50% tax rate for high earners

celticlord said:

I see Ethereal and I were correct from the outset. You are indeed quite ignorant about liberty, else you would not consider it a pipe dream.

Unsurprising also that you would be ignorant about charity, and imprudently deride it as a "failing."

Charity is not failure, nor is liberty a pipe dream. Liberty is a very real and very necessary condition for human life to reach its fullest flower. Charity is the culmination of liberty, and is predicated upon liberty. Where there is no liberty there is no charity.

Far from being failure, charity is liberty's victory over misfortune. Liberty is the choice of the free man to in his prosperity be generous to his less fortunate neighbors. Indeed, the United States is a living demonstration of this reality and this virtue, for not only does the United States government give more in foreign aid to the impoverished nations of the world, but United States citizens contribute more to charitable causes than any other nation. Liberty enables charity. Liberty encourages charity. Society does neither, and can do neither.

The flaw in the Marxist thesis (and your rhetoric is quite Marxist in nature, even if you opt to disclaim him as your inspiration) is the illusion that society has any power to act. Society does not act, for society does not choose, nor can it decide. Action, decision, choice, are expressions of the mind and of the will, each intrinsic only to the individual, and never to the collective.

There is no consciousness in the group; at best there is consensus, but no more than this. Thus neither can there be will, nor mind, and from this it can be seen that the group cannot choose, cannot decide, and will never act.

Thus in any society liberty becomes the inevitable supreme civic virtue; liberty is the recognition that, though man may seek the communion of his neighbors, he must choose, decide, and act as an individual man. Though man desires the companionship of his fellows, he must answer for his sins alone, and so it follows that he must enjoy first claim to the fruits of his industry alone.

When a man is thus charged to answer for himself, and rewarded with the fruits of his own industry, he is given every reason to seek always the wise choice, the prudent decision, the careful act, to chart a path that leads maximizes his own prosperity. When the charge and the reward are remove from a man, his reason for wise choice and prudent decision diminish. To the degree that men are denied both charge and reward, to that degree men inspired to unwise deeds.

By charging charity a failure of society, you charge that men should not answer for themselves, nor should enjoy reward of their labors. You charge that the group as a whole must answer for each individual, and must likewise have prior claim to the fruits of the individual's labor. Your charge against charity admits of no other origin, for society--the group--cannot so fail unless it is first endowed with the charge and with the claim. Thus your charge against charity is wrong; it proceeds from the wrong view of society and a wrong understanding of liberty and its necessity.

Thus it is that your rhetoric and your politics are completely, unalterably, and unmistakably wrong.

Click to expand...

Gee I thought I said he didn't understand liberty.

Harry Guerrilla said:

I own the factory I work at. My ownership is represented with shares of stock but I own a portion non the less.

The same goes with banks unless its a credit union, in that scenario the account holders are the owners.



They had to do something to get to that point in life.

They didn't just wake up and say I'll make a few calls and become a corporate CEO today.

When you manage a business of that size there is a lot of responsibility and pressure.

Just look at the former CEO of Freddie Mac, he killed himself and he was a freaking millionaire.

Click to expand...

I think the baby boomer generation represents a lot of people who worked hard for their money, but post-baby boomer generation represents a bunch of people who are handed down old money.

Second to that, in hard economic times it makes much more sense to tax those who can afford it than to increase taxes on the lower brackets who clearly cannot endure anymore.

And finally, given that in most Western nations, legislated wage increases are becoming less and less frequent yet inflation continues to proceed, I support taxing the rich to provide further government services and projects that help the poor.

There's no point in having a society or civilization if the burden is not distributed fairly. Community is already disappearing with the rise of urbanization around the world, and given how the effects of globalization are causing economic chain reactions like the current global recession, the rich must step in and fill the gap for the problems they created. These are the consequences of neo-liberalization.

Orius said:

Some of the richest people in society are corporate execs, and what do they do that's so important that warrants them having tens of millions of dollars to their name? Doctors, teachers, engineers, the people who do the real work and build societies, make much less than people who own the banks, and who own the factories.

I don't feel the need to shed a tear when the people getting a free ride on the labour of others are suddenly taxed higher for their overinflated earnings. There is no threat to the economy by doing so. So execs. will make $500 000 per year instead of $1 million. Oh no, how awful!

Click to expand...

The problem Orius mate is that the rich and corporations don't actually pay much in taxes, the tax system in fact helps to support them, big business and economic consolidation. The rich and corps can far more easily push their tax burden onto others and they get enough from the state to offset it anyway.

For instance take one of the myriad examples; did you know that heavy trucks do just about 100% of roadbed damage and yet in the US these vehicles and their owners pay less than 50% of the money to maintain the road system? (figures take from Kevin Carson's Organisation Theory: A libertarian perspective.)The subsidies to industry, and particularly large industry are immense.

This idea of large taxes for the rich is not going to achieve much and is trying to use the system they control against them while leaving them with still most of the control.

You'd do better to lower the amount of state intervention in the economy and the level of gov't a lot of thing take place at, sure start with those that more obviously benefit the wealthy but when they are gone a lot of the rest will be less necessary anyway.

Orius said:

I think the baby boomer generation represents a lot of people who worked hard for their money, but post-baby boomer generation represents a bunch of people who are handed down old money.

Second to that, in hard economic times it makes much more sense to tax those who can afford it than to increase taxes on the lower brackets who clearly cannot endure anymore.

And finally, given that in most Western nations, legislated wage increases are becoming less and less frequent yet inflation continues to proceed, I support taxing the rich to provide further government services and projects that help the poor.

There's no point in having a society or civilization if the burden is not distributed fairly. Community is already disappearing with the rise of urbanization around the world, and given how the effects of globalization are causing economic chain reactions like the current global recession, the rich must step in and fill the gap for the problems they created. These are the consequences of neo-liberalization.

Click to expand...

You are largely right although I do think the decline of community(See Robert Nisbet's The Quest for Community.) predates neo-liberalism, even though that has accelerated it and I don't believe the state alone by far can replace it or reconstitute it. What we need is a reflowering of healthy, small-scale or federative voluntary and "natural" associations harmed by the rise of the state, urbanisation and industrialism in my opinion.

Orius said:

I think the baby boomer generation represents a lot of people who worked hard for their money, but post-baby boomer generation represents a bunch of people who are handed down old money.

Click to expand...

I'm going to have to disagree with this considering the U.S. gov is spending bucket loads just on them.

The younger generation is being left with the bill.

Orius said:

Second to that, in hard economic times it makes much more sense to tax those who can afford it than to increase taxes on the lower brackets who clearly cannot endure anymore.

Click to expand...

It makes even better sense to save for hard times or cut spending.

Orius said:

And finally, given that in most Western nations, legislated wage increases are becoming less and less frequent yet inflation continues to proceed, I support taxing the rich to provide further government services and projects that help the poor.

Click to expand...

Wages have gone up very well in the past 20 years.

Orius said:

There's no point in having a society or civilization if the burden is not distributed fairly. Community is already disappearing with the rise of urbanization around the world, and given how the effects of globalization are causing economic chain reactions like the current global recession, the rich must step in and fill the gap for the problems they created. These are the consequences of neo-liberalization.

Click to expand...

I agree that is why requiring one group to pay a larger percentage isn't fair by any means.

CLASS ENVY ALERT

For the life of me I cannot understand the preoccupation with what OTHER PEOPLE EARN.

The envious nature of such individuals and groups.
As if knocking down the wealthy will help their lives... when in fact it has the opposite effect.

To me such behavior is like mental HIV... the brain is tainted with a virtually incurable disease called jealousy.
Fortunately there is a cure for Mental HIV/Jealousy:
Personal responsibility, embracing free markets... and Liberty.

Orius said:

Some of the richest people in society are corporate execs, and what do they do that's so important that warrants them having tens of millions of dollars to their name?

Click to expand...

Obviously somebody or some board believed their stewardship was worth the money; it's called supply and demand. There are a lot of teachers, but few that can run a billion dollar corporation.

Doctors, teachers, engineers, the people who do the real work and build societies, make much less than people who own the banks, and who own the factories.

Click to expand...

And what do you want? These people to benefit from the labor of others?

You obviously have never started a business... had sleepless nights thinking about making payroll, how to better the company, how to secure jobs by making huge profit. I get the impression you think businesses open and... Voila monsieur, here is your profit.

I don't feel the need to shed a tear when the people getting a free ride on the labour of others are suddenly taxed higher for their overinflated earnings. There is no threat to the economy by doing so. So execs. will make $500 000 per year instead of $1 million. Oh no, how awful!

Click to expand...

Who are you to decide what"overinflated" is?

And if you aren't deciding... who does?
How about Mr. Market...?

Everyone is free to choose their role in life... nobody is forcing anyone to be a teacher, janitor, business owner... YET.

.

Click to expand...

Wessexman said:

The problem Orius mate is that the rich and corporations don't actually pay much in taxes, the tax system in fact helps to support them, big business and economic consolidation. The rich and corps can far more easily push their tax burden onto others and they get enough from the state to offset it anyway.

Click to expand...

You may be one of the few people I've met that realize this. Often those who decry the tax system as being "unfair" to the rich fail to realize just how the tax system is written by the rich to favor the rich.

You may be interested in this post from another place

Laila said:

Haha, i'm not a socialist and no i don't think 70% is acceptable, i think it's ridiculous actually seeing the mortages here are off the rails.

Okay you drive a hard bargain, If i do 3 of those on the list, can i skip the 70% taxes?

Click to expand...

Ah... no.

Taxes come first.
You can skip the taxes after you've died... I ... er ... mean... after we've taxed your death.

.

obvious Child said:

You may be one of the few people I've met that realize this. Often those who decry the tax system as being "unfair" to the rich fail to realize just how the tax system is written by the rich to favor the rich.

You may be interested in this post from another place

Click to expand...

Our loyal defender of the existing tax code rises from the mire yet again.

And you shirk at being called a socialist... my, my.

PS. I'm Curious Obvious Child... how is your moveon.org poll doing about members in DP?
I'm really, really, really curious as to where I stand... Not.
LOL.

Have a great weekend.

zimmer said:

Our loyal defender of the existing tax code rises from the mire yet again.

Click to expand...

Amusing. What I have defended is use of the tax code to help business. Given your utter failure in the other thread and your inability to actually cite any specifics whatsoever, all you really have is blanket statements. No actual understanding of the tax code.

And you shirk at being called a socialist... my, my.

Click to expand...

What more annoys me is your love for unilaterally redefining terms to suit your argument. You essentially called me a Socialist for wanting to fund an agency to get tax cheats to pay up. I didn't know that balancing budgets by enforcing existing tax code is "Socialist."

PS. I'm Curious Obvious Child... how is your moveon.org poll doing about members in DP?

Click to expand...

Not sure what you're talking about. However, you may want to check out my thread on Leftist agenda to see just how inaccurate your belief system is.

obvious Child said:

You may be one of the few people I've met that realize this. Often those who decry the tax system as being "unfair" to the rich fail to realize just how the tax system is written by the rich to favor the rich.

You may be interested in this post from another place

Click to expand...

Very interesting.

You should check out the work of Kevin Carson.

Here's his blog.

Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism

And these works are very interesting and relatred.

Check out part two of this work.

Studies in Mutualist Political Economy

And this one is fantastic and on how the system, and I mean the entire gov't-corporate apparatus, benefits large corporations.

Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism: Organization Theory: An Individualist Anarchist Perspective

Wessexman said:

The problem Orius mate is that the rich and corporations don't actually pay much in taxes, the tax system in fact helps to support them, big business and economic consolidation. The rich and corps can far more easily push their tax burden onto others and they get enough from the state to offset it anyway.

Click to expand...

Which is why there is so much protest now that they are about to be taxed more.

Wessexman said:

For instance take one of the myriad examples; did you know that heavy trucks do just about 100% of roadbed damage and yet in the US these vehicles and their owners pay less than 50% of the money to maintain the road system? (figures take from Kevin Carson's Organisation Theory: A libertarian perspective.)The subsidies to industry, and particularly large industry are immense.

Click to expand...

Under this argument, it would make more sense to tax people or companies according to their exact burden to society... but such a system would be difficult or impossible to implement.

Wessexman said:

This idea of large taxes for the rich is not going to achieve much and is trying to use the system they control against them while leaving them with still most of the control.

Click to expand...

This is an interesting perspective. The government is technically supposed to be separate from the rich elites, but I have always believed they are intrinsically linked. Even so, taking money from the rich is still putting it into the public system which is accessed by all.

Wessexman said:

You'd do better to lower the amount of state intervention in the economy and the level of gov't a lot of thing take place at, sure start with those that more obviously benefit the wealthy but when they are gone a lot of the rest will be less necessary anyway.

Click to expand...

Lack of state intervention in economy is why we are having a global recession stemming from the U.S. More regulation of business and not less is what is needed to stem future disasters. Mostly, I think greed just needs to be checked, but since corporations basically control government now, I see no end to it.

I am in favor of capitalism but not corporatism.

Harry Guerrilla said:

I'm going to have to disagree with this considering the U.S. gov is spending bucket loads just on them.

Click to expand...

Right but that's because of consistent deregulation over the course of several government administrations. Businesses will always seek profit but the ways in which they are allowed to are shaped by government.

Harry Guerrilla said:

The younger generation is being left with the bill.

Click to expand...

Yeah.... no one seems to think ahead anymore.

Harry Guerrilla said:

It makes even better sense to save for hard times or cut spending.

Click to expand...

Relating to my previous comment, saving for the future is the last thing government and corporations are capable of. Quarterly reports are the extent of their longterm financial vision.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Wages have gone up very well in the past 20 years.

Click to expand...

In the Western world the gap between rich and poor has been increasing for some time, and part of this has to do with the disparity between inflation and wage adjustments.

Income Gap Of Poor, Rich, Widens - CBS News

Harry Guerrilla said:

I agree that is why requiring one group to pay a larger percentage isn't fair by any means.

Click to expand...

It's fair in principle because they can afford it.

Though I am now giving more thought to what Wessex said. If the rich are the government, and the government writes the tax code, then reverting to local economy with less government would be the best way to subvert this system.

Orius said:

Right but that's because of consistent deregulation over the course of several government administrations. Businesses will always seek profit but the ways in which they are allowed to are shaped by government.

Click to expand...

I'm happiest when everything is equally deregulated.

When deregulation happens in only one sector we get things like the housing bubble.

Orius said:

Yeah.... no one seems to think ahead anymore.

Click to expand...

I'm very unhappy with what has and still is transpiring.

Orius said:

Relating to my previous comment, saving for the future is the last thing government and corporations are capable of. Quarterly reports are the extent of their longterm financial vision.

Click to expand...

They could if they wanted to.

Corporate growth would be slower but more steady if they borrowed less and saved more.

Orius said:

In the Western world the gap between rich and poor has been increasing for some time, and part of this has to do with the disparity between inflation and wage adjustments.

Income Gap Of Poor, Rich, Widens - CBS News

Click to expand...

The numbers for the income gap and always skewed from what I've read before.

If you lump in a billionaire with millionaires it will draw a bad picture.

Orius said:

It's fair in principle because they can afford it.

Though I am now giving more thought to what Wessex said. If the rich are the government, and the government writes the tax code, then reverting to local economy with less government would be the best way to subvert this system.

Click to expand...

That doesn't make it fair.

I agree with Wessexman because local taxes means local control.

Orius said:

Though I am now giving more thought to what Wessex said. If the rich are the government, and the government writes the tax code, then reverting to local economy with less government would be the best way to subvert this system.

Click to expand...

Well I certainly recommend you check out those links I gave above and this one. It pretty much is the same as one of those but shorter.

The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand

It is Kevin Carson's The Iron Fist behind the invisible hand and very informative, it is mainly historical but does show the continued state intervention on behalf of large organisations and the rich. I mean he does use the term free market in that annoying way like it is something separate from any given society and has a life of its own, I prefer just to talk about free societies and individuals but apart from that he is a very good author even if all his solutions(he is an individualist anarchist in the tradition of Proudhon, Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker.) are not for everyone(including myself.)

Which is why there is so much protest now that they are about to be taxed more.

Click to expand...

Protest from who? As Obvious child showed in that link many of the rich don't even care or support getting taxed further.

I don't think that by taxing them punitively that something cannot be achieved but it does seem a very roundabout way to me. It is like using a system set up to benefit them against them without really getting rid of most of their control of it.

In my opinion you'd do better removing or lowering most taxes and implementing a Georgist land value tax system(which would really hit the rich but justly and efficiently and where they can't avoid it or move the burden), hopefully collected locally, and perhaps having tariffs get the rest of the revenue needed, I'd then remove corporate personhood and privileges and scale back corporate welfare until I'd removed it completely. This would be the first parts of any economic changes I'd make.

Under this argument, it would make more sense to tax people or companies according to their exact burden to society... but such a system would be difficult or impossible to implement.

Click to expand...

Well yes that could be a solution or you could simply withdraw the support to them by lessening gov't involvement in the economy but starting rather than with welfare payments that help the poor, while of course keeping them more controlable, starting with corporate wealthfare.

This is an interesting perspective. The government is technically supposed to be separate from the rich elites, but I have always believed they are intrinsically linked. Even so, taking money from the rich is still putting it into the public system which is accessed by all.

Click to expand...

Yes, the gov't and the elites have many many cross-overs. They are not the same thing, it is not a conspiracy or Marx's executive council of the ruling classes but the clout the business elites wield is still immense.

You can pursue this agenda by taxing the rich punitively and even by trying to get hold of the system but to me that is inherently dangerous and is ultimately counter-productive. Far better to dismantle the centralised-system that supports the rich and have more less gov't, more local power in my book.

Lack of state intervention in economy is why we are having a global recession stemming from the U.S. More regulation of business and not less is what is needed to stem future disasters. Mostly, I think greed just needs to be checked, but since corporations basically control government now, I see no end to it.

Click to expand...

Actually there was always massive gov't regulation in the economy, there was only a lack in a few areas. Basically it is a battle between liberal corporatism and neo-liberalism. They are both very interventionist(for instance Congress' own report showed that in 1980 direct subsidies to industry were larger than corporate profits.) but they are slightly different.

The former(liberal-corporatism seen particularly in the post-war decades) is about a shared agreement between big gov't, big business and big labour and a management of the economy through these outlets whereas neo-liberalism is simply about a more dominant role for big business, particularly at the expense of big labour. The later is slightly more dynamic in areas, it called for the end of protectionism and some areas of liberal-corporatist economic regulation but one should not think that it is particularly less interventionist. Corporate subsidies and supports are still massive.

I am in favor of capitalism but not corporatism.

Click to expand...

Personally I'd get rid of corporate personhood and privileges or make them guild-like where their privileges and special statuses actually serves society.

From some dude named Daewoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Ironically enough, "the rich" seem to agree. Soros, Gates, Buffet, and dozens of others have literally directly lobbied congress to raise their taxes. Polls done among the wealthy have shown OVERWHELMING support for increased taxation for the upper class....over 89% of those in the top 10% of earners agree.

Click to expand...

ROTFLMFAO
Polls done among the wealthy... wanting to pay more taxes... Yes... and i see Daewoooooooooooooooooooooooo has difficulty finding a link for all these polls. Was it a 3-man poll with the leftists noted?

If these wise guys want to pay more, why not just the give the money to the government... like a charity? Nothing is stopping them... the hypocrites.

Why did Buffett not give his fortune to The US Government instead of The Gates Foundation.

Soros, Gates and Buffett (Daewooooo... Buffett... (with two tees.)
Nice collection of leftists, but the interesting thing is their behavior in the market; all are vultures and looking for tax breaks for their companies. LOL.
Buffett Battles Bush as Corporate-Jet Owners Fight Tax Increase - Bloomberg.com

Top 1% pay 39%
86% of ll Fed Income taxes paid by top 25%
Top 50% pay 97% of taxes.

Source: CBO

Click to expand...

Wealthy people generally know a lot about money and how the system works and they have figured out what the ###### in the middle class apparently have not.

Click to expand...

It's called education; and in what should be a Capitalist society it is criminal it's not taught to students from about the 3rd grade onwards.

Instead we get nothing or the opposite.

If you want to keep the system rolling along, somebody has to pay for it.

Click to expand...

What system? The tons of Eurosocialism gumming up our government?

No, let's kill it off before keeping it rolling along.

Trying to tax the poor is stupid, and frankly the middle class does not have enough money to worry about it.

Click to expand...

No definition of poor? What is "poor"?
Do you mean those with a living standard lower then the BEST EU countries?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...-dmTCg&usg=AFQjCNHc4unRR--3LonVq-cgGi7djAxjlw

What is stupid is putting all you eggs in one basket, as we have and others have done; not spreading the responsibility around if you're going to play this ridiculous game of tax and redistribute.

What happens when the Golden Geese stop laying the Golden Eggs, and/or pack up and fly away?
Then what?
Then you've got massive problems.
MASSIVE because the gummed up system is like a baby bird with it's yap open... always seeking food... and when there isn't enough... to pay for the entitlements and debt... then what? Disaster.
It's why some EU countries need immigrants badly, and what they're getting isn't quality, high grade ore that will dump huge chunks of cash in the government coffers.
The people they want and need aren't stupid... society is mobile, and they exploit this mobility for their own interests. Instead of staying, they're leaving.
We are after all... individuals.

I'll tell you another secret, the wealthy would rather see the middle class hold on to their money so they can buy a new plasma screen TV, which some wealthy guy (or a company owned or controlled by them) will import and mark up 400%.

Click to expand...

Well you're full of secrets, but no links. Secret links?
Psssssssssssssst. Here's another secret.
You don't know the wealthy.
The wealthy want to hold onto their money too.
I've spent enough time around those with significant wealth from millions to tens of and hundreds of millions; I don't know any that believe they are undertaxed, or would want to pay more. Quite the opposite, and it's understandable... it's human nature.

Of course the middle class guy will not have enough money to actually pay for such a thing, but no worries, some other wealthy guy will be happy to finance it for him at 17%.

Click to expand...

No, of course not.
The middle class guy is too dumb to save his money or exhibit self control.
He's Bill Clinton but instead of having a penis problem way beyond his control, "The middle class guy" has a financial problem... he just can't help but insert his credit card into every slot he can find... pay ridiculous rates, and sign punitive contracts.

Correction to the quote above: The middle class liberal guy just might be too dumb to save.

In the immortal words of Bill Gates...."As long as I have a billion dollars in my checking account I will probably be OK"

Click to expand...

In the immortal words of Bill Gates...
"It's fine to celebrate success but it is more important to heed the lessons of failure."

Seems like he hasn't heeded too much.
His belief system keeps investing in a failed political philosophy... until THAT IS... it is HIS money... his PROFIT. Then we see different behaviors.

obvious Child said:

Amusing. What I have defended is use of the tax code to help business. Given your utter failure in the other thread and your inability to actually cite any specifics whatsoever, all you really have is blanket statements. No actual understanding of the tax code.

Click to expand...

Try again Mr. Social engineer. It's in that tax Code thread. All there in black and white.

What more annoys me is your love for unilaterally redefining terms to suit your argument. You essentially called me a Socialist for wanting to fund an agency to get tax cheats to pay up. I didn't know that balancing budgets by enforcing existing tax code is "Socialist."

Click to expand...

I think you live to be annoyed.

Is it the center of your existence?
I called you a socialist for you social engineering desires, for you only wanting to play with the fringes of the tax code, and for your desire to make THE LARGEST GOVERNMENT AGENCY EVEN LARGER...

ROTFLMFAO.

Would you like to try again?

Not sure what you're talking about. However, you may want to check out my thread on Leftist agenda to see just how inaccurate your belief system is.

Click to expand...

Of course you're not sure what I'm talking about.
Playing coy are we?

You believe you have all this brilliance, and in one thread, from start to finish called me both stupid and ignorant (which is fine... I'm a big boy and won't go crying to Mommy)... but now you fail to "connect the dots", the very obvious dots?

LOL.

Come, come Real Man of Genius, strap on your cappy and think about it a little.

Pssst. The answer is right before you eyes.

Ironically enough, "the rich" seem to agree. Soros, Gates, Buffet, and dozens of others have literally directly lobbied congress to raise their taxes. Polls done among the wealthy have shown OVERWHELMING support for increased taxation for the upper class....over 89% of those in the top 10% of earners agree.

Click to expand...

As I thought, Dawooooooooooooooo's poll wasn't a poll at all, just a few leftists testifying before Congress.

Interesting how these "polls" are created from imagination.

Seems Duhwoo got his lunch handed to him.

.

WE should be happy thats all, if Pelosi and Obama had their way we would be taxed at around 80%