Footwedge;737336 wrote:Good post to which I would like to expound upon. The middle class continues to shoulder more and more of the responsibility in financing the government. Those that work and pay taxes (many who work do not pay taxes) work longer hours for far less purchasing power. This is truly a sad state of affairs.

How so?

Since 1987, the share of the tax burden for the top 25-50% range has dropped from 17% to 11%. The share paid by the bottom 50% has dropped from 6% to 2.7%.

O-Trap;737417 wrote:Not at all. However, I don't consider just anything new or changing to be "progressive." Anything that unjustly places additional burden on a segment of the population through no fault of their own is not something I would consider "progressive," at this point.

By "progressive" I am not refering to "liberal". The term progressive as it relates to income tax is defined as "graduated".... as in steps. Let me try again...are you advocating a flat tax? If so, I'll respond in kind.

fish82;737435 wrote:How so?

Since 1987, the share of the tax burden for the top 25-50% range has dropped from 17% to 11%. The share paid by the bottom 50% has dropped from 6% to 2.7%.

I would like to see your link. My contention....that the middle class/upper middle class/lower middle class pay more of their tax to fund the government than the top 5-10% plus the loss of taxpayers at the bottom end. In addition to that, the group that I am referring to also have less purchasing power than they used to. So my contenetion is that they have been double whip sawed....thus my point regarding less ability to buy goods and services....which in turn leads to staganation of our country's macro-economic growth.

tk421;737422 wrote:So, it's perfectly fine that half of all "taxpayers" don't pay a single thing into the system? I wasn't talking about half of the population, I was talking about the 47% of tax fillers who either don't owe a single thing or get money back. Doesn't exactly scream fair share, now does it?

That is not what he said nor what he implied.

Footwedge;737461 wrote:By "progressive" I am not refering to "liberal". The term progressive as it relates to income tax is defined as "graduated".... as in steps. Let me try again...are you advocating a flat tax? If so, I'll respond in kind.

Apologies. I'm aware of what a "progressive tax" is, but I didn't recognize that was what you were talking about. It just read more easily the other way, and that went totally over my head.

I am indeed an advocate of a flat tax at a certain level. Not across the board, mind you, but for the most part. I would suggest that there is indeed a level of earning that would be too low to tax. Above that, however, I am indeed a proponent of a flat tax.

O=Trap....I can't post for awhile. Watching Tiger, tribe....and doing my ...mmmm....taxes. Just one comment though. The US has never proposed a flat tax...and for good reason. Neither has 97% of other countries...for the exact same reasons.

Virtually all societies recognizes what "utils" are...or how much "utility" one can benefit from there base monies to buy necessities. Societies have recognized that buying ultra necessities constitute a subsistance "overhead" if you will. Enough to survive...i.e. food waterr, clothing, rent and even heat. After these costs are met. then a new category kicks in...maybe calling that a "slight luxory". A car, curtains, couches and beds.. One can "graduate" all the way to utter luxory items that might include pleasure jets, 10 million dollar homes etc.

Legislative bodies all around the globe...dating back millenia understand that the "utils" are much more valuable to people at the low earning scale. Whereby the "utils" become much less valuable the higher one's income is. As such...they apply a graduated tax structure versus a flat tax structure...in order for all to pay a "perceived" fair tax.

Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx professed support of a progressive tax...the difference being the amount of progression.

Here's a link that explains it pretty well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax#History_of_intellectual_debate

Footwedge;737465 wrote:That is not what he said nor what he implied.

He said if the other 95% of taxpayers paid their share, we would be OK.

I agree with you in principle; however, ONLY taxing the top 5% wouldn't fund the government, but add in the other 95% that would be taxed at current tax rates and it would be more than enough to fund the government. So to say if we taxed the top 1-5% at 100% and it still wouldn't be enough may be true, if that is the only people that were paying taxes. But the other 95% of tax paying citizens would also be contributing.

That being said, I don't think the top 1%, 5%, etc. should be punished just for being more successful, just pointing out that you have to factor everyone in that would be paying taxes in your scenario.

I must have failed math. I'm not understanding how you can have the "other 95% of tax paying citizens contributing" when 47% of them already DO NOT contribute. How exactly does that work? 53% of tax paying citizens pay 100% of everything, but yet 95% of tax paying citizens are going to contribute?

tk421;737621 wrote:He said if the other 95% of taxpayers paid their share, we would be OK.

I must have failed math. I'm not understanding how you can have the "other 95% of tax paying citizens contributing" when 47% of them already DO NOT contribute. How exactly does that work? 53% of tax paying citizens pay 100% of everything, but yet 95% of tax paying citizens are going to contribute?

Sigh.....he is talking about the 95% of the 53% that do pay taxes.

tk421;737422 wrote:So, it's perfectly fine that half of all "taxpayers" don't pay a single thing into the system? I wasn't talking about half of the population, I was talking about the 47% of tax fillers who either don't owe a single thing or get money back. Doesn't exactly scream fair share, now does it?

That's not what I am saying at all. If you would take a minute and re-read what I said, you may understand better. You stated that if we taxed the top 5% at 100% it wouldn't be enough to fund the government for one year. I stated if you factor in the rest of the citizens that DO PAY TAXES (understand? not who file and don't pay, the ones that DO PAY. not sure if I can make it any clearer) it would be more than enough. I'm merely saying we'd be ok as not to have a budget shortfall. I am all for spending cuts and smaller gove't. I was commenting on your scenario.

I also stated that I didn't think it was ok that we put the burden more on to one group than another, I was just pointing out a component you had left out in your scenario.

tk421;737621 wrote:He said if the other 95% of taxpayers paid their share, we would be OK.

I must have failed math. I'm not understanding how you can have the "other 95% of tax paying citizens contributing" when 47% of them already DO NOT contribute. How exactly does that work? 53% of tax paying citizens pay 100% of everything, but yet 95% of tax paying citizens are going to contribute?

I underlined it so maybe you would get it this time. TAX PAYING CITIZENS, not just ones that file and don't owe. You may not have failed math, but your reading comprehension is questionable.

Footwedge;737465 wrote:That is not what he said nor what he implied.

Right? Not sure where he interpreted my post into saying it is ok that only 53% contribute. I said we'd be ok as far as not having a budget deficit.

Footwedge;737765 wrote:Sigh.....he is talking about the 95% of the 53% that do pay taxes.

Glad somebody understood. LOL, didn't think it was all that difficult. I clearly stated tax paying citizens, implying that those that pay taxes. Not just filers or people who have negative tax liability.

I certainly don't think the author meant this to be a debate about the national debt or tax structure. He was just pointing out very clearly that the 1% are tied to the 99%. That is undeniable. I've only taken basic political science classes, but it's been hundreds of years since the first guy wrote that down. Obviously, a society like most in the third world, (e.g. Mexico) where the wealthy billionaires and millionaires drive around with armored cars avoiding the poor (and arguably, in Stiglitz's view, oppressed) people and afraid for their lives when they are not in their protective bubble. That is not where America is. but we should all recognize that the hypothetical situations of the top 1% having 99% of the wealth and 100% of the people each having equal wealth are opposite ends of the spectrum and both very, very bad. Somewhere in between is the answer, and that is what is really up for debate.

It's a fact that the middle class is shrinking. It's a fact that the US economy and society cannot be manufacturing-based anymore and those changes are hurting the society as a whole. It's not even a Democrat/Republican issue, as neither can stop it. Globalization has rendered many occupations obsolete. Democrats needs to know that you cannot simply give welfare to them in hopes they'll get out--they don't. And Republicans need to admit that even great economic efficiency/productivity doesn't necessarily mean there is a healthy society; the US is evidence.

I also don't think he meant that someone like sleeper cannot raise to the top. Sleeper can, if for no other reason than he is an assclown and some billionaire will like to have him around simply to laugh at while they golf. He was referring to the ability of the bottom-dwellers to rise to the top. Middle class America is educated and will take out the necessarily loans to get a proper education. The poor have no education, and furthermore have never had one. Applying the same rules (parents educating kids supplemented by the schools) to the poor is asinine. My mother was a talented and gifted coordinator for decades, of course I did well in school and (hopefully) in life. To juxtapose, the poor have stupid parents who create stupid kids. Not to be offensive, it's just the truth. How do we expect an uneducated parent to educate his kid? It's precisely why "hard work will pay off." Not necessarily. If you're not a gifted rapper or athlete, or raising by your grandparent who finds it to be her life mission to raise someone correctly for a change, your more than likely not getting out of the cycle. Chances of educational success are severely limited and in an information world the prognosis is dire.

Manhattan Buckeye;737219 wrote:"The amazing thing is listening to the poor fools here who defend the top earners' tax rates. You'd think they were part of that group the way they protest and call anyone else communists or socialists. "

I might be a fool, but I'm not poor, and it doesn't take either to notice that 50% of Americans don't pay their weight in this country...class warfare goes both ways. We're in an unsustainable path, and you can laugh all you want. We have the worst political class in, at least my, lifetime. We have debts we can't begin to think of payinbg off - even if we tax the top 1% at a 100% rate.

Not to mention, working for those top 1% it DOES trickle down, albeit in an indirect way. Basically they are going to get theirs - they've taken the risk and they've earned it to large extent. Tax the shit out of them and they WILL make cuts elsewhere to recover some of what the govt pilfers from their pocket - and then maybe you don't get that bonus or pay raise, or your job gets eliminated altogether.

The lower and middle class workers, most of whom are "commodities", are under pressure for significantly cheaper foreign labor capable of doing the job just as well. That's the heart of all this. And people can sit here and dream about the "benevolent" CEO, or expect them to spend more money on wages just because they can, but few people in that situation would follow that path. You get to that level and you start thinking about generational wealth, you think about charities and pet projects. You look at competitive wages and realize you don't need to give raises this year - or even outsourcing - and realize you can save $1M which is then $1M you can give to your local charity, arts, or whatever.

I wonder sometimes if we eliminated corp taxes on the condition those taxes instead went to wages, if the average person still wouldn't be complaining despite having 35% more money in their pocket. Fairly obvious when you look at all the social programs and free govt services that the vast majority of Americans in that scenario would actually see a net decrease in their wealth/"consumption".

One of the most brilliant, if not completely expected, insights from behavioral economics is the "keeping up with the Jones". Basically if a guy is making $100k but his neighbor is making $200k, he feels it is more unfair and is typically less happy than the guy making $50k while his neighbor makes only $40k.

Just so typical. People see the obscene lifestyles the rich and famous live, or even on a more local level the successful entrepreneur down the street with two Lexus and a BMW, and immediately think those guys should be paying more taxes just because you feel they have too much more they haven't earned.

"Oh the rich don't create jobs"....Bullshit they don't. The Fortune 1000 or whatever employs something like 20% of the workforce, while mostly much more modest entrepreneurs employ the other 80%. Just look at that greedy bastard down the street - he only employs 30 people and pays $1.5M in salaries a year. He should be employing 40 and paying $3M!!!! Nevermind the latter bankrupts him and the former he takes home maybe $250k. Class warfare is ugly and petty.

gut;737890 wrote:"Oh the rich don't create jobs"....Bullshit they don't. The Fortune 1000 or whatever employs something like 20% of the workforce, while mostly much more modest entrepreneurs employ the other 80%. Just look at that greedy bastard down the street - he only employs 30 people and pays $1.5M in salaries a year. He should be employing 40 and paying $3M!!!! Nevermind the latter bankrupts him and the former he takes home maybe $250k. Class warfare is ugly and petty.

It's also anti-American.

All of us (whether we care to admit it or not) were born and raised in a society where - with the right combination of skills, determination, good fortune, life experiences/choices, and education - can do better than the generation preceding us. Sadly there are significant number of us who, when these variables do not bounce in our favor, view those whose "karma" was more fortunate with loathing and envy.

believer;737893 wrote:It's also anti-American.

All of us (whether we care to admit it or not) were born and raised in a society where - with the right combination of skills, determination, good fortune, life experiences/choices, and education - can do better than the generation preceding us. Sadly there are significant number of us who, when these variables do not bounce in our favor, view those whose "karma" was more fortunate with loathing and envy.

Even more eye-opening is when you realize that, maybe not the top 1% but the rest of the top 5%, has a good many people who were just in the right place at the right time (not to say they aren't talented and don't work hard, but there is a variable of luck that's just tough cookies). Now one can either find that discouraging or be energized to seek out or make that opportunity happen for themselves.

People want their cake and to eat it, too. Most people willingly sacrifice earnings leverage and upward potential for home and family stability. Many people, if they were willing to relocated just about anywhere in the US, could find significantly better opportunities. But that's not guaranteed nor is it without risks and other tradeoffs. People want to get paid more, but they won't broaden their geography beyond the 1 or 2 companies in their area that values their skills. Just like they want to live 50 miles outside of the city and drive that SUV but then bitch up a storm when gas prices start spiking.

It's rare to find someone who gave up a 6 figure job to have a straight 40 hrs they love. Far more common to find people with more modest incomes bitching about not making more when they have done little to nothing to invest in their education and time - making more money often entails a lot more hours and stress - to realize that. NOBODY is ever "satisfied" with what they make, whether it's $25k or $200k. We all want more. And the guy who makes $200k seeing his boss make $10M is much closer to home and a much tougher pill to swallow than the factory worker seeing the CEO take home a fortune.

gut;737899 wrote:Many people, if they were willing to relocated just about anywhere in the US, could find significantly better opportunities. But that's not guaranteed nor is it without risks and other tradeoffs.

I know what you mean. I was born and raised in small town Ohio, got my college education in Ohio, and held a decent white collar job in that small town for 17 years after graduating from college. But that company and several others in that small Ohio town shut their doors forever and all at roughly the same time. I had a choice...work at Wal Mart for far less money so I could remain with family and friends or move so I could apply my skills and experience for better pay. I chose the latter. I miss my family and friends and it's been tough establishing a new life in Pennsylvania but I'm far, far better off financially...until, of course, the Feds yank my mortgage deduction away. lol

I was in a similar situation. Born & raised in small town Ohio -- and happened to get a job there when I graduated (first at the local radio station, then the newspaper). But I knew if I wanted to expand my skills and increase my opportunities, I'd have to give up the security of living where "everybody knows your name" to start fresh elsewhere.

It took me FIVE YEARS of applying for jobs and having interviews out of town before the right job happened. In the interim, I finished second on five occasions...and my not living in the community where the employer was factored into the decision on several of those. They didn't want to hassle with an employee who had to move when one close enough to the same skill level was already there.

Frustrating.

But it worked out and I've lived in Columbus for more than 25 years now. It IS home, and it provided all the opportunities I wanted -- and more. It gave me the chance to have the career I wanted; and one I thoroughly enjoyed until health issues cut it short.

However, I had to be willing to move outside my comfort zone AND continue to expand my skill set to get where I wanted to go, and where I ended up.

The opportunities are still out there...just not the kind our parents had. For Ohio to get out of the economic rut it's in now, more people are going to have to be willing to get out of their comfort zones (either physically or educationally or both) to get ahead.

gut;737890 wrote:"Oh the rich don't create jobs"....Bullshit they don't. The Fortune 1000 or whatever employs something like 20% of the workforce, while mostly much more modest entrepreneurs employ the other 80%. Just look at that greedy bastard down the street - he only employs 30 people and pays $1.5M in salaries a year. He should be employing 40 and paying $3M!!!! Nevermind the latter bankrupts him and the former he takes home maybe $250k. Class warfare is ugly and petty.

The point is that those corporate CEO's do not create jobs with their own money. The "Fortune 1000" consists mostly of publically-traded companies, and CEO's don't put their own money into funding the company like small business owners do. Entrepreneurs and small businesses create jobs and so in my opinion small businesses deserve supportive tax breaks, not gigantic corporations like GE.

Writerbuckeye;738034 wrote: For Ohio to get out of the economic rut it's in now, more people are going to have to be willing to get out of their comfort zones (either physically or educationally or both) to get ahead.

Even geographically too. No one should live where there aren't jobs. I'm looking at you Appalachia.

Tobias Fünke;738074 wrote:... Entrepreneurs and small businesses create jobs and so in my opinion small businesses deserve supportive tax breaks, not gigantic corporations like GE.



....

There's no doubt that most people are employed by small businesses.

Tobias Fünke;738074 wrote:The point is that those corporate CEO's do not create jobs with their own money. The "Fortune 1000" consists mostly of publically-traded companies, and CEO's don't put their own money into funding the company

I disagree. CEO's have large incentive bonuses and usually options tied directly to the profitability of the company (which is a good thing, but how much CEO's make is an entirely different discussion in this regard). So, in fact, their decisions DO impact their own personal bottom line. And the reality is they answer to a board, a board that answers to the shareholders. And at the end of the day, why does it matter whether it's their own money or not? They still create jobs, so why do you argue for disincentivizing creating jobs with hiking their taxes? The laws of ROI and cost of capital still apply to corporations regardless of how much skin in the game decision makers have, and higher taxes raises the break-even point resulting in projects that might otherwise create jobs being axed.

It's just a bastardization of the class warfare argument. "Big businesses make too much money so they should be taxed thru the nose". I completely disagree with that position. There is research out there that, while far from indisputable, suggests high corp tax rates deter companies from incorporating in the US and that the US is becoming less competitive in that regard. Regardless of what you think about the big, evil corporations the corporate jobs are among the highest paying out there. So let's just run them off with high corp taxes....afteralll, the corporate shirts make too much, anyway, right, so rather than expand the middle class let's just eliminate more of the upper class so misery has company.

believer;737901 wrote:I know what you mean. I was born and raised in small town Ohio, got my college education in Ohio, and held a decent white collar job in that small town for 17 years after graduating from college. But that company and several others in that small Ohio town shut their doors forever and all at roughly the same time. I had a choice...work at Wal Mart for far less money so I could remain with family and friends or move so I could apply my skills and experience for better pay. I chose the latter. I miss my family and friends and it's been tough establishing a new life in Pennsylvania but I'm far, far better off financially...until, of course, the Feds yank my mortgage deduction away. lol

Writerbuckeye;738034 wrote:I was in a similar situation. Born & raised in small town Ohio -- and happened to get a job there when I graduated (first at the local radio station, then the newspaper). But I knew if I wanted to expand my skills and increase my opportunities, I'd have to give up the security of living where "everybody knows your name" to start fresh elsewhere.

It took me FIVE YEARS of applying for jobs and having interviews out of town before the right job happened. In the interim, I finished second on five occasions...and my not living in the community where the employer was factored into the decision on several of those. They didn't want to hassle with an employee who had to move when one close enough to the same skill level was already there.

Frustrating.

But it worked out and I've lived in Columbus for more than 25 years now. It IS home, and it provided all the opportunities I wanted -- and more. It gave me the chance to have the career I wanted; and one I thoroughly enjoyed until health issues cut it short.

However, I had to be willing to move outside my comfort zone AND continue to expand my skill set to get where I wanted to go, and where I ended up.

The opportunities are still out there...just not the kind our parents had. For Ohio to get out of the economic rut it's in now, more people are going to have to be willing to get out of their comfort zones (either physically or educationally or both) to get ahead.

As much as I disagree with believer and Writer on matters of politics, we have this common thread. I grew up in a small town in Ohio and worked my way up to a middle management position at a local company. In 1998 I accepted a promotion to another plant of the parent company. It involved a relocation, separation from my family for 18 months and distance from all of my friends and other relatives. I managed to get through it, prospered financially and professionally at my new surroundings and was able to retire in 2007. I found I liked living near a large city and remained in this area. The summer heat is a bitch, but winters are easier to take than Ohio.

The common thread is that all of us had to take chances in order to get ahead, to improve our lives and the lives of our families. We all have choices and opportunities during our lives. Sometimes we have to swallow hard and take the tough choice, hoping it will work out. I'm sure they are happy with the results. I know I am.

Now if I could just get them to see things my way...

gut;738108 wrote:I disagree. CEO's have large incentive bonuses and usually options tied directly to the profitability of the company (which is a good thing, but how much CEO's make is an entirely different discussion in this regard). So, in fact, their decisions DO impact their own personal bottom line. And the reality is they answer to a board, a board that answers to the shareholders. And at the end of the day, why does it matter whether it's their own money or not? They still create jobs, so why do you argue for disincentivizing creating jobs with hiking their taxes? The laws of ROI and cost of capital still apply to corporations regardless of how much skin in the game decision makers have, and higher taxes raises the break-even point resulting in projects that might otherwise create jobs being axed.

It's just a bastardization of the class warfare argument. "Big businesses make too much money so they should be taxed thru the nose". I completely disagree with that position. There is research out there that, while far from indisputable, suggests high corp tax rates deter companies from incorporating in the US and that the US is becoming less competitive in that regard. Regardless of what you think about the big, evil corporations the corporate jobs are among the highest paying out there. So let's just run them off with high corp taxes....afteralll, the corporate shirts make too much, anyway, right, so rather than expand the middle class let's just eliminate more of the upper class so misery has company.

I think your confusing taxing corporations with taxing CEO's, and I have never said where I stand on that position. If a CEO is taxed that doesn't effect the corporation's ability to create jobs, they obviously will have the wherewithal to do so regardless of how much money the government takes from the administrators. There's a false sense that taxing the rich ruins their decision making skills or something? If you tax a small business owner, he doesn't have the wherewithal to expand his company; if you tax a CEO, he is still pretty freakin' rich and the corporation didn't lose money so it's hard to argue job creation is inhibited.

Now, there is a whole set of arguments about attracting the best talent and needing to pay them well. No question. I'm not very in line with the class warfare folk, I just don't understand the thought process behind always defending the uber-rich who clearly aren't creating jobs with their piggy banks like so many others.

stlouiedipalma;738221 wrote:As much as I disagree with believer and Writer on matters of politics, we have this common thread. I grew up in a small town in Ohio and worked my way up to a middle management position at a local company. In 1998 I accepted a promotion to another plant of the parent company. It involved a relocation, separation from my family for 18 months and distance from all of my friends and other relatives. I managed to get through it, prospered financially and professionally at my new surroundings and was able to retire in 2007. I found I liked living near a large city and remained in this area. The summer heat is a bitch, but winters are easier to take than Ohio.

The common thread is that all of us had to take chances in order to get ahead, to improve our lives and the lives of our families. We all have choices and opportunities during our lives. Sometimes we have to swallow hard and take the tough choice, hoping it will work out. I'm sure they are happy with the results. I know I am.

Now if I could just get them to see things my way...

You could always try water boarding.

Writerbuckeye;738414 wrote:You could always try water boarding.

Naw...there's not enough torture in it.

stlouiedipalma;738221 wrote:As much as I disagree with believer and Writer on matters of politics, we have this common thread.

I just fell out of my chair. I'm now unsure of anything in this world.

This pretty much sums up my feeling on this Thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI&feature=related