maporsch, As a matter of fact, I remember about five to seven years ago when the government was talking about estate taxes; most of the rich people said they were willing to pay more in estate taxes - not less. That included the paragons of "rich" like Bill Gates.
It's funny how some middle class conservatives keep telling us they already pay their fair share or more than the rest of society.
Cycloptichorn wrote: The rich pay more proportionately then the poor, but then again, they have a lot more money and security in their life. But that's not the same thing as saying 'rich people provide Cyclops with a job.' Not at all. The State of California provides me with a job.
Cycloptichorn
You are getting close to admitting something. If the rich people did not pay proportionately more taxes in California, either you would not have a job or many of your colleagues would not have a job, or none of you would. The State of California is supported by taxpayers. Without them, the government would have no job for you.
okie wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote: The rich pay more proportionately then the poor, but then again, they have a lot more money and security in their life. But that's not the same thing as saying 'rich people provide Cyclops with a job.' Not at all. The State of California provides me with a job.
Cycloptichorn
You are getting close to admitting something. If the rich people did not pay proportionately more taxes in California, either you would not have a job or many of your colleagues would not have a job, or none of you would. The State of California is supported by taxpayers. Without them, the government would have no job for you.
Without them the President would not have a job either.
I don't see your point.
Me either. If you want to point out that the rich pay more taxes in America then the poor do, well, so what?
Your arguments against progressive taxation don't equate to 'rich people provide jobs for everyone.' And certainly not for me.
Cycloptichorn
What conservatives on these threads forget so easily is the simple fact that the federal deficit is growing and out of control to save the wealthy their wealth - all during a time of war. If the president is responsible for the war and all the costs associated with it, why aren't conservatives willing to pay for it? Is the bigger federal deficit preferable to conservatives?
I forget about passing the limit for FICA "contributions". I would not mind paying FICA up to my total income level if it would help resolvent the SS system (and I believe it would. Many people get a totally free ride and have huge incomes that arent FICA taxed).
Even Bill GAtes was agreeable to that. (Course he has lotsa income thats not ordinary income but is deferred compensation)
cicerone imposter wrote:What conservatives on these threads forget so easily is the simple fact that the federal deficit is growing and out of control to save the wealthy their wealth - all during a time of war. If the president is responsible for the war and all the costs associated with it, why aren't conservatives willing to pay for it? Is the bigger federal deficit preferable to conservatives?
I hate this too. If the conservatives really want the deficit fixed (when they were in power anyway) there was plenty they could have done to fix it. They weren't willing to sacrifice the political votes that would have been lost by cutting programs like SS, medicare, etc or they weren't willing to sacrifice the money to run their propaganda campaigns by raising taxes....so they did nothing, actually they spent more.
There is no other conclusion than conservatives and republicans DO NOT want to fix the deficit. OR if they do, they can't get into power for the aforementioned reasons.
farmerman, The problem with increasing the FICA limits on social security is that our government spends that in the current budget rather than "saving" it to pay the liability in the future. Bush lied about social security going bankrupt if we don't change it into a contribution program, but all the experts exposed his lies by showing that there's enough in the social security "reserves" to pay it fully until 2041 and some decreases after that.
Congress must act and start to increase both the retirement age in small increments and increast the social security tax to keep it fully funded.
What Were the Trust Fund Results in 2006? In December 2006, 40.5 million people received OASI benefits, 8.6 million received DI benefits, and 43.2 million were covered under Medicare. Trust fund operations, in billions of dollars, are shown below (totals may not add due to rounding). All four trust funds showed net increases in assets in 2006.
....................................... OASI........ DI........ HI........ SMI
Assets (end of 2005) .. $1,663.0 .. $195.6.. $285.8.. $24.0
Income during 2006 ..... 642.2... 102.6// 211.5 225.5
Outgo during 2006....... 461.0..... 94.5.. 191.9 216.4
Net increase in assets . 181.3 ...... 8.2.... 19.6... 9.1
Assets (end of 2006).. 1,844.3..... 203.8.. 305.4.. 33.1
okie wrote: You are getting close to admitting something. If the rich people did not pay proportionately more taxes in California, either you would not have a job or many of your colleagues would not have a job, or none of you would. The State of California is supported by taxpayers. Without them, the government would have no job for you.
Not true. Some countries, such as Hong Kong, Slovakia, and Estonia, do have flat tax systems. Cycloptichorn's job, which I happen to know because I've met him in real life, would be a government job in those countries, too. It is also about as common there as it is in the US. So if you're insinuating that Cycloptichorn favors progressive taxes because his job depends on them, I can assure you that it doesn't.
I think it is generally a mistake to consider issues such as flat vs progressive taxes in isolation from other features of the economy and social structures of the country in question. They all interact and a tax policy (say) that delivers a net benefit under one system may not perform so well under another.
For example the United States has a large (perhaps too large) gradient & spread of incomes on the economic ladder. This is a factor associated with the relatively more competitive nature of our labor markets and related economic & social practices. Together, I believe these practices represrent a good adaptation to key historical facts -- long-term high levels of immigration & assimilation of new peoples & cultures, and a few generations ago, filling up the land. We also have generally high levels of compliance with taxes. Under these circumstances I believe a flat tax offers few good effects and several bad side effects. For us a progressive tax is better - it works reasonably well and it mitigates other motre competitive factors in our society.
In other countries where historical levels of investment and economic development are relatively low, and where compliance with a complex tax code may be lacking, a flat tax can offer significant benefits.
There is no universal "right" answer to such policy issues, taken in isolation from other factors.
I am not arguing for a progressive tax or not the last couple of pages. I simply pointed out that the rich are paying a large proportion of cyclops job, and without their tax money, he probably would not have a job. Not a complicated fact. Now, if cyclops wants to advocate a flat tax so that his job does not hinge on rich people paying his way, then I suggest he start arguing for that tax here. If he is not in favor of that, then he needs to be honest about who provides him the job. Conversely, if he would prefer the rich pay more so that the rich can foot virtually his entire paycheck, he is welcome to do that, and in fact that seems to be his philosophy.
okie wrote:I am not arguing for a progressive tax or not the last couple of pages. I simply pointed out that the rich are paying a large proportion of cyclops job, and without their tax money, he probably would not have a job. Not a complicated fact. Now, if cyclops wants to advocate a flat tax so that his job does not hinge on rich people paying his way, then I suggest he start arguing for that tax here. If he is not in favor of that, then he needs to be honest about who provides him the job.
Oh, I am being honest - the state of California provides me with a job. The fact that the Rich here in California pay a lot of taxes doesn't mean that they provide me with a job.
Okie, as the rich pay most of the taxes in America, is it your contention that every government job is really provided by the Rich? I think you need to study up on Public Funding if you truly believe this.
Cycloptichorn
No, the rich do not pay for everyone's job, but they pay for proportionately more jobs.
Flat tax; isn't that where a family of four making $50,000 a year pay the same percentage of their income to the government as a family making $50,000,000?
That would be one flat tax system, yes.
WOW! That really sounds fair doesn't it?
I am not arguing for that, xingu. Also, it is useful to point out that the guy making more money will still pay alot more tax under that scenario.
One reason I don't like the idea of a large percentage of people paying no tax is the fact that they have no vested interest in how the government budgets its money. It doesn't affect their pocket book so they would of course advocate more spending on their behalf. There are arguments for a progressive tax, but I simply point out one negative to it.
Not true. If people are too poor to pay tax they would have an interest in how the government spends its money. Health care for example. Should poor people be left to die because it's too expensive for rich people to pay taxes to help them?
People who are rich and don't pay taxes also are interested in the government but in their case its in keeping or enacting new laws that would allow them to dodge taxes.
I don't think a person who pays more taxes should have any more say in how those taxes are spent than the poor person. Since they both vote than their representatives should speak for them.
Even if we were to scrap the whole tax system today and put in place a flat tax it would be modified by special interest in just a few years. The rich and the corporations would get their tax breaks and the poor who can't afford the taxes will have their advocates trying to eliminate them. In the end you'll end up with basically what we have today.
xingu, you are actually drifting into another whole can of worms here, another subject, perhaps for another day, but didn't the founders originally require a person to own property in order to vote? Nobody would advocate that today, but it does raise an issue. The term, "taxation without representation," was the phrase behind the Boston Tea Party. So if you don't pay tax, do you deserve as much representation. Just a question. Of course everyone pays some kind of tax, especially sales tax. And everyone that works, except government, pays into the Social Security tax system, which is not progressive at all, it is in fact regressive.
My whole point here is that the rich are constantly demonized as selfish and greedy, when in fact they do pay more than their way, and now the percentage of people paying absolutely no income tax is approaching 50%. Is that actually a good thing in terms of being fully vested in wanting the government to spend its money wisely?
P. S. a little kid always wants the parent to buy an ice cream cone, because that kid does not make the money, the parent does. Thats what I am talking about in terms of being fully vested in wanting to spend the money wisely.
