extranormal's Wealth Redistribution

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: FWIW, not saying it's right, wrong, good, bad, etc., but... The reason capital gains are taxed at a lower rate, and some believe they should have no tax, is based on the theory that capital investment is good for everyone.

That's exactly right. Add to that this:

Josh wrote: The problem with a "fair" flat tax is that the truly wealthy don't actually have income, they have wealth, which is often continually growing without much effort on their part.

It all takes us steps away from the basic idea. What’s the basic idea? Here it is. We have a government. It costs $X to run it. Debate what we do elsewhere. Right now it costs $X. Make it cost <$X and we can adjust. But for now, we need $X to pay the bills. (We’re not doing that, and that is the problem)

An even more basic idea is that government shouldn't come even close to the costs it bears now. Yes, we need to pay the bills. But, if increased income still doesn't address the bottom-line we still have costs >$X.

Arguments for increasing a burden for "some" instead of "all" ignore (blissfully/purposely) the root problems.

By the way - 2010 total spending $3.55 Trillion U.S. Population - 308 Million

That's $11,525.97 per person.

X family of 4 = $46,103 in taxes.

oldsaw wrote: An even more basic idea is that government shouldn't come even close to the costs it bears now.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. We need to have a discussion on the service level, we as the american public want from our government. Once we have that discussion, we then need to agree to fund it effectively.

The way we are doing it now is adding services and then trying to catch up a system designed to support something at one level to support something at another.

oldsaw wrote: An even more basic idea is that government shouldn't come even close to the costs it bears now. Yes, we need to pay the bills. But, if increased income still doesn't address the bottom-line we still have costs >$X. Arguments for increasing a burden for "some" instead of "all" ignore (blissfully/purposely) the root problems.

Sigh.

As I said. Make it cost <$X and we can pay less. But it doesn't. It costs $X. YOU don't get to decide what it costs. WE do. All of us. And that's what it costs. The root of the problem is we aren't collecting what we're spending. Not only that, a load of people got a load of votes by saying they'd cut taxes but they didn't cut any spending. Nice to get tax cuts. Not nice to be bankrupt. Cut all you like, but in the mean time, we have to pay the bills.

If they would make us pay for what we get, I suspect there would be more support to spend less. But as long as they lie about lower taxes make more money we're doomed.

oldsaw wrote: Arguments for increasing a burden for "some" instead of "all" ignore (blissfully/purposely) the root problems.

And that ignors the FACT that we aren't paying equally now and the rich do indeed benefit from the inequality.

Shoot, I will stop now. No point posting if you don't even read what I say. I knew it before I started. I can not post anything as powerful as the politicians dinn. They win. You belive them all you like. I'm sure they're telling you the truth.

oldsaw wrote: Link: http://www.bankrate.com/financing/taxes/debt-panel-suggests-tax-changes/ You don't hear about it because those who support the administration's agenda don't want you to hear about it; Obviously, that includes the White House.

You are right. That's why the Tea Party caucus wants us to enact all these measure.... what's that?

Oh. Nevermind. It's only the Democrats. The Tea Party is telling the truth. I forgot. The President doesn't want you to see what the President's commission found. Why, of course.

Iron Balls McGinty wrote: In reply to tuna55: Loopholes means different things to different people. Are you saying that we should get rid or everything that allows a person in a certain tax bracket not to pay that rate? I'd go for that.

Yes. Everything. House, kids, everything. And I have a house and (soon) three kids.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Link: http://www.bankrate.com/financing/taxes/debt-panel-suggests-tax-changes/ You don't hear about it because those who support the administration's agenda don't want you to hear about it; Obviously, that includes the White House.

You are right. That's why the Tea Party caucus wants us to enact all these measure.... what's that? Oh. Nevermind. It's only the Democrats. The Tea Party is telling the truth. I forgot. The President doesn't want you to see what the President's commission found. Why, of course.

See? Now you're back to inflammatory.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: By the way - 2010 total spending $3.55 Trillion U.S. Population - 308 Million That's $11,525.97 per person. X family of 4 = $46,103 in taxes.

A surely absurd amount of money! Oddly enough, it's only slightly higher than I paid last year including all of my taxes!

fast_eddie_72 wrote: And that ignors the FACT that we aren't paying equally now and the rich do indeed benefit from the inequality.

As do the poor. The only people it sucks for is middle and upper middle class.

"More than half of the nation's tax revenue came from the top 10 percent of earners in 2007. More than 44 percent came from the top 5 percent."

"The vast majority of those who escape federal income taxes have low and medium incomes, and most of them pay other taxes, including Social Security and Medicare taxes, property taxes and retail sales taxes.

The share of people paying no federal income tax has dropped slightly the past two years. It was 47 percent for 2009. The main difference for 2010 was the expiration of a tax break that exempted the first $2,400 of unemployment benefits from taxation, Williams said.

In 2009, nearly 35 million taxpayers got a tax break for paying interest on their home mortgages, and nearly 36 million taxpayers took the $1,000-per-child tax credit. About 41 million households reduced their federal income taxes by deducting state and local income and sales taxes from their taxable income."

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/17/super-rich-see-federal-taxes-drop-dramatically/?icid=main%7Ccompaq-laptop%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%7C210099

tuna55 wrote: See? Now you're back to inflammatory.

Guess so. I get ticked when I expain things clearly and am met with the same crap I just explained. What's the point? And we wonder how we keep getting dooped by the politicians.

racerfink wrote: "More than half of the nation's tax revenue came from the top 10 percent of earners in 2007. More than 44 percent came from the top 5 percent."

What this shows is just how huge the gap between rich and poor had become. No one ever said they didn't pay more in dollar ammount. They do.

That's the point I was trying to make. If we all paid the same amount, they would be a LOT better off. And all the breaks like 15% capital gains and the cap on FICA are efforts to move us closer to that.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

tuna55 wrote: See? Now you're back to inflammatory.

Guess so. I get ticked when I expain things clearly and am met with the same crap I just explained. What's the point? And we wonder how we keep getting dooped by the politicians.

Well, between me and you, you may want to reconsider your opinions about the tea party based on your thoughts. You and I don't disagree as much as you seem to think on taxes, and I consider my self a tea partier with very few exceptions.

tuna55 wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: And that ignors the FACT that we aren't paying equally now and the rich do indeed benefit from the inequality.

As do the poor. The only people it sucks for is middle and upper middle class.

Indeed. We're on the same page there.

There’s no question that our current tax system is insanely complicated and wildly infested with all manner of unfair advantages / disadvantages that were given in exchange for political advancement.

But, can anyone say with a straight face that they believe a “change” to the current system would ultimately be for the better?

I mean, come on, politicians got us here in the first place and any call for “change” necessarily equates to giving them more power to do more harm to ultimately result in more selfish advancement at our collective expense.

There’s no way I’ll embrace “change” without trust and I see no reason to have any trust at this time.

Additionally, “change” does not produce random winners & losers. Instead, it is a highly effective redistribution mechanism.

The people that took the time to understand the rules and made sacrifices to optimally position themselves will be harmed by “change” and the ones that just sort of stagger their way through life with no disciplined plan will be benefitted by “change”.

So, as much as our current tax system sucks, I don’t wish to see it “changed” as I know with great certainty that the ultimate effect will be to take more of my money.

Josh wrote: The problem with a "fair" flat tax is that the truly wealthy don't actually have income, they have wealth, which is often continually growing without much effort on their part.

It all takes us steps away from the basic idea. What’s the basic idea?

Here it is. We have a government. It costs $X to run it. Debate what we do elsewhere. Right now it costs $X. Make it cost <$X and we can adjust. But for now, we need $X to pay the bills. (We’re not doing that, and that is the problem)

The wealthy, if they could say what they mean, would say we’re all Americans and we should all pay the same amount. No percentage of anything- I’m 100% American and you’re %100 American. So we pay the same. If there were 100 people in the country, they should all pay $X/100. But if we did that a lot of people would owe more than they make. That won’t work. We’d have no labor force.

So we all agreed a long time ago that we’d have a graduated tax code. But let’s call it what it is- from each according to his ability. There’s a good bit of cognitive dissonance on this

And I wasn’t going to get long winded. I’ll stop before I get into the myth of the “self-made man”. Read Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers for more insight into that…

So everyone should pay their "fair share" if I'm interpreting you correctly. I have no problem paying my "fair share" but how do we define fair is the question. I strongly resent being told that it's my "duty" to pay more taxes because I earn more. I don't sit around and watch my dollars accumulate off of someone else's work just for the record. I've busted my butt to get where I am- not a trust fund/silver spoon kid- my parents didn't have college degrees and have been financially bankrupt. So I guess I expect others to work just as hard as I do if they want to earn what I do. Part of the fundamental problem in our country seems to be people who don't want to work hard or at all and want to be financially secure- that doesn't add up.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Sigh. As I said. Make it cost <$X and we can pay less. But it doesn't. It costs $X. YOU don't get to decide what it costs. WE do. All of us. And that's what it costs. The root of the problem is we aren't collecting what we're spending. Not only that, a load of people got a load of votes by saying they'd cut taxes but they didn't cut any spending. Nice to get tax cuts. Not nice to be bankrupt. Cut all you like, but in the mean time, we have to pay the bills. If they would make us pay for what we get, I suspect there would be more support to spend less. But as long as they lie about lower taxes make more money we're doomed. Shoot, I will stop now. No point posting if you don't even read what I say. I knew it before I started. I can not post anything as powerful as the politicians dinn. They win. You belive them all you like. I'm sure they're telling you the truth.

WE get to decide on what "it" costs by deciding what WE want and how much it's worth to US. How many times were you dumped (or did the dumping) before you met your SO?

Yes, a lot of people got votes because they advocated cutting taxes to reduce personal burden. A lot of people got votes because they advocated increasing taxes to prevent an increased personal burden.

BTW, I read what you say. But, politicians issue powerful statements on maintaining or increasing the expanse (and costs) of government intervention. I'm sure they're telling you the "truth", too.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

racerfink wrote: "More than half of the nation's tax revenue came from the top 10 percent of earners in 2007. More than 44 percent came from the top 5 percent."

What this shows is just how huge the gap between rich and poor had become. No one ever said they didn't pay more in dollar ammount. They do. That's the point I was trying to make. If we all paid the same amount, they would be a LOT better off. And all the breaks like 15% capital gains and the cap on FICA are efforts to move us closer to that.

For all the talk you do about people missing your point...

tuna55 wrote: Well, between me and you, you may want to reconsider your opinions about the tea party based on your thoughts. You and I don't disagree as much as you seem to think on taxes, and I consider my self a tea partier with very few exceptions.

I've said this before- when I first heard about them I was excited. And I still think some overall good may come from the "movement". But, no, I agree with them (if "them" means what they say they are and not what their actions suggest) about the problem, but not the solution. I think the "crisis" is in large part manufactured. I don't think Socialism is bad in all cases. And I don't think we have to gut our major social programs to correct the problems we're now facing. Most of all, I don't think any of it has anything to do with NPR or Planned Parrenthood. And that's exactly the "social agenda" they said they weren't about.

No, I hoped they would be something pretty good. Turns out that they're just putting a budget face on the same message. It's just a difference of opinion, and that's fine. I like social services. I'm doing pretty well, but I like the idea that if things went bad down the road there is a social safety net. I think health care should be a right. I think it's cheaper to help poor kids get a decent education than it is to build jail cells for them.

I don't think I'd fit in at a Tea Party rally. There's a reason they all ran on the Republic Party ticket.

DILYSI Dave wrote: FWIW, not saying it's right, wrong, good, bad, etc., but... The reason capital gains are taxed at a lower rate, and some believe they should have no tax, is based on the theory that capital investment is good for everyone. If I've got $1M sitting in a CD, it's not doing anyone any good. But if I invest that $1M in an injection molding company, which allows them to buy a new molding machine, then that $1M has gone toward the employees who run that machine, maintain it, the ones who designed and built it in the first place, etc. Capital investments are the key to economic growth, so they should be encouraged. That's the theory at least.

If that is the actual intent for capitol gains taxes, that would be a decent reason.

But since at least 95% of the stock and bond sales are trades, and NOT direct investments in companies, then the current application falls apart.

So if I were to buy from GE stocks or bonds that give them cash to make stuff, good. But if I buy those from someone else, GE doesn't ever get that cash- they just got the initial payment. So stock and bond trades should not be covered under capitol gains.

Same for homes- if you are buying a primary home, and we, as a society, wish that the gains you get from that home when you sell it in 20 years should be a discount, fine. But if this is home #2 or more, or even an entire neighborhood, then no discount. Just the primary home sould be covered.

So if the capitol gains taxes were re-written to reflect what we say is the intention, I would be ok with that. But not as they are applied right now.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Link: http://www.bankrate.com/financing/taxes/debt-panel-suggests-tax-changes/ You don't hear about it because those who support the administration's agenda don't want you to hear about it; Obviously, that includes the White House.

You are right. That's why the Tea Party caucus wants us to enact all these measure.... what's that? Oh. Nevermind. It's only the Democrats. The Tea Party is telling the truth. I forgot. The President doesn't want you to see what the President's commission found. Why, of course.

I thought that it was a sum total of zero people in DC (or 18 if you count the debt commission) who want to enact the debt commission's recommendations. Anyone with an R next to their name got their panties in a wad at the mere mention of higher taxes and less defense spending, and anyone with a D next to their name flipped out about losing deductions for having E36 M3 you can't afford and reigning in SS/MC/MC.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

You're wrong man. If you'd come to a rally, you could see what they are about. Watching from your TV screen only means you're hearing it from the viewpoint f someone else. Up until this point, nearly every one of those people are either trying to take advantage of it or trying to marginalize it. You're buying into it.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

tuna55 wrote: See? Now you're back to inflammatory.

Guess so. I get ticked when I expain things clearly and am met with the same crap I just explained. What's the point? And we wonder how we keep getting dooped by the politicians.

I'd recommend some investigation into the FairTax.

This is a viable alternative to a flat tax and it also stipulates coverage for those whose incomes fall below national poverty levels - amongst many other things.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: I don't think I'd fit in at a Tea Party rally. There's a reason they all ran on the Republic Party ticket.

Until you realize that it's a MOVEMENT, and not a political party...

alfadriver wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: FWIW, not saying it's right, wrong, good, bad, etc., but... The reason capital gains are taxed at a lower rate, and some believe they should have no tax, is based on the theory that capital investment is good for everyone. If I've got $1M sitting in a CD, it's not doing anyone any good. But if I invest that $1M in an injection molding company, which allows them to buy a new molding machine, then that $1M has gone toward the employees who run that machine, maintain it, the ones who designed and built it in the first place, etc. Capital investments are the key to economic growth, so they should be encouraged. That's the theory at least.

If that is the actual intent for capitol gains taxes, that would be a decent reason. But since at least 95% of the stock and bond sales are trades, and NOT direct investments in companies, then the current application falls apart. So if I were to buy from GE stocks or bonds that give them cash to make stuff, good. But if I buy those from someone else, GE doesn't ever get that cash- they just got the initial payment. So stock and bond trades should not be covered under capitol gains. Same for homes- if you are buying a primary home, and we, as a society, wish that the gains you get from that home when you sell it in 20 years should be a discount, fine. But if this is home #2 or more, or even an entire neighborhood, then no discount. Just the primary home sould be covered. So if the capitol gains taxes were re-written to reflect what we say is the intention, I would be ok with that. But not as they are applied right now.

Interesting stuff. Good post. Thanks.