Ray at Commonsensepoiltics@blogspot.com gets a little tweaked over a another readers comments that rich people slither out of paying enough taxes.
Here's Ray:
Get real! The top 1% pay 40% of the income taxes. That is a stone cold fact from the IRS. Wake up idiots! This country penalizes success. That is tyranny! Wait, facts don't mean anything to you does it? You guys just want evryone else to live in poverty. Grow up! If you don't like people getting wealthy, then move to a country where they redistribute the wealth, otherwise, suck it up and move on, or figure out a way you can make alot of money and get taxed to death.
This article by the New York Times bears Ray's basic argument out. The rich do, in general, pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes.
Tyranny, or a poverty-wish for American?
A little wingnutish, Ray.
Whether our progressive tax system is right or not is up for reasonable debate. If I make $100 and you make $10 and I give up $30 and keep 70, and you give up $2 and keep 8, that seems rather reasonable. It's nice to think that everybody has the same shot at monetary success, but we know that's not reality. There has to be laborers and clerks, just as their has to be owners and managers. So people who make more, should pay more.
And, income taxes for most people are as low in American as they've been in decades, and are among the lowest of industrialized nations.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Here is a great solution for our tax system Dave. Lets abolish the income tax all together. Instead of forcefully being robbed of our private property (yes that includes our money), why don't we go to a national sales tax? Think about it. We are a nation of consumers. Thats what we do. If we could keep every penny we made, wouldn't that give the people more power over the government like we are supposed to have? If we were to instate a national sales tax of say 20%, The government would get revenue hand over fist. The difference is when we want the government to act more responsible, we slow down consumtion, therefore making the government live within it's means. This idea would be fair to everyone. No more rich people moving money offshore in order to avoid taxes. No more worrying about being audited from the IRS. Everything you buy, you pay a consumption tax on it. Then everyone pays in, and the rich will still pay more because they obviously buy and invest more. The great thing is, everyone else will be subject to the same percentage, the rich, the poor, the middle class, legal and illegal imigrants. What an idea. would there be loop holes? I would imagine. Just not as many as there are now. Would it be a perfect system? ofcourse not. But it would be a heck of alot more fair than the one we have now, and it would bolster our capitalistic economy, unleashing untold intiative. I beleive that our current tax system is very crooked and unfair. I just want the government to act more responsible with what it gets from the people. And yes I was very upset with the Bush administration and the Republicans when they started spending like crazy too, but you have to admitt, the insane economic policies of this congress and Obama administration is far worse than what went on with the privious administration.
Oh yeah! Thanks for pluggin my blog sight too Dave.
By the way Dave. You should set up some kind of interaction room where we can communicate in real time. That would be a plus for your business. Please explain to everyone why you don't already have it. My geuss is some kind of FCC regulation or something. I'm not familiar with who regulates the communications on your web site.
And again. Thanks for pluggin my blog site. I have gotten a few responses so far. About half and half when it comes to liking or hating my views.
It sells better when people speak percentages of income for tax.
It perplexes me that someone who pays a higher percentage of $100million and is forced to "get by" on say, $70 or $80 million per year would feel slighted.
I know it's not as easy as those who getting an easy pass living off a whopping $22,000 per year.
So, I apologize for offering the opinion that the nation's wealthiest who hold over 90% of the nations money are focred to contribute a gosh almost 40% of its taxes.
Clearly as Raybird expresses the solution is to have more multimillionaires hold 90% of the nations wealth. But somehow the math doesn't quite support that does it?
Some simpleton might think the reason why there are extremely poor folks is because the extremely rich won't share. Like a CEO who justifies a $5mm salary and a $4mm bonus because he only pays his employees an average of $2over minimum wage and then bullies congress from raising that minimum wage.
It now makes much more sense. My employees ought to be thankful for getting $10/hr while I insist on a compensation package of $15million or I wreck teh comany and then walk aaway.
I am benig nice because we know there are many CEO's who have $100mm packages and severances (the golden parachutes) worth $100s million more.
And if you could make millions, I am sure that you would. The gap between the employee and the employer is something the federal government has no business interfering in. The whole purpose of capitalism is to insure that everyone has a chance to become successful. It just so happens to be that you must have a markaetable skill in order to get paid a good wage. What incentive do people have to better themselves if the government keeps stepping in and forcing employers to pay more for a skill that the market doesn't support at that forced wage. Then the cost gets passed on to the consumer forcing everyone to pay higher costs for products. The catch is, that product is still subject to the laws of supply and demand. If that product cost to much, then people will stop buying it, therefore puting that producer out of business and all of the employees are then out of work. It's all common sense really. I for one am not jelous of the rich for their success. I don't look at their money and wish ill upon them because they have more than I do. Thats not right. I want the free market to blossom because I know that to date , it is the most dynamic wealth generating system on earth. My solution is not to have the millionairs hold all of the money. Thats an assertion made from a feeling that just is not based on fact. You have to realize that if society as a whole starts depending on the government to dictate to us what is fair and what is not, then eventually we all will pay an enormous amount of taxes to support a socialist system that has no idea what is best for the people. Do you not agree that you know how to spend your own money better than the feds do? To be successful in life, one must make his/her own decisions to be so. It's not up to the rich to share the wealth as you so elequently put it. Its up to you and I to work for that wealth. To earn it. I'm not one of those wacos that think that we shouldn't have a safety net for those of us who need help. i.e the welfare program. But why is it that a growing population beleves that the feds should do everything for us? As far as somebody wrecking a company goes, if they took the money and ran, then they should be held criminaly responsible for those actions. If somehow they are not, then why do you think that everyone else should pay for their actions. Again, the feds can regulate all they want, but if you have crooked management, then you will still have abuse. In the mean time, everyone else pays the price of the new regulations just because the feds thought that they should stick their nose somewhere it doesn't belong.
Oh yeah. What is a Raybird? Is it an actual animal? Or is it something you use to lump all of us conservatives together? Either way I geuss Maybe its alright. But I am really interested. Maybe another tea party type movement?
Ok, Raybird is an ok fun label. Doesn't really have the depth of thought you assign it. Just a cult phrase. You could go big with it and maybe replace Limbaugh or Beck one day soon.
I don't agree with your views but appreciate that you thoghtfully articulate them and do so without a lot of name calling or taking things personal.
The old argument about wages pushing up consumer prices is not so valid. Wages could consume a part of those billions that are assigned as profits without ever changing the cost of the product on the shelf.
If businesses were operating at cost, we would be socialist. Businesses operate at profit. And the cultural model we have embraced is that the less we spend on the labor force to produce, the more we call open profit.
You could increase worker wages and still make $10million in profits and, all politics aside, that's is plenty enough to live a lavish life. Our economy is no longer capitalist. Is exploitist.
I would have to respectfully disagree with the exploitist view. We are a capitalist nation. All wages, labor, and products are subject to the laws of supply and demand. When taxes go up, so will the cost of everything else. Not to mention inflation, but thats another arguement. I agree that people that make millions could take a pay cut and still live very well. There is no arguement there. My point is that the government has no business telling anyone, business or individual, how much they can make or profit. It sets a dangerous precedent for future generations who find it easy to rely on the government to make personal decisions for the society. The free market is a wonderful thing. I know its not a perfect system, but its the best so far. It has gotten us to the top of the "food chain" in just 234years. Thats an amazing accomplishment. I also understand that in a capitalist society, there will always be the haves and have nots, but the have nots are much greater in number where the free market is not allowed to blossom. Can we improve? Yes. Can the government do that for us? I don't believe so? The founding fathers set out what exactly the government was supposed to do for the people, and for the most part, the roles they intended the feds to have are a success. Military, infrastructer, etc. But then you look at the other places where they have taken over, particularly medicare, medicaid, social security, and welfare, they are wide open for abuse and are all in the hole financialy. The free market has always been the best answer to our domestic problems when it comes to economics.
And I kind of like the phrase Raybird.
The Raybird said:"When taxes go up, so will the cost of everything else."
Except labor!
That is the fundamental issue. Because taxes go up on everyone, especially the laborer. However, the working class has to absorb both the higher tax and the higher cost to market.
That is so the owner and sharholder can continue to reap the same >10% ROI. So who is getting squeezed out.
Is the issue less taxes. History has demonstrated that while it does increase headcount on a payroll, the increase in payroll is not linear. It is, in fact, statiscally proven to be regressive.
Even consider that our federal minimum wage is on a regressive curve versus GNP in the last 40 years. Our economy has swelled. Our minimum wage has languished and lagged pathetically behind.
I still argue (although amending it slightly to include big government) that conglomerates exploit the general population.
We cannot realy choose to not buy groceries. We cannot choose to not drink water. We cannot choose to not have heat when the temps dip to single digits or lower.
We are a captive market. New cars are an option. Necessities are what are being stripped from the working class by exploitive marketing and pricing and intolerable taxation.
Recall that dear friend Nathan went to David and highlighted his wrong by pointing out that David had an overabundance of females at his disposal. Had he lost one, someone would have had to tell him or it would have just been one less face in the crowd. What David took from poor Uriah, his most fiercest defender and courageous soldier was the only wife he had.
So, back to the original postulate by our host, $30 from my $100 to leave me with $70 is nowhere near as devastating as $2 from yoru $10 to leave you with only $8.
Unto whom much is given, (unfortunately)much is required.
The Raybird said:"When taxes go up, so will the cost of everything else."
Except labor!
That is the fundamental issue. Because taxes go up on everyone, especially the laborer. However, the working class has to absorb both the higher tax and the higher cost to market.
That is so the owner and sharholder can continue to reap the same >10% ROI. So who is getting squeezed out.
Is the issue less taxes. History has demonstrated that while it does increase headcount on a payroll, the increase in payroll is not linear. It is, in fact, statiscally proven to be regressive.
Even consider that our federal minimum wage is on a regressive curve versus GNP in the last 40 years. Our economy has swelled. Our minimum wage has languished and lagged pathetically behind.
I still argue (although amending it slightly to include big government) that conglomerates exploit the general population.
We cannot realy choose to not buy groceries. We cannot choose to not drink water. We cannot choose to not have heat when the temps dip to single digits or lower.
We are a captive market. New cars are an option. Necessities are what are being stripped from the working class by exploitive marketing and pricing and intolerable taxation.
Recall that dear friend Nathan went to David and highlighted his wrong by pointing out that David had an overabundance of females at his disposal. Had he lost one, someone would have had to tell him or it would have just been one less face in the crowd. What David took from poor Uriah, his most fiercest defender and courageous soldier was the only wife he had.
So, back to the original postulate by our host, $30 from my $100 to leave me with $70 is nowhere near as devastating as $2 from yoru $10 to leave you with only $8.
Unto whom much is given, (unfortunately)much is required.
Which is why taxes should not go up. Because everyone suffers. You made my point elegantly. Although I will reference you to Milton Friedman on the minimum wage arguement. I think his books can articulate how the wage works best. You can get his books on amazon.com for cheap. I think you will find his views very convincing.
Junior's wrong, why blog ?
Post a Comment