WTF, is there some "entitlement" program for the rich that I haven't heard about?
I mean what are they going to do, kill the goose that lays the golden eggs??
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
If all that doesn't make sense, then consider that America is righteous, and that the majority of Americans don't reside in the upper strata. The majority has the right to do as we see fit.
The constitution says that the minority has rights that cannot be violated by the majority. The rich are protected. And if push comes to shove, they'll protect themselves.
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: Nebor
If you continue to tax and take from the wealthier people, they will continue to keep their wealth out of the country or even become expatriates. THen those people who are already paying a majority of the taxes will be paying little or none, and your whole system will go belly up when the socialist leeches can't find anyone to latch onto. Then the politicians who caused it all will be the target.
Yes, they can either go to a country that may tax them at a higher rate, or to some third world country.
When they leave, someone else will step up and fill their shoes. The rich aren't gods.
Don't let the door hit you in the ass when you leave.
Are you really so naive as to think those are the only options? Luxenbourg, Monaco, Bahamas, the Isle of Man, and the Cayman Islands are all perfectly liveable, first world countries with little or no taxes at all.
You're living in a dream world and failing to recognize basic economics by believing that "someone else will step up and fill their shoes." People are rational: they act in their own self interest. People will see that if they make more than XXX,XXX dollars, then it is beneficial for them to go to some other place.
And that's not even addressing the fact that when all the wealthy, hard working people leave, the only people left will be those whining leeches who advocated socialism to begin with, and they sure as hell aren't going to "step up" and work hard to become wealthy, especially with NO incentive.
The ultra rich already utilize every off shore tax haven in the book, you act like moving to the Cayman Islands would be providing them with some advantage they don't already have.
It's also an extreme myth that anyone can be rich in America. Not everyone can be rich, there would be noone to clean the toilets.
As for the rest you can shelve your Ayn Rand'ian philosophies, the rich are not Atlas and noone cares if they shrug. It's the working people who make the world go 'round. Push them hard enough and society comes to a halt.
No, not everyone can be rich, but there is a clear correlation between increasing tax rates and decreasing entrepreneurship (Government Economics.)
And the rich WILL flee a high taxation area. And your idea that the rich aren't paying taxes simply doesn't pan out. They pay a majority of taxes. And if you push them hard enough, all the working people get hurt.
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: jhbball
Maybe you should take a hint from the OP, and just work harder. I mean, that's all it takes right to accumulate an infinite amount of wealth right? If you just worked harder, you could find your way into all of those tax shelters too.
Where did I say anything about accumulating massive amounts of wealth?
But sure, please, take a hint and work harder AND smarter.. save money, and start saving right now.. invest for the future.. and lastly, if possible elect politicians who will take less of your money, especially avoiding those who give your money to people who don't work hard (or don't enter this country legally). :thumbsup:
Originally posted by: Jamie571
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: hellokeith
This has been bothering me for a while, and I still can't figure out the thought process.
1. Person works hard, plays by the rules, and makes money.
2. Person does not work hard and makes excuses, blames others, waits for handouts.
3. Socialist takes money from #1 and gives to #2, in exchange for continued political/economic power.
How is this not agreed upon by a concensus as ethically wrong? Even illegal?
I think it would be helpful in your quest to come to a better understanding (hah!) if you dispensed with that ridiculous conservative myth of the self-made man. If you look at demographics, they don't change very much from generation to generation. Most middle and upper class people were born into that, they had a HUGE advantage to begin with. And most people not doing so great were born into that kind of situation too. This theory that everyone starts out equal and only the people in #1 do well is pretty appealing to a lot of people, but it's bullshit. That isn't to say that there aren't exceptions, but they are very much not the rule.
Now the rest of what you said is also hip-deep bullshit...but let's start with what I just said. Your characterization of the "two groups" is silly ego-stroking. Which is great, but not real helpful.
Rainsford is 100% wrong on this.
Here are the facts about millionairs in the United States:
* About 80 percent are first-generation rich, comming from a modest or poor background.
* Only 19 percent receive any income or wealth of any kind from a trust fund or an estate.
* Fewer than 20 percent inherited 10 percent or more of their wealth.
* More than half never received as much as $1 in inheritance.
* Fewer than 25 percent ever received "an act of kindness" of $10,000 or more from their parents, grandparents, or other relatives.
* Ninety-one percent never received, as a gift, as much as $1 of the ownership of a family business.
* Nearly half never received any college tuition from their parents or other relatives.
* Fewer than 10 percent believe they will ever receive an inheritance in the future.
I have researched this topic to death in my early twenties and today I'm 3/4 of the way to becoming a millionaire (currently 34). BTW I came from a family of 5 living well below the poverty level.
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Rainsford
What exactly do you think government IS?
Government is a state of mind where people change their behavior based on outcomes in rituals such as voting and elections.
It's people banding together to form something greater than themselves. The appearance of a faceless state and anonymous bureaucrats comes from the sheer size and complexity of this "banding together" because of the large number of people involved. "Government" is simply people banding together writ large. Society has tried doing in on a small scale for thousands of years before the modern day form of government, and it generally did not work very well, and gave rise to exactly the sort of "roving bandits" I'd be concerned about in your anarchist paradise.
It's not people banding together at all. It is people trying to steal from one another. The whole idea of government, as a state of mind, is that once certain formalities have been taken care of via voting, elections and passage of 'laws' that one is obligated to modify one's behavior in order to act in accordance with those 'laws.' All I'm saying is that this is nonesense. People should do what they think is right when they want to do it. If there is some 'law' stopping them, they certainly should not have to wait for some stupid political 'reforms.' Personally, I break the law all the time, and many other people I know do as well. It actually feels good to break the law. I know exactly what I am doing, and I don't give a flying hoot whether or not 'society' approves or what the politicians think.
The idea that there would be roving bandits in this society if it didn't have political systems is quite hilarious. In fact, I think I saw some potential roving bandits today on the way to the laundromat, and some more on the way to the grocery store...time to get paranoid!
Everyone likes to treat the government as something separate from society, but it's not...it is simply how a large, cohesive society works. You simply can't have a stable society on a large scale without a way to settle disputes and provide for common needs. Do you think its a coincidence that the advancement of society in terms of art, science and technology coincided very closely with large, stable nations? Your fantasy of everyone for himself was tried for thousands of years, during which time we advanced hardly at all...sometimes going backwards for centuries at a time. People may generally be decent, but history has shown that human attitudes do not scale well to a society at large.
I don't think of the government as something separate from society at all. I think it is a cancerous mental condition that has been plaguing people for far too long. With all the opportunities modern technologies have given us, politics is a huge waste of time and money. But now it has gotten to the point that people are literally having to support the state before their own children.
Furthermore, what I can't understand is how parents can actually sit there and have a random 'social security' number issued to their child right after they are born. A random number used by the government, the banks and the credit bureaus to track them and tax them, from the cradle to the grave. Personally, I could never have this happen to my own children. That's why I am going to leave the country. Shortly after I leave I will be setting up a site and a blog for other young professionals, with information on how they can also go expatriate. I plan on having a dolar meter on my site showing the approximate number of tax dollars that have left the U.S. for good due to visitors to my site leaving the country. My first goal is to get enough people to go expatriate to remove $1 million from the tax system, and after that the sky is the limit.
This so-called 'representative democracy' is completely unsustainable anyways. The entitlement train has left the station and it is never coming back. The federal government is already technically bankrupt, and the level of personal debt has spiralled out of control. People now are locked in a vice. The one half of the vice is taxes and the other half of the vice is debt. When someone is in big debt, the high tax rates make it extremely difficult(if not impossible) to get out of that debt, because they can only pay it down with post-tax dollars. With tax rates as high as they are now, they are only left with 50% of their gross income. With that half of their income they have to pay the mortgages, their bills and for their kids. So it is unlikely that there will be any left over to pay down their debt.
And what does the state do if someone goes belly up and bankrupt? They go after them for taxes they 'owe' on debt that they had to default on!
Originally posted by: Rainsford
I just realized something...how many of you people whining about taxes support NO tax at all? I mean, anything else would be taking money from "those who rightfully earned it", and thus it would be socialism...right? It seems to me like it's all pretty arbitrary anyways, where you are arguing over a 30% tax rate vs a 29% tax rate and calling the higher one "socialism".
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Rainsford
I just realized something...how many of you people whining about taxes support NO tax at all? I mean, anything else would be taking money from "those who rightfully earned it", and thus it would be socialism...right? It seems to me like it's all pretty arbitrary anyways, where you are arguing over a 30% tax rate vs a 29% tax rate and calling the higher one "socialism".
Ive always thought the tax burden overall ont he rich was excessive. All you have to do is look at the percentages of taxes collected to know its true. That said...
I'm all for taxes. There are some things the Federal government just HAS to do, and it takes our money to do it. However, I'd like a low flat tax, combined with higher use taxes and state income taxes.
Originally posted by: Rainsford
What's the alternative system? Laugh all you want, but I don't see a lot of examples of anarchist systems building advanced technological societies.
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Rainsford
What's the alternative system? Laugh all you want, but I don't see a lot of examples of anarchist systems building advanced technological societies.
Try the U.S. from 1776 until about 1900. The wild west has tons of examples of towns that were in almost complete anarchy. The money was gold and silver, there were no income taxes or really any business regulations to speak of, and many times there wasn't even any official law enforcement around, especially on the wagon trails.
So according to your theory the weak should have already died out.
That's actually one of the better ideas I've heard. I too get confused when you look at how much money we pay in federal taxes that just goes right back to the state. That seems...unnecessary...to me. Of course the problem is that it lessens the ability of the federal government to average out state expenses...states that receive a huge net amount of money from the federal government might have a few problems doing things that need to be done. But I agree with the principle that it makes the most sense for things to be handled at the lowest administrative level possible. I'm not opposed to the federal government doing things, but if states CAN handle it, it's simpler for them to do so.Originally posted by: blackangst1
I agree with everything you said Rains. And your right-it IS regressive. The burden, no matter how you work it, would rest on the middle class and below. For me, I would flat tax gross income. Im not talking a huge amount, but it would be on gross (obviously). I also, like I said, like the idea of state income taxes as well. I think we have too much FEDERAL money going to states, which creates a huge amount of administration. With administration comes waste. Every region has different needs, and state income taxes would address those. By bypassing the administration currently being used to pass money from fed to state, it would actually be a significant tax CUT, IMO.
I can see the point about estate taxes (although they really don't affect very many people), but I don't know about capital gains tax. With estate taxes, the money has obviously been taxes already...but with capital gains, a lot of that is new money. I agree on principle with the idea of encouraging investments, but again the problem is that wealthier people tend to make way more of their income from investments than the lower end of the economic scale. At a certain point, they would be paying a VERY low effective tax rate, while someone holding down two jobs would be paying a much higher rate. We certainly want to encourage investment, but we also want to encourage working for a living...I don't think we should value smart investing over hard work.I would, however, eliminate estate and capital gains taxes, as well as any taxes related to death and passing on ANYTHING to heirs. Thats not such a popular idea, I know. But Im in the camp it's already been taxed once. Thats enough. You shouldnt be penelized for making smart financial decisions in investing. Whether it's 10k or 10mil.
As far as cuts go, I also am not naive to that. I, like most, think our tax code is far too complex. But, if you really think about how many industries and companies exist because of it, and that they would most likely go under, it's staggering. I think it would be a good 20 year plan though.
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: ayabe
No, not everyone can be rich, but there is a clear correlation between increasing tax rates and decreasing entrepreneurship (Government Economics.)
And the rich WILL flee a high taxation area.
Good.
I will gladly hold the door open for them and give a swift kick on the way out.
Originally posted by: Rainsford
That's actually one of the better ideas I've heard. I too get confused when you look at how much money we pay in federal taxes that just goes right back to the state. That seems...unnecessary...to me. Of course the problem is that it lessens the ability of the federal government to average out state expenses...states that receive a huge net amount of money from the federal government might have a few problems doing things that need to be done. But I agree with the principle that it makes the most sense for things to be handled at the lowest administrative level possible. I'm not opposed to the federal government doing things, but if states CAN handle it, it's simpler for them to do so.Originally posted by: blackangst1
I agree with everything you said Rains. And your right-it IS regressive. The burden, no matter how you work it, would rest on the middle class and below. For me, I would flat tax gross income. Im not talking a huge amount, but it would be on gross (obviously). I also, like I said, like the idea of state income taxes as well. I think we have too much FEDERAL money going to states, which creates a huge amount of administration. With administration comes waste. Every region has different needs, and state income taxes would address those. By bypassing the administration currently being used to pass money from fed to state, it would actually be a significant tax CUT, IMO.
I can see the point about estate taxes (although they really don't affect very many people), but I don't know about capital gains tax. With estate taxes, the money has obviously been taxes already...but with capital gains, a lot of that is new money. I agree on principle with the idea of encouraging investments, but again the problem is that wealthier people tend to make way more of their income from investments than the lower end of the economic scale. At a certain point, they would be paying a VERY low effective tax rate, while someone holding down two jobs would be paying a much higher rate. We certainly want to encourage investment, but we also want to encourage working for a living...I don't think we should value smart investing over hard work.I would, however, eliminate estate and capital gains taxes, as well as any taxes related to death and passing on ANYTHING to heirs. Thats not such a popular idea, I know. But Im in the camp it's already been taxed once. Thats enough. You shouldnt be penelized for making smart financial decisions in investing. Whether it's 10k or 10mil.
As far as cuts go, I also am not naive to that. I, like most, think our tax code is far too complex. But, if you really think about how many industries and companies exist because of it, and that they would most likely go under, it's staggering. I think it would be a good 20 year plan though.
I can agree with the complexity. I got a letter a week or so ago from the IRS saying I owed them about $4,000 from 2005 for some unpaid taxes. I talked with them on the phone, and as it turns out there was some slight mixup as to what category some investments fit into and after getting a whole crapload of new information, it turns out I don't owe them anything. Which is great, but damn it all if I can figure out why the hell they thought I owed them money, or why I don't know. I really wonder how much better we could make the tax system if we made it SIMPLER first.
Originally posted by: Rainsford
I just realized something...how many of you people whining about taxes support NO tax at all? I mean, anything else would be taking money from "those who rightfully earned it", and thus it would be socialism...right? It seems to me like it's all pretty arbitrary anyways, where you are arguing over a 30% tax rate vs a 29% tax rate and calling the higher one "socialism".
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: Nebor
If you continue to tax and take from the wealthier people, they will continue to keep their wealth out of the country or even become expatriates. THen those people who are already paying a majority of the taxes will be paying little or none, and your whole system will go belly up when the socialist leeches can't find anyone to latch onto. Then the politicians who caused it all will be the target.
Yes, they can either go to a country that may tax them at a higher rate, or to some third world country.
When they leave, someone else will step up and fill their shoes. The rich aren't gods.
Don't let the door hit you in the ass when you leave.
Are you really so naive as to think those are the only options? Luxenbourg, Monaco, Bahamas, the Isle of Man, and the Cayman Islands are all perfectly liveable, first world countries with little or no taxes at all.
You're living in a dream world and failing to recognize basic economics by believing that "someone else will step up and fill their shoes." People are rational: they act in their own self interest. People will see that if they make more than XXX,XXX dollars, then it is beneficial for them to go to some other place.
And that's not even addressing the fact that when all the wealthy, hard working people leave, the only people left will be those whining leeches who advocated socialism to begin with, and they sure as hell aren't going to "step up" and work hard to become wealthy, especially with NO incentive.
The ultra rich already utilize every off shore tax haven in the book, you act like moving to the Cayman Islands would be providing them with some advantage they don't already have.
It's also an extreme myth that anyone can be rich in America. Not everyone can be rich, there would be noone to clean the toilets.
As for the rest you can shelve your Ayn Rand'ian philosophies, the rich are not Atlas and noone cares if they shrug. It's the working people who make the world go 'round. Push them hard enough and society comes to a halt.
No, not everyone can be rich, but there is a clear correlation between increasing tax rates and decreasing entrepreneurship (Government Economics.)
And the rich WILL flee a high taxation area. And your idea that the rich aren't paying taxes simply doesn't pan out. They pay a majority of taxes. And if you push them hard enough, all the working people get hurt.
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: Nebor
And the rich WILL flee a high taxation area. And your idea that the rich aren't paying taxes simply doesn't pan out. They pay a majority of taxes. And if you push them hard enough, all the working people get hurt.
I didn't say that, but to deny that the rich have access to methods of hiding income from the government or claiming exemptions that the rest of us don't have access to is ridiculous.
They hire expensive and marginally ethical brokers/accountants that help them out in this regard.
The problem is that there are huge incentives for rich people to save, the people who already have the most disposable income. However, there is little available for the working man, who at the same time has the least amount of money available for saving.
This bronzed image of the self made man that everyone seems to enamored with doesn't exist anymore.
There are extreme barriers in place that make it much more difficult to move up the economic ladder that didn't exist for our parents or grandparents.
You cannot go from a stock room mail clerk to CEO, cannot happen anymore.
We are a service economy which makes most of us wage slaves whether we want to admit it or not.
Sure we have the carrot of wealth dangled in front of us, that keeps us on the treadmill, no more no less.
Originally posted by: ayabe
I didn't say that, but to deny that the rich have access to methods of hiding income from the government or claiming exemptions that the rest of us don't have access to is ridiculous. They hire expensive and marginally ethical brokers/accountants that help them out in this regard.
The problem is that there are huge incentives for rich people to save, the people who already have the most disposable income. However, there is little available for the working man, who at the same time has the least amount of money available for saving.
This bronzed image of the self made man that everyone seems to enamored with doesn't exist anymore. There are extreme barriers in place that make it much more difficult to move up the economic ladder that didn't exist for our parents or grandparents. You cannot go from a stock room mail clerk to CEO, cannot happen anymore. We are a service economy which makes most of us wage slaves whether we want to admit it or not. Sure we have the carrot of wealth dangled in front of us, that keeps us on the treadmill, no more no less.
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: hellokeith
This has been bothering me for a while, and I still can't figure out the thought process.
1. Person works hard, plays by the rules, and makes money.
2. Person does not work hard and makes excuses, blames others, waits for handouts.
3. Socialist takes money from #1 and gives to #2, in exchange for continued political/economic power.
How is this not agreed upon by a concensus as ethically wrong? Even illegal?
This is easy.
Because they are jealous of people who make more money than they do. They then rationalize this by making claims that they are the ultimate authority of what is acceptable for any job position.
The problems are they fail to realize that the majority of people who earn large amounts of money worked hard to get where they are. There is no such thing as luck, if you want more luck with making money you have to spend more of your time trying to make money.
Life isn't fair. They just refuse to accept it so they vilify those who are better than they are.
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: hellokeith
This has been bothering me for a while, and I still can't figure out the thought process.
1. Person works hard, plays by the rules, and makes money.
2. Person does not work hard and makes excuses, blames others, waits for handouts.
3. Socialist takes money from #1 and gives to #2, in exchange for continued political/economic power.
How is this not agreed upon by a concensus as ethically wrong? Even illegal?
This is easy.
Because they are jealous of people who make more money than they do. They then rationalize this by making claims that they are the ultimate authority of what is acceptable for any job position.
The problems are they fail to realize that the majority of people who earn large amounts of money worked hard to get where they are. There is no such thing as luck, if you want more luck with making money you have to spend more of your time trying to make money.
Life isn't fair. They just refuse to accept it so they vilify those who are better than they are.
My family is extremely wealthy, but I still want people to have access to healthcare. It isn't a child's fault that their parents are deadbeats and it isn't someone's fault if insurance company wants to exempt them from their "pre-existing conditions." I'd happily pay another 5% taxes to help people. When you have enough money, more money doesn't mean much.
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: Nebor
And the rich WILL flee a high taxation area. And your idea that the rich aren't paying taxes simply doesn't pan out. They pay a majority of taxes. And if you push them hard enough, all the working people get hurt.
I didn't say that, but to deny that the rich have access to methods of hiding income from the government or claiming exemptions that the rest of us don't have access to is ridiculous.
They hire expensive and marginally ethical brokers/accountants that help them out in this regard.
The problem is that there are huge incentives for rich people to save, the people who already have the most disposable income. However, there is little available for the working man, who at the same time has the least amount of money available for saving.
This bronzed image of the self made man that everyone seems to enamored with doesn't exist anymore.
There are extreme barriers in place that make it much more difficult to move up the economic ladder that didn't exist for our parents or grandparents.
You cannot go from a stock room mail clerk to CEO, cannot happen anymore.
We are a service economy which makes most of us wage slaves whether we want to admit it or not.
Sure we have the carrot of wealth dangled in front of us, that keeps us on the treadmill, no more no less.
Originally posted by: FlashG
Slightly changing OP?s post
1. Person works hard, plays by the rules, makes money and can pee in a cup.
2. Person does not work hard and can?t pee in a cup.
3. Socialist takes money from #1 and gives to #2, in exchange for continued political/economic power.
4. Time passes and person # 1 says shens sits on his ass and buys in to person # 2?s philosophy.
5. Country goes to hell