tyndmar

Note: this thread was copied from a series of FB posts. I moved it here for additional discussion. Feel free to respond (if you can do so without flaming).

Clay Newton:
Now HERE is an article that, if it's correct, explains to me what has befuddled me. I will dwell on it some more, but I think I'm joining those who want the well to do to pay their fair share on ALL income...not just earned income.

The Tax Burden of the Very Rich
www.commondreams.org
The purpose of this piece is to identify for readers how an unjust tax system treats the very wealthy. Once that is understood it is easy to understand Senator Orin Hatch’s recent comments.

Ruben Noguera:
You're right about that, the rich should pay their fair share (which should be higher that the 35% they're currently paying on earned income, should be more like 40-50%, I think) on ALL income, earned or unearned. The fact that they a much lower rate on unearned income speaks of a very unjust tax system and should be changed, reformed, this is probably the main reason why we have huge budget deficits, we're getting relatively little revenue from most of the money that is floating around or in someone's bank account.

Mary Wilhoit:
Penalizing success? Of course! It's the American way!

Ruben Noguera:
Penalize it? We worship material success, at the expense of most of us taxpayers, why shouldn't those who make most of the money pay in taxes what they should be paying all along, they certainly don't deserve all that filthy wealth, money becomes no object to them, they can burn it if they want to (and some of them do!!), it's like giving children beaucoups of play money which they don't know what to do with, while the rest of us live in penury, does this sound fair to you? Capitalism is the dumbest system ever devised, it rewards the rich (the so-called "successful" people who just happened to be at the right place at the right time, in other words, oppostunistic), while penalizing or punishing the poor, it loves money and anything it can buy, but hates the poor or even anyone attempting to make a decent living. We have a very unfair, a very unjust system in this country, reward the few rich and successful, and screw the rest of us, in fact, this is how they get rich in the first place, by screwing us good and all along!

Carroll Crenshaw:
‎"The so-called successful" I have known numerous people who fall in this category. Without exception they worked untold hours; very often seven days per week, 80-100 hours per week. This guy knows nothing of what he writes. He is one who wants someone else to earn the money and then give it to him. He knows nothing of being paid for taking great risks and often losing serious sums of money. (Like the last few days)

Mary Wilhoit:
uh, Ruben, you seem to be a communist/socialist,. I'd have to agree with Carroll,.

Ruben Noguera:
I know all about hard work and long hours, I work about as many hours as some of your friends, and I certainly don't expect any handouts from individuals or the government, God forbid!!! No one is going to get rich through long hours of hard work, unless they're already a CEO or any other executive of a Fortune 500 company, but just regularly toiling away at an average-paying job will not usually make you rich, you might be comfortable but that's all. I'm a middle-class Professor who also struggles to make ends meet, like most middlle-class people that I know, and it's becoming harder and harder to make it on just a middle class salary, and yes, I have also lost a bit of money on the unstable stock market. Now, I do realize that there are certain people who are willing and able to take higher risks and thus lose or win more, the stock market is legalized gambling, you're constantly losing and winning, and sometimes you lose it all, and somerimes you win it all, but most people are safely in the middle, mot too much risk, thus not too much loss, but they won't get rich either from speculating on the market. No, I'm talking about the super-rich, those already on the top, and who tend to remain there for as long as they possibly can because the system favors the so-called winners and condems the so-called losers!

Ruben Noguera:
uh, Mary, I'n meither one, those are old concepts and misnomers, I'm an independent, free thinker, I see the foibles and shortcomings of any system, at this point there is no ideal system, perhaps a combination of systems would be the best, perhaps.

Mary Wilhoit:
No, the poor are not all hard-working and deserving, nor are all the rich at fault 50% is pretty steep.

Mark Tyndall:
Ruben, excuse me for jumping in, but I am curious. In your opinion, at what point does a "progressive" tax system, in which the rich pay a higher proportion of their income than the poor, become a "penalizing" system, in which the rich have so much more of their income taken away than the poor that they are "penalized" for being rich?

Question 2: is it morally justifiable for the lower-income majority to take the wealth of the upper-income majority by force of votes alone?

Question 3: Can we leave out of the discussion both the "evil super-rich" and the "lazy, no-account poor"? I have a strong suspicion that most of the fury of this discussion is a direct result of including such emotion-charged labels and anecdotal evidence.

Question 4: Is it the case that, in general, the lower-income population receives MORE benefit PER DOLLAR OF INCOME than does the upper-income population? If this is the case, where is the "fairness" of requiring the upper-income group to PAY more per dollar of income for services they neither want nor receive?

Mark Tyndall:
btw, in the course of my life, I've been all over the scale, from lowest tax bracket to (nearly) the highest. At the moment I, like you, are somewhere in the middle, so I have little to no "personal vested interest" in this moral/philosophical debate.

Mark Tyndall:
and while i'm soapboxing, regarding the hedge fund manager who supposedly makes a billion dollars a year. If true, and if his tax rate was 18% on that billion, he pays $180,000,000.00 (one hundred and eighty MILLION dollars) in federal taxes in ONE YEAR. I don't care who you are, that would certainly seem "more than fair" to me.

Ruben Noguera:
Hello, fellow Durhamite, I used to live in the Durham-Chapel Hill area back in the 70's and 80's, went to graduate school in Chapel Hill, still have friends there. Now, regarding your numerous and somewhat confusing questions about the tax code and how fair or unfair it is to both rich and poor, to say nothing about the middle class, well, it's a very compley question (just like the "progressive" tax code that we have in place, and which, in my opinion, can be twisted into many different interpretations (read: loopholes) and versions. At least in theory, a progressive tax code is supposed to tax higher those who make more money, and the richest should pay more, in other words, their fair share, while the poor should obviously pay less or no taxes at all. This is the way it's supposed to work, at least in theory. But we know that in practice, while the poorest of the poor pay no taxies at all, and rightfully so since they earn very little money, at times barely enough, or not enough, to survive, while at the other end of the scale, the very rich at times also get away with not paying any taxes at all, due to favorable loopholes. Now granted, many of the rich do pay high taxes (35% at the moment), but some do try to beat the system at every chance they are able to get (some of the poor do this also), while the midddle class is left to carry the bulk of the taxes, and this is usually a pretty honest group, by and large, at least they know the consequences of cheating, or at least trying to. I honestly do not recall introducing emotionally-charged terms into this discussion, I did not call the super-rich "evil," nor did I call the poor "lazy and of no account," I did call the Capitalist system a dumb one, which was perhaps not the choicest of terms, but in the main, it leaves a lot to be desired as far as sociall and economic justice (but then so do the other systems as well, though with different methods and outcomes). Certainly, no economic and/or social system reaches anywhere near the status of perfection, not even close to it, therefore a possible solution might be some kind of a mixture of systems, in which we attempt to utilize what we consider to be the best elements of each. Europe has been experimenting with mixing systems with debatably limited success thus far, but the experiment continues, though not without much controversy and, at times, chaos. My general and simplified take on taxation is that the rich should pay more (and most of them do), the middle class should pay just enough (whatever this is), while the poor should pay as little as possible or none at all, this is only fair and just, perhaps the idea of a flat tax might seem tempting as a simplified way of making the tax code easier and user-friendly, but even this might carry unforeseen complications, who knows?

Carroll Crenshaw:
No, you didn't call the rich evil, you just called their wealth "filthy". Sounds very similar to me. I'm curious, why is their money filthy and yours not?

Ruben Noguera:
Because they have or get so much of it, much of it ill-gotten, in my opinion, they get more than their fair share and more, often undeservedly so, and no, filth is not the same as evil, the latter implies a moral judgement, while the former implies chicanery.

Mark Tyndall:
first, i apologize for implying that you were propagating the "hate speak". i did not intend it so; whenever i come across a comment which includes it, i just ignore it. in your case, i thought a rational discussion would be possible, and i'm glad to see it continue...
second, GO HEELS!

Ruben Noguera:
Yes, GO HEELS, especially in basketball!!

Mark Tyndall:
third, i can see that there could be some level of poverty that would justify society-wide support and/or assistance. i'm not heartless. i also believe that at least SOME of the original intent of our various "welfare programs" (there's that loaded language again) was to provide that support.

on the other hand, i continue to have reservations about the role of "government" in taking this responsibility away from individuals and/or other societal groups. i suspect, based on no evidence but my own response, that using a "forced" charitability actually REDUCES the natural benevolence of a man for his fellow man. In a sense, as soon as the government MAKES me give, I no longer feel the URGE to give, even if I originally had the urge, and the means, to give more.

now, as to the practice, I mentioned that the "original" intent of most programs was benevolent. i KNOW, from watching our various lawmakers debate, that for the most part, they are well-intentioned, or at least they present themselves as such. I also believe that the problems they attempt to address are real. unfortunately, once a good intention gets mired in bureaucracy, the actual results tend to differ from the original intentions.

for example, just as i can envision an evil corporate CEO, plotting and scheming to scam the public, rape the environment, deceive the "revenoors", etc, etc., I can also envision the lazy clerk at the "welfare office" rubber-stamping claims, falsifying interviews, and in general not giving a (insert word of choice here), simply to collect a paycheck and go home at 5:00.

sadly, i have to take a couple hours off right now, but would LOVE to continue this.

it's good talking with you, sir.

Bobby Avery:
read the article Clay .it left out the amount of subsidies the well to do receive. think they pay 15%,maybe, but when all is said and done, they get that back and some cases more.check it out

Mark Tyndall:
Bobby, may I ask to what subsidies are you referring?

Bobby Avery:
equal housing for one. few people living in equal housing apartments are able to afford the full rent. the investment firms that build these complexes jack the rent up to a fairly healthy return on their investment,say 750.00 a month the average renter,based on income,can only afford 300.00. we the people kick in the balance.if management can maintain 90%+ occupancy the investment firms reap healthy returns thanks to good ole us.and all to often these corporations are paying no taxes on their income from subsidised housing there is no closed loop in our financial system because programs like these.at some point more money has to be "created".i'm not opposed to fair housing,i am opposed to the scams .

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31