to work hard.

I dont think he necessarily means Mcjobs...there are PLENTY of low skill labor jobs that dont include fast food....

 

[swatX]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You imbecile, who gets the benefits in terms of income.

Ever thought of how they got there in the first place? I mean surely Bill gates didnt become rich overnite? What about steve jobs? surely he got billions of $$ just by selling couple of MACS?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: swatX

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You imbecile, who gets the benefits in terms of income.

Ever thought of how they got there in the first place? I mean surely Bill gates didnt become rich overnite? What about steve jobs? surely he got billions of $$ just by selling couple of MACS?

No, he took advantage of those less than him and rode the staircase of success on the backs of the poor! Dont you know thats how ALL the rich get there?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Low skill labor jobs are necessary but they should never become jobs that are meant to support a family. They should be temporary...for high school students and college kids or some guy who needs to get on his feet.

Wow, tell that to the largest employer in the U.S., Wal Mart.

Send all non students packing now and see what happens.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Low skill labor jobs are necessary but they should never become jobs that are meant to support a family. They should be temporary...for high school students and college kids or some guy who needs to get on his feet.

Wow, tell that to the largest employer in the U.S., Wal Mart.

Send all non students packing now and see what happens.

Sorry Dave...despite what fantasy you have about how evil WalMart is...they pay better than fast food, their bennies are better, and while we're talking about WalMart why arent you bashing Target? They have higher turnover, lower wages, and lower quality bennies.

But whatever.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: ntdz
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/2286.html

Overall, we find that America's lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar, and America's highest-earning households received $0.41.

Maybe you should thank the rich for supporting the rest of the population instead of lambasting them in a jealous rage...don't bite the hand that feeds.

Who cares? I pay my taxes and don't mind one bit that some of it is spent on those less fortunate (better than over in Iraq imo but I digress). I was once in their shoes and really don't need some tax foundation to tell me that the poorest portion of the country have more government money spent on them than do the rich. A no brainer tbh. Did this link you posted shock you? Or were you just dangling your worm out of the boat?

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Low skill labor jobs are necessary but they should never become jobs that are meant to support a family. They should be temporary...for high school students and college kids or some guy who needs to get on his feet.

Wow, tell that to the largest employer in the U.S., Wal Mart.

Send all non students packing now and see what happens.

Therein lies the problem. If Walmart were to pay all of its employees ?living? wages and gave all of them top notch benefits do you think they would have ever become the largest employer in the country? Keeping in mind that every penny a company spends ultimately gets passed down to the end consumer.

Using a hypothetical, lets say that Walmart's labor cost is roughly 20% of total costs. If you where to double that labor figure, which probably wouldn't be close to what it would cost them to pay living wages AND benefits, that would increase the costs of goods over 20%. Would people still shop there and pay more simply because they are paying better wages? You and I both know the answer is no. Its the same with the whole ?outsourcing? issue. The vast majority of people are against it when you ask them, but if you put two identical racks of shirts out with one having a big sign saying ?Made in America? but being 50% more expensive the cheaper made in China shirts will sell more.

So the real question boils down to, how does a business pay better wages and offer better benefits while being able to stay competitive.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Don't bite the hand that feeds. That's great. The rich are vampires that depend on a functioning society of millions of others for their wealth. Out in the jungle they would be worth less than a monkey and dead in a couple of days.

That is simply absurd. Everyone depends and benefits from a functioning society. The rich, the middle class and the poor. I would wager to say that very few Americans would last long ?out in the jungle?.


So my question, had you been less thick, was which group benefits by having the greatest earnings.

Nothing thick about it, the people who earned it benefit from those earnings. The lower and middle class also benefit from the earnings of the rich but I would never imagine that someone would benefit more from a groups earnings than the group that is actually earning it. Explain how the above is ?thick? please?.

Joe gets a penny, Pete gets a nickle, and James gets 95 cents. You are right they all benefit. Now who BENEFITS?

None of them because you can't even buy a bottle of water for under a buck these days.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Don't bite the hand that feeds. That's great. The rich are vampires that depend on a functioning society of millions of others for their wealth. Out in the jungle they would be worth less than a monkey and dead in a couple of days.

That is simply absurd. Everyone depends and benefits from a functioning society. The rich, the middle class and the poor. I would wager to say that very few Americans would last long ?out in the jungle?.


So my question, had you been less thick, was which group benefits by having the greatest earnings.

Nothing thick about it, the people who earned it benefit from those earnings. The lower and middle class also benefit from the earnings of the rich but I would never imagine that someone would benefit more from a groups earnings than the group that is actually earning it. Explain how the above is ?thick? please?.

Joe gets a penny, Pete gets a nickle, and James gets 95 cents. You are right they all benefit. Now who BENEFITS?

None of them because you can't even buy a bottle of water for under a buck these days.

Nope, It's back to calling you thick. The answer was 94.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Don't bite the hand that feeds. That's great. The rich are vampires that depend on a functioning society of millions of others for their wealth. Out in the jungle they would be worth less than a monkey and dead in a couple of days.

That is simply absurd. Everyone depends and benefits from a functioning society. The rich, the middle class and the poor. I would wager to say that very few Americans would last long ?out in the jungle?.


So my question, had you been less thick, was which group benefits by having the greatest earnings.

Nothing thick about it, the people who earned it benefit from those earnings. The lower and middle class also benefit from the earnings of the rich but I would never imagine that someone would benefit more from a groups earnings than the group that is actually earning it. Explain how the above is ?thick? please?.

Joe gets a penny, Pete gets a nickle, and James gets 95 cents. You are right they all benefit. Now who BENEFITS?

None of them because you can't even buy a bottle of water for under a buck these days.

Nope, It's back to calling you thick. The answer was 94.

I didn't realize that 94 was an option. Regardless of what names you call me it doesn't change the fact that the person who earns the money will benefit from it as it should be. However, I must be thick because I still don't understand where you are going with this.

Are you trying to insinuate that the rich benefit from their earnings more? If so, then we are in total agreement. Just like a hard worker usually benefits more by getting more raises than someone who doesn't work as hard. Hell, all of life is like that, the harder you work the more you will benefit from whatever goal you where working towards.

On a much smaller basis the rich benefit from the poor and the poor benefit from the rich. I wouldn't give an advantage to either side though.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Darwin333
I didn't realize that 94 was an option. Regardless of what names you call me it doesn't change the fact that the person who earns the money will benefit from it as it should be. However, I must be thick because I still don't understand where you are going with this.

Are you trying to insinuate that the rich benefit from their earnings more? If so, then we are in total agreement. Just like a hard worker usually benefits more by getting more raises than someone who doesn't work as hard. Hell, all of life is like that, the harder you work the more you will benefit from whatever goal you where working towards.

On a much smaller basis the rich benefit from the poor and the poor benefit from the rich. I wouldn't give an advantage to either side though.

When something is produced, what determines the division of 'earnings' from that production?

This isn't a rhetorical question, and I'm not planning to call you an idiot if you give the answer I expect, but it's a very important question.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Darwin333
I didn't realize that 94 was an option. Regardless of what names you call me it doesn't change the fact that the person who earns the money will benefit from it as it should be. However, I must be thick because I still don't understand where you are going with this.

Are you trying to insinuate that the rich benefit from their earnings more? If so, then we are in total agreement. Just like a hard worker usually benefits more by getting more raises than someone who doesn't work as hard. Hell, all of life is like that, the harder you work the more you will benefit from whatever goal you where working towards.

On a much smaller basis the rich benefit from the poor and the poor benefit from the rich. I wouldn't give an advantage to either side though.

When something is produced, what determines the division of 'earnings' from that production?

This isn't a rhetorical question, and I'm not planning to call you an idiot if you give the answer I expect, but it's a very important question.

I am not sure that I fully understand the question, but I would say that market price determines the amount of earnings. Profit would be the amount the market would pay above the cost to produce the time. If your asking what determines the division of profit, then that would be the CEO or the board. However, they are still hamstrung by market price. So at the end of the day, the consumer will determine the market price for a specific good or product (for the vast majority of industries).

If I misunderstood the question, I apologize.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Darwin333
I am not sure that I fully understand the question, but I would say that market price determines the amount of earnings. Profit would be the amount the market would pay above the cost to produce the time. If your asking what determines the division of profit, then that would be the CEO or the board. However, they are still hamstrung by market price. So at the end of the day, the consumer will determine the market price for a specific good or product (for the vast majority of industries).

If I misunderstood the question, I apologize.

The consumer determines the market demand, and the cost structure determines the price and quantity.

The company's profits unambiguously belong to the owners.

However the moral basis of capitalism is that 'labour' and 'capital' and any other input is paid for their productivity. You can see that this is true if you look at high-skill labour markets - lawyers, and doctors and engineers make a lot of money, and don't show high unemployment, especially given the relatively high frictional unemployment that results from generally having the financial security to take their time choosing new jobs.

When your labour pool is large relative to the demand for that labour, the price of that labour tanks, and it becomes highly likely that the marginal product (what you're theoretically paid for) of labour in most industries drawing from that pool is much higher than the market wage.

This does not mean that burger-flippers 'should' be worth $30/hour. (In fact that's one industry that probably isn't making a killing on cheap labour, as they would simpler hire even less-qualified labour if the market were stronger).

What it does mean is that in the unskilled labour segment, wages are completely decoupled from productivity right now, and claims of 'you earn what you get' have a great deal of doubt attached.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Darwin333
The person who earned it? Just a guess.

Wrong. If you will read the post:

"Overall, we find that America's lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar, and America's highest-earning households received $0.41."

you will clearly see that all three groups are said to earn. So my question, had you been less thick, was which group benefits by having the greatest earnings.

Don't bite the hand that feeds. That's great. The rich are vampires that depend on a functioning society of millions of others for their wealth. Out in the jungle they would be worth less than a monkey and dead in a couple of days.

Stalin was a great man. Long live Uncle Joe!!!