When Have You Made Enough Money?

[Foxfyre]

Thesis: Whether the government should determine if an individual or a corporation or any other entity has made enough money.

Obama to Wall Street: “I do think at some point, you have made enough money.”
Breitbart.tv Obama to Wall St.: ‘I Do Think at Some Point You’ve Made Enough Money’

Rebuttal via Thomas Sowell:

. . . .The key word in this statement, made by President Barack Obama recently, is "you." There is nothing wrong with my deciding how much money is enough for me or your deciding how much money is enough for you, but when politicians think that they should be deciding how much money is enough for other people, that is starting down a very slippery slope.

Politicians with the power to determine each citizen's income are no longer public servants. They are public masters. . . .
. . . .Ida Tarbell's famous muckraking book, "History of the Standard Oil Company," said that Rockefeller "should have been satisfied" with the money he had acquired by 1870, implying greed in his continued efforts to increase the size and profitability of Standard Oil. But would the public have been better off or worse off if Rockefeller had retired in 1870?

One of the crucial facts left out of Ida Tarbell's book was that Rockefeller's improvements in the oil industry brought down the price of oil to a fraction of what it had been before.

As just one example, oil was first shipped in barrels, which is why we still measure oil in terms of the number of barrels today, even though oil is seldom -- if ever -- actually shipped in barrels any more. John D. Rockefeller shipped his oil in railroad tank cars, reducing transportation costs, among other costs that he found ways of reducing.
Thomas Sowell

So what do you think? Should there be a limit on how much money somebody is allowed to make? If so, what should that limit be? If not, why?

 

[rikules]

Thesis: Whether the government should determine if an individual or a corporation or any other entity has made enough money.

Obama to Wall Street: “I do think at some point, you have made enough money.”
Breitbart.tv Obama to Wall St.: ‘I Do Think at Some Point You’ve Made Enough Money’

Rebuttal via Thomas Sowell:

. . . .The key word in this statement, made by President Barack Obama recently, is "you." There is nothing wrong with my deciding how much money is enough for me or your deciding how much money is enough for you, but when politicians think that they should be deciding how much money is enough for other people, that is starting down a very slippery slope.

Politicians with the power to determine each citizen's income are no longer public servants. They are public masters. . . .
. . . .Ida Tarbell's famous muckraking book, "History of the Standard Oil Company," said that Rockefeller "should have been satisfied" with the money he had acquired by 1870, implying greed in his continued efforts to increase the size and profitability of Standard Oil. But would the public have been better off or worse off if Rockefeller had retired in 1870?

One of the crucial facts left out of Ida Tarbell's book was that Rockefeller's improvements in the oil industry brought down the price of oil to a fraction of what it had been before.

As just one example, oil was first shipped in barrels, which is why we still measure oil in terms of the number of barrels today, even though oil is seldom -- if ever -- actually shipped in barrels any more. John D. Rockefeller shipped his oil in railroad tank cars, reducing transportation costs, among other costs that he found ways of reducing.
Thomas Sowell

So what do you think? Should there be a limit on how much money somebody is allowed to make? If so, what should that limit be? If not, why?

NO limits!

that would be LIBERALISM!
(or communism or socialism)

It is my conservative capitalistic constitutional right to own EVERYTHING!

ALL the property in America!
ALL the money in America!

I want it ALL!

and anyone who tries to deny me my right to OWN EVERYTHING (and force everyone else to eat of MY garbage cans!) is an America hating god hating facist nazi communistic socialistic scumbag!

a poem;


when I am grown to mans estate
I shall be very proud and great
and tell the other girls and boys
not to meddle with my toys

all the country I shall own
every man in every town
every judge and every cop
till I own the world I'll never stop

every planet and every sun
must be mine!...every one!
and every person great and small
will bow to me and do my all

servants, slaves, maids and pages
will work for me for meager wages
my wishes will be their only duty
the universe will be my booty

 

[boedicca]

It's too bad rikules had to immediately shit on this thread.

When very wealthy people spout off about "at some point you've earned enough", it's very certain they are not referring to themselves. Such ideology always results in damage to the productive working and middle classes.

 

[rightwinger]

No Limits from a government regulation standpoint. Doesn't mean mega income should not be taxed at higher levels

From a personal ethical standpoint you could look at Warren Buffet and Bill Gates who have established their own limits on what they should earn and are donating Billions to charity

 

[boedicca]

That's fine if an individual decides he has made enough. Freedom - it's a wonderful thing.

 

[Sheldon]

No limits.

I think, probably, rich people aren't really that evil.

Isn't our top income bracket the most charitable compared to other developed nations? For the most part I think people recognize when they and their kids and their grandkids will be able to live very comfortably for a long time, so they get into philanthropy by their own will, which is good.

 

[boedicca]

Millions of individuals deciding how to allocate their own income and wealth are going to do a better job than 535 people in Washington DC.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Thesis: Whether the government should determine if an individual or a corporation or any other entity has made enough money.

Obama to Wall Street: “I do think at some point, you have made enough money.”
Breitbart.tv Obama to Wall St.: ‘I Do Think at Some Point You’ve Made Enough Money’

Rebuttal via Thomas Sowell:

. . . .The key word in this statement, made by President Barack Obama recently, is "you." There is nothing wrong with my deciding how much money is enough for me or your deciding how much money is enough for you, but when politicians think that they should be deciding how much money is enough for other people, that is starting down a very slippery slope.

Politicians with the power to determine each citizen's income are no longer public servants. They are public masters. . . .
. . . .Ida Tarbell's famous muckraking book, "History of the Standard Oil Company," said that Rockefeller "should have been satisfied" with the money he had acquired by 1870, implying greed in his continued efforts to increase the size and profitability of Standard Oil. But would the public have been better off or worse off if Rockefeller had retired in 1870?

One of the crucial facts left out of Ida Tarbell's book was that Rockefeller's improvements in the oil industry brought down the price of oil to a fraction of what it had been before.

As just one example, oil was first shipped in barrels, which is why we still measure oil in terms of the number of barrels today, even though oil is seldom -- if ever -- actually shipped in barrels any more. John D. Rockefeller shipped his oil in railroad tank cars, reducing transportation costs, among other costs that he found ways of reducing.
Thomas Sowell

So what do you think? Should there be a limit on how much money somebody is allowed to make? If so, what should that limit be? If not, why?

I actually really doubt that Rockefeller did what he did for the money after a certain point, anyway. I don't think you get to be that wealthy if it's strictly about the money to you. I think people like that get to where they do because it's about the excitement, the challenge, the finding new worlds to conquer and new ways to conquer it. Money at some point just becomes a way of keeping score, of tracking success or failure.

I also think that's the REAL reason that wealthy people like Bill Gates (and Rockefeller himself) give so much to charity: not because it's "unethical" to be that wealthy and successful (a fascinating, funny little fairy tale invented by people who will never be in that position), but because the money isn't really the point to them.

 

[Tech_Esq]

No Limits from a government regulation standpoint. Doesn't mean mega income should not be taxed at higher levels

From a personal ethical standpoint you could look at Warren Buffet and Bill Gates who have established their own limits on what they should earn and are donating Billions to charity

Should it be taxed at higher levels or should they pay more money in taxes?

 

[instyle]

When you feel that you have an inner passion for your work, and the earnings makes it possible to do whatever you want to do / explore on your spare time! (even when you have money you'd have to have a passion for something)

 

[Foxfyre]

No Limits from a government regulation standpoint. Doesn't mean mega income should not be taxed at higher levels

From a personal ethical standpoint you could look at Warren Buffet and Bill Gates who have established their own limits on what they should earn and are donating Billions to charity

Should it be taxed at higher levels or should they pay more money in taxes?

An excellent question.

Should all income be taxed equally across the board whether it is $100 or $1 million so that everybody keeps the same percentage of the money they earn? Or should the rich be allowed to keep a smaller percentage of the money they earn?

 

[rightwinger]

No Limits from a government regulation standpoint. Doesn't mean mega income should not be taxed at higher levels

From a personal ethical standpoint you could look at Warren Buffet and Bill Gates who have established their own limits on what they should earn and are donating Billions to charity

Should it be taxed at higher levels or should they pay more money in taxes?

An excellent question.

Should all income be taxed equally across the board whether it is $100 or $1 million so that everybody keeps the same percentage of the money they earn? Or should the rich be allowed to keep a smaller percentage of the money they earn?

I support a graduated tax based on income. I don't think our current highest tax bracket is too high.

As to taxing every dollar earned at the same rate....I find it to be tempting
My only condition is that ALL exemptions are eliminated. Make the rich pay a flat rate on every cent, no hiding income, no deducting every dollar earned, no loopholes

I expect the rich would pay more than they do now and squeal like crazy

 

[Foxfyre]

No Limits from a government regulation standpoint. Doesn't mean mega income should not be taxed at higher levels

From a personal ethical standpoint you could look at Warren Buffet and Bill Gates who have established their own limits on what they should earn and are donating Billions to charity

Excuse me, there is a huge difference between what a person decides he or she NEEDS and what a person earns. However much rich people give to charity--and I think most rich people give a LOT to charity--that has absolutely zero bearing on how much they earn.

But how do you justify taxing the guy who made a million dollars at a highr percentage than the guy who made $30+k? More particularly when the guy who made a million probably helped hundreds of folks make $30+k each in the process of making that million.

 

[Sheldon]

I like this picture. Notice how high it was while we were fighting communism?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Meaningless garbage without add the historical perspective of what the tax system was like in all of those by-gone days. People today only recognize the system after TFRA of 1986. A review of what the tax system was before it was simplified in 1986 is what needs to go along with that picture.

And, remember that a federal tax rate of 40% means that just under 60% of a person's income goes to federal and state income and payroll taxes. (If they aren't self employed, then it would be 67.5%).

At what point does job creation stop altogether?

 

[Foxfyre]

I like this picture. Notice how high it was while we were fighting communism?

The tax rates themselves are misleading though. Those high tax rates aren't as bad as they look because there were so many way to shelter income; however, lowering those rates during the Reagan years ushered in an unprecedented unbroken succession of years of prosperity that made it all the way into the Clinton administration. The economy was losing some steam when Bush 43 took office and 9/11 threw us into a severe tailspin for a lot of months; but his specifically targeted tax cuts allowed us to recover nicely despite two wars in progress.

Then the housing bubble that had been building throughout the Clinton and Bush 43 administrations burst in late 2008; and we all are dealing with the results of that 19 months later and there is no end in sight.

And our current fearless leader doesn't seem to have a clue how a tax increase now will make that much much worse.

 

[boedicca]

Let's look at those top rates for inflation adjusted income in 2010 dollars:

1918, top tax rate of 77% applies to income over $14.4M

1944, top tax rate of 94% applies to income over $2.477M

1947, top tax rate of 86.45% applies to income over $1.955M

1964, top tax rate of 77% applies to income over $2.8M

1971, top tax rate of 70% applies to income over $1,076M

1988, top tax rate of 28% applies to income over $54,825 (note, not millions anymore)

1994 top tax rate of 39.6% applies to income over $367,761

The Bush era top tax rate is 35% not 33% - 2003 applies to taxable income over $369,608

Obama's tax rate of 39.6% will applies to incomes over $375,700 (this doesn't include the additional SS and Medicare surcharges of 3.8% to be added as well).


The top rates no longer apply to the uber rich - they apply to upper middle class families in urban areas. Why they should be punished with 94% tax rates is beyond me.

It's also important to note that the total tax burden on the median American family as a percent of income has more than doubled since the 1950s. The justification for taxes to be imposed on The Rich is just a pretext to spread them over a broader population over time.

Sources:

Historical Top Tax Rate

TPC Tax Topics | 2010 Budget -* Tax Increases on High-Income Taxpayers

CPI Inflation Calculator

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Thesis: Whether the government should determine if an individual or a corporation or any other entity has made enough money.

Obama to Wall Street: “I do think at some point, you have made enough money.”
Breitbart.tv Obama to Wall St.: ‘I Do Think at Some Point You’ve Made Enough Money’

Rebuttal via Thomas Sowell:

. . . .The key word in this statement, made by President Barack Obama recently, is "you." There is nothing wrong with my deciding how much money is enough for me or your deciding how much money is enough for you, but when politicians think that they should be deciding how much money is enough for other people, that is starting down a very slippery slope.

Politicians with the power to determine each citizen's income are no longer public servants. They are public masters. . . .
. . . .Ida Tarbell's famous muckraking book, "History of the Standard Oil Company," said that Rockefeller "should have been satisfied" with the money he had acquired by 1870, implying greed in his continued efforts to increase the size and profitability of Standard Oil. But would the public have been better off or worse off if Rockefeller had retired in 1870?

One of the crucial facts left out of Ida Tarbell's book was that Rockefeller's improvements in the oil industry brought down the price of oil to a fraction of what it had been before.

As just one example, oil was first shipped in barrels, which is why we still measure oil in terms of the number of barrels today, even though oil is seldom -- if ever -- actually shipped in barrels any more. John D. Rockefeller shipped his oil in railroad tank cars, reducing transportation costs, among other costs that he found ways of reducing.
Thomas Sowell

So what do you think? Should there be a limit on how much money somebody is allowed to make? If so, what should that limit be? If not, why?

Hell no there shouldn't be any limit on how much money a person makes, but there should be a limit on how much bullshit comes one out of Washington.

 

[MaggieMae]

No, there should be no limit unless excess money is being used to corrupt by diversion to other people or entities that pose a serious danger to another business or a person's livelihood, whether done intentionally or unintentionally. The problem with extreme wealth is that the person or persons actually owning it often do not know how it actually gets disbursed.

 

[Madeline]

I have no problem if you earn a fantabluous amount of money inventing the Snuggie or singing "Bad Romance". I am less anxious to see wealth ever-more concentrated as it passes from generation to generation; in my view, we need the Death Taxes.

What worries me more though is the amount of profit or earnings extracted from large, publically traded corporations by Management. Used to be that profit went to investors and Management were their employees. Now Management is effectively the biggest stakeholder in many of the Fortune 500, as compared to employees (retirement plans held by the company) or investors.

I think the financial world made more sense when people bought stock predominately for the dividends. These investors watched the goings-on inside corporations, and (this is just my opinion) I think there were fewer reindeer games. Now everyone holds stock for the appreciation, dividends are an anachronism and most investors have not so much as read the annual report of the corporations they partially own. Showing up at stockholders meetings is beyond most folks' experience, and even voting by proxy is unfamiliar to most Americans -- but once, not all that long ago, it was a fairly commonplace experience. Just ask anyone who held stock in the 1970's or before.

Nowadays, such a huge percent of stock is held in trust. Mutual funds, pension plans, etc. predominate Wall Street and the loyalty of these Mutual Fund and Pension Fund Managers is to the corporation's Management, not to the stockholders-in-equity or retirees-to-be whom they represent. Certainly not to the corporations' employees or customers. In short, these relationships are too cozey, too incestuous and too mutually-beneficial to serve as any protection for the rest of us.

Big institutional investors don't have much to say on pay - Nov. 16, 2009

We've most of us watched Unfettered Greed strip assets out of companies, shutter them and move on as if nothing important happened over and over. Mergers and acquisitions, Junk Bonds, etc. IMO, the existing Management of some of America's mega-corporations are doing almost the same thing via Management Compensation Packages. Very, very few Americans are employed as Upper Management of a Fortune 500 company -- but those that are sometime seem to be a terrible threat to the financial security of us all.