The Self-Destruction of the 1 Percent

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Rilder

Exactly how I act in strategy games like Victoria II, I'll tax every one of you bastards 100% if it means the country I'm playing stays out of debt.

Indeed. I propose we save time and money by abandoning needless bureaucracy and firing unneeded officials. From now on the taxes shall be handled with one form and three questions:

1: Do you have money?
2: Where are you keeping it?
3: When can we come take it from you?

The citizens will hardly even notice the difference in the end result. Everyone wins.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Flat taxes seem like a fair idea on the surface. What could be more fair than everyone paying the same percentage? But it presents problems when you dig deeper into it.

1. One of the biggest knocks on capitalism is that it takes money to make money. You could make the best coffee in the world, but you're never going to cut into Starbucks' market share. Too often the person with the better idea or product can't compete with the person with money - the one with money can essentially write the rules and regulations to favor themselves and present barriers to entry to any upstart, no matter how superior the upstart's product or service may be. A progressive taxation system addresses this inequality.



4. Our laws, infrstructure and financial system benefit those with money more than those without. If you've got $1 million in the bank, you need the government to protect that $1 million through law and military force a lot more than the guy with $100 in the bank. Why shouldn't the person with more to lose pay more?

I really don't buy those arguments. It certainly helps to have money to make money, but capitalism is about good ideas attracting investors. Many, many people started with very little and made fortunes. I sure don't see that as a basis to tax them more, that's penalizing excellence and success.

One person, one vote. Why should one guy pay 40% income tax when another only pays 5%, or nothing. Especially when the guy paying 40% is contributing $20 million dollars and the guy pitching in 5% is contributing $500. Yes, I agree about the point that a guy making $20,000 a year needs every dollar he can get, but still, think about it. Even if you are wealthy, it's all relative. I would be sick to think of being forced to pay millions in taxes and be outvoted by thousands who pay nothing at all.

I never worked for a poor man.

Why should one guy pay 40% income tax when another only pays 5%, or nothing. Especially when the guy paying 40% is contributing $20 million dollars and the guy pitching in 5% is contributing $500.

Thats OK in theory, but too often its the little guy getting the huge bill and the millionaire paying the 5 or 10%(or more accurately its the middle which gets thoroughly shafted with the big bill)

I never worked for a poor man.

I have lots of times, and I always found they pay up all that is due and they pay when it is due, I find that often the higher the wealth (or apparent wealth)the slowerr they are to cough up what they owe, sometimes even stringing it out to the stages when legal action has to be taken

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I never worked for a poor man.

Sure you have. Jobs aren't created by fiat by a wealthy person. You're working as a teacher - your job exists because people, both rich and poor, send their kids to school. But let's go back to the private sector. You worked in the oil and gas industry, right? Your job only existed because regular joes filled up their cars with gasoline. So while Mr. Boss man signed your paycheck, he's just there to facilitate your part in supply meeting consumer demand. Demand creates jobs. If all of a sudden the world switched to electric cars, do you think your job would have been in jeopardy? Of course it would have, and the reason why would have had nothing to do with how much money Mr. CEO had in his pocket.

[AVGWarhawk]

You're working as a teacher - your job exists because people, both rich and poor, send their kids to school.

Most states it is mandated a child attends school to a certain grade. The job exists because the gov't says it does.

Your job only existed because regular joes filled up their cars with gasoline. So while Mr. Boss man signed your paycheck, he's just there to facilitate your part in supply meeting consumer demand.

I suspect bossman did not wake up one day wealthy. He dug a well. It poured oil. He worked his way up from there. He became wealthy and shouldered the responsibilies, like the rules and regs set by the gov't. He is more than just there to Facilitate a part in meeting demand.

If all of a sudden the world switched to electric cars, do you think your job would have been in jeopardy?

No, there are other items that require petroleum products to make that product.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Most states it is mandated a child attends school to a certain grade. The job exists because the gov't says it does.

Then if we're a government of the people, by the people, then yes, he's working for a poor person.

I suspect bossman did not wake up one day wealthy. He dug a well. It poured oil. He worked his way up from there. He became wealthy and shouldered the responsibilies, like the rules and regs set by the gov't. He is more than just there to Facilitate a part in meeting demand.

Bossman only became wealthy because there was a demand for the goods and services he was able to provide. So no, his entire job is based around facilitating supply to meet demand. And all of that is absolutely irrelevant if there's no customer and no demand. So the real job creator is the guy filling his gas tank up. And everyone, rich or poor, uses gas.

[AVGWarhawk]

Then if we're a government of the people, by the people,

This notion died about 4 decades ago.

Bossman only became wealthy because there was a demand for the goods and services he was able to provide.

Tell that to the snake oil salesman.

So no, his entire job is based around facilitating supply to meet demand.

Like most, but at CEO level, his job encompasses more than just meeting demand.

And all of that is absolutely irrelevant if there's no customer and no demand.

Economics 101

So the real job creator is the guy filling his gas tank up.

Trickle down theory. Got it.

And everyone, rich or poor, uses gas.

Except those that do not own a car. Walk or ride a bike. Like many who live in the city. These folks are rich and poor but do not use gas.

I'm just busting your balls Mookie.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Trickle down theory. Got it.

Trickle up theory. Like peeing straight up in the air. Don't get wet!

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Then if we're a government of the people, by the people, then yes, he's working for a poor person.

No he is not. Parents are clients of the government but they are not clients of the teacher. Don't believe me? Try getting your kids teacher to change their curriculum without the government authorizing the change.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Trickle up theory. Like peeing straight up in the air. Don't get wet!

Pissing into the wind.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Thats OK in theory, but too often its the little guy getting the huge bill and the millionaire paying the 5 or 10%(or more accurately its the middle which gets thoroughly shafted with the big bill)

Which is the point of having everybody pay the same percentage, with no exceptions.

Which is the point of having everybody pay the same percentage, with no exceptions.

But the point is the theory fails and the reasoning behind it is based on fixing something that doesn't even really exist
Which is why it doesn't work, its a pipe dream, you might as well start talking about the virtues of communism since its just as big a pile of rubbish
Try thinking about the fuel examples I put up earlier to see why it cannot work.
One size fits all just simply doesn't work.
Cain was mentioned earlier with his version of the pipe dream. Straight away he started with ....well of course there will have to be be exemptions for XY&Z and there would be incentives for AB&C and JK&L would be deductable and NO&P can be deferals.....

[Sailor Steve]

And that was his mistake. No exceptions means no exceptions.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

And that was his mistake. No exceptions means no exceptions.

Why it will never happen. The majority of the tax code was designed for the rich to control real assets and buy more toys. It may have helped create jobs when Americans made the toys, but not so much now.

And that was his mistake. No exceptions means no exceptions.

No mistake, its reality.
Terms and conditions apply(as always)

Did you think much about the fuel taxes and exemptions in relation to income tax?
The problem in the main isn't exemptions, its people gaming the exemptions.
Unfortunately the answer for people who are complaining about the loopholes is an answer they will object to also.
Its more regulation and more enforcement which of course means bigger government.