The Wealthiest 1%

[Corn]

yamahaXS, please explain how: "Rich people by far benefit from government more than poor people."

Do rich people go on welfare or require food stamps? Do they drive on more roads? Do they call the police more often? Do they send more children to public schools then poor folk? Please, explain how rich people benefit more from government then poor people do.

 

[warcleric]

jjm: the ONLY reason it has been supported in the past is because the wealthy are a minority. As far as expenses go, we live to our means. I would wager that my disposable income is at almost exactly the same percentage of my total income as someone who makes $20,000/year. Perhaps this is not a necessity, but according to your observations, everyone should live in a run down shanty under a bridge, I mean that is all we would be required to do in order to survive. I have had no special treatment in my upbringing, nor have I had any advantages over anyone else, ever, except that I have the desire and the motivation to succeed. I should not be required to pay a higher percentage of my income to take care of the under-achievers of this world, just because I can "afford" it better than they can.

Yamaha: sorry man, but I have to disagree. I have not received anything above and beyond what every citizen receives. Although I am not wealthy, just comfortable.

 

[DataFly]

Somewhere around $216K puts you in the top 1%.

 

[LIBERTYorDEATH]

Gandalf, the united states prior to 1913 survived wonderfully without an federal income tax. I guess when i wrote my original two posts I had not realized that the majority of those people on this forum were young, still fresh from the government indoctrination camps called High school. A few years of writing out 50k+ quarterly tax checks (after all, if you are self employeed..which is the only real way to enjoy life IMHO..you don't have withholding..you get to see every dime they steal from you in taxes because you have to write the IRS a fat check every quarter),,should make you come around. Also, on the death tax..that is pure confiscation. The money has already been taxed once. Those scum in this country who support a death tax can only do so if they believe all wealth belongs to the government and they ALLOW us to keep a little bit ,however much they decide. Our founding fathers would be turning in their graves if they knew this is what their childrens childrens children had become..socialists..good god almighty damn! My job in life is to support myself and my wife and to make as much money as I can. It is not to support any other human beings. The top1% of income earners already get raped by the tax system. They are expected, because they are for the most part smarter and more driven, to support the people on the lower end of societies bell curve. From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs..sound familiar?

I wish I could clone patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson again, we would start a new american revolution and end the tyrrany of the IRS.

 

[ElFenix]

<< They are expected, because they are for the most part smarter and more driven, to support the people on the lower end of societies bell curve. >>



smarter and more driven my a$$. some, yes. all, no. theres plenty of smart and driven people who never make it to the top 1% because they didn't even have access to the resources that helped propel the top 1% to their status. do you seriously think that a kid in a poor neighborhood in downtown houston is receiving an education even on the same level as a kid out in the suburbs with top 1% parents? is it the kid's fault for being born poor? drive can't make up for a lack of quality instruction, or for a lack of AP courses in high school, or for a family's inability to pay for such institutions as harvard and yale. drive can't make up for inaccess to capital.




<< From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs >>



that is hardly the case in the US. your governing philosophy might have been widely hailed in the 18th century, but it is obsolete now.

 

[warcleric]

ElFenix: waaah! I dont want to hear it, I was brought up in a lower middle class family and had no college money given to me. No AP courses, no special advantages. ANYONE, yes I said ANYONE can make it. Those who don't have noone to blame but themselves.

 

[jjm]

Liberty - For many very wealthy, the money has never been taxed. If you own a business, and most of your wealth is invested in the stock of the business, under GWB's plan you would never pay taxes on the increase in value. No income taxes, no estate taxes, nada. As I hope you well know, you would not have a taxable capital gain until you actually sell the shares. Instead of selling in your lifetime, you would leave the stock to your heirs who could then sell it. Their cost basis would be stepped up to the day you died. All the gains would be tax-free. Period.

warcleric - What you consider basic to your particular needs is irrelevant. The fact remains that anything someone chooses to spend above and beyond basic needs of living is discretionary. The flat tax load is greatest as a percent of discretionary income on those earning the least. You can rationalize whatever you like for your own comfort, that still doesn't change the facts.

 

[charrison]

Education is overrated at times. Education is NO replacement for drive and ambition. Lets not forget Gates and Dell dropped out of their schooling.

 

[LIBERTYorDEATH]

jjim, as it should be.. taxing capital gains is insane. It is a deterrant to investment. When was the last time anyone got a job from a poor person. Jobs are created when people invest capital..why punish that. When I die, I would rather all I owned be incinerated in a huge bonfire than to see anyone besides my heirs get one single dime I worked for..plaina nd simple. The major obstacle to the elimination of the death tax is the freaking lawyers who have made a lucrative life from &quot;estate planning&quot;. NOBODY but me and my family has a right to benefit monetarily from my lifes work, unless i invite them to by employying them, or selling them shares. Government simply has no role in it.

 

[warcleric]

jjm: then how about a flat tax on only discretionary income? oh, wait that is already the way it is.

 

[Michael]

Although I disagree with jjm's viewpoints on some issues, I did a quick calc. I am in the top 1% range. I chose to live in a fairly nice community, but I decided to buy a house $250K less than I could borrow for.

After taxes and 401(k), my &quot;disposable&quot; income is at least 20% after my expenses are met. If I had bought the more expensive house (which is more typical for people with my position and salary range), I would have about 5%-10% as &quot;disposable&quot;. I have no issue with a progressive rate (at least the current progression) and, compared to Canada where I grew up, I find taxes to be low.

Liberty - It isn't 1913 any more.

Michael

 

[StageLeft]

How much do you make Michael? Its ok, you can tell - because I asked so it won't be bragging

 

[Corn]

<< All the gains would be tax-free. Period. >>



Oh my the horrors!!!!! Let's be realistic for a moment, don't you think that 55% is just a little bit excessive Jimmy? Why not at least alter the estate tax code to reflect capital gains rate and only tax what hasn't been taxed in the first place?



<< Instead of selling in your lifetime, you would leave the stock to your heirs who could then sell it. >>



Interesting, but how about taxing for the capital gains when the inherited stock or business is sold and the profit of the sale is realized by the heir, and not before?

 

[jjm]

Liberty - Well, that's an intelligent response. You need to put in a picture of you sticking out your tongue! &quot;I'll burn it all before the government can have 25% or 50% of it! Na, na, na.&quot; Give me a break.

Reinvestment? What a crock. Discouraging the use of the money in one's lifetime (tying it up 50-60-70 years) is a complete detriment to reinvestment. The incentive will be to sit on the shares rather than deploy the gains for use elsewhere. With an estate tax, there is less incentive to lock up the money until death. Your argument falls apart completely.

warcleric - I never said the tax was on discretionary income. I calculated it in each case on all income. It takes an understanding beyond the obvious to grasp this point. The tax system is built around the premise that it is unfair to tax the first dollars of earnings heavily. Everyone needs a base amount to get by. After the basics are achieved, everything else is discretionary and one can bear to pay a higher share in taxes, progessively. A flat tax ignores this concept. Like it or not, that has been a hallmark of the American tax system for decades. It is not likely to change.

By the way, I assume you all saw the poll results in yesterday's Wall Street Journal (page A24). (A conservative publication if there ever was one.) A full 79% responded that they believe the wealthiest will benefit most. Only 19% favored a tax cut versus paying down the debt faster, or more spending on domestic programs, or shoring up Social Security and Medicare. GWB has a lot of convincing to do.

 

[ElFenix]

warcleric - there are exceptions to everything. still, the country would be a lot better off if every kid had the same opportunity for a quality education. then we wouldn't need that damned affirmative action program for college entrance.

 

[LIBERTYorDEATH]

Yes that is because a full 46% of americans pay no income tax at all, when the earned income tax credit is employeed. That is why democracy fails..it is tyrrany of the majority and the majority is usually stupid blind sheep blindly folowing dictates from government officials. Tax avoidance and evasion will continue to be the best ways to avoid society ripping you off, IMHO. As for my argument Jim, it did not fall apart. My argument is whatever you earn, you keep. If you want to spend it philanthropicly, grow your business, or build graceland 2, its all the same to me because you earned it..noone else has a claim on it but YOU!

 

[jjm]

Corny - I'm in favor of increasing the estate limit to, say, $5 million. I am not in favor of eliminating the estate tax.

By the way, 15% of GWB's $1.6 trillion tax cut depends on the abolition of the estate tax. That's a lot of money for the very wealthy since only 2% of all estates (those in xcess of $675,000, soon to be $1 million) currently pay any estate tax at all.

&quot;Interesting, but how about taxing for the capital gains when the inherited stock or business is sold and the profit of the sale is realized by the heir, and not before? &quot;

See my last post. If you are advocating carrying the basis over to the heirs, that's a major change. That would affect nearly everyone, unlike adjustments to the estate tax. And that would encourage heirs to sit on the shares even longer, selling only when they have to. Cycling the money back through the econmony would virtually stop. Reinvestment would dry up since there would be greater incentive to hold rather than sell.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

Corn think about this way...

rich people have more to protect (ie, benefit from military, law enforcement agencies, judicial system, congress, etc.)

rich people DO use infrastructure more than poor people (ie rail, highways, airports, powergrids, communications), and while these things may not be owned by the federal governemnt they are regulated and subsidized.

 

[Jmman]

Yeah, &quot;big daddy&quot; government should be taking care of all of us. Let me just give my whole check to them and then let them decide how much of my money they want to give back to me. Our tax system is broken!! We need to get rid of it and go with national sales tax, a flat tax, something that doesn't penalize you for being successful....our founding fathers must be turning in their graves....

 

[jjm]

Liberty: &quot;Jobs are created when people invest capital..why punish that.&quot;

I agree, and the estate tax spurs people to take gains and invest them sooner rather than deferring them to death. Now how is it that your argument holds up?

 

[Mister T]

I am hearing the same old record, again and again.

jjm, I think your principles would be far more compatible with those of a socialist country.
Democracy, Capitalism, and the notion of a private corporation make this nation the most powerful
in the world.


Elfenix:

>smarter and more driven my a$$. some, yes. all, no. theres plenty of smart and driven people who never
>make i to the top 1% because they didn't even have access to the resources that helped propel the top 1%
>to their status. do you seriously >think that a kid in a poor neighborhood in downtown houston is receiving
>an education even on the same level as a kid out >in the suburbs with top 1% parents? is it the kid's fault
>for being born poor? drive can't make up for a lack of quality >instruction, or for a lack of AP courses in >high school, or for a family's inability to pay for such institutions as >harvard and yale. drive can't make
>up for inaccess to capital.

This is a load of BS. You make me laugh.

<begin story>
My parents emmigrated from Greece in the 60's... Before they came to the US, my dad used to pick tobacco by hand in the fields, while my mom milked cows. My mom was not even High school educated. They came over to the US and my mom became a hairdresser, and my dad, a janitor. My parents have never grossed more than 40K a year for the last 20 years. Enter me and my sister 20 years later. I am graduating from the Sloan School of Business @ MIT and my sister is a sophomore at Wellesley College. I have a job lined up on Wall Street and will make approximately 100K my first year. More than twice my family's combined income. I will be in the top 1% very soon. Did my parents teach me anything? YES --- HOW TO WORK YOUR @SS OFF IF YOU WANT ANYTHING IN LIFE.
<end of story>

No one is forced to live in poverty in this country. There is always a way out. You just have to have the courage to work hard. Hell yea its easier to have some more kids and collect welfare. We need to adjust the tax structure and incentives to be more aligned with getting people out of poverty - not making it more comfortable to be poor.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

Jmman A sales tax replacing an income tax? How fair is that? Thats just class warfare dude. You know that percentages paid in taxes would decrease as income/networth increased. Otherwise you wouldn't even be for it. You are simple trying to shift the tax burden from yourself to someone else.

The bottom line is that you SHOULD pay taxes proportional to the amount you benefit from government. The reason why we even have tax rates (as opposed to a set amount tax fee) in the first place is that just about everyone agrees that rich people benefit more than poor people.

 

[jjm]

Jmman - Your post is full of such simplistic &quot;sound-bite&quot; propaganda, why did you even bother? Can't you think past the spoon feeding from your comrades? Is that the entire depth of your understanding on this subject?

 

[Scrapster]

The Wealthiest 1%

Yes?

 

[jjm]

Mister T - The quotes you are taking issue with are not mine. If I have said something with which you disagree, please quote me and not someone else.