Distribution of wealth... [Archive]

BoomBoom

Sep25-09, 05:03 PM

kyleb

Sep25-09, 05:40 PM

I made a somewhat similar spin-off thread while you posted yours, but I suppose they are enough different to exist on their own. So anyway:

Given the uneven distribution of wealth, I believe that the re-distribution of wealth through mechanisms such as progressive tax codes, higher minimum wages, universal healthcare, tuition assistance, etc. (and the like) are not only warranted, but necessary for a better, more fair society in which everyone is better off, IMO.
We could also reign in the money supply to increase the value of each dollar, and let the market adjust from there. Not being a "bleeding-heart liberal" or a "cutthroat conservative", I think a combination of the two would work best in the long run.

Jasongreat

Sep25-09, 09:46 PM

This is somewhat of a spinoff from another thread about Fox News in which the discussion turned to policies that are perceived as “pro-rich” or “pro-working class and poor”.

Now it is well known that in the U.S. a mere 5% of the population holds the majority of the wealth. The majority of Americans struggle to pay their bills. Much of the wealth that the top 5% receives comes from the ‘struggling masses’. I will use this story as a backdrop:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/43d18c68-851d-11de-9a64-00144feabdc0.html

Do you think all the monopolies that gave these top 5% their wealth, could exist without the government backing them? Maybe the majority of americans should reduce their bills, then they wouldnt be struggling. And as an added bonus, if the majority of americans lived within their means, they would hold the government to the same.

This example is only in reference to overdraft fees, but lower income people are also continually hit with late fees, interest rate penalties, and they generally pay much higher interest rates for everything they buy on credit than do those who are better off financially. Often they must resort to check-cashing/payday-loan places in order to pay bills to avoid discontinued service or eviction and the charges at these places are insane.

Why do they get hit with all these fees? Improper money management? Sounds like a little education on the proper use of money, might go along way. How will giving them free money help? If they cant manage what they have, more wont help.

Pay and compensation is generally very lopsided with top execs making up to thousands of times more than lower level management as well.

Well you wont get me to argue that all top CEO's have earned their money, if more of them did we wouldnt of "had" to bail them out. I dont believe in intervention to save the companies or the workers, failure is a great teacher. Giving a bailout only made the problem worse, if they had been allowed to fail, all companies that followed would realize they have to compete. Just to clarify, I believe in the free market being allowed to work in both directions.

Given the uneven distribution of wealth, I believe that the re-distribution of wealth through mechanisms such as progressive tax codes, higher minimum wages, universal healthcare, tuition assistance, etc. (and the like) are not only warranted, but necessary for a better, more fair society in which everyone is better off, IMO.

But what do I know, I’m just a “bleeding-heart liberal”. Flame on…:wink:

It does sound like a simple solution, but it wont work anywhere but on paper. If you raise the tax on the rich and companies, they will just raise their prices and then when the struggling poor go to buy products, the pay raise you gave the poor just goes right back to the rich. If you took all the money from the rich and gave it to the poor, within a short amount of time the rich would have it all back. Why is this? Because being rich and being poor isnt caused by money, its caused by a difference in education regarding money. The rich understand how to use money to their advantage, the poor allow themselves to get used by money to their disadvantage.
A fair society is one that allows some to steal from others in the society?
Since most in this forum are from academia let me try this analogy: Do all people graduating in your class get the same grades? Why is that? Would you think it fair to have your A reduced to a C so that a classmate can move from an F to a C? Would you still work as hard for an A if you knew it could be stolen by the guy who spent all his free time wastefully, while you sacrificed and stayed home to study everynight?

All the above statements by me are just my opinion, even if I choose to attach links that agree with me, it is still just my opinion.

kyleb

Sep25-09, 09:58 PM

If you raise the tax on the rich and companies, they will just raise their prices and then when the struggling poor go to buy products, the pay raise you gave the poor just goes right back to the rich.
That would give the not rich a better opportunity to offer other products which undercut those offered by the rich.

A fair society is one that allows some to steal from others in the society?
A fair society would be one that doesn't allow the rich to steal from the rest of us under the guise of being "too big to fail".

rootX

Sep25-09, 10:11 PM

I support helping students and providing them more opportunities so that their skills are good and they are strong in global dynamic market.

1) But, people who don't deserve wealth shouldn't get it.
2) People who deserve, should get it

Universal health care is neither simple nor easy to have.
Higher minimum wage wouldn't help much and it might raise the unemployment.

Jasongreat

Sep25-09, 10:21 PM

I made a somewhat similar spin-off thread while you posted yours, but I suppose they are enough different to exist on their own. So anyway:

We could also reign in the money supply to increase the value of each dollar, and let the market adjust from there. Not being a "bleeding-heart liberal" or a "cutthroat conservative", I think a combination of the two would work best in the long run.

I am all for that, however good luck getting most people to agree. It seems to me for some reason people fight tooth and nail to keep the inflated dollars, it just happened before the bailout I heard "we have to do this thing to save us from deflation" on a few nescasts. IMO deflation is the best thing that could happen in an inflated market. If tommorrow the government said the dollar was worth 10x what it was today($1000000 becomes $100000), even though the dollar would be stronger and even though they still had the same buying power(in country and more buying power outside), since everyone elses dollars changed the same, I think you would hear very loud protests. $100000 just doesnt look as good as $1000000, even if they are worth the same. That being said it is a great idea IMHO.

the preceeding was just my opinion.

Office_Shredder

Sep25-09, 10:30 PM

I am all for that, however good luck getting most people to agree. It seems to me for some reason people fight tooth and nail to keep the inflated dollars, it just happened before the bailout I heard "we have to do this thing to save us from deflation" on a few nescasts. IMO deflation is the best thing that could happen in an inflated market. If tommorrow the government said the dollar was worth 10x what it was today($1000000 becomes $100000), even though the dollar would be stronger and even though they still had the same buying power(in country and more buying power outside), since everyone elses dollars changed the same, I think you would hear very loud protests. $100000 just doesnt look as good as $1000000, even if they are worth the same. That being said it is a great idea IMHO.

the preceeding was just my opinion.

Deflation is scary. If the value of the dollar tomorrow was worth 10 times what it is today, EVERYBODY who has invested money in anything would go bankrupt. People who socked away all their money in cash would gain a 10x monetary advantage on people who spent their money on, you know, things. And by things I don't mean 60" TVs and new cars, I mean investing in companies, spending money to improve a company you own, even local governments spending on infrastructure improvements. With deflation, it becomes more fiscally sensible to keep all your assets in cash rather than invest in things, and that means the economy stops.

Jasongreat

Sep25-09, 10:34 PM

That would give the not rich a better opportunity to offer other products which undercut those offered by the rich.

I dont see how. Can you explain further? As I see it the not rich can already undercut the wealthy easily, since they dont have near the overhead the rich do. That is as long as the government doesnt put oppressive regulatory hurdles in front of them, to protect the all ready rich like government likes to do.

A fair society would be one that doesn't allow the rich to steal from the rest of us under the guise of being "too big to fail".

I agree. But I dont see much difference between the government stealing from the poor to save the rich, and stealing from the rich to save the poor. It is still just theft, either way. Its just popular to demonize the rich, and politically incorrect to criticize the poor.

Still just my opinion nothing more.

Vanadium 50

Sep25-09, 10:47 PM

in the U.S. a mere 5% of the population holds the majority of the wealth.

True, but misleading. The people in percentiles 2-5 look a lot more like the people in percentiles 5-10 than in the top 1%. The people in the 5-10% range own 20% of the wealth, or 4x the average. The people in the 2-5% range own about 15% of the wealth, or about 5x the average. The people in the top 1% own about 35% of the wealth, or about 35x the average.

If you look at the 30th (or so) to 98th percentile, you'll see a strong correlation of wealth with age. People work and save and thereby become wealthier over time.

However, you might want to rethink your solution. I remember a time not long ago when people were making the same argument, only about mortgages. It was considered unfair that people who already had money could get mortgages, but that poor people were unable to get them, and thus couldn't benefit from owning a house - an asset that was practically guaranteed to appreciate. So, to solve this problem, there was an invention called "subprime lending" promoted by the Community Reinvestment Act. And while the intent was good, the outcome was not.

Jasongreat

Sep25-09, 10:52 PM

Deflation is scary. If the value of the dollar tomorrow was worth 10 times what it is today, EVERYBODY who has invested money in anything would go bankrupt. People who socked away all their money in cash would gain a 10x monetary advantage on people who spent their money on, you know, things. And by things I don't mean 60" TVs and new cars, I mean investing in companies, spending money to improve a company you own, even local governments spending on infrastructure improvements. With deflation, it becomes more fiscally sensible to keep all your assets in cash rather than invest in things, and that means the economy stops.

Why would they go bankrupt, their money is the exact same porportion, just a smaller number? If your stock was worth 10 dollars before, it would be worth a dollar(that in reality has the same value as the 10 did yesterday). Instead of the dollar getting stronger everyday, you prefer it getting weaker with inflation? So the money you do put away constantly shrinks in value.

SJMHO

kyleb

Sep26-09, 01:18 AM

If tommorrow the government said the dollar was worth 10x what it was today...
I didn't suggest moving the decimal point, and that doesn't rightly change anything anyway.

I dont see how. Can you explain further?
I'm sure I can, but I'd need you to clarify your dispute with my argument before I'd know were to start.

As I see it the not rich can already undercut the wealthy easily, since they dont have near the overhead the rich do.
Well that sure explains how mom and pop operations keep running corporations out of town.

That is as long as the government doesnt put oppressive regulatory hurdles in front of them, to protect the all ready rich like government likes to do.

I do consider this a problem too.

I agree. But I dont see much difference between the government stealing from the poor to save the rich, and stealing from the rich to save the poor. It is still just theft, either way.
If you do it both ways, it balances out.

Al68

Sep26-09, 03:19 AM

A fair society would be one that doesn't allow the rich to steal from the rest of us under the guise of being "too big to fail".Now here's something I agree with. Except it would be more accurate to say the corporations "received stolen goods", since it was the government that stole from the rest of us for them.

ideasrule

Sep26-09, 07:51 AM

That would give the not rich a better opportunity to offer other products which undercut those offered by the rich.

A fair society would be one that doesn't allow the rich to steal from the rest of us under the guise of being "too big to fail".

Define "stealing".

Office_Shredder

Sep26-09, 08:46 AM

Why would they go bankrupt, their money is the exact same porportion, just a smaller number? If your stock was worth 10 dollars before, it would be worth a dollar(that in reality has the same value as the 10 did yesterday). Instead of the dollar getting stronger everyday, you prefer it getting weaker with inflation? So the money you do put away constantly shrinks in value.

SJMHO

That would be true if the government literally took 90% of everyone's money and burned it. If the value of everything was just cut by a factor of 10, imagine I spent 100 bucks on stock. That stock is now worth 10 bucks. But I could have just held onto my money, and still have 100 dollars!

To extend this to a more realistic scenario, I have two choices:

1) Invest my money. I invest in something worth $100. The value of my investment now begins to decrease naturally. In a year maybe that thing is worth $95 or so.. By investing my money I lose money

2) I hold onto my cash. I have $100 in the bank. After waiting a year, I can invest $95 in that same thing, and save myself 5 bucks. Alternatively, I would just never invest in anything because by definition of deflation, things tend to decrease in value

By not investing I make more money than I do by investing. With inflation, investments will naturally grow at the rate of inflation on average, which means that holding on to your cash isn't the better default position. With deflation, unless the thing I invest in grows faster than the rate of deflation, I lose money by investing in it

russ_watters

Sep26-09, 11:30 AM

The majority of Americans struggle to pay their bills. Please elaborate on that claim and cite a source.
This example is only in reference to overdraft fees, but lower income people are also continually hit with late fees, interest rate penalties, and they generally pay much higher interest rates for everything they buy on credit than do those who are better off financially. Often they must resort to check-cashing/payday-loan places in order to pay bills to avoid discontinued service or eviction and the charges at these places are insane. Lower income people also buy more lottery tickets ( http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/8477.php ). Are these self-destructive actionsn an effect or cause of their poverty?
Given the uneven distribution of wealth, I believe that the re-distribution of wealth through mechanisms such as progressive tax codes.... We have a progressive tax code. ...higher minimum wages, universal healthcare, tuition assistance, etc. (and the like) are not only warranted, but necessary for a better, more fair society in which everyone is better off, IMO.

But what do I know, I’m just a “bleeding-heart liberal”. Flame on…:wink: Well, could you discuss what effects these policies are typically known to have on economic growth? I'll give you a hint: forced redistribution doesn't help economic growth...

russ_watters

Sep26-09, 11:32 AM

That would give the not rich a better opportunity to offer other products which undercut those offered by the rich. You're saying that "not rich" people could have enough money to start companies that are more efficient than the big companies? That makes no sense.
[separate post] Well that sure explains how mom and pop operations keep running corporations out of town. Huh? Can you provide an example of that? One of the biggest complaints against big chain stores like WalMart and Home Depot is that they drive the mom-and-pop stores out of business via their larger inventories and lower prices. A fair society would be one that doesn't allow the rich to steal from the rest of us under the guise of being "too big to fail". That is a separate issue entirely and I agree that a capitalist society should do a better job of allowing failure....hey wait, maybe it isn't a different topic: you're saying you don't want to allow failure in people, just in companies. Isn't that a contradiction? More to the point: doesn't the same psychology you are railing against in companies exist in people too? That psychology is the essence of what drives people to succeed in capitalism and why purer forms of socialism have led to economic collapse.

russ_watters

Sep26-09, 11:42 AM

WhoWee

Sep26-09, 12:39 PM

Perhaps an advocate of redistribution of wealth could provide an opinion on exactly how far this redistribution should go...? How progressive should our tax system be? For example, should everyone below the poverty line pay no taxes? How about having the top half pay 90% of the taxes?

I'd like to expand the scope of this challenge.

The concept of private property and ownership seem to be left out of the debate. Who do the "redistributors" think owns the "big corporations"? The shareholders need to determine compensation levels of executives - not Government.

Anyone that owns a 401K should understand they are the "owners" of the "big corporations" the investment managers choose. The same is true of many insurance policies - look up the types/classifications of insurance companies.

Last, (unless you are a degenerate gambler) the incentive to take risk is profit. If you eliminate the potential for profit, there is no incentive to create jobs and invest capital.

The only reason to open a business is to earn sustained profits. Nobody (except politicians and charities) risks capital to create employment.

russ_watters

Sep26-09, 02:06 PM

Last, (unless you are a degenerate gambler) the incentive to take risk is profit. If you eliminate the potential for profit, there is no incentive to create jobs and invest capital.

The only reason to open a business is to earn sustained profits. Nobody (except politicians and charities) risks capital to create employment.
People here like anecdotes so much, so I'll post a relevant one: My last job was working for a small engineering company. When I joined the company, it (meaning the sole proprietor owner) was just emerging from bankrupcy and I was employee #3 (working in his spare bedroom), down from around 20. Over the next 6 years, the company grew to 9, got a real office, and the boss made $250k-$300k a year which made him "rich" (the lower limit of the top 5% is $180k). But being unable to plan financially for a downturn and being in a particularly volatile industry when a downturn happens, now he's now back down to 2 employees and sub-letting that office space.

Point being? The personal risk a small business owner takes in starting a business is enormous. If the potential to make significantly more money as a small business owner than as an employee of another company didn't exist, people wouldn't do it.

ray b

Sep26-09, 03:05 PM

Perhaps an advocate of redistribution of wealth could provide an opinion on exactly how far this redistribution should go...? How progressive should our tax system be? For example, should everyone below the poverty line pay no taxes? How about having the top half pay 90% of the taxes?

Otherwise, this is just a useless hand-waving exercise, as we already live in a system where wealth is redistributed via a progressive income tax and other methods.

any one working is paying a 15% SS tax plus any income tax
but a so called investor earning capital gains pays only a flat 15% total tax
and also gets a big break on dividends and can use tax credits and other write offs
few of those at the very top pay progressive tax rates as that is only for EARNED INCOME
quote W Buffet '' I pay less tax then my office help''

unEARNED income is where the real money is made and that tax is regressive not progressive

the BIG LIE the neo-conned love to tell is the rich are over taxed
BS only a few foolish rich really pay the top rates mostly sports movie or rock stars
who have big earned income that they can't hide
most biz CEO types get options far bigger then their base earned income
and use the many credits deductions and loop holes to avoid much of their taxes
and have the CORPs pay for the jets sky boxes travel costs limos ect that are untaxed to them and a write off to the CORP for double tax avoidance both to their personal taxes
and the CORPs taxes

WhoWee

Sep26-09, 03:32 PM

any one working is paying a 15% SS tax plus any income tax
but a so called investor earning capital gains pays only a flat 15% total tax
and also gets a big break on dividends and can use tax credits and other write offs
few of those at the very top pay progressive tax rates as that is only for EARNED INCOME
quote W Buffet '' I pay less tax then my office help''

unEARNED income is where the real money is made and that tax is regressive not progressive

the BIG LIE the neo-conned love to tell is the rich are over taxed
BS only a few foolish rich really pay the top rates mostly sports movie or rock stars
who have big earned income that they can't hide
most biz CEO types get options far bigger then their base earned income
and use the many credits deductions and loop holes to avoid much of their taxes
and have the CORPs pay for the jets sky boxes travel costs limos ect that are untaxed to them and a write off to the CORP for double tax avoidance both to their personal taxes
and the CORPs taxes

Again, the shareholders (owners) of the corporation must believe these CEO's have EARNED their compensation packages. Otherwise, they would voice their disapproval or sell their shares.

As for the sky boxes, jet travel, hotels, limos, etc., how many people make their livings from these activities? Don't those companies employ people and also pay taxes?

Corporate earnings (cash flow in excess of expenses and debt service) are typically either re-invested, paid in dividends to shareholders, paid in bonus/incentives, retained in the form of cash reserves or liquid investments, or paid to the Government in the form of taxes.

As for Warren Buffet, do you have ANY idea as to how many companies he owns or the size of his annual payroll? The list is too long to post. Here is a good starting point to do your investigation.
http://www.google.com/search?q=berkshire+hathaway+holdings&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Office_Shredder

Sep26-09, 04:25 PM

As for Warren Buffet, do you have ANY idea as to how many companies he owns or the size of his annual payroll? The list is too long to post. Here is a good starting point to do your investigation.
http://www.google.com/search?q=berkshire+hathaway+holdings&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

That's the point Buffet was making. He makes oodles of cash but pays very little in taxes because of all the loopholes available to him

EDIT TO ADD:
Here's an article about it
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

BoomBoom

Sep26-09, 04:44 PM

I support helping students and providing them more opportunities so that their skills are good and they are strong in global dynamic market.

As do I.

1) But, people who don't deserve wealth shouldn't get it.
2) People who deserve, should get it

I agree with this as well, but hard working people also deserve a living wage.

Universal health care is neither simple nor easy to have.

No it is not, but necessary nonetheless. It will not be long before healthcare costs result in lost jobs and reduced salaries....it's already to the point where getting a raise is a rarity for many.

Higher minimum wage wouldn't help much and it might raise the unemployment.

I bet anyone making at or close to minimum would disagree that it wouldn't help much.

BoomBoom

Sep26-09, 04:51 PM

Do all people graduating in your class get the same grades? .

Of course not, but I believe that people that work hard and do their homework should at least get a C. :smile:

kyleb

Sep26-09, 04:52 PM

You're saying that "not rich" people could have enough money to start companies that are more efficient than the big companies? That makes no sense.
It makes sense in the context of "If you raise the tax on the rich and companies, they will just raise their prices" which I was responding to, and you don't have such a broad definition of "rich" as to include with anyone the money or credit to start a company with.

Huh? Can you provide an example of that? One of the biggest complaints against big chain stores like WalMart and Home Depot is that they drive the mom-and-pop stores out of business via their larger inventories and lower prices.
I was making that exact point with sarcasm, in response to the claim "As I see it the not rich can already undercut the wealthy easily, since they dont have near the overhead the rich do."

That is a separate issue entirely and I agree that a capitalist society should do a better job of allowing failure....hey wait, maybe it isn't a different topic: you're saying you don't want to allow failure in people, just in companies. Isn't that a contradiction?
I'm saying "If you do it both ways, it balances out." In other words, I'd have preferred to not to do either, but I notice one being done more than the other, and hence am looking for balance though proposing the contrary.

More to the point: doesn't the same psychology you are railing against in companies exist in people too? That psychology is the essence of what drives people to succeed in capitalism and why purer forms of socialism have led to economic collapse.
I didn't intend to suggest anything psychological here, so I'm at a loss as to what you are referring to.
That's the point Buffet was making. He makes oodles of cash but pays very little in taxes because of all the loopholes available to him

EDIT TO ADD:
Here's an article about it
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
Exactly, I'm in this boat too, though not nearly to the extent Buffet is. Regardless, I don't see anything fair about working people being required to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than me, and am at a loss as to why so many working people defend it.

BoomBoom

Sep26-09, 05:07 PM

ideasrule

Sep26-09, 05:19 PM

Of course not, but I believe that people that work hard and do their homework should at least get a C. :smile:

How much do/did you talk to the people in your class? Many people study day and night, have almost no social life, and try every possible way to earn more marks but end up failing because they weren't smart enough. Hard work can only compensate for stupidity to a limited extent.

I don't want people who have no idea about basic physics concepts designing a bridge I have to drive over or a spacecraft exploring Mars. For people who aren't good at engineering--sorry, I know you've studied hard, but choose something else.

kyleb

Sep26-09, 05:21 PM

Perhaps an advocate of redistribution of wealth could provide an opinion on exactly how far this redistribution should go...?
Ah, I forgot to respond to this question previously. I'd prefer a strictly flat tax rate with the only break being no taxation of individual income under the poverty line, just whatever anyone earns above it. Granted, that is a long term goal rather than anything I'd expect to happen with the snap of some fingers, but I do consider that the best path to adjusting the current distribution of wealth.

WhoWee

Sep26-09, 05:34 PM

Of course not, but I believe that people that work hard and do their homework should at least get a C. :smile:

Obviously you agree that nobody deserves an "A" or 4.0 - those should be redistributed in such a way that everyone is provided a minimum "C" or 2.0 - right?

For instance grades of 4.0, 4.0, 3.8, 3.2, 2.0, and 1.9, 1.8, 1.7, and 1.8 should be more balanced.

In the example of the grades of 4.0, 4.0, 3.8, and 3.2 where they should all be forced to share with their under-achieving classmates - is .2 each fair, or should the 4.0's give more?

bleedblue1234

Sep26-09, 08:24 PM

So many people fail to see the reason that rich continue to get richer is that it is a direct effect of government 'manipulation,' if you will, of the market place and the entire underlying price structure.

When government bailouts of wallstreet firms happen, there is an implicit guarantee put on them that they can take near unlimited risk because they are now 'backed' by the U.S. government. The reason so many wallstreet firms needed bailing out in the first place was precisely because of Fannie Mae's, Freddie Mac's, and the Federal Reserve's interventionist policies in the market. The only reason Lehman, Bear Sterns, Goldman Sachs, etc. needed government help was because of this perceived (and now realistic) 'government guarantee' of the entire mortgage system, for people felt no perceived need to measure the risk of these assetts or how their bets were set... the only goal for them was to leverage up like crazy... it was a heads i win tails the tax payer loses game.

Greed is continually cited as a cause of our current problems, but looking deeper it is no where near at the heart of it, it was a component that needed to be catalyzed by something; and that something was artificially low borrowing rates that allowed the greed to be exercised in the market place in such a way that would not be possible through private investment. No sane private buyer would ever place these bets these companies did, but this companies were able to do so precisely because they could get funding through the Fed and through other sovereign governments.

As to the issue of deflation/inflation, deflation and inflation both are scary scenarios. Right now a lot of people are seeing the effects of deflation: lowering home prices, consumer good prices, oil prices, etc. but what many of our representatives and economists also fail to see is how our current strategy sets up the next big wave of issues coming down the pipeline. We are getting the water flowing now, even if we won't feel the effects for many months/years to come. That is why I have a major problem with our current situation: we have no exit strategy. Ben Bernanke continually talks about this magic 'exit strategy', while assuring Americans that he will keep target growth rates high and interest rates low. But, unfortunately Ben, we can't have both. Once we see the effects of any real inflation, it will be far, far to late to deal with it. We must be proactive in our dealings with economics. This is not a true 'deflationary' period, rather a return to stable growth and output levels of the pre-housing/dot-com bubble era. It will be a tough road ahead, but I think we should look towards the future rather than the present; we must be proactive rather than retroactive.

As to the issue of wealth redistribution, I think the Soviet Union is a good case study of wealth redistributions effects, there were continual supply problems, people on the whole lived much poorer lives than comparative free countries, and in the end the system failed entirely. Pre-1930's U.S. capitalism is one of the finest examples of what true unbridled capitalism can produce: it is messy, but it also works. There is a happy medium between the monopolistic/corporate/conservative side of the spectrum and the liberal/government side of the issue. But, I beleive history has shown that it is better to er on the side of freedom, for freedoms are so much easier to give up than to have returned. Once we start taxing the successful, we will face large issues of international competition and wealth fleeing this country. The reason the U.S. became one of the great havens for wealthy was because of its relatively low taxes on all incomes and its stable government/judicial system, but I fear with the recent events with the auto makers (the bondholders getting unlawfully taken out of the picture) and the current attack on the 'wealthy' (I quote wealthy because I see no logical way to define it, as to me it is completely subjective in nature). I think we have forgotten what has made the U.S. on the whole a great country; we need to learn from our past mistakes rather than continue to repeat them, at an ever greater cost.

John Cochrane, head of the University of Chicago's Econ Dpt., puts it like this: the free market is the best worst system we have. It is not pretty, but the alternatives are so much uglier.

russ_watters

Sep26-09, 10:28 PM

any one working is paying a 15% SS tax plus any income tax... This is factually wrong. There is a pretty high percentage of the population that pays no income tax: In 2005, it was just under 33%. http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=155

And that doesn't include other people for whom the net balance between taxes paid and government cash subsidies received is zero or negative.

Generally, the SS tax is not included in such discussions as the SS tax is basically forced retirement savings. It is money you get back. ...but a so called investor earning capital gains pays only a flat 15% total tax
and also gets a big break on dividends and can use tax credits and other write offs Could you please provide an argument rather than just spewing rhetoric? What is wrong with a 15% capital gains tax? Keep in mind that money spent to buy stock has typically already been taxed as income. And most capital gains are paid by ordinary people cashing in 401k's, not the Bill Gates' and Warren Buffets' of the world.

I agree that we should try a little harder to get taxes out of the guys who use capital gains as a high fraction of their income, but we should not penalize people for saving for retirement. A blanket raising of the capital gains tax does that. ...few of those at the very top pay progressive tax rates as that is only for EARNED INCOME
W Buffet '' I pay less tax then my office help'' Your claim, your responsibility to substantiate it: what fraction of people are in that situation where they receive much/most of their income via capital gains and thus pay a lower overall rate than, say, someone who makes $50K a year?

Note that I'm sure Warren Buffets secretaries probably make pretty good money and may even be young and unmarried - that segment of society (the affluent, young singles) are pretty heavily taxed. unEARNED income is where the real money is made and that tax is regressive not progressive It is difficult to consider a system regressive when the bottom third pays no income tax at all.

the BIG LIE the neo-conned love to tell is the rich are over taxed
BS only a few foolish rich really pay the top rates mostly sports movie or rock stars
who have big earned income that they can't hide
most biz CEO types get options far bigger then their base earned income
and use the many credits deductions and loop holes to avoid much of their taxes
and have the CORPs pay for the jets sky boxes travel costs limos ect that are untaxed to them and a write off to the CORP for double tax avoidance both to their personal taxes
and the CORPs taxes Once again, lots of rhetoric, no facts. What fraction of the population are you talking about there? How many people actually make the majority of their income on stock options? I suspect it is far below 1% and personally, I'm not real concerned with the fact that a guy like Bill Gates or the Walton family is independently wealthy given the enormous contribution they have provided to the economy.

russ_watters

Sep26-09, 10:33 PM

I bet anyone making at or close to minimum would disagree that it wouldn't help much.
And that is relevant how? Ask anyone if they would like more money and they will answer yes!

russ_watters

Sep26-09, 10:41 PM

It makes sense in the context of "If you raise the tax on the rich and companies, they will just raise their prices" which I was responding to, and you don't have such a broad definition of "rich" as to include with anyone the money or credit to start a company with. You need to define what you mean by "rich", then. Is it the top 1% of income earners? 5%? 20%?
I'm saying "If you do it both ways, it balances out." In other words, I'd have preferred to not to do either, but I notice one being done more than the other, and hence am looking for balance though proposing the contrary. So the glass is half full/empty and you think empty is better than full, but you are going to fill it anyway? That makes no sense. If you believe that capitalism should let both fail and right now it only lets half fail, then the only logical course of action to support is making it so both are allowed to fail. Otherwise you are supporting a course of action that goes directly against your stated opinion! Exactly, I'm in this boat too, though not nearly to the extent Buffet is. Regardless, I don't see anything fair about working people being required to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than me, and am at a loss as to why so many working people defend it. It is pretty simple, kyleb - I, like most middle and upper middle class workers am going to be relying on investment income in order to retire. Investment income also played a critical role in enabling me to buy a house.

Perhaps the solution is to make the capital gains tax both progressive and situation dependent.

russ_watters

Sep26-09, 10:43 PM

I know that we already have this system in place, but I also know their are many here that don't believe we should.

The top rate at times has been much higher than it is now, but if you just want my personal opinion, 35-40% for the top bracket seems fair to me. At what income level would you place the top bracket? And collecting taxes from those below the poverty line is somewhat of a meaningless gesture anyways, and seeing as how they are already being milked for all they've got from businesses, I think it would also be fair for them to be excluded from paying income tax.
Rhetoric about businesses milking them aside, as I've already pointed out, the bottom third of the population already doesn't pay any income tax.

russ_watters

Sep26-09, 10:45 PM

Ah, I forgot to respond to this question previously. I'd prefer a strictly flat tax rate with the only break being no taxation of individual income under the poverty line, just whatever anyone earns above it. Wow, kyleb. That's very surprising and I don't think it would fly with most liberals considering it means that that two thirds of the bottom third of the population that is currently not getting taxed would suddenly get hit with a 25% (give or take) income tax.

Overall, I'm pretty sure your idea would make the system much less progressive than it is now. I'm pretty sure tha the problem are trying to fix (the super-rich not paying as much taxes, percentagewise) is a smaller problem than you think.

WhoWee

Sep26-09, 11:10 PM

That's the point Buffet was making. He makes oodles of cash but pays very little in taxes because of all the loopholes available to him

EDIT TO ADD:
Here's an article about it
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

Are you sure you're not taking his comments out of context? The argument is laughable.

From the list of links I provided.
http://www.answers.com/topic/berkshire-hathaway-inc

Berkshire Hathaway

Hoover's Profile: Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
Sponsored Links
Warren Buffett's Stocks

Berkshire Hathaway

Home > Library > Business & Finance > Hoover's Profiles
(NYSE:BRK.A)
Company Financials
Income Statement
Balance Sheet
Cash Flow Statement

Contact Information
Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
3555 Farnam St., Ste. 1440
Omaha, NE 68131
NE Tel. 402-346-1400
Fax 402-346-3375

Type: Public
On the web: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com
Employees: 246,000
Employee growth: 5.6%

Berkshire Hathaway is where Warren Buffett, the world's second-richest man (behind his good buddy Bill Gates), spreads his risk by investing in a variety of industries, from insurance and utilities to apparel and food, and building materials to jewelry and furniture retailers. Its core insurance subsidiaries include National Indemnity, GEICO Corporation, and reinsurance giant General Re. The company also owns Dairy Queen, Fruit of the Loom, Johns Manville, Clayton Homes, Helzberg Diamonds, McLane Company, and MidAmerican Energy Holdings. Known as the Oracle of Omaha, Buffett holds more than a quarter of Berkshire Hathaway, which owns more than 70 firms and has stakes in more than a dozen others.

Key numbers for fiscal year ending December, 2008:
Sales: $107,786.0M
One year growth: (8.8%)
Net income: $4,994.0M
Income growth: (62.2%)

Do you still maintain that Buffet doesn't pay his share of taxes? How much do you think he pays in the form of matching taxes on 246,000 employees alone? http://www.justanswer.com/questions/i382-matching-taxes-taken

Assume the $50,740 median household income level. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

246,000 employees @ $50,740 @ (6.2 + 1.45) = A fair share?

Plus, do you honestly believe he didn't pay income taxes on $4.994 billion in corporate earnings?

At the end of the day, I'd like to see this guy given the option of a 100% re-investment credit for funding start-ups. He clearly knows how to generate tax revenues through investment.

TheStatutoryApe

Sep26-09, 11:11 PM

That's the point Buffet was making. He makes oodles of cash but pays very little in taxes because of all the loopholes available to him
Why does he take advantage of those loopholes then? Do you think that maybe it gives him the ability to pay more to his employees, give better benefits, and create more jobs?
Buffet is the model of what a person who owns a (or multiple) large corporation should be like. He showcases the potential altruism that can be found in capitalism. Unfortunately there are pressures in our modern corporatist establishment that hinder altruism and promote profits over people. "Punishment" of the success of these large corporations increases that pressure rather than promoting altruism. The pressure to continue maximizing profits despite the myriad pressures against being 'too successful' leads to horrible outcomes. A friend of mine was in the mortgage industry. When the industry was riding high as a lowly worker he made almost twice as much as I do, went to a company paid visit to disneyland, and one night he took me to a party his employer was putting on at a mansion with live music and waiters in tuxes. Now he is unemployed and nearly homeless.

I laughed out load (yes LOLed) the first time I heard about 'trickle down economics' but the fact is that there is something to the idea. While the idea may not have been implemented well previously, and it may not be something you can simply have faith in, it would seem undeniable that the more prosperous people are the more likely they are to be benevolent to the disadvantaged.

Exactly, I'm in this boat too, though not nearly to the extent Buffet is. Regardless, I don't see anything fair about working people being required to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than me, and am at a loss as to why so many working people defend it.
Not to make any uninformed judgments about you but have you ever had to live off of earnings from a low earning job? Have you ever had to work with the people in such jobs? I can say that the vast majority of the people I have worked with in my low income professions have been lazy and unmotivated. When I worked at an art supply store (I love art and art knowledge myself) more than half of the new employees disappeared after their first day or two due to the prospect of having to actually learn something about art and the products we sold. And it was a nice company that paid well over minimum wage to start and even gave hour long lunches (such lunches being nearly unheard of in low income jobs). The job was not hard at all. I spent most of my time there socializing with other employees and trying to find projects to occupy my time. In my current job as a security officer I have been absolutely baffled by the things that my coworkers do. I have seen people fired for picking up on underage girls, getting drunk or smoking pot on the job, stealing, sleeping in their cars, and even failure to do the absolute minimal requirements of the job (up to and including actually being at work when they say they are). If you have experienced this and understand this it will go a long way to helping you understand why people in low end jobs don't like the idea of helping out the 'disadvantaged'. Their experience tells them that the 'disadvantaged' are probably mostly lazy bums who don't want to work and they know that any extra expenses levied on their employers means that they are less likely to receive the benefits of their hard work while the 'lazy bums' who can't seem to make more than minimum wage are getting raises (ie, in the case of minimum wage increases).

Ah, I forgot to respond to this question previously. I'd prefer a strictly flat tax rate with the only break being no taxation of individual income under the poverty line, just whatever anyone earns above it. Granted, that is a long term goal rather than anything I'd expect to happen with the snap of some fingers, but I do consider that the best path to adjusting the current distribution of wealth.

I'm happy to see at least one more area where we seem to agree on something. :-)

WhoWee

Sep26-09, 11:24 PM

By the way, anyone who attempts to make an argument that Buffet is a "fat cat CEO" is an idiot. Buffet is an investor with capital at risk. He's not a hired gun looking for golden parachutes.

Take a hard look at his list of CEO's and profile an example of excess compensation and wasteful spending - (hint) it will be hard to find even one CEO in this category among the 70+ corporate divisions in the portfolio. In the case of Buffet companies - the shareholders monitor CEO pay - they don't need Government intervention.

Office_Shredder

Sep27-09, 12:56 AM

Are you sure you're not taking his comments out of context? The argument is laughable.

I'm quite sure I didn't take his comments out of context. Do you have any reason or evidence that they're out of context?

I'll bring up more times he has said this exact thing:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/58129-buffett-to-meet-with-senate-dems
http://www.prisonplanet.com/buffett-we-need-more-taxes.html

Any more evidence required?

The rest of your post seems to argue that Buffet is wealthy, and therefore pays enough in taxes. Oh, and that other people paying taxes somehow counts as him paying taxes. Not sure what that's about, but I'm pretty sure Buffet knows more about his tax situation than you do

TheStatutoryApe

Sep27-09, 01:06 AM

Oh, and that other people paying taxes somehow counts as him paying taxes. Not sure what that's about, but I'm pretty sure Buffet knows more about his tax situation than you do

Actually its not that they pay taxes so much but that he pays payroll taxes and such on his employees.
Actually, in fact, the more employees he has and pays the more money is collected in taxes (from money that he would have otherwise claimed as profit and been taxed on, though it is certainly a bit more complex than that).

Also, would you not believe that his ability to create more jobs and give his employees better benefits does not stem from his lower taxes and ability to continually reinvest his profits?

Jeff Reid

Sep27-09, 01:37 AM

If you raise the tax on the rich and companies, they will just raise their pricesIn the case of most consumer products, pricing has little to do with costs. The extreme examples are pharmaceuticals still under patent protection. If you raise the tax on the rich and lower the tax on the "non-rich" the difference in spending habits between those groups results in more consumer oriented purchases, which would benefit a consumer oriented economy such as the USA.

A fair society is one that allows some to steal from others in the society? Not theft, but one issue with USA type economies is that along with wealth comes control, and that control results an adverse situation for those without wealth or control. The control can be in the form of a monopoly, or collusion between similar businesses.

We have a progressive tax code. Generally, the SS tax is not included in such discussions as the SS tax is basically forced retirement savings. It is money you get back.Except in the USA there's a cap on FICA, currently around $110,000, this is a negativ tax bracket. FICA (SS) stopped beign forced retirement saving long ago, it's just another tax. Except for people that retired decades ago, you're never going to get that money back. The working generation will be stuck paying for the previous generation, and baby boomers will really increase this cost. Eliminating the cap on FICA would help this situation. Most of the other loopholes should be eliminated. As mentioned before, the USA is a consumer based economy, investing in stocks doesn't help the economy as much as spending money on consumer products so why have such a low rate for capital gains? Most of the money in the market is in the form of 401K's and the capital gains rate will never applied to the gains made in 401K programs, so the special rates mostly benefit the relatively wealthy.

And most capital gains are paid by ordinary people cashing in 401k's, not the Bill Gates' and Warren Buffets' of the world. Capital gains rate doesn't apply to 401k, all of 401k withdrawals are taxed at the current rate as normal income.

we should try a little harder to get taxes out of the guys who use capital gains as a high fraction of their income, but we should not penalize people for saving for retirement. A blanket raising of the capital gains tax does that.

401K taxes, from Wiki: The character of any gains (including tax favored capital gains) are transformed into "ordinary income" at the time the money is withdrawn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/401(k)

Any gains on after tax investments made into a Roth IRA won't be taxed (until the government decides to retroactively change the rules), so again an example where capital gains rate doesn't apply to retirement savings.

So many people fail to see the reason that rich continue to get richer is that it is a direct effect of government 'manipulation,' if you will, of the market place and the entire underlying price structure.As I stated before along with wealth comes control, which is why you see such a huge concentration of wealth in a very small minority of the population. The issue is one of control, control by the private sector versus control of the public sector via regulations and taxes to prevent the problems that constantly occur when a greed based system is allowed to run unchecked.

Greed is continually cited as a cause of our current problemsIt is a major problem. The main problem is that people making decisions in corporations often make those decisions based on personal gain, even if it's to the detriment of the corporation and it's shareholders or customers.

As to the issue of wealth redistribution, I think the Soviet UnionFew in the USA would suggest that. Perhaps medicine should become more socialized, but most of the wealth redistribution should be in the form of a progressive tax and a minimum wage. This "balances" the control between the wealthy and the non-wealthy.

The concept of private property and ownership seem to be left out of the debate. Who do the "redistributors" think owns the "big corporations"? The shareholders need to determine compensation levels of executives - not Government.Again, the shareholders (owners) of the corporation must believe these CEO's have EARNED their compensation packages. Otherwise, they would voice their disapproval or sell their shares.Again it's an issue of control. Seldom is there a pool of shareholders large enough to have any impact on what the corporations pay their executives or board members.

inheritance taxMy quote here. Even though this favors the wealthy, this is one tax that should either be abolished, or at worst, taxed at the ordinary income rates for the inheritors.

Office_Shredder

Sep27-09, 01:55 AM

Also, would you not believe that his ability to create more jobs and give his employees better benefits does not stem from his lower taxes and ability to continually reinvest his profits?

On the one hand I have you, telling me that Warren Buffet is an economic genius and should have more control over his money. On the other hand I have Warren Buffet, economic genius telling me he should be taxed at a higher rate. Do you see where this argument falls flat? Warren Buffet apparently believes that being taxed at a higher rate on his income will not significantly alter his ability to conduct business. Do you have evidence that when super wealthy people get more money, they tend to spend it on employees? And not, say, an extra vacation to Europe?

kyleb

Sep27-09, 02:19 AM

You need to define what you mean by "rich", then. Is it the top 1% of income earners? 5%? 20%?
I didn't have a percentage in mind when I made the comment, as "rich" was equality ambiguous in the comment I was replying to. Regardless, including anyone with the money or credit to start any company with as "rich" seems absurdly broad to me. To reiterate my point; if the large corporations raised the price of their products, that would open up a window for smaller companies to better undercut them and hence promote start-ups.

So the glass is half full/empty and you think empty is better than full, but you are going to fill it anyway? That makes no sense. If you believe that capitalism should let both fail and right now it only lets half fail, then the only logical course of action to support is making it so both are allowed to fail. Otherwise you are supporting a course of action that goes directly against your stated opinion!
Rather, you assumed a nonsensical opinion on me, and I am at a loss as to make any sense of how you derived it from anything I said.

I, like most middle and upper middle class workers am going to be relying on investment income in order to retire. Investment income also played a critical role in enabling me to buy a house.
I respect your situation wholeheartedly, and figure taxing investments like everything else would bring in far more revenue from those who make far more off investments than you. This would allow us to lower the percentage(s) at which income is taxed, doing little to no harm to your situation and conceivably some good depending on the specifics of your situation, which I will exemplify below. I'm also for downsizing our government to further lower taxes, but I suppose that discussion would be better suited for a separate thread.
Wow, kyleb. That's very surprising and I don't think it would fly with most liberals considering it means that that two thirds of the bottom third of the population that is currently not getting taxed would suddenly get hit with a 25% (give or take) income tax.
Best I can tell, you have confused yourself my imagining me a liberal, or somehow beholden to them. I've tried to explain to you that I'm not an ideologue before, are you still unwilling to accept this?

Overall, I'm pretty sure your idea would make the system much less progressive than it is now. I'm pretty sure tha the problem are trying to fix (the super-rich not paying as much taxes, percentagewise) is a smaller problem than you think.
Here is a simplifcation of how I see the problem, using Buffet's figures (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece) which Office Shredder linked to previously:
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.
So, for the sake of argument, imagine a nation with only 100 people, one in Buffet's position and 99 employees in the position of his secretary. That makes the combined earnings before taxes:

60,000 * 99 + 46,000,000 = 51,940,000

For the rich guy's taxes:

0.177 * 46,000,000 = 8,142,000

For each of the 99 employees' taxes:

0.3 * 60,000 = 18,000

Which gives us a total tax revenue of:

18,000 * 99 + 8,142,000 = 9,924,000

Now, to find the flat rate we need to bring in the same tax revenue we simply solve:

9,924,000 / 51,940,000 = 0.191

And there we have a flat tax rate of 19.1%, which only brings the rich guy's tax rate up 1.4% while lowering the employees' down 10.9% of theirs. Does that not seem more reasonable than our current system to you?

TheStatutoryApe

Sep27-09, 03:14 AM

On the one hand I have you, telling me that Warren Buffet is an economic genius and should have more control over his money. On the other hand I have Warren Buffet, economic genius telling me he should be taxed at a higher rate. Do you see where this argument falls flat? Warren Buffet apparently believes that being taxed at a higher rate on his income will not significantly alter his ability to conduct business. Do you have evidence that when super wealthy people get more money, they tend to spend it on employees? And not, say, an extra vacation to Europe?

So Mr. Buffet does not take more vacations to Europe than his employees? Mr. Buffet does not employ more people and give them greater benefits because he has so much more money to burn? Does the money he has have a greater effect on the individual level of his employees or do his taxes have a greater effect on the american people in general?

As I said, its not something that you can really take on faith. People wont necessarily be nice and generous just because they have more money. But to some extent it is true. Who are liberals? Do we not have more liberal peers among the wealthy and more educated than the poor, statistically speaking?

People seem to have such a great capacity to divide their ideology from their practical experience.

kyleb

Sep27-09, 04:55 AM

I just realized I skipped responding to this previously:

Not to make any uninformed judgments about you but have you ever had to live off of earnings from a low earning job? Have you ever had to work with the people in such jobs?
I have, on both counts.

I can say that the vast majority of the people I have worked with in my low income professions have been lazy and unmotivated.
While I'd agree that there are more in low income jobs than elsewhere, I can't rightly say a vast majority are from my experience, and have seen plenty such people with high paying jobs too.

I have seen people fired for picking up on underage girls, getting drunk or smoking pot on the job, stealing, sleeping in their cars, and even failure to do the absolute minimal requirements of the job (up to and including actually being at work when they say they are).
Sure, and I've seen my share people with fat salaries doing all of those things too.

WhoWee

Sep27-09, 11:23 AM

I'm quite sure I didn't take his comments out of context. Do you have any reason or evidence that they're out of context?

I'll bring up more times he has said this exact thing:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/58129-buffett-to-meet-with-senate-dems
http://www.prisonplanet.com/buffett-we-need-more-taxes.html

Any more evidence required?

The rest of your post seems to argue that Buffet is wealthy, and therefore pays enough in taxes. Oh, and that other people paying taxes somehow counts as him paying taxes. Not sure what that's about, but I'm pretty sure Buffet knows more about his tax situation than you do

From the article you referenced.

"Buffett shared with lawmakers his “common-sense approach to capitalism,” said one attendee.

He told lawmakers that they should overhaul the nation’s financial system in a way that allows investors to do well but also imposes a sense of responsibility on Wall Street.

Buffett supported President Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential election but has since criticized some of the president’s policy proposals. Earlier this year he called a cap-and-trade proposal to limit greenhouse gas emissions a “regressive” tax.”

Buffett has also urged Democrats to scale back their policy agenda to focus on fixing the economy.

The billionaire investor called the Employee Free Choice Act a “mistake.” The legislation, which would overhaul labor laws, is a priority of unions and many liberal Democrats.

But Buffett and Senate Democrats put aside their policy differences on Thursday to focus on the nation’s sluggish economy.

He gave a pep talk to some lawmakers who are wondering if the nation’s best economic days are past.

“He’s a real optimist and thinks this is a great country and our best days are ahead of us,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

One lawmaker who attended the meeting said that Buffett gave the audience a lesson on the economic history of the world, touting the U.S. system as one that unlocks individual potential, striking a contrast with totalitarian countries that limit economic freedom.

Lawmakers said it was refreshing to hear a positive assessment of the nation’s economic system after listening to months of criticism from the left about capitalist excess and the inability of markets to self-regulate."

Buffet doesn't want cap and trade or forced unionization, or out of control Democrat spending.

His statement that wealthy people could pay a higher percentage (to 25%) is offered as an alternative solution to the other bad ideas. He is clearly not in favor of a 40% to 90% top tax rate either.

WhoWee

Sep27-09, 12:29 PM

The rest of your post seems to argue that Buffet is wealthy, and therefore pays enough in taxes. Oh, and that other people paying taxes somehow counts as him paying taxes. Not sure what that's about, but I'm pretty sure Buffet knows more about his tax situation than you do

Berkshire Hathaway (Buffet's holding company) has paid $14,077,000,000 in income taxes over the past 3 years on income of $44,513,000,000 - about 31.6%. I believe Buffet owns about 35% to 38%. Corporate taxes alone have cost Buffet (35% share of 14.077 billion paid in taxes) nearly $5 billion over the past 3 years.

http://www.hoovers.com/free/co/secdoc.xhtml?ID=10206&ipage=6447662-323934-330222

kyleb

Sep27-09, 05:14 PM

From the article you referenced.

"Buffett.. cap-and-trade.. Employee Free Choice Act..
None of what you quoted there addresses anything which was being discussed here. If you are interested in discussing either of the issues mentioned in what you quoted, that would be better suited for separate threads.
Berkshire Hathaway (Buffet's holding company)...
Again, not relevant to the subject at hand. Buffet's income, as an individual, and how much of it he has to pay in taxes is the topic Office Shredder brought up. Are you simply unwilling to address that subject?

WhoWee

Sep27-09, 05:42 PM

None of what you quoted there addresses anything which was being discussed here. If you are interested in discussing either of the issues mentioned in what you quoted, that would be better suited for separate threads.

Again, not relevant to the subject at hand. Buffet's income, as an individual, and how much of it he has to pay in taxes is the topic Office Shredder brought up. Are you simply unwilling to address that subject?

First, I quoted from Office_Shredders posted article. How can an expanded view of his post along with comments on the content not be relevant?

Second, the taxes Buffet is already paying is relevant. You need to look at the bigger picture. Buffet doesn't mind paying a higher percentage of personal income taxes, but does not want cap and trade or forced unionization.

kyleb

Sep27-09, 05:48 PM

Jasongreat

Sep27-09, 06:32 PM

Warren Buffet apparently believes that being taxed at a higher rate on his income will not significantly alter his ability to conduct business.

He is absolutely right, the consumer pays a company's taxes, not the owner of the company. But those consumers are the ones people are saying benefit from wealth redistribution. So we take from the rich to give to the poor, who then give the money back to the corporations through the products they buy. All in all every one is in the same place they were before, except for now the value of the dollar is less than it was before and that hurts everyone but it hurts the poor most.

Office_Shredder

Sep27-09, 06:56 PM

He is absolutely right, the consumer pays a company's taxes, not the owner of the company. But those consumers are the ones people are saying benefit from wealth redistribution. So we take from the rich to give to the poor, who then give the money back to the corporations through the products they buy. All in all every one is in the same place they were before, except for now the value of the dollar is less than it was before and that hurts everyone but it hurts the poor most.

It's interesting that you argue this, since historically when there were higher taxes on wealthier people, there tended to be less of a divide between the wages the top executives of companies were being paid and what their employees were being paid. This seems to indicate that if you put a higher tax rate on higher levels of income, those executives will not simply jack up their wages; rather the opposite effect occurred, and lowering the top tax rates led executives to more aggressively push their compensation upwards (at the expense of the people who buy products from the companies of course, as you yourself say)

rootX

Sep27-09, 09:52 PM

I think Zimbabwe tried to redistribute wealth/resources from rich white farmers to poor black, and they didn't expect this would collapse the agricultural market.

rootX

Sep27-09, 09:58 PM

I agree with this as well, but hard working people also deserve a living wage.

Work smart .. not hard. I think everyone knows that. If someone chooses not to change and keep on working in industries that are inefficient then would you continue helping them?

I bet anyone making at or close to minimum would disagree that it wouldn't help much.

Already addressed. Why would you even take people opinion on what should be the minimum?

bleedblue1234

Sep27-09, 10:29 PM

Zimbabwe is a perfect example of how a government can make an absolute disaster of a once bright looking economy.....

WhoWee

Sep27-09, 11:39 PM

I'd appreciate it if you could come to terms with the fact that no one has made any argument for cap and trade or forced unionization in this thread, as that is exactly what makes that portion of the article irrelevant here.

I would appreciate a different tone. That aside, one of the first things you learn in Economics 101 is that everything financial is inter-related and relevant.
Warren Buffet also commented that he is against cap and trade and forced unionization.

If you stop lecturing me, maybe you will comprehend the relevance of his comments. Buffet is willing to accept a higher personal tax rate, but not cap and trade or unions - think of it as a message to Obama.

ray b

Sep28-09, 12:24 AM

Berkshire Hathaway (Buffet's holding company) has paid $14,077,000,000 in income taxes over the past 3 years on income of $44,513,000,000 - about 31.6%. I believe Buffet owns about 35% to 38%. Corporate taxes alone have cost Buffet (35% share of 14.077 billion paid in taxes) nearly $5 billion over the past 3 years.

http://www.hoovers.com/free/co/secdoc.xhtml?ID=10206&ipage=6447662-323934-330222

ok they earned some money and paid taxes on it
but what was the gain in stock price in those three years
as mr Buffet didNOT get his billions from earned income
his wealth came from gain in the stock price
untaxed unless sold and if sold not subject to progressive taxes
only to capital gains tax at it's lower rate 15% vs 35%

Galteeth

Sep28-09, 12:54 AM

WhoWee

Sep28-09, 07:07 AM

ok they earned some money and paid taxes on it
but what was the gain in stock price in those three years
as mr Buffet didNOT get his billions from earned income
his wealth came from gain in the stock price
untaxed unless sold and if sold not subject to progressive taxes
only to capital gains tax at it's lower rate 15% vs 35%

I don't know where to start. Buffet is a long term investor. Berkshire Hathaway does adjust their portfolio though. Buffet knows how to operate companies - not just raid pension funds and strip assets and dump like so many others. This discussio falls under the category of "going concern".

WhoWee

Sep28-09, 07:24 AM

They paid $14 billion in taxes.

ray b

Sep28-09, 01:20 PM

They paid $14 billion in taxes.

did they really
or was much of that accounting tricks
no tax credits ??? I find that very very hard to believe
no deductions at all , again just not believeable

Al68

Sep28-09, 01:37 PM

I don't see anything fair about working people being required to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than me, and am at a loss as to why so many working people defend it.Who is advocating that? Here's some real data from CBO (2005):

Total Federal taxes paid as a percentage of their total income. These are Effective tax rates of total income, not marginal tax rates after deductions, and includes SS taxes:

Top 20%..........25.5%
Second 20%.....17.4%
Middle 20%.......14.2%
Fourth 20%.........9.9%
Bottom 20%........4.3%

These numbers also include the employer paid portion of SS taxes as paid by the employee instead. The numbers are even more progressive for the income tax alone, even negative rates for the lowest two groups, reflecting refundable tax credits.

Source: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml
if the large corporations raised the price of their products, that would open up a window for smaller companies to better undercut them and hence promote start-ups.This is true, unless the price increase is due to the same government action that provides a huge barrier for competitors to enter the market.

Al68

Sep28-09, 02:18 PM

mr Buffet didNOT get his billions from earned income
his wealth came from gain in the stock price
untaxed unless sold and if sold not subject to progressive taxes
only to capital gains tax at it's lower rate 15% vs 35%Are you aware that the capital gains tax is an additional tax on wealth that has already been taxed? The same is true of dividends.

It's just silly to talk about the capital gains tax as if it's the only time tax is paid on corporate profit, when it's actually double-taxation on the same profit.

BoomBoom

Sep28-09, 03:28 PM

How much do/did you talk to the people in your class? Many people study day and night, have almost no social life, and try every possible way to earn more marks but end up failing because they weren't smart enough. Hard work can only compensate for stupidity to a limited extent.

Careful that when discussing an analogy (and an poor analogy at that) that you don't take the analogy so literally, that you lose site of what it is supposed to represent. We are not talking about grades here, but earned wages.

My point was that I think anyone that works a full time job should make enough in wages to supply basic living needs (food, shelter, etc.).

BoomBoom

Sep28-09, 03:35 PM

In the example of the grades of 4.0, 4.0, 3.8, and 3.2 where they should all be forced to share with their under-achieving classmates - is .2 each fair, or should the 4.0's give more?

Again, this is a poor analogy that was brought up, but I take exception you your portrayal of low income wage-earners as "under-achievers". Also the top of the class would be more like a 10.0 not a 4.0 and many of them got their good grades from copying off the homework of the "C and D" students.

Has this analogy been adequetly been beaten to death yet? :uhh:

BoomBoom

Sep28-09, 03:38 PM

The only reason to open a business is to earn sustained profits. Nobody (except politicians and charities) risks capital to create employment.

Hmm, I wonder why then that so many from the right believe that tax reductions to the rich and big business creates jobs then? When all it really does is increase profits.

BoomBoom

Sep28-09, 03:44 PM

He is absolutely right, the consumer pays a company's taxes, not the owner of the company.

The consumer is also paying for everyones high healthcare costs as well....and many of those consumers have none themselves. Is it really fair for the poor and uninsured to pay for healthcare of those much better off?

BoomBoom

Sep28-09, 04:00 PM

I laughed out load (yes LOLed) the first time I heard about 'trickle down economics' but the fact is that there is something to the idea. While the idea may not have been implemented well previously, and it may not be something you can simply have faith in, it would seem undeniable that the more prosperous people are the more likely they are to be benevolent to the disadvantaged.

What we have is more like trickle-up economics... trickle down really never happens, which is why I am a fan of irrigation. :smile:

Not to make any uninformed judgments about you but have you ever had to live off of earnings from a low earning job? Have you ever had to work with the people in such jobs? I can say that the vast majority of the people I have worked with in my low income professions have been lazy and unmotivated.

That has not been my experience at all, in fact, I believe that in many cases, the lower the income, the harder the work. I think the exact opposite may be true in many cases, that the more cushy the job, the lazier the worker....unless, of course, you think that a business meeting at a fancy restaurant, golf course, or strip club is really hard work? :wink:

Galteeth

Sep28-09, 04:23 PM

The consumer is also paying for everyones high healthcare costs as well....and many of those consumers have none themselves. Is it really fair for the poor and uninsured to pay for healthcare of those much better off?

Huh?

BoomBoom

Sep28-09, 04:30 PM

Huh?

You don't truly believe that a business that provides healthcare to its employees does so out of the kindness in their hearts do you? The costs are passed on to the consumer (many of which have no healthcare themselves because they can't afford it).

Galteeth

Sep28-09, 04:32 PM

Hmm, I wonder why then that so many from the right believe that tax reductions to the rich and big business creates jobs then? When all it really does is increase profits.

The theory is that the profit incentive motivates people to actually create and produce. If a businessman is making more profit, he commands more resource control as a "reward" for producing something people want and doing it efficiently.

Simply creating jobs is not always a worthy goal, one of the theoretical goals of progress is to reduce the total amount of labor necessary to produce the same standard of living. Remember what the origional Luddites were all about.

The basics of the arguments of spontaneous order arising from people following their self interest was laid out in The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith.

"By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention."

Jasongreat

Sep28-09, 06:20 PM

You're missing something there. "Through the products they buy." This is the whole point of money, that it can be exchanged for goods and services. They are getting something in exchange for the money.

You are right as far as money being a tool to use to get goods and services, however the product has the same value as it did before only now it costs more, so the consumer's money is worth less. Why is inflating the value of labor any different than inflating the value of the dollar? Both reduce the value of money already in circulation, both hurt the people who have the least most and since that is who we are supposedly trying to help with re-distribution, I would think it more beneficial to increase the value of thier labor not to de-value it(with inflation). IMO The best way to increase the value of thier labor is to make thier labor worth more, by learning more skills, not by arbitrarily giving them a pay raise, the raise will naturally follow the upgrade in skill's(might not be at the same company or even the same profession, but more money always follows more skills, since more skills add more value to a persons labor).

In the US, if you look at the price of house's in '51, you will find that the average cost was about $8500, which was about $4-$5 per square foot. At the same time the average wage was about $2,800/yr which would put the price of a house at about 3x earnings. Then look at the median house price in 2007, it was around $250,000 and the price per sq. ft. was a little over $99, the average wage was a little over $40,000 and that would make it about 6x earnings. If it is just about raising wages, why didnt the rising wages help people get into homes easier, was it because prices just keep rising right along with wages, sometimes even at a far higher rate(thanks to our buddies in wash.)? The only thing that arbitrarily raising wages does, is it inflates the market, if you raise them during an inflated market they sustain the inflated market and thats exactly what happens when we take from the rich and give to the poor we will inevitably inflate the market, the rich can handle the inflated prices, the poor can not, even with the pay increase since the market will readjust higher and they are in the same spot they started.

Average Wages (http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/awi.html)
House Prices (http://www.census.gov/const/newresales_200702.pdf)

ray b

Sep28-09, 06:25 PM

Are you aware that the capital gains tax is an additional tax on wealth that has already been taxed? The same is true of dividends.

It's just silly to talk about the capital gains tax as if it's the only time tax is paid on corporate profit, when it's actually double-taxation on the same profit.

you speak of wealth being taxed
even double taxed
THAT IS WRONG
we in the USA never have taxed wealth
at the federal level
only earned income strangely is top rate taxed
billionaire's are never taxed on their billions
only stock sales gains are taxed and then at a low rate
and their CEO pay is taxed THATS IT FOR INCOME TAX

large amounts of stock are seldom bought
they are mostly created out of thin air
by guys like buffet or bill gates steve jobs ect

lets take bill gates for example
worth X billion dollars [mostly in MS stock]
any stock he gave himself is not taxed even once
at any income tax rate
and ONLY IF SOLD will be taxed at a LOW capital gains rate [15%]
the only taxed income bill gates has is his CEO pay [a million or so a year]
for a wealth gain to tax paid rate of less then 0.25% or less avg for the last 20+ years

but the neo-conned sheep will not stop bleating the rich are over taxed
or double taxed ect
the facts are out there pick a BIG CORPs FOUNDER or long time CEO
compute his tax rate from the CORPS doc's and run the numbers yourself

WhoWee

Sep28-09, 06:30 PM

did they really
or was much of that accounting tricks
no tax credits ??? I find that very very hard to believe
no deductions at all , again just not believeable

It ishard to believe that someone could pay $14 billion in taxes over 3 years and not be angry.LOL THAT's wealthy.

I posted the Berkshire Hathaway 10-K. They paid $14 billion in taxes in 3 years. Based on ownership percentage, Warren Buffet's share of the taxes is about $5,000,000,000. I consider that to be a fair amount. To then be upset that he doesn't pay a higher percentage on personal income after this tax, and to question his write-offs, is laughable.

WhoWee

Sep28-09, 06:37 PM

Jasongreat

Sep28-09, 06:43 PM

Al68

Sep28-09, 06:54 PM

you speak of wealth being taxed
even double taxed
THAT IS WRONG
we in the USA never have taxed wealth
at the federal level
only earned income strangely is top rate taxedI was referring to the tax on the wealth when it was made, not repeated taxation of existing personal wealth. You must have known that.
billionaire's are never taxed on their billions
only stock sales gains are taxed and then at a low rate
and their CEO pay is taxed THATS IT FOR INCOME TAXIt is taxed twice at the federal level. If I own stock in a company, my share of the profit is taxed as corporate income tax, then distributed to me as a dividend or as a capital gain, then I must report this after-tax income as personal income and pay the additional tax.large amounts of stock are seldom bought
they are mostly created out of thin air
by guys like buffet or bill gates steve jobs ect

lets take bill gates for example
worth X billion dollars [mostly in MS stock]
any stock he gave himself is not taxed even once
at any income tax rate
and ONLY IF SOLD will be taxed at a LOW capital gains rate [15%]
the only taxed income bill gates has is his CEO pay [a million or so a year]
for a wealth gain to tax paid rate of less then 0.25% or less avg for the last 20+ years
This is simply nonsense.
but the neo-conned sheep will not stop bleating the rich are over taxed
or double taxed ectPersonal attacks and hatespeech are not conducive to honest debate and violate forum rules.
the facts are out there pick a BIG CORPs FOUNDER or long time CEO
compute his tax rate from the CORPS doc's and run the numbers yourselfI recently posted real facts about who pays taxes from the CBO. Yes, the facts are available, but most people ignore them in favor of the hateful nonsense of power hungry politicians.

Al68

Sep28-09, 07:23 PM

Also the top of the class would be more like a 10.0 not a 4.0 and many of them got their good grades from copying off the homework of the "C and D" students.Yep, that's how I got my A's: copying off the "C" and "D" students. :rolleyes:Hmm, I wonder why then that so many from the right believe that tax reductions to the rich and big business creates jobs then? When all it really does is increase profits.This is seriously backward logic. Tax cuts are not government "giving" anyone anything. That being said, profit motive is the reason for every private sector job in the country.

Reducing profit motive by confiscating part of it costs jobs, causes higher prices for consumers, inflation. It's a lose-lose for everyone except power hungry politicians and the few that benefit at the expense of others.

We need some government, but we don't need to be fooled into thinking it's free.

Jasongreat

Sep28-09, 07:54 PM

It's interesting that you argue this, since historically when there were higher taxes on wealthier people, there tended to be less of a divide between the wages the top executives of companies were being paid and what their employees were being paid.

So let me get this right, the reason we are re-distributing wealth is to bring the top down, the bottom up, and then all of us will have the same stuff? Or are we trying to help the poor raise themselves up out of poverty by having those that have help those that dont? What if one of these poor people wants to become rich? Wouldnt the same obstacles you want the now rich to overcome also affect the ones trying to become rich next?

This seems to indicate that if you put a higher tax rate on higher levels of income, those executives will not simply jack up their wages;

First off your implying the wages of executives are jacked up and not at all based on thier value, I would agree in some instances(big corporations) but for the most part I would disagree(I would whole-heartedly disagree when talking of small buisinesses). What it does show is that if you raise the tax rates people will just choose to make less or at least show less on paper, and that would lead to less wealth for the government to pass around.

rather the opposite effect occurred, and lowering the top tax rates led executives to more aggressively push their compensation upwards (at the expense of the people who buy products from the companies of course, as you yourself say)

I think if you look into it a little further you will find that it was because of the tax rates that executives started to get creative with thier compensation packages, moving away from a salary and into the golden parachute types of bonuses. So in the end, the rich kept their way off life, but the government lossed thiers(tax revenue), and we all paid for it and will be paying for it for years to come.

Jasongreat

Sep28-09, 08:10 PM

Hmm, I wonder why then that so many from the right believe that tax reductions to the rich and big business creates jobs then? When all it really does is increase profits.

Although I dont consider myself as part of the right(unless you are taking about my arguments,lol), let me try to explain:
Capital can either stay in the buisiness and possibly expand and hire more workers(or god forbid be taken as profit), or capital can be taken by the government where it cant be used at all by the company and that equals no expansion and no new jobs(at least none of value).

CRGreathouse

Sep28-09, 08:18 PM

drankin

Sep28-09, 08:30 PM

If minimum wage is a living wage, then the motivation to get out of a minimum wage job is diminished. Not every job available should make you enough money to live on. I've worked my share of minimum and low wage jobs. And I'm glad I barely made a living working them or I might just still be working those crappy jobs! LOL! It took about ten years of working crappy jobs to convince me to get back to school and get a career. I am much much more productive doing what I do now than back then. Increasing minimum wage to a living wage could very well cripple the productivity of our nation by diminishing the incentive for people to improve their education and better their marketable positions.

DavidSnider

Sep28-09, 08:42 PM

WhoWee

Sep28-09, 09:24 PM

Hmm, I wonder why then that so many from the right believe that tax reductions to the rich and big business creates jobs then? When all it really does is increase profits.

If you saved $1,000 in cash working at a part time job.

Would you

1.) put it in the bank to draw interest at 4%
2.) invest it in the stock market with a potential 15% return
3.) lend it to a friend (who may or may not re-pay it)
4.) lend it to a stranger who promises to repay with 20% interest
5.) invest it in something you can re-sell to triple your investment
6.) invest it in a small family business that promises to pay you $200 per year for the rest of your life (and you own stock in the business)
7.) donate 35% to a homeless person and spend the rest on recreation
8.) invest in a variable annuity

and why?

WhoWee

Sep28-09, 09:28 PM

n9xr

Sep28-09, 09:40 PM

Why the talk about single payer? Who, besides the conservatives right now, are talking about single payer?

WhoWee

Sep28-09, 09:52 PM

you speak of wealth being taxed
even double taxed
THAT IS WRONG
we in the USA never have taxed wealth
at the federal level
only earned income strangely is top rate taxed
billionaire's are never taxed on their billions
only stock sales gains are taxed and then at a low rate
and their CEO pay is taxed THATS IT FOR INCOME TAX

large amounts of stock are seldom bought
they are mostly created out of thin air
by guys like buffet or bill gates steve jobs ect

lets take bill gates for example
worth X billion dollars [mostly in MS stock]
any stock he gave himself is not taxed even once
at any income tax rate
and ONLY IF SOLD will be taxed at a LOW capital gains rate [15%]
the only taxed income bill gates has is his CEO pay [a million or so a year]
for a wealth gain to tax paid rate of less then 0.25% or less avg for the last 20+ years

but the neo-conned sheep will not stop bleating the rich are over taxed
or double taxed ect
the facts are out there pick a BIG CORPs FOUNDER or long time CEO
compute his tax rate from the CORPS doc's and run the numbers yourself

They say ignorance is bliss ray b - but there are limits.

Have you ever heard of the SEC - they don't allow ("large amounts of stock are seldom bought they are mostly created out of thin air by guys like buffet or bill gates steve jobs ect") the activity you describe.

Are you familiar with personal property taxes?
http://dor.wa.gov/docs/Pubs/Prop_Tax/PersProp.pdf

How about luxury taxes?
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/17/business/senate-unit-kills-luxury-tax-on-items.html

I'll also assume the concept of estate taxes have not been a priority on your research list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States

As for Bill Gates GIVING himself stock - are you talking about his original founder's shares that were issued when he invested in the company or stock options or perhaps stock in lieu of cash? Please describe the stock he "gave" himself.

If you'd like to learn about stock options
http://www.salary.com/advice/layouthtmls/advl_display_nocat_Ser56_Par125.html

In the mean time - please support your post or retract the nonsense.

WhoWee

Sep28-09, 09:54 PM

Why the talk about single payer? Who, besides the conservatives right now, are talking about single payer?

Hello n9xr - I see this is your first post.

Let me be the first to welcome you to Physics Forums.

Would you care to tell us all a little about your background and experience?

Jasongreat

Sep28-09, 10:06 PM

Let's just assume that everyone were guaranteed a basic "comfortable" living. 3 hots, a cot and basic medicine.

Everyone is guaranteed the right to aquire these things, they are just required to put in some work towards that end.

You think there is a significant amount of people who would just live the rest of their life like this and never desire to produce anything?

I do think that there is a number of people that would, why wouldnt they, they are getting all that they need, but of course their wants may get them moving. Oh, wait why isnt that motivating them now to produce anything?

Even people who are independently wealthy seem to have a desire to work.

Thats what I believe seperates the rich from the poor, desire,drive and education. I think you will also find that most rich people enjoy what they are doing and the money comes second, kind of like a bonus. I dont think there are many rich people that started with just the desire to make money. When we look at what I think seperates the poor from the rich, the poor say they have the desire, but we can see from the evidence that they dont have the education or drive, if we could give them the drive to go with their desire and then give them better education they will leave poverty behind and it is for that reason I say we should quit taking away that drive by giving them free money(well free to them).

n9xr

Sep28-09, 10:06 PM

Hello n9xr - I see this is your first post.

Let me be the first to welcome you to Physics Forums.

Would you care to tell us all a little about your background and experience?

I'm employed as a field engineer. Graduated from Pittsburg State U in 1980. Looks like a real thought provoking forum. Thank you for the kind welcome.

I am a technical representative for quartz crystal timing devices.

WhoWee

Sep28-09, 10:25 PM

I'm employed as a field engineer. Graduated from Pittsburg State U in 1980. Looks like a real thought provoking forum. Thank you for the kind welcome.

I am a technical representative for quartz crystal timing devices.

The PF can be very thought provoking and lively.

As for the single payer post, BoomBoom is concerned the cost of health care is passed on to consumers.

Accordingly, I'd like his opinion on mandated health insurance coverage. The specifics of single payer/universal/employer based group/individual/co-op exchange really wasn't important.

The expansion of insurance coverage for up to 46 million people will have a cost. I want to know who he thinks will pay for it - given his comments.

drankin

Sep28-09, 10:28 PM

You think there is a significant amount of people who would just live the rest of their life like this and never desire to produce anything?

Yes, I've worked with many of them! I have worked at many low paying jobs where my working peers worked harder at NOT working than if they just did what they were payed to do. Why? They make just enough to get them by at a job they hate. And many of them have made it their career to do as little as possible and still maintain their position. If we were to guarantee a living minimum wage, we would foster this lifestyle to the detriment of our productivity as a nation.

It's un-American to pay people to NOT progress. Un-American in a historical sense that we've never paid people to not perform competively in the market as a policy.

n9xr

Sep28-09, 10:38 PM

If we look at those who are uninsured right now, a large percentage of that group are young and single not really running up a large medical bill. These persons will be a large portion of those picking up the tab. As it is, these folks can get sick and go bankrupt for not having coverage. But as it is, I pay for the healthcare costs for me, my family, those who are uninsured, politicians, military personnel, and old folks.

Time for someone else to pick up the tab for a change.

bleedblue1234

Sep28-09, 10:46 PM

The only good solution to healthcare IMO is to go all out single payer or to completely take government out of the picture.....

n9xr

Sep28-09, 10:49 PM

The only good solution to healthcare IMO is to go all out single payer or to completely take government out of the picture.....

I wish. A no nonsense - no excuses solution.

But unfortunately, not an option. Too many people don't like optimal solutions.

WhoWee

Sep28-09, 11:44 PM

You don't truly believe that a business that provides healthcare to its employees does so out of the kindness in their hearts do you? The costs are passed on to the consumer (many of which have no healthcare themselves because they can't afford it).

Many businesses provide health care benefits to retain good employees.

Some small businesses take advantage of group rates by including full time employees. Some employers join the NASE or other associations to gain discount benefits. Other small employers establish Section 125's to reduce tax liabilities and workers comp claims and offer accident or cancer policies (Aflac) to employees.

Most often business owners make (business) decisions based on profit and loss, not emotions.

TheStatutoryApe

Sep29-09, 09:41 AM

That has not been my experience at all, in fact, I believe that in many cases, the lower the income, the harder the work. I think the exact opposite may be true in many cases, that the more cushy the job, the lazier the worker....unless, of course, you think that a business meeting at a fancy restaurant, golf course, or strip club is really hard work? :wink:
There are some industries where workers do hard work for little pay but any more that would probably mostly be crop harvesters. Most hard working jobs that I know of are unionized skilled labour that tend to make some decent money for only having a high school education.
Most of the low income work where I live would be things like working at a video store or a department store.
At my current job most of our employees get fired for sleeping on the job (from the time they got there to the time they left in some cases) or not even being there when they say they are. Among other reasons for letting people go have been getting drunk on the job, getting stoned on the job, getting drunk or stoned with residents while on the job, picking up on underage girls in front of their parents, cussing people out, getting in fist fights, doing donuts in the parking lot, and one guy even got fired after being arrested for breaking into and stealing money from vending machines on site while working (though perhaps you could call that industrious). And that's just people at this one job and who were actually fired. We have a rather prodigious turn over rate.
I have known people who had nice jobs of the sort where they go to expensive restaurants and such. All of them were constantly stressed about their jobs and a few of them quit and took less stressful ones making far less money. While I have heard them complain about people that were just unable to do their jobs properly or get anything done on time I have heard very few stories of co-workers who did nothing but sleep in their office. And yeah, compared to some of the co-workers I have had, I'm sure these people at high end jobs were putting more effort in while at strip clubs and playing golf.

As for lower-income jobs, I've had mixed experiences. I put myself through college working in a warehouse; everyone there worked very hard (and for fairly long hours -- I only put in 44-48 per week, but most did 50+). They had no "lazy and unmotivated" workers (as TheStatutoryApe put it) except possibly some temps, but those would quit fairly quickly.
At the warehouses I have worked at the only non-management employees that I saw working hard were the forklift drivers. Everyone else were temps and they tended to either socialize, flirt, or wander off to find things to steal (which is the reason I was there [working security]). Management had to bring in probably twice as many as strictly necessary just to make sure that enough work got done.

TheStatutoryApe

Sep29-09, 09:45 AM

Let's just assume that everyone were guaranteed a basic "comfortable" living. 3 hots, a cot and basic medicine.

You think there is a significant amount of people who would just live the rest of their life like this and never desire to produce anything?

Even people who are independently wealthy seem to have a desire to work.

I recently had a roommate (a relatively intelligent guy even) who after losing his job seemed quit happy to mooch off of me for most of a year before I moved out. He didn't even have basic medicine or three square meals a day.

Alfi

Sep29-09, 11:02 AM

It's un-American to pay people to NOT progress. Un-American in a historical sense that we've never paid people to not perform competively in the market as a policy.

Does this statement of fact include all the farmers who have been paid to not plant crops?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100962.html

BoomBoom

Sep29-09, 12:38 PM

If you saved $1,000 in cash working at a part time job.

Would you

1.) put it in the bank to draw interest at 4%
2.) invest it in the stock market with a potential 15% return
3.) lend it to a friend (who may or may not re-pay it)
4.) lend it to a stranger who promises to repay with 20% interest
5.) invest it in something you can re-sell to triple your investment
6.) invest it in a small family business that promises to pay you $200 per year for the rest of your life (and you own stock in the business)
7.) donate 35% to a homeless person and spend the rest on recreation
8.) invest in a variable annuity

and why?

Unfortunatley, my history seems to lean towards option #3. :frown:

Accordingly, I'd like his opinion on mandated health insurance coverage.

As it stands now, I am a fan of the public option.

Many businesses provide health care benefits to retain good employees.

....at a very high cost that comes from lower employee wages and higher product prices.

drankin

Sep29-09, 02:28 PM

Does this statement of fact include all the farmers who have been paid to not plant crops?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100962.html

Ah, no I wasn't including farmers. But, this is the kind of thing we will be doing if we make all jobs pay a living wage. A job should pay what it's worth. If the wages are too low, then people won't take the job and the employer will have to increase the wage or remove the position from the business.

ray b

Sep29-09, 03:36 PM

They say ignorance is bliss ray b - but there are limits.

Have you ever heard of the SEC - they don't allow ("large amounts of stock are seldom bought they are mostly created out of thin air by guys like buffet or bill gates steve jobs ect") the activity you describe.

Are you familiar with personal property taxes?
http://dor.wa.gov/docs/Pubs/Prop_Tax/PersProp.pdf

How about luxury taxes?
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/17/business/senate-unit-kills-luxury-tax-on-items.html

I'll also assume the concept of estate taxes have not been a priority on your research list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States

As for Bill Gates GIVING himself stock - are you talking about his original founder's shares that were issued when he invested in the company or stock options or perhaps stock in lieu of cash? Please describe the stock he "gave" himself.

If you'd like to learn about stock options
http://www.salary.com/advice/layouthtmls/advl_display_nocat_Ser56_Par125.html

In the mean time - please support your post or retract the nonsense.

as far as I can tell all stock is created out of thin air at it's begining
people like bill gates start a CORP
build it to a point and go public by selling stock
BUT retain far more stock themself then the amounts sold
that stock is not subject to any tax ever unless sold

the SEC is a bad joke as far as regulations
AND THEY SURE DO ALLOW STOCK TO BE CREATED and SOLD
a CORP needs to meet certain conditions to sell stock but the stock is created
yes they do have some rules on some trades but NONE ON OTHERS

lets not mix up STATE and FED taxes you can move to a better taxed state
even if you move out of the USA FEds tax laws still apply if you remain a citizen

personal property is a state tax in some states NOT A FED TAX

luxury taxes is a very limited list of things taxed and mostly dead now
bringing it back is not a bad idea

estate taxes is something I am very well aware of having been involved with two large estates both people had receved huge estates [that they didnot earn and lived off the earnings with out working] three other estates I was part of paid NO TAX as the limits are set quite high 3.5 million currently
BTW estate tax is eazy to dodge with a little planning [generation skipping trusts] and other gimics
or like our example bill gates and his untaxed EVER BILLIONS by creation of charity foundations
so for many estate taxes are NOT A DOUBLE TAX and maybe the ONLY tax on WEALTH

there is no nonsense in my post but a lot in yours
and a whole load of neo-conned spin and BIG LIES too

CRGreathouse

Sep29-09, 04:17 PM

At the warehouses I have worked at the only non-management employees that I saw working hard were the forklift drivers. Everyone else were temps and they tended to either socialize, flirt, or wander off to find things to steal (which is the reason I was there [working security]). Management had to bring in probably twice as many as strictly necessary just to make sure that enough work got done.

Our experiences differ rather dramatically, then. Work was constant throughout the 11 to 14 hours per night, aside from the 30-minute lunch and lulls of up to 20 seconds (maybe one per hour).

I can't comment properly on your 'twice as many' because of the difference between the workplace cultures. 'My' company would have preferred to bring on additional workers to reduce the amount payed out in overtime.

I'm curious. How much (in, say, 2009 dollars (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl)) did people make at that job? I wonder if this is an example of 'wages of efficiency' as pioneered by Ford.

CRGreathouse

Sep29-09, 04:20 PM

as far as I can tell all stock is created out of thin air at it's begining
people like bill gates start a CORP
build it to a point and go public by selling stock
BUT retain far more stock themself then the amounts sold
that stock is not subject to any tax ever unless sold

You seem to have a very limited grasp of what you're talking about. Essentially every claim here is false ("created out of thin air", "retain far more stock", "not subject to any tax"), but more importantly you betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the process.

estate taxes is something I am very well aware of having been involved with two large estates both people had receved huge estates [that they didnot earn and lived off the earnings with out working] three other estates I was part of paid NO TAX as the limits are set quite high 3.5 million currently
BTW estate tax is eazy to dodge with a little planning [generation skipping trusts] and other gimics
or like our example bill gates and his untaxed EVER BILLIONS by creation of charity foundations
so for many estate taxes are NOT A DOUBLE TAX and maybe the ONLY tax on WEALTH

I favor high estate taxes, personally, but to say that estate taxes are not double taxation is simply false. True, stepped-up bases avoid capital gains taxes -- but that means that the gains are only single-taxed. All wealth subject to estate taxes were earned at some point and thus subject, at some point, to taxation.

Also, most states have special generation-skipping inheritance taxes; the feds may have one too, I'm not sure.

Another interesting point is inflation. If $1 million was earned in 1929 (a low point for the income tax -- it was higher before and after), the earner payed about $240,000 in taxes. If the remaining $760,000 was kept in a bank account earning 4% interest, it would be worth about $9,450,000 in 2009 after taxes.* This is just keeping up with inflation, which by the CPI would be $9,590,000.** But over this time, $2,250,000 would be payed out in taxes, or $4,480,000 in 2009 dollars. That's an effective tax rate of 31.8%. If the $9,450,000 was then inherited, the top $5,950,000 would be subject to a 45% tax. The total effective tax rate on the supposedly tax-free inheritance works out to 51.3%. This does not include the original $3,030,000 (2009 dollars) in income tax!

Let's do it differently. Suppose the $760,000 was invested in an amazing company that grew 20% (pretax) and -5% in alternate years. Value in 2009 is $13,000,000; taxes paid (corporate tax rate of 35% on profits only) are $32,140,000 in 2009 dollars. Even if inheritance and capital gains taxes can be avoided, that's a 71.3% tax rate. (Feel free to replace with your own example.)

* For simplicity, I assumed a constant 20% tax rate throughout. A better analysis would take into account varying rates over the period.
** Estimated using 3.22% per year. Again, if you'd like to do a better analysis, feel free.

mheslep

Sep29-09, 05:34 PM

I favor high estate taxes, personally, Why? It's not clear (to me) from the rest of the discussion.

ray b

Sep29-09, 05:36 PM

You seem to have a very limited grasp of what you're talking about. Essentially every claim here is false ("created out of thin air", "retain far more stock", "not subject to any tax"), but more importantly you betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the process.

I favor high estate taxes, personally, but to say that estate taxes are not double taxation is simply false. True, stepped-up bases avoid capital gains taxes -- but that means that the gains are only single-taxed. All wealth subject to estate taxes were earned at some point and thus subject, at some point, to taxation.

Also, most states have special generation-skipping inheritance taxes; the feds may have one too, I'm not sure.

most corps issue only a small % of stock in a IPO
and ''give'' far more to the board, E O 's, banks and others to arrange the IPO
and the creators most times retain the larger numbers along with any VC's involved
or simply let the corp's retain the common shares on it's books or as a shell corp ect
and take out their ''share'' in preferred stock or some other trick

stock does have ''rules'' to do a IPO
but the is little to dispute the original IPO shares are madeup
most big stock holders are in at the begining and are given the shares
or given reduced price shares ie options
and not subject to taxes at issue date

russ_watters

Sep29-09, 06:02 PM

russ_watters

Sep29-09, 06:08 PM

Hmm, I wonder why then that so many from the right believe that tax reductions to the rich and big business creates jobs then? When all it really does is increase profits.
Try looking at it from the other side of the coin: how can reduced profits (much less losses) create jobs?

WhoWee

Sep29-09, 07:03 PM

as far as I can tell all stock is created out of thin air at it's begining
people like bill gates start a CORP
build it to a point and go public by selling stock
BUT retain far more stock themself then the amounts sold
that stock is not subject to any tax ever unless sold

the SEC is a bad joke as far as regulations
AND THEY SURE DO ALLOW STOCK TO BE CREATED and SOLD
a CORP needs to meet certain conditions to sell stock but the stock is created
yes they do have some rules on some trades but NONE ON OTHERS

lets not mix up STATE and FED taxes you can move to a better taxed state
even if you move out of the USA FEds tax laws still apply if you remain a citizen

personal property is a state tax in some states NOT A FED TAX

luxury taxes is a very limited list of things taxed and mostly dead now
bringing it back is not a bad idea

estate taxes is something I am very well aware of having been involved with two large estates both people had receved huge estates [that they didnot earn and lived off the earnings with out working] three other estates I was part of paid NO TAX as the limits are set quite high 3.5 million currently
BTW estate tax is eazy to dodge with a little planning [generation skipping trusts] and other gimics
or like our example bill gates and his untaxed EVER BILLIONS by creation of charity foundations
so for many estate taxes are NOT A DOUBLE TAX and maybe the ONLY tax on WEALTH

there is no nonsense in my post but a lot in yours
and a whole load of neo-conned spin and BIG LIES too

ray b, I posted links to support my comments. You need to do the same. Why don't you start with this "the SEC is a bad joke as far as regulations
AND THEY SURE DO ALLOW STOCK TO BE CREATED and SOLD
a CORP needs to meet certain conditions to sell stock but the stock is created
yes they do have some rules on some trades but NONE ON OTHERS".

When you're done with the SEC, please post specific evidence to support your claims of "BIG LIES"- or retract your nonsense.

CRGreathouse

Sep29-09, 10:33 PM

Why? It's not clear (to me) from the rest of the discussion.

It doesn't follow from the rest, it's a sidenote. I mention it only because it's relevant: while a claim like "estate taxes are not double taxation" would support my dislike of estate taxes, I disagree with it because it's wrong.

Edit: Since you're looking at that post of mine already, any comments on my examples?

WhoWee

Sep29-09, 10:45 PM

....at a very high cost that comes from lower employee wages and higher product prices.

Actually, I was referring to Aflac policies. They fall under Section 125 or "Cafeteria" plans. The Aflac policies are paid by the employees (individual choice - not mandatory) and monthly premiums typically cost less than 2 to 3 times the workers hourly wage - usually less than $50 per month.

The company saves money and the employees have some protection at a low cost.

ray b

Sep29-09, 11:30 PM

Ray, the concept of "stock" really isn't all that hard to grasp. Stocks are ownership of a company. I believe all corporations have stocks - that's how you define who owns the company. In sole proprietorships, there is a single owner of all the stock in the company. He/she can choose to hold it or sell it, but either way, all that stock is is ownership of the company and the value of the stock is a reflection of peoples' perceptions of the value of the company.

When a company decides to issue stock publicly, of course the owners of the company will retain much of the stock for themselves! The point of an IPO is to sell partial ownership of the company in order to generate capital (cash) for the company.

Also, you seem to be against the idea that stocks aren't taxed while they are held. Why would they be? Are you taxed on the money you have in your bank account or the value of the TV in your living room? I suppose the government could tax for any reason it wanted, but those would have a tough time being logically justified.

this board is over moderated by the rightwing
who are very active suppressing extreme views

I never said I had anything against stock ownership
I have owned some myself

what I am against is the super rich like gates or buffet being taxed at such low rates
or never taxed on billions earned by stock value growth
except maybe at their death
while the neo-conned bleat about the rich being over taxed
when the true fact is most of the wealth never is taxed or way under taxed
let alone the false claim it is double taxed

yes most of the funds in my bank account was taxed both income and SS
but bill gates never paid a dime on his wealth of billions

any interest earned from that account is taxed at my full rate
but bill gates never paid a dime on his wealth of billions

my tv was taxed at 7% state sales tax plus a tax on the power it uses
but bill gates never paid a dime on his wealth of billions

only workers pay double taxes income and SS
most of the real rich donot pay much income or SS tax