EHh yes they do, but it's not as practical as taxing income so we resort to the next best thing. Things like inheritance tax and so on tax wealth (though the uber rich of the US did a pretty good job destroying estate tax, because you know their kids NEED the money). Of course it can be taxed again, taxing something again is just as fair as taxing it the first time.

So, in essence, you do not disagree with raising taxes on the rich. You are hung up on the idea that the current tax bracket cut-off of 388k would continue on as the top tier. How about we run the marginal rate of 35% up to 600k and then jump to 40% from 600k to 1 million then 45% from 1 million to 1.8 million and continue upward until we hit 55-60%?

tax everyone who makes more money than me!

and lower my taxes!

Let me know next time when some inner city kid making 20K a year needs entire fleet to sail half way across the world to protect one of his assets, or has a few 100K soldiers to over throw a country on his behalf. and then tell me how the Rich pay too much, and the poor should be paying the same rate.

The bit about the uber-rich corporations creating jobs and deserving tax breaks because of that is frankly bullfluff. It's the small businesses and startups that create most of the jobs in the economy.

It is rising consumer demand that creates jobs. That's what feeds the economic cycle. If the working class is able to do so, they WILL purchase more widgets/widget services.
If you want your garden to grow, water the roots.
I submit:

http://youtu.be/bBx2Y5HhplI

http://xkcd.com/980/huge/#x=-6432&;y=-7856&z=2

In the USA, it's not a Democracy; it never was. A Democracy would allow 50%+1 would control the "losing" or "minority" group. The USA has always been a Republic, electing people to represent you. This is harder to egregiously control and abuse smaller groups. Most countries do not have a direct Democracy.



Further, I would add that the USA was built on the principle that we are sovereign individuals. We, the People, retain all rights. Our government is the one that has enumerated powers. All powers not explicitly in control of the government belong to the people. We have given part of our rights to the states, and part of our rights to the federal government.

As sovereign individuals, who have given part of our rights to the local and federal government, we cannot give them rights that we ourselves do not have. Since we do not have the right or authority to steal, we cannot give that right to someone else.




Social "equality" simply does not work. Given enough time, the culture as a whole will change. People will do less, and expect more. The society as a whole will decline, if it's an honest one. If it's dishonest, then some "are more equal than others", and will get more than their "fair share".

Why penalize the successful? They will not strive for it. Why not make it more painful or difficult to remain uneducated, unproductive, and only a consumer.

I'm astonished, somebody else actually sees the light. This is exactly what's happening in the U.S. today and has already happened in Europe.

Tax bracket is a fake issue.
1)All tax systems are progressive. Wealthy don't see "the top tax bracket" on their entire annual income, only on the dollars they made over the next tier. For the dollars between 50-100k, they are taxed at exactly the same rate as you and I.
2) The vast, vast majority of income of wealthy people is the carried interest rate of 15%, rather than the annual income from business. That's why they let people bloviate on about tax brackets - for example, under 1% of buffett's annual income is a check from Berkshire Hathaway.
3) Everyone pays taxes; get over it. Holy christ, i want to stab with a rusty spoon every time someone actually believes there are people paying no taxes. What do you think the tax on gas is? What do you think the tax on a grocery store bill is? What do you think the tax at a restaurant is?

Those dollars go directly to governments, and thus the vast majority of TAX dollars are from the.. poor people. The 4,5,7% at the end of a bill adds up.

To assert that "rich people will always get theirs" as a justification for today's income disparity.. ignores the fact that the 50's-80's were the best time for corporate profits in US history, as well as the time when the US middle class bought the most. The best way for rich people to get more dollars is for them to pay higher salaries and take less from companies for themselves.

^--- exactly :) what Unsymathetic said

Considering this entire discussion has been about income tax rates, which for nearly half of the country is zero, I'd say you should sheathe your spoon and actually pay attention to what the conversation is about.

Sales tax is an entirely different issue. That's a tax on consumption, not productivity. That's why many conservatives and libertarians feel a national sales tax is a preferable alternative to the income tax. It's the only fair way (which is why it's called the "fair tax"). You can't legislate generosity and demand a rich man provide for his poor neighbors. It's not his responsibility.

I'm not saying that there aren't some poor people that are genuinely trying hard to lift themselves out of poverty. But my God, anyone who has spent any time at all around low income people has noticed the same thing I have. I'm tired of seeing able-bodied bums on welfare because they've come to expect a free handout. Everyone feels entitled nowadays. It's rampant and it's disgusting. Again, as it was said earlier by lymz, if you keep heading towards the welfare state model, people will continue to do less and expect more. Right now, people don't have to choose between work and starving. The "safety net" will save them. So why work? Cut a couple holes in that net and all of sudden you'll see people more willing to work. Society as a whole becomes more productive.

^good thing most people were born with a sense of compassion and therefore disagree with you

So making a man work for a living instead of letting him be lazy and collect a free handout isn't being compassionate? I beg to differ. You're not doing him any favors.

"If you're not a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart. If
you're not a conservative when you're 40, you have no brain"

-Winston Churchill

I'd rather have a brain.

yes because education and healthcare are free handouts for the lazy

let's think about it this way, inheritance tax (one of those things you oppose so strongly): which one do you think encourages more laziness, a 100% inheritance tax or a 0% inheritance tax, assuming the tax is unavoidable

You and I both know that the reason this country is nearly $16 trillion in debt isn't solely because of "education or healthcare". That's not where the money is going. You're just using buzzwords like "education" to make anyone who opposes runaway government seem anti-education. It's disingenuous and trite.

Social security (horribly broken for years due to increased life expectancy) and defense (we insist on being the world police) account for 40% of the budget. Interest on the debt alone is 10%. There's 50% right there that could be massively scaled back. Add in the bloated Medicare and Medicaid (the aforementioned healthcare) and you've got 70% of the budget that is highly questionable.

Yet you and nearly everyone else here wants to give the government more money. Why? When has the government ever shown itself to be anything but atrociously irresponsible when it comes to finances? $16 trillion in debt. Just let that sink in. $16 trillion. Why should we keep throwing (other people's) money down the pit? The more you give, the more they want. Simple human nature. Where does it end? With a 95% tax rate? Socialism? Communism? Squash that social ladder, right? I hate to break it to you, but this strategy has already been tried fellas. You're not breaking new ground here. Since the beginning of society there have always been the idealistic ones who feel they can remake human nature and make society "fair". It doesn't work. As long as human beings are involved, it will never work.

And your inheritance tax question, while irrelevant, is simple. If everything I earn in my lifetime will simply be taken from my family upon my death, then there's not much incentive to build up my net worth, is there? I guess you consider it disgusting that a man would rather bequeath his possessions to his children instead of the welfare bum down the street. I state for the 57th time, once a man pays his just due for the public services that he uses (which is a fraction of what the current tax rate is), the rest of that money is his. Private property. No one yet has been able to adequately explain why the government should have the right to steal private property. Stop trying to force your "compassion" onto others who don't feel that way.

nt

Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.

These days, too many people want fish, fewer people want fishing polls and to learn how to use them.

TRUE compassion is using YOUR time, talent, and treasure to help your fellow man to be able to sustain himself and his responsibility (family); produce more than consume; set aside from the bounty to survive the famine.

FALSE compassion is using SOMEONE ELSE'S time, talent, and treasure to give them a handout; shirk responsibility; consume more than their fair share; and instant gratification. All, while patting one's self on the back.

*slaps lymz around a bit with a trout* - fish delivered :P

so your response is basically an angry rant? the private sector is not providing adequate healthcare and education (and defense and roads etc) to everyone, so you need a government. might not be the best run government, but that's not really what's being debated here and giving the government LESS money isn't going to improve anything in the short term. (i know republicans like to use the "government is inefficient so if we give them less money they'll be more efficient" argument a lot but *that's* idealistic)

and people wouldn't work because they won't be allowed to bequeath the money to their children? lol

Wow. Again, words get put in my mouth. I guess I should take that as a compliment. Seems like that's the only way you can argue with me.

I never said let private sector handle education, defense, etc. Why would you claim I said that? I even specifically mentioned government needing to provide defense and transportation earlier, two exact subjects that you brought back up. I said taxes are necessary to pay for those things. This is pointless if you're going to make things up and not pay attention to what's already been said.

And "lol" and "angry rant" aren't adequate responses. You can do better. Or maybe not.

This discussion has run its course. There will never be any consensus. I have to admit though, I wish I knew where this world you all describe was where throwing trillions of dollars at the government magically fixes everything and people are willing to share the fruits of their labor with those who haven't done as much (or any) work. It sounds like a lovely place. Until then though, I'll continue to live in the real world and take reality for what it is. People are self-interested. Squashing the social ladder doesn't work. Government is brutally inefficient. Society is inherently unequal.

Taking these things into consideration, I will continue to believe that less government and a truly free marketplace are always the best options, while you will continue to ignore these facts and seek to construct a society (a "castle in the air", so to speak) based on idealistic fantasies and a misunderstanding of human nature. We'll see who turns out to be right in a few decades as America continues to spiral downwards under the crushing weight of a bloated bureaucracy. When the debt reaches $50 trillion and entire sections of government begin to collapse, I'll accept your apology. Ask Greece. They're in a freefall that not even exorbitant bailouts from the EU can fix. Don't think it can't happen in the U.S. We're headed that way, and you're looking to grease the skids.

stream of consciousness style post to follow

yes because all government spending is irresponsible and inefficient, and countries where the public sector provides the largest percentages of GDP are usually mismanaged, right?

oh wait, strange how these extremely well-managed countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Finland and France are right up there in highest government expenditures/GDP. but I thought the public sector was a massive black hole that just sucked in money and returned subpar services? maybe these countries all have really crappy public services compared to the US. oh wait...

but maybe there's a really efficient private sector driven by the view that people can be really successful. i mean the gini coefficients of these countries must be really low... oh, wait? highest gini coefficients in the world? damn. well maybe they have a lot of billionaires, i mean all people are motivated by the idea of becoming a billionaire but if that doesn't exist then why would they work AT ALL? oh wait, there are 4 billionaires in Finland and Denmark combined according to Forbes? hmmm

well they can't just be giving money to poor people, that would be completely inefficient. they're just spending money better than the us. oh wait, the nordic countries have some of the most generous social benefits in the world? and surely they can't be spending money on education or healthcare, i mean the private sector does that so much better. but wait, finland's 99% public education system is ranked as the best or second best in the world according to the most widely cited educational survey in the world. HOW CAN THIS BE??? I THOUGHT THE PRIVATE SECTOR WILL ALWAYS PREVAIL???

*brain overload*

Sonuvafluff i am so sick of seeing this load of crap. The hardest working people i've met in my life are those that more often than not are among those paid the least. They sweat, they toil, their physical labor and work environ takes years off their lives and they have specific job knowledge that no suit with a degree can match.

And at the end of the day, when you subtract from their wages what they pay in taxes there's just not enough left to pay for food, shelter, healthcare, clothing etc let alone try to save for the future. Not many of their children will get that chance for a college education. So it's generational, and it's because of the greed and shortsightedness and apathy and personal comfort of voters like you that it will stay that way.

If you accept this is the way, and you have a small business, how the hell do you think the struggling middle class and the working poor are going to be able to buy one of your widgets? Hiring new workers is the LAST thing a business owner will do. Only when the demand for his product/service is so high that cutting every corner still won't meet the demand will the business owner hire more workers.

The wealthy are job creators? HA
The tens upon tens of millions at the bottom are the real job creators.

Spear, you say "Society is inherently unequal" and speak of a "misunderstanding of human nature" and "People are self-interested". You're right, but you seem to have no interest in changing it. I'm guessing you are white, male, and never had to worry how you are going to pay for your rent or your child's medical care.
And 'the way it is' is alright with you isn't it? You will "continue to live in the real world and take reality for what it is."
Because as you climb that "social ladder" you speak of you know that the system is gamed as zero sum and you'll not be caught on the lower rungs.

But many are. And not through any fault of their own.
They waited 30 years for the 'trickle down' theory of economics to finally work for them. They can read the charts, they see the statistics. They LIVE the statistics. They know now that trickle down was a scam, a pissONyou scam.

And they are the infrastructure of our civilization. They far outnumber you and your nearsighted armchair economists.
They watch the wealthy use their wealth to manipulate more wealth but only for themselves. They watch while the wealthy buy government favors and hold the carrot out on a stick for the middle class, turning them against the working poor while promising them 'a place in the good ol' boys club' someday.

Watch that damn video i posted upthread. Stop being a tool.

cyref, you cannot change human nature. People have been trying for centuries and have been met with disaster.

The game is not zero sum or the total wealth of the world would be the same now as it was 2000 years ago. The wealth of the world changes as resources are put to use by those evil wealthy people, and thus the total sum is increased. It is not increased by the people working the labor jobs because they only do as they are told. It is the business owner that creates the job by putting the natural resources into production and use.

You speak of the wealthy buying government favors on one hand, but favor government intervention on behalf of the people on another. You cannot have one without the other and therein lies a problem with socialism and social equality. Where you have government control you have a group of people that will be more equal than the rest because of their status. It always ends the same, with most of society clinging to poverty while a few live high off the hog. At least in a capitalist society people are free to move between classes with hard work and ingenuity rather than being cast down by those with power and with no way to improve their standing in life.

Spear, I think we've read quite a few of the same books about political philosophy. It was refreshing reading your arguments.

oh and for those of you talking about all those wealthy inheriting it from their family, research the % of the rich that do in fact inherit their riches. Minuscule compared to those who earn it.

but you're still not in favor of taxing those who do inherit it so it's still a vlid discussion point...

There is a point of diminishing returns where it's more convenient for someone to change his or her citizenship than it is to pay in insane tax amount. The Zuckerberg's of the world are the perfect example (and his number two or three guy did renounce his citizenship and take it up again in Singapore). Where do you guys think they shift the burden too next? You either cut your big ticket spending items or you shift the burden to those who can't afford to leave thereby strangling small business/innovation.

I scoff at the notion that this won't happen because I spent four years working in a state that pursued these sort of idiotic policies and what a surprise when businesses chose a more friendly neighboring state to reside in. It's not a race to the bottom, but it is a competitive battle of understanding ceilings and floors as well as encouraging a realistic discussion about government spending.

Mhmm; but you can tighten these loopholes as well.

I've said these things before, but I'll say them again.

The reason that the liberals are attempting to do all their programs at the Federal Level is because they can't afford to do it at the state level. People who don't want to pay for programs that are inefficient and ineffective vote with their feet and leave the state. Then the state heads for bankruptcy and the state is forced to end the programs.

Now, we're finding out that people are in fact voting with their feet at the national level and leaving the country. Wake up! That's a cliff you're running over! It's not that people aren't willing to pay for social programs; it's that people aren't willing to pay for generational welfare slavery.

Require people on welfare to be drug-free. Test them for drugs; fail you're off the program. Change the welfare program to do more, but demand that people better themselves. People on welfare should have to show improvement in their ability to survive on their own over the course of a year or be kicked off the program. A handicap person who finds a creative way to start making money and moving to making it own their own should have their welfare decreased, not cut off entirely...not until they can make it on their own. Need to go to beauty school to improve yourself? Let's pay for you to do that. Need daycare while you're at school? Let's send a check to the daycare center. Doing drug rehab and can't find a job? Fine, then volunteer somewhere while your kids are at school (get some job references).

Welfare should be a contract between society at large and those in hard times. The agreement in principle would be simple: We will help you out, we will do more for you, we will hold out partial welfare benefits until you can walk on your own again, and we will not keep you in welfare slavery. In return, you will work as hard as you have ever worked to get off of welfare, permanently. Do more, demand more.

Welfare right now is a choice between improving yourself and dying or just staying on welfare. Welfare should be a choice between improving yourself or dying. Make it a stark choice and I suspect we'll find out that a heck of a lot of people will choose to improve themselves. In fact, I'm willing to bet that most people on welfare would welcome this type of a change.

Bonus posting in a troll thread

Well I wasn't going to post anymore, but I found an interesting tidbit that proves Pontius Pirate so blatantly wrong that I have to mention it. This is from George Mason University.

http://mercatus.org/...-12-spending-student-oecd

Yeah. So apparently throwing money at the problem isn't the solution, at least with education. They even mention your precious Finland. The answer isn't more money. The answer is greater efficiency and programs that actually work. But who wants to hear that? It's much easier to just raise taxes and continue wasting billions of dollars on failed programs. Makes you seem "compassionate" after all, and that's what it's all about. As long as you feel warm and fuzzy at the end of the day.

Oh yeah, health care spending and life expectancy show the exact same trend. More money does not equal more results. How strange.

http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php

My point wasn't that throwing money at the problem would solve it, but that government can solve these problems just as well as the private sector. You could have deduced that from the fact that I used the extent of gov't involvement in the economy as my benchmark instead of indebtedness