Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Taxing the Rich


  • Please log in to reply
208 replies to this topic

#166    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,486 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 17 December 2012 - 02:40 AM

View Postsam12six, on 17 December 2012 - 02:16 AM, said:



Well, there's something to be said for trying to stave off that collapse for as long as possible. As for taking money from your paycheck, I totally agree. Anyone who actually receives a paycheck who's not an executive for a multibillion dollar corporation probably doesn't fall into the obscenely rich category (forgive me if I'm making incorrect assumptions about your financial status).

The desire to make those obscenely rich pay more is a good thing (reducing that inequality tiggs was talking about). The problem is that the way people keep discussing to do so is by raising income tax - something obscenely rich people don't really pay anyway. Now, taking a good look at capital gains and taxing the use of corporate assets as something other than personal income would go a very long way toward actually making things equitable without increasing taxes noticabely for those who don't make their luxurious living off those things.
We are going to disagree about the inequality here because I think the gov won't solve it taking from me or richie rich, which I am not btw. I think it always hurts the average joe and encourages the wealthy to take their business elsewhere and we need their money and their business to stay here. I think the poor never having to do anything but stay poor is never going to help the poor.
And I'm pretty sure obamacare has a capital gains tax hike in it. If I'm not mistaking, it's gone from 15%-35%. So for me, as a middle-class guy I am, or will be if the hike is true, fully discouraged to make any investments that can't pay out enormously. What I'm saying is that its not only rich guys who can make capital gains investments. I'm in construction for a living and I'd love nothing more than to find a house to flip and turn a big profit. But that extra 20% hike in taxes, plus all the labor and payroll taxes and other general costs of dong business really make the ROI so much less appealing. Hell, if anything, now that I'm thinking about it, raising capital gains tax ensures that almost only rich people can get in on that game because they're going to be the only ones who can afford to make the expensive investments that turn the gigantic profits. Small investments won't be worth it to them and will be unaffordable for middle of the road guys like myself. So I'll label that as yet another example of liberalism producing the exact opposite of its stated intent.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-, 17 December 2012 - 02:42 AM.

Posted Image

#167    sam12six

sam12six

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,371 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 17 December 2012 - 03:02 AM

View Post-Mr_Fess-, on 17 December 2012 - 02:40 AM, said:

We are going to disagree about the inequality here because I think the gov won't solve it taking from me or richie rich, which I am not btw. I think it always hurts the average joe and encourages the wealthy to take their business elsewhere and we need their money and their business to stay here. I think the poor never having to do anything but stay poor is never going to help the poor.
And I'm pretty sure obamacare has a capital gains tax hike in it. If I'm not mistaking, it's gone from 15%-35%. So for me, as a middle-class guy I am, or will be if the hike is true, fully discouraged to make any investments that can't pay out enormously. What I'm saying is that its not only rich guys who can make capital gains investments. I'm in construction for a living and I'd love nothing more than to find a house to flip and turn a big profit. But that extra 20% hike in taxes, plus all the labor and payroll taxes and other general costs of dong business really make the ROI so much less appealing. Hell, if anything, now that I'm thinking about it, raising capital gains tax ensures that almost only rich people can get in on that game because they're going to be the only ones who can afford to make the expensive investments that turn the gigantic profits. Small investments won't be worth it to them and will be unaffordable for middle of the road guys like myself. So I'll label that as yet another example of liberalism producing the exact opposite of its stated intent.

I get what you're saying. The reason this is a debatable topic is because both sides can be right. Raising taxes can discourage economic activity. The economic activity can also be profitable enough that a tax increase will have no effect but to increase revenues.

Here's my take on things:

We're in a hole. We're digging deeper every day. There's two things that will help - cutting spending and raising revenue. Here's the problem - People who want to cut spending refuse to even discuss cutting the massive expenses we accrue trying to maintain a military that's equal to the rest of the world combined even though it's the biggest chunk of money we throw away. People who want to raise revenue by increasing what super rich people pay refuse to discuss anything but personal income tax even though the super rich set their own salaries and essentially choose how much income tax to pay.

I believe capital gains should be treated like income taxes where there's a graduated scale from 0% for someone who dabbles to big% for someone who makes millions (with no deductions. I wish there were no deductions for income tax - or at least that they were capped).

As for Obamacare, I believe it's a horrible thing. It'll help some people in the short term but a lot of the problems with our health care system are just going to get worse because it doesn't actually fix problems. It just pumps more money into the bad system we have.


#168    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 18,340 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 17 December 2012 - 06:46 AM

People can argue all the want and it is not going to stop the fact that even taking every single dollar the Rich make in a year in taxes is not going to even come close to closing a Trillion Plus spending Deficit. Not without other measures being taken. And since we know that no one is going to actually do a 90% or 100% tax on the rich, and that probably the best that will happen is an end to the "Bush" tax cuts, we can say that the extra 50 to 100 billion collected, is also not going to do much to close the Deficit. Especially if legislators take the oportunnity to actually create more debit, such as raising the length for Unemployment Benefits yet again. Taxing the rich is only like 5% of what needs to be done.

Myself, I say do it, but do everything else that needs doing too. Don't just increase taxes and give mouth service to cuts.

Edit: Actually I checked and 100% of the money from the top 4% (Those making over 200,000 dollars per year) would actually be very close to a 1.2 trillion. So that actually might work. Gonig off old numbers, but anyone REALLY cares they should be able to calculate the numbers.
http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

Edited by DieChecker, 17 December 2012 - 06:55 AM.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#169    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,650 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 17 December 2012 - 03:01 PM

View PostTiggs, on 16 December 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

I know nothing of the sort.

Evidence, please, that the cost of living index is fraudulent.
I didn't say it was fraudulent.  Wrong courtroom, looking for evidence of that.   When I gave evidence of cost of living increases, you ignored it.

You know plenty of the sort when the government excludes the costs and admits.  How do I need to provide evidence of that to you?  This is all just rhetoric and arguing about nothing.

"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#170    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 9,129 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 17 December 2012 - 04:16 PM

View PostYamato, on 17 December 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

I didn't say it was fraudulent.  Wrong courtroom, looking for evidence of that.

If it's not fraudulent, then what is your issue, exactly? That the number the Fed uses isn't sufficiently accurate enough for them to do their job?


Quote

When I gave evidence of cost of living increases, you ignored it.

Possibly. I do tend to automatically filter out a lot of what you say at any given time - such as "Housing prices in California are up 19.3% in the past year alone", when the figure you're actually quoting is the rise in the Median house price sold in California, which is something completely different. As the LA Times story I've linked to goes on to state - "He noted that a big factor in the rising median price is increased sales of high-end homes, which skew the results to the upside. Indexes that track specific home resales, such as Case-Shiller, show far lower price appreciation."

So. Perhaps you'd like to re-present what you think you have that looks like evidence for your position and I'll take another look at it.


Quote

You know plenty of the sort when the government excludes the costs and admits.  How do I need to provide evidence of that to you?

Unless you've become suddenly psychic, you have no idea what I know or otherwise - and there's a completely different forum for that.

As far as I'm aware, the Fed is currently using the most general CPI rate - which, as far as I'm concerned, is a decent representative number for inflation.

NaNoWriMo 2014 - Posted Image


#171    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 9,056 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 17 December 2012 - 04:36 PM

View PostDieChecker, on 17 December 2012 - 06:46 AM, said:

Myself, I say do it, but do everything else that needs doing too. Don't just increase taxes and give mouth service to cuts.
I would agree, but go further and say raise everyone's taxes by a percentage or two.

View PostDieChecker, on 17 December 2012 - 06:46 AM, said:

Edit: Actually I checked and 100% of the money from the top 4% (Those making over 200,000 dollars per year) would actually be very close to a 1.2 trillion. So that actually might work. Gonig off old numbers, but anyone REALLY cares they should be able to calculate the numbers.
http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

It comes to about 900 billion.  However, that is total income.

You'd have to confiscate every cent they made, leaving them in utter poverty, not raise the taxes on their upper marginal rates.

Current proposed tax increases are marginal.  Everything they make up to $200,000/yr would be taxed at the same rate as before.  At your link, it's plain to see that many in the top 5% would experience no tax increase at all.

Obviously, no such tax increase will have any effect at all.  If the Dems think tax increases are part of the solution, then they need to pony up what tax increases they think should be part of the solution.  The fact that no effective plan is in the works for tax increases simply points to the fact that this is a political ploy.  The question is, if the Repubs cave and go along, will we see any effective cuts made in spending, as promised?

I would guess no is the answer to that question.

Like I said, I think all taxes should be raised.

Harte

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Giorgio's dying Ancient Aliens internet forum

#172    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 18,340 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 17 December 2012 - 08:36 PM

View PostHarte, on 17 December 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

It comes to about 900 billion.  However, that is total income.

You'd have to confiscate every cent they made, leaving them in utter poverty, not raise the taxes on their upper marginal rates.
Your basic hard core Liberal is going to tell you that Joe Billionare is still going to have all his billions and probably should have much of that taken away too. But, they fail to realize that many people who would fall into that 200k+ income level are actually Living at that income level. They have expensive cars, expensive homes and such. And basically without selling stuff they would quickly not be able to pay their own bills. Of course, if Mr 200K was not able to pay his bills, Mr Liberal would not care, and simply call, "Oh, boo hoo.".

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#173    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,650 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 17 December 2012 - 09:36 PM

View PostTiggs, on 17 December 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:

If it's not fraudulent, then what is your issue, exactly? That the number the Fed uses isn't sufficiently accurate enough for them to do their job?




Possibly. I do tend to automatically filter out a lot of what you say at any given time - such as "Housing prices in California are up 19.3% in the past year alone", when the figure you're actually quoting is the rise in the Median house price sold in California, which is something completely different. As the LA Times story I've linked to goes on to state - "He noted that a big factor in the rising median price is increased sales of high-end homes, which skew the results to the upside. Indexes that track specific home resales, such as Case-Shiller, show far lower price appreciation."

So. Perhaps you'd like to re-present what you think you have that looks like evidence for your position and I'll take another look at it.




Unless you've become suddenly psychic, you have no idea what I know or otherwise - and there's a completely different forum for that.

As far as I'm aware, the Fed is currently using the most general CPI rate - which, as far as I'm concerned, is a decent representative number for inflation.

No it's not "completely different" than what I said and in fact it's NO different than what I said AT ALL.   Nitpicking is sometimes useful, but not this time when it's for no reason at all.   Means and medians are common ways of expressing percentage increases in prices, including housing prices in California the past year.   I didn't say that it was AT LEAST 19.3%.  I didn't say that only the most expensive homes were up 19.3%.  I didn't say that the cheapest homes were up 19.3%.   I said HOUSING was up 19.3% and that is a fact, medians or no medians.

Wrong, I do have an idea of what you know and think because I read what you post.

You think it's decent?  What's decent about hiding the true costs that people have to pay in this country?  It's deceptive as hell.  It's a BS number that means nothing.   It's a number that bureaucrats use like a whip to push their pathetic policies on us and you're defending it.  Not impressed.

"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#174    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,650 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 17 December 2012 - 09:49 PM

The UK tried tax hikes on the rich and it produced LESS tax revenue.   Maybe we should do the same and expect a different result.  

All this class warfare is just a side show.  I don't want to raise ANYONE'S taxes whether they're rich, poor, or somewhere in the middle.  Because the act of raising taxes just pushes money out of the productive private sector and pulls it into the unproductive public sector.    And we still wonder why we get less revenue when taxes go up.

"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#175    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,421 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 17 December 2012 - 09:53 PM

View PostYamato, on 17 December 2012 - 09:49 PM, said:

The UK tried tax hikes on the rich and it produced LESS tax revenue.   Maybe we should do the same and expect a different result.  

All this class warfare is just a side show.  I don't want to raise ANYONE'S taxes whether they're rich, poor, or somewhere in the middle.  Because the act of raising taxes just pushes money out of the productive private sector and pulls it into the unproductive public sector. And we still wonder why we get less revenue when taxes go up.

Because the British, to the contrary of the Americans, can just incorporate in Jersey (no taxes) and still be considered a domestic company.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#176    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 9,129 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 17 December 2012 - 10:31 PM

View PostYamato, on 17 December 2012 - 09:36 PM, said:

No it's not "completely different" than what I said and in fact it's NO different than what I said AT ALL.   Nitpicking is sometimes useful, but not this time when it's for no reason at all.   Means and medians are common ways of expressing percentage increases in prices, including housing prices in California the past year.   I didn't say that it was AT LEAST 19.3%.  I didn't say that only the most expensive homes were up 19.3%.  I didn't say that the cheapest homes were up 19.3%.   I said HOUSING was up 19.3% and that is a fact, medians or no medians.

And yet - not a single house has risen in price by 19.3%


Quote

Wrong, I do have an idea of what you know and think because I read what you post.

Wonderful. Perhaps you could show where I've previously written about me knowing "plenty of the sort when the government excludes the costs and admits" then?


Quote

You think it's decent?  What's decent about hiding the true costs that people have to pay in this country?  It's deceptive as hell.  It's a BS number that means nothing.   It's a number that bureaucrats use like a whip to push their pathetic policies on us and you're defending it.  Not impressed.

Do feel free to publish your own inflation figure and petition the government to use it, then.

Obviously - if it's anywhere near as accurate as your 19.3% figure - best of luck with that.

NaNoWriMo 2014 - Posted Image


#177    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,650 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 17 December 2012 - 10:46 PM

View PostTiggs, on 17 December 2012 - 10:31 PM, said:

And yet - not a single house has risen in price by 19.3%




Wonderful. Perhaps you could show where I've previously written about me knowing "plenty of the sort when the government excludes the costs and admits" then?




Do feel free to publish your own inflation figure and petition the government to use it, then.

Obviously - if it's anywhere near as accurate as your 19.3% figure - best of luck with that.
And yet - not a single house has risen in price by 19.3%
What are you talking about?  Housing prices are up 19.3% in California in one year alone.  I'm not misstating anything.  You are deliberately obfuscating and dishonestly at that.   Someone has trained you well to play semantics to deny every instance of inflation ever brought to your attention.  Do you need it read verbatim from the article to include all the little booberries like "median" and then accept it?  No, you can't even accept the article.  You can't accept that housing prices are up 19.3% in one year.  

Wonderful. Perhaps you could show where I've previously written about me knowing "plenty of the sort when the government excludes the costs and admits" then?
Can you follow a discussion?  Again, the government hides the true increases of the costs we must pay for and then admits it.   Why do you even ask me to provide evidence for this when the government admits it?   It's not accurate at all.   How sheltered from living are you?  Do you buy gasoline?   You do have electricity?   Here we go again with mommy's basement because there's no way you're as immune to inflation as you claim you are and even if you are, that's your personal pedestal not any reflection of reality.   Do we need to revisit the same discussions ad nauseum or can we acknowledge that inflation is much higher than what's "reported" by the money controllers down at the bureau if we include what's excluded?

Edited by Yamato, 17 December 2012 - 10:48 PM.

"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#178    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 9,129 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 17 December 2012 - 10:59 PM

View PostYamato, on 17 December 2012 - 10:46 PM, said:

And yet - not a single house has risen in price by 19.3%
What are you talking about?  Housing prices are up 19.3% in California in one year alone.  I'm not misstating anything.  You are deliberately obfuscating and dishonestly at that.   Someone has trained you well to play semantics to deny every instance of inflation ever brought to your attention.

No. Housing prices are not up by 19.3%.

The average price that a house sold for is up 19.3% because many, many expensive houses have been sold, and not so many cheaper houses.

The average house price rise in Los Angeles, for example - the physical change in the year to year value of someone's property, on average, rose just over 4%.

If you can't appreciate the difference between the two - then I really don't know what to tell you.


Quote

Wonderful. Perhaps you could show where I've previously written about me knowing "plenty of the sort when the government excludes the costs and admits" then?
Can you follow a discussion?  Again, the government hides the true increases of the costs we must pay for and then admits it.   Why do you even ask me to provide evidence for this when the government admits it?   It's not accurate at all.   How sheltered from living are you?  Do you buy gasoline?   You do have electricity?   Here we go again with mommy's basement because there's no way you're as immune to inflation as you claim you are and even if you are, that's your personal pedestal not any reflection of reality.   Do we need to revisit the same discussions ad nauseum because of dementia or can we acknowledge that inflation is much higher than what's "reported" if we include what's excluded?

Gasoline and Electricity prices are currently included in the CPI used by the Federal Reserve. Perhaps you didn't get the memo.

Edited by Tiggs, 17 December 2012 - 11:01 PM.

NaNoWriMo 2014 - Posted Image


#179    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,650 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 17 December 2012 - 10:59 PM

Housing prices are up in California 2.1% in one month.   I won't extrapolate that monthly rate linearly for 12 months because then I'd be taking liberties not calculated in the article already like the 19.3% figure.  

Has Ben Bernanke ever visited a gas station or a grocery store when he's pushing his laughable inflation numbers?    Maybe he did and that's why he's excluding these prices from the price index.

Other than promoting the Fed's ponzi scheme and duping people into accepting it, what possible purpose does excluding the most critical and important costs we have to pay for our survival serve?

"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#180    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,650 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 17 December 2012 - 11:03 PM

View PostTiggs, on 17 December 2012 - 10:59 PM, said:

No. Housing prices are not up by 19.3%.

The average price that a house sold for is up 19.3% because many, many expensive houses have been sold, and not so many cheaper houses.

The average house price rise in Los Angeles, for example - the physical change in the year to year value of someone's property, on average, rose just over 4%.

If you can't appreciate the difference between the two - then I really don't know what to tell you.




Gasoline and Electricity prices are included in the CPI used by the Federal Reserve. Perhaps you didn't get the memo.
BS.

The median price of all houses and condos sold in the Golden State was $291,000 last month, up 2.1% from October and 19.3% from $244,000 in November 2011.

http://www.latimes.c...story?track=rss

Housing prices are up 19.3%.   Get a grip.

Show me this memo where the core CPI used by hero Bernanke doesn't exclude food and energy.

"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users