Except that it isn’t taken from everyone, it’s taken disproportionately from the rich, and it is given (in part) directly to the poor.
Take the next step (as Measure for Measure mentions). What does the government do with the money?
If I understand you correctly, an extremely wealthy individual is more likely to risk his entire investment on, say, mortgage-backed securities than a private mutual fund with the same amount of money. Can I ask for a cite without sounding confrontational? Ameriprise, for instance, lost money for the first time in its history. AIG, Lehman Brothers, Merrill-Lynch, all encountered major difficulties recently, to say the least. I don’t see how any single, rich individual caused all that turmoil. Jus the opposite, in fact - the banking crisis is caused by a whole bunch of mortgage holders who became over-leveraged, and thus the mortgage-backed securities market went into free fall. Scylla wrote a very informative thread about the whole mess, which I highly recommend.
I’d just like to say that lots of people voluntarily gave their hard earned money to that rich person. That’s why he’s rich. So somebody thinks he earned it, at least.
Even if rich old Grandad thought he was just the best grandson ever. Somebody voluntarily gave Grandad his millions and he can give it to whoever he pleases. Or the CEO making $300 million. The board members and stockholders decided to give their money to that guy, so they must think he’s worth it. It isn’t my money to give away so I’ll take their word for it. If he isn’t worth it… well, just look at GM nowadays.
Say what you want about the tax system, but all this talk about how the rich are evil leeches is just wrong. If you don’t like that they’re rich, don’t buy their product or work for them. If enough people feel like you, they won’t be rich long. It is a democracy; nobody is stopping you from buying from the other guy, or starting your own business instead.
Rich people are rich because they already provided a whole lot of wealth and value to our society. They don’t need to give us any more to be even. There may be good pragmatic reasons for taxing them out of proportion to their wealth and giving the proceeds to the poor. But I can’t see how you can call it fair.
Marginal tax rates of over 100% can exist, and did so in the UK for a while. However, they tend not to be damaging to the wealthy, or even to the moderately off, but instead hit the working poor.
They exist where the benefit system and tax system collide - while a person might only be paying 20% marginal income tax on the extra money they received, the withdrawl of housing, childcare and other means tested benefits was at a sufficient pace that it more than eliminated the gains from work. Hence an effective >100% marginal tax rate.
But I don’t think that is what is being referred to here.
Eisner may be a great example of why a guy worth a billion might not be worth a billon.
Eisner did oversee a Disney renaissance. But he did not do it alone. Frank Wells and Jeffrey Katzenberg were vital to doing so. So was technological change, which allowed Disney to reap revenue from their existing catalog not once, but twice, as VCRs and then DVD players became standard home appliances, and the advent of cable allowed Disney access to additional home revenue.
When Frank Wells died, we discovered how much of the cult of Eisner wasn’t Eisner. Wells had been the stablizing influence. He kept Eisner and Katzenberg tolerant of each other - and Katzenberg was the creative brains in the organization - responsible for pulling guys like Ashman and Menken in, gaining the Pixar relationship, turning Disney animation into a money maker. Katzenberg left - with quite a few nasty things to say about Eiser (and made Shrek, Katzenberg’s fuck you to Eisner). And Eisner’s world started to fall apart.
The company made major missteps. The creative team and marketing team lost its touch. He shredded the Pixar relationship pretty much singlehandedly. The technological change evened out - or where it didn’t, Disney didn’t do a good job taking advantage of it (they spent millions on their internet portal - going a direction a lot of people tried and few were successful at - and still have a crummy website). The very successful cruise line wasn’t expanded due to the weak dollar (then was expanded after Eisner left, and will now hit the water likely while we are still in a recession) Stockholders called for his head.
Michael Shmeisner might not have managed the initial renaissance either. But Michael Eisner did not pull it off single handedly. And there were likely other people that could have - if they would have had Wells and Katzenberg. And some of them might have been able to keep Katzenberg around.
If you were the smartest, hardest working guy on the planet I’m sure you could come up with some way to make money.
What I said was, sure that CEO should make 10 or 20 times what I do. That’s reasonable to me. But should he make 400 times what I do? No, I think that’s too extreme. While that CEO may very well contribute 10 or 20 times the value to the company that I do, I don’t think anybody is Superman/woman and contributes 400 times what I do. I really don’t understand why this isn’t logical.
[/quote]
Why 10x to 20x? Why not 50x? Or 5x?
You don’t think someone can contribute 400x what you do probably because you only consider your value in terms of hours worked or manual labor performed. If you have an idea that creates jobs for 400 people, how much is that worth?
The problem isn’t that CEOs get outrageous pay. The problem is the corruption in the system where boards of directors can appoint their cronies as CEOs for each others companies. Or when CEOs and executives loot the company Enron style through accounting trickery. Or investment banks making fortunes on suspect investments that are too complex to properly assess the risk.
That’s why we have regulation and oversight. Banks are not capable of regulating themselves because quite frankly, investment bankers just want to make as much money as they can as quickly as they can. I mean if I could make $50 million in my job before I turned 40, what the hell do I care what happens to the bank after that?
And that is the biggest problem. Making sure the CEO’s and other executives interests are in line with the long term interests of the company. I don’t see how a salary cap would help that.
This was not meant to be a thread about progressive taxation - more one about the unlying cause of bashing the rich, but that’s okay. This is a good debate so far…
In an earlier post, I stated that I had no problem with funding the traditional duties of government, like military and infrastructure. My main issue is with the idea that government is supposed to even everything out.
I suppose progressive taxation is a fair-ish way of getting everything paid for. I prefer a flat tax system - one form at the end of the year, no tax for low income people, because of a $25,000 deduction per adult and $5,000 per child, or some such calculation. No loopholes, no trickery, just pay your taxes.
IMO, the role of the government in such matters is to ensure that equal opportunity is available, then keep out of the way. While they have become mostly a total failure, the promise of public schools filled that role, as do things like low-interest college loans and the GI bill. But when you get into things like the EIC, which often is just a check sent to someone who didn’t pay any taxes, or some of the abuses of the Section 8 system, which is regularly scammed, it becomes a problem.
In many cases, it is money taxed from my paycheck and given to someone else. Period. And my paycheck isn’t that big to begin with - the idea of me being rich is laughable.
In terms of equality of opportunity, I believe that the opportunity is there, for those who are will to take it. America has become such a successful country that it seems to me that some people no longer think it should take hard work and sacrifice to become successful.
And I’m just gonna say it, even though it will not earn me friends around here, but it’s a Friday, so what the hell, right?
I am tired of the “poor huddled masses” stereotype that prevades all of these discussions, here and elsewhere. In the same way that the “fat cat” stereotype isn’t true, the idea of most poor being just unlucky and kept down is equally as false. I have known lots and lots of people who are very poor, from people I work with in my job, to several members of my own family. I have been very poor myself. So far as I can tell, with very few exceptions, these people are poor due to laziness, poor decision making, addiction issues or some combination thereof. And I include myself in that assessment.
Lost in all of that is the regular guy - trying to get ahead. There is lots of attention paid to the evil rich and the sad poor, but I think the focus should be on the middle. Not very exciting, and doesn’t generate a lot of passion, but they truly are the backbone of America.
I really hate it when money is taken out of my paycheck and given to Halliburton for overpriced war contracts - then becomes the bonuses and salaries of overpaid Halliburton execs - I understand your pain.
On the other hand, I have little hatred when money is taken out of my paycheck so someone can feed their kid off foodstamps. I’ve had friends live off foodstamps.
People who abuse welfare systems should be prosecuted - and often are. People who require welfare in order to put a roof over their heads and feed their families - I cannot resent my dollars going there. And I can’t imagine anyone with a heart who has seen people live off welfare can.
My church does birthday baskets. We donate a toy, but also cake mix and a can of frosting, paper plates and dollar store decorations. Because if we didn’t - many kids in the projects wouldn’t have a birthday cake.
Three reasons, at least -[ul][li]“I work just as hard as him, and he makes three times what I do!”[]“You are only rich because you were lucky enough to be born to a doctor!”[]“I think being a teacher is just as valuable as playing in the NFL.”[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
What did Paris Hilton do to deserve her wealth?
What about lawyers who extort money from businesses and individuals by sueing or threatening to sue even when nothing wrong has been done?
What about TV preachers?
Do you really believe the CEOs who made gobs of cash while dropping our economy into a hole so deep we’re still waiting to hear the splash deserved all that money? Do you really not understand why this would make people angry?
Having or acquiring wealth is not the same thing as deserving wealth.
And we’ve worked back to my original question - why does it always have to be fair?
Paris Hilton’s life is no business of ours - and if you resent her family’s money, then that’s pure jealousy.
There are others solutions to these kinds of issues - tort reform, or my favorite - loser pays.
Stupid people will get rooked - that’s how it is. Not great, but the perfect is the enemy of the good.
There should be investigation and eventualy prosecution of wrongdoers - but the ultimate punishment should be brought by the shareholders. The system can be fixed by different regulations, like strengthing the power of shareholders, etc.
Is it so easy to blame fat cats for economic problems, but it’s rarely that simple. The current economic crisis has a lot of causes, and one of the big ones is the simple greed and poor decision making of consumers.
I don’t believe there is a entity that can decide who “deserves” anything. I can admire a business person who skates right to the edge of the line to make a buck, other people can think it’s great that someone is scamming Section 8, some people think that if you can figure out a way to get it, then fine. I take issue with the word “deserve” - it is different from the word “right”
Every human has a basic right to things, but not everyone “deserves” everything, including wealth, a new TV, or whatnot.
I’ve had family members live off food stamps. I’ve also had family members do stupid shit, and end up broke. Then they get food stamps too. Okay, now what about the third time they screw up - more food stamps? What if they give up? Food stamps forever?
Yes, food stamps forever. But not much more than that.
I’ve also seen my uncle (not a blood relation, thank god), who has some nebulous knee injury, get a monthly SS disability paycheck. As a matter of fact, he got back SSD, and recently got a check for over 55 thousand dollars. He is not scamming anybody - he’s not faking an injury, or falsifying records. He just has severe enough knee problems that he isn’t expected to work anymore.
So, I’m looking at this, and thinking - WTF? He can walk, has no mental problems, has no emergency situations that would require him to spend long periods of time away from work, no extreme pain, nothing like that. But the standards of our government, which is spending our money, decides he gets a pass from working anymore. This is unacceptable IMO.
I work as a paralegal for a bankruptcy attorney in a high-filing district, and I have seen thousands of clients, been privy to their entire financial history, talked to them for hours, etc. Based on the data, I can conclude that most people want a bunch of stuff, and can’t pay for it, so they get easy credit. Or they don’t really want to work in the first place.
Anyone can end up poor. The ones that remain are unwilling to put in the effort to get out of there - excluding the ones with real personal medical problems or a family member’s medical problems that prevent working.
Your last paragraph deals with personal, voluntary donations or time and money, not that which is directed by the government according to their whim. I too spend plenty of time and money helping other people, from the GS troop I funded and ran for years to the guy collecting change on the corner. No problem there.
But you see, whenever anyone tries to defend the idea that it’s right and proper for the wealthy to carry a bigger share of the tax burden, we’re told that it’s “unfair” because all these John Galts and Dagny Taggerts worked so hard and took such huge risks to make their money. Not a single one of 'em is ever a scoundrel who should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. It isn’t right to take any of that money away from them, no matter how they got it. It’s the little people who should pay for the courts and police, the military, the roads and waterlines, the schools and firehouses.
You’re overlooking the fact that the overall tendency is for the wealthy to do everything they can to increase their own power and wealth and exteriorize the costs of getting and keeping their money to the rest of society. The classic example of this is the planters of the Old South who quite literally preferred to plunge the nation into a civil war rather than accept any limits to their own wealth and power.
But there wouldn’t be a gigantic jump even in my impractical scheme. You get incrementally higher taxes for each increment of income. You still have the incremental income. How many people are going to turn down an extra $100K because they’d have to pay $39K instead of $35K of taxes on it?
What Joe the jerk didn’t get was that his plumbing business (the one he’d never get anyhow) would have to clear $250K for the higher taxes to kick in. Cutting taxes on those businesses making just a bit of profit seems very much in line with cutting taxes for middle income people. A HVAC business with a profit of $250K can afford to pay a bit more.
I went to school for about 10 years after high school also. I wouldn’t call myself wealthy, but I do pretty well. But I don’t have your attitude.
I’m smart enough to have gotten into one of the world’s great universities, and gone through it without working up much of a sweat. But that’s by accident of genetics - it doesn’t mean I’m better than anyone else. I grew up in a neighborhood where I went to the best local high school in New York, and I benefited from the excellent teachers and facilities there. Not my doing.
My father could afford to send me there - he brought himself up. My mother taught me the love of reading. I’m genetically uninterested in alcohol and other drugs, so I’ve never had to fight off those demons. My good work habits aren’t anything I forced myself to do, but stuff that came naturally. I’m lucky to have them, but it’s not because of any sort of morally superior work on my part.
You and I both were born, if not on third base, on second base at least. The nice lady who is our front desk security guard and the other nice lady who cleans the bathrooms here are never going to make what I do, but that doesn’t make them worse people. I have no problem at all in giving back some of what I make so they could have a safety net if they get laid off or so that they could have better health care for their families. Sure some of my money might go to people who are undeserving. Some of the money I spend on products might go to pay the salaries of asshole CEOs also. Some of my tax dollars paid the salary of the moron in the White House and for an unwarranted war. That’s life.
Part of living in a free country is that people can’t take things away from you just because you don’t “deserve it” unless you actually break the law and are found guilty. If a CEO breaks the law, they should be striped of any ill-gotten fortune. But Paris Hilton shouldn’t be striped of her family’s hotel money just because someone thinks she “doesn’t deserve it”. Who decides who deserves what?
I excuse Pessemist for his attitudes. Those ten years of post-secondary schooling appear to have been in medicine, not economics or modern history, so he can’t be expected to be up on all this theory.
And I think Pess raises some good points. I think hands up are more important than mere handouts. The difference between me & the right wing is that I’m willing to spend more on a beneficiary in a given year than a mere handout would cost, in order to create a truly effective “hand up.”
Gave? Gave??? I should hope in a capitalist system it was used to purchase something, not just granted. The way you say that, it sounds like lots of persons donated money to someone & said, “Here, we’d like you to be rich.”
So now you draw equivalence between inherited wealth & earned wealth. Oy.
Spoken like a man who knows nothing about finance & investment. The rich I mainly worry about are those who are able to lend lots of capital. What, you expect banks & public companies not to borrow from them out of spite?
And as for groups like Wal-Mart that make enormous amounts of money through retail sales, while you have a point in theory, there are serious difficulties in competing with them when they have the name recognition & cushion of capital built up.
:headdesk: In other words, all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds, & anyone who has wealth must necessarily have earned it.
[sarcasm]It’s so clear now! The Invisible Hand is perfect & divine! Well, I’m so sorry our ancestors created all those anti-trust laws, since everything that happens in a free market is perfectly just by definition, & government response to any economic irregularity is unnecessary & a waste of money![/sarcasm]
Right, and a significant property right is the right to decide how to dispose of your property - to donate it to charity, or leave it to your skanky media whore daughter.
If we passed a law saying “your daughter is a skandy media whore, so the feds are confiscating your estate at your death”, then we will be subject to the other drawbacks of confiscatory taxation.
My daughter is the exact opposite of Paris Hilton, being beautiful as well as virtuous, highly intelligent, and generally irresistible in every way. Ho9wever, I make a fair living. If the government said I made too much, and wanted to grab my estate rather than leave it to her and my son. I would spend a good deal of effort to see what I could do to get it to go to her rather than the feds. I think most fathers are the same, even if their daughters make nasty sex tapes.
You’re begging the question. No one is saying to take away her money because she doesn’t deserve it. People were saying that we shouldn’t tax her any higher than anyone else, because she does deserve her money. And other people were arguing back that no, her contributions to society are not in proportion to the amount of money that she has.
I agree with the poster who said that ability to acquire money is not an indicator of how much money you deserve. An extreme example - “I shouldn’t pay more taxes because I was clever enough to rob the bank without getting caught and I deserve what I was able to steal through my cleverness”.
You might say, that’s a bad example because it’s illegal. And that’s the point - it’s illegal because it’s not a fair way to acquire wealth or beneficial to society. While capitalism is a great system, it’s been proven over and over again that it only works well if it’s not completely unfettered. There has to be regulation, limits, check, and balances.
And even if you still think it’s unfair in principle, pragmatically, it benefits the rich person not to have a large starving disgruntled underclass likely to commit crimes, destroy or steal their possessions, harm their persons, and devalue their property.
And frankly, rich people use more governmental resources than poor people do, and for less important reasons. Poor people use them not to starve. Rich people use government resources in order to make more money, and to defend the acquisitions they already have. The more that they have, the more proportion of money the government has to spend defending it / creating infrastructure for it / etc.
Not to mention that the monetary system is a benefit of the government. Without it, wealthy people would have to tie up all of their financial assets in physical goods and property and rely on the much less efficient system of barter in their businesses. Rich people are sucking far more off the teat, so there is nothing unfair about asking them to give a little more back.
Even if you still think it’s unfair in principle, pragmatically speaking it benefits wealthy people not to have a large starving disgruntled underclass likely to commit crimes, stealing their possessions, harming their persons, and devaluing their property.
Actually, we have very good public schools in this country. What we don’t have is a national school system. The failure of locally funded & managed public schools is not an argument for private schools as much as it is for state or federal funding.
I got Earned-Income Credit this last year. I wouldn’t have if I’d paid no taxes. It’s only given to those who have paid payroll taxes but don’t pay additional income taxes.
Finally, something we can agree on. I don’t want to screw the regular guy to feed an obese welfare recipient more junk food. I want to make sure the opportunity stays there & isn’t locked up by rich people who’ve bribed the government to rewrite laws in their favor. The USA has been a country with opportunity in the post-New Deal age. The Big Lie is that abandoning socialism will create more opportunity. It’s a joke that Ronald Reagan could convince this rich, prosperous country that progressive taxes & socialist programs were keeping us down, & that we’d be richer & more prosperous if we got rid of them. I’d rather live in America in 1960, which had a top marginal income tax rate of 91% (!) than in the late 19th Century under robber barons. And so would you.
I’m not sure you understand what that saying means.
What does that mean? Unless you are in the top 10%, all of your money went to things like welfare etc. Not a single penny to pesky things like SS, defense, medicare/medicaid, schools, highways, etc. The rich guys paid for all that stuff.
Now, if you are actually in that top 10%, well then…Man up!
