Does a U.S. Tax System that Favours the Rich at the Expense of Everyone Else Exist?

[TheGoodShepherd]

I believe a legal clandestine effort to outfit the American tax system to welfare the filthy rich and bleed everyone else exists.


Do you?

[dasaybz]

Well, living in NY and looking at my paycheck, I disagree dude.

[TheGoodShepherd]

Well, living in NY and looking at my paycheck, I disagree dude.

Well. Why do you disagree?

[dasaybz]

Because I'm filthy rich, and I don't see any benefits coming my way.

=)

[TheGoodShepherd]

Because I'm filthy rich, and I don't see any benefits coming my way.

=)

??????

I guess I dont have to tell you the above has nothing to do with the debate.

[JLB]

I believe a legal clandestine effort to outfit the American tax system to welfare the filthy rich and bleed everyone else exists.
Do you?

The opposite is true.:whitecar:
Where did you get your information?
We poor unfortunate rich folk just want what's our's get your own lol.

[TheGoodShepherd]

The opposite is true.:whitecar:
Where did you get your information?
We poor unfortunate rich folk just want what's our's get your own lol.

Are you sure the opposite is true? How do you know this?

[JLB]

Are you sure the opposite is true? How do you know this?

Everytime I get a little extra somebody wants it and that my friend BLOWS!!

[35Pete]

I believe a legal clandestine effort to outfit the American tax system to welfare the filthy rich and bleed everyone else exists.


Do you?

The extremely wealthy? Yep. Loopholes.

The rich? No. It screws them.

Ask me why I think so? :)

Nice to have a cool exchange with you Chimp without the rancor.

[TheGoodShepherd]

The extremely wealthy? Yep. Loopholes.

The rich? No. It screws them.

Ask me why I think so? :)

Nice to have a cool exchange with you Chimp without the rancor.

Why?

[TheGoodShepherd]

Everytime I get a little extra somebody wants it and that my friend BLOWS!!

????

No idea what this has to do with the debate.

[dasaybz]

All joking aside, I think the middle class is getting screwed over more than anybody else. They are the ones getting their hard earned money taxed out the ass.

So actually, I think I somewhat agree with you.

Although, I don't think that money is being taken from my paycheck and lining the pockets of the rich. I think that the rich just aren't contributing as much as they used to when it comes to being taxed for welfare, etc.

[JLB]

????

No idea what this has to do with the debate.

Our tax system is based on wages its not one tax fits all see?

[TheGoodShepherd]

Our tax system is based on wages its not one tax fits all see?

I'd have to vehemently disagree. The US tax system is not based on wages like you propose. In fact, Congress allows business owners, investors, and landlords to play by one set of rules. Graced with opportunities to bury income, manufacture deductions and taxes

But Congrsss administers much harsher rules to wage earners. Every dollar of income from a job,savings account or a stock dividend is reported to the government and taxes are withheld from each paycheck to make sure wage earners pay in full.

There is no single tax system based on wages like you say.

[35Pete]

Why?

Because by incorporating they can even put their house and car payments, insurance, maintanence under the company's name and get tax breaks. Lots of little loopholes that allow them to pay very little taxes.

Ever read Robert Kiyosaki's "Rich Dad, Poor Dad".

Now the rich. My buddy is 34 years old. Excellent with money down to the dime. Owns 6 properties in South Florida free and clear. Don't think he's worth 2 or 3 million? He gets screwed on his taxes. Upper income bracket with no kids. I get screwed too. I just don't have those deductibles. I don't even consider my self rich. I mean, how many engineers make 250K a year? I'm not one of them.

The fairest tax is a flat tax or a consumption tax. I'm not trying to razz anyone but if you read the Communist Manifesto it calls for heavy progressive taxation.

This system has been known to be a failure. Using it in a lighter form is dragging down our economy. Why? Because people will use that money more effectively than the government. They will plant it as a seed, and turn 1 dollar into 2 and 2 into 4. Investment capital. That creates jobs. The government merely confiscates it and gives to another person. That's not an effective use of capital.

So the "Rich" are being denied a chance to accumulate more wealth. Plus the argument that they "get off easy" is patently false. 15% of 40,000 is 6,000.
15% of 100,000 is 15,000. The "rich" would still be paying more for the same essential services.

[TheGoodShepherd]

Because by incorporating they can even put their house and car payments, insurance, maintanence under the company's name and get tax breaks. Lots of little loopholes that allow them to pay very little taxes.

Ever read Robert Kiyosaki's "Rich Dad, Poor Dad".

Now the rich. My buddy is 34 years old. Excellent with money down to the dime. Owns 6 properties in South Florida free and clear. Don't think he's worth 2 or 3 million? He gets screwed on his taxes. Upper income bracket with no kids. I get screwed too. I just don't have those deductibles. I don't even consider my self rich. I mean, how many engineers make 250K a year? I'm not one of them.

The fairest tax is a flat tax or a consumption tax. I'm not trying to razz anyone but if you read the Communist Manifesto it calls for heavy progressive taxation.

This system has been known to be a failure. Using it in a lighter form is dragging down our economy. Why? Because people will use that money more effectively than the government. They will plant it as a seed, and turn 1 dollar into 2 and 2 into 4. Investment capital. That creates jobs. The government merely confiscates it and gives to another person. That's not an effective use of capital.

So the "Rich" are being denied a chance to accumulate more wealth. Plus the argument that they "get off easy" is patently false. 15% of 40,000 is 6,000.
15% of 100,000 is 15,000. The "rich" would still be paying more for the same essential services.



So....you're trying to say the tax system subsidizes the super-rich or not? I cant tell from your post. It went off topic after the first paragraph.

**I think the richest 1 per cent threshold is a household income of 313,000 or more.**

[Gibby]

I believe a legal clandestine effort to outfit the American tax system to welfare the filthy rich and bleed everyone else exists.


Do you?
NO!!!

[TheGoodShepherd]

NO!!!

Why not?

[JLB]

I'd have to vehemently disagree. The US tax system is not based on wages like you propose. In fact, Congress allows business owners, investors, and landlords to play by one set of rules. Graced with opportunities to bury income, manufacture deductions and taxes

But Congrsss administers much harsher rules to wage earners. Every dollar of income from a job,savings account or a stock dividend is reported to the government and taxes are withheld from each paycheck to make sure wage earners pay in full.

There is no single tax system based on wages like you say.

I should have been clearer for you TAXABLE INCOME got it.

You are incorrect individual taxes are based on taxable income.
Are you pretending to know tax law or what is it exactly.
You can''t have your flat tax unless you exclude millions from any tax liability first. Such as wage earners making lets say less than 70,000 per year as an example.

[35Pete]

So....you're trying to say the tax system subsidizes the super-rich or not? I cant tell from your post. It went off topic after the first paragraph.

**I think the richest 1 per cent threshold is a household income of 313,000 or more.**

I don't know the exact threshold but I'm talking about reaaalllllly rich people that can use their business to shield their incomes. Read that book that I mentioned. Kiyosaki explains exactly how it is done.

Aslo read "The Millionaire Next Door". Another good book.

What I am saying Chimp is that the tax code is set up to favor people that have the knowledge and wherewithal to get around taxes.

I'm not in favor of this but the world is a compromise so you could set up a flat tax such that the bottom quintile gets their 3x5 tax card from Uncle Sam and checked "exempt per W-2 threshold". That's it. And 12 weeks later they get their W-2 contributions mailed back to them.

[TheGoodShepherd]

I should have been clearer for you TAXABLE INCOME got it.

You are incorrect individual taxes are based on taxable income.
Are you pretending to know tax law or what is it exactly.
You can''t have your flat tax unless you exclude millions from any tax liability first. Such as wage earners making lets say less than 70,000 per year as an example.

My flat tax...what are you talking about!? I never mentioned the term flat tax once. I think you're getting my post confused with Pete's.

[JLB]

My flat tax...what are you talking about!? I never mentioned the term flat tax once. I think you're getting my post confused with Pete's.


Never mind carry on :amstupid:

[TheGoodShepherd]

I don't know the exact threshold but I'm talking about reaaalllllly rich people that can use their business to shield their incomes. Read that book that I mentioned. Kiyosaki explains exactly how it is done.

Aslo read "The Millionaire Next Door". Another good book.

What I am saying Chimp is that the tax code is set up to favor people that have the knowledge and wherewithal to get around taxes.

I'm not in favor of this but the world is a compromise so you could set up a flat tax such that the bottom quintile gets their 3x5 tax card from Uncle Sam and checked "exempt per W-2 threshold". That's it. And 12 weeks later they get their W-2 contributions mailed back to them.


Yeap. You essentially agree with what I'm saying. The system is being rigged to benefit the super-rich at the expense of everyone else.

[35Pete]

Yeap. You essentially agree with what I'm saying. The system is being rigged to benefit the super-rich at the expense of everyone else.

If it is under the definition that I gave then yes, I'd have to agree with that.

But their are a lot of run-of-the-mill rich that get screwed royally. These are the people that volunteer in the community AND write a check.

The super-rich just write the check and proclaim how wonderful they are.
Press present of course.

Chimp. I'm not the parrot of the super rich. I'd like to see the loopholes closed to. But I'd also like to see across the board tax reductions.

[JLB]

If it is under the definition that I gave then yes, I'd have to agree with that.

But their are a lot of run-of-the-mill rich that get screwed royally. These are the people that volunteer in the community AND write a check.

The super-rich just write the check and proclaim how wonderful they are.
Press present of course.

Chimp. I'm not the parrot of the super rich. I'd like to see the loopholes closed to. But I'd also like to see across the board tax reductions.

Reduction in spending would be very important in that effort.

[TheGoodShepherd]

If it is under the definition that I gave then yes, I'd have to agree with that.

But their are a lot of run-of-the-mill rich that get screwed royally. These are the people that volunteer in the community AND write a check.

The super-rich just write the check and proclaim how wonderful they are.
Press present of course.

Chimp. I'm not the parrot of the super rich. I'd like to see the loopholes closed to. But I'd also like to see across the board tax reductions.

What is a run of the mill rich person?

[TheGoodShepherd]

Reduction in spending would be very important in that effort.

I don't think reduction of spending is relevant to the topic at all.

Remember, what we're saying here is the tax system is being manipulated by the rich to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else. That has nothing to do with spending.

It does, however, have everything to do with us subsidizing their lifestyles and them enjoying the fruits of our labour without paying their fare share of the price.

[TheGoodShepherd]

If it is under the definition that I gave then yes, I'd have to agree with that.

But their are a lot of run-of-the-mill rich that get screwed royally. These are the people that volunteer in the community AND write a check.

The super-rich just write the check and proclaim how wonderful they are.
Press present of course.

Chimp. I'm not the parrot of the super rich. I'd like to see the loopholes closed to. But I'd also like to see across the board tax reductions.

So were you against the 1981 Regan tax cuts, the 1997 Congressional tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts of 2001?

[JLB]

I don't think reduction of spending is relevant to the topic at all.

Remember, what we're saying here is the tax system is being manipulated by the rich to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else. That has nothing to do with spending.

It does, however, have everything to do with us subsidizing their lifestyles and them enjoying the fruits of our labour without paying their fare share of the price.

If the rich are manipulating thats been going on forever.
So since they have found unique ways to game the system and aren't giving anything back anytime soon. I think you gotta reduce the spending side to gain the desired results. Taxes should be reduced dramatically to encourage investment.

[JLB]

So were you against the 1981 Regan tax cuts, the 1997 Congressional tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts of 2001?

2001 tax cuts did Clinton attempt to repeal those since he was the President?

[TheGoodShepherd]

2001 tax cuts did Clinton attempt to repeal those since he was the President?

Clinton was not president in 2001.

[TheGoodShepherd]

If the rich are manipulating thats been going on forever.
So since they have found unique ways to game the system and aren't giving anything back anytime soon.

I think you gotta reduce the spending side to gain the desired results. Taxes should be reduced dramatically to encourage investment.

So you agree the rich are enjoying the spoils of democracy by leaving the check on the table. Yet the remedy you suggest comprises of screwing everyone else even more. I guess that's where I disagree with you.

[35Pete]

What is a run of the mill rich person?

Read the book "The Millionaire Next Door" and you'll know. Basically a guy that used his job to invest in properties and other financial instruments, or started a small but successful business and was very good about what he did with his disposable income. He didn't stuff it in the mattress, nor did he blow it on nice cars and vacations. He put his spare dollars to work making more dollars. And took those proceeds and reinvested. That is how MOST people get "rich". I know more than a few at work. And these guys base salaries are what...probably 80-120K at most? Yet they are millionaires. And they still live frugally!!! They keep putting it back in.

[TheGoodShepherd]

Read the book "The Millionaire Next Door" and you'll know. Basically a guy that used his job to invest in properties and other financial instruments, or started a small but successful business and was very good about what he did with his disposable income. He didn't stuff it in the mattress, nor did he blow it on nice cars and vacations. He put his spare dollars to work making more dollars. And took those proceeds and reinvested. That is how MOST people get "rich". I know more than a few at work. And these guys base salaries are what...probably 80-120K at most? Yet they are millionaires. And they still live frugally!!! They keep putting it back in.

Right. What causes them to live frugally still?

[35Pete]

Right.

They are good books Chimp. I think you would like them both.

[35Pete]

Right. What causes them to live frugally still?

They want to retire early. Plus most of the guys that I know are this way (they are in my stock club and their shares of the club make me choke!) because they are pretty real people. They don't believe in expensive things that they don't need. They don't need to impress anyone.

Hell, the guy that hired me 10 years ago drives a 96' beat up Chevy pickup. He splurged and bought new tires.

[JLB]

Clinton was not president in 2001.

Then oh you meant junior sorry wrong Bush.
The tax policy for 2001 was that not done before 2001?
Clinton left office Jan 2001.
Tax policy is proposed and approved prior to the year they take effect.

[JLB]

So you agree the rich are enjoying the spoils of democracy by leaving the check on the table. Yet the remedy you suggest comprises of screwing everyone else even more. I guess that's where I disagree with you.

More could be spent on the poor is that your point?
I didn't object to that just wasteful spending.
Do you consider helping the less fortunate wasteful?

[TheGoodShepherd]

More could be spent on the poor is that your point?
I didn't object to that just wasteful spending.
Do you consider helping the less fortunate wasteful?

No I'm not suggesting more should be spent on the poor. As to the rest of your post... I can't understand it.

[TheGoodShepherd]

They want to retire early. Plus most of the guys that I know are this way (they are in my stock club and their shares of the club make me choke!) because they are pretty real people. They don't believe in expensive things that they don't need. They don't need to impress anyone.

Hell, the guy that hired me 10 years ago drives a 96' beat up Chevy pickup. He splurged and bought new tires.

So what income bracket would they fall under? More than 313,000?

[TheGoodShepherd]

They are good books Chimp. I think you would like them both.


So were you been in favour of those tax cuts I mentioned?Why or why not?

[35Pete]

So what income bracket would they fall under? More than 313,000?

No. Much lower. And you can't say that they are dodging because they are deferring the payments while the money grows and is reinvested. Like planting seed corn. Their investments, while but a drop in a bucket compared to the economy, are causing economic growth. But a lot of drops add up. Thank god we have people that do this or the investment capital to start new commerce would dry up. Then unemployment, reccession or worse would set in.

[JLB]

No I'm not suggesting more should be spent on the poor. As to the rest of your post... I can't understand it.

Tell me exactly which part and I will do my best to explain what I mean.

[TheGoodShepherd]

No. Much lower. And you can't say that they are dodging because they are deferring the payments while the money grows and is reinvested. Like planting seed corn. Their investments, while but a drop in a bucket compared to the economy, are causing economic growth. But a lot of drops add up. Thank god we have people that do this or the investment capital to start new commerce would dry up. Then unemployment, reccession or worse would set in.

You're being way to general here. Causing economic growth how? As in salaries going up for the middle class or in some other way that benefits or evens out the playing field? As I understand the evidence, the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few is growing not the opposite. The salaries of the middle class has marginally, and I mean very marginally, grown where as salary has grown substantially in the past decades.

[TheGoodShepherd]

Tell me exactly which part and I will do my best to explain what I mean.

This part, I cant decode it...."I didn't object to that just wasteful spending.
Do you consider helping the less fortunate wasteful?"

[35Pete]

You're being way to general here. Causing economic growth how? As in salaries going up for the middle class or in some other way that benefits or evens out the playing field? As I understand the evidence, the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few is growing not the opposite.

Not really Chimp. I need to disagree here. If the top 1% get even more wealthy than I am not worried provided that the income growth of the top two quintiles is increasing substantially too. Those are the millionaires next door. Investments such are tax-free MUNYs, corporate bonds, stocks, ect. help provide capital for public works projects, (MUNYs), growth for a new prodcut line, or expansion into other niches of commerce for companies. Plus this money also provides venture capital.

People take risks on the ideas of others. Joe Smith and Sally Anybody invent the widget. Venture capitalists see this as a great idea. They back it and want 40% of the company (or whatever). The idea takes off and National Widgets breaks the 1,000 employee barrier 3 years later. Now the venture guys may have harvested money from a pool of many. They pay out their risk takers and keep a piece for making it happen. Joe and Sally make an IPO 4 years down the line and rake in $7.8 billion. National Widgets at the time of the IPO had grown to 11,000 employees. Jobs created out of risk taking.

Now Sally and Joe are filthy rich. Yet their passion and enthusiam in creating National Widgets is putting food on the table, a roof over the head, and car in the garage of 11,000 homes. I think that's a pretty good deal. And you know what? Sally and Joe aren't stupid. That $7.8 billion goes right back into the market, creating more jobs.

[JLB]

This part, I cant decode it...."I didn't object to that just wasteful spending.
Do you consider helping the less fortunate wasteful?"

I didn't object to the less fortunate getting some help and its only wasteful government spending that I do object to..
The first statement is in response to what you said.
Yet the remedy you suggest comprises of screwing everyone else even more


This 2nd statement was made to you in the form of a question.
I corrected the assumption you made.
In the presumed remedy that you thought I might find appropriate.
Your assumption was incorrect as to what I thought.
So I repeat do you consider helping the less fortunate wasteful?"

[TheGoodShepherd]

Not really Chimp. I need to disagree here. If the top 1% get even more wealthy than I am not worried provided that the income growth of the top two quintiles is increasing substantially too. Those are the millionaires next door. Investments such are tax-free MUNYs, corporate bonds, stocks, ect. help provide capital for public works projects, (MUNYs), growth for a new prodcut line, or expansion into other niches of commerce for companies. Plus this money also provides venture capital.

People take risks on the ideas of others. Joe Smith and Sally Anybody invent the widget. Venture capitalists see this as a great idea. They back it and want 40% of the company (or whatever). The idea takes off and National Widgets breaks the 1,000 employee barrier 3 years later. Now the venture guys may have harvested money from a pool of many. They pay out their risk takers and keep a piece for making it happen. Joe and Sally make an IPO 4 years down the line and rake in $7.8 billion. National Widgets at the time of the IPO had grown to 11,000 employees. Jobs created out of risk taking.

Now Sally and Joe are filthy rich. Yet their passion and enthusiam in creating National Widgets is putting food on the table, a roof over the head, and car in the garage of 11,000 homes. I think that's a pretty good deal. And you know what? Sally and Joe aren't stupid. That $7.8 billion goes right back into the market, creating more jobs.


But it's not growing. Check out the report released by the IRS in 2003. It was the first time the agency had a public analyisis of the tax return filed by the 400 richest Americans. The years they were filed were between 1992 and 2000.

Just the minimumm to make the top increased from 24.4 million to 86.6 million. 21 taxpayers made the list. 2,200 hundred names appeared on the 3,600 tax returns analyzed. In 2000, the top 400 recieved 1.1 per cent of all the income in America. That was double their 0.5 per cent share in 1992.

It was also found on average, their income was 174 million, four times the 46.8 million average in 1992. And their share of federal income taxes fell. They only paid 22.2 cents on the dollar in income taxes in 2000. That was actually DOWN from 26 per cent in 1992. And the tax rate had increased by 13 cents overall in 1992.

While Americans were enduring a fedreal income tax rise of 18 per cent, the burden fell by 16 per cent for the top 400.


As for your Joe and Sally thing. That really has nothing to do with the current tax system. But moreso with capitalist philosophy. Which is a subject for another time.

[anEinherjer]

Well, this forum gets better and better. This is a great thread Chimp.

And I agree. The current tax system(s) absolutely do favor the (super) rich.

Pete, the only reason I think you think you and your friends are getting screwed is because the loopholes can't help you. You are getting "screwed" because others in your same range do have the loopholes to exploit.

It is, truly, an argument for tax simplification. I truly believe a simple consumption-based tax can take the place of the mess we have now (been whining about it for years, I have :)).

[TheGoodShepherd]

I didn't object to the less fortunate getting some help and its only wasteful government spending that I do object to..
The first statement is in response to what you said.
Yet the remedy you suggest comprises of screwing everyone else even more


This 2nd statement was made to you in the form of a question.
I corrected the assumption you made.
In the presumed remedy that you thought I might find appropriate.
Your assumption was incorrect as to what I thought.
So I repeat do you consider helping the less fortunate wasteful?"

I still have no clue what you're saying dude.

[35Pete]

Well, this forum gets better and better. This is a great thread Chimp.

And I agree. The current tax system(s) absolutely do favor the (super) rich.

Pete, the only reason I think you think you and your friends are getting screwed is because the loopholes can't help you. You are getting "screwed" because others in your same range do have the loopholes to exploit.

It is, truly, an argument for tax simplification. I truly believe a simple consumption-based tax can take the place of the mess we have now (been whining about it for years, I have :)).

Yeah this is a great thread.

The present system is so complicated that some people are just great at exploiting it. They have it down to a science.

[JLB]

I still have no clue what you're saying dude.

Sorry I guess my best just wasn't good enough.

[TheGoodShepherd]

Sorry I guess my best just wasn't good enough.

JLB what is your position on this issue?

[JLB]

JLB what is your position on this issue?

On tax law?
I'll give it a shot if thats what you would like to know?

[TheGoodShepherd]

On tax law?
I'll give it a shot if thats what you would like to know?

Yes on tax law. That's what this thread is about.

[JLB]

Yes on tax law. That's what this thread is about.

It's designed to help as many as possible.
However the middle income families pay to much.
The rich have distinct advantage loophole exploitation.
Also taxes should be cut across the board.
The poor and middle income earners should pay no tax.
Set a standard a high one lets say the first 300,000 dollars theres no tax.
Abolish the IRS they won't have any work to do.
Throw out all current tax codes start over.
The idea is not to soak the rich.
How many of you guys got a job from a poor man?
The system will always be tweaked its all politics.
Nobody really wants to clean it up though or they would have by now.
Wasteful spending is the biggest problem.
How about the Space program any money there?
Fraudulent claims that are made any money there?
Instead of an IRS have a fraud patrol and eliminate the fraud.
Tax Consumption if you want something pay for it.

[35Pete]

Chimp.

I'm actually enjoying this chat. Do you have any other questions related to this? What's your take on all of this?

[TheGoodShepherd]

Chimp.

I'm actually enjoying this chat. Do you have any other questions related to this? What's your take on all of this?

Yea, I've always wondered about the perks Congress gives to corporate executives regarding corporate jets and travel.

It's so freakin unfair, it's unbelievable. The story of the tax breaks executives enjoy would make any reasonable right-wing person never mention welfare moms ever again in their diatribes concerning government spending.

[35Pete]

Yea, I've always wondered about the perks Congress gives to corporate executives regarding corporate jets and travel.

It's so freakin unfair, it's unbelievable. The story of the tax breaks executives enjoy would make any reasonable right-wing person never mention welfare moms ever again in their diatribes concerning government spending.

I have seen situations in the past where the CEO has hopped the 20 million dollar jet and flown down here for an emergency. That said I videoconference with Asia a few times a month. Costs about 400 bucks for 10 guys.

A lot cheaper I would think. He'll he'll burn that in jet fuel on takeoff.

I'll still mention welfare, corporate welfare too.

[TheGoodShepherd]

I have seen situations in the past where the CEO has hopped the 20 million dollar jet and flown down here for an emergency. That said I videoconference with Asia a few times a month. Costs about 400 bucks for 10 guys.

A lot cheaper I would think. He'll he'll burn that in jet fuel on takeoff.

I'll still mention welfare, corporate welfare too.

I wasn't talking about what you mentioned. I was talking about something far worse.

[35Pete]

I wasn't talking about what you mentioned. I was talking about something far worse.

What were you talking about?

[JLB]

It's designed to help as many as possible.
However the middle income families pay to much.
The rich have distinct advantage loophole exploitation.
Also taxes should be cut across the board.
The poor and middle income earners should pay no tax.
Set a standard a high one lets say the first 300,000 dollars theres no tax.
Abolish the IRS they won't have any work to do.
Throw out all current tax codes start over.
The idea is not to soak the rich.
How many of you guys got a job from a poor man?
The system will always be tweaked its all politics.
Nobody really wants to clean it up though or they would have by now.
Wasteful spending is the biggest problem.
How about the Space program any money there?
Fraudulent claims that are made any money there?
Instead of an IRS have a fraud patrol and eliminate the fraud.
Tax Consumption if you want something pay for it.

Chimp what is your response to my response to you.

[35Pete]

But it's not growing. Check out the report released by the IRS in 2003. It was the first time the agency had a public analyisis of the tax return filed by the 400 richest Americans. The years they were filed were between 1992 and 2000.

Just the minimumm to make the top increased from 24.4 million to 86.6 million. 21 taxpayers made the list. 2,200 hundred names appeared on the 3,600 tax returns analyzed. In 2000, the top 400 recieved 1.1 per cent of all the income in America. That was double their 0.5 per cent share in 1992.

It was also found on average, their income was 174 million, four times the 46.8 million average in 1992. And their share of federal income taxes fell. They only paid 22.2 cents on the dollar in income taxes in 2000. That was actually DOWN from 26 per cent in 1992. And the tax rate had increased by 13 cents overall in 1992.

While Americans were enduring a fedreal income tax rise of 18 per cent, the burden fell by 16 per cent for the top 400.


As for your Joe and Sally thing. That really has nothing to do with the current tax system. But moreso with capitalist philosophy. Which is a subject for another time.

OK. Here is a challenge Chimp. You answer and I'll respond with my proposal, fair?

How do you lift the incomes of the bottom quintile?

[Green Lantern]

So you agree the rich are enjoying the spoils of democracy by leaving the check on the table. Yet the remedy you suggest comprises of screwing everyone else even more. I guess that's where I disagree with you.

Aren't you guys forgetting that Milton Freidman, I think it was, came up with the automatic tax deduction from a wage-earner's pay check in order to 1) get a steady flow of cash into government coffers and 2) prevent the vast majority of people from not paying their taxes...?

Business owners, self-employed, these people are on the honor system and pay quarterly taxes. Anyone working for a weekly paycheck is left holding the bag. If you are a rich salary worker, you are getting as screwed as a poor salary worker.

[JLB]

Aren't you guys forgetting that Milton Freidman, I think it was, came up with the automatic tax deduction from a wage-earner's pay check in order to 1) get a steady flow of cash into government coffers and 2) prevent the vast majority of people from not paying their taxes...?

Business owners, self-employed, these people are on the honor system and pay quarterly taxes. Anyone working for a weekly paycheck is left holding the bag. If you are a rich salary worker, you are getting as screwed as a poor salary worker.

Whats your opinion of Milton?

[Green Lantern]

Whats your opinion of Milton?

Without him we would not live in the Empire we do today. He was invaluable in creating our world, like it or not. One of the few people you can actually accurately say changed the world through their thoughts.

Gotta respect anyone who is that right or smart or strong or cunning.

[JLB]

Without him we would not live in the Empire we do today. He was invaluable in creating our world, like it or not. One of the few people you can actually accurately say changed the world through their thoughts.

Gotta respect anyone who is that right or smart or strong or cunning.

I listened to him today from a 1996 gathering he spoke pretty much exclusively answering questions and just giving opinion.
He frankly seemed very effective and knowledgeable.
He was interesting to listen too.
He talked about Public Scools, U.S.Postal Service,the Phone Company the guy was sharp.
He viewed them all as monopolies the schools in particular.
How great it is he said that the Phone company no longer has its monopoly nor the U.S. Postal Service.
They now face competition.
Very smart man indeed.

[Green Lantern]

I listened to him today from a 1996 gathering he spoke pretty much exclusively answering questions and just giving opinion.
He frankly seemed very effective and knowledgeable.
He was interesting to listen too.
He talked about Public Scools, U.S.Postal Service,the Phone Company the guy was sharp.
He viewed them all as monopolies the schools in particular.
How great it is he said that the Phone company no longer has its monopoly nor the U.S. Postal Service.
They now face competition.
Very smart man indeed.

I'm not sure the public schools should be opened to competition. Education is an essential cornerstone of a free society, not a commodified product to be hawked on the stock exchange.

[JLB]

I'm not sure the public schools should be opened to competition. Education is an essential cornerstone of a free society, not a commodified product to be hawked on the stock exchange.


He said you limit the quality of education by removing it from competition.
He felt true choice was only available to the wealthy.

Gotta hit the hay great seeing you again.

[Green Lantern]

He said you limit the quality of education by removing it from competition.
He felt true choice was only available to the wealthy.

Gotta hit the hay great seeing you again.

You may, indeed, limit the quality of some education by taking it out of the market. More to the point though, in my opinion, is that if you put it in the market, prices would go up for the better schools and then the rich and the smart would be the only ones to get a better quality education while the poor and the dumb would be relegated to the local schools that had no funding and no good teachers.

Unlike a factory that, when it performs poorly or makes an inferior product, can be run out of business and closed down due to lack of customers, you cannot run bad schools out of business since you MUST provide an education to those not worthy of gaining access to better schools.

We will probably end up with schools that look like nursing homes if we opened them to competition: we will have a few really nice, expensive ones and then a bunch that drug people up and leave their comatose bodies propped up in the corner until the next check clears.

I do not want to see a democracy that fails to properly educate its citizenry. Every failed democracy in history failed because the people failed to keep control of their government.

[35Pete]

Good to see you here Aqua.

This is an incredibly true statement and is a cornerstone of my beliefs. However, allow me to modify it for my tastes.

Every failed democracy or republic in history failed because the people failed to keep control of their government.

[anEinherjer]

Aren't you guys forgetting that Milton Freidman, I think it was, came up with the automatic tax deduction from a wage-earner's pay check in order to 1) get a steady flow of cash into government coffers and 2) prevent the vast majority of people from not paying their taxes...?

Business owners, self-employed, these people are on the honor system and pay quarterly taxes. Anyone working for a weekly paycheck is left holding the bag. If you are a rich salary worker, you are getting as screwed as a poor salary worker.

Ye gods, I read the whole of this article. Yick.

http://www.mises.org/story/1797

I don't think it was Friedman's idea, but he went with it. Seems to have been early on in his career though....

[anEinherjer]

Aqua: How is it that our university system is still pretty much the best in the world? Given your anti-competition stance on education, you'd think only the very rich and powerful would ever get advanced degrees...

[deconstruction]

Aqua: How is it that our university system is still pretty much the best in the world? Given your anti-competition stance on education, you'd think only the very rich and powerful would ever get advanced degrees...

That's true actually. Have you looked to see what a PhD costs recently (not including room and board?)

[Green Lantern]

Aqua: How is it that our university system is still pretty much the best in the world? Given your anti-competition stance on education, you'd think only the very rich and powerful would ever get advanced degrees...

I think our university system is staffed with the best people in the world because this is the richest and best country in the world. We can recruit the best to come here and take up teaching posts.

If you think we have the best education system, I can tell you that I think the concensus is that our average 4 year graduate is better educated than the average European 4 year graduate.

Other than that, "best" is hard to defend. In Japan, 1% of the population goes on to University, as opposed to 40% (roughly) in the US. I would say that since Japan is so selective, they probably have smarter people, on average, attending their schools and that they probably have to do a better job educating those in secondary school who will have to take up important jobs but who will not be able to make it into University.

In India, the best university there is so selective that people apply to Oxford, Yale, Harvard and Princeton as "safe" schools as their back-up choices. That is what happens when 3 million Indians apply per year.

Finally, my "anti-competition" stance is held toward mandatory public education, not optional post-secondary education.

[Green Lantern]

That's true actually. Have you looked to see what a PhD costs recently (not including room and board?)

PhD's are free for academic degrees. They let you in and pay you to teach in return for your seat in a class. J.D.'s, M.D.'s and MBA's cost because you will go out into the world and make a bundle. Those are money-making degrees.

As my mentor told me, if they do not offer you an assistantship for your doctoral program, they do not really want you to show up.

[35Pete]

My Master's was free. NASA paid for it in exchange for research and the university waived everything else (and paid a stipend) for me to teach one class a semester.

[TheGoodShepherd]

My Master's was free. NASA paid for it in exchange for research and the university waived everything else (and paid a stipend) for me to teach one class a semester.

And where does NASA get their funding from?

Oh yes - the taxpayers.

[Green Lantern]

And where does NASA get their funding from?

Oh yes - the taxpayers.

Ouch.