We need some type of excessive compensation tax.

[BoberFett]

Here's one of this forums biggest whiners about "the rich" complaining that he might not get to hand those wealthy NFL owners his money for TWO WHOLE YEARS!!!!1!!!

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2146638

But then he's also the guy who is glad illegals immigrants pick lettuce so he can save money at the grocery store.

LOLiberals!

 

[jackace]

If you want to make more money, upgrade your skill set so you're more valuable.

If you want the "rich" to make less, stop buying their product and become self-sufficient. Those who bitch most about the wealthy are the ones who are leading the crowds to hand their money to the wealthy; watching pro sports athletes and buying their jerseys, buying the music from rap and pop stars, and buying the latest tech gizmo (iPad anyone)?

When we are talking about wealth or income we aren't talking about any one individual. We are looking at things in a macro sense not a micro sense. When we look at the economy as a whole we see all kinds of problems and red flags. Sure an individual in that economy can overcome these problems, but looking at the entire economy we see that most people aren't able to overcome those problems.

 

[spidey07]

When we are talking about wealth or income we aren't talking about any one individual. We are looking at things in a macro sense not a micro sense. When we look at the economy as a whole we see all kinds of problems and red flags. Sure an individual in that economy can overcome these problems, but looking at the entire economy we see that most people aren't able to overcome those problems.

Bullshit. This is more of the line of "it's not my fault" type of thinking. The path is laid out for you thanks to this great nation of opportunity. You can spend your time demonizing successful people or you can become one of them. Nothing is preventing anybody from being successful except themselves. This is America dammit.

The choice is up to you. I did it and if I can, anybody can because I'm particularly lazy.

 

[CallMeJoe]

And now his socialism has buried us alive in debt. It seems that it was a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Once we're saddled with that kind of system, it's proven impossible to cast off, with the inevitable result now self-evident to anyone who has tried to crunch the numbers and find a way to balance the budget.

Franklin Roosevelt's programs are not the problem; the failure to adjust those programs as life expectancy increased by almost 25% is the problem.

 

[jackace]

Bullshit. This is more of the line of "it's not my fault" type of thinking. The path is laid out for you thanks to this great nation of opportunity. You can spend your time demonizing successful people or you can become one of them. Nothing is preventing anybody from being successful except themselves. This is America dammit.

The choice is up to you. I did it and if I can, anybody can because I'm particularly lazy.

This has nothing to do with it's not my fault thnking. We are looking at the entire economy and seeing who is winning or successful and who is losing or stagnating. More people are losing and stagnating then before. You can make up any reason you want for the problem and blame anyone you want, but that is just how things are.

Elizabeth Warren has done all kinds of research into the problem and her videos have been posted all over this forum so I won't bother posting them again. The highlights of her points are the basics cost more then they did a generation ago, and incomes are less than a generation ago.

 

[CycloWizard]

Franklin Roosevelt's programs are not the problem; the failure to adjust those programs as life expectancy increased by almost 25% is the problem.

So the fix is to add government-provided healthcare to the tab? No. The fix is to stop relying on the government to wipe your ass for you. While government can protect your rights, it can't provide for them. You want the right to life? Fine - government can stop someone from killing you (or at least prosecute them if they do). If you want government to keep you alive, then you have a problem because it must expend infinite resources to keep each of its members alive indefinitely. The same goes for the rights to liberty and property - I just chose healthcare as the most timely example.

 

[spidey07]

This has nothing to do with it's not my fault thnking. We are looking at the entire economy and seeing who is winning or successful and who is losing or stagnating. More people are losing and stagnating then before. You can make up any reason you want for the problem and blame anyone you want, but that is just how things are.

Elizabeth Warren has done all kinds of research into the problem and her videos have been posted all over this forum so I won't bother posting them again. The highlights of her points are the basics cost more then they did a generation ago, and incomes are less than a generation ago.

Who is winning is the winners and that's how it should be. There are losers in every society and they have the opportunity and chance to not be losers, but it is still their choice.

Join the winners or wallow with losers. I figured this out a long time ago. But I guess people still "blame the system" for their failure.

 

[CallMeJoe]

So the fix is to add government-provided healthcare to the tab? No. The fix is to stop relying on the government to wipe your ass for you. While government can protect your rights, it can't provide for them. You want the right to life? Fine - government can stop someone from killing you (or at least prosecute them if they do). If you want government to keep you alive, then you have a problem because it must expend infinite resources to keep each of its members alive indefinitely. The same goes for the rights to liberty and property - I just chose healthcare as the most timely example.

????
Sudden sharp right turn from Social Security to Obamacare - can you say non sequitur?

 

[jackace]

Who is winning is the winners and that's how it should be. There are losers in every society and they have the opportunity and chance to not be losers, but it is still their choice.

Join the winners or wallow with losers. I figured this out a long time ago. But I guess people still "blame the system" for their failure.

Again more of the micro economic outlook on a macro economic problem. I too have went to college and found a good job, but I know many others who have done the same thing in my very same degree program and they have not been as lucky when it comes to finding a job. I also understand that even though I have a good job now things could change tomorrow.
Anecdotal evidence is useless when discussing a macro economic problem.

 

[comptr6]

In 1960 the GDP was roughly 600 billion or 4.2 trillion in current dollars.

The GDP for 2009 was 14 trillion.

The pie isn't the same size.

Yep, the pie has gotten bigger it only makes sense that those who are the most successful will own more of it now.

 

[TheDoc9]

The "bottom" 47% pays ZERO income tax or gets a tax credit (IE paid) from the federal government.

The tax base needs to be expanded so everyone has skin in the game.

Meanwhile, the top 10% already shoulders 68% of income taxes.

Here is some reality showing how statistics can be manipulated:

CEO pays himself 100k, taxed 37% off the top.
CEO writes off traveling, cars, food, work on home, ect. worth 50k throughout the year.
CEO then gets 600k stock options bonus, each option payable in 2 years and worth lets say $5 each. That's $3 million, I'm keeping this easy because immediately payable options are taxed in a different way.

Cashing in for this year (2 years from now) alone:
-thats 3 million at 15% max federal
-37% Income on $100k
-0% tax for 50k writeoffs

Lots of boring math to arrive to -
(3,150,000 - 2,663,000)/3,150,000 =

6.5% effective tax for this CEO

And this is smalltime, nothing like the hedge fund managers making BILLIONS a year playing golf while a piece of computer software trades for them.

There are other ways that I know of to hide money, and I study this as a hobby. Imagine what someone who gets paid to do this knows.

 

[jackace]

Yep, the pie has gotten bigger it only makes sense that those who are the most successful will own more of it now.

How does that make sense?

As the pie gets bigger the proportions should stay the same unless some macro economic factors are changing those proportions in some way.

 

[Zorba]

Your analogy is exactly backward to your views on society. Everyone agrees that the person consuming the Kobe steak and $1,000 wine should pay for it; the only question is whether nor not that person should also have to pay for you to have a nicer steak than you could afford from the rewards of your own efforts.

Spending your money on your wants is fine; my taking your money to spend on my wants, not so much.

I think Craig was trying (poorly) to illustrate that the rich get a lot more from the government than the middle class and then stick the middle class people with a disproportionate amount of the burden.

 

[BoberFett]

I think Craig was trying (poorly) to illustrate that the rich get a lot more from the government than the middle class and then stick the middle class people with a disproportionate amount of the burden.

Sounds then like the middle class would do well to vote for smaller government rather than larger.

:hmm:

 

[CycloWizard]

????
Sudden sharp right turn from Social Security to Obamacare - can you say non sequitur?

That's exactly the point - people like you can only see the minutiae and miss the forest for the trees. If we just had SS, we might be able to float it for another 100 years or so. Same thing if we just had Medicare, Medicaid, or any other social program. Each one of these is a millstone around our collective neck, but the combination is a huge reason we're in such a hot mess right now. Instead of addressing them, we just lump them under "non-discretionary" funding and they get passed along without even a glance in their direction when we look for creative ways to cut the budget. The china is rattling, but we assume it's not because of the sacred elephant in the room.

 

[werepossum]

Franklin Roosevelt's programs are not the problem; the failure to adjust those programs as life expectancy increased by almost 25% is the problem.

Lot of truth in this. I'm old enough to remember the poor houses, although they were largely depopulated by then. There is no reason anyone should expect taxpayers to support them retiring at 67 or 67, much less 62. Public employees are often even worse; one transit worker's union representative was defending his union's right to retire at 55! No way can society support that, especially not now with the baby boomers nearing or at retirement age.

Here is some reality showing how statistics can be manipulated:

CEO pays himself 100k, taxed 37% off the top.
CEO writes off traveling, cars, food, work on home, ect. worth 50k throughout the year.
CEO then gets 600k stock options bonus, each option payable in 2 years and worth lets say $5 each. That's $3 million, I'm keeping this easy because immediately payable options are taxed in a different way.

Cashing in for this year (2 years from now) alone:
-thats 3 million at 15% max federal
-37% Income on $100k
-0% tax for 50k writeoffs

Lots of boring math to arrive to -
(3,150,000 - 2,663,000)/3,150,000 =

6.5% effective tax for this CEO

And this is smalltime, nothing like the hedge fund managers making BILLIONS a year playing golf while a piece of computer software trades for them.

There are other ways that I know of to hide money, and I study this as a hobby. Imagine what someone who gets paid to do this knows.

This is true, and shows not why tax rates should be raised but why the tax system should be reformed. Every product or service supplied to one employee should be taxable income. Every stock option should be taxed as wage income, if not more heavily, since exercising a stock option risks no money and is seldom even tied to job performance. Far too often corporations have vacation homes that only one or a very few can access, but whose costs are expensed.

 

[CallMeJoe]

That's exactly the point...

I just pointed out that President Roosevelt's "socialist" reforms likely saved the United States from the far more extreme solutions proposed by Senator Long; I don't know why you decided to blame FDR for everything from President Johnson's Great Society to President Bush's Medicare Part D.

 

[CycloWizard]

I just pointed out that President Roosevelt's "socialist" reforms likely saved the United States from the far more extreme solutions proposed by Senator Long; I don't know why you decided to blame FDR for everything from President Johnson's Great Society to President Bush's Medicare Part D.

I don't know how you graduated from high school with such poor reading comprehension skills either, but apparently it happened.

 

[lothar]

We also need an excessive consumption tax.
Too many people buying crap they don't need and can't afford.