<p>So what? I don’t see how any of this conflicts with anything I’ve said or counters any point I’ve made.</p>
<p>The actual percentage each group pays can only be taken in the context of their wealth, unless you somehow believe that everyone should pay the same amount of taxes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually we can. As long as the increase in the debt is less than the inflation rate, the real debt slightly decreases.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who said I didn’t believe in increasing taxes? The debate here is over the structure of the system, not the level of taxation. And I think certain social benefits could be decreased. There’s certainly been a lot of wasteful military spending recently.</p>
<p>No, only if the increase in debt + interest expense owed on the debt < inflation, then real debt declines. This should never occur, because there is no reason that an investor/country will agree to get interest in US dollars that is less than the expected inflation of the currency!</p>
<p>If real debt decreases, then investors lost money on T-bills. No investor would willingly allow real debt to decrease by accepting T-bills with interest rates below inflation–it would be coincidental good luck for the government and back luck for anyone who invested in the government.</p>
<p>Not to mention that if everyone believed that inflation could resolve the debt crisis without consequence then we would simply print money as needed. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You stated that the article only mentioned income taxes and that this disregarded the other taxes poor people pay. But the article was showing where the tax revenue comes from. If the other taxes have even a greater proportion of revenue coming from the upper class, then it means that the rich fund even a greater proportion of the overall tax revenue (as opposed to just income tax revenue).</p>
<p>^If that’s not elitist, I don’t know what is.</p>
<p>And now I’m the idealist? Do you honestly think stable society with low-income workers can be realized without some form or wealth redistribution? So much for keeping our “dirty lil socialist hands” off your money, eh?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Allow me to explain for the third time now, that’s NOT what I argued. When I say “integrated”, I mean that a company is a part (not necessarily a permanent part) of the society’s political, social, and economic structure.</p>
<p>The “elitist” comment was regarding how you seemed to be dismissive of the role entry-level/low-level jobs play in our society.</p>
<p>Stating that outsourcing US jobs creates an environment that allows workers to become more specialized is foolish. Perhaps in theory - but not in reality.</p>
<p>When jobs are outsourced, it 1) Causes the current employee a lose of income, 2) Raises unemployment, 3) Creates fewer jobs for people entering the workforce, 4) Eliminates an outlet for unskilled workers to gain an income, 5) A greater burden on our social services.</p>
<p>Do you honestly think stable society with low-income workers can be realized without some form or wealth redistribution? ~ The Ascendancy</p>
<hr>
<p>It depends on your definition of stable.</p>
<p>If stable means independent, then yes - absolutely. Because overtime, the low-income workers build equity in a company, which in turn provides pay increases, promotion, benefits, and a better quality of life - assuming they are a good employee. </p>
<p>I mean - it really depends on your goal for society? Do you want everyone living in a 3 bedroom home with a plasma screen and a swimming pool? If so, then no - low level jobs can’t support that kind of society.</p>
<p>But it can certainly support a self-sustaining one, an independent one.</p>
<p>Incentives matter. Creative Destruction: good (until it arrives on ur front door. Then its time to lobby lobby lobby).
I just want to point out that while the top 1% may have the most WEALTH, they DO NOT have the most income. Consider the following scenario: An oil tycoon sits at home, effectively earning no income until he realizes his capital gains via stocks. Mean while, a Medical Doctor is earning 500k a year doing X-rays and MRI’s like there is no tomorrow.</p>
<p>The oil tycoon has more wealth, but the MD has more income. The MD is taxed more than the Tycoon. Wealth =/= Income. Wealth is assets while Income is a flow concept.</p>
<p>Thus on a large scale, the “richest people” with the vast majority of wealth often earn LESS than those with no wealth. Just clarifying for those arguing that the richest should pay proportionate amounts to their wealth.</p>
<p>Wealth is irrelevant towards taxation. Mainly since it is accrued throughout many generations, it has already been taxed. Taxing on the basis of wealth is double taxation. Any attempt to impose taxation based on wealth would make the wealthy, those endowed with resources, motivated enough to wage the greatest political warfare ever waged.</p>
<p>This isn’t entirely accurate. On the federal level, there are estate taxes (for multi-generational wealth). On the municipality level, there are property taxes. Also, gift taxes, while technically being taxed on a transfer, is basically a tax on accumulated assets–the transfer had no exchange.</p>
<p>So, I guess this accentuates your point. Tax revenues come from both income and assets. Those with large amounts of both are taxed most heavily. </p>
<p>But I think estate taxes are actually most reasonable. An estate is taxed when an heir (that didn’t earn the wealth) receives it, so it has no effect on the incentives to earn profits.</p>
<p>^^^
Well seeing as rich people have a strong incentive to keep their money, they will utilize tax reduction methods.</p>
<p>One of such is simply selling the house and buy stocks before death. Bequesting stocks and other financial instruments is completely tax free. Thus it is possible to transfer large amounts of wealth with little taxes and outside fees. Correct me if i am wrong.</p>
<p>I’m fairly confident stocks should be included in your estate. The only exemption I’m aware of is when the estate transfers to spouse (tax-free) and certain things like life insurance in the name of a specific person isn’t part of the estate. And of course debts are deducted and such.</p>
<p>But you’re right: I would expect anyone with a large estate to be lying in their deathbed clutching a whole bunch of stock certificates after they just signed the short term lease for their rental property if that were the case. Which is why it’d be a ridiculous loophole.</p>
<p>Somehow, taking money from rich people who have worked hard to educate themselves and guarantee a secure lifestyle for themselves and their families, and giving it to other people who haven’t the slightest interest in doing anything but rely on the government for services seems wrong to me. It punishes the hard workers and rewards the lazy.</p>
<p>Somehow, taking money from rich people who have worked hard to educate themselves and guarantee a secure lifestyle for themselves and their families, and giving it to other people who haven’t the slightest interest in doing anything but rely on the government for services seems wrong to me. It punishes the hard workers and rewards the lazy. ~ Cuse0507</p>
<p>This is Norman Thomas. He was the leader of the Socialist party in the first half on the 1900s. Pay particular attention to the part of the article about Communism, where it talks about how he not only hated Communism, but that Stalin TRIED TO HAVE HIM ASSASSINATED because he was such a vocal anti-Communist. </p>
<p>My point is not that Socialism is correct, but that your gross, uneducated, and uninformed accusations are laughably false. As Norman Thomas’s great great granddaughter (and an ardent liberal), I know FOR A FACT that he did not, in fact, want to “wipe out free markets, or put industry in the hands of the government.” I also know that he was a staunch anti-Communist because my great grandmother, his daughter, is still alive and talks about him wfrequently, as does my grandmother (his granddaughter). Again I’m not saying that I agree with Socialism - I think it is a flawed economic policy - but I find it extremely insulting when you lump all liberals, Socialists, and ardent Communists into one group.</p>
<p>You’ll probably ignore this post, but I needed to say it.</p>
<p>BIGeastBEAST, I don’t understand why you’re still posting on this thread. You’ve made some of the dumbest assertions I’ve ever come across. </p>
<p>I mean, supporting the Tea Party movement is bad enough, though still somewhat defensible, but everything else you said proves your idiocy.</p>
<p>Really, do you think our government is dumb enough to wipe out the free market? Who the **** taught you that? That hurts not only our country, but the administration’s public image too. Even your fellow fiscal conservatives are calling you stupid. Please, do all sensible people a favor and stop talking politics.</p>
<p>Oh, and I love the ACLU being Communist part. HAH! Brown v. Board sure is about that good ol’ proletariat revolution, isn’t it? Who was your high school government teacher? I need to punch that guy for letting such an idiot pass his class.</p>
<p>Hell, your description of “communism” and “socialism” shows that you have NO idea what any of those terms mean. Even socialists want a (controlled) free market. You probably sit around listening to Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin get on their soapbox and throw around empty terms like ‘socialism’ to spread fear. You think you know what anything means? Think again.</p>
<p>Oh and
</p>
<p>All I have to say to that is: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!</p>
<p>I also love how you assume everyone becomes a part of the “elite” when they get elected. LOL! </p>
<p>Oh and “Comrade Obama” and “dirty lil socialist hands”? You might just be stupid enough to apply for a position on Fox News! Congratulations! Now go spread fear with empty words you don’t understand to fellow empty-minded citizens like yourself.</p>
<p>You completely rehash your arguments. You don’t incorporate anything the logical opposition has said. Even when someone justifies taxes sensibly, all you can think of is the same thing Glenn Beck told you: ■■■■ TAXES LEAD US TO SOCIALISM!!! I MADE MY MONEY SO THE POOR PEOPLE CAN STARVE!!!</p>
<p>You say you graduated with a degree in Political Science? If that’s the case, all of your polisci professors need to be fired. ASAP. Where’d you get that degree? DeVry University? You don’t even understand FUNDAMENTAL political theory. How the HELL did someone like you graduate with a polisci degree? You can’t even understand what it means to abide by a social contract or give up certain individual liberties when you do so. You obviously have no idea what socialism is. You don’t understand that taxes = redistribution of wealth and that they ARE CONSTITUTIONAL.</p>
<p>Oh, here’s my favorite statement from you:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And you talk like you know what’s best for the country? You want to let the poor and incapable die on the streets! What type of conceited moron are you?</p>
<p>From the way you talk, ANYONE can tell that you obviously have NO idea what political science is about and that you obviously have NOT read ANY of philosophical texts you claim to have read.</p>
<p>So here, redeem yourself</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Tell me, BIGeastBEAST, what DID Rawls say? Do you even know? I mean, you said you read his book. Now enlighten me!</p>
<p>Otherwise, get off this thread. I honestly show your posts to my friends to give them a good laugh at how stupid people can be.</p>
<p>P.S.</p>
<p>What the hell is “pork belly” spending? Go read all your polisci books again, please, and come back when you have a clue what you’re talking about.</p>
<p>Thank you for your eloquent and well-thought out response to everything I have said. You have truly proved that you have an uncanny ability to respond reasonably to arguments and defend your own ideas.</p>
<p>BTW, so what if they do? He was one of the few people against the Japanese internment, and fought to end racial segregation and environmental persecution - basically a modern-day liberal. And if they do have a file on us, it sure hasn’t affected my life in any way, shape or form…I don’t even understand what you were trying to say.</p>
<p>NonAntiAnarchist, thanks. I’m proud of my heritage. Also, StudyStudyStudy, I think I love you. :)</p>