tax the rich (be careful of what you ask for)

[DSpencer]

Re: tax the rich (be careful of what you ask for)

What gets to me is that there are those among the wealthiest among us that actually have a cottage industry catering to them whose goal is keeping ones family in the upper 0.1% for 5 generations.

It is galling to think that people are actually paying money to plan and lobby so that someday a kid can never have to work thanks to his great, great, great grandfather's wealth. This is why, with the exception of Delaware, all of the original states taxed land. You weren't supposed to get to keep wealth in a family for eternity. That was what the European nobility did. It is totally un-American.

There is a lot of spin in these statements. Most wealthy people I know have high expectations for their children and expect them to work hard. I don't think it's a fair generalization that all rich people pass on wealth so their kids don't have to work. I also don't know how much lobbying is done in this regard, but maybe I'm out of the loop.

Regardless, passing on resources to your children, in the form of life lessons, formal education/training, and money seems completely natural to me. The idea that it's somehow more "fair" for the government to confiscate someone's accumulated assets when they die is what is galling to me.

A description of the book from your link:

Every family, looking at the next generation, hopes to confer advantages that are more than just material and financial--to inculcate character and leadership, to inspire creativity and enterprise, to help all family members find and follow their individual callings, and to avoid the financial dependency and loss of initiative that can all too often be an unwanted consequence of financial success.

Doesn't sound like some kind of evil playbook for rich people.

In my opinion, part of the idea of having a prosperous country is that we can all be prosperous. One person being rich doesn't prevent another person from being rich. It's worth remembering that despite all the problems today, the average or even below average American still has a quality of life unimaginable even 200 years ago. Some of it may be superficial, but if you develop appendicitis, you'll be very glad it's not 1811.

[WDCRob]

Re: tax the rich (be careful of what you ask for)

From a moral standpoint, I don't think it is desirable that the cost of government be borne unevenly by citizens with equal political rights.

Of course greater wealth = greater political rights.

[dcarrigg]

Re: tax the rich (be careful of what you ask for)

There is a lot of spin in these statements. Most wealthy people I know have high expectations for their children and expect them to work hard. I don't think it's a fair generalization that all rich people pass on wealth so their kids don't have to work. I also don't know how much lobbying is done in this regard, but maybe I'm out of the loop.

I didn't say that most do this. I said that "...there are those among the wealthiest among us..." Secondly, it is one thing to want to take care of your kids or grandkids. It's pathological to want to take care of your grandchildren's great-grandchildren.

Thirdly, unless the 'wealthy people you know' have networths of over $500M, they probably don't get to go to the workshops where the author talks about 'taking the book two steps further.' It is sick.

[dcarrigg]

Re: tax the rich (be careful of what you ask for)

Of course greater wealth = greater political rights.

Money = Speech

[WildspitzE]

Re: tax the rich (be careful of what you ask for)

You reference John Locke, you must remember that his tabula rasa/blank state is the corner stone of the progressive and liberal ideology.

not to nit pick ... but wasn't it aristotle's?

[ASH]

Re: tax the rich (be careful of what you ask for)

Of course greater wealth = greater political rights.

I distinguish between formal political rights versus political influence.

[WildspitzE]

Re: tax the rich (be careful of what you ask for)

Money = Speech

while quite imperfect, that's the beauty of the internet.

[dcarrigg]

Re: tax the rich (be careful of what you ask for)

not to nit pick ... but wasn't it aristotle's?

Yeah, it was Aristotle in De Anima, but Locke borrowed the concept. I fail to make the connection between it and modern progressivism that chr does, though.

I understand his point about primitive, hunter-gatherer societies, but surely he must realize that we ate of the apple and were cast out of the garden when we planted its seed. There is no turning back from the agrarian revolution.

[c1ue]

Re: tax the rich (be careful of what you ask for)

We have natural rights to life, liberty and property, as was argued by John Locke. What difference is a handful of people can be lazy and not work? That is their right. And certainly the man who created so much value for the world and who earned his fortune also has a right to pass it on to his family. What you are proposing is not un-American, it is theft. And, by the way, you'll find that most wealthy family's are actively engaged in charity, which is far more effective than government will ever be.

There are 10 million to 20 million long term unemployed who would disagree with your statement.

They want to work, but they also want to work at something which will at least yield them some minimal quality of life.

By any measure except perhaps a banksters, the present system isn't working. Not taxing the rich has only led to greater inequality, greater unemployment, and greater social disfunction.

Given that the experiment has failed, why not at least revert to pre-Reagan tax levels?

As far as charity - again this is a complete misdirection.

I fail to see why giving some charity in any way excuses anything else. This reasoning is identical to the "you can deduct mortgage interest from your taxes" argument for buying a house.

Sure, it is true, but every single person doing that is paying $1 to a bank in order to get $0.30 in tax writeoff.

As for more effective - again unclear where this derives from. Please show some proof of this statement.

[chr5648]

Re: tax the rich (be careful of what you ask for)

not to nit pick ... but wasn't it aristotle's?

I am referring to Locke's, he is not the first, nor is he the only one of his era that wrote about the blank state. He just happens to be the head honcho.

[charliebrown]

Re: tax the rich (be careful of what you ask for)

I agree with what a lot of you and Ash have said, we need to change the slant of the table to reward labor as much as
capital gains/ entrepenuership. If the O man only raises taxes by 2T over 12 = 166B, then how is the 1.4T hole closed?
How much of the hole is a result of stimulous that will run out in the next year or two?

Even though stimulus spending should be winding down, the future obligation in medicare, and ss will begin turning into
present obligations.

- 1 year for reduced capital gains rates is too little. 5 years? or maybe no break just taxed at MTR
- Remove the home mortgage interest deduction, (This must phased in as a sudden disallowal may force people out of their homes)
- Raise retirment age for SS (maybe one year per decade) current reciepients are unchanged.
- tobin tax?
- I would say remove charitable giving too, however part of me says, that a lot of the social services that the gvt is
involved in should be shouldered by private organizations. I'll give this up if I get little break in MTR.
- Of course defense spening needs to be cut.
- income averaging restored.
- tax code reflects increase in capital values due to inflation.

I would like to see the income tax abolished. Some of my taxes are quite complex. Make a mistake and you either gave the
IRS a free gift, or you're a criminal. It makes me nervous every time I file. Going to a professional is a help but still
can result in problems. They are not perfect either. Think about the wasted time and talent in complying with the tax code.

[DSpencer]

Re: tax the rich (be careful of what you ask for)

I didn't say that most do this. I said that "...there are those among the wealthiest among us..." Secondly, it is one thing to want to take care of your kids or grandkids. It's pathological to want to take care of your grandchildren's great-grandchildren.

Thirdly, unless the 'wealthy people you know' have networths of over $500M, they probably don't get to go to the workshops where the author talks about 'taking the book two steps further.' It is sick.

1. Fair enough, I don't mean to misrepresent what you said. However, I imagine that your plans to "fix" this would affect rich people equally, regardless of whether their kids are lazy or not.
2. I don't quite understand why it's natural to take care of your kids and grandkids, but "pathological" to want to take care of any further descendants. Isn't the core principle that people have a natural tendency to reproduce and pass on advantages to their offspring? It seems like they are just doing consciously what all organisms do instinctively.
3. Have you been to these workshops? I'm not sure what is implied by 'taking the book two steps further'.

[DSpencer]

Re: tax the rich (be careful of what you ask for)

I would like to see the income tax abolished. Some of my taxes are quite complex. Make a mistake and you either gave the
IRS a free gift, or you're a criminal. It makes me nervous every time I file. Going to a professional is a help but still
can result in problems. They are not perfect either. Think about the wasted time and talent in complying with the tax code.

Wholeheartedly agree.
How is it fair that what you owe in taxes is determined by how good you (or your accountant) are at gaming the tax system?
How can we be expected to fully comply with a tax code that is not possible to fully understand?
What possible benefit can there be in this level of complexity? Excluding the benefit to the special interests that help draft it.
How can we have meaningful debate about small changes to the tax code when we don't understand it as a whole?

[WildspitzE]

Re: tax the rich (be careful of what you ask for)

There are 10 million to 20 million long term unemployed who would disagree with your statement.

however, i'm sure that there is at least an equal number of business owners and employed folks who would agree with him.

They want to work, but they also want to work at something which will at least yield them some minimal quality of life.

it's good that a percentage of these people want to work, but is it the fault of the employers (assuming he is making a profit, he can hire people until the profit is gone)?

its not that wages are too low objectively... it's that they are too low vs the cost of the things that one would buy with this wage. who is is the real culprit for price inflation and destruction of savings + purchasing power? you think it's the employers?

By any measure except perhaps a banksters, the present system isn't working. Not taxing the rich has only led to greater inequality, greater unemployment, and greater social disfunction.

how does not taxing the rich lead to greater unemployment? is the proposed use of those tax collections to hire government employed ditch diggers?

[Raz]

Re: tax the rich (be careful of what you ask for)

1) Those making $70,000 or more include almost all Americans over the poverty line: 2 individuals making $45K each (US average income) is over this line. $70K is in fact average household income, so this statistic you cite is completely meaningless.

2) You focus only on income taxes. Social Security and Medicare revenue is only somewhat less than individual income taxes - the portion of these taxes paid by wealthy people are miniscule in comparison.

3) If we focus on property, sales, and other taxes - equally the share paid by the wealthy is miniscule.

4) The percentage of income paid by the wealthy today by any measure is the smallest it has been for generations.

You then repeat the nonsense notion that the rich can't themselves make up the deficit. Well, I specifically noted that this isn't the issue.

For many in the lower tax brackets (who pay little or no Income Tax)
their FICA taxes are offset by the Earned Income Tax Credit.

If you earn $40,000 per year and have two children you can receive over $5,000 in EITC,
effectively wiping out all of your Social Security and Medicare taxes and then some!

The situation isn't always as regressive as you might think.