View Single Post
Old 09-03-2019, 07:28 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,747
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
I am not inherently against anything like rolling back the tax cuts, especially if they are only beneficial to the rich. I am not against the rich paying more, but every time these discussions come up, it is always about taxing more instead of spending less. Goring oxen and all that stuff. The cut off for taxing the 'rich' is close enough to me that it opens my eyes to what the government wants versus what I want for my and my children's futures.
If you are really that close to being truly rich, you don't have to worry about either your future or your children's. I've got enough money so that I'm retired and don't have to worry about having enough to last us our entire lives, with probably enough for our kids. But they won't need it when they get it, just like we didn't need money we got from our parents.
As for cutting spending, we probably won't ever do that on an absolute basis since the population is growing. But why treat spending as monolithic? There is spending we can agree is useless - Iraq War II, Trump's salary, and money that would pay big benefits, like infrastructure repair which everyone wants to do but which never seems to happen. We need to distinguish high return spending from low return spending.

As to who did what, I don't think of the rich as evil corporate monsters. I see them as highly intelligent people using what the government allows of them to create riches. The loopholes such as they are , are created for JUST THAT REASON. Why do you think that is? Politicians are the immoral creatures bought and paid for by the rich. But I do not blame the rich.
The rich aren't monolithic either. Lots of the rich think their taxes should be raised.
But some of the rich want to spend their money to give themselves breaks. There are some CEOs who deserve every penny. Then there are CEOs who destroy stockholder value and get fired with 8 figure parting gifts. That adds a lot of value.

Senator Inhofe is pretty rich. He has a big house in an exclusive community on a lake, and he likes the water level in the lake to be high to aid in boating. Fine, except that making the water level high causes floods several times a year in the town below. Monster? I'd say so. If Scooby Doo did that story, you'd think the villain was too evil to be real.
Taxing wealth just seems wrong. If you don't get it right the first grab, you shouldn't get a second just because someone used what you gave them. As with the Amazon tax structure earlier. Stock options, R & D, all beneficial to US ALL, yet if you listen to some, "They still make too much" That reeks of jealousy.
During the bubble I made a lot of money on stock options and didn't mind getting bumped to a higher bracket at all. Actual options shouldn't be taxed because they are too speculative. When they become stock, the stock should be taxed - if it is above a certain level. The average Amazon worker is not going to have to pay a penny under any proposal I've seen. If Bezos has to pay, fine. If someone gets rewarded with enough options to go over the threshold, and they cash them in, they should definitely pay.
BTW, cashing in options and not selling the stock is dangerous. During the bubble people who did this were liable for tax on the difference between the option price and the exercise price. Some kept the stock, the stock tanked, and they didn't have enough money to pay the tax. I never made that mistake at least.