It is both simple and complex: Taxes and the very wealthy

[Tank]

The problem with flat-tax, Stradling, is that the poorer you are, the worse it is. Let's say its 20%. If you make 40K a year, your salary goes down to 32K, while if you make 200K a year, your net goes to 160K. Clearly the person making 40K is more impacted by the flat-tax than the person making 200K.

 

Again, the country was in much better shape when the very wealthy were more heavily taxed. I'm not saying go back to 90%, but it should be much higher at the top and taper off.

 

so the guy making 40k pays 8k in taxes while the guy making 200k pays 40k in taxes. i don't see any problem with that whatsoever. everyone is paying their fair share. why should the guy making 200k pay more than his share?

[arch stanton]

I guess I run in different circles because I've never met these happy-go-lucky loafers who live high on the government handout hog. The biggest problem I see with trying to support a family off McDonalds pay is that they won't give you enough hours to allow you to qualify for full time status so you have to go hunting the exchanges for insurance and spend the rest of your time searching for a job that meets AW career standards. But then if you don't live like a depression era hillbilly nobody thinks you're actually poor.

[mp170.6]

Angelsjunky has a really poor grasp of Economics.  He would be surprised to learn that virtually all otherwise liberal Economics Ph.D.'s despise the minimum wage and admit that it contributes to unemployment and homelessness. 

 

The Democratic and Republican parties don't understand what constitutes good or bad Economic policy.  Each side has varying degrees of bad ideas with very, very few good ideas. 

 

Putting the minimum wage up against production, the wealthy, living conditions, etc like Angelsjunky does is about as useful as comparing spaghetti to the Illuminati.  A total waste of time. The wealthy typically get and stay wealthy by being money savvy and investing it well.  That's a novel concept YOU TOO can start doing anytime you like by visiting your bank or a local financial planner and asking about investment opportunities. 

 

The talking heads in the media never mention the studies that consistently find links between "poor" people and their addictive behaviors.  Income level really isn't the problem, people just waste money on everything imaginable in an attempt to fit in and be fashionable.  The end result is neck-deep credit card debt, bankruptcy, no money in savings, no investments, and diminished chances of home ownership -- i.e. the American definition of being poor. 

[mp170.6]

How bout we do one of two things. We charge every single person the same percentage with no write offs, or two we get rid of income tax and go with Federal Sales tax on everything.

Sales Tax = Taxation without Representation for kids under 18.

A Federal Sales Tax would make that problem a million times worse. Same problem if you charged income taxes on a percentage basis to everybody, no write offs, teenagers get screwed over.

Edited December 21, 2015 by mp170.6

[nate]

See this is where you lose me. My brothers first job was at a McDonalds and the manager lived in her car at the neighborhood Wal-Mart.  I've never met one person who had the whole "being poor" thing wired. I've spent plenty of my life in the 20-25k range and couldnt even qualify for a thousand dollar grant for Community College. Only time I ever filed for unemployment my former employer fought it and I found a new job before needing the assistance. 

 

The poor are not writing the laws. Politicians might shift the financial burden to the middle class but the middle class is not single handily keeping the impoverished afloat. If you're poor and have no family to lean on, you're still !@#$ed. 

 

Not sure I get your point.  Why should the manager at the local McDonalds get my money?  They should do like I did when I was younger and making 25k.  Get a second job, work harder, cut expenses, whatever it takes to get out of that situation.

[wopphil]

The talking heads in the media never mention the studies that consistently find links between "poor" people and their addictive behaviors. Income level really isn't the problem, people just waste money on everything imaginable in an attempt to fit in and be fashionable. The end result is neck-deep credit card debt, bankruptcy, no money in savings, no investments, and diminished chances of home ownership -- i.e. the American definition of being poor.

And this is where I struggle to empathize with so many so-called "poor" people. Many of the ones I see have decent cars, cable television and smart phones.

My opinions are admittedly colored by a family member's situation. My brother in law is 30, healthy, and has three young kids. He doesn't work and has been on welfare for years. His wife doesn't work. Her mother, who lives with them, also doesn't work. They are all content to live off the government. And yet they somehow find ways to go on trips to stateline, amusement parks, etc.

I want to help people who are truly poor. I am willing to pay to do so. But I am incredibly skeptical of all the abuse. And I don't understand why the left is so unwilling to impose measures to limit abuse, such as drug testing for welfare recipients. Or, God forbid, make them work for their money. Perhaps if the left would agree to such measures, the right would be more accepting of social programs.

[Stradling]

Sales Tax = Taxation without Representation for kids under 18.

A Federal Sales Tax would make that problem a million times worse. Same problem if you charged income taxes on a percentage basis to everybody, no write offs, teenagers get screwed over.

Why would teenagers being getting screwed over any different than all of us get screwed over? It's called paying your fair share, something a huge portion of our population doesn't do. I have plenty of write offs, two mortgages, alimony, and kids. I'd give it up for a reasonable flat tax for everyone.

[Angelsjunky]

Tank, I personally think the more money you make, the higher your tax rate should be. Why? Because our system is completely out of whack and incomes are way out of balance. To me there's something wrong when you have a major league baseball player making $40MM a year and an inner city public school teacher making $40K a year - that baseball player is making as much as 1000 teachers. The good old American way. Now given the rarity of the baseball player's skill-set, he should be making more - even much more. But it shouldn't be that out of balance (1000 times!), in my opinion. So yes, I think some of that wealth should be re-distributed. The irony is that teacher is paying jacked up prices at the ballpark to pay for the baseball player's salary. Another way to address the same problem would be to put regulations around pricing, which would reduce the cost of living for the teacher - and have the result of lowering higher incomes that are supported through high prices.

 

The point being, we live in a system where the very wealthy by and large make money off the very poor. It isn't simply a matter of you can make as much money as hard as you are willing to work. That money has to come from somewhere, and over the last 40ish years, money has been redistributed from the lower 90ish% to the top 10ish%. That, to me, is a problem - and the only presidential candidate that is openly talking about it is Bernie Sanders.

 

mp170.6, I do have a very limited grasp of economics, no doubt. And I was merely showing that there's a correlation between the lessening of taxes to the wealthy and the stagnation of the minimum wage. I wasn't saying one causes the other. But plenty of people who understand economics much better than I do, support the minimum wage, so just because you say almost all otherwise liberal PHDs hate it doesn't make it so. That's a baseless assertion.

 

wopphil, so what do you do with the drug addict who can't hold down a job and now isn't eligible for welfare - they just have to deal with it, right? What sort of support should society offer? Evidently none, because you don't want your hard-earned cash going to people less fortunate/able/together than you.

 

Now welfare is a band-aid solution. I think we can both agree that we need to focus on addressing the deeper causes, which have to do with education, culture, and upbringing. But the simple fact is that for whatever reason, many people struggle - and it isn't only because they are lazy or drug addicts. And if they are drug addicts, why? It is complex and not easily solved - and the fact of the matter is, heroin addiction is on the rise. It is a major problem.

 

So how do we help these people? What's your solution? Or do you we just say, "You got yourself into this situation, you get yourself out." There's a time and place for tough love, but there's also a time and place to look at ways that we can support and help each other, and especially for the more fortunate to help the less fortunate. Won't the American nation be stronger for it?

[nate]

There are 3.1 million public school teachers in the US.

 

There are 1200 MLB players on 40 man rosters in the US.  So there are more than 2500 school teachers for every MLB player.

[Angelsjunky]

Which is why I said that MLB players should make more. Or did you ignore that part? I just think it is way out of balance.

 

I have no problem with capitalism or with people with rarified and in-demand skill sets making premium dollars, but the system has gotten all out of whack. Baseball is just one version of this but it is pretty endemic throughout the system.

 

Do you remember when Mark Langston broke the $3M/year mark 25 years ago? What has inflation been since then, less than 200%, I think. So Langston's $3M in 1990 is maybe $5.5M today. Clayton Kershaw made $32.5M in 2015, so that's about 6x the equivalent of what the top paid player in 1990 made. What has happened since 1990 that has inflated salaries by six times? And where does that money come from? Well, the owners don't want to swallow it and lower their profit margins so it comes from a variety of places, but a lot of it from the fans.

 

The point being, there's a direct relationship between the rich getting richer and the less rich getting poorer. To some degree one can "create wealth," but beyond a certain point it isn't creating it but taking it from somewhere else.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Angelsjunky

[nate]

Actually, baseball is probably the best example of sharing wealth.  The teams have increased in value a ton thanks to television advertising, and in turn baseball salaries have increased a ton.

 

Isn't your whole thing that the big bad corporations aren't paying their employees enough?

[wopphil]

AJ, I don't have a ton of sympathy for drug addicts. They made (and make every time they get high) terrible decisions. And there are plenty of great organizations that are ready and willing to help, but I am guessing most users would prefer to continue getting high.

As for other social problems, I think young, out-of-wedlock pregnancy is a huge problem. I'd support making birth control easily available to teens (like free condoms in the public school bathrooms). And although I don't know the facts on it, I am guessing Planned Parenthood probably pays for itself in terms of money saved mitigating social problems. So I'd probably support increasing its funding.

As for drugs, I support harsher penalties for dealers. But then, the left is going to cry about the "war on drugs not working," and racist justice, etc. I also support militarizing the border and hopefully slowing down the flow of drugs and making them harder to get.

[Angelsjunky]

Actually, baseball is probably the best example of sharing wealth.  The teams have increased in value a ton thanks to television advertising, and in turn baseball salaries have increased a ton.

 

Isn't your whole thing that the big bad corporations aren't paying their employees enough?

 

But again, where does that money come from? It isn't just magically created - that's a capitalist fallacy. Or rather, not all of it is magically created.

 

Again, the fact of the matter is that the top income earners (of whatever percent) keep on getting wealthier, while the middle and lower classes at best stagnate, at worse get poor - as the cost of living keeps increasing. Part of that cost of living increase is directly related to the increase in income for the wealthy.

[nate]

In the last 20 years cable subscriptions have gone through the roof, so the number of people viewing the broadcasts is much higher.  In turn, companies are willing to spend more money advertising their wares to cable subscribers.

 

Those cable subscribers are willing to spend their money on those wares...

Edited December 21, 2015 by nate

[Spirit]

Teachers aren't being forced to pay jacked up prices at the ballpark to pay for the baseball players' salaries.  It's a choice.  Baseball teams and players are offering a service.  They have attributed a price for the service they are offering.  If someone doesn't feel the cost for these services is worth it, great!  Don't pay it!  Problem solved!  If it is worth it to you, great!  Pay it!  No problem in the first place.  

 

 

A shitty baseball player makes little to no money and is soon removed from the league.  A great baseball player strings together a series of rock solid seasons and gets a big payday.

 

A shitty teacher gets paid the same as a great teacher.  Both advance and are rewarded at the same rate.  

 

So because our education system is completely out of whack, we should tax the hell out of teachers. 

[Angelsjunky]

AJ, I don't have a ton of sympathy for drug addicts. They made (and make every time they get high) terrible decisions. And there are plenty of great organizations that are ready and willing to help, but I am guessing most users would prefer to continue getting high.

As for other social problems, I think young, out-of-wedlock pregnancy is a huge problem. I'd support making birth control easily available to teens (like free condoms in the public school bathrooms). And although I don't know the facts on it, I am guessing Planned Parenthood probably pays for itself in terms of money saved mitigating social problems. So I'd probably support increasing its funding.

As for drugs, I support harsher penalties for dealers. But then, the left is going to cry about the "war on drugs not working," and racist justice, etc. I also support militarizing the border and hopefully slowing down the flow of drugs and making them harder to get.

 

wopphil, are you aware of the rising heroin problem and its relationship to doctor-prescribed opiates? What often happens is someone gets sick or injured, is put on opiates, and maybe has trouble getting back to work or finding a job, gets depressed, runs out of opiates and heroin seems like a good alternative. A lot of addicts are or were kids who struggled and got hooked young. Imagine a 15-year old who is offered oxycontin, tries it, and is hooked. We're not talking about the relatively benign and non-addictive (at least chemically) marijuana.

 

It is a downward spiral, one that isn't simply because addicts are horrible people or losers or lacking in will-power, but because of various life circumstances, lack of support, poor prospects, etc. One perspective that I'd advocate for is that we look at the entire country like it is a hypothetical family. In that family, one of the members has a drug problem. How do we help that person? We don't want to enable them, but we don't want to send them out to the streets. Maybe they need to go through their own process, hit rock bottom, and then climb their way up. But community support can only help - in fact, some make a strong connection between lack of community and addiction.

 

We probably differ widely on the "war on drugs." And no, it is not working and has never worked. In my mind, it has basically created the problem, or at least made it much, much worse. I'm for completely decriminalizing ALL drugs, and for treating drug addiction not as a crime but a health problem.

[nate]

I have been prescribed Opiates.  Never felt like doing heroin though.

 

If those people go down that road and don't get help then it is just Darwin at work...

[Angelsjunky]

Ahh, Social Darwinism again...an ugly philosophy, imo.

[nate]

Ahh, Social Darwinism again...an ugly philosophy, imo.

 

Easy to say when you aren't the one paying for it.

[wopphil]

It's a problem of resources, AJ. Society doesn't have the no st to pay for all the drug programs on top of all of the other programs taking priority.

And where do you draw the line? What about the person eating himself to death? Do we pay for him to have medical intervention for that? Do we pay for food counseling? A gym membership? A personal trainer?

[Schildog]

Teachers aren't being forced to pay jacked up prices at the ballpark to pay for the baseball players' salaries.  It's a choice.  Baseball teams and players are offering a service.  They have attributed a price for the service they are offering.  If someone doesn't feel the cost for these services is worth it, great!  Don't pay it!  Problem solved!  If it is worth it to you, great!  Pay it!  No problem in the first place.  

 

 

A shitty baseball player makes little to no money and is soon removed from the league.  A great baseball player strings together a series of rock solid seasons and gets a big payday.

 

A shitty teacher gets paid the same as a great teacher.  Both advance and are rewarded at the same rate.  

 

So because our education system is completely out of whack, we should tax the hell out of teachers. 

 

teachers are forced to pay athletes salaries just by subscribing to cable since it's not an a la cart system. 

[nate]

because someone is holding a gun to their head forcing them to buy cable?

[Spirit]

teachers are forced to pay athletes salaries just by subscribing to cable since it's not an a la cart system. 

 

 

Teachers are not forced to subscribe to cable. 

[nate]

Teachers are not forced to subscribe to cable. 

 

pretty slow on the draw there old man.

[Spirit]

pretty slow on the draw there old man.

 

damn it!