Just a Friendly Reminder: You Aren't Rich, page 3

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Don't put words in my mouth, kid. If you think equality of opportunity is eugenics, then knock yourself out. I think that equality of opportunity is simply that everyone shold have the came chance to get ahead as anyone else.

Sorry, it sounded like you were tacitly giving the thumbs up to the screwy system in place now. I misunderstood, mea culpa.

If you think it should be disallowed, I'd say you were a criminal, too. But I dont see anything in this thread where either of us disallowed such things. Do you?

See above, I thought you were arguing in defense of the current system.

When you say "equal accountability", do you mean that each person should be equally accountable? If so I applaue you; that's exactly what I have been proposing for years. But it certainly doesn't seem like that's your philosophy, based on what you've said so far!

Absolutely everyone should be equally accountable. Rights without responsibilities don't work, it's a recipe for disaster. My philosophy is a little strange, because I believe in altruism and compassion, and all that fun stuff, but I also believe in hard lessons, and learning from your own mistakes.

However, as I said before, I think life should be possible without money. This is the only way to reduce people's craven desire for the green. As it stands, money is life in America, most of the world for that matter. If you don't have money, you don't have life. I know that with the resources at our disposal, we could eliminate that pesky hangup and move on to a better society.

Compassion is a natural human trait, that's a fact. We exhibit it most often when it benefits us! Also a fact. So what we need to encourage people to act compassionately, to act respectfully, is to set up a system that rewards that behavior.

Here's the system as I see it. Laymen who play by the rules make 3% on their money, average. Smart guys who play by the rules make 10% interest. Smart guys who break the rules when it serves them best can count on 30%! That's a 3 fold advantage in the cheaters' court.

That's a society that will breed cheats and liars, because those behaviors contribute to success moreso than honest dealing, at least numerically speaking. That's what has to change.

Like I said, you can't legislate choice. Well, you can, but the results are never pretty, and I want not part of that mess. Best thing to do is put the rat in the maze, and through clever construction of the maze, encourage it to find the cheese. The current system rewards the mice than cannibalize their brethren and chew through the walls to freedom.

Of course the question is ridiculous. My point is if you want to make stupid comments (e.g., "profits are obscene") I can make stupid comments too. Now suppose you quit equating profits with obscenity, when we both know that obscenity has a completely different meaning.

Obscene just means indecent in a repulsive way, which is, to my mind, an accurate description of the level of wealth that we're talking about. Here's the etymology from Wiki:
"Obscenity has several connotations. Obscenity and its parent adjective obscene come from the Latin word obscenus, meaning "foul, repulsive, detestable", and possibly derived from ob caenum, literally "from filth". The term is most often used in a legal context to describe expression (words, images, actions) that offend the prevalent sexual morality of the time."

So while it's most often used to connote sexual overtones, it's perfectly reasonable for this use. I like the word very much, and I stand by my use of it.

If on the other hand, you want to cloud the argument with emotionally-laden terms, don't be surprised if you get the same thing in return.

Can't help it, I'm a writer of fiction, using words that elicit emotional response - that's my bread and butter.

I think it makes for a higher temperature argument..but the results are savory.

I find it strange and wondrous indeed that, on the one hand, you seem to "decry responsibility" by proposing a society that, by its welfare removes responsibility from non-achievers, and yet you denounce a society which "decries responsibility".

I guess it depends on your definition of "responsibility" Perhaps you define it as "the responsibility the wealthy have to the non-wealthy"; I define it as "the responsibility that each person has to himself and his family."

I apologize if I was unclear. I think rights and responsibilities are hand in hand. You can't have one without the other, if you take one and leave the other, nothing good will come of it. Now, the safety net I'm talking about is, like everything in a meritocracy, based on merit. 'Give' was misleading, because everything has to be earned. The problem is, you can't describe a theory of governance in one page posts.

People who can't afford a house can earn one in other ways. (And to hell with this 300k for a roof over your head nonsense, I want 10k dome homes for 'societal participants' (voters, volunteers, professional students, etc.), 20k double domes for public servants, and let's not hear any whining about the looks.)

I think people need to be reminded of what's really important in life. Survive, sure. Breed, definitely. But there's a greater element of the human condition that can only be studied and nurtured when you're off the streets, out of feral mode. Anybody think gang members or convenience store clerks have time for self actualization? No, they're too busy just surviving.

I think capitalism was a great foundation, in that it set up the reward system and proved very successful at motivating people. I think it's time we changed the carrot, that's all, to lead the donkey in a better direction.

In the end it comes down to choices, it always does. You can't make people 'better', but you can give positive role models, a nurturing setting, and the freedom to choose to do the right thing. How many people do the wrong thing, simply because they have to? Remove that element of necessity regarding greed, and you severly limit that reaction, and you limit the effect it has on society as a whole.

Well, wyrdeone, that is the reason that I published the link: so that you could go there and see exactly what it was. If you choose to do so, a simple CTRL-click works wonders.

You misunderstood, I was saying that without any numbers to back up my position, it's all conjecture. I understand why you posted the link, and I understand how to operate it, no need to get all condescending.

What's in dispute, in my mind, is the proportion of undeclared earnings to declared, and without numbers to back my gut up..well it's conjecture.

I assume you mean no deductions for mortgage interest, medical expenses, educational expenses, charitable deductions, etc. -- as well as no deductions for tax shelters, and any of the other shibboleths of the Left.

Okay, I agree.

Right. The layering of legalese serves one purpose and one purpose only, it gives the advantage on the field to those who are schooled in the arcane art of tax law, or those who can afford a hired gun to handle their business for them. (err..hired calculator?)

It's a giant thorny tangle, and that puts 80% of the population at the mercy of the pseudo-government IRS bastards, the average Joe can file a return, but he can't reasonably expect to fight the IRS if they decide to take him for a ride.

Maybe you can shed some light on why everyone on ATS thinks I'm either a lefty or a righty. Is it really so hard to believe a person is unaffiliated in this day and age? Didja know I actually got called a neocon a couple of times? Pretty bizarre huh...

Point being, let's jettison the labels and start fixing problems instead of playing politics.

[edit on 7-6-2005 by WyrdeOne]

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Ability to pay does not imply progressiveness; I do not recall anywhere in "Wealth of Nations" where ol’ “Invisible Hand” calls for a progressive tax.

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state ....[As Henry Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be to] 'remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich.'"

Sound familiar? Adam Smith was not only an economist, but a philosopher. Sounds like a progressive tax to me.

Not any more than a poorer person who gets to keep all of his money does! As a matter of fact, a confiscatory tax is a disincentive to work hard or get special education to advance oneself; I'd think that such disincentives would work against a "stable economy and a prosperous society" rather than for it.

I agree. When poorer people are taxed heavily, it is more than a disincentive to seek advancement--it becomes impossible to survive.

I see no historical evidence for that whatsoever. Indeed, until the 20th century, every society, including that of Japan (which has been socially stable for almost 2000 years), has exhibited exactly the top-heaviness that you abjure.

I would say that history teaches, rather than that top-heavy societies are inherently unstable, is that such large discrepancies of wealth, irrespective of the reasons, are the norm, and not the exception.

Perhaps you have overlooked The Great Depression. The main cause was the fact that the country was producing more than it could consume. Why? A tremendous disparity between income classes. The post-war 20's led to extreme prosperity for the wealthy and poverty for everyone else.

In 1929, the top 0.1% controlled 34% of all savings in America--while 80% of Americans had no savings at all. A massive reduction in federal income and estate taxes enacted in 1926 benefited the most wealthy Americans and corporations, further widening the gap and reducing purchasing power of the lower income brackets. The tremendous outputs of American corporations led to massive speculation in the stock market about profits--and well, the rest is history.

And the Great Depression wasn't limited to the United States. It was a global crisis. Germany was hit hard--leading to the rise of Hitler. Italy was in dire straights--allowing Mussolini to rise to power.

And Japan didn't have Americans to sell rice and silk to and was also deeply impacted by the depression. However, Hirohito was pressured by the protesting masses and just invaded China to take over their resources. Hard to make a case for stability there...

The militarism in Germany, Japan, and Italy led to World War II.

One interesting side note is to study how the depression impacted Sweden. They recovered much faster than most other countries because they realized quickly how important it is to put purchasing power back in the hands of the lower and middle classes. The accomplished this in part via a progressive tax--and wealthy industrialists did object to it, but they more than recouped taxes as production and profits increased to levels significantly above pre-depression levels very quickly.

Disincentive to produce because of high taxes? Hardly.

One only has to look at the life style of Blacks in New York in 1920 compared to today to see this. In 1920’s a limited-tax, limited-government infrastructure resulted in a myriad of black small business owners. Compare that with the 3rd- and 4th-generation Black underclass today, recipients of the same largess that comes from confiscatory taxes.

How on Earth, in light of your affection for confiscatory taxes, do you explain that sad state of affairs?

I think you are confused about the Harlem Renaissance. It was a cultural movement. Black authors, artists and musicians were able to finally be recognized and make a living, yes-- but it was because of wealthy white patronage.

The club owners, publishers, landlords, and finaciers were all wealthy white patrons. There was even a backlash against many of these performers from some of the black community for accepting "white" money.

The only role that limited taxation had in this movement is that the ultra rich were flush with cash to sponsor black culture. Once the depression started, the white curiosity with the "exotic" waned for the most part. Harlem became a ghetto awash with drugs and poverty in the aftermath.

Racism, institutionalized discrimination and being disadvantaged by hundreds of years of slavery is a good place to start with why African Americans are still behind on the income curve... but thats a discussion for another thread.

I consider that comment disingenuous. As I mentioned in my previous post, I consider a flat tax system with no taxes at all for a family with an income of less than, say $25,000/year to be the best compromise between allowing wealthy people the fruits of their labors while ensuring that no one is deprived of necessities and needs.

Don't think a 10% flat tax will cover the vast government expenses like military expenditures, public works, running the government, public education, Medicare and Social Security, etc. The 2006 budget calls for $3 trillion in tax receipts to cover expenses (and that's just the federal budget.)

GDP is $15.9 trillion. You do the math. 19% is more like it. (Current flat tax proposals are in the range of 19 to 20%--notice the prevailing 2004 tax rates for income brackets above $50,000 in NY Times article are all around 20-22%.. although these are based on reported income, so the percentages are much lower for higher brackets... )

At 19%, a family making $30,000 will be left with $24,300. A family making $10,000,000 will be left with $8,100,000.

And a family making $24,300 is not going to be deprived? Of what? Getting to experience the joys of eating cat food?

Moreover, it would ensure that if I were ten times as rich as you, I would pay ten times as much taxes as you do, even though I probably won't use as much of the government’s support structure as you would.

I think that you are getting caught up in paying for "your share" without really thinking about what "your share" is.

How about an example?

You are the only wealthy man on an island of 5,000 peasants. Everyone needs to walk across a bridge to get to the town on the mainland to go to work--you need to get from your mansion to your office and the peasants need to walk from their cardboard huts to the fields to pick beans.

One day, a hurricane comes and wipes out the bridge. It will cost $500,000 to fix, so the government levies a special tax of 1% of income to collect money for the repair. (There is already a 10% income tax.)

Because you make $20,000,000 a year, your share is $200,000. The peasants make $1,000 a year and their share is $10. The government announces that it will take 2 years to repair the bridge because they only take in $250,000 a year.

Because the bridge is the only way on or off the island, you won't be able to get to or from your office until the bridge is rebuilt. Being away from your office for 2 years will put you out of business.

Dilemma: Although your feet utilize just as much of the bridge as each peasant, do you kick in the extra $250,000 (bumping up your tax rate to 2.25%) to fix the bridge so that you can get to your office?

Oh, and by the way, if you do, you also save the peasants (and yourself) from starving.

This is a simple example, but do you get the point or do you still feel slighted because you weren't compensated for inadvertantly saving the peasants from starving?

The wealthy do benefit greatly from kicking in the extra amount that a progressive tax requires. It's not a matter of raping the rich so the poor can stay home and eat bon-bons--it means a better educated workforce, a fully-funded military, proper infrastructure to deliver water and electricity, and a healthier society in general. Putting more purchasing power in the hands of consumers leads to a stronger economy instead of relying on foreign investment and debt.

And it is quite incorrect to say that the wealthy don't benefit from supporting public education. Private schools are the only places that produce doctors, lawyers, brokers, politicians, and bankers. I'm sure that the wealthy have relied on many professionals that attended public schools--so to say that the wealthy are paying for nothing is just absurd.

And you say even that isn't enough?

This is where your "disincentment" argument falls apart. The weathly WANT progress. The wealthy WANT to drive on smooth roads and fly out of efficient airports. They WANT to walk down a NYC street without tripping over homeless people and crackheads. They WANT to be proud of the country they live in because the kids are smart and there is little poverty.

Obviously, increasing the tax burden on the lower and middle income brackets isn't possible without serious consequences, so where is the money to achieve this going to come from?

Do you see the problem here? If the wealthy want to live in a better country, it is up to them to be the catalysts to create it. It can't be accomplished on the backs of lower and middle income classes--and it isn't a matter of laziness. It's just the reality of income and statistics.