The Case for a Head Tax

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bleep

The top 1/2 of income earners have been paying most of the taxes for some time.

Maybe that is because 10% of the people have control over 90% of the money.

Bleep

While they wealthy do have a large share of the pie, it is not anywhere near 90%.

Prove it.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Dari
Why is there so much hatred of the wealthy, especially wealthy Americans. If anything, those that are wealthy here earned it rather than inheriting it. While I can understand the hatred of wealthy Europeans by regular Europeans, the case is entirely different here.

What hatred?

What hatred? I think you need a stronger prescription, sir. Look at the many threads in this forum and the virtual snickers whenever the rich are mentioned.

What does that have to do with this thread?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Dari
Why is there so much hatred of the wealthy, especially wealthy Americans. If anything, those that are wealthy here earned it rather than inheriting it. While I can understand the hatred of wealthy Europeans by regular Europeans, the case is entirely different here.

And I was thinking just the opposite. The governemnt hates the poor. Almost every tax but income is regressive one designed to hit the poor and working class disproportionatly so. Sales tax, Property, Payroll (aka SS which stops at 89.5K) and Excise taxes all are paid more as a percentage of thier income than "wealthy" whatever that is. And i could make a very good agrument even income tax is regressive if you have enough income to afford proper exclusions and deductions.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Dari
Why is there so much hatred of the wealthy, especially wealthy Americans. If anything, those that are wealthy here earned it rather than inheriting it. While I can understand the hatred of wealthy Europeans by regular Europeans, the case is entirely different here.

And I was thinking just the opposite. The governemnt hates the poor. Almost every tax but income is regressive one designed to hit the poor and working class disproportionatly so. Sales tax, Property, Payroll (aka SS which stops at 89.5K) and Excise taxes all are paid more as a percentage of thier income than "wealthy" whatever that is. And i could make a very good agrument even income tax is regressive if you have enough income to afford proper exclusions and deductions.

There will always be poor people, relatively speaking. However, there is a European-style hatred of wealthy in this country. The best thing for everyone is if the government lowered its presence along with its taxes and strived to be efficient. That way, the potential of everyone is maximized. By saddling everyone with taxes, the government mis-spends the citizenry's money, then asks for more when it spends more than it has. I favor flat-tax and have people be more responsible for their lives.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think Darwinism should be practiced. I am more likely than another to crush an opponent. This is a fair system if you think about it. I can take both from the rich and the poor. I favor anarchy.

That way, both rich and poor get to be victims.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: MadRat

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bleep

The top 1/2 of income earners have been paying most of the taxes for some time.

Maybe that is because 10% of the people have control over 90% of the money.

Bleep

While they wealthy do have a large share of the pie, it is not anywhere near 90%.

Prove it.

linkage

The data for 1999 show:


The top 1 percent of taxpayers earned 19.5 percent of all adjusted gross income, but paid 36.2 percent of all federal personal income taxes.


The top 10 percent of taxpayers earned 44.9 percent of all adjusted gross income, but paid 66.5 percent of income taxes.


On the other hand, the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers earned 13.2 percent of all adjusted gross income, but paid only 4 percent of income taxes.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Dari
Why is there so much hatred of the wealthy, especially wealthy Americans. If anything, those that are wealthy here earned it rather than inheriting it. While I can understand the hatred of wealthy Europeans by regular Europeans, the case is entirely different here.

And I was thinking just the opposite. The governemnt hates the poor. Almost every tax but income is regressive one designed to hit the poor and working class disproportionatly so. Sales tax, Property, Payroll (aka SS which stops at 89.5K) and Excise taxes all are paid more as a percentage of thier income than "wealthy" whatever that is. And i could make a very good agrument even income tax is regressive if you have enough income to afford proper exclusions and deductions.

There will always be poor people, relatively speaking. However, there is a European-style hatred of wealthy in this country. The best thing for everyone is if the government lowered its presence along with its taxes and strived to be efficient. That way, the potential of everyone is maximized. By saddling everyone with taxes, the government mis-spends the citizenry's money, then asks for more when it spends more than it has. I favor flat-tax and have people be more responsible for their lives.

Agree with all that. Flat would be wonderful as long as you include "income" to be from all sources such as dividends, rents, Long term Capital gains, secured loan agreements which present very daunting problems with valuation, characterization or timing such as what it is... In fact those earners are exactly what the 55,000 pages of tax code is designed to "decide" or is'nt. Right now, the IRS's misleading "AGI" fiqures which represent the vast proportion of people paying taxes, pay them primarily based upon the wages they earn. Wages are the easiest thing in the world to tax..What's the 1040 instruction set like 38 pages? Anyway...no duductions.. flat ...characterzation is audited yearly like property is..

 

[MadRat]

Charrison-

Correct me if I heard him say it different, but we weren't talking income, we were talking control of assets.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Dari
Why is there so much hatred of the wealthy, especially wealthy Americans. If anything, those that are wealthy here earned it rather than inheriting it. While I can understand the hatred of wealthy Europeans by regular Europeans, the case is entirely different here.

And I was thinking just the opposite. The governemnt hates the poor. Almost every tax but income is regressive one designed to hit the poor and working class disproportionatly so. Sales tax, Property, Payroll (aka SS which stops at 89.5K) and Excise taxes all are paid more as a percentage of thier income than "wealthy" whatever that is. And i could make a very good agrument even income tax is regressive if you have enough income to afford proper exclusions and deductions.

There will always be poor people, relatively speaking. However, there is a European-style hatred of wealthy in this country. The best thing for everyone is if the government lowered its presence along with its taxes and strived to be efficient. That way, the potential of everyone is maximized. By saddling everyone with taxes, the government mis-spends the citizenry's money, then asks for more when it spends more than it has. I favor flat-tax and have people be more responsible for their lives.

Agree with all that. Flat would be wonderful as long as you include "income" to be from all sources such as dividends, rents, Long term Capital gains, secured loan agreements which present very daunting problems with valuation, characterization or timing such as what it is... In fact those earners are exactly what the 55,000 pages of tax code is designed to "decide" or is'nt. Right now, the IRS's misleading "AGI" fiqures which represent the vast proportion of people paying taxes, pay them primarily based upon the wages they earn. Wages are the easiest thing in the world to tax..What's the 1040 instruction set like 38 pages? Anyway...no duductions.. flat ...characterzation is audited yearly like property is..

Seeing that you once recommended to me 90% taxation on the wealthiest Americans, I'm starting to wonder what you mean by "agree with all that." As for the extra income you mentioned , I think the government should have a "hands off" policy on them.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Dari
Why is there so much hatred of the wealthy, especially wealthy Americans. If anything, those that are wealthy here earned it rather than inheriting it. While I can understand the hatred of wealthy Europeans by regular Europeans, the case is entirely different here.

And I was thinking just the opposite. The governemnt hates the poor. Almost every tax but income is regressive one designed to hit the poor and working class disproportionatly so. Sales tax, Property, Payroll (aka SS which stops at 89.5K) and Excise taxes all are paid more as a percentage of thier income than "wealthy" whatever that is. And i could make a very good agrument even income tax is regressive if you have enough income to afford proper exclusions and deductions.

There will always be poor people, relatively speaking. However, there is a European-style hatred of wealthy in this country. The best thing for everyone is if the government lowered its presence along with its taxes and strived to be efficient. That way, the potential of everyone is maximized. By saddling everyone with taxes, the government mis-spends the citizenry's money, then asks for more when it spends more than it has. I favor flat-tax and have people be more responsible for their lives.

Agree with all that. Flat would be wonderful as long as you include "income" to be from all sources such as dividends, rents, Long term Capital gains, secured loan agreements which present very daunting problems with valuation, characterization or timing such as what it is... In fact those earners are exactly what the 55,000 pages of tax code is designed to "decide" or is'nt. Right now, the IRS's misleading "AGI" fiqures which represent the vast proportion of people paying taxes, pay them primarily based upon the wages they earn. Wages are the easiest thing in the world to tax..What's the 1040 instruction set like 38 pages? Anyway...no duductions.. flat ...characterzation is audited yearly like property is..

Seeing that you once recommended to me 90% taxation on the wealthiest Americans, I'm starting to wonder what you mean by "agree with all that." As for the extra income you mentioned , I think the government should have a "hands off" policy on them.

in other words by hands off you mean the wealthy should'nt pay any taxes.
No wealthy person gets thier money from income but maybe the occational walking corporation in a ball player or movie star...How is that flat tax?

BTW 90% worked wonderfully ..even lowered to 73% from kennedy to Ford was wonderful...growth has never been matched since then which hovered around 3-5% every year, taxes were almost nill on the majority of americans and wages were higher relativly where raising a family was easily done with one income. Not today the whole system is regressive, people working harder sometimes two per household to match this tax and hidden tax of inflation and gap between classes is exploding.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Charrison-

Correct me if I heard him say it different, but we weren't talking income, we were talking control of assets.

I doubt assets would be radically different from income....Assets require income to generate. Those born wealthy are few...

 

[Zebo]

Those born wealthy are few...
-------------------

That's a joke right? Take a look at forbes 400 sometime not only did over 50% inherit on that list the other 50% were born extremely priveliged.


Assets require income to generate.
----------
Not even close. It helps but is really insignifigant portion for the truely rich. Gates has never "made" more than 400K a year in income hows he live in a house that would have taken him working 100 years at that salary the generate. I read powell is worth 48 million dollars not bad for someone who only made 173K as a general.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Those born wealthy are few...
-------------------

That's a joke right? Take a look at forbes 400 sometime not only did over 50% inherit on that list the other 50% were born extremely priveliged.

First your comment makes almost no sense.
The forbes 400 is not static, people come and go from it. Yes there are people that got there via inheritance, but that is not the majority.

200 people out of 300 million I would count as few.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Zebo
Those born wealthy are few...
-------------------

That's a joke right? Take a look at forbes 400 sometime not only did over 50% inherit on that list the other 50% were born extremely priveliged.

First your comment makes almost no sense.
The forbes 400 is not static, people come and go from it. Yes there are people that got there via inheritance, but that is not the majority.

200 people out of 300 million I would count as few.

Yes it is the majority on that list and That was just the richest..You can perciptate it down to your local ford dealer or plumbing contractor who gifts or starts his son in a business.. I thought everyone knew money begets money...guess not.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
1) The size of government would be forced to be slashed. In the case of the military the U.S. would pull all troops out of foreign countries. The cost of military would go way down. Furthermore, the U.S. wouldn't have to live in as much fear because we wouldn't be meddling in the affairs of other countries.

2) Those who cannot afford could get private charity to provide. In the worst case the person would merely perform a number of hours of service for the government working directly on a government project.

It is not a matter of being "held back". I don't really know what you mean by that, but it is a matter of democracy. Like I pointed out, democracy can never be claimed under a system of government where those who do not pay receive benefits, even if each have an equal vote. What's unfair about it? Government creates classes in society, and it has passed judgment based on someone's status in society. It does this in thousands of places of the tax code alone.

Murray N. Rothbard and many other Austrian economists have shown how the current government is broken time and time again. Tinkering is not necessary, it is very sad that you believe this is true. Centrally planned economies only become a fraction of what their potential really is.

First $1000 per person would put around 10-20% of the population on the street, homeless. Second History has proven time and time again that if the US fails to "meddle in the affairs of other nations" events snowball and instead of having a small problem it becomes a very large problem that requires the sacrifice of millions of people. Third, the US and all western nations are not democracies, they are republics. Large scale democracies have never worked, it ends in mob rule and civil war. Democratic republics are the only system of government that will work for a large national structure. Fourth, 300million wouldn't even be enough to provide a single millitary division, handle our international affairs and provide for infastructure.

You have idealism syndrome, it's very common among Libratarians and in fact makes you no different than communists and other idealists.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Zebo
BTW 90% worked wonderfully ..even lowered to 73% from kennedy to Ford was wonderful...growth has never been matched since then which hovered around 3-5% every year, taxes were almost nill on the majority of americans and wages were higher relativly where raising a family was easily done with one income. Not today the whole system is regressive, people working harder sometimes two per household to match this tax and hidden tax of inflation and gap between classes is exploding.

You have incredibly short vision. You can survive on a single income household in the US and live the exact same lifestyle as the 50-60's today and probably have more. The difference is in the excess of our modern society. In the 50's and 60's the average home size was around 1500sqft, owned a single car with an average age of 5 years or more, ate out on birthdays only, took a vacation once a year that involved driving somewhere close and camping, didn't have air conditioning in their home and didn't pay the hundereds we pay today for extremely non-necessary services.

You think that you should be able to survive on a single income, own 2 1 year old lexuses, own a 4000sqft home, eat out every night, travel to exotic locations and pay stupid expenses like cell phones, internet, cable TV, movies 2 or 3 times a week and buy a latte every day.

The simple fact is that people "need" dual incomes because they "need" a lot of stuff they don't actually need. Anyone that claims it's because the "rich" aren't paying enough taxes is an idiot. Nearly half the population doesn't even pay any taxes right now, and about 20% of them get a EIC from the government.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Zebo
BTW 90% worked wonderfully ..even lowered to 73% from kennedy to Ford was wonderful...growth has never been matched since then which hovered around 3-5% every year, taxes were almost nill on the majority of americans and wages were higher relativly where raising a family was easily done with one income. Not today the whole system is regressive, people working harder sometimes two per household to match this tax and hidden tax of inflation and gap between classes is exploding.

You have incredibly short vision. You can survive on a single income household in the US and live the exact same lifestyle as the 50-60's today and probably have more. The difference is in the excess of our modern society. In the 50's and 60's the average home size was around 1500sqft, owned a single car with an average age of 5 years or more, ate out on birthdays only, took a vacation once a year that involved driving somewhere close and camping, didn't have air conditioning in their home and didn't pay the hundereds we pay today for extremely non-necessary services.

You think that you should be able to survive on a single income, own 2 1 year old lexuses, own a 4000sqft home, eat out every night, travel to exotic locations and pay stupid expenses like cell phones, internet, cable TV, movies 2 or 3 times a week and buy a latte every day.

The simple fact is that people "need" dual incomes because they "need" a lot of stuff they don't actually need. Anyone that claims it's because the "rich" aren't paying enough taxes is an idiot. Nearly half the population doesn't even pay any taxes right now, and about 20% of them get a EIC from the government.

Great post, Rahvin. BTW, we only "need" all these needless communication devices because were told that they're necessary or else we'll be detached from society. No one wants to be ostracized.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Zebo
BTW 90% worked wonderfully ..even lowered to 73% from kennedy to Ford was wonderful...growth has never been matched since then which hovered around 3-5% every year, taxes were almost nill on the majority of americans and wages were higher relativly where raising a family was easily done with one income. Not today the whole system is regressive, people working harder sometimes two per household to match this tax and hidden tax of inflation and gap between classes is exploding.

You have incredibly short vision. You can survive on a single income household in the US and live the exact same lifestyle as the 50-60's today and probably have more. The difference is in the excess of our modern society. In the 50's and 60's the average home size was around 1500sqft, owned a single car with an average age of 5 years or more, ate out on birthdays only, took a vacation once a year that involved driving somewhere close and camping, didn't have air conditioning in their home and didn't pay the hundereds we pay today for extremely non-necessary services.

You think that you should be able to survive on a single income, own 2 1 year old lexuses, own a 4000sqft home, eat out every night, travel to exotic locations and pay stupid expenses like cell phones, internet, cable TV, movies 2 or 3 times a week and buy a latte every day.

The simple fact is that people "need" dual incomes because they "need" a lot of stuff they don't actually need. Anyone that claims it's because the "rich" aren't paying enough taxes is an idiot. Nearly half the population doesn't even pay any taxes right now, and about 20% of them get a EIC from the government.

My vison of history is quite annecdotal.. My dad came here in the 60's and made $11 the $13 and hour driving a pepsi truck then became warehouse mgr and eventually dist mgr, supported a family of 10 and bought a house in costa mesa on ~ 1.4 acres and about 2500 sqft payment was $120 a month. Fourty years later drivers are now making $16 an hour, that house sold for 750K now worth at least 1M and the payment is ~7000 mo. many more examples to share like my FIL a steel worker who now work for slave wages..

Btw-the U.S. is a democracy just not a direct one. Every branch of our government from executive, legislative, judicial, to monetary ultimately derives its power from majority rule or approval.

Nearly half the population doesn't even pay any taxes right now, and about 20% of them get a EIC from the government
-----------
Hard to take something form nothin is'nt it?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Zebo
Those born wealthy are few...
-------------------

That's a joke right? Take a look at forbes 400 sometime not only did over 50% inherit on that list the other 50% were born extremely priveliged.

First your comment makes almost no sense.
The forbes 400 is not static, people come and go from it. Yes there are people that got there via inheritance, but that is not the majority.

200 people out of 300 million I would count as few.

Yes it is the majority on that list and That was just the richest..You can perciptate it down to your local ford dealer or plumbing contractor who gifts or starts his son in a business.. I thought everyone knew money begets money...guess not.

Nah, you are incorrect.

The top 10 is stacked with the walton kids....
But everyone else was self made...

1. Bill Gates -- was not born rich
2. Warren Buffet -- was not born rich
3. Paul Allen -- lucky enough to know Bill
4-8. Lucky waltons
9. Larry Elison -- was not born rich
10. Micheal Dell -- was not born rich

Some local billionares....
150 Charles C. Butt -- Family owned a small grocery chain, cant determine if he was born wealthy.
136 L. Lowry Mays(clear channel) -- not born wealthy
260 Christopher Goldsbury-- cant determine, would guess not born wealthly. Became billionaire selling hotsauce(pace)
158 B.J. "Red" McCombs -- not born wealty

There are far more self mades on this list than you want to admit.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Zebo
Those born wealthy are few...
-------------------

That's a joke right? Take a look at forbes 400 sometime not only did over 50% inherit on that list the other 50% were born extremely priveliged.

First your comment makes almost no sense.
The forbes 400 is not static, people come and go from it. Yes there are people that got there via inheritance, but that is not the majority.

200 people out of 300 million I would count as few.

Yes it is the majority on that list and That was just the richest..You can perciptate it down to your local ford dealer or plumbing contractor who gifts or starts his son in a business.. I thought everyone knew money begets money...guess not.

Nah, you are incorrect.

The top 10 is stacked with the walton kids....
But everyone else was self made...

1. Bill Gates -- was not born rich wrong, his dad was one of the wealthist lawyers in seattle, mom sat on boards of fortune 500's, parents gave him 2m seed money for MS, went to primary school which costs 32K per year...nah not rich
2. Warren Buffet -- was not born rich sure his dad was only head of a brokerage house
3. Paul Allen -- lucky enough to know Bill Lucky enough to be born rich harvard aint cheap
4-8. Lucky waltons
9. Larry Elison -- was not born rich unsure
10. Micheal Dell -- was not born rich Unsure, but went to good unversity and had very suppotive parents

Some local billionares....
150 Charles C. Butt -- Family owned a small grocery chain, cant determine if he was born wealthy. Can't tell when his family owned a grocery chain?
136 L. Lowry Mays(clear channel) -- not born wealthy
260 Christopher Goldsbury-- cant determine, would guess not born wealthly. Became billionaire selling hotsauce(pace)
158 B.J. "Red" McCombs -- not born wealty

There are far more self mades on this list than you want to admit.
I did'nt bother researching the others but I think you don't know what "self-made" really means

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Dissipate
1) The size of government would be forced to be slashed. In the case of the military the U.S. would pull all troops out of foreign countries. The cost of military would go way down. Furthermore, the U.S. wouldn't have to live in as much fear because we wouldn't be meddling in the affairs of other countries.

2) Those who cannot afford could get private charity to provide. In the worst case the person would merely perform a number of hours of service for the government working directly on a government project.

It is not a matter of being "held back". I don't really know what you mean by that, but it is a matter of democracy. Like I pointed out, democracy can never be claimed under a system of government where those who do not pay receive benefits, even if each have an equal vote. What's unfair about it? Government creates classes in society, and it has passed judgment based on someone's status in society. It does this in thousands of places of the tax code alone.

Murray N. Rothbard and many other Austrian economists have shown how the current government is broken time and time again. Tinkering is not necessary, it is very sad that you believe this is true. Centrally planned economies only become a fraction of what their potential really is.

First $1000 per person would put around 10-20% of the population on the street, homeless. Second History has proven time and time again that if the US fails to "meddle in the affairs of other nations" events snowball and instead of having a small problem it becomes a very large problem that requires the sacrifice of millions of people. Third, the US and all western nations are not democracies, they are republics. Large scale democracies have never worked, it ends in mob rule and civil war. Democratic republics are the only system of government that will work for a large national structure. Fourth, 300million wouldn't even be enough to provide a single millitary division, handle our international affairs and provide for infastructure.

You have idealism syndrome, it's very common among Libratarians and in fact makes you no different than communists and other idealists.

I would like to see where you get the statistic that it would put 10-20% of the population on the street. I don't care how you cut it, $1,000 a year is hardly a lot of money. Second, there are many other countries that do not occupy other countries with military forces, there is no reason the U.S. should. Third, the US and all western nations are democracies(actually pseudo-democracies) AND republics. A republic is a country that does not have a monarch, a democracy is a system of government where people vote in elections for politicians. Fourth, $1,000 * 300 million = $300 billion, not $300 million.

I'm an idealist because I support a system of taxation that creates a true democracy, ends the vicious practice of government dividing the country into classes, making judgments on peoples' role in society and the perpetuation of a tax system that is in no way related to the cost of government? I'm sorry but this actually makes me a realist, not an idealist.

Edit: if a head tax was implemented there would instantly be private charities to help people pay their head tax. There are wealthy people out there who would be willing to pay for someone else. However, the distinction is that it is based on free will and not government coercion.

 

[MadRat]

Although I don't believe the flat tax is good for America, those argueing it will sink the poor are full of stuffing. Unreported income in California makes up a large percentage of the financing in that state. You cannot tell me its not like that everywhere else.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Zebo
Those born wealthy are few...
-------------------

That's a joke right? Take a look at forbes 400 sometime not only did over 50% inherit on that list the other 50% were born extremely priveliged.

First your comment makes almost no sense.
The forbes 400 is not static, people come and go from it. Yes there are people that got there via inheritance, but that is not the majority.

200 people out of 300 million I would count as few.

Yes it is the majority on that list and That was just the richest..You can perciptate it down to your local ford dealer or plumbing contractor who gifts or starts his son in a business.. I thought everyone knew money begets money...guess not.

Nah, you are incorrect.

The top 10 is stacked with the walton kids....
But everyone else was self made...

1. Bill Gates -- was not born rich wrong, his dad was one of the wealthist lawyers in seattle, mom sat on boards of fortune 500's, parents gave him 2m seed money for MS, went to primary school which costs 32K per year...nah not rich
2. Warren Buffet -- was not born rich sure his dad was only head of a brokerage house
3. Paul Allen -- lucky enough to know Bill Lucky enough to be born rich harvard aint cheap
4-8. Lucky waltons
9. Larry Elison -- was not born rich unsure
10. Micheal Dell -- was not born rich Unsure, but went to good unversity and had very suppotive parents

Some local billionares....
150 Charles C. Butt -- Family owned a small grocery chain, cant determine if he was born wealthy. Can't tell when his family owned a grocery chain?
136 L. Lowry Mays(clear channel) -- not born wealthy
260 Christopher Goldsbury-- cant determine, would guess not born wealthly. Became billionaire selling hotsauce(pace)
158 B.J. "Red" McCombs -- not born wealty

There are far more self mades on this list than you want to admit.
I did'nt bother researching the others but I think you don't know what "self-made" really means

1. Unsure of your comments. I know Gates came from a well to do family, Have not heard about parents providing seed capital.

2. Unsure of your comments, did not find anything that pointed to a rich beginning.

3. actually a washington state dropout
9. positive he had meager beginnings, another college drop out

10 went to UT dropped out, parents advised him to not sell computers out of the garage

150 unsure of timelines, when he took over heb at about age 45, it was worth 225M. NOt sure about where it was 45 years before that. It was still quite small then....

For the most part self made means, starting as a normal joe and making it big. Most of these people have.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sandorski
Couple things very wrong with the idea:

1) $1000/person would only generate approx $300billion. Not even enough to pay for the current Military, nevermind Infrastructure

2) What about those who can't afford this Head Tax?

Your idea is too Idealistically "fair" and ignores the benefits of the current system. It also ignores the fact that no one, especially the Wealthy, is being held back under the current tax system begging the question, "What's unfair about it?" You, and many others, continue to make the same error based upon the same reasons that Communists have made. That is, that only a Theoretical structure X(in this case Free Market Capitalism)can exist, unfortunetly Idealism is subject to the whims of Imperfect Humanity and will thus fail.

The Mixed Economies(Capitalist/Socialist mix) of the First World(every nation in the G8 including the US) are in the First World not because they are Idealistic Societies, but because they are Mixed Economies. A wise man once said, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" the last 50ish years prove that the Economic structure ain't broke.

That said, occassionally things get out of hand, such as the Economy in the last few years. When that happens Tinkering becomes necessary to get things back on track, not tearing down and starting over though.

1) The size of government would be forced to be slashed. In the case of the military the U.S. would pull all troops out of foreign countries. The cost of military would go way down. Furthermore, the U.S. wouldn't have to live in as much fear because we wouldn't be meddling in the affairs of other countries.

2) Those who cannot afford could get private charity to provide. In the worst case the person would merely perform a number of hours of service for the government working directly on a government project.

It is not a matter of being "held back". I don't really know what you mean by that, but it is a matter of democracy. Like I pointed out, democracy can never be claimed under a system of government where those who do not pay receive benefits, even if each have an equal vote. What's unfair about it? Government creates classes in society, and it has passed judgment based on someone's status in society. It does this in thousands of places of the tax code alone.

Murray N. Rothbard and many other Austrian economists have shown how the current government is broken time and time again. Tinkering is not necessary, it is very sad that you believe this is true. Centrally planned economies only become a fraction of what their potential really is.

"Classless society"? Your idea would not create such a thing, it simply ignores it and voila it's gone. Unfortunetly it isn't, as you unknowingly admit with the Charity helping the Poor pay their Tax comment. What if Charities don't have the funds to do so? Wouldn't this just create a second Tax, a voluntary Tax?

I really don't see how this would make "Democracy" better. Democracy does not depend on a particular Economic system, tax system, or other system, it depends on giving the People the freedom to choose their Leader's or the choice to choose the Laws, Systems, or other Governmental Structures of the Land. There is no correlation between the amount of Tax Payed and One's influence on the Democratic Process. Coincidentally though, those who can pay more Taxes are able to contribute more to Political Election Campaigns, thus influencing the Democratic Process. That situation would continue to exist under your Head Tax System.

I dunno how this got past my radar nets. Oh well. I will try to address.

Individuals can classify themselves however way they want. You want to categorize society into nice little cubby holes you go right ahead. However, a public entity that is supposed to be espousing equality has no place to do so. Justice is blind why can't government outside the courtroom be blind as well?

A head tax would help restore democracy by removing politician's ability to benefit some groups of people at the expense of others. Now, my plan for government is actually two pronged: instituting a head tax and getting rid of any bureaucracy that attempts to classify or bestow benefits to groups of people. Under my idea of government which is outlined in this essay there should only be one group: U.S. citizens. No more BIA, no more social security, no more corporate welfare.

You are right, democracy does not necessarily mean a society has to have a particular economic system. However, an economic system that is not capitalistic in nature leads to totalitarianism. This is what the great economist Hayek talks about in his book The Road to Serfdom The inability for a politician to enact a payroll tax such as FICA to subsidize social security would seriously weaken his ability to manipulate the political process. No longer able to pass out benefits the politician will not be able to cater to any group of voters. However, the head tax of course would not eliminate all political corruption, but it would certainly help to keep it at bay. As it is now with our current tax code, political manipulation is rampant.

 

[chess9]

Dell and Allan are self-made in my view. Gates was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, BUT what he did after was in large part an excellent example of collaborative growth, stealing, and hard work.

Most rich families have very high standards for their kids, and that's why you see so many of them arrested in bars, etc. The pressure to succeed is enormous because they are in the spotlight. They are NOT taught to sit on their fortune. Greek and Jewish families, in particular, are known for this approach. Greeks will throw their kids out on their ears if they aren't working hard. I believe many Oriental/American families adopt a similar approach although I don't know any of them.

What is missing here is the large number of children of wealthy parents who go on to be just average. Remember, human children regress to the mean as a population.

A head tax is a bad idea anyway.

-Robert