President Bush often argues that history will vindicate him. So he can’t be pleased with an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted by the History News Network. It found that 98 percent of them believe that Bush’s presidency has been a failure, while only about 2 percent see it as a success. Not only that, more than 61 percent of the historians say the current presidency is the worst in American history. In 2004, only 11.6 percent of the historians rated Bush’s presidency in last place. Among the reasons given for his low ratings: invading Iraq, “tax breaks for the rich,” and alienating many nations around the world. Bush supporters counter that professional historians today tend to be liberal and that it’s too early to assess how his policies will turn out.
The only question is….whats up with the other 2%. I want names.
# 57 Thomas
“What you are missing in your equation is that if you are paying taxes based on a percentage and you make more than most, then by definition you ARE paying more than most. ”
No I didn’t miss that at all I understand that completely.
“What you want is for the “rich: (a term loosely defined by liberals) to not only pay more in taxes, but to pay a higher percentage as well. ”
I don’t really want it but I do think it is fair. We benefit the most from the economy and society why should we not put back in an amount proportional to the our benefit. There is a very good reason to tax the rich a little bit more but it escapes most people because they don’t understand how the economy really works. Ask George bush. He thinks Tax cuts to the rich help the economy. I would bet there are a lot of people right now that don’t see it that way. A better group to give tax cuts would be the middle class. There are more of them and they spend more of there income on goods and services helping stimulate the economy
I”n other words, you have a problem with the very concept of wealth.”
LOL quite the contrary. I am a multi-millionaire. I own lots of commercial real estate and two businesses I have no problem paying my fair share. I probably pay less than you, percentage wise, with all my deductions. That is the problem. It isn’t just me either. Warren Buffet admited to it as well and he has way more money than I do.
“Proof that microeconomics is not taught in schools.”
Yeah because it is clear you never learned it and It has nothing to do with my post.
“By definition, the middle class are “wealthy”
Sorry for being so simple and generic in my point. I should have said “In a three tiered societal system the the top tier is expendable to the proper functioning of a society.”
Thank you for helping me clarify that.
“The people that financially wealthy do not stuff that money in a mattress.”
That is where you are wrong! I know a guy who has $500,000 in cigar boxes and a lead briefcase.
“They invest it and that investment goes back into society.”
Not true. A lot of it goes back into their investments. That is how they become even more wealthy. Investments don’t always lead to more jobs but that is another discussion entirely.
What you don’t realize its that a STABLE system has only so much money in it. Especially when it is a system in debt. When that money gets bunched up in personal accounts it does not flow through the system. What keeps the system healthy is that flow of money through it. What do you think the purpose of the tax rebate is? It is to get money flowing through the system. It isn’t the poor and middle class that are holding on to their money. Most of them pretty much live paycheck to paycheck. All their money is flowing. It is the growing worth of the rich. I admit I am just as guilty. I won’t pay any more than I have to. But when the time comes I won’t bitch about being asked to pitch in more.
> We benefit the most from the economy
> and society why should we not put
> back in an amount proportional to
> the our benefit.
How exactly are you defining “benefit”? Clearly not based on income because if that were the case then tax percentages alone cover the “you get more you pay more” situations. By the way, claiming that the rich pay a “little” bit more is laughable. Every percentage is potentially a huge amount of money the more you make.
RE: Wealth
Indeed, paying a percentage of your income *is* paying your fair share. What you want is to have the wealthy pay *more* than their fair share. Your success is clearly illustrative of the core issue: taxes are based on *income* not wealth. What you are showing is that the rich will find a way of hiding their money. People have become so anesthetized to the concept of income taxes that they forgot that there was a time in this country many moons ago when there was no income tax or when only the super rich (the upper 1%) paid any tax at all.
Further, as my economics professor once told me, “You are not going to outsmart a guy that makes a billion dollars a year with a guy that makes 50K a year. The billionaire will hire an army of guys to do nothing but minimize their tax burden.” Thus, increasing taxes on the rich does not bring in more revenue.
RE: Economics
Actually, it has *everything* to do with your post. Claiming that the wealthy “keep the money for themselves” is to ignore the rules of scarcity. It is the same mistaken logic that thinks that commerce is a zero sum game. The only way for someone to “keep their money for themselves” is to hide it under their mattress. The vast majority of wealthy people (looking past odd balls and people that do not pay taxes) did not get wealthy by doing that. Instead, they invest it or purchase things with it.
> What you don’t realize
> its that a STABLE system
> has only so much money in it.
Not true. Again, economics is not a zero sum game. Wealth can be created even in a commodity backed system because “value” is a fluid concept.
# 62 Thomas
“How exactly are you defining “benefit”?”
We benefit from having a society and an economy that allows us to profit under the manner in which we do. Without it I wouldn’t be as wealthy as I am.
“What you want is to have the wealthy pay *more* than their fair share. ”
That depends on how you define fair?
“Your success is clearly illustrative of the core issue: taxes are based on *income* not wealth.”
I never said otherwise.
“What you are showing is that the rich will find a way of hiding their money.”
I don’t hide my money!!! I take the legally allowed tax deductions. That is why I never understood why some of the people I know bitch about their taxes. Most of us pay less a percentage than you do I bet.
“People have become so anesthetized to the concept of income taxes that they forgot that there was a time in this country many moons ago when there was no income tax or when only the super rich (the upper 1%) paid any tax at all.”
Actually I think it was just corporations initially. I would have to check on that though. I would love that to be the case. If corporations paid their fair share I think the problem would be solved. That will never happen though because of lobbyists.
“The billionaire will hire an army of guys to do nothing but minimize their tax burden.” ”
It really only takes 2 but then again I am not a billionaire so maybe the rules change.
“Thus, increasing taxes on the rich does not bring in more revenue.”
It does if the laws are written better. Most of the tax breaks available are loopholes that could easily be closed or so my attorney tells me.
” Claiming that the wealthy “keep the money for themselves” is to ignore the rules of scarcity. ”
No it isn’t. That’s one of the reasons the economy is so fucked up and the dollar is so low. We keep printing more and more money for a system that can’t support it.
“The only way for someone to “keep their money for themselves” is to hide it under their mattress. ”
Not true. I have 12 personal bank accounts. 15 if you include the businesses.
“The vast majority of wealthy people (looking past odd balls and people that do not pay taxes) did not get wealthy by doing that. stead, they invest it or purchase things with it.” ”
OK Here is where you need a lesson. The wealthy, myself and everyone I know, do not put their entire worth into investments. Do the math. If they invest even 1/2(and that is a strech in most cases) of their total worth then there is at least 50% not flowing through the economy. That can be a lot of money! If we continue to get richer that is more and more money that is in personal accounts and trusts that just sits there.
“Not true. Again, economics is not a zero sum game. Wealth can be created even in a commodity backed system because “value” is a fluid concept.”
I didn’t say it was a zero sum game. You are confused. A STABLE economy IN DEBT can’t just print money whenever it wants. There is a limit to the amount of money it can support. We are way beyond that point already. When the wealthy collect money and keep it out of the system in large sums it is unhealthy for the system. It is like blood. Have you ever given blood? They take a pint which is not really that much. How do you feel afterwards? Weak? listless? Well that’s our economy except we have a growing legion of vampires sucking money out of the system. THEY DON’T INVEST ALL OF IT!!!!
RE: “Fair” share
I define “fair” as two people paying the same percentage of what they make.
RE: “Hiding” money
My apologies. I am using term “hide” in two different contexts. With respect to taxes, “hide” means tax avoidance. In other words, if you raise taxes,the rich will find ways to avoid paying that additional tax which usually entails taking it out of taxable investments. The effect is that tax revenue drops. The way to increase tax revenue is to encourage the wealthy to put their money in taxable investments. “Investment” in this context can mean purchases, businesses, traditional investments. Basically, anything that incurs a tax on their money.
The other context in which I’m using “hide” is to refer to removing it completely from the economy . Putting your money in a bank account, even one that earns no interest, is still putting it into the economy because the bank will use that money for loans. You can only really “hide” it by putting it a shoebox or under a mattress.
RE: Spending money
I never said they put their entire net worth in traditional investments. However, they do *something* with it. If they put it in a bank account, they are putting it into the economy. If they make purchases with it, they are putting it into the economy. There are only a limited number of ways to actually take money out of the economy. One way is to take cash bills and light them on fire. One way is to put it in a shoebox or under a mattress etc.
RE: Economy
I completely agree that a government cannot simply print money whenever it needs it. The US government is fiscally mismanaged on an epic scale and I see no presidential candidate seeking to change that. The problem of the money supply is a result of the Fed and its (mis-)management. We both agree that *something* needs to be done. However, all solutions do not have equal merit.
#64 “RE: “Fair” share
I define “fair” as two people paying the same percentage of what they make.”
I’ll go for that if I get a # of votes equal to what I pay. If I pay 2X what you do in income tax I get 2X the voting power. That’s how I define “fair”.
# 64 Thomas
“I define “fair” as two people paying the same percentage of what they make.”
Ok well we define it differently. So that is a major stumbling block right there.
RE: “Hiding” money
“My apologies. I am using term “hide” in two different contexts. With respect to taxes, “hide” means tax avoidance. ”
No need to apologies I wasn’t offended. I pretty much agree with the rest of the Hiding money part. Except you said “The way to increase tax revenue is to encourage the wealthy to put their money in taxable investments. ” The problem with that is a lot of rich folks don’t want to pay tax on their investments and bitch about it all the time. So they want a system set up where THEY and a few middle class and no poor can make money and not give back. That isn’t fair.
RE: Spending money
Don’t think so limited . Bank accounts are not the only place. Houses, Off shore accounts. there are plenty of places that the UBER rich hide their money legally. That money does not benefit the American people.
“One way is to take cash bills and light them on fire. ”
LOL no rich people do that LOL It is contrary to the mindset of getting rich.
RE: Economy
“The US government is fiscally mismanaged on an epic scale and I see no presidential candidate seeking to change that. ”
We defiantly agree on that!!!!!
“The problem of the money supply is a result of the Fed and its (mis-)management. ”
I agree there too.
“We both agree that *something* needs to be done. However, all solutions do not have equal merit.”
I don’t think you and I disagree really. We just don’t see it through the same pair of eye glasses. I am very wealthy and I was raised by very well educated and wealthy parents. I have a sense of guilt I guess that says life has been good to me and I feel I should share or be willing to share with those who work hard and can’t get ahead. I pay all of my employees very well and in return they work very hard and make me even more money. That is why I pull for the middle and lower class. They are willing to earn it. Most of the wealthy people I know were born into like myself but they don’t have that I will earn it attitude. They have the I deserve it attitude and fuck the middle class worker bees.
RE: Hiding Money
> The problem with that is a lot
> of rich folks don’t want to pay
> tax on their investments and bitch
> about it all the time.
Exactly so (I would claim that is actually a universal sentiment). For every investment there is a cost-benefit analysis which includes tax liability. All things being equal, the higher the tax rate, the less attractive a given investment (business, purchase etc.). Again, all things being equal, if the tax rate were 100% of projected income clearly no one would make the investment and if the tax liability were 0% clearly everyone would. The optimal rate lies on a curve where you can maximize the tax revenue which means that most will make the investment and incur the tax liability. That is the best way to increase tax revenue and encourage investment. It is far better than attempting to base it on the moving target of “income”. As I’m sure you are aware, the way the rich avoid the most tax is not by deductions; it is by moving as much as money as possible out of the definition of “personal income.”
RE: Hiding money
Buying property is still putting money into the economy (not to mention improvements.) Off-shore accounts still puts money into the global economy even if not the local economy. Off-shore accounts is an entirely different discussion since it relates to both how the country, your State and local community compete in the global economy as well as the legitimacy of taxing people on money not made in the US (Frankly, IMO getting taxed on off-shore money is getting taxed twice). In addition, you have to evaluate foreign investment vs the migration of money off-shore to really determine the effect.