Rich Get Rich and Poor Get Poorer

[Brother John]

ok...so I just needed to scroll down further...
still...I disagree.

I think that China "opening up" doesn't show that communism benefits from a little capitalism....but that capitalism is slowly being introduced and works WAY better than the communism.
Not a 'balance'....but showing that one is "better" than the other.

my .02

Your Brother
John

 

[Flying Crane]

ok...so I just needed to scroll down further...
still...I disagree.

I think that China "opening up" doesn't show that communism benefits from a little capitalism....but that capitalism is slowly being introduced and works WAY better than the communism.
Not a 'balance'....but showing that one is "better" than the other.

my .02

Your Brother
John

well, you may be right. I am not trying to promote communism or socialism. I am really only trying to point out what is wrong with capitalism. In many ways it works, and it provides many incentives to succeed. But I think that in many ways it has gotten out of control and I think that in the long run, if something doesn't change, it will damage this country. And I think the current Bush regime (getting back to what started this thread in the first place) continues to favor the wealthy in an unbalanced way. Back in the campaign days, he did call them His Base, after all...

 

[Flying Crane]

Well, this thread has become MUCH more lively than I had anticipated. I honestly had no idea that my earlier post would cause such a response. It was just kind of a knee-jerk reaction to someone else who asked for suggestions on how to fix things. Yes, I had thought about these issues before, but it is usually just my disgruntled side coming out when things like the ENRON scandal were getting a lot of press.

It's been fun and interesting, everyone, thanks for playing!

 

[BlueDragon1981]

I'm not arguing for or against flat tax....

My argument is why do the rich get so much of a decrease and the other classes don't.

Cuts will happen that make the poor even more poor. The education systems, and environment programs will take the biggest cuts.

If you support the tax cuts then aren't you supporting less education in the U.S. Are the rich the only ones who should have the option for education? I know a great number of people whom if they had the finances would have probably graduated from college and earned more money....thus putting more money in the economy through their higher tax rates, and spending more...because its a well known fact that the more money someone makes the more they spend. (Look at a book dealing with MacroEconomics if you need a source for that)

 

[BlueDragon1981]

oh...and holy crap this thread has exploded in the past day or two....I don't log on one day and booom.

 

[Brother John]

why do the rich get so much of a decrease and the other classes don't.

Cuts will happen that make the poor even more poor. The education systems, and environment programs will take the biggest cuts.

If you support the tax cuts then aren't you supporting less education in the U.S. Are the rich the only ones who should have the option for education?

.because its a well known fact that the more money someone makes the more they spend. (Look at a book dealing with MacroEconomics if you need a source for that)

I'd have to say that this is a good thing to think about, but in some ways, for political reasons, many have put this argument forward in a scewed way that misleads. For instance that the poor in our country didn't get a tax break. But the fact of the matter is that the large percentage of poor in our country DON'T pay taxes.... and didn't.....so when you look at it...they didn't get a tax break. The people at the highest end of the bracket did get a good sized tax break. I'm not going to argue against well known numbers/facts. But they also pay the GREATEST percentage of our nations tax.... most of the taxes that flow into our nations coffers (sp?) come from the welthiest end of the spectrum. So...when there's a tax 'break'...those who pay the most are most affected by it. In this case it appears that the wealthy were favored....when really......it was merely 'even'. Did they get a greater percentage off? Yes. Why? Because they pay the Greatest percentage in the first place. The poor DID get a tax break, commensorate with the percentage of the taxation that they contribute in the first place. The most poor....don't pay taxes. Can't get much more of a break than zero.

Who drives our economy? The average guy. The middle income families who simply steadily consume. Who employs them? Generally....the upper income folks. Who then provides the jobs? Those who got more of a break or less?
Those who's break was greater. What was this designed to do?
Stimulate employment and thus the economy.
THe very last line of your post that I quoted makes my point for me:
Who spends the most?
Those who make the most.
When taxed less, the spend more.
stimulates the economy...
stimulates employment....etc. etc.

....just one way to look at it.

Your Brother
John

 

[Flying Crane]

oh...and holy crap this thread has exploded in the past day or two....I don't log on one day and booom.

geeze man, yer tellin' me!

 

[Flying Crane]

Who spends the most?
Those who make the most.
When taxed less, the spend more.
stimulates the economy...
stimulates employment....etc. etc.

....just one way to look at it.

Your Brother
John

I would say that the real answer to the above question would be not "those who make the most" because they are a tiny minority, but rather the collective workers spend the most because of their sheer numbers. If you want money cycling back into the economy to help keep it strong, it will cycle much more strongly if it is in the hands of the wage-earners.

The wealthy need to recognize this and be willing to pay their employees better, if big profits are being made. I understand that if a company is faltering or struggling it cannot do this, but for a strong, highly profitable company, the wage-earners should be paid better than the industry average. The top executives and business owners who are making huge personal profits need to be willing to spread this wealth around a bit. But they have no incentive to do so. Greed has become the ruler. To me, this in an obvious place where improvements could be made, but the wealthy need to be willing to give up a bit of their wealth (really, for at least some of these people, it would not make a bit of difference in their own lifestyle).

Maybe taxing them heavily isn't the answer, but in the spirit of being a decent human being, they could do so willingly. I think there is very little that is more shameful than a company that posts record quarterly profits, but hasnt' given its employees decent benefits, or an actual raise (beyond simple inflation) in years.

 

[Brother John]

I would say that the real answer to the above question would be not "those who make the most" because they are a tiny minority, but rather the collective workers spend the most because of their sheer numbers. If you want money cycling back into the economy to help keep it strong, it will cycle much more strongly if it is in the hands of the wage-earners..

Exactly... good point.
It's the wage earners, who are employed and paid by (not the poor) those in the Upper economic levels...
When over taxed, businesses move (aka: outsource). When overtaxed, raises don't/can't go out....etc.

You make a good point

The wealthy need to recognize this and be willing to pay their employees better, if big profits are being made.

Yes.. that's good business practice. Pay well when you can so that you get better quality work and workers, and keep those that are good and can demand more from those that aren't doing their best work.
Excellent point.
BUT: When they do start working harder and achieving more and are therefore compensated in kind......their taxes shouldn't go to a Higher Percentage just because they are getting more money in. That would be to punish hard work and accomplishment....
such as in....

What I would do is tax the wealthy and the super-wealthy on a graduated rate, for income over certain amounts. for example:
income of 250,000 to 500,000, tax at 40%.
income of 500,001 to 1million, tax at 50%
income of 1million and 1 to 5 million, tax at 65%
income of 5million and 1 to 10 million, tax at 80%
income of 10million and 1 and over, tax at 90%

Your Brother
John

 

[Brother John]

I know that those are numbers that you just pulled "out of your butt"
but I just used them for example...



Your Brother
John

 

[Flying Crane]

Exactly... good point.
It's the wage earners, who are employed and paid by (not the poor) those in the Upper economic levels...
When over taxed, businesses move (aka: outsource). When overtaxed, raises don't/can't go out....etc.

You make a good point
Yes.. that's good business practice. Pay well when you can so that you get better quality work and workers, and keep those that are good and can demand more from those that aren't doing their best work.
Excellent point.
BUT: When they do start working harder and achieving more and are therefore compensated in kind......their taxes shouldn't go to a Higher Percentage just because they are getting more money in. That would be to punish hard work and accomplishment....
such as in....


Your Brother
John

Hey, fair enough, I am willing to move past my unpopular tax proposal

I do think we need to recognize, however the difference between company assets/profits, and personal income of the super wealthy. The CEO who takes home $20 million in compensation does not use that money to further the business. This is his personal income and he spends it on groceries, the utilities, and the hypothetical luxury items. So arguing that the super wealthy need all their money so that they can offer jobs to the rest of us I think just doesn't hold water. Yes, some of the wealthy actually own the business so there may be some gray area, but the CEO of the wealthy, publicly traded firms are not owners. Their compensation is completely separate from any money that would be used to further develop business, unless the CEO has his own private business on the side.

Given this, I still see gross abuse in how capitalism is carried out. It has certainly provided for growth in the economy, and many of us have viable jobs because of it, and maybe it is the best thing going so far, but there are also tremendous abuses that really are unfair, and that is what my main point is.

 

[The Kai]

How about when the business owners use thier money to move the jobs overseas, destroying the middle class alltogether?

 

[Brother John]

How about when the business owners use thier money to move the jobs overseas, destroying the middle class alltogether?

agreed...
that's one of the Worst things for our economy!!! Bar none...

two of the principle reasons sighted for doing so are:
#1. They can usually pay their new employees less and give lower 'packages' in benefits.
#2. They can get away from the High taxation.
Both of these need to be looked at and remedied....
NOT that the American workers need to be paid less or given less benefits. Not by any means. But....still....something has Got to be done. There must be a good business reason or incentive for business people to keep business in the US.

Your Brother
John

 

[Flying Crane]

agreed...
#2. They can get away from the High taxation.

Your Brother
John

This can become a form of blackmail. Wealthy corporations threaten to weaken the US economy by moving overseas if they are not exempted from taxes. If they are not allowed to maximize profits to the fullest degree possible, then they will just leave altogether. I understand that business cannot be taxed to the point of preventing healthy business growth, but I do feel that corporations have an obligation to pay their fair share of taxes as well.

 

[Brother John]

This can become a form of blackmail.

I understand that business cannot be taxed to the point of preventing healthy business growth, but I do feel that corporations have an obligation to pay their fair share of taxes as well.

conceeded...

Dang F.C.
If we keep finding things to agree upon, people are gonna start to talk...

Your Brother
John

 

[Flying Crane]

conceeded...

Dang F.C.
If we keep finding things to agree upon, people are gonna start to talk...

Your Brother
John

And just yesterday, I thought I had a worthy enemy...

Michael

 

[Brother John]

Worthy? ...ok

Enemy??
Nah... not me.

One of the biggest things to make our country great is the free exchange and COMPETITION of ideas.

...how about "Worthy competitor"...
sort of like sparring.... we can hit hard and give it our best, but after class the looser has to buy the beers....


This time.....we'll go Dutch.

Your Brother (who doesn't actually drink "Beers")
John

 

[Flying Crane]

Worthy? ...ok

Enemy??
Nah... not me.

One of the biggest things to make our country great is the free exchange and COMPETITION of ideas.

...how about "Worthy competitor"...
sort of like sparring.... we can hit hard and give it our best, but after class the looser has to buy the beers....


This time.....we'll go Dutch.

Your Brother (who doesn't actually drink "Beers")
John

actually, I was thinking more on the lines of "worthy friend". We just dont agree on everything.

 

[Phoenix44]

We need a reality check here:

Clinton RAISED taxes, but overall, the economy did better, we recovered from the recession of 90-91, jobs were created.

Bush LOWERED taxes, and hasn't created a single net job, and people are hurting. But CEOs and corporations are doing great.

This trickle down concept doesn't work. The wealthy don't voluntarily make it better for their workers or hire more people.

You can't hypothesize that if taxes were lowered it would stimulate the economy, increase jobs, etc, because if you look at the evidence, it simply isn't true.

 

[BlueDragon1981]

MacroEconomics....according to the book I have....

Taxs only gain revenue until a certain point then you take to much out of people and spending in the economy is less. It works the other way to...cutting taxes to much allows for to much savings and that is not being spent in the economy.

Some taxes are good for the economy....to much is not.....to little is not also.

Just think of it this way...if you never had the perception of republican or democrat do you think your political thinking would be the same...

Take politics out of it and reason with other ideas....that is what I call for the U.S people to do...not be given this crap from politicians....that is for both sides....