<p>Can a democracy function (as intended) with so much wealth in so few hands?
What checks and balances are in place for a situation like this?
Is re-distribution of wealth a basic premise of democracy in theory?
In practice> </p>
<p>Can capitalism function properly with so much wealth in few hands?</p>
<p>Did Lobbyists always exist?</p>
<p>Dadx: I assume, when you say 47% of the population pays no federal taxes, that you have forgotten about social security taxes (at 6.2%), which all workers pay on the first $107,000 of their income, and medicare taxes (1.45% with no limit)? Or are you claiming that 47% of the population does not work at all? I could see that being a possibility, but I would argue that children need not work, the elderly have worked, and that very few spouses never work at all.</p>
<p>I don’t count the payroll deductions for FICA (federal insurance contributions act), since its an insurance premium that provides direct benefits to the contributor, and is segregated from the overall budget that runs the country. Similarly, I don’t think medicare counts as taxes either.</p>
<p>I’m not sure about the percentage of the population that works. I simply know that the recent statistics show that of the people who file tax returns, only about 53% pay any federal taxes at all. My guess would be that if you aggregated the population into federal income tax paying households and otherwise, an even larger percentage of the population does not pay federal income tax since not all non-taxpayers file returns. </p>
<p>They do get to vote though. </p>
<p>Here’s a NYT article about it from a while back. I don’t agree with the analysis as he has to contort himself to come to the desperately needed (for him) conclusion that FICA is a tax, but you’ll get the idea and see why people of a certain persuasion like to ignore that fact, or rewrite it in terms that fit their template. </p>
<p>[Yes</a>, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes. Look Closer. - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html]Yes”>Yes, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes. Look Closer. - The New York Times)</p>
<p>dadx, that’s a nonsensical argument at best. Most of these people do pay taxes. The calculation of current tax rates is such that many of them get the amount they paid returned to them. These folks are deemed to not pay taxes, because it zeros out.</p>
<p>And, as others have pointed out, and as the majority of people in this country are generally aware, only the amount of income excess of the cut-off is not subject to soc sec taxes.</p>
<p>Being subject to Congress’ power to tax does not imply any particular percentage is owed.</p>
<p>Re: Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes</p>
<p>It does seem rather odd, considering that employment and jobs seem to be on so many people’s minds, that neither the left nor the right seem to be thinking about whether it makes sense to tax jobs specifically (with a payroll tax), since it causes a disincentive to create jobs (because hiring an employee costs more due to the payroll tax).</p>
<p>Well if you want quote Franklin how about this one:
</p>
<p>All the greedy people today who want endless government benefits paid for by someone else have fulfilled Franklin’s quote.</p>
<p>Last I looked…SS was a federal tax…</p>
<p>I agree with ucbalumnus…why are we taxing labor so much when we have a shortage of jobs?</p>
<p>Not only does labor pay higher income taxes than capital (capital gains) but labor also has the additional SS tax.</p>
<p>Which is one reason secretaries pay taxes at higher rates than billionaires.</p>
<p>Of course…billionaires make the rules…not secretatries.</p>
<p>They don’t have to vote themselves money if the government redistributes it.</p>
<p>(By the way, if you can find a source for that quote, I’d appreciate it. The earliest I can come up for it is 1988, and he’d been dead almost 200 years. So I’d appreciate it, please.)</p>
<p>Bookmarked…trying to keep up…</p>
<p>Razorsharp, are you saying SS beneficiaries are asking for a government handout?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Great argument except for the fact that it isn’t true.</p>
<p>Actually…it is true…</p>
<p>So…are you saying SS beneficiaries are asking for a handout?</p>
<p>
Social Security is welfare, purely and simply. It is not insurance, it is not a pension plan.</p>
<p>You have no right to receive a benefit. You have no vested interest. Your benefit can be raised, lowered, or even eliminated at Congress’ whim.</p>
<p>The benefit is marginally related to the amount of taxes you have paid in. If you are under 50, the return on your “investment” is likely to be less than zero.</p>
<p>If your return is less than zero…it is hard to state that SS is a handout… ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Secretaries have a lot more votes that even millionaires, let along billionaires. But, alas, more than a few of them agree with some of the principals that billionaires believe in. And in the end, that is the simple problem, for those who see it that way.</p>
<p>SS…</p>
<p>To make it simple…</p>
<p>A person pays 7,000 a year for 30 years…</p>
<p>Then collects equal annual payments for 30 years…</p>
<p>If rates of return are 5% a year…</p>
<p>What should the SS recipient receive each year?</p>
<p>
Whatever Congress says you should get.</p>
<p>There is no investment, no rate of return.</p>
<p>It’s welfare.</p>
<p>Secretaries have only a single vote, and that only every few years. Billionaires have enormous political clout and peddle influence that goes far beyond their individual vote. Certainly you’re not arguing otherwise.</p>
<p>Notrichenough…</p>
<p>Now SS is welfare? </p>
<p>Ok…</p>
<p>It’s good to read how others think. :)</p>
<p>“It’s welfare.”</p>
<p>No, it’s income redistribution, from Black men who for 60 years didn’t live long enough to collect to my mother the “job creator”.</p>