Tax burden

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Basically, from an economic POV, it doesn't matter WHO has a lot of money and who doesn't as long as overall wealth increases, which it does in America (even after our inflating dollar). You can argue that those on welfare can't afford anything and whatever else, but that's not the fault of the economy, but of the government trying to provide them with more. From a government POV, of course they're going to take more from the wealthy, which they do. No one argues with that aspect. But those of us who are for lower government spending and lower taxes (in response to the lower government spending, not just a lower tax willy nilly) aren't saying we want more money for the wealthy, we want more money for EVERYONE.

That's the thing. It DOES matter who gets the money. If overall wealth increases by 10% but only 1% of the population gets it and the rest see nothing, I see a problem with that. A free market doesn't really care about distribution of wealth. The whole reason we exist in civlized socieites is because we can all benefit by doing so. If some people reap all of the benefits and some reap none, we should do something to change it. If you ONLY look at the pure theoretical economical issues, you are not seeing the big picture.

[7960]

Originally Posted by bheld

Actually, what matters more is if everybody else can buy more with their check this year. Your ego is showing.

I'm not talking about just me. Last fall real wages (adjusted for inflation) were up. This spring they were down. Since then they've been down, up, and flat.

You're making it sound like poor people have different problems now then they had a year ago. They don't.

But I'm sure you'd still like me to sign a blank check so you can solve someone else's problems with money that's not yours to spend.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by 7960

So?
Are you saying lower/middle class debt is a function of how much wealth the rich have?
If inflation-adjusted wages was up 1% does that mean wages are not keeping up with inflation?

Real wages are growing slowly - Jan. 30, 2006

So.................what? You want to take money from the rich and give it to the poor? You want to limit how much wealth one person can acquire?

What's your plan?

Let me start out by saying you're relying on BLS statistics which has basically become an outfit that cooks the books for politicians.

Debt is absolutely a function of how much the wealthy have! Are you serious? Who do you think is buying mortgage-backed securities and financing private student loans and credit cards and everything else? The poor?

The point is that this isn't something that will be able to continue on for much longer. We need sensible policies that will turn this around. The hunger for profit in this country has grown out of control and expanded to practices that are ultimately detrimental to our economy and to Americans.

[7960]

Originally Posted by bheld

The bottom line is that if you conservatives are going to give credence to this story, you have no business disputing the logical extension which is that there has been no time in our country's history in which the wealthy have had more.

You have yet to explain why this matters. What matters is how your real income compares now with what it was a year ago, two years ago, five years ago. How your pay compares with Gates' salary doesn't mean dick.

[bheld]

One other note is that from an economic point of view it absolutely DOES matter who has the money. Wealth distorts markets and huge imbalances result in a system in which everything but maximum profit is marginalized.

You see it now in our economy. Our economy is now almost exclusively service driven with the biggest players being those that handle money. There is so much extra wealth in this country that there is an entire industry devoted to maximizing it. How is that democracy? How is that a free market? Where are the people represented when they make up an increasingly irrelevant slice of the pie?

Capitalism REQUIRES a balanced distribution of resources. We're moving away from that and toward corporatism.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by 7960

I'm not talking about just me. Last fall real wages (adjusted for inflation) were up. This spring they were down. Since then they've been down, up, and flat.

You're making it sound like poor people have different problems now then they had a year ago. They don't.

But I'm sure you'd still like me to sign a blank check so you can solve someone else's problems with money that's not yours to spend.

The poor have always been poor. They're in the same boat they've always been in. What's changing is that the line that separates what is "poor" and what is "getting by" is consistently creeping up and more and more people are living paycheck to paycheck or one accident away from bankruptcy.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

That's the thing. It DOES matter who gets the money. If overall wealth increases by 10% but only 1% of the population gets it and the rest see nothing, I see a problem with that. A free market doesn't really care about distribution of wealth. The whole reason we exist in civlized socieites is because we can all benefit by doing so. If some people reap all of the benefits and some reap none, we should do something to change it. If you ONLY look at the pure theoretical economical issues, you are not seeing the big picture.

I'm sorry dude, but the increasing wealth of the nation disagrees with your assessment. Average wages have increased in all areas (bottom 40%, middle 20%, whatever else), not just one. The increase of wealth has NOT been happening in only one group. But remember, 1% increase for the wealthy is more dollars than even 5 or 10% of the poor. But I'm saying that shit don't matter.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I'm sorry dude, but the increasing wealth of the nation disagrees with your assessment. Average wages have increased in all areas (bottom 40%, middle 20%, whatever else), not just one. The increase of wealth has NOT been happening in only one group. But remember, 1% increase for the wealthy is more dollars than even 5 or 10% of the poor. But I'm saying that shit don't matter.

Where are you getting your numbers? That goes against everything I've seen.

[7960]

Originally Posted by bheld

Let me start out by saying you're relying on BLS statistics which has basically become an outfit that cooks the books for politicians.

Really. So the dept that's responsible for reporting a lot of these numbers is cooking the books.

Then I guess we have nothing further to discuss........unless you're ready to tell us your plan for how to redistribute wealth that isn't yours.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by bheld

The poor have always been poor. They're in the same boat they've always been in. What's changing is that the line that separates what is "poor" and what is "getting by" is consistently creeping up and more and more people are living paycheck to paycheck or one accident away from bankruptcy.

That is exacerbated by government programs, not fixed by them. Federally insuring risky activity, for instance, creates situations that lose money and who cares? It's the government's money, right?

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by bheld

Where are you getting your numbers? That goes against everything I've seen.

From links on these very forums. Where's 6speed, he's posted up some really good stuff in the past.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by bheld

Where are you getting your numbers? That goes against everything I've seen.

Also, you're not just thinking about tax cuts, right? Because a 2% tax cut isn't enough to affect anyone but the wealthy. Now, a 50% tax cut, that's going places right there.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by bheld

One other note is that from an economic point of view it absolutely DOES matter who has the money. Wealth distorts markets and huge imbalances result in a system in which everything but maximum profit is marginalized.

You see it now in our economy. Our economy is now almost exclusively service driven with the biggest players being those that handle money. There is so much extra wealth in this country that there is an entire industry devoted to maximizing it. How is that democracy? How is that a free market? Where are the people represented when they make up an increasingly irrelevant slice of the pie?

Capitalism REQUIRES a balanced distribution of resources. We're moving away from that and toward corporatism.

Firstly, we are NOT a free market. It's the federal government getting involved in the industries that you bitch the most about that cause bad shit.

Secondly, capitalism ONLY requires that the citizens own the means of production. That means that the government cannot step in and try to "fix" something because it simply cannot know how to fix it or even why it's happening (plus that would be altering the citizens owning the means of said production). It is the people's job to fix the market, because they are tied to it. They ARE it.

Some of the biggest companies spend boat-loads of money on "philanthropic investments." How does that fit in with your assessment of a market that only cares about profit? People will always give, with or without the government forcing them to.

[WickedLou9]

This guy knows nothing about money

Buffett*offers Clinton economic policy advice - Jun. 27, 2007

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton was all ears at a fundraiser Tuesday evening when famed billionaire investor Warren Buffett suggested ramping up the tax code on big businesses and the super rich.
....

Buffett said he makes $46 million a year in income and is only taxed at a 17.7 percent rate on his federal income taxes. By contrast, those who work for him, and make considerably less, pay on average about 32.9 percent in taxes - with the highest rate being 39.7 percent.

To emphasize his point, Buffett offered $1 million to the audience member who could show that one of the nation's wealthiest individuals pays a higher tax rate than one of their subordinates.
"I'm willing to bet anyone in this room $1 million that those rates are less than the secretary has to pay," said Buffett.

There is a million dollars on the line. Go get it.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

That is exacerbated by government programs, not fixed by them. Federally insuring risky activity, for instance, creates situations that lose money and who cares? It's the government's money, right?

I never said the government needs to insure risky activity, did I? I'm surprised you inferred that from my talk about people that get their lives destroyed by accidents. If you want to talk about insuring risky activity, take a look at our monetary policy and how we've insured risky activities for the financial sector for decades. We've given the wealthy and powerful carte blanche.

"Rate cuts to bail out the securities market? No problem. We have enough money to pay higher commodity prices and deal with a weak dollar."

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

This guy knows nothing about money

Buffett offers Clinton economic policy advice - Jun. 27, 2007





There is a million dollars on the line. Go get it.

Yeah, it's fucked up... if you think our incomes should be taxed at all

He pays so little probably because he makes so much in the market itself, and you can swing 15% on CGT if you play it right. Now, if they INCREASE CGT, that hurts people like me and you, and we're most certainly not rich! By taxing that method more, it just causes more oppression for those trying to get ahead and the people who are already ahead don't really care. Not to mention the effects it has on the market itself (when you affect people's returns, the risk factor changes).

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by bheld

I never said the government needs to insure risky activity, did I? I'm surprised you inferred that from my talk about people that get their lives destroyed by accidents. If you want to talk about insuring risky activity, take a look at our monetary policy and how we've insured risky activities for the financial sector for decades. We've given the wealthy and powerful carte blanche.

"Rate cuts to bail out the securities market? No problem. We have enough money to pay higher commodity prices and deal with a weak dollar."

I wasn't saying YOU were saying that's good policy, I was using that as an example (as you so deftly extrapolated on) of shit the gov't gets into that ends up wasting TONS of money and doesn't actually help us... money out of OUR pockets.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Yeah, it's fucked up... if you think our incomes should be taxed at all

He pays so little probably because he makes so much in the market itself, and you can swing 15% on CGT if you play it right. Now, if they INCREASE CGT, that hurts people like me and you, and we're most certainly not rich! By taxing that method more, it just causes more oppression for those trying to get ahead and the people who are already ahead don't really care. Not to mention the effects it has on the market itself (when you affect people's returns, the risk factor changes).

That's why God invented exceptions to the tax code

Section 1001z: Capital Gain taxes shall be calculated differently if it exceeds $250,000 for that 12 month snapshot you file your taxes on

Just a starting point...not being brought up because Democrats already have a financial mess to deal with left by Bush...let's see what happens in regards to specific candidates once they win

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

That's why God invented exceptions to the tax code

Section 1001z: Capital Gain taxes shall be calculated differently if it exceeds $250,000 for that 12 month snapshot you file your taxes on

Just a starting point...not being brought up because Democrats already have a financial mess to deal with left by Bush...let's see what happens in regards to specific candidates once they win

I'd be willing to bet they'll find a loophole

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by bheld