How much do extremely wealthy people owe to the society that gave them the chance to prosper so much?

[bripat9643]

Exactly how did they allow the super rich to prosper?

By creating the environment that allowed them to grow so well. Do you think Bill Gates would be where he is today if he had been born in some isolated African tribe where he didn't have the opportunity to learn how to read?

That isn’t an answer. Exactly how did they create that environment?

Gates benefited because of DARPA investments that created microprocessors, the internet, etc.
Gates could not have made a cent if not for investments, research, and improvements payed for by taxes.

ROFL! If developing a particular technology requires steps A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J and K. and government performs step 'E', then turds like you give it all the credit.

Gates did not invent any steps at all.
He was a follower, not a leader.
He destroyed far more than he created.

You may not remember the 1980s very well, but that was when there were some really great computers.
Atari and Commodore were using great Motorola processors, to build fantastic computers like the Atari 1000, and the Amiga 500. Then IBM, Microsoft, and Intel took over, built total garbage, (PC Jr., XT and AT), and ruined computers completely. They cheated by doing illegal things like "buying shelf space" to deny the ability of others to sell computers.
Windows was so really bad, that it could not even support preemptive multi tasking until about 1996, with Windows 3.0. Before that is was total garbage, and it still is awful and full of security holes due to COM, (Common Object Model).

Utter horseshit.

 

[DukeU]

All rich people did not acquire their money by inheriting it. They acquired it by inventing, creating, and supplying things that other people WANTED. Where would we be as a society without the things they have given our society.

The same people who complain about the rich are the first ones in line to buy their latest inventions/creations. Hilarious.

 

[Rigby5]

But most of what the government does is done badly and ineffectively. Take your example of public schools. I certainly agree that a nation is better off having an educated populace. But public schools are a lot more than simply "not perfect"; they, like all bloated government bureaucracies, are serving every goal and interest EXCEPT the education of the students. The United States spends on average $12,800 per student for education. Our annual education spending is higher than the GDP of many countries. Do we have the best-educated students in the world? Does anyone really think having the best-educated students in the world is the primary goal of public school systems?

How do we make public schools better? I rarely hear anything but vague or ridiculous answers to that question.

Possibly that's because there is no simple, one-size-fits-all answer to that question. The closest I can come to such a thing is what I've already covered: make having the best-educated students in the world the primary goal of US education. Right now, education is an accidental by-product of public schools in many areas.

To be more specific, I think primary education would benefit greatly from a healthy dose of free market competition. You know why private sector, for-profit businesses provide better customer service and more innovation? Because they don't have a captive audience. The people consuming their goods and services are also the people making the financial decisions, and they always have the option to take their dollars elsewhere. The same is not true of public education.

I am a big believer in school choice. Let parents take their children - and the tax dollars attached to them - to schools which provide the results they want, and you'll see a marked improvement in the education offered.

Beyond that, the problems that need addressing depend on the area and the schools in question, and the answers are going to be specific to those problems.

No, if you let people spend their education tax dollars as they want, then they will ensure only the wealthy elite benefit from those taxes. Even if you do not have children, you owe tax dollars towards public education for all, equally. You can not possibly have a democratic republic unless there is equal opportunity for all. That does not guarantee equality of outcome. You still get more if you put more effort in. But it is unfair not to have the same opportunity as everyone else, such as education.

 

[bripat9643]

Nope. Government is a parasite. Nothing more.

I don't think it's necessary to characterize it so negatively. More importantly, government is the "servant" of society. We don't owe it anything more than a paycheck for services rendered.

I don't want any of the services government has rendered. Personaly, I have no use for the "service" of being looted and forced to pay for things I don't want.

 

[bripat9643]

But most of what the government does is done badly and ineffectively. Take your example of public schools. I certainly agree that a nation is better off having an educated populace. But public schools are a lot more than simply "not perfect"; they, like all bloated government bureaucracies, are serving every goal and interest EXCEPT the education of the students. The United States spends on average $12,800 per student for education. Our annual education spending is higher than the GDP of many countries. Do we have the best-educated students in the world? Does anyone really think having the best-educated students in the world is the primary goal of public school systems?

How do we make public schools better? I rarely hear anything but vague or ridiculous answers to that question.

Possibly that's because there is no simple, one-size-fits-all answer to that question. The closest I can come to such a thing is what I've already covered: make having the best-educated students in the world the primary goal of US education. Right now, education is an accidental by-product of public schools in many areas.

To be more specific, I think primary education would benefit greatly from a healthy dose of free market competition. You know why private sector, for-profit businesses provide better customer service and more innovation? Because they don't have a captive audience. The people consuming their goods and services are also the people making the financial decisions, and they always have the option to take their dollars elsewhere. The same is not true of public education.

I am a big believer in school choice. Let parents take their children - and the tax dollars attached to them - to schools which provide the results they want, and you'll see a marked improvement in the education offered.

Beyond that, the problems that need addressing depend on the area and the schools in question, and the answers are going to be specific to those problems.

No, if you let people spend their education tax dollars as they want, then they will ensure only the wealthy elite benefit from those taxes. Even if you do not have children, you owe tax dollars towards public education for all, equally. You can not possibly have a democratic republic unless there is equal opportunity for all. That does not guarantee equality of outcome. You still get more if you put more effort in. But it is unfair not to have the same opportunity as everyone else, such as education.

I don't owe anyone jack shit unless I agreed to pay them.

 

[Anomalism]

I don't want any of the services government has rendered. Personaly, I have no use for the "service" of being looted and forced to pay for things I don't want.

Public infrastructure? Military protection? Police and fire fighters?

 

[Crepitus]

I dont think people should be punished because they are more successful. IE much higher tax burden. They already pay most of the taxes anyway.
They also give a lot of money and time, to charity.

Taxes are not punishment.

they are when you pay more for succeeding,,,

No, because the success of the wealthy comes from those improvements that taxes make possible.
The wealthy would not remain wealthy long if not for police protecting their wealth, for example.

Or without welfare and food stamps to make their employees paychecks whole.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Surely something, right? I see a lot of people talk like taxes are theft. Is it not just our obligation?

The distribution of wealth is ultimately determined by the dominant military force.

The economic system is created by the government according to the laws of that government.

Without the U.S. government there would be nothing to protect the wealthy and guarantee their wealth.

So the more you have, the more you are obliged to contribute to the existence of the U.S. government.

I don't really disagree, but the founders never wanted a mercenary military force because people working for pay can never be trusted.
They wanted a volunteer military only, and that does not have to cost anything.

And when you write, "The economic system is created by the government according to the laws of that government", you have to be careful, and remember that WE are supposed to be the government, and laws are only supposed to be according to what is necessary to defend individual rights, or popularly agreed upon to enhance the lives of all.
There is not supposed to be a separate party that is government, and it certainly is not supposed to be above us.
Of, by, and for the People.

My first 2 statements are general principles that apply to every society - not just the U.S.

Here in the U.S. the general rule regarding economics has been "when in doubt - government stay out"

However, there are some basic principles that have to be enforced by law for anything close to a free market economy to exist.

Three of these principles that I can think of are:

- Transactions must be peaceful
- Transactions must be willful
- Contracts must be honored

 

[bripat9643]

I don't want any of the services government has rendered. Personaly, I have no use for the "service" of being looted and forced to pay for things I don't want.

Public infrastructure? Military protection? Police and fire fighters?

About the only thing you could reasonably make a case for is Military protection and police. However, that would cost only about 5% of current government spending.

 

[Rigby5]

Surely something, right? I see a lot of people talk like taxes are theft. Is it not just our obligation?

They owe nothing. Take Steve Jobs, for instance. He created a product that improved the lives of billions of people. Furthermore he provided jobs for hundreds of thousands of people. If anything, society owed him, not the other way around.

Not really.
All the work was done under DARPA grants.
And Steve Jobs in particular, has no technical skills at all.
He was mostly the talker who got banks to front money.
He actually really screwed up several times, like killed the Macintosh in favor of the Lisa.
The Lisa totally bombed, and if not for other employee secretly retaining the Mac, Apple would have gone under.
Jobs is also the one who screwed up the mouse for Apple, and insisted on it only having ONE button.
That was really dumb since the industry norm was already a 3 button mouse.

Apple products are always very marginal. They are way more expensive than they should be. There was never anything groundbreaking or particularly good about Apple products.
If they had any skills, it was really just in marketing.

What a dumbass. Tell me, Einstein, how many iPhones are there in the world?

Wrong.
Apple did not achieve anything in marketing the iPhone.
The cell towers, the software, the chips, etc., all were designed and produced through DARPA.
And Apple should be shut down for illegally shipping all that proprietary government technology to China.
Never said that Apple did not know how to market.
But marketing is all they ever did.
The worst products.

 

[Crepitus]

They also give a lot of money and time, to charity.

As tax shelters.

who cares as long as they are paying it,,

anytime the people get more and the government gets less is a good thing,,

Except that isn't how it works out. There pay less, the government gets less, and the people they don't pay a living wage to get less to make up for it.

as long as the government gets less there is more for the company to pay employees,,

But they don't. The government's job is to protect it's people, even if what they need protected from is greedy corporations and billionaires.

 

[Rigby5]

Exactly how did they allow the super rich to prosper?

By creating the environment that allowed them to grow so well. Do you think Bill Gates would be where he is today if he had been born in some isolated African tribe where he didn't have the opportunity to learn how to read?

That isn’t an answer. Exactly how did they create that environment?

Gates benefited because of DARPA investments that created microprocessors, the internet, etc.
Gates could not have made a cent if not for investments, research, and improvements payed for by taxes.

ROFL! If developing a particular technology requires steps A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J and K. and government performs step 'E', then turds like you give it all the credit.

Gates did not invent any steps at all.
He was a follower, not a leader.
He destroyed far more than he created.

You may not remember the 1980s very well, but that was when there were some really great computers.
Atari and Commodore were using great Motorola processors, to build fantastic computers like the Atari 1000, and the Amiga 500. Then IBM, Microsoft, and Intel took over, built total garbage, (PC Jr., XT and AT), and ruined computers completely. They cheated by doing illegal things like "buying shelf space" to deny the ability of others to sell computers.
Windows was so really bad, that it could not even support preemptive multi tasking until about 1996, with Windows 3.0. Before that is was total garbage, and it still is awful and full of security holes due to COM, (Common Object Model).

Utter horseshit.

You clearly don' t know the technology or time period like I do.
If you want more proof, just ask.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I dont think people should be punished because they are more successful. IE much higher tax burden. They already pay most of the taxes anyway.
They also give a lot of money and time, to charity.

That is silly because taxes are not punishment in any way.
Taxes are the overhead of what the benefits of society costs.
Like roads, schools, defense, fire fighting, etc.
It is the wealthy who benefit from these improvements the most, so they have the greatest responsibility to pay for it.
A poor person who has no car, children, or house, isn't getting anything from these investments.

Taxes are the overhead of what the benefits of society costs.
Like roads, schools, defense, fire fighting, etc.

In Chicago the schools and the roads suck.
And let's not mention the crime.

 

[Nostra]

Surely something, right? I see a lot of people talk like taxes are theft. Is it not just our obligation?

ALL OF IT!

They don't deserve that.


They didn't build that!

 

[progressive hunter]

They also give a lot of money and time, to charity.

As tax shelters.

who cares as long as they are paying it,,

anytime the people get more and the government gets less is a good thing,,

Except that isn't how it works out. There pay less, the government gets less, and the people they don't pay a living wage to get less to make up for it.

as long as the government gets less there is more for the company to pay employees,,

But they don't. The government's job is to protect it's people, even if what they need protected from is greedy corporations and billionaires.

their job is to protect our rights not our jobs or paychecks,,,

youre thinking of fascist or communist countries,,,

 

[bripat9643]

True, so lets get rid of it.

You want to get rid of the government?

Yes.

 

[progressive hunter]

I dont think people should be punished because they are more successful. IE much higher tax burden. They already pay most of the taxes anyway.
They also give a lot of money and time, to charity.

That is silly because taxes are not punishment in any way.
Taxes are the overhead of what the benefits of society costs.
Like roads, schools, defense, fire fighting, etc.
It is the wealthy who benefit from these improvements the most, so they have the greatest responsibility to pay for it.
A poor person who has no car, children, or house, isn't getting anything from these investments.

Taxes are the overhead of what the benefits of society costs.
Like roads, schools, defense, fire fighting, etc.

In Chicago the schools and the roads suck.
And let's not mention the crime.

those are state and local issues not federal ones,,

 

[bripat9643]

Surely something, right? I see a lot of people talk like taxes are theft. Is it not just our obligation?

They owe nothing. Take Steve Jobs, for instance. He created a product that improved the lives of billions of people. Furthermore he provided jobs for hundreds of thousands of people. If anything, society owed him, not the other way around.

Not really.
All the work was done under DARPA grants.
And Steve Jobs in particular, has no technical skills at all.
He was mostly the talker who got banks to front money.
He actually really screwed up several times, like killed the Macintosh in favor of the Lisa.
The Lisa totally bombed, and if not for other employee secretly retaining the Mac, Apple would have gone under.
Jobs is also the one who screwed up the mouse for Apple, and insisted on it only having ONE button.
That was really dumb since the industry norm was already a 3 button mouse.

Apple products are always very marginal. They are way more expensive than they should be. There was never anything groundbreaking or particularly good about Apple products.
If they had any skills, it was really just in marketing.

What a dumbass. Tell me, Einstein, how many iPhones are there in the world?

Wrong.
Apple did not achieve anything in marketing the iPhone.
The cell towers, the software, the chips, etc., all were designed and produced through DARPA.
And Apple should be shut down for illegally shipping all that proprietary government technology to China.
Never said that Apple did not know how to market.
But marketing is all they ever did.
The worst products.

Spare me. I have on interest in your "you didn't build that" excuses for organized plunder.

 

[Anomalism]

About the only thing you could reasonably make a case for is Military protection and police. However, that would cost only about 5% of current government spending.

You really think we only need 5% of what we spend? What about criminal justice? Prisons, judges and public defenders? What about public schools? Do you want that gone too?

 

[citygator]

Nothing like poor people on USMB looking out for the wealthy. Way to go guys!

First this group knows nothing about taxes. Take this post for example liked by 5 uninformed groupies Orangecat Juicey Omelette Jimmy_Chitwood AMart deannalw

A person making 163,301 pays 8% more in taxes than someone that made 163,300. Thats bullshit.
A person that makes half a million, pays almost 40 of their income to the federal govt.

It’s not true. We all pay the SAME taxes. Exact same. The tax rate on your first $10k is 10% so is mine. Over that it’s 12% just on the amount over $10k and it keeps going on. So a person making $163,301 pays 12 cents more than someone making $163,300. If the tax rate wasn’t at $163,300 then it would be 10 cents more or a 2 cent difference for being at the break.

I assure you if hypothetically I make $600k I pay nowhere near 40%. First the max rate is 37% and only on income $518,401 so if I make $618,401 I pay 37% on the last $100k but less on the rest of my salary.

Secondly, I am able to defer taxes on half my income with my executive job so that I’m taxed on $300k and I can decide to invest the other $300k with an approved non qualified program. I decide to take the money out over time in 10 years when I’m retired in increments small enough to keep me in a lower tax bracket since I’m retired.

There are a million ways for me to make out like a bandit. The way I described my effective tax rate is 12%. Bwahahaha. Suckers! Keep licking my (hypothetically) rich boots and voting for my puppets!!!!!!