Should there be a cap on attainable wealth?

Should there be a cap on attainable wealth?

  • Total voters
    58
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
You did claim that, and afaik you haven't supported it. cn
Click to expand...
Neer, as a rational centrist, do you not find it ridiculous that the welfare system supports lazy able bodied people at the expense of the genuinely needy like the old or the disabled? (Ie. the people who actually need support, not the ones who just want it)
 
Fungus Gnat

Fungus Gnat

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
Neer, as a rational centrist, do you not find it ridiculous that the welfare system supports lazy able bodied people at the expense of the genuinely needy like the old or the disabled? (Ie. the people who actually need support, not the ones who just want it)
Click to expand...
All systems can be abused it doesn't negate its value. Some people on welfare might not be disabled but they're unemployable.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Everyone paying income taxes pays the same 10% on his or her first $8,500. So, to calculate a person's "Composite Real Rate" you must average (in a manner of speaking) what he or she pays in overall taxes on earned taxable income. For example, if you earn $80,000 in taxable income in 2011, your taxes are $16,125.10. That's a Real Rate of 20 percent. Yes, the marginal rate is 25%, but the Real Rate of tax is weighted towards the 15% bracket.

An income of $150,000 a year? The Real Rate is 24 percent. And that's not the "real rate" as most of us would think of a "real" tax rate. Why is that? Because taxable income is not even close to what most people actual earn. Earned income and taxable income are two different things in government speak.

So, let's get more complicated. When there was a 94% top rate in 1944-45, there were so many deductions and exclusions that the taxable income was not comparable to someone's entire income. First, the top rate started at $200,000, which today is equal to $2,413,059.90 — so the maximum EMTR would apply only to incomes of $2.5 million. But, that's still taxable income, not earned income.

In 1944, you could deduct business meals, all business travel, all forms of interest payments, and much more. You could even deduct spousal travel expenses on a business trip! (Why travel alone?) Companies could also "loan" or "provide" almost anything to an employee, from an apartment to standard benefits. It was possible to shelter tens of thousands of dollars from taxable income. Three-martini lunches and expense accounts were important realities, skewing tax calculations.

As a result of deductions and exclusions, even the theoretical maximum Real Rate of taxation at 60% in 1944 overstates taxation dramatically. The reality? On earned income, the richest U.S. taxpayers paid close to 40 percent of their earned incomes in taxes in 1944. We simply didn't count much of the compensation as taxable income.

Allow me to introduce you to Hauser's Law. Published in 1993 by William Kurt Hauser, a San Francisco investment economist, Hauser's Law suggests, "No matter what the tax rates have been, in postwar America tax revenues have remained at about 19.5% of GDP." This theory was published in The Wall Street Journal, March 25, 1993. For a variety of reasons, we seem to balance tax collections within a narrow range.
Click to expand...


http://almostclassical.blogspot.com/2011/03/90-tax-rate-myth.html

For the people who cant read more than a paragraph....
  • The reality? On earned income, the richest U.S. taxpayers paid close to 40 percent of their earned incomes in taxes in 1944. We simply didn't count much of the compensation as taxable income.


    ​




Click to expand...

 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Harrekin said:
Neer, as a rational centrist, do you not find it ridiculous that the welfare system supports lazy able bodied people at the expense of the genuinely needy like the old or the disabled? (Ie. the people who actually need support, not the ones who just want it)
Click to expand...
I find it lamentable. I also understand that it is impossible to proof an assistance program against freeloaders. I don't have the [absence of] heart to advance that as a justification for doing away with all assistance programs however. There is no one-size-fits-all solution in politics ... and I have no answer for how to make assistance programs more, uh, efficiently targeted. Jmo. cn

<edit> Part of the problem is sorting the freeloaders from those with need. It's not like one can simply separate the Ys from the Ns on a standardized form.
 
Mr Neutron

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I find it lamentable. I also understand that it is impossible to proof an assistance program against freeloaders. I don't have the [absence of] heart to advance that as a justification for doing away with all assistance programs however. There is no one-size-fits-all solution in politics ... and I have no answer for how to make assistance programs more, uh, efficiently targeted. Jmo. cn

<edit> Part of the problem is sorting the freeloaders from those with need. It's not like one can simply separate the Ys from the Ns on a standardized form.
Click to expand...
How about taking it out of the hands of bureaucrats and letting local agencies or charities handle it. Give them huge tax breaks for their service and tax breaks for those that contribute time, food or money to help out. At the local level, people either already know each other or get to know each other rather quickly. Neighbors are more likely to take a personal interest and go the extra mile, if necessary.
The way it is now, the feds are chasing people out of charity work. They HATE competition.
 
B

beenthere

New Member
NLXSK1 said:
http://almostclassical.blogspot.com/2011/03/90-tax-rate-myth.html

For the people who cant read more than a paragraph....


[/B][/B][/B]
Click to expand...
Allow me to introduce you to Hauser's Law Published in 1993 by William Kurt Hauser, a San Francisco investment economist, Hauser's Law suggests, "No matter what the tax rates have been, in postwar America tax revenues have remained at about 19.5% of GDP." This theory was published in The Wall Street Journal, March 25, 1993. For a variety of reasons, we seem to balance tax collections within a narrow range.

Since 1945, U.S. federal tax receipts have been fairly constant in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), with taxes ranging from 15 to 20 percent of GDP.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Mr Neutron said:
How about taking it out of the hands of bureaucrats and letting local agencies or charities handle it. Give them huge tax breaks for their service and tax breaks for those that contribute time, food or money to help out. At the local level, people either already know each other or get to know each other rather quickly. Neighbors are more likely to take a personal interest and go the extra mile, if necessary.
The way it is now, the feds are chasing people out of charity work. They HATE competition.
Click to expand...
I must answer this one through the filter of my own self-interest. I am essentially unemployable (but don't look or sound it on casual inspection) and currently survive on SSDI. If you can convince me that such a program would be supported nationwide by a loosely-federated network of local charities, and cover me, I'll pay attention.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I must answer this one through the filter of my own self-interest. I am essentially unemployable (but don't look or sound it on casual inspection) and currently survive on SSDI. If you can convince me that such a program would be supported nationwide by a loosely-federated network of local charities, and cover me, I'll pay attention.
Click to expand...
But you are one of the people being stolen from by freeloaders.

I believe no system is perfect, however one that strives towards it as opposed to the simplistic "money for all" solution would be infinitely more "progressive" ;)
 
B

beenthere

New Member
beenthere said:
You're right I did make that claim and I got a lot of shit for it, you going to be consistent or does that standard only apply to me?
Click to expand...
I'll take that as no you won't be consistent and backing claims only applies to people you disagree with!
No worries, at least I know where you stand.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I must answer this one through the filter of my own self-interest. I am essentially unemployable (but don't look or sound it on casual inspection) and currently survive on SSDI. If you can convince me that such a program would be supported nationwide by a loosely-federated network of local charities, and cover me, I'll pay attention.
Click to expand...

If you can post on the internet you are employable. You might not love the jobs available but it is certainly possible to work from home over the internet.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Harrekin said:
But you are one of the people being stolen from by freeloaders.

I believe no system is perfect, however one that strives towards it as opposed to the simplistic "money for all" solution would be infinitely more "progressive" ;)
Click to expand...
And yet, by any easily-administered "reasonable" standard, I'd lose my bennies.
"Money for all" can never work ... there never will be enough money. Printing extra has its own bad history, and here in the USA we're staring down the barrel of an uncdeclared inflation ... everything is getting more expensive, but Federal COLI (cost-of-living index) is being artificially held down.
"Money for none" is MUCH easier to administer and is also practicable. But except for our local phalanx of the hard right, not many think that's a good direction either.

My conclusion is that there is no good way to determine and administer the optimum. I am just deliriously grateful that, for the time being, I draw living money. cn
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
NLXSK1 said:
If you can post on the internet you are employable. You might not love the jobs available but it is certainly possible to work from home over the internet.
Click to expand...
I've heard that said but would need to see it demonstrated. One of my issues is very low and sporadic energy. Most online jobs are replete with two issues I can't seem to get past: 1) sweatshop hours to make the money, and 2) nothing in my profession or capacity. Show me the non-sales jobs. cn
 
Carne Seca

Carne Seca

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
And yet, by any easily-administered "reasonable" standard, I'd lose my bennies.
"Money for all" can never work ... there never will be enough money. Printing extra has its own bad history, and here in the USA we're staring down the barrel of an uncdeclared inflation ... everything is getting more expensive, but Federal COLI (cost-of-living index) is being artificially held down.
"Money for none" is MUCH easier to administer and is also practicable. But except for our local phalanx of the hard right, not many think that's a good direction either.

My conclusion is that there is no good way to determine and administer the optimum. I am just deliriously grateful that, for the time being, I draw living money. cn
Click to expand...
And I'm grateful that through taxes I can help support you in your time of need. That's my pride in being an American.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I've heard that said but would need to see it demonstrated. One of my issues is very low and sporadic energy. Most online jobs are replete with two issues I can't seem to get past: 1) sweatshop hours to make the money, and 2) nothing in my profession or capacity. Show me the non-sales jobs. cn
Click to expand...
This is why you cant find a job... You point out what you cant do and then immediately complain about the pay for jobs you might be able to do.

I met a guy the other day working from home maintaining the telecom network for the country. He would receive inbound service e-mails, and call and send service personnel to address the technical issues. He was working VOIP and could log in and out when necessary to do other things.

You epitomize the 47%
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top