Author Topic: Wealth in America (Read 2504 times)

andy750 · « **on:** October 01, 2009, 12:35:14 PM »

Interesting article about wealth in America....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leopold/the-forbes-400-shows-why_b_306228.html?alacarte=1

HavocTurbo · « **Reply #1 on:** October 01, 2009, 12:42:03 PM »

It's about time. Someone should make this guy head of the tax codes.

BobbyR · « **Reply #2 on:** October 01, 2009, 01:47:21 PM »

+1 (Hide I hear Ed coming)

Duke McDukiedook · « **Reply #3 on:** October 01, 2009, 01:54:10 PM »

But daddy, I thought trickle-down econimics was supposed to be great for everybody, not make the rich richer and the poor poorer!

But alas, it does.

HavocTurbo · « **Reply #4 on:** October 01, 2009, 02:03:49 PM »

Quote from: BobbyR on October 01, 2009, 01:47:21 PM

+1 (Hide I hear Ed coming)

Bobby I about peed in my pants.

tramp · « **Reply #5 on:** October 02, 2009, 07:02:11 AM »

glad some people got rich
hold nothing against them
you have to work hard to make money

mlinder · « **Reply #6 on:** October 02, 2009, 07:03:48 AM »

Um, yeah, it seems this guy was advocating a 91% tax rate for people who make lots of money?
#$%*, why bother trying to make money, then?

SD750F · « **Reply #7 on:** October 02, 2009, 07:31:22 AM »

The whole system would be much healthier (pun intended) if there was a flat tax. Everyone above a set poverty level would pay the same percentage... No deductions and no tax shelters. Let's say 20% across the board. Simple tax returns. No headaches in April.

But something tells me that even with this type of a tax, the uber rich would still complain that they "Worked hard for their money!"

Does anyone know that uber rich Warren Buffett pays less annual taxes than his personal assistant! I not saying as a percentage of income, I'm saying actual amount! He has publicly told reporters this fact. He says it is because of all the tax breaks and shelters that his income affords him. And he is the first to admit that it is not right...

What do you think???

lynchj · « **Reply #8 on:** October 02, 2009, 10:08:13 AM »

It doesn't suprise me to see the wealthiest people (top 400) actually increased their income. There are a lot of people with bags of money, and they have ways of paying less taxes than you and I.

I know people who are very wealthy, they bought a large piece of land, built a barn for their horses and it's now a "farm" that they write off as as a loss on their taxes.

I'm not convinced they actually "worked hard" for their $ either, he is a fund manager that lost a lot of money (my money was part of it) but he still has 3 Porsche's, a Bentley and a Maserati and they just bought a new 55 foot yacht. They take lots of vacations to exotic places and laugh about how they pay next to nothing in taxes.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

I'd go for a flat tax rate.

BobbyR · « **Reply #9 on:** October 02, 2009, 10:26:42 AM »

Quote from: lynchj on October 02, 2009, 10:08:13 AM

It doesn't suprise me to see the wealthiest people (top 400) actually increased their income. There are a lot of people with bags of money, and they have ways of paying less taxes than you and I.

I know people who are very wealthy, they bought a large piece of land, built a barn for their horses and it's now a "farm" that they write off as as a loss on their taxes.

I'm not convinced they actually "worked hard" for their $ either, he is a fund manager that lost a lot of money (my money was part of it) but he still has 3 Porsche's, a Bentley and a Maserati and they just bought a new 55 foot yacht. They take lots of vacations to exotic places and laugh about how they pay next to nothing in taxes.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

I'd go for a flat tax rate.

I agree with the flat tax approach. A W2 working couple with an income of over 185-190K will pay a flat tax period. No deductions 32% off the top. This is called the AMT.
The fund managers and the super rich rarely build anything. Unlike the Industrialsts in the past, they don't build factories and create jobs. They take your money like IRA and 401K and use it to get richer. If you lose, you lose, if they lose, they win.

demon78 · « **Reply #10 on:** October 02, 2009, 10:52:19 AM »

God, you can hear the sniveling start Bobby.
Bill the demon.

mlinder · « **Reply #11 on:** October 02, 2009, 11:05:28 AM »

I like the flat tax idea too.

BobbyR · « **Reply #12 on:** October 02, 2009, 11:07:18 AM »

The IRA and 401K did not exist prior to 1980. It was a scheme to supplant the defined pension system, and shift the responibility from the employer to the employee.

The Social Security system is also skewed in favor of the employer. Each of you makes a contribution. They get to write thier contribution off, and you don't.

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I hear Ed coming. All you Marxist, Commie, Socialist, Liberal, Anarchists better run.

BeSeeingYou · « **Reply #13 on:** October 02, 2009, 11:38:05 AM »

I think one of the reasons for the very high tax in the past was to prevent the rise of an aristocracy perpetuating itself by handing down wealth from one generation to the next. It was also a reaction to the rise of the "robber barons" in the late 1800's through the early 1900's. At the time this aristocracy was seen as the antithesis of democracy and one of the reasons our ancestors left Europe. This policy stated to change in the 1980's and what have been the results since the Reagen Revolution. An astonishing transfer of wealth from the lower and middle class to the wealthy, extreme boom and bust cycles with gyrating unemployment numbers, a dismantling of the manufacturing sector, phony economic booms perpetuated by an unregulated financial sector doing little more than shuffling paper, a lack of interest in the community at large with the only concern being what's in it for me, and our democracy itself seems to be coming apart at the seams. The whole idea that somehow people will work less hard with higher tax rates on the wealthy is total bullsh!t. Did people work less hard in the 1930's-1970's?

Duke McDukiedook · « **Reply #14 on:** October 02, 2009, 11:44:20 AM »

This has been occurring long before reagan.
Remember when the government used to bust industrialists because they got too large and powerful? Monopolies?

Well, now the government gives money to these multinational corporations because they are "too big to fail"?!?!

What the hell has happened here?

??

I have a pretty good idea.

tramp · « **Reply #15 on:** October 02, 2009, 01:07:52 PM »

about ten tears ago an economist figured a flat tax of 10%
if you made $100 you pay $10
if you made a million you paid $100k
all businesses paid 10%
no deductions
he said the government would make more money than before
and there would be more spending because the average person would have more money to spend
plus the savings of getting rid of the irs
too much common sense

BobbyR · « **Reply #16 on:** October 02, 2009, 01:33:42 PM »

1% of the population has 95% of the money at this point. The other 99% fight over the scraps.
I have no problem with people making money, it is one of favorite activities. I have a problem with those who make money but not produce national wealth. They are not building factories to produce goods and jobs. They are not working for the betterment of the nation. They just move money around.
People think Trump is a prick and he is. However, when he builds something hundreds of people can put food on the table.

Duke McDukiedook · « **Reply #17 on:** October 02, 2009, 02:17:37 PM »

Jesus cast the moneychangers out of the temple, remember?

I think he was on to something there.

SD750F · « **Reply #18 on:** October 02, 2009, 02:38:30 PM »

Quote from: tramp on October 02, 2009, 01:07:52 PM

about ten tears ago an economist figured a flat tax of 10%
if you made $100 you pay $10
if you made a million you paid $100k
all businesses paid 10%
no deductions
he said the government would make more money than before
and there would be more spending because the average person would have more money to spend
plus the savings of getting rid of the IRS
too much common sense

I am familiar with the report. But the economist didn't believe that the government should be in the hand out business. And with the deficit, the amount would run short.

I think all Americans should expect basic entitlements. There are in no particular order;
Social Security

Education, K through College Undergrad

Medical

Federal Lands and Parks

Infrastructure (Transportation, Law Enforcement, and such)

Research (We need to compete with the world and produce world class products and technology. Also see Education)

Military (And I don't have a problem with national military service for ALL citizens. This would improve the quality of our military and ensure we don't fight somewhere unless it is absolutely necessary)

So that's why I used the higher percentage of 20%. And I bet 25% would be even better and still not a burden to anyone... Look at your last IRS return and consider 20% or 25%. It would make you smile...

74cb750 · « **Reply #19 on:** October 02, 2009, 06:27:39 PM »

Just a few thoughts to keep the discussion going.

Ir seems to me the problem w a flat tax is enforcement
and in the particulars. Like:
which income is taxed?
Would a company car/house/apartment be taxed as income?
Many corporations pay their people as if they were considered employees in another country,like Johnson & Johnson, Kodak etc have done with their top employees.
How would you catch these people?

Without tax deductions many non-profits would go belly up,
and states would have to revise their tax codes also.
A 10 percent tax rate would definitely be too low. I think it
would be closer to 17-18 percent and go up every year.

A simple solution like a flat tax could work, but I somehow
doubt the deductions for the rich would evaporate.

Some European countries have a Value Added Tax. I think if you ask people that deal with this
you'll hear mostly negative reactions.
peace,
michel

Jerry Rxman Griffin aka MuthaF'er · « **Reply #20 on:** October 03, 2009, 10:19:26 AM »

Yeah but look at how many people would be out of work at the IRS.

Perhaps that would pay for health care.

SD750F · « **Reply #21 on:** October 03, 2009, 11:26:09 AM »

Quote from: 74cb750 on October 02, 2009, 06:27:39 PM

Just a few thoughts to keep the discussion going.

Ir seems to me the problem w a flat tax is enforcement
and in the particulars. Like:
which income is taxed?
Would a company car/house/apartment be taxed as income?
Many corporations pay their people as if they were considered employees in another country,like Johnson & Johnson, Kodak etc have done with their top employees.
How would you catch these people?

Without tax deductions many non-profits would go belly up,
and states would have to revise their tax codes also.
A 10 percent tax rate would definitely be too low. I think it
would be closer to 17-18 percent and go up every year.

A simple solution like a flat tax could work, but I somehow
doubt the deductions for the rich would evaporate.

Some European countries have a Value Added Tax. I think if you ask people that deal with this
you'll hear mostly negative reactions.
peace,
michel

Let's keep it really simple...

First the Government only taxes Income. Straight income from work, or the sale of capital. I think this is very simple. Local government such as City and State tax sales and real estate property.

See, nice and simple.

Non-profits. Well that's another can of worms... Here in South Dakota all you have to do is register as a non-profit or better yet, a church and all taxes are zeroed! Even the churches who buy and develop residential real estate! Oh come on guys. I say start taxing the churches as well.

mrblasty · « **Reply #22 on:** October 03, 2009, 11:38:25 AM »

I like your idea of knocking churches out of tax exempt status. To many are used as a podium for advancing a political agenda which is violation of the tax exempt rule.

News:

Author Topic: Wealth in America (Read 2504 times)