144000 Californians pay 50% of income tax revenue

[Phil Ayesho]

no- but it is the primary cause of the fiscal problem California currently has.

This State went from having the largest surplus, to the largest deficit, because republicans are too stupid, or too criminal to comprehend that competitive markets only lower pricing on those things of which the consumer can DEFER purchasing.

When you HAVE to buy something... Like water, Like power, like gasoline to get to work, the result in an unregulated market is price fixing.

This is exactly why the health care industry is in the mess its in with costs rising 5 times faster than inflation.
Because the ill HAVE to buy health care or die.

Its also the reason that the HMO industry is spending 140 million dollars PER DAY to try and kill health care reform.
Why?
Because health care reform will cut into their grotesque profiteering on desperate people.


What Bush and his crew enabled was the single largest theft of public monies in world history.
I am not exaggerating... 3 trillion dollars were taken out of circulation.
3 trillion bucks, most of which was BORROWED from future productivity, taken out in cash and disappeared into offshore tax havens.

It was criminality on the worst imaginable scale... and because it was powerful wealthy fucks who did it... they are going to get away with it.

The concept of unregulated markets is as monumentally stupid as would be the idea of unpoliced streets.

Was it ENRON alone?
No... if Bush had not entirely neglected real economic growth in favor of helping his supporters steal as much as they could from the public treasury, California might have bounced back...

If the energy market debacle had not been compounded by 3 or 4 subsequent Bush/Republican authored debacles such as the Stagflation debacle, the offshoring of jobs debacle, the gasoline market debacle and the financial sector debacle... if our economy had GROWN in the past 8 years, California might have been fine...

But being the biggest State economically, we were hit the hardest by the criminal fuck up that was republican power.

 

[Flashy]

It's a famous quote by the late Leona Helmsley. Sadly it is more true today then when she said it many years ago.

Only the Little People Pay Taxes

The late Leona Helmsley famously said, “only the little people pay taxes.”

The past week seems to have proved her right. It started with news that the 400 highest-earning Americans paid an effective tax rate of 17% in 2006. That was the lowest effective tax rate in the 15 years the IRS has been keeping stats.

​

So while the boot shiners for the rich in this thread worry about how much taxes the rich pay and 'personal responsibility' non-sense the rich are engaged in a top-down effort to hoodwink the rubes that they are paying too much in taxes. And the foot soldiers like wyldgusechaz, hootie and faceking blindly obey their marching orders meanwhile the IRS has to go to court to force the Swiss banking giant, UBS, to reveal its list of US clients. Why? Because the rich are not at all interested in 'personal responsibility' and paying taxes. Only the little people pay taxes.

of course, you missed the most important and *RELEVANT* part of the NY TImes report.

The growth in income came primarily from dividends and interest income, not rising salaries and wages. Capital gains income jumped to 63 percent of the adjusted gross income of the richest 400, up from 58 percent in the previous year.

Now you are even begrudging the rich dividends and interest? After they have already been taxed, you are angry that they succeed in investing money and receiving the income and dividends of stocks and fixed income securities that they invest in.

Talk about anger and jealousy. Oh boo hoo...the rich, who already paid income tax on their income, were only taxed 15% federally on their capital gains, interest and dividends. the lowest bracket were only taxed 5% capital gains. Those mean richies won again. they were smart, invested their money, and still paid three times higher rate.

guess you are just upset you can't hit them for 70% income taxes, then 50% capital gains, then 90% estate tax.

talk about true greed and envy.

as for being a "boot shiner", that may be your lot in life, but it is not mine.

just because you are jealous of it, does not mean that already paying 35% income tax and 15% capital gains tax federally alone, makes me a bad person on the level of someone like Leona Helmsley.

grow up.

just what would be *ENOUGH* for you? 60%? 70%? Confiscating *EVERYTHING*?

 

[Flashy]

Just out of my curious nature, i would like to hear all the usual suspects in this thread, answer these few questions....*fairly* in your own opinions.

so we can determine what in fact "Rich" means to those of you who usually take such a dim view of just about anyone with a considerably better financial lot in life.

After all, nobody here ever defines *rich* as anything more than a nebulous, free-form, evil vapor cloud that drifts conveniently as far as they want when they are angry FROM THE FORBES 400 down to folks making $300,000 a year...(obviously, an ideal comparison )

so, please, Phil et. al...answer these 5 questions i have come up with, about what makes one "rich" in these 2 categories, and that what is "fair" in terms of taxes on "the rich" in the other 3 categories.

I am curious

---

YOU MAY COPY AND PASTE THE QUESTIONS INTO YOUR POST to make it easy and then boldface/color the choices etc.

---



YEARLY ANNUAL INCOME-

At what point are you "rich"? (select the "threshold" by BOLDFACING or COLORING your choice)

A. 100,000-250,000 a year
B. 250,000-500,000 a year
C. 500,000-1,000,000 a year
D. 1,000,000-2,500,000 a year
E. 2,500,000-5,000,000 a year
F. 5,000,000+ a year


TOTAL NET WORTH - At what point are your "rich" (select the threshold based on the total net worth of all financial assets including a home...select it by BOLDFACING or COLORING the choice)

A. 500,000-1,000,000
B. 1,000,000-2,500,000
C. 2,500,000-5,000,000
D. 5,000,000-10,000,000
E. 10,000,000-20,000,000
F. 20,000,000+


DESCRIBE BY PERCENTAGE, WHAT YOU FEEL THE *FEDERAL* INCOME TAX RATE SHOULD BE, FOR EACH HOUSEHOLD WITH THESE ANNUAL INCOME LEVELS: (choose a percentage that they should be taxed and put it next to each income bracket in BOLDFACING or COLORING )

A. $50,000-$100,000
B. $100,000-$250,000
C. $250,000-$500,000
D. $500,000-$1,000,000
E. $1,000,000-$2,500,000
F. $2,500,000-$5,000,000
G. $5,000,000-$10,000,000
H. $10,000,000+



DESCRIBE BY PERCENTAGE, WHAT YOU FEEL THE *FEDERAL* LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS TAX RATE SHOULD BE, FOR EACH HOUSEHOLD WITH THESE ANNUAL INCOME LEVELS: (choose a percentage that they should be taxed and put it next to each income bracket in BOLDFACING or COLORING )

A. $50,000-$100,000
B. $100,000-$250,000
C. $250,000-$500,000
D. $500,000-$1,000,000
E. $1,000,000-$2,500,000
F. $2,500,000-$5,000,000
G. $5,000,000-$10,000,000
H. $10,000,000+


DESCRIBE BY PERCENTAGE, WHAT YOU FEEL THE *FEDERAL* ESTATE/INHERITANCE TAX SHOULD BE, FOR EACH HOUSEHOLD WITH THESE TOTAL NET WORTH LEVELS (including a home and business, or both or neither) AT TIME OF DEATH: (choose a percentage that they should be taxed and put it next to each income bracket in BOLDFACING or COLORING )

A. Lower than $500,000
B. $500,000-$1,000,000
C. $1,000,000-$2,500,000
D. $2,500,000-$5,000,000
E. $5,000,000-$10,000,000
F. $10,000,000-$20,000,000
G. $20,000,000-$50,000,000
H. $50,000,000-$100,000,000
I. $100,000,000+




Let's see what "rich" means to you.

 

[Wyldgusechaz]

Just out of my curious nature, i would like to hear all the usual suspects in this thread, answer these few questions....*fairly* in your own opinions.

so we can determine what in fact "Rich" means to those of you who usually take such a dim view of just about anyone with a considerably better financial lot in life.

After all, nobody here ever defines *rich* as anything more than a nebulous, free-form, evil vapor cloud that drifts conveniently as far as they want when they are angry FROM THE FORBES 400 down to folks making $300,000 a year...(obviously, an ideal comparison )

so, please, Phil et. al...answer these 5 questions i have come up with, about what makes one "rich" in these 2 categories, and that what is "fair" in terms of taxes on "the rich" in the other 3 categories.

I am curious

---

YOU MAY COPY AND PASTE THE QUESTIONS INTO YOUR POST to make it easy and then boldface/color the choices etc.

---



YEARLY ANNUAL INCOME-

At what point are you "rich"? (select the "threshold" by BOLDFACING or COLORING your choice)

A. 100,000-250,000 a year
B. 250,000-500,000 a year
C. 500,000-1,000,000 a year
D. 1,000,000-2,500,000 a year
E. 2,500,000-5,000,000 a year
F. 5,000,000+ a year


TOTAL NET WORTH - At what point are your "rich" (select the threshold based on the total net worth of all financial assets including a home...select it by BOLDFACING or COLORING the choice)

A. 500,000-1,000,000
B. 1,000,000-2,500,000
C. 2,500,000-5,000,000
D. 5,000,000-10,000,000
E. 10,000,000-20,000,000
F. 20,000,000+


DESCRIBE BY PERCENTAGE, WHAT YOU FEEL THE *FEDERAL* INCOME TAX RATE SHOULD BE, FOR EACH HOUSEHOLD WITH THESE ANNUAL INCOME LEVELS: (choose a percentage that they should be taxed and put it next to each income bracket in BOLDFACING or COLORING )

A. $50,000-$100,000
B. $100,000-$250,000
C. $250,000-$500,000
D. $500,000-$1,000,000
E. $1,000,000-$2,500,000
F. $2,500,000-$5,000,000
G. $5,000,000-$10,000,000
H. $10,000,000+



DESCRIBE BY PERCENTAGE, WHAT YOU FEEL THE *FEDERAL* LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS TAX RATE SHOULD BE, FOR EACH HOUSEHOLD WITH THESE ANNUAL INCOME LEVELS: (choose a percentage that they should be taxed and put it next to each income bracket in BOLDFACING or COLORING )

A. $50,000-$100,000
B. $100,000-$250,000
C. $250,000-$500,000
D. $500,000-$1,000,000
E. $1,000,000-$2,500,000
F. $2,500,000-$5,000,000
G. $5,000,000-$10,000,000
H. $10,000,000+


DESCRIBE BY PERCENTAGE, WHAT YOU FEEL THE *FEDERAL* ESTATE/INHERITANCE TAX SHOULD BE, FOR EACH HOUSEHOLD WITH THESE TOTAL NET WORTH LEVELS (including a home and business, or both or neither) AT TIME OF DEATH: (choose a percentage that they should be taxed and put it next to each income bracket in BOLDFACING or COLORING )

A. Lower than $500,000
B. $500,000-$1,000,000
C. $1,000,000-$2,500,000
D. $2,500,000-$5,000,000
E. $5,000,000-$10,000,000
F. $10,000,000-$20,000,000
G. $20,000,000-$50,000,000
H. $50,000,000-$100,000,000
I. $100,000,000+




Let's see what "rich" means to you.

They won't answer this. Because it would rob them of their straw man, "the Rich", who they love to knock down.
Putting concrete numbers on it will personalize and un demonize the rich.

Who are the "rich?" According to the WSJ most people who make over $500K are small business owners. Hard working determined productive people who have a dream and try to realize it. Thats who the "usual suspects" are demonizing.

Their problem in jealousy. Jealous that there are others who work hard, make themselves a success and not sit at a keyboard bemoaning their sad lot in life.


With some experience in this, I say you really aren't rich till you have $10 million in relatively liquid assets, and an adjust gross income of over $400K.

If you earn $300k you are comfortable but by no means rich. I advise a large number of folks who make that sort of money and they surely aren't rich. Nice lives but they still have issues with money. They can't buy just anything.

And geography is a key too. $300K in NYC would not go far. However I have a number of associates who make that kind of $$ in much smaller spots like Columbus Ohio or Peoria Illinois and they surely have some real disposable income. But they aren't rich. And they all work like dogs to earn that money. Like dogs.

 

[Bodaddio]

Now hold on a minute. Republicans are not the only ones to deregulate anything.
One of the other reasons the health care industry is in a mess is because no one wants to have any tort reform. We sue the doctors to death and their insurance goes up and up. John Edwards knows all about that one. You see it on TV everyday. Got a bedsore, c-section not performed in time, just sue.
Does the fact that California gives out every social service there is to give out have anything to do with the mess it is in?
I agree with you that we need some regulation, but republicans are not the only ones to be guilty of this; as well as they are not the only ones to benefit from deregulation. Ask Chris Dodd Barney Frank.
And you don't HAVE to buy gasoline, we are proving that today, demand is low. We do have public transportation, ride the bus, or a bike.

You know you don't have to have the government take from you to help out. Why not buy someones health insurance for them?
On your tax form there is a box to send in more, are you doing it? Anyone who says we need to pay more taxes are you doing it?
Last time you saw a bucket to help pay for someone cancer treatment, did you put something in it?
To be so blind and full of hate to say that it is only the republicans who are causing the problems, who created the mess we are in is ignorance at it's finest. You don't like what is going on, run for office. Go out and protest. Write your congressman and senator. Mine know exactly who I am.
Tell me, what was the last thing that the government ran well?

Cheers

 

[Flashy]

They won't answer this. Because it would rob them of their straw man, "the Rich", who they love to knock down.
Putting concrete numbers on it will personalize and un demonize the rich.

Who are the "rich?" According to the WSJ most people who make over $500K are small business owners. Hard working determined productive people who have a dream and try to realize it. Thats who the "usual suspects" are demonizing.

Their problem in jealousy. Jealous that there are others who work hard, make themselves a success and not sit at a keyboard bemoaning their sad lot in life.


With some experience in this, I say you really aren't rich till you have $10 million in relatively liquid assets, and an adjust gross income of over $400K.

If you earn $300k you are comfortable but by no means rich. I advise a large number of folks who make that sort of money and they surely aren't rich. Nice lives but they still have issues with money. They can't buy just anything.

And geography is a key too. $300K in NYC would not go far. However I have a number of associates who make that kind of $$ in much smaller spots like Columbus Ohio or Peoria Illinois and they surely have some real disposable income. But they aren't rich. And they all work like dogs to earn that money. Like dogs.

very well said... i am just curious to see if any of our friends on here are willing to define it.

like you said, I live in NYC, and earning 6 figures here is far different...not to mention the total state, federal and city income taxes.

if someone is fortunate enough to earn $300,000 a year, even as a single person, by the time they are done with taxes, they are lucky to have 160,000 in disposable income, that is before all things such as rent, food, insurance, etc. etc. if a person earning 300,000 a year, did not even have to pay any of those costs after taxes, it would take that person quite awhile to become a "millionaire"...and that, based on their investments...example.


person earns 300,000 a year...after tax, before any type of spending on life costs....that is roughly 180 k after state (a state with 5% income tax, say) and a 35% federal rate)

we will take all proceeds from the year, and put them into a hypothetical bank account. I will estimate the average return on that total bank account, at an extremely generous 15% (from that, we will deduct 20% for state and federal capital gains per year)...obviously 15% is a very high rate, based upon a much mroe agressive investment strategy, with only equity investments, in high growth stocks with no dividends or fixed income investments.

Yr..post-tax.(capgain ).......Net Wrth....cap gain (aftTax) to nxt yr
1....180,000.....................180,000.........21,600
2....180,000 (+21,600).......381,600.........45,800
3....180,000 (+45,800).......607,400.........72,900
4....180,000 (+72,900).......860,300.........103,240
5....180,000 (+103,240).....1,143,540....CONGRATS- "MILLIONAIRE"

so, being a single person, earning $300,000 a year, paying 35% federal and 5% state (40% total...plus no city tax) income tax per year, then not spending one *SINGLE CENT* a year on anything to live, such as food, insurance of any kind, rent, car, electricity, etc. etc. and putting it all right into your savings and investment account, which earned an extremely high total rate of 15% *AVERAGE* having not one down year or market crash, then that total, taxed for capital gainst at a total of 15% federal 5% state (20% total plus no city tax) would make you slightly over a millionaire at the end of your 5th year.

considering how few people actually earn 300,000 a year before they are 35, you would be lucky indeed to become a millionaire by the time you were 40, even with these very generous estimates, and not spending a single $ on actual cost of living

Note, this is a very *ROUGH* estimate. But you get the picture.

 

[Flashy]

Now hold on a minute. Republicans are not the only ones to deregulate anything.

very true, but you are not dealing with entirely rational folks in this thread :wink:

One of the other reasons the health care industry is in a mess is because no one wants to have any tort reform. We sue the doctors to death and their insurance goes up and up. John Edwards knows all about that one. You see it on TV everyday. Got a bedsore, c-section not performed in time, just sue.

true

Does the fact that California gives out every social service there is to give out have anything to do with the mess it is in?
I agree with you that we need some regulation, but republicans are not the only ones to be guilty of this; as well as they are not the only ones to benefit from deregulation. Ask Chris Dodd Barney Frank.

that has been stated on here numerous times before, but, if you know Phil Ayesho and Sargon, Republicans are clearly the only ones who have ever been in favor of deregulation of any kind, and are at fault for everything. Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer and Chris Dodd, were clearly attempting to hold back the Republicans attempts to destroy the world.

And you don't HAVE to buy gasoline, we are proving that today, demand is low. We do have public transportation, ride the bus, or a bike.

You know you don't have to have the government take from you to help out. Why not buy someones health insurance for them?
On your tax form there is a box to send in more, are you doing it? Anyone who says we need to pay more taxes are you doing it?
Last time you saw a bucket to help pay for someone cancer treatment, did you put something in it?
To be so blind and full of hate to say that it is only the republicans who are causing the problems, who created the mess we are in is ignorance at it's finest. You don't like what is going on, run for office. Go out and protest. Write your congressman and senator. Mine know exactly who I am.
Tell me, what was the last thing that the government ran well?

Cheers

very well said...prepare to receive a stinging rebuke from Phil Ayesho. don't worry though, his bark is far worse than his bite....or his facts. :biggrin1::wink:

the democrats are the innocent lambs, torn to pieces by the republican wolves...the party of corruption vs the party as pure as the driven snow.

 

[deleted15807]

At its core, the political axis that currently controls the Republican Party is an alliance between the preachers and the plutocrats — between the religious right, which hates gays, abortion and the theory of evolution, and the economic right, which hates Social Security, Medicare and taxes on rich people. Surrounding this core is a large periphery of politicians and lobbyists who joined the movement not out of conviction, but to share in the spoils.​

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Just out of my curious nature, i would like to hear all the usual suspects in this thread, answer these few questions....*fairly* in your own opinions.

so we can determine what in fact "Rich" means to those of you who usually take such a dim view of just about anyone with a considerably better financial lot in life.

After all, nobody here ever defines *rich* as anything more than a nebulous, free-form, evil vapor cloud that drifts conveniently as far as they want when they are angry FROM THE FORBES 400 down to folks making $300,000 a year...(obviously, an ideal comparison )

Flashy, This is a straw man argument.
I do not characterize the rich as evil... although I will say that very few of the truly rich got there entirely honestly.

The Rich are simply rich... they have the ability to hire people who's sole jobs are to make their wealth grow.
They are no different than any other group people in that the vast majority of them will act purely in their own self interest, 90% of the time.


The difference is in what capabilities their wealth allows them.
Poor people would influence legislation to their benefit if they could... but the only means open to them is their vote.

Great wealth mean you can AFFORD to give away millions of dollars in the hopes it will result in benefits in the tens of millions of dollars.

So- first of all... rich people are not inherently any more evil than poor people... people are just people... and THAT is the entire problem.


You have to be some kind of idiot not to realize that people, un-policed, will loot, steal, rape and murder... ( not all of them, but enough to make civilization untenable)

Most of us have no pull when it comes to keeping the police or the govenrment out of our business... the best we can hope for is to fly low and not attract attention.

But the wealthy can afford to SWAY law, bribe officials, or intimidate thru financial means.

Power corrupts and money is power.

And- add to that the fact that we live in a capitalist system... and pure capitalism has been proven to ALWAYS result in the concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands.


So... it is not an indictment of the wealthy to point out that ALL forms of power MUST be checked. ( even the power of unions must be regulated )

Only a functional moron doesn't understand that biology defines people as opportunistic manipulative organisms, and that civilization requires opportunism to be held in check.

We must capitalize on self interest as an engine of productivity and progress, but we must not allow any particular group's self interests to take control and, thereby destroy the entire magilla.





As to what qualifies as rich... that is easy.

You are rich when any salary you may make is incidental to your income.
Oprah gets a huge salary... it is a small fraction of what she earns in ownership and investments.

CEO's may get 5 million dollar salaries... but it is usually their stock deals and investments that make them the lion's share of their income.

Getting paid $300,000 per year is upper middle class.
Getting paid a million dollars a year being pretty well off...


But when your real job becomes managing the growth of money you already have... that is when you are rich.

At that point you cease to make money on what YOU produce, and make money on what other people produce with your money.


It doesn't make you evil.

It makes you dangeorus.

wealth does not make you better, nor worse than any other person... is just MAGNIFIES the damage that a single person can do...
Exponentially.

 

[SR_Blarney_Frank]

Capitalism distributes wealth based on talent and effort and innovation.

But yet taxes should be flat? WTF kind of logical consistency is that?

You believe that people should be able to extract as much value as possible out of our economy but shouldn't contribute in a proportionate share.

Capitalize the profits and socialize the costs... right?

 

[Phil Ayesho]

PS-
I don't hate the rich.
Would love to be one, myself...

What I hate is stupidity and disingenuous bullshit.

And for anyone to suggest the Rich can not afford to pay a share proportional to their wealth is disingenuous bullshit.

For anyone to suggest that the Rich 'suffer' from paying out amounts of money that have zero impact on their standard of living is stupid.

And to suggest they will take the ball and go home in a petulant fit if we don't allow them to have it all their way is an apologist is simply hoping that the rules letting them do so might cut some cash benefit to them... (i.e. backing the eradication of inheritance taxes because it might save YOU 13 grand in probate, at the cost of allowing billionaries to create dynastic fortunes that, economics proves, will end up absorbing ALL revenue within 200 years.)

Bullshit- no matter what the rules, the rich will be able to make a profit... and they are not gonna run away from a 20% profit just because they used to make a 30% profit.

Besides... its a global economy and right now its globally fucked...
Where the fuck they gonna run?


Stop feeling sorry for the wealthy.
They are doing fine.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Originally Posted by Wyldgusechaz
Capitalism distributes wealth based on talent and effort and innovation.

Bullshit... pure and utter bullshit.


Captialism is the RULE of CAPITAL.

THat means that it is a system that give power based upon ownership. NOT EFFORT.

Paris Hilton does not "contribute" anything of value- She get richer every year because those who have talent and industry have to ORROW money from those who own capital.
And those who own capital make money OFF of the talented and productive.

ALL economic models show that unrestrained capitalism is like a casino scam.
The house takes their 2% cut from every interaction.

As long as markets are expanding, it seems to work... but the minute markets stop growing, that 2% take on every interaction accrues more money in the Casino's hands with each round, and with no NEW money coming in, ALL the money ends up in the hands of the casino.


Flat taxes are a scam for transferring the burden of taxation on to the lowest earners.

Sales tax only schemes are the same.

And Wyld has already revealed his sole agenda to be getting out of paying taxes for people earning as much as he does... and over.

Its a cynical strategy...

He suck up to the wealthy cause he knows full well the wealthy have the money to buy the law he thinks will benefit him, and he doesn't care if that makes life harder for everyone who makes less.

 

[Flashy]

Flashy, This is a straw man argument.
I do not characterize the rich as evil... although I will say that very few of the truly rich got there entirely honestly.

how do you know that? I know tons of rich people. I was fortunate to grow up in the heart of one of the richest communities in the world New York City (private school, Park Madison & 5th Avenue, the Hamptons etc.)

I know lots of dishonest rich folks. but they are no more dishonest than the poor or working class.

I know rich people who are some of the most ethical people i have ever meet.

Your categorization of not honestly arriving at wealth is colored by lots of highly reported scandals, not to minimize the effects of those.

The Rich are simply rich... they have the ability to hire people who's sole jobs are to make their wealth grow.
They are no different than any other group people in that the vast majority of them will act purely in their own self interest, 90% of the time.

indeed, but acting in one's own self interest 90% of the time, does not mean that very few of them got there "entirely honestly". If that is the case, then we can safely say, that 90% of the non rich are getting where they are by not acting "entirely honestly". I do not buy that for either class.

The difference is in what capabilities their wealth allows them.
Poor people would influence legislation to their benefit if they could... but the only means open to them is their vote.

yes, but not every wealthy person cares to influence legislation. i am wealthy as is my family. We give nothing to politicians. Don't belong to organizations that attempt to influence politicians to our particular benefit. We vote, the same as the poor do, for people we think are more supportive of what is best for us.

Great wealth mean you can AFFORD to give away millions of dollars in the hopes it will result in benefits in the tens of millions of dollars.

i am not sure i get what you are saying. are you talking about in regards to charitable giving or giving money away as investment that you are hoping for returns on?

So- first of all... rich people are not inherently any more evil than poor people... people are just people... and THAT is the entire problem.

so then spend so much time castigating the rich on here? you have just made a very rational and fair statement, yet you tend to rail on here rather continuously at certain targets, unfairly stereotyping a whole class of people, when you have just said above that "people are people"

You have to be some kind of idiot not to realize that people, un-policed, will loot, steal, rape and murder... ( not all of them, but enough to make civilization untenable)

true, but civilaztion is tenable precisely because the vast majority of people do not want to loot, steal rape & murder and band together to insure that people do not as much as possible.

Most of us have no pull when it comes to keeping the police or the govenrment out of our business... the best we can hope for is to fly low and not attract attention.

true for the most part.

But the wealthy can afford to SWAY law, bribe officials, or intimidate thru financial means.

yes, some can. but i know thousands of extremely wealthy people who mostly do not "bribe officials" or "Sway law" or intimidate through "financial Means"

Most rich people are not like Bernie Madoff and other notorious folks of that ilk. Bribing officials is not something most of the people i know, would do.

*However* rich people do use money to get *assistance* where others may not. my family & i for decades have donated money to the local police benevolent associations where we spend our summers. in return, you are given a special sticker to put on your car. That sticker, buys you goodwill. If i park in a "15 minute parking" spot outside the general store, for 17 minutes, i will likely catch a break. if i run someone over while drunk, it is not going to save me though :wink:

Power corrupts and money is power.

power has the *potential* to corrupt. Money does not equal corruption. I have lots of money, so do my parents, so do my friends. we are not "corrupt" people, though.

And- add to that the fact that we live in a capitalist system... and pure capitalism has been proven to ALWAYS result in the concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands.

i would hardly say we are "purely capitalist"...perhaps in the pre WW2 era, but certainly not today.

when i think of "pure capitalism", i think of John Galt & his valley.

So... it is not an indictment of the wealthy to point out that ALL forms of power MUST be checked. ( even the power of unions must be regulated )

Only a functional moron doesn't understand that biology defines people as opportunistic manipulative organisms, and that civilization requires opportunism to be held in check.

i am not anti-regulation. never have been.

We must capitalize on self interest as an engine of productivity and progress, but we must not allow any particular group's self interests to take control and, thereby destroy the entire magilla.

i do not disagree, but what happens when a majority, that has far less money decides that their group's self interest in money is more important than a much smaller groups self interest in money, and use that particular groups self interest to take control of that?

Ostensibly, it is very possible, that a government elected by a particular groups self-interest could eventually impose draconian 90% taxes on the wealthy, with no ability for that power to be checked, if that congress and president were of like mind.

as Ben Franklin, a wiser man then both of us said:

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

As to what qualifies as rich... that is easy.

You are rich when any salary you may make is incidental to your income.
Oprah gets a huge salary... it is a small fraction of what she earns in ownership and investments.

i would say that is a relatively fair definition, but not exactly reliable.

what happens when someone makes 500k a year, supports a family of 4, but has very few investments because he spends a great deal on yearly costs ( or has no ownership of the kind Oprah has)?
what about the same guy earning that salary who has 15 million put away, all in municipal bonds earning him 650,000 a year in pre tax interest? his 500k salary is not exactly incidental to the 650k a year in interest, right?

it is a slippery slope trying to define "rich" or "wealth", even when we are doing it in a non-confrontational & thoughtful way.

CEO's may get 5 million dollar salaries... but it is usually their stock deals and investments that make them the lion's share of their income.

yes, some do, but in all honesty Phil, regardless of the meal tickets CEO's have had for the past few decades, there are relatively few CEO's who get those "5 million dollar salaries" plus their massive stock deals. while we can certainly look at some very big examples of huge unreasonable salaries etc. the vast majority of CEO's do not make that.

Most stock packages tend to be manifested in the form of options. exercising an option is far different then getting paid a 5 million dollar salary.

What about CEO's like Steve Jobs, LArry Ellison, Michael dell etc. who were actually the founders and owners of their companies, who hold large blocks of stock anyway?

this is an interesting forbes list (annual executive compensation survey ranking)

from 2007

CEO Compensation - Forbes.com

the top 100 folks in compensation goes from the very top #1 (Steve Jobs - 646 million) to #100 (Ralph Lauren - 17.8 million)

both founded, built and run their company.

but then, look at the rankings from #101 to #440. there is a rather wide disparity.

on top of that, do you know how many "CEO's" there are in America?

do you know what the average median salary of all CEO's in the US was, in 2006? $140,350 according to the US Department of LAbor.

Very different, is the median Pay of a CEO for a "major" company

Wall Street Journal reported for 2005 that median compensation for "CEOs of 350 major corporations was $6,000,000 in 2005 with most the money coming from stock options"

 

[Flashy]

Getting paid $300,000 per year is upper middle class.
Getting paid a million dollars a year being pretty well off...

I'd agree with that. but, as i said, what is a fair tax rate for each of those folks?

I dont have too much of a problem with the old Clinton administration's top rate for a million a year (39.6% but the guy making 300,000 was at around 36%...now, what is the real difference between middle class and "upper" middle class, in the grand scheme of things, you know?

obviously, earning 300k a year is very good if you're single. Not too shabby if you are married, still pretty good with 1 kid, & with 2...well, these days? should those folks really have to surrender 36% to the feds? I don't think anyone earning 500k a year or under should have to surrender more than 25% of income to the feds. I just don't. (though i believe strongly in progressive taxation)

But when your real job becomes managing the growth of money you already have... that is when you are rich.

well, yes. on some level. but look at me. my job is "simultaneous". I am an active trader in the market & have several partners, and we have our own small trading firm. We all trade for our company, to make as much as possible in trading profits, all of us also manage our own personal investments.

but how do you do that? that depends. I do not like trading all my own money that is not in the company. for example, I "manage" my money that is already mine, but i do so, by giving it to a variety of investors/hedge funders/brokers, who i know, trust, speak to every day or so, and monitor closely.

i have had absolutely monster years as a trader, and i have had really bad ones. but in managing my invested money, i am far less agressive and that is left to more conservative managers with a longer term view. It is in a variety of stocks, commodities, fixed income securites, cash etc. since that is my "nest egg". the only thing that needs to do is to keep growing, as safely as possible.

the difference is, i am a single guy. fortunately at this time, there is no wife or kids to worry about. i am for all intents & purposes very rich for someone my age (37) & status (single) & fortunate in having successfull folks & grandparents.

but what happens if i get married, have a wife & two kids pretty soon? (i do not want to, but hypothetically)

all of a sudden, that ratio changes radically & dramatically. and i go from being "rich" to being "upper middle class" pretty quickly.

At that point you cease to make money on what YOU produce, and make money on what other people produce with your money.

in some ways yes, in others ways no. investing moneys in venture capital, corporate bonds, etc. are allowing people to produce using your money. but you are still the one who has produced their means to do so, by funding them.

--


Phil, this was perhaps the most honest, well thought out, decent, on point, fair, concise, reasoned entire post by you in a discussion that i have heard you make.

i agree with just about everything you said almost unequivocally...until you said this

It doesn't make you evil.

It makes you dangeorus.

wealth does not make you better, nor worse than any other person... is just MAGNIFIES the damage that a single person can do...
Exponentially.

Just FYI. i am one of those "rich" folks. I am not dangerous. i don't damage anyone. I donate to charity, i am generous & do not break the law with regards to my taxes.

How am i "dangerous"? it is when you say things like that, that i honestly wonder if the same person who often makes a great deal of sense can honestly be the same person who then says something like the above. JMO

 

[Flashy]

PS-
I don't hate the rich.
Would love to be one, myself...

What I hate is stupidity and disingenuous bullshit.

i do not disagree with hating stupidity or disingenous bullshit:wink:

but to suggest that only the arguments made by the "rich" for why they would not like to be smashed over the head with more punitive taxes, as "disingenuous" is a bit far-fetched.

And for anyone to suggest the Rich can not afford to pay a share proportional to their wealth is disingenuous bullshit.

i do not suggest that. but as i have said before, and that you still really have not answered adequately (which is the reason i asked everyone tolist what they though peopleshould pay by income bracket) is what is proportional?

35% is a hell of a lot of money...that is the top rate these days. Is that "proportional"? "proportional" to what? are we saying that if you make twice as much, you should pay an income tax rate twice as much?

if you are married and file jointly, these are the latest rates (2009)

• 10% on the income between $0 and $16,700
• 15% on the income between $16,700 and $67,900; plus $1,670
• 25% on the income between $67,900 and $137,050; plus $9,350
• 28% on the income between $137,050 and $208,850; plus $26,637.50
• 33% on the income between $208,850 and $372,950; plus $46,741.50
• 35% on the income over $372,950; plus $100,894.50

they all seem rather arbitrarily "proportional" if we were to follow a "proportional" doubling rate, from say the 10% bracket, a person making 67,900 should be paying a top rate of 40%. then someone making $135,800 sjhould be at 80%.

this is what happens when you get into arbitrary definitions with no answers...you really on the "good intentions" of those who feel they are not getting enough. either as earner or taxer.

For anyone to suggest that the Rich 'suffer' from paying out amounts of money that have zero impact on their standard of living is stupid.

that is true...but define standard of living. if you make 300,000 a year, for a family of four, which you said in your last post was "upper middle class" these folks are looking at a tax rise from about 33% to 36%. that is an extra $4,600 difference between the 208,000-300,000 level at 33% to 36%

now, however you color it, 4,600 dollars is in fact alot of money. Not to a millionaire, perhaps, but an upper middle class family, will still miss that 4,600 dollars. Over 20 years, that is 92,000 dollars, not even counting the investment that money would have earned in simple interest bearing account over the years. for their two kids that is almost a combined one year of private college with tuition rates where they are (who knows where that will be in 20 years)

that is definitel;y more than a zero impact on that family standard of living.

And to suggest they will take the ball and go home in a petulant fit if we don't allow them to have it all their way is an apologist is simply hoping that the rules letting them do so might cut some cash benefit to them... (i.e. backing the eradication of inheritance taxes because it might save YOU 13 grand in probate, at the cost of allowing billionaries to create dynastic fortunes that, economics proves, will end up absorbing ALL revenue within 200 years.)

well, it is every person's right to take their ball and go home, if they do not like what is happening...:wink: considering that the people are telling the people with the ball, to give up their ball, and go home, can you really blame folks for taking *their* ball?

nobody is demanding it all their way, but as i have said before neither you nor anybody else here has yet to take up the basic challenge of issuing what you say to be "fair" tax brackets and values.

As for inheritance taxes, they are still fundamentally evil IMO.

Bullshit- no matter what the rules, the rich will be able to make a profit... and they are not gonna run away from a 20% profit just because they used to make a 30% profit.

I am not quite sure what profits you are referring to...

Besides... its a global economy and right now its globally fucked...
Where the fuck they gonna run?

well, they have run where people like myself have run...to safer havens like fixed-income. They are not investing. As such, gains in taxes for next year will not be particularly high. most of my fixed income is in munis and corporates. i pay no federal tax on munis, so the federal government will not be collecting much in the way of capital gains taxes on my investment income this year. all my partners and friends are almost all fixed income at this moment as well in their private portfolios, though we have been nibbling for a few months during the recent rally, but have sold off recently and taken profits in advance of an anticipated slowdown and also any possible raise in cap gains taxes.

Stop feeling sorry for the wealthy.
They are doing fine.

obviously you do not know very many wealthy folks...no offense meant. I know plenty of "wealthy" folks, who are having a very hard time in this economy. Not the super rich mind you, but those "rich" folks who are making 250k-300k a year who are going to see their taxes go up, do not deserve to be hit.

and i do feel sorry for anyone who gets blamed unduly for things and then is punished for it unfairly because others seek to assign blame for a worse lot in life.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

how do you know that? I know tons of rich people.)
I know lots of dishonest rich folks. but they are no more dishonest than the poor or working class.

What part of my post was unclear on the fact that I do not think the Rich any more nor less dishonest than the poor?

The fallacy in Conservative thinking is the notion that the wealthy are MORE trustworthy.
I am not saying they are LESS trustworthy... I am saying their money makes their ordinary level of self interest far more efficacious.
And that impacts the less wealthy in the form of being taken advantage of.

The less wealthy would pose exactly the same threat, if they came into money.

The universality of self interest is not an argument for ignoring the fact that Rich dishonesty is more far reaching than poor dishonesty.
A poor man might rob you of your wallet at gunpoint.
A rich man might steal the retirement savings of thousands or millions.

Which has more impact?

I know rich people who are some of the most ethical people i have ever meet.

Bullshit. The greatest damage is not done by the outright crooks, it is done by people who view themselves as "ethical", and act as if they are ethical.

How much of the generosity of the wealthy is predicted upon a guilty conscience?
You don't know. And they are unlikely to tell.

Bill Gates has given billions... RECENTLY... but for 25 years he was perfectly happy to conduct his business in a predatory and criminal manner- and postpone any federal litigation until he had an Administration and justice depart that was going to let him off of overt anti-trust violations...

Is Bill Gates ethical?
I don't know... I do know that he didn't give a red cent until he married Mellissa.

There is a long history of philanthropy coming to the wealthy late in life... When it starts looking like they had better do some good or they might not be let into heaven... or might simply be reviled for all time.

I have had many rich people advise me on how to be richer than I am... and read many books on the subject... They ALWAYS boil down to one idea... act less ethically.


Take advantage of foreclosures, buy something you know the seller has undervalued, or sell to someone who doesn't understand the price you ask is inflated... short selling stock... trade on insider information...

It is not exactly holding a gun.... it is small and easy to rationalize compromises with dishonesty that are so easy to talk ourselves into in order to gain a benefit.

We ALL do it... but I do it over hundreds of dollars involving just a few people, and the wealthy do it with billions dollars belonging to millions of others.

With increasing risk, you must have increasing vigilance.

ANY OTHER STRATEGY is just something a guy with money can afford to try and get into a Public Relatons campaign in hope they can convince enough people to buy into an idea that is actually not in their best interest...

We should all know this in our bones, just form our experience with credit cards....
But we still fail to associate the CASH spent on promoting an agenda with the self interest of those trying to convince us.

Your categorization of not honestly arriving at wealth is colored by lots of highly reported scandals, not to minimize the effects of those.

Not true. The current crop of high profile scandals is simply the natural result of failure to police the wealthy.
Allowing the rich to WRITE legislation on their own industries, stripping regulatory oversight, or like Bush, salting critical oversight agencies with functional morons or industry insiders who get paid off in the form of board memberships in the companies they are supposed to be policing...

What we saw on wall street, is precisely like what you see whenever law and order breaks down in a natural disaster- opportunistic looting...

But, again, I am not saying the wealthy are MORE criminal or less honest.
I am saying they are JUST AS criminal and dishonest.

The idiots position is to imagine that the educated or the well off are MORE trustworthy or less likely to screw you.

They are simply less like to do so with a brick and more likely to do so with a pen.

indeed, but acting in one's own self interest 90% of the time, does not mean that very few of them got there "entirely honestly". If that is the case, then we can safely say, that 90% of the non rich are getting where they are by not acting "entirely honestly". I do not buy that for either class.

No- you can not say that.
You don't "get" to be migrant worker by being dishonest nor by acting unscrupulously.
But how many Higher executives have not earned their position on merit, but on payoffs, favors, back room deals and family connections? ( nepotism is unscrupulous )
There are not a lot of people VYING for a job at the circle K... its not a great enough gig to prompt underhanded dealing just for the opportunity...

But even saying that... what is interoffice politicking if not unethical conduct aimed at getting a promotion or keeping one's job or undermining an enemy?

Again... you are arguing literally nothing.
The level and scope of dishonesty is in direct proportion to what is at stake.

That is NO EXCUSE for the excesses of the wealthy. It is not exculpatory to say " all the kids are doing it"- it simply means everyone is guilty.

Now, sure, Bob the clerk takes home pens and pads of paper from his employer. He is not acting ethically.

But that does not put his actions on a par with Madoff or Ken Lay, or the guys who invented risky securities and understood their risk so well as to offloaded them as fast as possible so they never would hold paper. ( they knew full well those securities would make no money... that's why they made theirs on brokerage fees...)

Again.. I do not dislike the Rich any more nor less than the common person.
When I hire a day laborer, I may worry that he might take my chainsaw home... but I am not gonna have to think about him gutting my 401k.

And you can absolutely trust the rich people you come across... as long as you are not standing between them and a huge pile of cash.

yes, but not every wealthy person cares to influence legislation. i am wealthy as is my family. We give nothing to politicians. Don't belong to organizations that attempt to influence politicians to our particular benefit. We vote, the same as the poor do, for people we think are more supportive of what is best for us.

Again, you seem unable to comprehend the idea that we are all the same.
I, personally, would NEVER loot. But in any sufficiently large group of people there will ALWAYS be people who will.

Understand that the wealthy are not acting unethically ALL the time, in every transaction... Most of the wealthy people I know ended up wealthy as the result of a HANDFUL of iffy actions.
Its not like the opportunity to make an ungodly profit comes along every day.
I know one guy who's really well off and he can trace all of his success to his making several million dollars on a single property deal, because he did not tell the seller something he really should have. ( as his agent )
That one deal leveraged him into a realm where he could really start investing, start businesses and the rest...

But to this day he feels both proud of how clever he was, and guilty over how he screwed the other guy.

Again- society can survive the 2% of the population who are acting criminally at any time. But take away the policing and that percentage rises to 5 or even 10%.
And that tears the fabric of society apart.

A percentage of the Rich are GONNA scheme as the opportunities present themselves.

The fact that their actions are on such a vast scale and impact so many others is what multiplies the effects of perfectly ordinary amounts of unscrupulousness.

They are dangerous out of proportion to their numbers.
As recent events clearly illustrate.


Stop thinking the well off are "good people"- they are just people.
Stop whining about paying a thousand times more in taxes when you GET a thousand times more.


If you are wealthy because your family is wealthy, great. good for you... but don't imagine that you are wealthy because you work harder or are better...
Or that you contribute more...

And if you really want to claim that you are wealthy AND ethical... then THINK about the positions you take in a wider sense than your personal bank account...

Because.. flat out... for a wealthy person to back flat taxes or sales tax only schemes is UNETHICAL.

You have more, you OUGHT to pay more. You derive more benefits than the factory worker, merely by means of family connection and ownership and thru no merit of your own...
The structure of this society benefits you and yours out of proportion to your numbers.

You CAN afford to pay more in taxes with less impact on your standard of living.
It is unconscionable to demand that people who have not had the family fortune, or the access to education and business connections... to ask people whose only fault was that they were BORN into disadvantage to pay more of the freight when doing so prevents their children from going to college, or prevents them from attaining ownership...

Its not only unethical an human terms... but in MONETARY terms.
Long term, the accrual of property by the middle class and poor makes the economy grow. It drives the very businesses and investments that makes the wealthy most of their money.

Anything that slows that by burdening those who can barely make ends meet is criminally stupid.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

The greatest period of growth in this country was while we had strict regulation of finance and industry, when Unions ensured higher wages to the middle class, and the wealthy paid inheritance taxes and significantly higher income taxes. During that period, EVERYONE got richer.

What we have had the last 20 years is the very rich getting richer FASTER... at the cost of everyone else losing ground and living on debt.


Absolutist thinking is the problem...
Capitalism is not evil... like ANY economic strategy, it has strengths and weaknesses.

The idea that captialism is an engine of productivity is correct... but it is a logical fault to imagine that MORE capitalism would be better.
A civilization is sufficiently complex that you have to be an ignoramus to think that any ONE idea can run the whole thing perfectly.

ANY ideology, taken to extremes, is destructive.

Like an ecosystem... competing ideas and methodologies must be in balance
with each other.

Capitalism is great.... but not for essential services like the Army or water, or healthcare... paying more than you need to for things you can not do without is a DRAG on the economy...

We don't NEED competitive innovation in mail delivery... we need mail delivery to cost as little as possible so we can spend the savings on areas of REAL innovation and growth.

"free markets" are a wonderful ideal... but they can not exist because, without regulation, the first thing that happens is for wealth to buy the regulation that benefits itself.

Just like personal freedom... we should strive for the BALANCE between individual liberty... and policing aimed at keeping everyone honest.

The rich whining about taxation is pathetic. And the poor whining about it is ineffective.

Game theory has proven conclusively that a progressive tax is the fairest possible tax.

 

[Bodaddio]

Quote:
I know rich people who are some of the most ethical people i have ever meet.
Bullshit. The greatest damage is not done by the outright crooks, it is done by people who view themselves as "ethical", and act as if they are ethical.

How much of the generosity of the wealthy is predicted upon a guilty conscience?
You don't know. And they are unlikely to tell.

So then, why are all of our lawmakers including the President rich? If this is the case also, who's best interest do they have in mind? Will they have to play by the same rules we are going to be forced to play by?

Cheers

 

[Phil Ayesho]

So then, why are all of our lawmakers including the President rich? If this is the case also, who's best interest do they have in mind? Will they have to play by the same rules we are going to be forced to play by?

Cheers

Some people are rich because they inherited money.
Some people are rich because they were smarter than most... got good educations in high paying fields, married spouses with similar smarts, and were very good at keeping to a budget and saving their money...

Some people are rich because they worked like dogs building an industry up from humble beginnings.

Some people are rich because they spent almost no time building a new industry up and selling during an unrealistic frenzy of everyone wanting in... like most dotcom fortunes.

But let's examine ONE famous case of "hard work" paying off.
IBM came to Mircosoft looking for an OS so they could jump into the personal computer market.

Bill Gates did not HAVE an OS- and did not have the slightest idea how to create an OS.

But he did know of a geek in the area who HAD written an OS, who was not making much money. He went and BOUGHT that OS from the geek for an staggeringly low sum of money, taking advantage of a man who was creative, but was in a bad financial situation.

He did not tell the geek that the OS was going to be contracted exclusively by IBM.
He did not cut the geek in on the fabulous riches that this deal promised.

All of Bill friends and acquaintances made out like bandits- getting fabulously wealthy thru no productive contribution of their own, other than their friendship with Gates.

And the guy who made it all possible, by actually creating the software that Bill capitalized on... he ended up getting none of it.

Bill Gates acted unethically, from the very start. ( never mind the legion of unscrupulous actions he took later )

Did the people who ended up rich off of microsoft act unethically?

Well, no... not actively...
But neither did they do anything to EARN those riches. They did not contribute MORE to the company, nor to society than did the man who got nothing...

They were just dumb lucky to be Bill's buddies.


Now- when those rich by association fucks stand up and ACT like they contribute more than the poor, THAT is acting unethically...
Or, at least, ignorantly.



Do I think Obama is ethical?

No. Not particularly.
I think he is ethical, like most of us, within certain limits... but I do not think you can even get near the presidency of the US without being willing to compromise your ethics for personal power or gain.


Obama has not dismantled the Constitutional violations of Bush...
He is seeking to retain as much power for the presidency as possible, regardless of the constitution.

I don't like that.

But neither is he fully in the pocket of overtly transferring trillions of dollars to his corporate masters, as was the Bush administration and Republican controlled congress.


If Obama is mildly unethical in pursuing an agenda that I think is better for the country as a whole... in enacting laws that will make the distribution of power and wealth in this country more fair... then he may be a devil, but he is MY devil.

 

[javyn]

What's so wrong with demonizing the rich? They've been doing it to the poor and working class since time immemorial.

I'm not advocating redistributing their wealth, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying, if it happens, I could care about as much as they care about me and all the other uninsured working class. Fuck em.

It would be kinda neat if under Obama, the entire econ collapses eradicating all wealth. Then we'd see if these uber rich who preach personal responsibility and whatnot are able to follow their own advice and take back what they had. Heheh. I bet they can't. I bet they'd be bigger dependents incapable of doing anything at all for themselves than the poor they've sneered at for generations.

Seriously though, we should re-define the word "rich". Someone with a professional degree making a few hundred K a year is not rich. I'm talking about the 1% of people who own 80% of the world's capital and do and contribute nothing at all other than sitting on the means of production and holding over everyone elses' heads.