Is it wrong to want to dispossess the wealthy?

[MikeG]

Poll question: Is it wrong to want to dispossess the wealthy?

[benburch]

1. 90% income tax above $250K

Nobody needs more than $250K per year to survive. Period.

[sam sarrha]

14. that even sounds Commie to me..get real,...please

[xultar]

28. No shit, Not very progressive is it? n/t

[InvisibleBallots]

130. actually, yes, it is progressive

No one gets rich by themselves, wealth does not exist without the context of the society. Progressive taxes are good.

[K-W]

38. You shouldnt speak of things you clearly dont understand.

Providing relative economic equality through taxation has absolutely nothing to do with communism.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

41. Doesn't that depend on how drastic the action is?

If you take 90% or more of someone's possessions, that is not providing equality, it's a government taking and sounds basically like communism.

[xultar]

47. OK take out the word communism, it doesn't just sound wrong? Like 1984

shit? Who decides what is wealthy? Who decides what to take,

[SlackJawedYokel]

52. BZZZZT! Godwins Law invoked!

Sorry... just had to do it.
:D

Cletus

[AliciaKeyedUp]

54. Darn, I wanted to say that

nt

[xultar]

Sorry I commited a no no. I didn't know about Godwins Law.

Now I do. I'll becareful in the future.

[RafterMan]

143. Godwin's law is for Nazis

not communism or 1984

[SlackJawedYokel]

149. The post was edited. nt

[K-W]

60. It sounds like a bad idea. There is nothing wrong about it.

Our system would have to be changed drastically in fundemental ways to accomidate such a tax structure. And if we are going to drastically change it, we have better options.

But there is nothing morally wrong with the idea on its own.

AND TAXING SOMEONE IS NOT TAKING THINGS FROM THEM

FUTURE PAY IS NOT YOUR PROPERTY YET
When on earth did americans get the stupid idea that they are entitled to get as much money in the future as they want. And that changing the economic structure is the same as stealing.

Edit: No it isnt comperable to what the Nazi's did to the Jews, and I find that comparison repugnant.

[tx_dem41]

69. What do you mean by "future" pay?

I get a paycheck for work earned in the past. I get taxes taken out of that.

[K-W]

93. I dont think this hypothetical tax would be retroactive.

Thus it would be based on your FUTURE pay for your FUTURE work. Thus that pay is NOT yours. Thus making the income tax higher would not be stealing from you.

[tx_dem41]

102. I would argue that MY pay is MINE....not the Government's.

Do you believe that my future pay is the Government's?

That said, I do not equate the taxation system to "stealing".

[K-W]

107. You would be obviously wrong and selfish.

Things that dont belong to you, arent yours. Just because I plan on buying a house in 20 years doesnt mean I own a house. And something that got in the way of me getting that house wouldnt be stealing that house from me.

You plan to sell your labor for a certain price in the future. You havent yet, so that price is not yourse.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

110. Your pay isn't yours?

Sure as hell could have fooled me. My pay reflects work done, not some fantasy future.

[K-W]

116. Pay you havent recieved yet for work you havent done yet is not yours.

How on earth is this confusing so many people?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

Maybe yes, maybe no

If you have a commitment to pay at a certain level based on contract, then that is yours.

[K-W]

122. This has nothing to do with your contract.

Your contract discusses what you are obligated to do and what an employer is obligated to pay you, it doesnt say anything about what the government can tax, nor is it allowed to.

[DoNotRefill]

327. Maybe it's the thesis of your argument....

the whole "taking isn't taking" bit...

[xultar]

139. No shit AliciaKeyedUp!!! n/t

[tx_dem41]

120. I would agree that the price is not mine.....but we are talking about

a tax rate (do I need to pull the dictionary out?).

BTW, if its not mine, then why is it the Government's?

[K-W]

124. It isnt anybodies right now. It doesnt exist right now.

When the time comes that you earn it, the government can tax it.

Just like they do now.

[xultar]

75. So let me get this straight, let's say I work hard and I have 5 million

in the bank. I haven't killed anyone, I take care of my family, my parents, and grandparents. I send my cousins to school. Adopt an orphened child and I donate to historically black colleges and I pay my taxes.

In that senario you think I don't have the right to have the money I earned?

Is that what we're saying here?

If so. Ya'll are effin nutz.

[K-W]

94. So you believe there should be no taxes?

Are you an anarchist?

[SlackJawedYokel]

97. WOOOO!

ANARCHY!!!

I've got beer... let's go!

Cletus

[xultar]

126. Beer is the chosen beverage of the Anarchist revolution? Yech...

I favor TEQUILA...behbey

[SlackJawedYokel]

129. Mexican liquor for an American revolution?

You might as well say *vodka*, you heathen!
lol

Cletus

[xultar]

142. It was an Anarchist Revolution...how can have Anarchy without Tequila...

1 Tequila
2 Tequila
3 Tequila
Floor...
:crazy:

[tx_dem41]

158. If Tequila drinking defines an Anarchist...let me say...

ANARCHY RULES!

[xultar]

166. Yes, it makes me horny too!

tee hee hee :crazy:

[SlackJawedYokel]

189. Oh well, then... Tequilla all around!

:D
I'm a flexible Anarchist.

Cletus

[Is It Fascism Yet]

352. with u on that one, n/t

[Is It Fascism Yet]

353. hey, are you forgetting about all the well heeled peeps who donated Kerry?

hey, it was lucky for us all that i had a few thousand hanging around i could spare, otherwise, if not for peeps like me, in the, "nobody needs 250 thou to live on" category, who would have funded Kerry and moveon and norml.com so generously? hey, are you forgetting that some liberals actually DO make a lot of money? And we pay our taxes, some of us actually pay more than necessary, saying, oh what the hell, and not claiming a deduction. My honey did that last year. As we left the accountant's office, I said, "Oh, go back, I forgot a big deduction!" and he said, "Nevermind, honey, we've got enough, we have to pay some taxes" and he didn't go back, he just let it ride. and we vote for people who would even raise our taxes, while lowering taxes for lower wages, and we are just hoping they will raise the taxes of millionaires MORE! You know, 250 thou is what you get if you spend 200,000 in college loans getting advanced degrees. Then you have to do a job that would make others squeamish or scared to death. You don't get paid those kinda bucks for nothing, you know. Then your kids get ready for college, and they aren't eligible for any government aid, because, you make too much money, so, you send them two at a time at a cost of 30,000 per year to college. Then you help your nieces, nephews or your friends kids get through college. Meanwhile, after you pay off the loans you took while spending 12 years in college, you are still doing a physically and emotionally demanding job where people wake you from a deep sleep and ask you to make life and death decisions. You may not get an undisturbed night's sleep for a week. Don't you think people who work this hard and stress this much deserve a little extra cash, beyond the bills, so that they have some comfort, a secure old age, and maybe a vacation? We need to raise the standard of living for all Americans and should not allow people to live below the poverty line without assisting them. An upward distribution of taxes is called for, but, you must not plan to distribute it so heavily at the bottom of the top. 250 thous is still the bottom. We could stand a small increase, but, the owner class above 5 mil requires a greater distribution. If they would pay there share, yep, we'd pay a little more, happily so, if it would relieve our problems. You shouldn't have to pay a penny of taxes if you are under 60 thou, and anything under 50 thou should be considered poverty line and eligibile for assistance. But, the upper middle class can't bear ALL the burdon. Distribute it upward even more heavily, but proportionately, it is extreme to want to take 70% from anyone. Even in the 5 mill class, a redistribution of up to 50% would be more than sufficient. What motivation would people have to found companies, like, say, Microsoft, if they couldn't achieve wealth doing it? So, yeah, take part of their wealth, but not ALL. Really, you must allow a little extra luxury for a reward for those who strive for excellence in necessarily complex positions. And aren't you glad when we have a few thou left over to donate to democratic candidates?

[tx_dem41]

100. "Anarchist"?

Where in the heck did that come from?

[K-W]

103. Erm, without taxation, please explain how you have a government.

Im curious how this magical system works.

[SlackJawedYokel]

111. Charity?

"Alms for the Governor?"

Wouldn't it be nice if the Pentagon had to hold bake sales to meet their budget instead of your kids school?

Cletus

[K-W]

115. Well, in the case of our current government, that would be nice. EOM

[More Than A Feeling]

233. That would be so funny!

probably wouldn't taste very good though:(

[tx_dem41]

114. Where has anyone on this thread said that taxation should be

eliminated? Please, stop making stuff up, magically.

[K-W]

118. I havent made anything up.

If it is wrong for the government to take money out of the system. It is wrong for the governement to take money out of the system anywhere.

So when someone argues that the government shouldnt be able to tax income because it belongs to them, they are arguing that the government has no right to tax.

If you could please stop attacking me every time you dont understand something, id appreciate it.

[xultar]

125. Ah yes, there is make up stuff...IN MY POST I SAID I PAY MY TAXES

:crazy:

[K-W]

133. Your paying your taxes has nothing to do with anything

so could you please stop spamming this discussion with that fact.

[xultar]

147. I'm not spamming, I am legitamately responding to posts, read my replies

they are legitimate responses...:eyes:

[K-W]

155. The fact that you pay taxes has nothing whatsoever to do with

the fact that you argued that the government shouldnt be able to tax you.

Thus the fact that you then went on to post some variation of "I pay my taxes" several times does, at least to me, qualify as spam.

[tx_dem41]

136. Please cite a post where someone said..

"the government shouldn't be able to tax income because it belongs to them"?

And please don't say its about the right of the Government to tax income. We aren't arguing that.

And please don't say I'm attacking. I have called no one "selfish" and "stupid" on this thread. Others have though.

[K-W]

140. Then post I replied to.

The poster argued that because income was earned and needed, it shouldnt be taken by the government.

[xultar]

151. ?????

:smoke::crazy:

[K-W]

157. Your post 75

the one I replied to saying that you argued against taxation

[AliciaKeyedUp]

160. No it didn't

Please reread what he wrote. He said he PAID his taxes.

[K-W]

164. Nobody said he didnt pay his taxes.

What on earth does that have to do with anything?

[xultar]

168. I'm tellin ya, I had begun to think I was livin on Deep Space Nine...

Thanks for the backup.

I was beginning to wonder if I really did say I was against taxes.:crazy:

[K-W]

171. Had your post been on topic, it would have.

Silly me, I assumed you were referring to the post you replied to.

[xultar]

165. Please read it here maybe the light is better for reading...

in the bank. I haven't killed anyone, I take care of my family, my parents, and grandparents. I send my cousins to school. Adopt an orphened child and I donate to historically black colleges and I pay my taxes.

In that senario you think I don't have the right to have the money I earned?

Is that what we're saying here?

If so. Ya'll are effin nutz.

[K-W]

169. So you have been off topic this entire time.

Thanks for wasting my time.

We were discussing an income tax, not a tax of your savings.

Sheesh.

[xultar]

:cry:I'm sorry, but, you missed the point here also.:cry:

[tx_dem41]

178. All she did was repaste her post #75

How is that being "off-topic"?

You know, this forum is about debate. Debate is hard when one side keeps throwing up condescension all the time. People often type stuff the first time that is not clear. Xultar has repeatedly expanded on her original statement and you have met it like a brick wall. That gets us no where and is a complete waste of time.

So, thanks for wasting my time, too.

[xultar]

181. I am CRACKIN UP! This has been the funniest shit...I am literally ROTFLMAO

Seriously...have you ever seen anything like this thread. I'm gonna bookmark this puppy.

[K-W]

185. Im glad you find confusion so amusing.

That makes one of us.

[xultar]

194. Stop It, you're killin me.....ROTFLMAO!!

:)

[K-W]

182. the post was not on the same topic as the post it replied to

I was posting about an income tax.

The reply was about a tax on his savings.

That is off topic.

[tx_dem41]

192. You have been referring to post 75 for the last 15 minutes...

yet when re-posted you claim its not the one you were talking about (is that what you're saying???). Its always been the same post 75, talking about a tax on savings.

You have referenced post 75 as an example of someone not believing in the validity of an income tax system. Are you still saying that?

[K-W]

197. A tax on savings was not on topic, thus I was confused.

When I post about income tax, and someone posts a reply about how they should be able to keep thier money, I make the silly assumption they are arguing against the income tax I am discussing and not some new hypothetical tax that has nothing whatsoever to do with my post.

[tx_dem41]

199. Thank you for admitting you were confused.

Maybe we should ALL pay closer attention to posts we are responding to from now on.

[K-W]

202. Maybe people should keep their posts on topic.

So other people dont have to be psychics.

[tx_dem41]

205. K-W...

I hope you have a nice New Year's. Peace and love and all that.

[Name removed]

276. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tx_dem41]

281. Self-deleted.

Self-deleted....I responded to the wrong post.

[Donkeyboy75]

348. If you're going to take an argument to its logical extreme,

then be prepared for it to go the other way. Should the government be allowed to take 100% of everyone's income away in taxes?

[xultar]

121. I know...especially when in post i said directly...3rd line I PAY MY TAXES

:eyes:

[K-W]

128. Heh, that was kinda my point. I know you arent an anarchist.

You made an argument that implied all taxes are wrong.

I didnt think you actually believed that, so I called you out on it.

[xultar]

172. THAT WASN'T MY ARGUMENT.....YOU READ WHAT YOU WANTED...

NOT WHAT I SAID...

comeon now baby...you gotta meet me 1/2 way. Please read my post.

There are people in this thread who are saying that people shouldn't be able to earn what they want. I was saying if I pay my taxes get off my back.

Don't ya get it?

[K-W]

175. Yes but you replied to me, not those people.

So I assumed you were addressing my points. Obviously that was a flawed assumption.

Read your post again in the context of income tax. Then you will see what I thought you were saying.

[xultar]

184. You brought up taxes...PLEASE READ YOUR POST..LINK PROVIDED

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2887413&mesg_id=2887592&page=

Direct quote from your post...
When on earth did americans get the stupid idea that they are entitled to get as much money in the future as they want. :crazy: And that changing the economic structure is the same as stealing.

I responded to the right one. I added the :crazy: after the craziest part.

BUHWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[K-W]

188. What part of the word income are you having trouble with.

I was talking about an INCOME tax.

What in gods name are you laughing at?

[xultar]

196. OK, Uncle, you win. I give, ROTFLMAO!

[K-W]

198. I didnt win anything.

I posted in response to a discussion about income tax and you respond by arguing against a non-existant tax on savings.

Nobody won anything. You changed the topic, I missed it, confusion ensued. Why are you laughing?

[xultar]

200. Please let it rest. Thanks for the fun. X n/t

[K-W]

203. Why should I let it rest while you openly mock me

based on confusion that was at the very least mutual?

[RafterMan]

277. It wasn't mutual

The only person confused by her posts was you.

[xultar]

119. In my post I SAID I PAY MY TAXES...

[K-W]

131. Then why are you arguing that taxes are wrong?

You dont think the goverment should take your money, isnt that what you just argued?

[xultar]

137. People in this thread are saying I don't have a right to earn as much as

I want. They wanna take 90% of my money... That's some CRAZY SHIT.
People are saying that people shouldn't need to live on more than 250K a year. Who are we to judge especially if they are paying their taxes.

People are saying wanna disposess 'WEALTHY' people but who defines wealthy.

I pay taxes now and they aren't doing right by me. What's this 40 million for a coranation and 35 million for aid in the worst natural disaster in my life time.

So If I give ya'll 90% of my money in taxes, that makes ya'll rich, then who's gonna tax ya'lls asses.

[K-W]

144. Those are all valid points, the one I responded to wasnt.

I am not advocating a 90% income tax, wealth dispossession or anything of the sort.

You made an argument that excluded all taxation of income, I pointed that out.

That is all.

[tx_dem41]

141. Where has anyone argued that taxes are wrong?

We are talking rates here.

[K-W]

150. Post 75

Is an argument against any taxation of income and can be construed as an argument against all taxation.

[xultar]

156. Did you read the post? Didcha? Huh....EVERYBODY READ POST #75

Please tell me if what I wrote resembles anything being asserted here in post #140.

HELP A SISTAH WILL YA...

[K-W]

159. It doesnt resemble it, it is it.

You argued that because you earned your pay it shouldnt be taken.

Thus all income tax, and really all tax is wrong.

The government has to take money out of the economy somewhere, or it has no money and doesnt exist.

[xultar]

174. Here is a linkie poo...please read it they are EXACTLY THE SAME

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2887413&mesg_id=2887643&page=

OMFG....PLEASE HELP A SISTAH!!!

[K-W]

177. How about this,

Lets stop having the same argument in 12 posts.

[tx_dem41]

161. Technically it can't....since income is not all that can be taxed...

That said, you are misconstruing what was said in that post, as the original poster has tried to tell you several times.

[K-W]

167. Hardly.

It is, as I said, possible the poster was discussing some hypothetical tax on savings.

If so the poster certainly wasnt clear on this and was massively off topic of the post he replied to.

The poster certainly didnt explain of that sort in later posts. Mostly the poster insisted that he paid his taxes, a fact completely immaterial to anything we are discussing.

[xultar]

132. .....

:smoke: ???

[K-W]

135. You stated in your post.

That you earn and need your money, so why should the government be able to take it.

That is not an argument against a high tax rate. That is an argument against ANY tax rate.

[tx_dem41]

154. I just reread that post to which you refer....

No one ever said what you just stated.

[K-W]

163. Well, in this context it does.

It does appear that perhaps the poster was confused and thought that income taxation would tax alraedy held wealth. But if you assume the post is on topic, discussing an income tax, then it says everything I said.

[Nadienne]

237. "Work hard"???

In what field? I know plenty of people who work hard, who want to work hard. They'll never accumulate $5 mil. The reason for that is, you don't get $5 mil by working hard. You get it by screwing people. Whether you screw people because you want the money, or whether you like that line of work (even though it screws people over) and end up with $5 mil, you're not working hard. You're making business decisions that other people carry out, most likely. {i]They're working hard.

You make big profits by screwing customers, or screwing employees. You make big profits by getting more than you give. As in, you get $10 mil in sales, but to the people who made it all possible (your employees), you give them $5 mil.

That is just the way it is.

[tx_dem41]

253. Speak for yourself, please

I work hard and invest my savings. That is not some evil, anti-Democratic activity. I have never screwed anyone over and resent the your implication that I have. Your painting of all people who work and save with a broad brush is absolutely ridiculous.

[Nadienne]

259. You invest your savings in a stock market

with the intent (or at least the hope) of getting more out than you put in. Do you know what corporations (where you invest your money) get the money that they give back to you? They squease it out of employees or customers.

'Course, you may actually lose money by investing it. And you probably didn't invest it with the intent of walking away with less than you put in. But the workers who made the money, who did the work creating a product to sell, almost always walk away with less than what they put in. And that is where you get your profits.

[tx_dem41]

269. Or in the course of the company I work for..

we take the infusion of investment capital and increased our employment by about 50%. But, I guess you think that's all fairy tales.

BTW, why do you automatically assume I invest in the stock market?

It is absolutely incredible how some DUers just start assuming and run away with it.

[Nadienne]

290. However you invest

you don't do so in order to lose money. You expect to get as much or more than what you put in. Right? Otherwise you would just put it in a savings account. (Though admittedly interest on a savings account doesn't match the cost of living.) Where do you think this money comes from?

Companies are supposed to use the money that gets invested into their company to improve their company, to improve the products and services. If only 50% of the money invested in your company expands its employee-base, what are they doing with the rest of the money? But, never mind that; they're doing such a good job, helping the job market (and never mind what they take from the employees they so graciously feed).

Corporations are self-serving. They exist for profits, not for customers or employees. There is almost always someone sitting at the top of the ladder, doing nothing more than making decisions - and lots of money - while other people who do the actually work are just getting by.

You can't get something from nothing. And that is no fairy tale.

[tx_dem41]

291. Where did I say that 50% of the money invested expands its

...employee-base??? Please do not twist my words.

I said the investment capital allowed us to increase our employment by 50%. That has NOTHING to do with what you stated.

[Nadienne]

294. Sorry, I misunderstood.

But what I said is still relevant, that's the intention behind investing in companies, to help them grow when they can't do so without help. Where, then, do the profits go? (I assume the company makes profits, otherwise it wouldn't be able to attract investors.)

All the stock market does is add more players to the field. Employees are still not payed in proportion to the wealth they bring in. But it's not the company's fault because they have to pay investors. And it's not the investor's fault because their retirement is at stake. It's too bad for the employees, whose livelihoods and standards of living are in jeopardy. The ones with the most at stake lose out. "Sorry, guys. We have to downsize in order to look as though we're making profits in order to attract investors who will create more jobs."

If your company is different, I rather think they are the exception and not the rule. But good for you, and good for them.

[tx_dem41]

296. Many companies are now becoming ESOPs...

(Employee Stock Ownership Plan), where the employees own a significant amount of stock. These are becoming less of the exception.

[Nadienne]

297. Ah, yes:

"Come on, workers: work harder. It was always in our best interest for you to sacrifice real wages, but now it's also in your best interest."

That's like allowing someone to steal from me, if they only give me a little bit back. No, that's like helping someone steal from me, and maybe I'll get something back.

"Sorry, we can't give you a raise because it'll affect our profit margin. But having a high profit margin means you'll get more money when you retire, after we split it with other share holders and CEOs."

I shouldn't make fun of it before knowing all the details. Are employees the only people who can own stock with those kind of plans? If so, I would be all for it. If not, sorry: I think it's a scam designed to make it easier to steal from employees.

[tx_dem41]

298. You're right....you don't know much about it.

In our company they own over 50% of the stock. I think in most ESOPs it has to be that way in fact. Our has meant that in about a five year period, every employee has earned about 3 yrs salary in stock value (over and above what they earned in the 5 yrs).

The employees have benefited greatly.

[Nadienne]

299. Then it doesn't sound like too bad of a deal,

so long as the company doesn't pull an Enron.

[LincolnMcGrath]

307. ESOPs have been around for over 2 decades.

Most of them have failed.

[BernieBear]

339. Nadienne You don't seem to totally understand stock price

The value of the company divided by the number of shares outstanding along with intangible benefit (goodwill, brand name, etc.) is the "value" of the company. The company, depending on the industry, the future outlook, etc. will have a stock price which is a multiple of that "value". If the company reinvests in the company to improve the company as you suggest they should (and they should) and they improve their products then the company is worth more. If the company is worth more the "value" is worth more which means the stock price is now higher, which means if I bought the stock lower (i.e. I gave my money to the company for them to use to improve the company), I can now say "Company, job well done, I want my money back" and I sell my shares of stock and now have more money then I had before. That's not a fairy tale, and it's not getting something for nothing. I LOANED them my money to improve the company and when they did, I took my money out of that company so I can redeploy it in a different way.

Cheers!!

[BernieBear]

338. Nadienne --- Some people might make their money

from screwing people, but it's not correct to say working hard doesn't allow you to make $5M. It's working hard to YOUR ABILITY that you are not grasping.

Money flows from taking risk around a "big" idea that will affect many people.

An actress takes a lot of risk. She moves to LA with nothing in her beat up Ford Escort except for 3 acting books. She lives in a crummy apt with 5 other people while waitressing while she studies acting and goes to acting school. 10 years later, she's an "overnight success" and is on "Friends" a show that over a decade generated millions, tens or hundreds of millions of laughs, sold billions of dollars through associated advertising and launced 40 new trends (like "the Rachel") which allowed 19,000 hairdressers to cut their clients hair more frequently (in order to keep those layers "just" right) and thus added to their income.

Or someone gets out of graduate school with a degree in Biochemistry, spends 10 years working in a research lab fooling around with 3 molecules until they figure out how toensure the "dirt" is unable to stick to the molecules, they patent the idea which takes a lot of risk because they pay for it themselves so they own the patent (so let's say a $10,000 cost to get the whole thing patented), then they put together a business plan (no easy feat in itself) and then they take the risk of rejection by going to 50 banks/Venture Capital funds for funding which they get, they quit their research job (which had a good salary, benefits, retirement, health insurance) to run the company (which may fail) and then 5 years later they are on the front page of Business Week for the pair selling milllions of pairs of Twill Khaki men's and women's pants that NEVER needs to be cleaned. Now you have 3 million people with 3 pairs of pants each that never need to be cleaned saving them money because they don't take them to the dry cleaners or they don't use the water and soap to wash them.

So your idea that the only way to be rich is to scam someone is WRONG. The way to be rich is to inheriet it OR have a big idea and take a risk. The way to be moderately well off (at minimum) is to get a good education in a field that is in demand, and work for someone else and every week, rain or shine, put 10% of your paycheck into a savings account.

We don't need wealth redistribution. We need better Boards of Directors, we need people to have better ethics and morals, we need people to VALUE education and get educated, we need people to understand that they CAN CREATE the life they want if they plan it first and then follow their plan. If they choose to get up, pull on jeans go to their "job" for little pay because anyone can do it, and then go home when the whistle blows AND they don't work over time to educate themselves to be able to do something more demanding, then they need to realize that the plant or yard or place of employment could be shut down and they will be SOL, if they, themselves don't have a Plan B and C and D.

[DoNotRefill]

326. You say....

"AND TAXING SOMEONE IS NOT TAKING THINGS FROM THEM"

How can you possibly say that? It most certainly IS a taking...

[BernieBear]

334. Uh, K-W you're wrong, If I work and earn money from my work and you tax

it then you are taking from me.

Remember the Boston Tea Party?

This nation wasn't formed on the basis of progressive taxes and certainly not taxation at the kind of insane rates you are quoting. Those who are productive (as well as those who can "scam large sums of money") will all leave this country and quit working. Then who is going to create new markets from nanotechnology, broadband communicaation, super-cooled LNG, magnetics, new forms of energy, virtual reality, etc.


THIS SUPER PROGRESSIVE TAXATION IS NOT THE ANSWER AND IS DOOMING OUR PARTY.

Taxation is a means to an end. Let's talk about what we want to do, and then determine how we pay for it, creatively.

YOU WANT TO TAX, JUST BECAUSE YOU THINK SOMEONE MAKING $X DOLLARS A YEAR IS "BAD"??????????? That doesn't make sense.

Republicans already think that Democrats are either overly educated urban (jewish) intellectuals (who don't know nuthin about reel living) or they are poor, unwashed, lazy-assed, dumb folks holding their hands out for a free ride and whining about their "entitlements".

There are no entitlements. We're entitled to breathe air and to have equal access to deploy our abilities. The results of our abilities are NOT GUARANTEED TO US. :grr:

[tx_dem41]

335. I agree with everything you said, except..

what do you mean by "super" progressive. I agree that 90% is absolutely ridiculous. At what point does progressive become "super" progressive?

[BernieBear]

342. Anything much higher than Clinton years

There is so much waste, inefficiency, beauracratic bungling. We don't need as a Democratic party to focus on taxation, that dooms us. We need to focus on efficiency, on getting it RIGHT and spending less, not getting it WRONG and Spending like the Repugs. Talk of taxation will always lose an election. Always.

[tx_dem41]

343. As I remember the top rate was about...

39.6%. That sounds okay with me.

[BernieBear]

344. OK!!! We have two people in agreement. Way to Go TX_Dem41

I want better Board of Directors, more ethical/moral behaviour, people to value education, for us as a country to recognize and applaud self-determinism, for those who DO seek handouts to be taught and motivated to get beyond that. I believe health care must be affordable, which mine isn't ($14,000.00 a year just for the medical premiums with a $1000.00 deductible). I believe in a Social Security program.

As a matter of economics, there is a level of health care that has to be determined to be accessible to all. Those who can pay for it are welcome to other options (face lift, liposuction, etc.)

But we as a party MUST stop talking about taxaation. Let's talk the value we provide.

[Solon]

214. That was the tax rate HERE, post WW2, under Truman for crying out loud...

or at least, close to it, I say bring it BACK!!!!!

[SlackJawedYokel]

49. 90% income tax rate is not taking 90% of someones possessions.

It is taxing their *income*.
Now, perhaps if they are overextended and living from paycheck to paycheck, like I've heard happens to some newly wealthy rappers and pro atheletes, their possessions *might* be in danger of being repossessed.

A high tax rate is *not* Communism.
The tax rates in the US peaked during and right after WW2 and for the wealthy were upwards of 80% of their income.

Cletus

[AliciaKeyedUp]

59. 90% is way too high

It is a government taking of what you have. I would hope that if it got that high that athletes and performers simply would walk in response.

[salin]

63. wasn't the top rate under Eisenhower

somewhere in this ball park?

My guess is that one would have to raise, significantly, the cut off point at which wealth is taxed at a high rate (and we will never pass any rate that high again, save a lasting, severe crises.)

[tx_dem41]

72. Yes...and it took a Democrat to wisely lower it. n/t

[salin]

89. b/c moderation was important

that includes how severe the shift back was - as well as how high the rates became... I think we have swung back into immoderation in terms of policy.

[tx_dem41]

95. I wouldn't argue with that, but...

this particular subthread is talking about a 90% rate.

[salin]

99. it may be... but I have gone a slightly different direction

call me a threadjacker if you will :shrug:

[K-W]

66. You dont own your future income.

So no one is taking anything away from you.

I would hope that anyone who walked away from the arts or sports because they couldnt make obscene amounts of money wouldnt let the door hit thier butts on the way out.

90% is too high, but its a heck of alot closer to just than what we have now.

[tx_dem41]

81. Again, what do you mean by "Future Income"? n/t

[K-W]

96. I would think a dictionary could define the words for you.

It means income in the future.

Where are you having difficulty?

[tx_dem41]

108. The dictionary is for single words...

you used two together, which opens it up to interpretation.

Please, let's not be snarky. We're supposedly having an intellectual discussion here.

[K-W]

113. In this case the dictionary is all you need.

Future pay is just that.

[SlackJawedYokel]

71. 90% is only slightly higher than historical rates in the US

Seriously.
The wealthy in the US used to pay *WAY* more in taxes than they currently do.
In fact, the current rates are the lowest in American history.

It is a government taking of what you have.
This is what governments *DO*.
And it is of what you *earn*.

I would hope that if it got that high that athletes and performers simply would walk in response.
You're kidding, right?

50 years ago entertainers were paid a pitance in comparison to today.

Cletus

[AliciaKeyedUp]

76. We used to have slavery too

That doesn't make it the way to go, now does it?

You can advocate for 90% taxation or even 100% taxation if you wish. I will not.

[SlackJawedYokel]

90. Sigh... I do so love specious comparisons.

That doesn't make it the way to go, now does it?
And yet somehow the comparison between the ownership of human beings by other human beings and the wealthy paying higher taxes just doesn't *quite* ring as true as it should, does it?

I'd cry crocodile tears for the "poor, poor wealthy" as they consume more resources than many small countries but I can't even really manage that much.

You can advocate for 90% taxation or even 100% taxation if you wish.
I wasn't.

I will not.
I have no interest in making you.
And I doubt seriously if you would ever be effected by such a tax.

I was merely responding to what I found to be flaws in your reasoning.

Cletus

[K-W]

98. Did you just compare taxation to slavery?

When did this become Anarchists Underground?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

104. No, I merely pointed out that citing a historical precedent

Isn't always the way to go.

We did a lot of things in the past and many of them were at best unwise.

[SlackJawedYokel]

127. And yet those "poor" rich people from the middle of the 20th

century *somehow* managed to survive all the while paying such "exorbitant" tax rates!

I'm betting they were penny pinching misers, eh?

Sigh.

Cletus

[AliciaKeyedUp]

145. Taxes ran all over the place in the 20th century

from basically nothing to enormously high rates. If you had those rates for a very long time, they would serve to de-motivate.

[SlackJawedYokel]

162. Actually no.

from basically nothing to enormously high rates.
To back to nearly nothing.
And actually no, they started out higher than currently for the wealthy prior to WW2.
So they weren't "all over the place".

Quite obviously there were political pressures/reasons for raising and lowering such taxes... my point is that the *wealthy survived it*.
And quite nicely, too, from what I can tell from "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous".

If you had those rates for a very long time, they would serve to de-motivate.
And "demotivating" the wealthy is bad?
Sorry... I can't buy into that.
:D

Cletus

[K-W]

138. No it isnt always the way to go, but nobody was arguing that.

Each individual case should be evaluated individually. And clearly slavery is not a comparison to democratic taxation.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

153. Democratic Taxation?

When it's up to 90%, it' not Democratic. Heck, it's not even Socialist. It's pretty much Communist taxation at that point.

We're going to take pretty much everything from you and give it to everyone else. But keep earning at that level.

[K-W]

173. That isnt what the word democratic means.

Democratic means the result of a process that represents the people.

You know, based on the word democracy.

Tax rates can neither be democratic nor undemocratic.

You obvioulsy have no idea what communism is. Lets just say that in communism, the tax system, as we know it now, wouldnt exist.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

176. 90% is a lot closer to Communism

Than anything else. So, yes, I know what Communism is despite your nasty tone.

Democratic is based on democracy. Communism, which the 90% plan comes close to, has nothing to do with democracy.

[K-W]

179. No, you dont know what communism is, nor do you know what democracy is.

You just proved that.

They are two different forms of government, they have nothing whatsoever to do with income tax rates.

A communism could have a 5% income tax, a democracy could have a 90% income tax. Tax rates dont define government structures.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

187. A government is defined by what it does

Not just a textbook. And yes, I don't need to make you believe me because clearly nothing I say will convince you.

As practiced, communism is the ultimate taker. As practiced, democracy is the lowest and socialism falls in between.

[K-W]

191. No, here in the real world, you dont get to make up your own definitions.

You just gave me your own personal analysis and summation of communism.

Communism has a real meaning, one you either ignore or dont know.

[SlackJawedYokel]

186. Wow... the confusion!

Democracy is about the ability to vote.
And if the majority want to raise taxes, taxes will be raised.

We're going to take pretty much everything from you and give it to everyone else. But keep earning at that level.
Or do like the Rolling Stones and move to America.
:D
Or don't... retire and enjoy the fruit of your labor.
Or slow down and spend more time with your family.
Because at some point the pursuit for wealth for the sake of wealth is detrimental to the consumption of resources, if nothing else.

Cletus

[AliciaKeyedUp]

190. Not just that

A government type is defined by its actions.

If a democracy takes the wealth of its citizens, it is no democracy.

[K-W]

195. You are just plain wrong.

Communism refers to the economic and political structure, not the income tax rate.

Im sorry that you thought it referred to something else.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

208. The tax rate is a reflection of the economic and political structure

Duh.

[K-W]

210. That isnt even remotely true.

Scenario 1. A King in a Monarchy issues a 90% income tax.
Scenario 2. A military dictator issues a 90% income tax.
Scenario 3. A democratically elected government issues a 90% income tax.
Scenario 4. A communal 'government' issues whatever a 90% income tax would look like in a communist scoiety.

Whilest the tax rate of a given nation is of course influenced by the structure of the government, it is not determined by it or a reflection of it.

[SlackJawedYokel]

204. Absolutely not.

A government type is defined by its actions.
Then I suggest you double check the definitions for what government types you are comparing.
Communism is about *ownership*. Ownership by all citizens and adminsitered by the state.
Democracy is about the right to vote.
There is actually nothing discordant with the concept of Democratic Communism... a government elected by the people to oversee the property of the people.

America is a *capitalist* country which, while technically not being a "government type", has become so thoroughly integrated with the concepts of a Democratic Republic as to be something else entirely.

If a democracy takes the wealth of its citizens, it is no democracy.
A democracy is simply one in which everyone gets to vote and has *NOTHING* to do with "the wealth of its citizens".
Sheesh.
You've confused the capitalist notion of private ownership with Democracy.

Cletus.

[K-W]

213. That confusion has come to define America.

To most people it seems our industrial-capitalistic heritage is more vital than our democratic heritage.

[tx_dem41]

88. In general theory, I agree with you...that said...

90% is too high.

[SlackJawedYokel]

105. Depends on the circumstances.

I suspect the rates were higher back then because of the war.

But why is 90% "too high" given that it has been scientifically proven that you can buy happiness for roughly $3 million dollars?

At what point does wealth become *too much* and simply and excuse?

Seriously... do we *need* all the crap that rich people buy to entertain themselves while extreme poverty exists in the world?

Cletus

[Ladyhawk]

289. 90% sounds too drastic to me, too. Sorry.

And SSI Disability just got adjusted to $805 a month for me. That puts me at...$9660 a year, gross. By the time I'm done paying bills, I usually have about $300 left for the month.

On the other hand, it takes money to make money and many of the richest folks are NOT self-made. I would have maybe inherited some of my mother's money, but that seems unlikely now. Suddenly being in possession of a house worth perhaps $200,000 would not make me self-made, now would it?

So, I think the rich should pay more of a percentage than the middle class. The problem is that that tax laws are written with the rich in mind. Do you think the loopholes are mistakes? I don't.

[tx_dem41]

46. Depends on how you achieve economic equality... n/t

[SlackJawedYokel]

Aww.. be generous

How could Madonna live on $250K a year?
:D

I say give them $1000k a year but they can't give any of it away when they die(except maybe a small percentage to their kids).
It all goes to help Welfare and aid to single mothers.

That'll show 'em what "doing good" really means.

Cletus

[xultar]

25. Who are we to determine what it takes for one to survive? Sounds like

a fundie forcing their values on me.

[SlackJawedYokel]

29. Civilization has always been about taxes.

So, yea, I suppose it is "fundy" in the sense that it's the fundamental basis for civilization.

:D

Cletus

[xultar]

80. Yeah but these...I don't know what to call'em wanna disposess me of my $$$

because they have some cooked-up cocka-mammy crazy ass idea of what is wealthy.

I'm not feelin it. So if they think some one is tooo wealthy then we gotta jack'em up and take their money. Is that what we are about now?

Will they give equally to historically black schools who need more help than white schools? I doubt it.

This is some crazy shit we got goin here in this post/poll whatever it is.

[SlackJawedYokel]

146. Then how do you define "wealthy"?

If you'll look back I "moved the bar" to $1000k a year.
A recent study done in England of lottery winners determined that roughly $3 million actually "buys happiness".
Not $3 million annually, mind you... just $3 million.

So if they think some one is tooo wealthy then we gotta jack'em up and take their money. Is that what we are about now?
As opposed to taxation on what planet?

"Taking peoples money" is what governments *do*.
Have *always* done.
Will *always* do.
The Enlightenment gave us the concept of *self rule* and with it a relief from arbitrary taxation.
The only time people didn't pay taxes is when they didn't benefit from the protection/services of the state, typically.
How on earth can *anyone* imagine that such a thing exists in the US today?

What is wrong with a progressive tax on *income* that works its way up to 90% if you make over $1 million a year?

Will they give equally to historically black schools who need more help than white schools? I doubt it.
Why?
Are there no laws where you are to prevent that?

This is some crazy shit we got goin here in this post/poll whatever it is.
Yea, ain't it cool?
I love watching people try to wrap their heads around these kinds of things.

Cletus

[BernieBear]

337. You ask how do we define wealthy? (SlackJawed)

Wealth should be a measure of prosperty, health, happiness, serenity etc. But it usually isn't. It's usually thought of as money. And you are equating it to a defined dollar amount, which is not wealth at all as I think of it. I think wealth is a "diparity" index which allows the wealthy to have that which is "in short supply". If the supply is constrained enough to allow bidding up of prices then those who can bid higher will win the prized item. Thus they must have more than others so they can bid higher. Wealth has always been relative, never a "number". It's a bell shaped (or someother shaped) curve. In our society it's at least a bell like curve, while my understanding is that in Mexico it would be a U shaped curve - lot's of poor people, lot's of rich people, no people of "average" means.

[Boosterman]

51. Heh

"Bob we have given you a raise. From 249 k to 251k."

BOB screams "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"

[benburch]

278. Well, he wouldn't scream NOOOOOO!

Because it is only income over a quarter million that is taxed at 90%.

And one would advance that index at the rate of inflation.

So what if Bill Gates earns 10 million next year rather than 100 million? Won't he still be able to make payments on his college loans? ;-)

[Deja Q]

236. I agree with you. See my other post toward the bottom.

Don't let the naysayers dis you.

[Midlodemocrat]

270. I disagree.

depends on where you live and number of dependents.

[Darranar]

273. I'd back that. n/t

[MissBrooks]

274. HA HA HA!!!

Oh, you aren't kidding...
Sorry!


I would find a way to spend the $$$ if I had it...

I would donate more and use it for good - but, there are a few things I have gone without for too long!

;-)

[Silverhair]

303. That's been done before in the USA. Economy stagnated. JFK got rid of it

Check out the income tax rates for the 1950s. The top brackets were ABOVE 90%. That's right. And the economy was stagnating. JFK pushed tax cuts through congress and got that rate down. I don't remember now what he dropped it to, but it was a huge cut. The cuts worked, and the economy picked up markedly.

Those who do not learn from history will try to repeat it.

[BernieBear]

333. You are insane.... Lot's of people need more than $250K

and I believe that those who are able to make the money should enjo the money. Money can make life easier, more fun, allow you health.... THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING REALLY WEALTHY. WEALTH ISN'T THE PROBLEM.

The problem is people - and the limits of their ethics, morals and values.

Socialism, total wealth redistribution is NOT the answer. A higher level of individual conscious and laws that really prosecute illegal corporate, white collar (and blue collar) government behaviour is something more needed. It isn't right for the top level to make hundreds of times what the next level down makes, but that is a problem that goes to the ineffectiveness of the Board of Directors of most companies. That's an "ethical" problem.

We need more :grouphug: :pals: :love:

[Is It Fascism Yet]

350. 90% so, then no reward for excellence? 250 k is not wealth...

how about just imposing 70 percent on those making 5 million per year? At that rate, nobody making less than 60 thou would have to pay a penny, if the OWNER CLASS paid 50% or more. Dispossesing the wealthy is as snotty as dispossesing the poor. Both are usually accidents of birth. I am all for raising the minimum standard of living for all Americans and eradicating poverty and starvation worldwide, but, you would be getting very carried away to suggest that those making a mere 250 thousand a year should have to pay 70%. That would be totally unnecessary, and you would have a hard time finding brillent minds willing to go through medical school and law school and other professions for such a paltry future. Look, if you are going to have to get advanced degrees to qualify for your profession, and if your profession is then going to be demanding physically and emotionally, you are not going to do it without at least having financial comfort. You must reward excellence or excellence will disappear. And in America today, 250 thou is just comfort, that is not "wealth". Wealth is the 100 or so "owner class" families who are bringing in multi millions per year, and yes, they could pay a lot more, and if they did, we could solve our problems, and the middle class could still pay less.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

351. i do

[xultar]

2. YES There are some wealthy people who do great things with their money.

So yes, it is wrong to want to do away with them.

[tx_dem41]

5. "Do away with them"

Was that the question?

As in all polls, the problem is that "dispossess" is not defined.

[ChairOne]

10. Oh no! Someone spoke English and didn't define the words used!

Sheesh.

According to some dictionary the current usage of "dispossess" is:

"to put out of possession or occupancy <dispossessed the nobles of their land>"

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=dispossess&x=10&y=14

When xultar said "do away with them", s/he didn't necessarily mean to *kill* them, or some such thing. Simply taking away rich folks' money also counts as "doing away with them". On the face of it, there are two ways to get rid of rich people - take away the riches, or take away the people.

[tx_dem41]

17. Thank you for your kind reply.

:eyes:

I would have never thought of looking in the dictionary for a definition.

Now that we have out of the way, what do you mean by "dispossess"? By your use of the definition, I assume you mean taking away of ALL property and money (i.e. possessions). I am not for that of course. But the poll, alas, left me NO other options.

That is what is wrong with the poll.

And, while we are at it, the poll does not define "wealthy". Go ahead and look that one up.

[ChairOne]

55. But, you didn't say "wealthy" was the problem with this or any other poll.

Rather, you *specifically* said that the problem with every poll is that "dispossess" is not defined.

lol

All (ok most) humor aside, definitions don't get you very far (if anywhere). If it cannot be assumed that the listener is a competent speaker of English - and the poll question used English in a completely standard manner - then asking after definitions will simply lead to a useless regress. This is because definitions are given in, well, words. If you don't understand the original word, there's no reason to believe that you'll understand the words in its definition. And we're off and running on a regress of definitions.

It's conceivable that *specificity* could have been asked for, but "disposses" is pretty specific, as any competent English speaker knows.

LOL - for the poll to be meaningful for you, should it have had an infinite number of choices: take awway $1 from the rich, take away $2, $3,...? I wouldn't call it a "flaw" that the poll didn't do this, though some suitably philistine thinkers might.

The whole I-mean-by-"dispossess" versus you-mean-by-dispossess notion also leads to linguistic nihilism. I mean by it what any competent English speaker means by it. I share a language with competent English speakers, and "dispossess" is part of it.

[tx_dem41]

64. I agree with you with one amendment...

We have to assume that the listener AND the poll originator are competent speakers of English.

If the poll originator (who is conveniently absent from the thread..arrggh) meant dispossession in its totality, then I would be surprised if anyone voted for it. But, after a month on DU, nothing surprises me anymore.

[xultar]

34. THE ORIGINAL POST HAD DO AWAY WITH THEM...THEY CHANGED

THEIR POLL.
I reflect what they originally said. The "do away with them" was replaced by the word "disposess" which was added after my reply.

I'm keeping my reply the way it is to reflect the craziness of the original poll question.

[tx_dem41]

40. I'm sorry...and I agree...

as in all polls...stupid choices.

[rman]

16. so. most wealthy people do not do great things with their money

so we should leave them alone.

because some wealthy people do great things with their money, we should leave all wealthy people be?
interesting logic.

[xultar]

39. So, you wanna take wealthy people's money cuz you think they have too much

Okie dokie. If that doesn't sound crazy to you, then Democratic Underground isn't the place for me to be.

[rman]

57. if you think anyone can work a million times as hard as another,

(so that he supposedly has the *right* to be a million times as wealthy)
then maybe DU isn't for you.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

67. A Million times more

So, can you compare your musical skills to Mick Jagger or your baseball skills to Alex Rodrigues or your writing skills to Thomas Wolfe?

Mediocre doesn't pay well. Excellence pays very well.

If you make it difficult for people to really want excellence, then why strive for it?

[tx_dem41]

91. How can you judge how much a person's effort should be compensated?

I'll let a regulated free market do it.

[K-W]

101. Yah, lets leave matters of life and death up to chaotic systems.

What a great idea.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

106. As opposed to what?

Government control? Show me where that has worked.

[InvisibleBallots]

256. let's see - the US, Europe, Japan ...

need I go on? btw, AliciaKeyedup - have you ever met a corporation, casino, or wealty class that you didn't support?

[tx_dem41]

282. Have you ever met one you liked? n/t

[tx_dem41]

283. BTW....read some news....Japan's economy has been screwed up..

...for 15 years due to Government over-controlling the economy. Ever wonder why you don't read books any more about how great the Japanese businesses are?

ON Edit: Corrected spelling.

[tx_dem41]

112. What ordered system do you want to leave it up to? n/t

[sam sarrha]

21. Many MegaRich are mentally ill, Psychotic Obsessive Compulsive behavior

to acquire wealth in any means possible, regardless of the consequences or suffering of others. You know... like the Bu$h's

and i am serious ..no joke

[SlackJawedYokel]

32. I've always wondered about that "A" personality thing.

I'm thinking that pre-civilization these are the people who got eaten by wild animals and/or fell into tar pits because they just didn't know when to stop.
Know what I mean?

Cletus

[xultar]

43. You guys have gone off the DEEP end on this. If this is what progressive

is all about I can't hang.

This is just as crazy as some of the shit the fundies do.

[Shanty Oilish]

346. Thumbs up

:yourock: :loveya: :thumbsup: :hug: If you ever go, xultar, take me with you!!

[salin]

3. Depends upon the source of the wealth

that from graft... that from ridiculous compensation for poor stewardship of companies and industries... that from lobbysist bribes and payoffs... all of that ... nothing wrong with dispossession of illgotten gains.

wealth that is honestly earned, and is producing additional wealth for others (through economic endeavors) that is not hording resources but recognizing the value of better wages in the long run (companies do better when there is a broad consuming class, which requires disposable income)... whole different category altoegether.

One thing, this move towards putting the wieght of taxation on EARNED income (that is, economic productivity) is foolish - and moves us far backwards.

[benburch]

4. Most extreme wealth is not ethically aquired.

Case in point - Bill Gates.

He made his fortune by producing substandard actually dangerous software at inflated prices while using every legal and illegal trick in the book to eliminate competition.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

7. Bill Gates personally accelerated the computer revolution

And made tons of Microsoft employees and investors wealthy. I am no fan of his, but you understate his case.

[Vitruvius]

11. Bill Gates ripped off one computer innovator after another after another;

his wealth is stolen from the innovators who created the breathrus that he stole. And the Gov't nailed him on his rip-off of the Internet browser -- which is why Gates backed Bu$h in 2000, and the Bu$h administration repaid the favor by taking a dive on the settlement and letting Gates and Microsoft off scot-free.

So thieves like Gates are dangerous to all of us; Gates stealing other peoples' breakthrus (in particular, the Internet browser) led directly to Gates helping Bu$h steal the 2000 elections.

Damn right we should confiscate Gates -- at the very least so that he can never help another George W. Bu$h to power.

----------------


P.S: Bill Gates has RETARDED the PC revolution -- because nowadays, savvy innovators & investors know better to invest time & money in any breakthru that Bill Gates might one day decide to steal.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

15. Like it or not

What Bill Gates did worked. The railroads helped build America, but they were largely built by taking land from people in sleazy ways. It doesn't change the fact that they were wildly helpful.

[ChairOne]

24. People would do much better to blame IBM's hubris....

than Gates...

I'll leave the details as a research project...

[Vitruvius]

257. The breakthrus Gates stole ALREADY worked when he stole them --

of course "what Gates did worked"; but Bill Gates had nothing to do with making those breakthrus work -- or creating them. Gates and Microsoft are parasites on the PC revolution -- nothing more. And like all parasites, they sapped the vitality of their host; in this case by retarding progress and driving creative innovators out of the field...

But what Gates did did not work for the rest of us -- or for the innovators whose companies and lives he destroyed.

And tho' what Gates did in 2000 to help (s)elect Bu$h worked -- but only for Gates and his fellow Rethugnican thieves.

Stolen wealth is dangerous, because the Ken Lays, Bill Gates, and the like who do the stealing end up stealing the government as well.

[SlackJawedYokel]

18. Didn't he steal MSDOS?

Or somesuch?
I recall something fishy about how he "acquired" the version of DOS he turned into MSDOS.

But I concur... Gates and MS have done nothing positive for the PC revolution.

Cletus

[tx_dem41]

22. Please lay my fears to rest, and tell me that your PC

has Linux loaded on it.

[SlackJawedYokel]

26. Among other things. :D

Unfortunately, because of my profession I've actually had to pay for Microsoft products.

I look at it as justification for the right to bitch and whine about Microsoft rather than supporting them.
LOL

Cleteus

[tx_dem41]

36. Okay....I'll give you that one.

And extra points for a funny subject line!

[benburch]

68. My PC is a Mac. nt

[GodHelpUsAll2]

300. NO

He did not STEAL MS-DOS. I have always said Bill Gates never had an original idea in his life but he did not STEAL anything. Go Back and read up on it. IBM is still kicking themselves but he came to what he is now because he took an idea that already existed and followed through legitimately when no one else believed it would pan out. He gambled and it paid off. No one else was willing to take the chance.

The Swiss learned this lesson also with the invention of the quartz watch which they thought would NEVER EVER catch on. Well a little company named Seiko didn't agree. And the rest is history. Now the Swiss watch industry is no where near what it use to be and Seiko made a shit pile of money.

[tx_dem41]

301. Thank you for the information! I HOPE that everyone on the thread...

...reads it.

But, I feel its like when the paper prints a retraction inside the front section, three days later. No one sees it, and misinformation reigns supreme.

[SlackJawedYokel]

313. No, I distinctly recall that he "appropriated"

a version of DOS that was *not* developed by Microsoft.

Quite obviously "steal" was a bit of hyperbole on my part, but the intent is the same.
IIRC, he didn't pay the author of that bit of DOS for his services/product and might have even been sued over it.
Not that this means much.
A judge decided that the MS version of Windows didn't actually infringe the Apple version... which is complete horsepoop as anyone with half a brain can tell discern.

Cletus

[GodHelpUsAll2]

323. He got DOS

from IBM. And Windows basically came from Xerox. Bill Gates "bought" it, formed Microsoft and tweaked it then sold the hell out of it as Microsoft Windows. Did he really "develop" any of it? Not really. But it still doesn't change the fact that IBM didn't believe personal PC's would ever be as huge as they are today thus their decision to sell off DOS to that fool Bill Gates who had a pie in the sky plan that they believed would never come to fruition. It's the EXACT same situation with the Swiss. Seeing as they are the ones that "developed/invented" the quarts watch not Seiko.

I don't get why people are so quick to condemn Bill Gates. So he used someone else's idea. Big deal. That someone else was willing to unload it because of their belief that it would never amount to anything. We can all relate to the "Damn, I should have/have not done -----". Bill Gates could have failed in that venture and no one would be saying a word other than what a fool he is.

As for the comments that Bill Gates did nothing for the computer industry. That may very well be the case for some, but I would venture to guess that all those people that bought MS operating systems and software and made him that 45 billion might disagree with you.

[xultar]

50. Didn't the Nazis do shit like this because they thought the Jews were

too wealthy? :shrug:

[ThorsHammer]

279. Very well said

I'd favor (relatively) low income tax, as this money is earned, and extremely high inheritance tax, as this money is not earned.

[Sporadicus]

6. Not Exactly Total Dispossession

but I definitely favor progressive taxation. I recall from economics classes arguments that too-aggressive taxation stifles the incentive and initiative for entrepreneurs to create new wealth. I argued back that, if these overly-wealthy individuals don't want to work harder in order to overcome that obstacle to quicker accumulation of wealth, they should get the hell out of the way. Allow NEW entrepreneurs from the middle class to step up and lead the way - entrepreneurs whose prime motivation isn't profit margin.

For all the uproar about 'librul perfessers' in our universities, that 'pug professor really chapped my ass! Perhaps that's why I got a 'C' in her macroeconomics class.

[Vitruvius]

8. The Bu$h-Rethug wealthy disposess US every chance they get --

from their raid on our Social Security (which WE paid for with our FICA), to their eliminating taxes on the income of the wealthy -- so that only wage-earners like us pay taxes, to their Medicare drug plan that funnels OUR tax money direct to Big Pharma (with no benefit whatsoever to old people), to their fat-cat no-bid contracts to Halliburton and the like, and on and on and on.

If the Bu$h-Rethug rich have no respect for OUR money, OUR assets, OUR national treasury, and OUR property rights, why should we have any respect for their alleged property rights?

Damned right we should confiscate those rich Rethug thieves!

[InvisibleBallots]

9. The truth about property

No one can truly own more than they can carry in both hands while running full speed.

[ChairOne]

12. Not quite....

... they only have to run faster than the guy next to them... (which may or may not be full speed)

[SlackJawedYokel]

19. Damn... now *that* is a new one. :D

Would make moving much easier.

Cletus

[sam sarrha]

13. they are the only ones who can afford it

[B Calm]

20. Is it wrong for the wealthy to keep working people wages low?

Damn right it is!

[Nadienne]

226. Damn right!!! Although,

this doesn't address the wages that are kept low because of corporations, where it's not one rich guy keeping wages low, but a board of directors or CEOs, doing it "for" the stockholders.

[iamjoy]

23. Non-Earned Income, yes

I know what the Conservatives whine about being double taxed, but I think we should have higher tax rates on non-earned income (inherited, investment returns). If you inherit money, you didn't really work for that wealth, you were just lucky enough to be born to rich parents.

I read an interesting Sci Fi book (Ursula LeGuin's "The Left Hand of Darkness") and on this fictional planet, children were essentially raised by the state (government) so everyone had the same education, etc. Their tax rate was not progressive, you pretty much got to keep and spend whatever you (through your hardwork) earned. But, when you died, you could not leave your money to your children, it went to the government. It is an interesting concept, respecting free enterprise, but trying to give everyone an equal chance.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

27. So I can't scrimp and save for my children?

That's ridiculous.

[SlackJawedYokel]

35. So you don't *have* to scrimp and save for your children.

Kinda frees up your finances, don't ya think?

Cletus

[AliciaKeyedUp]

37. Not really

I don't want the government telling me how to spend my money. I don't know anyone who does in fact.

[SlackJawedYokel]

44. How do you figure that is different from what is happening now?

Do you not pay taxes at all?
Quite obviously as citizens with a vote we get some say in how much we are taxed and perhaps even how our taxes are spent.
But unless you willfully live below the poverty line and engage in barter or cash-only transactions, you don't really have the option of *not* paying taxes.

Cletus

[AliciaKeyedUp]

45. Taxes go to fund services, MY money goes to fund what I choose

You are essentially saying the government can mandate how you spend 100%. I'll never agree to that.

[SlackJawedYokel]

61. Services?

You mean like the quagmire in Iraq?
Or the $256 million dollar jet fighter that has nothing to fight against?
Or the multi-billion dollar stealth helicopter program that was de-funded halfway thru in such a manner that the US taxpayer has to pay the contractors *in full* for what is now a useless project?

You are essentially saying the government can mandate how you spend 100%. I'll never agree to that.
Unfortunately, I'm not "essentially" saying that at all.

Have you *read* Left Hand of Darkness?

Cletus

[AliciaKeyedUp]

62. I don't have to like the choices

But yes, my tax dollars are funding Iraq. If you are a U.S. citizen, so are yours.

I loved LeGuin when I was young, but it's been too many years. I did see Earthsea and boy was I disappointed.

If you tell me I can't give my money to my children, then you are mandating how I can spend it.

[SlackJawedYokel]

79. And if I tell you that you can't give your money to

your drug dealer?
Isn't that mandating ow you can spend your money?

I loved LeGuin when I was young,
But did you read the book in question?

The point was that it is no longer *necessary* to need to provide for your children because the government did it for you, thereby ensuring the needs of society for a well-fed, well-educated and therefore hopefully more poductive, citizen.

Cletus

[AliciaKeyedUp]

85. Comparing apples to oxcarts

Trying to say I can't buy illegal drugs is like saying I can't help my children is like saying the Earth is a baseball because it is round.

Yes, I read the book more years ago than I can remember. (10, 11, something like that.) I don't recall anything about it except that I read it.

And no, it's not the government's place to tell ME what's necessary for MY children.

[SlackJawedYokel]

264. No, actually it isn't.

It *is* and example of the government actually *telling* you what you can and cannot do with your money by making certain transactions *illegal*.

At some point in the late 19th/early 20th century you could purchase, quite legally, cocaine from your local phramacy.

Yes, I read the book more years ago than I can remember. (10, 11, something like that.) I don't recall anything about it except that I read it.
Ok... just checking as you seem to be reinterpreting what was refered to in the post.

And no, it's not the government's place to tell ME what's necessary for MY children.
And again, you're just wrong.
The government tells you all kinds of things about how you *must* deal with your children.
It will take your chidlren away from you and/or put you in jail if you do *not* provide necessities.

You are not nearly as free as you seem to think you are.

Cletus

[Bridget Burke]

48. "Scrimping & saving" does not produce the kind of fortune...

That makes Estate Taxes kick in.

Scrimp away....

[AliciaKeyedUp]

53. It can

If you save and buy the right piece of land that a developer wants, it can mean millions. I am not advocating saving and stuffing the cash in a mattress.

[SlackJawedYokel]

65. Anything is *possible*.

You could also win the lottery or hit it big in Vegas with your scrimpings.
About as compelling an argument as the idea that playing the stock market with Social Security is a good thing.

I am not advocating saving and stuffing the cash in a mattress.
And what has this got to do with what was originally posted?

I think you're reacting to something you *think* was said, not what was actually said.

Cletus

[AliciaKeyedUp]

73. To summarize

I don't want anyone telling me I can't give my wealth -- whatever it is -- to my children. Most parents wish to save as much as they can so that their kids have it better than they do.

[salin]

84. funny how we are back to discussions that were

prevalent in the shift between the gilded era vs post depression era.

The shift towards more favorable taxation on productivity based income (eg working) vs more taxes on wages and better taxation rates on investments came in the post gilded era... and is attributed as a big factor towards the great expansion of the middle class that occured in the post depression era.

The point isn't the level of the taxation (imo) vs the priorties of taxation and where the greatest burden falls. I believe that currently many people are taxed at a higher rate on their wages and a lower rate on investments... but that most Americans don't have a great deal of investments - thus the burden falls more heavily upon the wage earners. The ideology behind this shift is that more money left (at the top end) would be invested in ways that would economically benefit others via new businesses, etc. However the current move towards globalization has led much of that "extra" wealth going to off-shore tax shelters (another way to let spare money accumulate more quickly - while wage earners keep having to pay the same without similar opportunties) and towards investment in the market - which - with the exception of IPOS - tends to be just paper investment rather than investment in more jobs (save in the financial industries) which generate more overall wealth. In short, the shift in world economics has left trickle down economics even less effective than it was in the 1980s...

[SlackJawedYokel]

265. Would it be accurate to say

that America was at its most productive when taxes on the working/middle class were at their lowest?

I believe that currently many people are taxed at a higher rate on their wages and a lower rate on investments... but that most Americans don't have a great deal of investments - thus the burden falls more heavily upon the wage earners.
And if *only* this were some sort of accident, I might feel better about it...

The ideology behind this shift is that more money left (at the top end) would be invested in ways that would economically benefit others via new businesses, etc.
I think Bush Daddy got it right the first time he encountered Voodoo Economics, right?
:D

In short, the shift in world economics has left trickle down economics even less effective than it was in the 1980s...
Which would be "not at all", right?

Cletus

[salin]

280. hehe... per the last statement

would say the first time it was "not at all" effective... this time around... down right diabolical.

[salin]

70. Estate taxes only kick in after a sizeable amount gets passed

on... something like 2 million dollars before it kicks in (and only that above that level gets taxed at the higher rate.)

[davepc]

357. its one million

and after that its a sliding scale that goes from 45-60+ish %.

So work hard and invest wisely and try to make a better future for your children and grand children, but don't work TOO hard for it, because if your too successful then the fruits of your labor get taken after you die to pay for bombs in Iraq, instead of whatever you chose to leave your estate too.

[davepc]

356. BS

My grandfather was a union man who never made more then 50k a year in salary and left a multimillion dollar esate when he died because he never bought anything he didnt need, and invested his money wisely.

[tx_dem41]

31. Non-earned income is not just inherited money.

That being said, I have no problem with the current inheritance tax or going back to the system where there was no distinction between earned and non-earned income (non-inheritance).

[salin]

74. I could be incorrect, but I believe that changes in the tax code

in that direction led to a long period of economic expansion and a great increase in the middle class in the forties through sixties (and beyond?)

Part of the point was to put the greatest emphasis on productivity based income (work/wages).

[tx_dem41]

86. I'm confused (the thread is going lots of places)...

are you talking about changes in tax code re: non-earned or earned income?

[salin]

92. it has gone both ways

and as often happens in public policy - each time going to the extreme. First the shift in priorities towards earned income (lower tax vs higher tax on non earned)... went too far... now the shift back, imo, has gone to far - especially given the shifts to how the unearned gets invested (back to lesser benefits to the general US economy via jobs, etc.)

[Coyote_Bandit]

30. What Makes Someone Wealthy?

A smart healthy fourteen year old who has never worked and has $500,000.00 in the bank is something very different from a retired widowed physically incapicated woman with the same sum on deposit in her bank.

[xultar]

58. Let's not interrupt the discussion with some logical shit like this...

let's storm the streets with torches and take shit from people whom the mob thinks of as wealthy.

Let's string'em up by golly.

So, once they get the shit won't they be wealthy? Then who will string them up?

[InvisibleBallots]

148. you sound worried?

You should be. Not much longer now.

[Coyote_Bandit]

243. There is nothing wrong

with having a financial incentive to work hard and do well, to save for a rainy day, or for future retirement, or health challenges, or to benefit one's family.

There is something very wrong with using and abusing other people in order to do so. There ought to be safeguards against and negative consequences for such behavior. There is something very wrong with a system that encourages rather than discourages such behavior. There is something very wrong with aspiring to be financially rich rather than to work hard and do good work and to love, care for, provide for and share with one's family, community, and world.

And, yes, I think that accepting excessive compensation is a form of using and abusing other people. And I think that celebrities and athletes are just as guilty as CEOs.

Problem is that financial wealth cannot be measured simply in terms of an income stream or the accumulation of value. It must somehow consider the investment of personal effort to develop skills, knowledge and abilities which is often uncompensated as well as present and future needs. Personally my crystal ball isn't up to that task.

The problem is much broader than greedy, arrogant, obnoxious, rich people. It is systemic. Many who aspire to wealth by any means bear as much responsibility as those who are wealthy.

The problem isn't wealth - a subjective measure. The problem is GREED.

[BernieBear]

340. Coyote Bandit I agree with much you said, maybe not all

but thank you for at least sounding like an intelligent human being instead of a 12 year old as some of these posts here are beginning to sound. reasoned analysis - such a joy...... :hug:

[Az]

33. Sometime it becomes a necessity

As disparity in income increases (ooh illiteration) the accumulation of resources becomes destructive. When the motivation is not the betterment of the human condition then it can sometimes take dangerous paths. This is why we regulate things. To adjust the balance. But the current regieme and business model has overcome the systems regulations. It may be necissary to get a bit uppity to restore the balance.

[K-W]

42. It depends on what you mean.

Is it wrong to change the structure so they make less in the future. No, that is right.

Is it wrong to tax the heck out of them anytime they want to use thier wealth. No, that is right.

Is it wrong to make sure thier estate is taxed as the luxery it is when they die, no, that is right.

Is it wrong to go in and take the things they have now... Yes, I believe so.

[Bridget Burke]

56. Whatever happened to "enlightened self interest"?

As shown by wealthy people who realize that they don't need ALL the money?

A progressive tax system that allows others to do well lessens the chances the wealthy actually will be "dispossessed." And stood up against a wall.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

78. Threatening them with being stood up against a wall

Is not a way to get people to cooperate. It's a way to get them to fight you.

[Bridget Burke]

109. Just giving a little historical background.

Keep on scrimping!

[SlackJawedYokel]

82. Don't you recall the 80's?

"Greed is good".

There are not nearly enough enlightened wealthy folks in the US any more.

Cletus

[salin]

87. you mean like Henry Ford increasing wages

because it made good business sense (expand the market) if his workers could afford to become his customers?

[tx_dem41]

117. Where has anyone on this thread argued against a progressive..

tax system???

[Minstrel Boy]

77. "You poor take courage - you rich take care"

"The Earth was made a common treasury, for everyone to share."


"The earth is to be planted and the fruits reaped and carried into barns and storehouses by the assistance of every family. And if any man or family want corn or other provision, they may go to the storehouses and fetch without money. If they want a horse to ride, go into the fields in summer, or to the common stables in winter, and receive one from the keepers, and when your journey is performed, bring him where you had him, without money." - Gerrard Winstanley



The History of the Diggers:

In January, 1649, Gerrard Winstanley published The New Law of Righteousness. In the pamphlet he wrote: "In the beginning of time God made the earth. Not one word was spoken at the beginning that one branch of mankind should rule over another, but selfish imaginations did set up one man to teach and rule over another."

Soon after publishing The New Law of Righteousness he established a group called the Diggers. In April 1649 Winstanley, William Everard, a former soldier in the New Model Army and about thirty followers took over some common land on St George's Hill in Surrey and "sowed the ground with parsnips, carrots and beans."

Digger groups also took over land in Kent (Cox Hill), Surrey (Cobham), Buckinghamshire (Iver) and Northamptonshire (Wellingborough). Local landowners were very disturbed by these developments. In July 1649 the government gave instructions for Winstanley to be arrested and for General Thomas Fairfax to "disperse the people by force" in case this is the "beginning to whence things of a greater and more dangerous consequence may grow".

Oliver Cromwell is reported to have said: "What is the purport of the levelling principle but to make the tenant as liberal a fortune as the landlord. I was by birth a gentleman. You must cut these people in pieces or they will cut you in pieces." Instructions were given for the Diggers to be beaten up and for their houses, crops and tools to be destroyed. These tactics were successful and within a year all the Digger communities in England had been wiped out.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/STUdiggers.htm



The World Turned Upside Down

In 1649
To St George's Hill
A ragged band they called the Diggers
Came to show the people' s will
They defied the landlords
They defied the laws
They were the dispossessed
Reclaiming what was theirs

We come in peace, they said
To dig and sow
We come to work the land in common
And to make the waste land grow
This earth divided
We will make whole
So it can be
A common treasury for all.

The sin of property
We do disdain
No one has any right to buy and sell
The earth for private gain
By theft and murder
They took the land
Now everywhere the walls
Rise up at their command.

They make the laws
To chain us well
The clergy dazzle us with heaven
Or they damn us into hell
We will not worship
The God they serve
The God of greed who feeds the rich
While poor men starve

We work, we eat together
We need no swords
We will not bow to masters
Or pay rent to the lords
We are free men
Though we are poor
You Diggers all stand up for glory
Stand up now

From the men of property
The orders came
They sent the hired men and troopers
To wipe out the Diggers' claim
Tear down their cottages
Destroy their corn
They were dispersed -
Only the vision lingers on

You poor take courage
You rich take care
The earth was made a common treasury
For everyone to share
All things in common
All people one
We come in peace
The order came to cut them down



From the commemoration of the 350th anniversary of the Diggers, a march to reclaim the commons of St George's Hill, which is now a private golf course:













http://tash.gn.apc.org/diggers_350.htm

[Turbineguy]

83. The nice thing about having money

is you have more choices what to do with it. That seems to be more ther nature of the problem in this discussion.

If I ever have enough money to buy a $5000 shower curtain, rest assured, there will be no hungry or sick children in the world.

[0007]

123. When I look at slum lords, greedy landlords, attorney without scruples'

Corporations that abuse their workers, companies like the Carlyle Group and Haliburton that love war for the sake of a buck, and folks that hide money in off shore banking schemes to avoid taxes.

Most all these crooks will tell 'ya, that they love their country in the name of Jays'us Christ. And their children & friends will tell 'ya that these folks are the best of the rest and wouldn't hurt a fly.

Prisons aren't for white collar crime. If you have money you'll most likely never do time for wholesale robbery of the poor or murder

I say "YES" if that person isn't clean!

[0007]

134. When I look at slum lords, greedy landlords, attorney without scruples'

Corporations that abuse their workers, companies like the Carlyle Group and Haliburton that love war for the sake of a buck, and folks that hide money in off shore banking schemes to avoid taxes.

Most all these crooks will tell 'ya, that they love their country in the name of Jays'us Christ. And their children & friends will tell 'ya that these folks are the best of the rest and wouldn't hurt a fly.

Prisons aren't for white collar crime. If you have money you'll most likely never do time for wholesale robbery of the poor or murder

I say "YES" if that person isn't clean!

[MAlibdem]

152. Yes...

We need economic policies that better distribute wealth and ensure all have equal access to creating wealth for themselves, but forcibly taking wealth through means other than taxation undermines societal cohesion.

[welshTerrier2]

170. aaaaaaaarrrrrrggghhhhhh !!

what a totally lame discussion much of this was ...

it lacked any sense of purpose ... "we should tax 90% over $250K" because people don't need more money than that is absurd ... that's no reason to establish a tax policy ... "the government shouldn't be able to blah, blah, blah and "it's communism" is equally lame ...

we should set tax policy as follows:
1. define the real needs of the country and its citizens
2. tax based on ability to pay

now, we should approach tax policy with the following two understandings that stand in direct opposition to each other:
1. we should respect the right of the individual to pursue wealth and
2. great wealth ALWAYS corrupts democracy.

so, whatever the ultimate amount agreed on is, and i would set it much higher than $250K, we should have a 100% tax rate on both income, property and inheritance above this amount ... and the purpose for this is not communism, the purpose is not to "stick it to the wealthy", the purpose is to recognize that we will never be able to adequately regulate the corruption of our democratic institutions by the super wealthy ... campaign finance reforms have not and will not work and neither will efforts to restrict lobbying ... we simply cannot allow those with great wealth to buy our government ...

we need to change how we tax to protect our freedoms, not to take freedom away from people ...

[AliciaKeyedUp]

180. So the government gets to decide how much I own?

So, let's say I buy a painting by some obscure painter named Picasso and later on he becomes famous and my painting becomes worth a fortune, now I have to sell it?

Limiting wealth is a ridiculous and unworkable concept.

[salin]

193. I think the poster wasn't trying to argue

the same argument... but was trying to suggest that the conversation we are having is pointless and unproductive - governments need money to run - the discussion should be about what that means ... what we should spend money on and at what rate - and then setting tax policy accordingly.

Frankly that is a discussion that would be very healthy for our society - and one that would get away from the knee jerk responses that show up on both sides throughout this thread.

Imagine a discussion on whether or not we are concerned about children in poverty having food provided through schools... is this of social value or not?

Imagine a discussion (one we need to have locally) about whether or not having an ambulance service is necessary or if only those who can pay or have insurance should use the service? (ours is running in bankruptcy but the county won't pay more... frankly I believe the service will be abolished in the next couple of years before folks realize the relationship between their local taxes and services like this - then again they may believe that it is a luxury and not worth the tax dollars - either way we NEED to have these discussions.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

206. The poster talked about maximum limits on wealth

Who gets to decide? How do you monitor it?

[salin]

212. Said a great deal more than that

you seemed to have read only what you wanted to read. Okay - lets drop the premise of any point of 100% taxation (that seems silly to me) but then consider the rest of the post...

[AliciaKeyedUp]

218. But the poster also said that

100% tax on everything above a certain (not too high) point.

I'd prefer to focus on that lunacy.

[salin]

221. helloooo

I just asked - if given that were stricken (and agreed that it was ridiculous...btw) could you discuss the idea of moving such discussions about taxation policy away from the two extremes (tax all... tax nothing...) to looking at our spending priorities and real needs, and THEN - when having a real discussion on that - discuss how to tax in a way that meets the agreed upon needs.

The post was much more about HOW we need to approach the discussion than anything else.

So forget that part of the post - the idea of refocusing tax discussions so that people connect taxes to services and have to finally come to a consensus about what we spend and why, and then look at what that means in terms of levels of taxation.

Point - take the no tax vs the tax all ideology out of the discussion... and start over (as a society) about what taxation is and what we believe the role of government should or should not be...

[AliciaKeyedUp]

224. I am all for a discussion

But when the person who proposes it also proposes 100% taxation, the other idea gets lost.

[welshTerrier2]

228. so, if you become blind in one eye

you will not try to see with the other ???

[AliciaKeyedUp]

232. I see just fine

And I see a discussion with ulterior motives.

[salin]

230. I ask elsewhere - but will ask here

is there a level 0f taxation, on the type of wealth accumulation you describe below (your property, your inheritance) that you would find acceptable?

Personally it seems that it should be taxed at the rate established for that level of income. That is - if the top tax bracket is 35%, and I suddenly receive an inheritance which puts me into that tax bracket.. it should be taxed at that rate. Doesn't make sense to me that Joe Blow working at the car mechanic's on the corner should be paying as much, or more as a percentage of his wages, than I would be on such an inheritance.

If to pay our bills we come to the point (if we are not reaching it already) where Joe Blow ends up having to pay a greater percentage of the burden as we weight wages as most taxable and lower the rest on all other types of income... then it seems that poor old Joe is getting royally screwed.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

234. I answered elsewhere

But if I spend my life saving for my children, paying taxes all along the way, why is that taxed yet again when I die?

[salin]

244. not really that different

than my money that I earned, and was taxed on, that earns a small bit of interest and gets taxed again. Per the inheritance - it suddenly is income to the children. At a fair rate (and since I view it as income to the inheritee I would suggest that the income tax rate is reasonable) it is simply taxing not you, but the income now coming to your child.

If the inheritance bumps me into a slightly higher tax rate - that at the year of the inheritance - I pay at that higher rate. I would make some kind of provision/exemption (as already existed) for assets such as land, home, business, in which the asset is hard, not liquid and the only way the tax could be paid upon it would be to liquidate and thus "break up the farm/busines/etc." Not sure how that would work - but there are crafty enough lawyers to figure out how to write this.

[Pithlet]

309. Why should income

that wasn't earned not be taxed, while income that WAS earned, is? Why should your kids not have to pay taxes on money that they accquire, just because it came from you, and not a paycheck? They are receiving money that they did not previously have. They should have to pay taxes on that, just like anyone else. They did not earn that income, it just fell into their hands. Look, I have kids, too. I plan on having something left over for them, but I do not believe that it should be tax free anymore than anything else they earn or receive.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

355. The income was earned -- by me

A gift within a family (which is what an inheritance is) should not be taxed again.

[welshTerrier2]

241. the buying of the government

it seems you have completely ignored the issue I raised about great wealth corrupting our democratic institutions ... this sits at the core of my proposed tax policies ...

i have no problem with anyone referring to my call for 100% taxation above some amount of wealth as being ridiculous or "lunacy" ... both characterizations have been used in this thread ... but neither of those who made these references addressed the great harm that massive wealth has done in this country ...

if you don't agree that our government has been sold to the highest bidder, it's no wonder you wouldn't agree with my tax policies ... central to my call for such draconian taxation is the belief that we will never be able to protect our democracy when those who finance the campaigns of elected officials pay for those campaigns ... and our system grows even weaker when the hall of Congress and the doors of the White House are only open to those who "help" our elected officials maintain their positions ... and of course, we have the little matter of the super wealthy gaining control of our mass media ... as their power grows greater and greater, just how can we go about protecting ourselves?

to look too narrowly at the "needs of the society", as i believe you have, will surely alienate you from my position ... i am in full agreement with your examples about looking at the specific needs we need to fund ... but not all of our needs involve more spending; to preserve our democracy will require less access for special interests ... and that may be the greatest "need of our society" ... if we don't address this soon, we may not be able to address it at all ...

[salin]

247. I find complete taking by the government

to be as bad as complete enserfing by policy at the lower ends.

Per graft via campaigns... am for a completely public campaign, shorter time frame with curbs on the types of Commercial (eg bought airwaves) Free Speech by organizations.

[welshTerrier2]

251. progressive taxation ..

i believe not too long ago, we had a much steeper, much more progressive tax rate structure ... i vaguely recall (memory not so good) that upper brackets were around 90% ... whether it's 100% rates, or something sharply graduated but short of that, and keep in mind that we're talking about wealth likely to be in the millions of dollars, the goal is not a "taking by the government" but a protection of the ideals of that government ...

on the issues you cited about campaign graft, public campaigns and access to the airwaves, i 100% agree ... that is what should be sitting at the center of all of these tax discussions ... well, that and the issue of paid lobbyists ...

and then, within these discussions, we have to assess whether we will ever be able to legislate our way to a place that protects us from the problems we've seen with each of these issues ... we've tried campaign finance reform ... we haven't done too well ... we've tried balancing media access with "equal time" provisions ... we haven't done too well ... i think that law was even repealed although i'm not sure ... we are seeing a great consolidation of power by those in control of our country ... it's getting worse and worse at a rapidly increasing rate ...

so look, let's continue fighting for the reforms you seek ... on this, we stand fully united ... but let's understand that all of the reforms you cited are necessary because of the abuses of our institutions that great wealth enables ... if we can legislate against these abuses, that would be the best solution ... why restrict anyone's right to become wealthy? but if we our legislation fails, we have to be ready to go the next step ... wealth in this country has a way of oozing under the doors of Congress and into places we've tried to restrain it ... i'm at the point now where i don't believe we can solve the problem while massive wealth exists ... i don't think we will ever be able to set an appropriate standard to protect our institutions ... i understand you don't agree with this ... all i would say, is that i don't see my ideas as a first step ... i see them as a response to our failures to protect our democracy ... and i fully support your call to keep searching for legislation that will solve the problem ... as i said, that's the ultimate goal ...

[salin]

252. per lobbyst money and corruption of the system

imo, it is far greater a threat that campaign funding.

Studied the whole energy policy debates - which pushed me to look into HOW enron got the type of energy deregulation ... all about their method. They first lobbied (to great success) the executive branch. Then with the regulators on their side the won over legislators. Great paper on this (very detailed and foot-noted (is that even a word?) via Public Citizen. They appeared to have done the same thing in California to great success.

When Enron imploded it was reported that the campaign gifts was just a portion of what they gave if you also counted lobbying which FAR exceeded the campaign giving.

btw just yesterday I stumbled on a website that discloses lobbying expenditures by organization and sectors. Can't recall where I found it - probably linked either through CalPundit or through Atrios.

[salin]

255. adding link:

http://www.politicalmoneyline.com/

[welshTerrier2]

260. and another link ...

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1229-02.htm

[salin]

261. obscene amounts of money.

[welshTerrier2]

220. "the poster" also talked about the REASONS for limiting wealth

and I did not suggest there shouldn't be an open process to discuss the issue ... frankly, you're guilty of your own argument ...

your point is that there should be no limits on wealth because YOU say so ... i take no issue with those who vote to disagree with me; but i have great disagreement with those who refuse to engage in the discussion ...

i would also point out that you made no response whatsoever to the key point i raised ... whatever our tax policy is, it should derive from a purpose greater than "make everyone equal" or "the government has no right to take MY money" ... in my view, both of these arguments are without substance ...

as i stated above, i am not anti-wealth ... in fact, i think we should define a society that provides as much freedom to the individual as we possibly can ... and that includes the freedom to seek wealth ...

but we cannot bury our heads in the sand, like ostriches, and ignore the realities that massive wealth has created ... the citizens no longer control their government ... getting elected requires so much capital that only the very wealthy have meaningful access to our elected representatives ... we continue to allow paid lobbyists to do the bidding of the super wealthy and buy the favors of elected officials ... this system is nothing more than legalized bribery ...

my call for severe taxation above some amount of wealth seeks to set our democracy above our rights to capitalistic greed ... if you view the rights of the individual in isolation from the rest of society, i'm sure you'll disagree ... but whether you agree or not, the truth is that our government has been sold to those who can afford it ... some still seek remedy through legislation such as campaign finance reform and restrictions on lobbyists ... i think these efforts are doomed to failure ... in fact, recent efforts have indeed failed ...

so you go and cling to your Picasso paintings and your chance at "the American dream" as you see it ... my American dream is a democracy where each citizen, regardless of wealth, has an equal chance to petition the government and participate in the determination of national policy ... and my call for radical tax reform is the first step to building that future ... if you see another way to reconstitute our democracy, i'm all ears ...

[AliciaKeyedUp]

229. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

If you start taking my wealth, my property, etc. you are limiting all three.

Whether an open or closed process to accomplish that, the result is the same -- theft.

The government should not be in the business of making everyone equal. We aren't equal. Some are smarter, prettier, more ambitious, more hard-working, etc. Should they be penalized?

You propose a society where seeking wealth is fine, until it hits your limit (which was pretty low, I might add).

When have citizens ever controlled our government? The aristocracy led us from England. The aristocracy (or elites) have ALWAYS run things.

You dream for a utopia. I don't see ANY possibility where wealth, knowledge and power don't influence results. And there is never a way to stop those from occurring.

[welshTerrier2]

249. "my limit" on wealth

you said: until it hits your limit (which was pretty low, I might add).

in response to what i said:

"so, whatever the ultimate amount agreed on is, and i would set it much higher than $250K, we should have a 100% tax rate on both income, property and inheritance above this amount ..."

the limit i would set, and i gave no amount, was a limit at which the super wealthy could not easily gain disproportionate access to OUR government.

The government should not be in the business of making everyone equal.

i couldn't agree more ... nor did i call for any such thing ... but when it comes to access to the government, when it comes to a system that allows pharmaceutical companies to buy support for legislation that helps them at the expense of the health and welfare of the American people, when wars are fought to benefit defense contractors and big oil, it is time to strip the tools of power our tax system has provided to these people ...

as i said, i choose the tax system ... if you have another way, i'm all ears ... the goal is not restriction of wealth; the goal is the reconstitution of our democracy ...

and one last point on "utopia" ... is there something wrong with having "ideals"?? there is nothing I wrote to suggest that i believe we can ever achieve a "perfect" society ... there will never be a day when the goals i seek of each person having perfectly equal access to share in the decisions of the government will be realized ... but if your point is that just because we can't get all the way there we shouldn't even try, i totally disagree ...

[K-W]

201. Why are you on this forum?

If you believe that we should let wealth accumulate freely?

You do realize that once all the wealth is accumulated, the economy is destroyed and everyone outside of the wealthy will die, right?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

207. I am on this forum because I agree with many of the issues here

Didn't know agreeing to a government taking of all wealth above a certain point was the litmus test. Please point me to where it says that in the rules.

[K-W]

216. Strawman.

No one mentioned all of anyones wealth.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

217. Try reading the posts next time

Post 170:

"so, whatever the ultimate amount agreed on is, and i would set it much higher than $250K, we should have a 100% tax rate on both income, property and inheritance above this amount."

Taxing property and inheritance 100% is a tax on wealth, not just income.

[K-W]

219. First of all, not entirely. Second of all you said ALL wealth.

So why dont YOU try reading it again.

Inheritance is not wealth, it is a transfer of wealth.
Property is a portion of wealth, but a portion we already tax.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

222. My inheritance is my wealth, my property is my wealth

Both are what I accumulate in life. The poster proposes 100% taxation. That's not taxation, it's theft.

As for the term property, that is open to interpretation.

Imagine this scenario:

A good friend of mine is part Jewish. She had one relative escape Hitler's Germany. He got out with a little bit of jewelry and one painting. That painting is now hers and has great value. (Seven figures, insured.) To her, it is a symbol of her family, not an asset. Would the poster vote to take that away above a certain value?

Suppose it was family land? Again, if the land became valuable, would the poster support government theft of the land?

[salin]

225. is there any level of taxation

on the wealth you describe, that you would accept? Is there a reasonable level or is no level reasonable?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

231. Of course there is a reasonable level

Based on reasonable governmental and societal needs. If you are looking for a number, don't ask. I'd want to spend about a month of intense study with the top experts to work that out.

But taxing wealth is a virtual impossibility because much wealth is in assets around the home -- like jewelry and such.

[salin]

238. Fair enough

I was getting the sense that folks were arguing past one another and then imputing motiviations that were not necessarily there based on the valence of the arguments offered. Eg some of your responses could be read (granted this is due to spending too much time with knee jerk limbots) as don't tax what I want to pass on in inheritance... ever. Likewise I think some (like myself) reacting to this were read to be suggesting that we agree with an insane level of taxation at the upper limits - also never stated (or meant) but probably read because those sentiments to frequently get bandied about as well.

Personally I think the points of taxation are as it comes in, or in the sense of property when it is bought. However in the case of land - some ongoing taxation - recirpocal with the costs of local services (which services and priorities are voted upon locally) makes sense to me.

Hadn't really read things to infer what you suggest - a sort of "inventory" taxation - that makes no sense to me. To difficult to assess and to do so consistently and to do so equitably (so the impoverished family that kept the heirloom.... etc.)

I don't know what the "reasonable" rate is, either. Though I have grown disturbed with the long "no taxes" discussion in this country which is absent of any discussion of what realities that incurs. Hence my example of the ambulance service I described earlier. I think it paved the way for the extreme disconnect, and therefor acceptance of the fiscal policies of this administration.

Cutting the deficit in half in 5 years. As if that is any good/help. Even at that rate the annual deficits would be higher than the record deficits brought by his father. And by that time how large of a percentage of each tax dollar would then go simply to paying off the interest on the accumulated debt. I did some budget policy work back in the eighties. At that time the third largest single expenditure in the budget was... servicing the debt. Haven't seen any discussion of this in the past four years. Have to wonder how it now compares to the other two- defense spending and Social Security (which of course isn't really in the same category as we skim off the net reciepts to pay our other debts off.)

Me, I would rather my money go to a safe neighborhood than paying off Bush's debt.

[K-W]

239. Inheritance is inherited, thus it is not your wealth, it is your parents'

If you accumulate it in life it is, by definition, not inherited.

After you inheret it, it ceases to be inheritance and becomes whatever you do with it. It is at the transfer where it is and should be taxed and when it belongs to no one as the person who owned it died.

What is to interpret about property? It is part of weatlh, and some of it is currently taxed.

If you are going to spin things, there is no point in discussing this. Taxes are not theft. Families do not own land, people do. And I do not know what the poster would say about famil heirlooms that do not change hands. Personally, I would not tax them.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

262. If I save all my life to give something to my kids, that is my right

It is mine to give, not yours to take.

When someone says tax property 100%, what do they mean? Tax land? Tax cars? Tax jewelry? Art? Antiques? Come into my home and do an inventory of all I own?

100% taxes are indeed theft.

[salin]

263. this interchange, I believe

is two people talking past each other about not quite the same thing. One is about 100% of all being passed on... the other seems to be talking about viewing inheritance as income but does not seem to suggest 100%. Would recommend finding out if you are indeed arguing the same things... KW - are you arguing for 100% (or even 90% inheritance tax) If so - carry on. AliciaKeyedUp are you arguing that no inheritance should be taxed - if so then carry on.

Seems to be a lot of yelling past each other without really trying to discuss (which involves hearing whether the other person is saying what you think they are saying) going on throughout this thread. Fell into it myself.

[tx_dem41]

286. Thanks, Salin for trying to inject sanity into this thread. n/t

[salin]

293. I like to try to figure out

from where arguments are coming -allows then a real discussion to occur. Senseless yelling grates the nerves. Senseless yelling past each other because there are two completely different conversations going on ... drives me nuts - like to figure out if a discussion can occur (eg we are talking past but when it gets clear can discuss) or if it is intentional yelling - in which case I can put on earplugs to avoid that scratching of nails on chalkboard effect it has on me :D

[xultar]

227. I just sent you a PM go check it...n/t

[GodHelpUsAll2]

302. Your posts are very telling

And we wonder how this country slid as far as it did. The main argument I am seeing from your posts is the typical "it's mine and it should stay mine and I should be able to give it away to my kids and there should be no penalty". Where I do not dis-agree with you 100% I do believe there should be a limit. You are arguing about things such as owning a piece of property that could possibly be sold to a developer for millions or a Picasso that is worth millions and your concern seems to be that you (or your children) be able to hold on to Evey last penny. At what point does one have "enough" money. 50 million? 100 million? 1 billion?

The majority of Americans now live on far far less that than the suggested 250K limit (note: I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with this figure) and seem to be able to "survive" just fine. In fact, a huge portion of the country I would venture to guess would be ecstatic to have a 250K a year salary to live on. While the CEO's of this country make 15 million or better a year and continue to get their stock options and stock puts and annual bonuses of 500,000-5,000,000 and investing them in out of the country tax shelters while all the while these same companies are laying off 5, 10, 15 and 20 year employees that make 40-50K a year, pay their fair share of taxes and more but loose everything so someone or a group of someone's can continue to make more money than they will ever need while we have kids in this country going to bed at night hungry. Am I to assume you are OK with that system as long as your kids get to keep the Picasso?

I know I am rambling here but I just get this deep sinking feeling at how this country has become so consumed by how much money one can tank up that we have completely lost sight of the fact that we have fellow humans living here among us. And how disgraceful and sad it is that the color of money has blinded us so, that we no longer see the damage being done. Compassion for our fellow man is all but a thing of the past. So, we continue on our quest for the almighty dollar. And on that quest we step over the hungry, the sick and the kids on the street on our way to to our high rise offices in our quest to ensure a plush life for ourselves and our own children. Never really even noticing the homeless, the sick, the hungry kids are there.

[tx_dem41]

304. Please re-read her posts...

...I am sure you will find that your basic assumption is wrong.
Having been in this thread much of the way, I do not remember her ever saying that she ought to be able to pass on her inheritance tax-free.

On edit: Typo

[GodHelpUsAll2]

308. I have read

all of her posts. As I have read every other post on this thread. Where I may not have the post count of some on this particular thread I too have been here for the duration and have read every single post. Some of them more than once.

(By the way, you are welcome. For the thanks given on the post about Bill Gates not stealing MS-DOS. I agree, it will probably go un-noticed)

But, back to the issue at hand. I stand with my original post and do not agree with your assessment that my assumption is wrong.

I will admit that I may not have expressed it clearly enough for some. But the basic point of my post remains the same. I do not now, and will not ever understand the huge fear of taxation or the arguments that my "wealth" should be passed on and a high tax to my beneficiaries is simply unacceptable. I will clarify that I do not advocate taxing the hell out of EVERYTHING inherited. I personally would be all for a flat tax. A set percentage straight across the board. (25% of my income/assets pales in comparison to 25% of Bill Gates') Do there need to be huge reforms on just where that tax is allocated? Absolutely. And there are about another million points to be made/argued on that subject.

But I hold firm to my belief that this country has gone stark raving mad over the accumulation of money and the ability to "keep it in the family" and I believe it has blinded us to the more important things in this life such as compassion, peaceful co-existence and working for the greater good. Emphasis on the words work for the greater good.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

320. Give me 250K any day

That would be a several hundred percent increase.

Now let's get to my posts. I don't like the idea of having the government simply set limits on how much anyone can earn. 90%-100% taxation is doing precisely that. There is no motivation to earn any more at that point. No motivation to accomplish or achieve.

And, let's not forget that one poster was advocating taxing property as well, not just income.

Yes, it is mine and I should indeed be able to pass it to my children. The idea of saving for their better life is ingrained in millions of Americans. Property freedom and freedom from excessive taxes go back to the very heart of our rebellion from Britain.

Yes, the majority of Americans don't earn much at all. Alas, I am IN that majority, doing my best to keep the averages down it seems.

But I see regular people all the time have sudden income jumps. Property is a key example. In the D.C. area land is a premium. The land in the ex-urbs (whatever those really are) continues to grow in price according to the Post. So a farmer or even a family with a few acres suddenly finds themselves with a windfall they can share with their young ones.

Why is that a problem?

You cite CEO salaries of $15 million. So I guess your limit is there or lower. Well lots of people top that limit -- singers, actors, athletes, CEO's, investors and more. How inspired to work do you think they will be if you tell them you are going to take their salaries above a certain point?

(As an aside, I am trying to keep up with this thread, but it's huge and hard for me to download at this point.)

[GodHelpUsAll2]

324. Why are you insisting

on focusing on a single dollar amount? You have done this throughout this thread. Despite clearly stating in my post I was neither for or against a certain amount you take a random number thrown out and focus on that. This debate has many many points to it. More than can be argued in a single day. Or even a single week for that matter.

I will again state my position as simply as I possibly can without going into a 2500 page detail.

I do believe wealth should be taxed. I also believe the wealthier you are, the more you pay. It's just that simple.

I also asked a direct question, which you have chosen to either just ignore or you were so fixated on other things you simply did not see it. At what point of wealth is it enough? You cite singers, athletes, investor's and CEO's. Am I to assume that you believe that these insanely wealthy people somehow are more deserving of their insane wealth therefor they should be allowed to hang on to more of it than the average citizen?

Also, on a side note, I hold no sympathy what so ever for a baseball player such as A-Rod that makes on average more than I make productively working in a year every time he steps up to the plate to bat. No sympathy for the actor that makes 40million for every movie they happen to grace with their faces. Or the CEO that pulls down ungodly amounts while the rest of the company is laying off and cutting pay and benefits for its remaining workers. Again I ask, when is it enough? I personally feel that if I make 50 million dollars in my lifetime I have gained more than I or my kids or their kids for that matter will ever need to have a simply wonderful life. And I can state with certainty that I would never again be able to sleep at night knowing I have my 50 million sheltered so I can pass it along while there are so very many others out there that are struggling to be able to just feed their kids. So, if the worker that makes 500.00 a week pays xxx every week in taxes then I too should pay that same percentage and more. If the 15 million a year CEO pays 5 million a year in taxes, he is left with 10 million. Do you believe this is unfair?

How inspired to work do I think they would be you ask? Well I'm not convinced they are very inspired to "work" now. Maybe it's work to others, but personally, the athletes that make obscene amounts to play football/baseball etc. do just that. They play a game. Their "career" is for the sole purpose of entertainment. It gives nothing productive, in my opinion, to advance society. I can watch football with 10 times the heart and soul and love of the game every Friday night in the fall at any local high school for about $6.00. So, do I really care if they are inspired to "work"? No, not at all. Do I care about the CEO that has spent 25 years building a company working 60-70 hours a week for that 25 years? Sure I do. But, I also care about the employees that were needed to do the work so that CEO could get to where he/she is today. Which to often than not is NOT the case where the CEO is concerned.

Bottom line. This country is in deep debt. The wealthiest of the wealthy are the ONLY ones gaining wealth. The current tax situation is wildly tilted in favor of the super wealthy while those of us who make a pittance are bearing the brunt of the expense for any safety nets that are lucky enough to have survived the budget cuts created by the insane way of taxation. And ironic as it is, we are the very ones that end up needing those nets that are being cut.

If you feel strongly about keeping this policy in place, my advise to you is to lobby the hell out of it and try to ensure it stays in place. I on the other hand will fight it tooth and nail and fight to my very last breath to try and ensure a "good Life" for ALL of my fellow citizens including you and your children.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

329. Pick a number

I have focused on a single dollar amount because, in the final analysis, that's what it comes down to. We aren't talking about a theory here, we're talking about facts. Facts rely on being specific.

I do not beleve wealth should be or can be taxed. Wealth is too complex a notion. Is my painting wealth? My jewelry? My old engagement ring? The bike I give my son?

The only way to assess such things is to create a system far more onerous than we currently have. We'd have to have teams of inspectors showing up at people's homes going through everything to really get a sense of it.

If you don't, you are simply saying that wealth of some types is real wealth and, naturally, wealthy people will put their money in those valuables.

I don't know at what point wealth is enough. Look at Bill Gates. He's incredibly wealthy, but he is both ensuring the wealth of his children while contributing to charity. Should that wealth be just taken from him? I'd say no.

You have no sympathy for the wealthy, but hating the rich accomplishes little. Many of them worked quite hard for their money. A-Rod is such a talent that my one son adores him. Should we penalize him for being that good?

So you couldn't sleep at night knowing you had $50 million? Does that mean you want to take that amount from everyone else? Should your limit apply to them or isn't that just you enforcing your morality on someone else?

You are mixing your numbers and your comments. No one said that 33% taxation for the CEO is wrong. 90% or 100% is however.

You seem to think "playing" sports is easy. If so, why didn't you do it? Oh, that's right, it requires massive amounts of skill and hard work and, even then, only a few make it to the top of their field.

Yes, the country is deep in debt. We can agree on that.

How to fix the tax structure would take your weeks of discussion. I frankly think the system far too complex for anyone to understand. Before we went any further, I'd want to address that.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

336. Again

you take a post and you make it whatever you see fit to make it. You can't seem to grasp the general concept of the opinion. (emphasis on the word general) If it's not black and white, you don't seem to be able to grasp the overall content. I never said I hate the rich. You did. I never said athletes were not talented. You did. Where I did use hypothetical examples, I never came out in FAVOR of any percentage such as 33, 90 or 100%. You did. I never suggested that those such as Bill Gates have their wealth "Taken away from them". Again, you did. I give up. I have come to the conclusion that you are not in the least interested in truly debating the subject you are only interested in arguing how you are right (quite snarky I might add, but save yourself the trouble. It doesn't work with me so you can get down off your soap box now. But thanks for trying) and everyone else is wrong. Either that or you are scared to death of the notion that you may have to be a part of a society where EVERYONE contributes to benefit of the greater good.

Knock yourself out. Good day and good luck.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

347. You used a number

I referred to it because you cited a specific example. You used 33% as a percentage for a high-income CEO. I'm fine with that. Really.

I continue to be happy to discuss this. Clearly, you do not wish it so.

[BernieBear]

341. You are ignoring risk and average span of working and # of people affected

[tx_dem41]

209. So....after all that...

you actually do want to tax savings! Well, its on-topic now.

[K-W]

215. Savings is only one aspect of accumulation.

The other is obtaining that which you accumulate. Like income.

[tx_dem41]

254. Will you at least agree that I own my savings??? n/t

[salin]

258. you may... but I still get taxed

on my savings interest.... (intended nonsequitor after reading the massive confusion squabble up thread.)

[tx_dem41]

267. And so do I.....

the person that started this subthread appears to think my principal ought to be taxed as well.

[Shanty Oilish]

345. There's your problem, K-W

"You do realize that once all the wealth is accumulated..."
You do realize that that could never happen, don't you? People will always be busy creating wealth. That is, unless you raise a really punitive tax against it.

[rman]

242. unlimited aggregation of wealth is the destruction of democracy

you're not argueing you it was "hard work" for you to get that Picasso painting to become more valuable, are you?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

272. It might have been hard work for someone

It was simply good shopping. (Boy I wished I really owned that Picasso.)

[salin]

183. Very sensible (and wise) post

drives me crazy when the discussion is only about the extremes... highest tax rates imaginable... vs the current system which has swung too far in the other direction to where we are rewarding greed and spreading economic instability to more of the population while depleting our social network.

Your approach makes a great deal of sense - and heaven forbid there be a discussion about specific needs and priorities...

[welshTerrier2]

223. thanks, Salin ...

always nice to hear a few kind words from one of DU's "wise old owls" ...

[Vidar]

211. No, not when most of them attained it through thievery &

corruption at our expense. We had one revolution & Alexander Hamilton promptly let the thieving aristocrats right back in. The French, more sensibly, had 5 or 6, depending on how you count the massive student riots of the 60's. Vive la revolution. Vive la France.

[undergroundpanther]

248. Truth is

For all you people holding on to wealth like it matters so damn much:

Wealth will NOT protect you from disease death insanity or ruin..Wealth is an artificial invention of societies.Wealth as in money gold credit or whatever loses it's meaning when the systems that use it to rate your place in the social hierarchy collapse because of greed and the fantasy that individuals can stand alone goes too far.The failure of this myth of independent personal strength,any entrepreneurial or corporate wealth is ALWAYS built upon the backs of other people coerced into living on lesser wages for doing more work.)The fear of having to share to do with less, is why rich people killed themselves in the depression,they'd rather be rich and live off the efforts of others rather than share.Their own greed killed them, their own lack of humility ,that fear of being just another human being among people, equal to other human beings killed them.

No one in America pulled themselves up. NO ONE When old folks rant about it if you look there were land giveaways,GI bills,and all sorts of help.When one is walking around in a field of gold nuggets success is so easy.The Horatio Alger myth was invented when"success" was easy.Just like when the Internet made it's big bubble,getting jobs working for IT was easy. Now it's scarce to get a job with 90's style benefits and wages in IT.

WE NEED EACH OTHER.
We need to help each other.

Rich people fear general strikes because THEY NEED people to feed their profits.Do their work,maintain the corporations that cannot run by themselves.

The wealthy in fact are the biggest social parasites.

How can we make a rich fat parasite earn their keep in society if they want to get rich by making others believe it is OK to work for less wages than the rich get? Make the wealthy give back wealth to those they use to get wealthy.Taxes work IF the government can be made to give an account of where the money goes.And if the people can say no to anything the government beyond taking care of all the people the commonweal and antitrust laws ect..If the government wants to spend money on like black budget or wars the people need to be able to say no,after all it is the workers and poor whom are going to die in wars not the wealthy social parasites.


If the wealthy don't have to give back than you have feudalism and it becomes rapidly a very unequal social system akin to slavery.The wealthy see no issue with slavery they treat workers as less than themselves by default because rich delude themselves with ideas of entitlement worth and seek power,They have no morals because they think they are better than others.The wealthy are like addicts they to winning.The rich historically will want to inch their way twords free labor,so they don't have to give anything they take for themselves, by manipulating law etc. And the workers need to keep the parasites of wealth and 'leadership'under their control by simply refusing to work and line the wealth's bank accounts lest the people lose their freedom to the wealthy who will NEVER have enough...
The wealthy, in their insulated perceptions,can afford to warp their thinking and fancy themselves elite,they use that wealth to go forgetting how hard this human condition is for all of us.. The wealthy corporation owner will cut workers wages,health care,vacation time,and benefits before the business owner ever feels a pinch on his ass,or ever reduces his benefits,The wealth he takes for himself he did not earn by his own efforts(the corporation 's workers made it).His workers made him wealthy and the business owner must never forget that is exactly where his wealth came from, that it is not gained by his efforts alone.
And he must be thankful and show it by sharing wealth,HIS taken WEALTH..This trend of companies offering words and theft by worthless stock options,parties,little employee of the month pictures on the wall do nothing to help a person survive life ,that is why the bosses don't give money gifts..The bosses are greedy and can never have enough like addicts the workers must remind the wealthy they are vulnerable and strike so the rich know there is a bottom and it is not their almighty ego alone making them rich.
The wealthy need workers or they would have to do it by themselves,like they expect thier workers to do when the wealthy don't give any wealth back to the people..

[Vidar]

288. Agree with you entirely.

[ikojo]

332. A most excellent post. nt

[Deja Q]

235. When they get their money from us, wouldn't you agree we have some input?

Our country is a twisted socialism, shrouded in the bogus idea of 'free enterprise'. The system is geared to help a few while pissing on everyone else at the same time. (in other words, it's what every governmental system in human history has been.)

And if those repuke idiots realized that even the lottery they love to pay is a type of socialism, they'd stop thinking "Boy, I wish I'd win $250 million" and start thinking "What if a new economic system that we all put into gave us something in return?"

I'm a humanist. And enamored with the concept of participatory society. And our society is neither.

[ThomasJackson]

240. wealth is relative...

would it be wrong for folks from Somalia or Ethiopia or Sumatra to dispossess everyone in the US of all earnings over say ..... 15,000 dollars. to them, 15,000 is FABULOUS wealth. would that be wrong?

[rman]

245. don't wealthy Americans and poor Americans live in the same country?

how can wealth be relative within one and the same country?

aside from regional differences wrt to rent etc - those differences are not by a long shot as large as differences in aggregated wealth within the US.

[Deja Q]

266. And I'm sure one of the US-centric fields will be going over there too.

[lpbk2713]

246. Hell no. It's just not right.

When such a small fraction of the population controls such such an overwhelming portion of the world's wealth (ie: power) there is something definitely wrong with the have/have not equation and something needs to be done. If all the wealthy class deserved to be wealthy then that might be different. But some are just naturally cruel and selfish and some got their wealth strictly by accident or were born into it.

[Cato1]

250. More taxes on wealth, not on income

The biggest problem in America are the plutocrats who live on dividens and trust fund income. These people pay percentage-wise less in taxes than the middle class while sitting on their asses all day long. People who pay a lot in income taxes also work a lot and deserve just compensation for their efforts. What has some snotty blue-blood wannabe (whose great-grandfather happened to be a booze smuggler during the prohibition) living at the family estate on Martha's Vineyard contributed to society? Many of them have never had a real job. Put a heavy tax on net worth and make trust funds and other tax planning schemes illegal. That should make the pigs squeal.

[annabanana]

268. finally....to the root of the problem...

(Also a question: When did corporations become "people" and accrue the rights of an individual?)

[SlackJawedYokel]

275. Right after the passage of the 14th amendment, wasn't it?

Don't ask me how it was done, but somehow that amendment was used to confer legal personhood on corporations... which opened the door to all of the dysfunctional corporate behavior of the past 100 years.

http://www.iiipublishing.com/afd/Coperson.htm

Cletus

[rman]

287. how it was done:

excerpts from
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/pdf/primers/hidden_corporate_history.pdf
www.reclaimdemocracy.org

<snip>

"As corporations grew stronger, government and the courts became easier prey.
They freely reinterpreted the U.S. Constitution and transformed common law doctrines.
One of the most severe blows to citizen authority was seeded in the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of “corporate personhood,” thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as “precedent” to hold that a private corporation was a "natural person." This meant that the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect rights of freed slaves, used to grant corporations Constitutional rights. Justices have since struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise."

[annabanana]

292. Thank you. I wish more people were aware of this "clerical error"

And the years of mischief it has engendered.

[SlackJawedYokel]

271. History of maximum income tax

Not the link I was recalling, but the info seems the same.
http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/TaxTimeline.htm#income



The wealthy in this country were once taxed 94%!
And taxed the greatest from '44-'64, arguably the highest level of growth and productivity in the history of this country.

To account for inflation download this Excel/PDF file and follow directions:
http://www.orst.edu/Dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/cv2004.xls
http://www.orst.edu/Dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/cv2004.pdf

Cletus

[yorgatron]

284. EAT THE RICH!

:evilgrin:

[procinderella]

285. January 20 at-home protest

Not One **** Dime Day

Since our religious leaders will not speak out against the war in Iraq, since our political leaders don't have the moral courage to oppose it, Inauguration Day, Thursday, January 20th, 2005 is "Not One **** Dime Day" in America.

On "Not One **** Dime Day" those who oppose what is happening in our name in Iraq can speak up with a 24-hour national boycott of all forms of consumer spending.

During "Not One **** Dime Day" please don't spend money. Not one **** dime for gasoline. Not one **** dime for necessities or for impulse purchases.

Not one **** dime for anything for 24 hours.

On "Not One **** Dime Day," please boycott Walmart, KMart and Target. Please don't go to the mall or the local convenience store. Please don't buy any fast food (or any groceries at all for that matter).

For 24 hours, please do what you can to shut the retail economy down.

The object is simple. Remind the people in power that the war in Iraq is immoral and illegal; that they are responsible for starting it and that it is their responsibility to stop it.

Not One **** Dime Day" is to remind them, too, that they work for the people of the United States of America, not for the international corporations and K Street lobbyists who represent the corporations and funnel cash into American politics.

Not One **** Dime Day" is about supporting the troops. The politicians put the troops in harm's way. Now 1,200 brave young Americans and (some estimate) 100,000 Iraqis have died. The politicians owe our troops a plan -- a way to come home.

There's no rally to attend. No marching to do. No left or right wing agenda to rant about. On "Not One Damn Dime Day" you take action by doing nothing. You open your mouth by keeping your wallet closed.

For 24 hours, nothing gets spent, not one **** dime, to remind our religious leaders and our politicians of their moral responsibility to end the war in Iraq and give America back to the people.

Please share this email with as many people as possible.

[Name removed]

295. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TacticalPeek]

305. Is it wrong to remove an obstacle in our brother's path to Heaven?

Luke 18:25

:)

[argyl]

306. The deck's been reshuffled many times and in many places over

the ages and with the increasing inequities between the haves and have nots it will probably happen here as well. Some of us on this board may live to see it.

[reprobate]

310. This shows how little americans know about history.

The fact is that some of the biggest fortunes were made under the 90% marginal rate.

Boy, some of these posters can't be told from freepers.

You want gov't to take care of education? Defense? How about medicare? All these things and many many more require the gov't to have income. And just where do you thing this money will come from, bake sales.

Come on people, grow up. Taxes are the bill we pay for the services that we demand. The more we demand, the higher the rate must be. It's called logic. Try it, you'll like it.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

311. I'm with you

I said it up thread. I don't get all the panic and fear of taxation. If my dad get's his SS and my 93 year old grandmother get her medical taken care of then hell tax me. It's well worth it. Provided the government does with the tax what they should. But then that's a whole other topic.

[LincolnMcGrath]

312. Well said

[Poppyseedman]

314. Define wealthy?

and define dispossess? Though income or capitial gains taxation or both ?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

315. Maybe The Way Stalin Dispossessed The Kulaks....

What a bad idea...


I believe in a progressive income tax with a top tax of 40% on the highest earners with the removal of illegitimate write offs...

[LincolnMcGrath]

322. The top earners make little from payroll income.

How should we tax UN-earned income? (Cap Gains, Dividends, Etc)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

325. as income

[B Calm]

317. Someone who never flies coach.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

316. I See You Have A Pittsburgh Steeler Avatar?

Am I to assume to you want to see the Rooney family, Bill Cowher, and ninety five percent of the members of that organization dispossessed?


I am sure they love the game so much they will play for free....

[quaker bill]

318. Adam Smith on taxes

It is this view, not Bush's view, that Smith endorsed. He wrote, in his "Wealth of Nations": "The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the state." Society creates the conditions under which financial success is possible, Smith believed, and has therefore a rightful claim to a share of that success.

Smith thought, more generally, that it was foolish to talk as if there were something suspicious about the fact that governments tax us. Taxation comes with government. All governments must impose taxes on their subjects, and since governments perform important services for all of us, we should be just as willing to pay taxes as we are to pay for any other service. In fact, Smith says, people are willing, even proud, to pay taxes: "Every tax is to the person who pays it a badge, not of slavery, but of liberty. It denotes that he is subject to government, indeed, but that, as he has some property, he cannot himself be the property of a master." Governments expand everyone's liberty, and the fact that we pay taxes to support the government is but a sign and a consequence of our freedom.

Finally, one part of protecting liberty involves making sure that there is as little poverty as possible. Great poverty breeds crime, which interferes with everyone's liberty and of course prevents the poor themselves from having the mental or material resources to act with full freedom. Protecting freedom directly requires an investment at least in public education and public health, especially for pregnant mothers and young children. Smith supported using tax money for these kinds of measures. Indeed, he gives express approval to progressive taxation, recommending a higher road toll for luxury carriages than for freight vehicles so that "the indolence and vanity of the rich" can be made to contribute to "the relief of the poor."

Adam Smith has been misread for generations, and it is not news to scholars that he was a strong advocate for the poor. But it is disturbing that the silly notion that taxes are some sort of infringement on private property should be widespread two centuries after Smith died. It is yet more disturbing that a person who is now president should have based his campaign on this silly notion.

Sam Fleischacker, an Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Illinois in Chicago, is author of "A Third Concept of Liberty: Judgment and Freedom in Kant and Adam Smith" (Princeton University Press, 1999)

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0122-01.htm

US taxes on wealth and the wealthy have generally been higher than they are now. Substantially higher tax rates did not prevent the "post war boom" in the 40's and 50's. At that time the highest marginal rate was very near 90 percent.

There is alot of mythology about taxes. Most of this mythology was constructed by the rich to serve the rich.

One of the more absurd myths is the notion that the rich will stop trying to get rich if we tax them too much. Regardless of the tax scheme, more money is always more money.

[sorechasm]

321. Thanks Quaker Bill for the clarity.

Taxation = investment for services rendered.
Services include: 'establish justice', 'ensure domestic tranquility' and 'promote the general welfare'.
Damn those liberal writers of the constitution.

It seems most questions about taxation concern trust ("I don't mind giving if I could trust them with my money"). Considering how generous Americans are typically, I wonder how liberal America would become if we only had an informed electorate and a transparent government.:)

[GodHelpUsAll2]

330. Exactlt

That is exactly what I have been fumbling trying to say.

[KG]

319. eat the rich - out of the mansions and into the ditch!

[GoldenOldie]

328. Depends on how they made their wealth!

If they made their wealth through lying, cheating, stealing, killing, etc., and on the hard work of others, YES.

There have always been the "Robber Barons" throughout history but the "Robber Barons," of today are without precedent. The CEO's who accumulate millions and millions of dollars and compensation packages and then outsource jobs to poor countries. The CEO's and the Boards of Directors who openly lie to their workers and investors while slowly withdrawing their own personal funds from the company, YES.

Why in the world should these "Robber Barrons" be treated any differently than the common hot check writer, hood that robs the local Circle K, or sell drugs on the street corner?? Somehow these Captains of Industry are treated like royalty, where the delay in court hearings usually runs out with the intent that the public will forget and the high falutin crooks can get on with new high-rollin adventures.

If they made their wealth by stealing and cheating others out of their meager monies, than everything that they own should be confiscated and either placed back into the corporation and workers continue their employment and/or investors paid back for all of some of their losses.

The Ken Lay's and Tom DeLay's should be responsible for their actions
and the citizens should be protected from their greedy actions.

[two gun sid]

331. Lucy Parsons

one of the Haymarket widows said something to the affect that we should wait outside rich peoples houses and when they come out we should kill them. Just something to think about. I don't know were any rich people live and I have know desire to stand outside their homes Agent Mike.

[American Tragedy]

349. This post is impossible to answer.

Define dispossess. Define wealthy.

The former term is vague, the latter is highly subjective.

[Seabiscuit]

354. Dispossess the crooked wealthy and those who keep Dubya's tax breaks

Leave the legitimate wealthy alone. E.g. George Soros - who contributes oodles to progressive causes.

[last1standing]

358. I voted "other".

What is wealthy? The vast majority of people in western industrialized countries have more than the vast majority in less developed nations. Should we distribute this wealth evenly world wide or just within our own countries? Should the poorer countries rise up together and dispossess the U.S of it's wealth? I don't think so, myself.

On the other hand, when it's been proven that corruption and undue influence have caused the accumulation of vast wealth, I have no problems with dispossession after due process of law.

There will always be a group considered wealthy and a smaller group considered poor. It is the job of government to make sure that it doesn't get out of control.