Tax rewards for super-rich intensify - Page 2 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #11 of 37 (permalink) Old 04-05-2006, 03:45 PM
BenzWorld Extremist
 
Andrew2004az's Avatar
 
Date registered: Feb 2004
Vehicle: 02 ML 320
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,046
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Tax rewards for super-rich intensify

Quote:
kvining - 4/5/2006 3:09 PM

We spend too much on the wrong things. Billions pissed away in Iraq, and billions more to build a huge military establishment designed to fight World War II. What do the super rich make money on? War industries. Government debt. There has always been something eirely suspicious about the fact George Bush Sr has sat on corporate boards with Osama Bin Laden's uncle. Want a plausible explanation for it all? Go see "V for Vendetta".

We spend more money on taking care of illegal immigrants than we will ever spend on a war. Illegals get free healthcare and they can only go to one place the emergency room which always cost a ton. On average for a common cold it can cost anywhere from $250-500 in an emergency room vs $60-70 if you go to a local doctor. We also spend money educating illegal immigrants. Not only the direct cost of illegal immigration (paying for healthcare,school,ext) but you must also consider the billions of dollars identity theft causes each year that is mainly caused by illegals stealing US citizens social security numbers and end up getting credit card ext.
Andrew2004az is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 37 (permalink) Old 04-05-2006, 03:57 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mzsmbs's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 1972 Mercedes 250 (/8) W114/M130
Location: on a high bank of a creek
Posts: 7,296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
RE: Tax rewards for super-rich intensify

here is a link to the story with figures for non subscribers to NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/business/05tax.html?hp&ex=1144209600&en=ed5dcc7b9ba7ff36&ei =5094&partner=homepage



in political asylum
mzsmbs is offline  
post #13 of 37 (permalink) Old 04-05-2006, 05:25 PM
430
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Oct 2002
Vehicle: SLK32, ML430
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 6,349
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Tax rewards for super-rich intensify

Plenty of people in this country have chosen to forego health insurance. All of the people without health insurance? Of course not. But I am willing to bet you that 80+ percent of the people who "can't afford" health insurance can afford their cable TV, their smokes, their junk food, their new shiney Nike's.

KV try and stay on point here and not bring in all these spurious arguments you like to.

The question was about the impact of the tax cuts on the middle class that was conspicously absent from the article. You say the tax burden on them has been increasing and I won't argue that point but lets look at a snap shot and not the long term picture. How did the tax cuts impact these people?
430 is offline  
post #14 of 37 (permalink) Old 04-05-2006, 05:37 PM
430
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Oct 2002
Vehicle: SLK32, ML430
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 6,349
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Tax rewards for super-rich intensify

Quote:
kvining - 4/5/2006 10:17 AM
What has been going on in this country is simple - we have a massive transference of wealth from the American Middle Class to the very wealthy. It's a fucking crime.
Your right there has been a massive transference in wealth and it is a fucking crime. What you are wrong about is where it is going. The transference of wealth is going to Welfare, Medicaid/Medicare, and other non-discretionary items in the budget. To the toon of more than half the federal budget. Much more than any amount spent on the military or Iraw.

At least spending money on the military pays dividends in the terms of jobs and technology advancement.
430 is offline  
post #15 of 37 (permalink) Old 04-05-2006, 05:39 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elitist
 
Marsden's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2005
Vehicle: Mercedes-Benz
Location: United States
Posts: 11,333
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 420 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
(Thread Starter)
RE: Tax rewards for super-rich intensify

Quote:
Shane - 4/5/2006 5:34 PM There is an American aristocracy, don't kid yourself. Smartest thing they do is hide their wealth.
And by the same token, their influence.
Yep, no fools they.

Marsden is offline  
post #16 of 37 (permalink) Old 04-05-2006, 06:35 PM
BenzWorld Extremist
 
Andrew2004az's Avatar
 
Date registered: Feb 2004
Vehicle: 02 ML 320
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,046
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Tax rewards for super-rich intensify

Why punish the wealthy? Wealth comes from having solid items which comes from working, saving, and investing. No wonder the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The rich that earn it are educated and invest it and save, if you look at the people who win the lotto most of them blow it within 5 years. Anyone can become wealthy they just need to save and invest.

Let say a couple goes out every weekend they spend $50 for dinner( i am including transportation costs for gas and what ever they do the rest of the night) thats $100 a weekend and $400 a month/ $4,800 a year. And at the end they have spent all the disposable income they earn, well say couple 2 only goes out one weekend a month so you save $300 a month or $3,600 a year but that money you saved gets invested at say 10% you just got $360 for doing basically nothing and if you keep adding $3,600 a year to your compounding pot of money your money will grow very quickly.

So why should we punish couple 2 when after a few years they have more money than couple 1. And why should couple 2 support couple 1 when they need healthcare. Dont punish the wealthy for hard work and saving.
Andrew2004az is offline  
post #17 of 37 (permalink) Old 04-05-2006, 10:39 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
tiggerfink's Avatar
 
Date registered: May 2004
Vehicle: 2004 SL500 2002 SLK320
Location: TN USA
Posts: 1,672
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Tax rewards for super-rich intensify

I get tax when I fart. I paid over $9,000 when I purchase my SL500. In TN the state taxes a flat 9.25% for the total value. I think that is fare as long as everyone in my state pays the same sales tax. In Mississippi, I would have got a higher license plate tax because of the value of my cars.

I get tax 3 times in my investments. I get tax on the money I earn as income. I would put some of my income in investments. But, I when I sell my investments I would have to pay a federal and state tax. Is that fair? If I give more than $12,000 a year to my family members, I would have to pay a gift of 47%.

We all should pay a flat rate with no deductions. Of course lower income would be tax less. The flat tax rate would mean that people that make more would still pay more taxes. Also those people that make lots of money would purchase more higher end stuff like planes, yachts, and other high-end stuff. If all states like TN would just charge a flat tax on the sales price, they would make more revenue. Some of those planes and yachts would need a crew. That means more jobs.

Some of the taxes that Bush is trying to get rid of are stupid like the gift tax of 47%. Some of the taxes that were voted in actually penalize some of us because we have more. Is that fair? Bush is trying to make the tax system fair.

2002 SLK320
2004 SL500
tiggerfink is offline  
post #18 of 37 (permalink) Old 04-05-2006, 11:22 PM
GMISBEST.
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
RE: Tax rewards for super-rich intensify

Nothing wrong with rewarding the rich you communists!
Who in the hell is going to have those jobs happening if it is not for the risk takers that become rich in the process. You people really make me puke.
When was the last time you saw someone become rich by doing nothing or just complain about why they are not rich? Please keep your hostility in check and keep it real you hear?
post #19 of 37 (permalink) Old 04-06-2006, 05:51 AM
430
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Oct 2002
Vehicle: SLK32, ML430
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 6,349
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Tax rewards for super-rich intensify

Quote:
tiggerfink - 4/6/2006 12:39 AM
I get tax 3 times in my investments. I get tax on the money I earn as income. I would put some of my income in investments. But, I when I sell my investments I would have to pay a federal and state tax. Is that fair?
You forgot that fact that if you receive dividends they are taxed at both the company and individual level.

Flat tax will never happen. Too many vested interests in the current system.
430 is offline  
post #20 of 37 (permalink) Old 04-06-2006, 06:34 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: Tax rewards for super-rich intensify

The flat tax, if applied to everybody, would disproportionately impact the lower end of income.

Just make a graph and take a peek at what it looks like.

Take Bill Gates' $40 Bn and he pays 10% and take some young adult working at $10/hr = about $20K/year and also pays 10%. No deductions.

How much does it take to maintain life, health and property at a minimum in the young guy's town? Let's say $1,000/mo. So that's $12K.

$20K - $2K (taxes) = $18K. $18K - $12K = $6K "profit" from which he can pay a car note, insurance, fuel for the car, and other 'luxury' items.

Now we have Mr Gates. $40 Bn - 10% leaves $36 bn. (Man that must hurt to have only $36 Bn after takes). Now let's take the same minimum from Mr Gates as we did from the young adult. $36 Bn - $12 K is still $36 Bn, rounded to the nearest Billion freaking dollars.

The point is that a flat tax differentially impacts the poor to a greater degree than it impacts the wealthy.

---------------------------------

Try this:

A Plan to Replace the Welfare State

The government should give every American $10,000--and nothing more.

BY CHARLES MURRAY
Sunday, March 26, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

This much is certain: The welfare state as we know it cannot survive. No serious student of entitlements thinks that we can let federal spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid rise from its current 9% of gross domestic product to the 28% of GDP that it will consume in 2050 if past growth rates continue. The problems facing transfer programs for the poor are less dramatic but, in the long term, no less daunting; the falling value of a strong back and the rising value of brains will eventually create a class society making a mockery of America's ideals unless we come up with something more creative than anything that the current welfare system has to offer.

So major change is inevitable--and Congress seems utterly unwilling to face up to it. Witness the Social Security debate of last year, a case study in political timidity. Like it or not, we have several years to think before Congress can no longer postpone action. Let's use it to start thinking outside the narrow proposals for benefit cuts and tax increases that will be Congress's path of least resistance.

The place to start is a blindingly obvious economic reality that no one seems to notice: This country is awash in money. America is so wealthy that enabling everyone to have a decent standard of living is easy. We cannot do it by fiddling with the entitlement and welfare systems--they constitute a Gordian Knot that cannot be untied. But we can cut the knot. We can scrap the structure of the welfare state.
Instead of sending taxes to Washington, straining them through bureaucracies and converting what remains into a muddle of services, subsidies, in-kind support and cash hedged with restrictions and exceptions, just collect the taxes, divide them up, and send the money back in cash grants to all American adults. Make the grant large enough so that the poor won't be poor, everyone will have enough for a comfortable retirement, and everyone will be able to afford health care. We're rich enough to do it.

Consider retirement. Let's say that we have a 21-year-old man before us who, for whatever reasons, will be unable to accumulate his own retirement fund. We accumulate it for him through a yearly contribution for 45 years until he retires at age 66. We can afford to contribute $2,000 a year and invest it in an index-based stock fund. What is the least he can expect to have when he retires? We are ridiculously conservative, so we first identify the worst compound average growth rate, using constant dollars, for any 45-year period in the history of the stock market (4.3% from 1887-1932). We then assume our 21-year-old will be the unluckiest investor in American history and get just a 4.0% average return. At the end of the 45-year period, he will have about $253,000, with which he could purchase an annuity worth about $20,500 a year.

That's with just a $2,000 annual contribution, equivalent to the Social Security taxes the government gets for a person making only $16,129 a year. The government gets more than twice that amount from someone earning the median income, and more than five times that amount from the millions of people who pay the maximum FICA tax. Giving everyone access to a comfortable retirement income is easy for a country as rich as the U.S.--if we don't insist on doing it through the structure of the welfare state.

Health care is more complicated in its details, but not in its logic. We do not wait until our 21-year-old is 65 and then start paying for his health care. Instead, we go to a health insurance company and tell it that we're prepared to start paying a constant premium now for the rest of the 21-year-old's life. Given that kind of offer, the health insurance company can sell us a health care policy that covers the essentials for somewhere around $3,000. It can be so inexpensive for the same reason that life insurance companies can sell generous life insurance cheaply if people buy it when they're young--the insurance company makes a lot of money from the annual payments before eventually having to write the big benefit checks. Providing access to basic medical care for everyone is easy for a country as rich as the U.S.--if we don't insist on doing it through the structure of the welfare state.

There are many ways of turning these economic potentials into a working system. The one I have devised--I call it simply "the Plan" for want of a catchier label--makes a $10,000 annual grant to all American citizens who are not incarcerated, beginning at age 21, of which $3,000 a year must be used for health care. Everyone gets a monthly check, deposited electronically to a bank account. If we implemented the Plan tomorrow, it would cost about $355 billion more than the current system. The projected costs of the Plan cross the projected costs of the current system in 2011. By 2020, the Plan would cost about half a trillion dollars less per year than conservative projections of the cost of the current system. By 2028, that difference would be a trillion dollars per year.

Many questions must be asked of a system that substitutes a direct cash grant for the current welfare state. Work disincentives, the comparative risks of market-based solutions versus government guarantees, transition costs, tradeoffs in health coverage, implications for the tax system, and effects on people too young to qualify for the grant all require attention in deciding whether the Plan is feasible and desirable. I think all of the questions have answers, but they are not one-liners; I lay them out in my book.

For now, let me turn to a larger question: Assuming that the technical questions have answers, do we want a system in which the government divests itself of responsibility for the human needs that gave rise to the welfare state in the first place? I think the reasons for answering "yes" go far beyond the Plan's effects on poverty, retirement and health care. Those issues affect comparatively small minorities of the population. The more profound problem facing the world's most advanced societies is how their peoples are to live meaningful lives in an age of plenty and security.

Throughout history until a few decades ago, the meaning of life for almost everyone was linked to the challenge of simple survival. Staying alive required being a contributing part of a community. Staying alive required forming a family and having children to care for you in your old age. The knowledge that sudden death could happen at any moment required attention to spiritual issues. Doing all those things provided deep satisfactions that went beyond survival.

Life in an age of plenty and security requires none of those things. For the great majority of people living in advanced societies, it is easily possible to go through life accompanied by social companions and serial sex partners, having a good time, and dying in old age with no reason to think that one has done anything significant.

If you believe that's all there is--that the purpose of life is to while away the time as pleasantly as possible--then it is reasonable to think that the purpose of government should be to enable people to do so with as little effort as possible. But if you agree with me that to live a human life can have transcendental meaning, then we need to think about how human existence acquires weight and consequence.

For many readers of The Wall Street Journal, the focus of that search for meaning is bound up with vocation--for some, the quest to be rich and famous; for others, the quest to excel in a vocation one loves. But it is an option open to only to a lucky minority. For most people--including many older people who in their youths focused on vocation--life acquires meaning through the stuff of life: the elemental events associated with birth, death, growing up, raising children, paying the rent, dealing with adversity, comforting the bereaved, celebrating success, applauding the good and condemning the bad; coping with life as it exists around us in all its richness. The chief defect of the welfare state from this perspective is not that it is ineffectual in making good on its promises (though it is), nor even that it often exacerbates the very problems it is supposed to solve (though it does). The welfare state is pernicious ultimately because it drains too much of the life from life.

The Plan returns the stuff of life to all of us in many ways, but chiefly through its effects on the core institutions of family and community. One key to thinking about how the Plan does so is the universality of the grant. What matters is not just that a lone individual has $10,000 a year, but that everyone has $10,000 a year and everyone knows that everyone else has that resource. Strategies that are not open to an individual are open to a couple; strategies that are not open to a couple are open to an extended family or, for that matter, to half a dozen friends who pool resources; strategies not open to a small group are open to a neighborhood. The aggregate shift in resources from government to people under the Plan is massive, and possibilities for dealing with human needs through family and community are multiplied exponentially.

The Plan confers personal accountability whether the recipient wants it or not, producing cascading secondary and tertiary effects. A person who asks for help because he has frittered away his monthly check will find people and organizations who will help (America has a history of producing such people and organizations in abundance), but that help can come with expectations and demands that are hard to make of a person who has no income stream. Or contemplate the effects of a known income stream on the young man who impregnates his girlfriend. The first-order effect is that he cannot evade child support--the judge knows where his bank account is. The second-order effect is to create expectations that formerly didn't exist. I call it the Doolittle Effect, after Alfred Doolittle in "My Fair Lady." Recall why he had to get to the church on time.

The Plan confers responsibility for dealing with human needs on all of us, whether we want it or not. Some will see this as a step backward, thinking that it is better to pay one's taxes, give responsibility to the government and be done with it. I think an alternative outlook is wiser: The Plan does not require us all to become part-time social workers. The nation can afford lots of free riders. But Aristotle was right. Virtue is a habit. Virtue does not flourish in the next generation because we tell our children to be honest, compassionate and generous in the abstract. It flourishes because our children practice honesty, compassion and generosity in the same way that they practice a musical instrument or a sport. That happens best when children grow up in a society in which human needs are not consigned to bureaucracies downtown but are part of life around us, met by people around us.

Simply put, the Plan gives us back the action. Institutions and individuals alike thrive to the extent that they have important jobs to do and know that the responsibility to do them is on their heads. For decades, the welfare state has said to us, "We'll take care of that." As a result, we have watched some of our sources of life's most important satisfactions lose vitality. At the same time, we have learned how incompetent--how helpless--government is when "taking care of that" means dealing with complex human needs. The solution is not to tinker with the welfare state. The solution is to put responsibility for our lives back in our hands--ours as individuals, ours as families, and ours as communities.

Mr. Murray, W.H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State," published this week by AEI Press.
Botnst is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome