World Politics

[gregod]

I thought the flat taxes that Jerry Brown, Paul Tsongas, Steve Forbes* and others worked with some sort of floor/ceiling as well. That being you didn't pay anything on the first $17k of your income (or whatever the number)?


Understand, and accept those. But let's play with the numbers Merckx put up. Let's say you pay zero taxes on the first $50k of your income. For most working people, and the poor, they wouldn't pay any taxes. If you were making good money, you'd pay a reasonable amount. And if there were no exemptions, this % could be not too high, something like 25% above $50k. Again, I'm doing fuzzy math here. Just kicking the tires to stimulate conversation.

*Of note, I recall one of Forbes "flat tax" plans also had exemptions, and no taxes were paid on capital gains. Not very flat when you think about it. I also know Tsongas never endorsed a flat tax, but did discuss it as a way to help eliminate the absurdities and loopholes of the tax code.

by definition then it is not a flat tax

 

[Anonymous]

That might be, but any kind of exemption on a minimum amount makes it in fact a progressive tax. It is clear that every moderately sane person who has suggested a 'flat' tax so far, has included exemptions in order to make it progressive. In other words, it seems everybody understands that a truly flat tax would be utterly insane. So can we then just stop talking about the canard of a flat tax?

And of course, a tax should be leveled on any type of income. May it be salary, capital gain, inheritance etc.

How is inheritance income? How many times should income be taxed?

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

You know, I have written a post since the one you refer to.

 

[redtreviso]

Gramm Leach Blilley financial crime amnesty act passed 52 to 44.. All republicans voted for it and all but 1 democrat voted against it.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s1999-105

 

[gregod]

How is inheritance income? How many times should income be taxed?

i am not sure if this is your question, but there is something to be said about taxing inheritance income at confiscatory levels.

a democracy is about creating equality of opportunity, not outcome. i am sure you will completely agree with this statement. a tax on inheritance income, that one has done nothing to earn and received merely by accident of birth or friendship, is probably the fairest tax of all.

there are difficult problems with its implementation, but the inheritance tax is one that is intended to reward initiative by making dynasties like the kennedys much more difficult.

i am speaking as someone who has benefitted immensely from inheritance. i am in good company thinking that inheritance taxes should be higher. warren buffet has talked about a 90% inheritance tax. like any flat tax, i think this would be unfair in some situations. but for the very wealthy, it would be a very democratic tax.

as for your question "how many times should income be taxed?" technically, it is being taxed once in the above situation. taxes are levied on recipients.

the government taxes the producer when it sells to the distributor, then taxes the distributor when it sells to the retailer, then the retailer when it sells to the consumer, who ultimately pays all of the taxes, several of which are hidden and therefore less painful. but each one is a discrete tax.

 

[Anonymous]

i am not sure if this is your question, but there is something to be said about taxing inheritance income at confiscatory levels.

a democracy is about creating equality of opportunity, not outcome. i am sure you will completely agree with this statement. a tax on inheritance income, that one has done nothing to earn and received merely by accident of birth or friendship, is probably the fairest tax of all.

there are difficult problems with its implementation, but the inheritance tax is one that is intended to reward initiative by making dynasties like the kennedys much more difficult.

i am speaking as someone who has benefitted immensely from inheritance. i am in good company thinking that inheritance taxes should be higher. warren buffet has talked about a 90% inheritance tax. like any flat tax, i think this would be unfair in some situations. but for the very wealthy, it would be a very democratic tax.

as for your question "how many times should income be taxed?" technically, it is being taxed once in the above situation. taxes are levied on recipients.

the government taxes the producer when it sells to the distributor, then taxes the distributor when it sells to the retailer, then the retailer when it sells to the consumer, who ultimately pays all of the taxes, several of which are hidden and therefore less painful. but each one is a discrete tax.

You suppose the government owns a family's wealth. I don't.

a democracy is about creating equality of opportunity, not outcome. i am sure you will completely agree with this statement.

I agree 100%.

a tax on inheritance income, that one has done nothing to earn and received merely by accident of birth or friendship, is probably the fairest tax of all.

What has the government done to earn the right to family money that has already been taxed? The money belongs to whom exactly?

What incentive is there for anyone to invest and build an enterprise that, under other circumstances, may be generational in nature? Why would anyone bother at a 90% rate?

Do you have any idea why Buffett would argue this? the short answer is he's an insurance tycoon and stands to profit handsomely from elaborate estate plans funded with enormous Life Insurance policies.

Buffett is a self-serving SOB. End of. Be very careful of who you align yourself with. Nothing Buffet says or does is for anyone's benefit except his.

as for your question "how many times should income be taxed?" technically, it is being taxed once in the above situation. taxes are levied on recipients.

legally you may be correct. Morally, this is an outrage.

the government taxes the producer when it sells to the distributor, then taxes the distributor when it sells to the retailer, then the retailer when it sells to the consumer, who ultimately pays all of the taxes, several of which are hidden and therefore less painful. but each one is a discrete tax

The produce-distributor-retailer model is not the same from father to son, from mother to daughter.

If what you write above is true and my father paid for my college education, then I guess the IRS should send me a bill for the tax due on that amount, right? I did nothing for the money while my dad was alive. What's the difference if he's dead?

The death tax is morally indefensible.

 

[redtreviso]

What has the government done to earn the right to family money that has already been taxed? The money belongs to whom exactly?

In many cases the inheritance has NOT been taxed already. In the world you would like you would make investments in the names of your oldest and sickest relatives providing it was willed back to you with the gains tax free..

 

[gregod]

1)You suppose the government owns a family's wealth. I don't.



I agree 100%.



2)What has the government done to earn the right to family money that has already been taxed? The money belongs to whom exactly?

3)What incentive is there for anyone to invest and build an enterprise that, under other circumstances, may be generational in nature? Why would anyone bother at a 90% rate?

Do you have any idea why Buffett would argue this? the short answer is he's an insurance tycoon and stands to profit handsomely from elaborate estate plans funded with enormous Life Insurance policies.

4)Buffett is a self-serving SOB. End of. Be very careful of who you align yourself with. Nothing Buffet says or does is for anyone's benefit except his.



legally you may be correct. Morally, this is an outrage.



The produce-distributor-retailer model is not the same from father to son, from mother to daughter.

5)If what you write above is true and my father paid for my college education, then I guess the IRS should send me a bill for the tax due on that amount, right? I did nothing for the money while my dad was alive. What's the difference if he's dead?

6)The death tax is morally indefensible.

1) i don't assume anything. it is the price one pays to live in a free society with equality of opportunity. furthermore, you do realize the government is the citizens of the US? it is not some separate entity. we get the government that we vote for.

2) see 1) one's family benefits immensely as long as one is alive and productive.

3) seriously? the incentive is to provide a good home and lifestyle for your family as long as one is alive. are you trying to tell me that you would not work hard to provide for your family and instead prefer to live in squalor if you thought the government would take most of your wealth after you die? that's fukced up.

4) your point being? i thought this was supposed to be a good thing in a capitalist society. if he is being self-serving by saying his wealth upon his death should be taxed at 90% then i think we could all benefit from his kind of self-serving attitude.

5) as long as you are a dependent it is not income. if your father were to pay for someone from your neighborhood out of the goodness of his heart, then, yes, i would say that should be taxed as income.

6) i disagree. the inheritance tax is the most moral tax. it ensures equality of opportunity in a democratic society by making dynasties more difficult.

 

[redtreviso]

The death tax is morally indefensible.

no such thing..

You can inherit 5mil tax free.. at 5% that is 250k a year for life.. above that you will be taxed.. you poor dear

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

What has the government done to earn the right to family money that has already been taxed?

How about provide for a free and safe society where they could earn fabulous wealth (and keep plenty of it)?

As to "already taxed", I'll defer to Gregod's post.

 

[Anonymous]

1) i don't assume anything. it is the price one pays to live in a free society with equality of opportunity. furthermore, you do realize the government is the citizens of the US? it is not some separate entity. we get the government that we vote for.

2) see 1) one's family benefits immensely as long as one is alive and productive.

3) seriously? the incentive is to provide a good home and lifestyle for your family as long as one is alive. are you trying to tell me that you would not work hard to provide for your family and instead prefer to live in squalor if you thought the government would take most of your wealth after you die? that's fukced up.

4) your point being? i thought this was supposed to be a good thing in a capitalist society. if he is being self-serving by saying his wealth upon his death should be taxed at 90% then i think we could all benefit from his kind of self-serving attitude.

5) as long as you are a dependent it is not income. if your father were to pay for someone from your neighborhood out of the goodness of his heart, then, yes, i would say that should be taxed as income.

6) i disagree. the inheritance tax is the most moral tax. it ensures equality of opportunity in a democratic society by making dynasties more difficult.

i don't assume anything. it is the price one pays to live in a free society with equality of opportunity. furthermore, you do realize the government is the citizens of the US? it is not some separate entity. we get the government that we vote for.

The operative word is highlighted. We have very different definitions of that word I suspect.

furthermore, you do realize the government is the citizens of the US?

No. No it's not. That is probably the only thing I have in common with OWS.

2) see 1) one's family benefits immensely as long as one is alive and productive.

So I'm 5 when my wealthy parents die in a car accident. The govt takes 90% under your buffet plan. Fair? fvck no.

3) seriously? the incentive is to provide a good home and lifestyle for your family as long as one is alive. are you trying to tell me that you would not work hard to provide for your family and instead prefer to live in squalor if you thought the government would take most of your wealth after you die? that's fukced up.

Yeah. The "I want the last check I write to bounce" crowd.

I'm telling you people would not work nearly as hard to build something they could pass on because they know that's not possible. The difference is not wealth or squalor. Fvcked up? Fvcked up is the feds rolling in 9 months plus one day shutting the family down. That's fvcked up.

5) as long as you are a dependent it is not income. if your father were to pay for someone from your neighborhood out of the goodness of his heart, then, yes, i would say that should be taxed as income.

I'm not talking about a neighborhood kid. Apples and Oranges argument. There is no difference between my alive father providing for me or my dead one, except to you and the feds. It's disgusting.

6) i disagree. the inheritance tax is the most moral tax. it ensures equality of opportunity in a democratic society by making dynasties more difficult.

This is real life, not the National Football League. I don't get it. I sincerely don't.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Out of interest, has their been many "Occupy Wall Street" protesters out and about around any of your local cities?

Sadly, on two different occasions protesters interviewed on radio couldn't even say what they were protesting for.

 

[Anonymous]

How about provide for a free and safe society where they could earn fabulous wealth (and keep plenty of it)?

As to "already taxed", I'll defer to Gregod's post.

Could not disagree in stronger terms.

 

[redtreviso]

Sadly, on two different occasions protesters interviewed on radio couldn't even say what they were protesting for.

yea and how many did they interview that could say but your radio didn't want them to say it to you? Murdoch owned station by chance?

 

[redtreviso]

Watch the end of the clip.. foxnews related

http://gawker.com/5851978/jon-stewart-left-dumbfounded-by-republican-reaction-to-gaddafis-death

 

[Hugh Januss]

1) i don't assume anything. it is the price one pays to live in a free society with equality of opportunity. furthermore, you do realize the government is the citizens of the US? it is not some separate entity. we get the government that we vote for.

2) see 1) one's family benefits immensely as long as one is alive and productive.

3) seriously? the incentive is to provide a good home and lifestyle for your family as long as one is alive. are you trying to tell me that you would not work hard to provide for your family and instead prefer to live in squalor if you thought the government would take most of your wealth after you die? that's fukced up.

4) your point being? i thought this was supposed to be a good thing in a capitalist society. if he is being self-serving by saying his wealth upon his death should be taxed at 90% then i think we could all benefit from his kind of self-serving attitude.

5) as long as you are a dependent it is not income. if your father were to pay for someone from your neighborhood out of the goodness of his heart, then, yes, i would say that should be taxed as income.

6) i disagree. the inheritance tax is the most moral tax. it ensures equality of opportunity in a democratic society by making dynasties more difficult.

You will never get Scott and his ilk to agree, theirs is the politics of "I made it, it's all mine, you can 't have any of it unless I choose to give it to you. Because I am smarter and better than you are."
Only problem Scott and I are both "business owners" and neither of us are part of the "club", he just doesn't see that.

 

[Anonymous]

Posting about a movie in the politics thread may seem a little shallow, but I have to say that sometimes movies do a good job of clarifying a larger point the contents of which are less comprehensible.

I just finished watching Margin Call. My first suggestion is to watch it.

Secondly, it drove home to me the reason that I have not been able to find much give a sh*t about occupy Wall Street and find the Tea Party Patriots to be a laughable group of clueless people. You cannot occupy what happened in the mortgage derivatives market or any similar construct in the future. You can't apply originalist philosophy regarding the constitution to what happened with AIG. You can't occupy it because when it exists, nobody is complaining because even the people who are creating it don't understand it, and by the time you try to occupy it because of the obvious gravity of the destruction left in its wake, there is nothing there to occupy anymore. You can't begin talking about socialism in relation to it or pass regulations to end it because it no longer exists, and when you pass regulation to try to stop it, it will simply exist in a place devoid of the regulation you passed. It is the force of greed, and it is more onerous than any other force on the planet. You cannot occupy the greed people have that makes them cease to consider the impact of their decisions, and move headlong into grabbing as much of that cash as possible even if that pile of money lies under a mound of **** at the bottom of a cesspool. You can't extinguish it by pulling governmental support of the poor regardless of their individual ability to become part of the working world, be it ample or nonexistent.

I have been accused on another forum, populated mostly by conservatives, of being jealous of success; of being jealous of the wealth attained by those in society who are "successful." The thing that they don't understand is, that is impossible. I don't want to be part of that world. There is noting in their world to envy. There is nothing in that world to pity. There is nothing in that world but a continuum of greed. The door is not open to everyone. You have to leave your morals at the door, and most people are incapable of doing that. I will not vilify those who walk through however, because in the physical world, there is no greater god than money. If you aren't going to pursue helping others with your life, you might as well drop your morals and make as much money as possible, because owning more stuff feels better than owning less. For a short time, while I was part of the machine that fed that particular greed, I experienced the fruits of greed. It was fun. If anyone tells you differently, they are a liar. Fortunately, it didn't last.

The American dream served up in apple pie is a fiction created by people who need your vote so that they can help pacify you for the people with real power and money. They aren't pacifying you so that you will not try to pass laws that will hinder them. You couldn't possibly pass laws that will hurt them. Politicians aren't smart enough to legislate away the manifestations of greed because greed is a force of chaos, and it will express itself somewhere else. You cannot control that which is not constructed of order.

It is times like these that I am grateful for my faith. It may seem a weakness to some, but it is better than the alternative in my estimation.

Go see Margin Call. Watch the part when the two guys are riding back to the city in the Austin Martin early on the morning of the final day. Listen to the reality they express. You can't change that.

I will continue to support the forces of socialism not because it is superior morally, but because I don't believe that supporting a healthy adult who chooses not to work is really all that destructive to society because you will also be supporting some people who cannot work and their children. It is a crappy existence we provide, but what the hell, right?

 

[Anonymous]

You will never get Scott and his ilk to agree, theirs is the politics of "I made it, it's all mine, you can 't have any of it unless I choose to give it to you. Because I am smarter and better than you are."
Only problem Scott and I are both "business owners" and neither of us are part of the "club", he just doesn't see that.

Nope. I'm part of the "I made it, I paid taxes on it and if I choose to give it to my kid that ought to be my preogotive" crowd.

Because I am smarter and better than you are.

Has nothing to do with anything. There's always someone smarter and better no matter how smart or good I am.

It's called a sense of right and wrong.

I'm not part of a club, don't want to be part of a club. That's probably a significant difference between us.

 

[redtreviso]

You will never get Scott and his ilk to agree, theirs is the politics of "I made it, it's all mine, you can 't have any of it unless I choose to give it to you. Because I am smarter and better than you are."
Only problem Scott and I are both "business owners" and neither of us are part of the "club", he just doesn't see that.

YOU is the operative term.. He thinks anyone he speaks to is "you" or if someone disagrees with him they are a "you" or a you sympathizer, all out to take from him. There's obviously not been enough people in scott's life to tell him and the horse he rode in on to------------

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Could not disagree in stronger terms.

So, if these people were born in a country like, Paraguay, Chad, Bhutan, North Korea, etc. they would still have had the same opportunities they had in the United States?

I just finished watching Margin Call. My first suggestion is to watch it.

Excellent post TFF. I think it goes back to what I said days ago when this whole occupy thing started. Until those with their hands on the reins of collusion between super wealth and the government are faced with imminent threats to their livelihood - be that by hook or by crook - there will be no change.

 

[frenchfry]

i am not sure if this is your question, but there is something to be said about taxing inheritance income at confiscatory levels.

a democracy is about creating equality of opportunity, not outcome. i am sure you will completely agree with this statement. a tax on inheritance income, that one has done nothing to earn and received merely by accident of birth or friendship, is probably the fairest tax of all.

there are difficult problems with its implementation, but the inheritance tax is one that is intended to reward initiative by making dynasties like the kennedys much more difficult.

i am speaking as someone who has benefitted immensely from inheritance. i am in good company thinking that inheritance taxes should be higher. warren buffet has talked about a 90% inheritance tax. like any flat tax, i think this would be unfair in some situations. but for the very wealthy, it would be a very democratic tax.

as for your question "how many times should income be taxed?" technically, it is being taxed once in the above situation. taxes are levied on recipients.

the government taxes the producer when it sells to the distributor, then taxes the distributor when it sells to the retailer, then the retailer when it sells to the consumer, who ultimately pays all of the taxes, several of which are hidden and therefore less painful. but each one is a discrete tax.

Inheritance tax in France is 60%, plus the compulsory notary fees plus legal fees plus penalties if the estate isn't wrapped up within 6 months. I am not agianst inheritance taxes, but this is a lot - especially if the estate isn't too large and there isn't much left over.

I guess I would be more accepting if I didn't see the tax money being frittered away.

 

[redtreviso]

""Letter: On Kochs, Tea Party, Libertarians

Could it be that the basic tenets of the tea party, Libertarian Party and the billionaire Koch brothers are nearly the same? How might this have happened?

The fact is, the Koch brothers have a foundation that has trained thousands of tea party activists and their unlimited monies flow to the tea party candidates.

According to a Bloomberg report, when David Koch ran for vice president on the Libertarian ticket in 1980, he promised to abolish Social Security, minimum wage laws, the Federal Reserve System and the FBI and CIA, along with other federal agencies.

Does this not sound like tea party members when they talk of getting rid of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Education, weakening the power of Food and Drug Administration and FEMA while cutting Social Security and reducing or eliminating all kinds of health care programs?

What many people do not remember is that Koch Industries flaunted and evaded the law with secret sales to Iran and were fined for taking oil from federal land and not paying for all of it.

When you analyze and listen to Libertarian candidates closely, you will realize they are anarchists who want no rules or regulations and no effective government.

With their views on health care for young and old, you can be sure the Libertarians, Koch Brothers and many tea party members have not participated in bake sales for children with brain tumors, nor do they care if wiping out EPA might lead to “cancer communities” like the ones in China.

A tiny government for our large nation would be the mother lode for the likes of Koch Industries and Halliburton. They would help themselves to the resources of the nation and let the needs of the people hang.""

http://cjonline.com/opinion/2011-10-21/letter-kochs-tea-party-libertarians#.TqJs87Lc_yB

 

[frenchfry]

Posting about a movie in the politics thread may seem a little shallow, but I have to say that sometimes movies do a good job of clarifying a larger point the contents of which are less comprehensible.

I just finished watching Margin Call. My first suggestion is to watch it.

Secondly, it drove home to me the reason that I have not been able to find much give a sh*t about occupy Wall Street and find the Tea Party Patriots to be a laughable group of clueless people. You cannot occupy what happened in the mortgage derivatives market or any similar construct in the future. You can't apply originalist philosophy regarding the constitution to what happened with AIG. You can't occupy it because when it exists, nobody is complaining because even the people who are creating it don't understand it, and by the time you try to occupy it because of the obvious gravity of the destruction left in its wake, there is nothing there to occupy anymore. You can't begin talking about socialism in relation to it or pass regulations to end it because it no longer exists, and when you pass regulation to try to stop it, it will simply exist in a place devoid of the regulation you passed. It is the force of greed, and it is more onerous than any other force on the planet. You cannot occupy the greed people have that makes them cease to consider the impact of their decisions, and move headlong into grabbing as much of that cash as possible even if that pile of money lies under a mound of **** at the bottom of a cesspool. You can't extinguish it by pulling governmental support of the poor regardless of their individual ability to become part of the working world, be it ample or nonexistent.

I have been accused on another forum, populated mostly by conservatives, of being jealous of success; of being jealous of the wealth attained by those in society who are "successful." The thing that they don't understand is, that is impossible. I don't want to be part of that world. There is noting in their world to envy. There is nothing in that world to pity. There is nothing in that world but a continuum of greed. The door is not open to everyone. You have to leave your morals at the door, and most people are incapable of doing that. I will not vilify those who walk through however, because in the physical world, there is no greater god than money. If you aren't going to pursue helping others with your life, you might as well drop your morals and make as much money as possible, because owning more stuff feels better than owning less. For a short time, while I was part of the machine that fed that particular greed, I experienced the fruits of greed. It was fun. If anyone tells you differently, they are a liar. Fortunately, it didn't last.

The American dream served up in apple pie is a fiction created by people who need your vote so that they can help pacify you for the people with real power and money. They aren't pacifying you so that you will not try to pass laws that will hinder them. You couldn't possibly pass laws that will hurt them. Politicians aren't smart enough to legislate away the manifestations of greed because greed is a force of chaos, and it will express itself somewhere else. You cannot control that which is not constructed of order.

It is times like these that I am grateful for my faith. It may seem a weakness to some, but it is better than the alternative in my estimation.

Go see Margin Call. Watch the part when the two guys are riding back to the city in the Austin Martin early on the morning of the final day. Listen to the reality they express. You can't change that.

I will continue to support the forces of socialism not because it is superior morally, but because I don't believe that supporting a healthy adult who chooses not to work is really all that destructive to society because you will also be supporting some people who cannot work and their children. It is a crappy existence we provide, but what the hell, right?

Excellent diatribe against the greed that is eating away at the moral fiber of mankind. In the end there is no good that comes from greed either on a human level or on an environmental level. Less is more, but that may be difficult to understand until you have tried it!

Another excellent film about the evils of greed is "The Gods must be Crazy", the arrival of an empty coke bottle in a previously harmonious African tribe wakens the greed in all.

 

[gregod]

The operative word is highlighted. We have very different definitions of that word I suspect.



No. No it's not. That is probably the only thing I have in common with OWS.



So I'm 5 when my wealthy parents die in a car accident. The govt takes 90% under your buffet plan. Fair? fvck no.

<snip>

it really doesn't take much imagination to understand this, does it?

"free" as in a free society costs money. unless of course you prefer to opt out of society (a la ted kaczynski) or prefer anarchy (the ultimate freedom with the maximum risk). there is a balance in a society between the needs of an individual and the needs of the group. sometimes, as with taxes and public education among many other government functions, subjugating the immediate needs of individuals has long term benefits not only for the group but those individuals, as well.

nobody was calling for a 90% rate for everyone. as alluded to in a previous post, flat taxes are unfair. the example of 90% inheritance tax is an excellent illustration of how the burden of flat taxes fall disproportionately on middle and low incomes. to a billionaire's family, 90% would hardly be a hardship. adjustments need to be made for income level and dependent status; as is the law already. the idea is not to make it harder for poor and middle income families. the idea is prevent a permanent upper class, like the kennedys and bushes, who once in power do everything they can to hold on to that money, power and priviledge, really undermining the freedom that you and i value. these are the ideas the OWS and tea party are demonstrating for.

maybe my morals are screwed up, but even if the government was going to tax my estate 100%, i would still be working as hard as i can to provide the best possible life for my family as long as i am alive. this will also give my family the best possible advantage in the event of my untimely demise. for me, it is incentive enough to want to provide best possible life for my family as long as i can.

 

[gregod]

Inheritance tax in France is 60%, plus the compulsory notary fees plus legal fees plus penalties if the estate isn't wrapped up within 6 months. I am not agianst inheritance taxes, but this is a lot - especially if the estate isn't too large and there isn't much left over.

I guess I would be more accepting if I didn't see the tax money being frittered away.

watching government fritter away money is frustrating. but which is worse, a society where 40 million people do not have access to healthcare, the unemployed have little support, vacations are unheard of for the middle class, infrastructure is falling apart, etc, etc or living in france?

i lived in relative penury in france for a few years and in spite of its problems it was much better than being poor in the US.

a flat (inheritance, income, any) tax is not fair. is france's inheritance tax really the same for everyone? no exemptions?