The Flawed Concept of "Wealth Redistribution"

[antagon]

I would like to hear your reasoning for deductions though.

1. deductions motivate businesses
2. deductions knock the sting out of these top rates.
3. ill expound...truck.

I see your point about using that wealth to stimulate the economy but I do not see those as “deductions.’ I would not count purchasing assets for a company as a deduction but would rather count that against your profits. That money was never a profit to begin with as it is used for the continuing of the business itself.

this is such a painful conversation, as i am beginning to pre-do my taxes.

there's profit like paid 80, sold for 100. and there's profit like made 100 spent 80+overhead. nuance. anyhow, in a simplified way, deduction is just the term in the tax code to account for the cost of business. they are enumerated specifically and with limitations and fractional deductions for different activities, such that its not the same as blanket net profit.

What I was referring to was more like EIC credit, deductions received for child care, deductions for adding a solar paneled roof, current deductions for purchasing energy star appliances and purchasing a home. All of these are used as incentives to goad you into making decisions that I don’t believe the government should be encouraging with taxes.

not any citizen can empathize with every citizen, however the government attempts to. an obligation which in economic terms pans out positively. there are social agendas in the tax code, but many are focused on the economy.

real quick.. eic - redistribution of weath, childcare - encourages population growth, solar - energy, appliances - energy. (you can add either populist or lobbyist politics to each as applicable). the political nudges inherent in these dont blur the fact that the united states is great because we have 1) a huge population 2) with a first world per-capita income 3) who convert energy into wealth more effectively than the next country. this is fundamentally american, whether it involves 'spreading it around a little' or not. we invented it, and every other major-league nation in the world is on our heels with the above, nipping with their kyoto accords.. playing catch-up hustling slovenia into their union.

If the government believes that there needs to be funding in a certain field then it can and does directly fund it and deductions are a poor way to supplement that.

private spending being more efficient than public, the private efforts which displace public spending are and should be welcomed. why take the taxes and spend inefficiently on the same?

It causes what we have today where there are many people that are wealthy that can skirt the taxes they owe because they can afford the tax broker to find all the loopholes to a tax system that is impossible to understand. I would find it simpler if the actual taxes were reduced to a more manageable level but without deductions for people to hide their money in.

there's always loopholes, and a tax-dude helps to find them. all that i know, ive learned from the tax guru's iv worked with over the last decade. its not just the rich who can do that. if you have to pay more than withholding, i would suggest you are in the bracket to have to look into deductions. change your lifestyle around deduction, even. unintended consequences like loopholes aside, this system demands that those making decent cash constitute the fabric of our society instead of just pulling the threads.

To put it short and to each point…

1. Government rarely knows what will benefit society and I feel that people in general are better suited to decide where their wealth should go than a bureaucrat that is creating law to suit his purposes.

there is some truth to this, however, an american who avoids tax burden through the available deductions could probably be considered a model citizen and a real contributor to the national well-being as well as their own. lobbies, advocacy groups, unions, voters and orgs like the SBA and the chamber help shape the code. thankfully, its not just jkerry coming up with ideas.

2. Without deductions, premium tax rates could be reduced to a more reasonable level.

yep, although modern instant deductability and the lower reagan taxes came as a package.

3. Addressed above in business. As a personal side I do not see this as a good thing. People should contribute when and if they can and there should not be a reason for the government to persuade you to make purchases. It is a much simpler thing to find an effective percentage to income ratio to provide for the funding of government then creating all these muddy provisions that try and achieve ‘good’ outcomes.

way simpler, however simple=/=better, from my perspective as ive laid it out.

Sorry if this is a bit convoluted – it is late here and your writing makes mine look bad

crystal clear, man. i dont even bother to use the shift key, but thanks.

 

[FA_Q2]

Fox
There are some tightropes to walk here. For instance, running a business out of my home allows me to deduct a proportionate percentage of our mortgage payments, taxes, insurance, utilities, and home maintenance. (I don't do that so as not to reduce tax advantages of our home as a primary residence, but it gives me an ace in the hole to offset additional taxes if I should come out badly on a tax audit.) Those items I could deduct, though, add little or nothing to the cost of doing business and our home office does not take away enough of our living area to matter much at all. But the tax breaks probably allow some to make a living on a fairly low gross income.

Running a business out of your home does add to the cost of the business, you just don’t notice it. I do the same and that business takes much of the living space I have in my home up. It may not seem like it as a owner of a business since it is so intricately woven into your personal life but the consumption of your resources (namely your life and house) is a factor that should be considered a business expense. It really is no different then paying someone else for a space in another location. It just happens that the owner owns the business and the rented space.

fox
I can see a reasonable tax credit for adding solar panels or an energy efficient furnace so long as the tax credit is available to ANYBODY, rich or poor, who takes advantage of it. There are valid behaviors that are in the interest of the general welfare that are not out of line for the government to encourage. Home ownership is certainly in that category. Ditto for tax free churches and charitable organizations. All add to stability, aesthetics, self reliance, and quality of life as well as increase property values, decrease crime, and stimulate prosperity.

I cannot see why. The technology should stand on its own merit. I will purchase a good set of windows and an energy star fridge because my energy bill will be reduced. In no way do I need money taken from others and subsidized to myself for making that decision. If the decision is unsound then I will not make it an no amount of government money subsidized to make that decision will make it any better. What it will be is a wast as people will make purchases that are not efficient of good in order to get the subsidy that makes it advantages for the family itself.

fox
Also in the interest of the general welfare, as much as I despise how the farm subsidy program is abused, there could be valid instances in which farmers could be encouraged or assisted in increasing a commodity that was in too short a supply; spur energy producers to step up productions, etc. etc. Again no individual or entity should ever be rewarded by the federal government unless the same reward is available to ALL regardless of race, creed, socioeconomic status, political affiliation, etc. etc. etc.

Again, food and all other items should cost what they cost and that controls what people will purchase. If corn goes up, so be it. I will then make a decision on how much corn I should actually buy instead of using others income to purchase it for me. The system itself is corrupt enough to cause larger wastes than is worth it. Of course I do believe there should be regulations in place on certain goods (those that are not a choice) in order to prevent companies taking advantage of people needs but that is for another thread.

Agreed that government rarely knows what will benefit society, but it is sometimes in a position to see what is or is not benefitting society. So, no problem in stacking on taxes on say tobacco products that are known to be of little benefit while reducing taxes that help people conserve and save on energy. Such does not cost the tax payer anywhere near as much as the benefit to the taxpayer. And 'taxpayer' is the operative concept here.

There is always the downside to such practices though. Sometimes the subsidies and tax credits could encourage the unethical and/or corrupt to create shortages when none otherwise would exist. I'm still thinking about the stopgap necessary to plug that hole.

This I can mostly agree with but have a serious problem with the current system. I have no problem on so called ‘moral taxes’ that tax vices in this country but I believe that in order to prevent the abuse of said taxes they should be REQUIRED to funnel every penny of those funds into combating the vice itself. For instance; a fat tax and tobacco tax are instituted because those vices cause health issues that lead to heart failure and lung cancer. If the government feels those vices are bringing down society then a moral tax that is funneled 100 percent to hospitals for tobacco cessation programs, healthy living programs and to care for those that have come up with those diseases then I feel the tax is justified. Same with liquor, send extra taxes to AADD programs. In our current system those taxes are usually put into a general fund that are used to pay for pet projects or wasted without any regard to those that are actually paying that tax. It really is hard to complain about having to pay a fat tax or other tax if the money is guaranteed to fight the problems that YOU are creating by purchasing said product. In this way it is sort of a personal responsibility issue – cause societal issues then pay to fix those issues. It also would have a side benefit as the use of said products or vices decreases so do the programs that are needed to address the problem AND the tax income that supports those programs. Seems somewhat symmetrical to me.

fox
For me there is a distinction between promoting the general welfare and providing the general welfare. The first is a constitutional mandate. The second is a cancer in society that corrupts both the government and those governed. The difficulty sometimes comes in knowing the difference.

+1 – I can agree completely. Entitlement can be a cancer.

You write just fine.

Why thank you; sometimes I feel a bit childish when attempting to fallow some of the more articulate posters like navy who have a way with words

 

[midcan5]

"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." Adam Smith 'The Wealth of Nations,' Book I Chapter VIII

No one has ever said wealth distribution equals equal. It means fairness and justice not complete equality. Those who argue that fairness and justice are wrong need to find some means to feed all and house all, and so far wealth distribution through taxes and fair wages are the only way this has been accomplished. Curiously this argument reached a peak during the great depression when Unions finally grew the middle class. But then and now, the same nitwits argue the same tired arguments. Society must function for all or it soon becomes a third world nation of haves and have-nots.

"The Nobel Prize-winning economist and social scientist Herbert Simon estimated that “social capital” is responsible for at least 90 percent of what people earn in wealthy societies like those of the United States or northwestern Europe. By social capital Simon meant not only natural resources but, more important, the technology and organizational skills in the community, and the presence of good government. These are the foundation on which the rich can begin their work. “On moral grounds,” Simon added, “we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent.” Simon was not, of course, advocating so steep a rate of tax, for he was well aware of disincentive effects. But his estimate does undermine the argument that the rich are entitled to keep their wealth because it is all a result of their hard work. If Simon is right, that is true of at most 10 percent of it." Peter Singer UBI and the Flat Tax

 

[FA_Q2]

antagon
this is such a painful conversation, as i am beginning to pre-do my taxes.

there's profit like paid 80, sold for 100. and there's profit like made 100 spent 80+overhead. nuance. anyhow, in a simplified way, deduction is just the term in the tax code to account for the cost of business. they are enumerated specifically and with limitations and fractional deductions for different activities, such that its not the same as blanket net profit.

I agree, here we are talking semantics. I would agree that business needs to be allowed to include overhead and the like for taxing.

BTW, why so painful Have I said something wrong!

not any citizen can empathize with every citizen, however the government attempts to. an obligation which in economic terms pans out positively. there are social agendas in the tax code, but many are focused on the economy.

real quick.. eic - redistribution of weath, childcare - encourages population growth, solar - energy, appliances - energy. (you can add either populist or lobbyist politics to each as applicable). the political nudges inherent in these dont blur the fact that the united states is great because we have 1) a huge population 2) with a first world per-capita income 3) who convert energy into wealth more effectively than the next country. this is fundamentally american, whether it involves 'spreading it around a little' or not. we invented it, and every other major-league nation in the world is on our heels with the above, nipping with their kyoto accords.. playing catch-up hustling slovenia into their union.

And I never said I disagree with any of this including the ability to ‘spread it around a little’ in the form of a tiered tax system. As a matter of fact, I would defend a tiered tax system. What I have a hard time swallowing is the need for the government to get involved with the choices you are making with your money. EIC does nothing to help the greater good and encourages nothing. A simple tiered tax system should take into account number of dependents and that is it. Same with energy. If the product is good for the economy and the people then people will purchase it on their own. The government does not help the marked by promoting those policies.

private spending being more efficient than public, the private efforts which displace public spending are and should be welcomed. why take the taxes and spend inefficiently on the same?

I may be swinging here. I can see where charity might be a good reason for certain adjustments to your net income but I still have issues with whether or not the abuse of this type of system is worth the benefits. I have always felt that charity is its own merit and that people should give of their own accord but I may be overestimating humanities kindness By experience I have seen many rich that give not for the tax but for the ‘good’ and I can still believe in this.

there's always loopholes, and a tax-dude helps to find them. all that i know, ive learned from the tax guru's iv worked with over the last decade. its not just the rich who can do that. if you have to pay more than withholding, i would suggest you are in the bracket to have to look into deductions. change your lifestyle around deduction, even. unintended consequences like loopholes aside, this system demands that those making decent cash constitute the fabric of our society instead of just pulling the threads.

There should NOT be loop holes. The mere acceptance of this is a reflection on society today and I should not need to structure my life around tax code. It is this that makes things so inefficient and dumb. Left to your own devices you are far better off than being an extension of the government agenda.

way simpler, however simple=/=better, from my perspective as ive laid it out.

True, but most of the time simpler is better.

crystal clear, man. i dont even bother to use the shift key, but thanks

Good  In this case I think you have more working knowledge then I do and I really want to see where you are coming from. I do come here after all to learn and to learn others

 

[antagon]

"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." Adam Smith 'The Wealth of Nations,' Book I Chapter VIII

No one has ever said wealth distribution equals equal. It means fairness and justice not complete equality. Those who argue that fairness and justice are wrong need to find some means to feed all and house all, and so far wealth distribution through taxes and fair wages are the only way this has been accomplished. Curiously this argument reached a peak during the great depression when Unions finally grew the middle class. But then and now, the same nitwits argue the same tired arguments. Society must function for all or it soon becomes a third world nation of haves and have-nots.

"The Nobel Prize-winning economist and social scientist Herbert Simon estimated that “social capital” is responsible for at least 90 percent of what people earn in wealthy societies like those of the United States or northwestern Europe. By social capital Simon meant not only natural resources but, more important, the technology and organizational skills in the community, and the presence of good government. These are the foundation on which the rich can begin their work. “On moral grounds,” Simon added, “we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent.” Simon was not, of course, advocating so steep a rate of tax, for he was well aware of disincentive effects. But his estimate does undermine the argument that the rich are entitled to keep their wealth because it is all a result of their hard work. If Simon is right, that is true of at most 10 percent of it." Peter Singer UBI and the Flat Tax

this is mixed-up midcan.

quoting adam smith is great. economics before it was politicized. while you quoted one of his many rants on progressive burden, you go on to quote some guy on flat tax. for some reason (POLITICAL VIABILITY?) there's only emotional arguments behind flat tax advocates, even from economists. the quote and the link is DEVOID of real economic consideration, even for the arbitrary rates proposed.

 

[marigold]

Are we not seeing the precise flaws of wealth redistribution concepts when states cannot even pay refunds on time. This is the result of social programs exceeding the state budgets, sucking them dry. Now the states want to look to FEDERAL TAXPAYER FUNDING to float the populations who are too lazy to work and be industrious and productive members of society.

Second perfect example might be the current crisis in school districts in mostly black populations such as Detroit and Kansas City. Due to a white flight from inner cities moving to the suburbs to escape crime and other inner city problems, there are few taxpayers left to support the funding needed. Therefore, school closures are necessary to balance the budget, avoid total collapse.

Consumers of entitlement who contribute nothing to society are unable to survive by themselves due to the lack of funding resulting from zero effort to support their own municipalities, and can't even conceive the ways to create jobs through innovative ideas and hard work.

Somalia is now in a civil war and has resorted to piracy to redistribute the wealth.

Liberia has traditional been a very violent society - killing each other and enabling despotic type rulers and gangs to operate their societies.

Look at Haiti. They have barely survived as a society. Sure there are good haitians and there are innocent victims, but in general, the society is incapable of sustaining economy and they barely get by. Haiti Quake brought the world together to redistribute wealth and try to give these people a chance for survival.

Instead of pushing his philosophical belief in wealth distribution, Obama and other aspiring leaders should begin an educational process to help the people of socialized economy to understand how to evolve into more productive members of society. Thinking and consciously being aware of personal choices, hard work ethics, honesty and gaining esteem through ethical means is a learned way of life that has been ignored as an educational goal. Bill Cosby, a good man and a very talented leader, was accused of being an Uncle Tom when he tried to lead the way to a better life for the young folks of his culture.

Most will call this type of discussion RACIST. But isn't wealth redistribution in some ways racist? The benefit and privilege of those who contribute nothing will end up with free health care, zero taxes, payment for welfare support, etc etc. No, not all recipients of welfare and wealth distribution are black. But there is a problem in that culture.

It sickens me that this country is being suppressed in free speech and most are afraid of being labeled a racist if you identify that a problem among a largely black population - from crime in gangs, teen pregnancy, drug abuse, HIV, and fat kids who live in impoverished neighborhoods developing diabetes and other health ailments, is a serious issue.

So, wealth redistribution is indeed a flawed concept. Get a job, feel good about your accomplishments, and become a contributing member of this great country or the perilous times we are experiencing right now will lead to the collapse and decay of a once powerful nation.

 

[Neubarth]

So, wealth redistribution is indeed a flawed concept. Get a job, feel good about your accomplishments, and become a contributing member of this great country or the perilous times we are experiencing right now will lead to the collapse and decay of a once powerful nation.

Nonsense. We create government to serve the people. There is nothing stopping government from protecting us from cradle to grave and providing us work if we so desire. If we do not desire to work then we should be free to relax. That is the socialist way. Amen

 

[Neubarth]

On this concept of work. Why work when there are only enough jobs for one third of the population. I don't like to work, so I stay home and make babies with all of my women. That sounds like a damn good program to me. The government feeds me, gives me healthcare and shelter and I make babies so the government can send them to school for those people who feel compelled to be teachers (workers) so they can be self fulfilled. Let the teachers work if they want to and feel happy thereby. I feel happy when I make babies. It is all good. Right?

 

[The Rabbi]

A tax takes money from one person to give to another. A credit gives money to one person by taking it from another.
It is a difference without a distinction.
There is no way the U.S. was going to run out of wheat. That is the whole idea of a market. If a bunch of farmers had stopped planting wheat the price would have risen dramatically, bringing in suppliers at higher prices.
You need more understanding of the free market.
In the case of the luxury tax on yachts, I would bet virtually no production moved off shore since the issue was domestic demand. It wouldnt matter whether the boat was produced in ME or Caracas since no demand is no demand.

That isn't necessarily so re taxes. A tax in and of itself can be for many purposes, some good, some bad. A tax is a good thing when it is assessed for the privilege of fishing in public waters as it pays for stocking, monitoring, and managing those waters for the enjoyment of all, rich and poor alike. A tax to pay for construction and maintenance of a road or bridge used by all, rich and poor alike, can also be a good thing. A tax is bad only when it collected for purposes that do not promote the general welfare but rather benefits only a targeted few which in turn increases the power, growth, and scope of government.

I'm not going to argue the economics of growing wheat further with you. I just know many farmers, some in my own family, who were having a really tough go of it there for awhile.

And you are woefully wrong on the issue of the yachts as well as domestic light planes and the fine jewelry industry. That luxury tax so decimated our boat building industry that more than 50,000 jobs were lost and it has never fully recovered. Ditto for several small airplane manufacturers. The jewelry industry picked up their stuff and moved to places like Grand Cayman where they still are. The rich continue to buy their toys. They just chose to buy them elsewhere rather than pay an exhorbitant tax to buy them here.

It was just one more of those deals that good intentions resulted in really bad consequences. And if the leftwing is successful in going after the rich in that way again, you can be sure that it will be the un-rich among us who is most hurt again.

You've muddied the waters so to speak with the fishing example. In fact such a tax will lead to further problems. But beyond this conversation.
I don't care if you yourslef are a farmer. It is irrelevant to the issue, which is an economic one. When prices decline there is more demand but fewer sellers. When prices rise the opposite occurs. This is basic econ 101.
The luxury tax was paid regardless of where the item was manufactured. It was paid at time of final sale. I agree 100% it decimated employment in those industries. But that is unrelated to them moving off-shore since the tax was paid whether the item was produced in Burma or Birmingham.

 

[Foxfyre]

A tax takes money from one person to give to another. A credit gives money to one person by taking it from another.
It is a difference without a distinction.
There is no way the U.S. was going to run out of wheat. That is the whole idea of a market. If a bunch of farmers had stopped planting wheat the price would have risen dramatically, bringing in suppliers at higher prices.
You need more understanding of the free market.
In the case of the luxury tax on yachts, I would bet virtually no production moved off shore since the issue was domestic demand. It wouldnt matter whether the boat was produced in ME or Caracas since no demand is no demand.

That isn't necessarily so re taxes. A tax in and of itself can be for many purposes, some good, some bad. A tax is a good thing when it is assessed for the privilege of fishing in public waters as it pays for stocking, monitoring, and managing those waters for the enjoyment of all, rich and poor alike. A tax to pay for construction and maintenance of a road or bridge used by all, rich and poor alike, can also be a good thing. A tax is bad only when it collected for purposes that do not promote the general welfare but rather benefits only a targeted few which in turn increases the power, growth, and scope of government.

I'm not going to argue the economics of growing wheat further with you. I just know many farmers, some in my own family, who were having a really tough go of it there for awhile.

And you are woefully wrong on the issue of the yachts as well as domestic light planes and the fine jewelry industry. That luxury tax so decimated our boat building industry that more than 50,000 jobs were lost and it has never fully recovered. Ditto for several small airplane manufacturers. The jewelry industry picked up their stuff and moved to places like Grand Cayman where they still are. The rich continue to buy their toys. They just chose to buy them elsewhere rather than pay an exhorbitant tax to buy them here.

It was just one more of those deals that good intentions resulted in really bad consequences. And if the leftwing is successful in going after the rich in that way again, you can be sure that it will be the un-rich among us who is most hurt again.

You've muddied the waters so to speak with the fishing example. In fact such a tax will lead to further problems. But beyond this conversation.
I don't care if you yourslef are a farmer. It is irrelevant to the issue, which is an economic one. When prices decline there is more demand but fewer sellers. When prices rise the opposite occurs. This is basic econ 101.
The luxury tax was paid regardless of where the item was manufactured. It was paid at time of final sale. I agree 100% it decimated employment in those industries. But that is unrelated to them moving off-shore since the tax was paid whether the item was produced in Burma or Birmingham.

Nope. All the rich had to do was endure a little inconvenience. They set up off shore corporations to buy their boats for them and then, after six months, could bring them back to the USA duty free and without having to pay the heavy excise tax for a domestically built and sold boat.

That is why it is futile to try to solve economic problems by soaking the rich. The rich did not become rich without learning how to avoid a few land mines and manage their money wisely. Make it difficult for them to be rich in the USA and they will move their money elsewhere. Whenever the government has gone after the rich, it has been the poor and middle class who took it on the chin.

 

[The Rabbi]

It would depend on how you define "rich".
But I was unaware of that feature of the tax. And yes the rich didnt get that way by hiring bad CPA's.
It was a great example of a populist driven tax that actually hurt the people it most was designed to help. Like every other populist-driven tax.

 

[Foxfyre]

It would depend on how you define "rich".
But I was unaware of that feature of the tax. And yes the rich didnt get that way by hiring bad CPA's.
It was a great example of a populist driven tax that actually hurt the people it most was designed to help. Like every other populist-driven tax.

In this case, the 'rich' were those who could afford to buy boats that cost in excess of $100,000.

But yeah, we're both tilting at the same group of windmills here. The intent was to solve a perceived deficit crisis much as Reagan agreed to a large tax increase for the same reason early in his first term. In both cases the Congress promised double the budget cuts for every new tax dollar assessed. We got the taxes but no budget cuts. Reagan had time to recover from the hit he took in popularity and his tax cuts offset most of the damage. Bush 41 didn't because he had the double whammy of the negative effect of the taxes plus the damage his credibility took when he broke an emphatic "No new taxes" pledge. And there were no offsetting tax cuts.

All from the world of best intentions producing unwanted negative consequences.

 

[Neubarth]

It would depend on how you define "rich".
But I was unaware of that feature of the tax. And yes the rich didnt get that way by hiring bad CPA's.
It was a great example of a populist driven tax that actually hurt the people it most was designed to help. Like every other populist-driven tax.

In this case, the 'rich' were those who could afford to buy boats that cost in excess of $100,000.

But yeah, we're both tilting at the same group of windmills here. The intent was to solve a perceived deficit crisis much as Reagan agreed to a large tax increase for the same reason early in his first term. In both cases the Congress promised double the budget cuts for every new tax dollar assessed. We got the taxes but no budget cuts. Reagan had time to recover from the hit he took in popularity and his tax cuts offset most of the damage. Bush 41 didn't because he had the double whammy of the negative effect of the taxes plus the damage his credibility took when he broke an emphatic "No new taxes" pledge. And there were no offsetting tax cuts.

All from the world of best intentions producing unwanted negative consequences.

Though in theory you philosophy might work, it has been proven over and over and over again to be a miserable failure on the world scene. Capitalism can be made to work for short periods of time, but it always ends up collapsing under the weight of attempts to keep it running during times of depression or recession that always attends it.

The system that always seems to work flawlessly is the Socialist system of Germany. Go study how Angela Merkel makes it work and implement that in the United States. I know Obama has studied it and will implement it soon. Praise Obama.

 

[Foxfyre]

It would depend on how you define "rich".
But I was unaware of that feature of the tax. And yes the rich didnt get that way by hiring bad CPA's.
It was a great example of a populist driven tax that actually hurt the people it most was designed to help. Like every other populist-driven tax.

In this case, the 'rich' were those who could afford to buy boats that cost in excess of $100,000.

But yeah, we're both tilting at the same group of windmills here. The intent was to solve a perceived deficit crisis much as Reagan agreed to a large tax increase for the same reason early in his first term. In both cases the Congress promised double the budget cuts for every new tax dollar assessed. We got the taxes but no budget cuts. Reagan had time to recover from the hit he took in popularity and his tax cuts offset most of the damage. Bush 41 didn't because he had the double whammy of the negative effect of the taxes plus the damage his credibility took when he broke an emphatic "No new taxes" pledge. And there were no offsetting tax cuts.

All from the world of best intentions producing unwanted negative consequences.

Though in theory you philosophy might work, it has been proven over and over and over again to be a miserable failure on the world scene. Capitalism can be made to work for short periods of time, but it always ends up collapsing under the weight of attempts to keep it running during times of depression or recession that always attends it.

The system that always seems to work flawlessly is the Socialist system of Germany. Go study how Angela Merkel makes it work and implement that in the United States. I know Obama has studied it and will implement it soon. Praise Obama.

Germany is almost the same mix of socialism and capitalism as we are with the exception that Germany takes more in taxes to support entitlements. The result for Germany is a high entrenched (meaning more or less permanent) unemployment rate and a stagnated economy. And that is excactly what the USA is headed for or worse if we continue this headlong rush to accept socialism in place of individual liberty and unfettered opportunity.

 

[Old Rocks]

A Great Statesman

After a certain amount of wealth has been accumulated, the accumulation of more is of very little consequence indeed from the standpoint of success, as success should be understood both by the community and the individual. Wealthy men who use their wealth aright are a great power for good in the community, and help to upbuild that material national prosperity which must underlie national greatness; but if this were the only kind of success, the nation would be indeed poorly off. Successful statesmen, soldiers, sailors, explorers, historians, poets, and scientific men are also essential to national greatness, and, in fact, very much more essential than any mere successful business man can possibly be.

 

[Foxfyre]

A Great Statesman

After a certain amount of wealth has been accumulated, the accumulation of more is of very little consequence indeed from the standpoint of success, as success should be understood both by the community and the individual. Wealthy men who use their wealth aright are a great power for good in the community, and help to upbuild that material national prosperity which must underlie national greatness; but if this were the only kind of success, the nation would be indeed poorly off. Successful statesmen, soldiers, sailors, explorers, historians, poets, and scientific men are also essential to national greatness, and, in fact, very much more essential than any mere successful business man can possibly be.

Who will pay those statesmen, soldiers, sailors, explorers, historians, poets, and scientists if we do not encourage more businessmen to be successful?

 

[The Rabbi]

It would depend on how you define "rich".
But I was unaware of that feature of the tax. And yes the rich didnt get that way by hiring bad CPA's.
It was a great example of a populist driven tax that actually hurt the people it most was designed to help. Like every other populist-driven tax.

In this case, the 'rich' were those who could afford to buy boats that cost in excess of $100,000.

But yeah, we're both tilting at the same group of windmills here. The intent was to solve a perceived deficit crisis much as Reagan agreed to a large tax increase for the same reason early in his first term. In both cases the Congress promised double the budget cuts for every new tax dollar assessed. We got the taxes but no budget cuts. Reagan had time to recover from the hit he took in popularity and his tax cuts offset most of the damage. Bush 41 didn't because he had the double whammy of the negative effect of the taxes plus the damage his credibility took when he broke an emphatic "No new taxes" pledge. And there were no offsetting tax cuts.

All from the world of best intentions producing unwanted negative consequences.

Though in theory you philosophy might work, it has been proven over and over and over again to be a miserable failure on the world scene. Capitalism can be made to work for short periods of time, but it always ends up collapsing under the weight of attempts to keep it running during times of depression or recession that always attends it.

The system that always seems to work flawlessly is the Socialist system of Germany. Go study how Angela Merkel makes it work and implement that in the United States. I know Obama has studied it and will implement it soon. Praise Obama.

It' snot a failure. What people perceive as "failure" is merely the market mechanism working. There is a business cycle. It has down turns. Get over it.
Germany is fiscal failure. I can't remember what their debt to GDP ratio is but it is way higher than the U.S. Their health care system is in crisis as well.
Yeah, great model. Let's go socialist.

 

[Neubarth]

In this case, the 'rich' were those who could afford to buy boats that cost in excess of $100,000.

But yeah, we're both tilting at the same group of windmills here. The intent was to solve a perceived deficit crisis much as Reagan agreed to a large tax increase for the same reason early in his first term. In both cases the Congress promised double the budget cuts for every new tax dollar assessed. We got the taxes but no budget cuts. Reagan had time to recover from the hit he took in popularity and his tax cuts offset most of the damage. Bush 41 didn't because he had the double whammy of the negative effect of the taxes plus the damage his credibility took when he broke an emphatic "No new taxes" pledge. And there were no offsetting tax cuts.

All from the world of best intentions producing unwanted negative consequences.

Though in theory you philosophy might work, it has been proven over and over and over again to be a miserable failure on the world scene. Capitalism can be made to work for short periods of time, but it always ends up collapsing under the weight of attempts to keep it running during times of depression or recession that always attends it.

The system that always seems to work flawlessly is the Socialist system of Germany. Go study how Angela Merkel makes it work and implement that in the United States. I know Obama has studied it and will implement it soon. Praise Obama.

It' snot a failure. What people perceive as "failure" is merely the market mechanism working. There is a business cycle. It has down turns. Get over it.
Germany is fiscal failure. I can't remember what their debt to GDP ratio is but it is way higher than the U.S. Their health care system is in crisis as well.
Yeah, great model. Let's go socialist.

I am having so much fun being a liberal this weekend, I might extend it for a whole week. Rebbi, Call it a business cycle if you want, but it is a misery cycle to the masses. That old "Let the rich get richer" system has to be discarded. Under Obama we will not be communist, but we will be the next best thing. Praise Obama!

 

[The Rabbi]

Though in theory you philosophy might work, it has been proven over and over and over again to be a miserable failure on the world scene. Capitalism can be made to work for short periods of time, but it always ends up collapsing under the weight of attempts to keep it running during times of depression or recession that always attends it.

The system that always seems to work flawlessly is the Socialist system of Germany. Go study how Angela Merkel makes it work and implement that in the United States. I know Obama has studied it and will implement it soon. Praise Obama.

It' snot a failure. What people perceive as "failure" is merely the market mechanism working. There is a business cycle. It has down turns. Get over it.
Germany is fiscal failure. I can't remember what their debt to GDP ratio is but it is way higher than the U.S. Their health care system is in crisis as well.
Yeah, great model. Let's go socialist.

I am having so much fun being a liberal this weekend, I might extend it for a whole week. Rebbi, Call it a business cycle if you want, but it is a miserable cycle to the masses. That old "Let the richer get rich" system has to be discarded. Under Obama we will not be communist, but we will be the next best thing. Praise Obama!

You seriously need a drink, s0n.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am having so much fun being a liberal this weekend, I might extend it for a whole week. Rebbi, Call it a business cycle if you want, but it is a misery cycle to the masses. That old "Let the rich get richer" system has to be discarded. Under Obama we will not be communist, but we will be the next best thing. Praise Obama!

On another forum some time back we set up a thread where everybody was invited to argue the opposite side of various issues--in other words, the liberals would argue the conservative point of view and the conservatives would argue the liberal point of view. It was an interesting exercise for awhile, and a fair number of members really got seriously into the spirit of it. But everybody tired of it after a few hours. And it was never revisited.

I don't know what that meant/means. It was just an interesting observation.