Do You Have a Thing About Rich People?

When apparently about half-or-so of us potential taxpayers fail to meet the requirements to pay even a penny to the I.R.S. (and some who pay nothing even get a tidy sum back) is it fair to require the wealthy (apparently those over 250,000/yr) taxpayers who file within the law of the tax codes to take on a still higher share of the burden?

#1 [2]

Penteller [3] wrote on February 12, 2012 at 1:02 pm

Ahhh the rich - able to buy

Ahhh the rich - able to buy you and me and the Presidency.
Personally I have nothing against the rich, I think everyone should be owned by one.

Besides paying only 15% income tax on income of some 40 million dollars (just how much money do you have to have to "make" 40 million on those dollars?), the Romney’s also gave 100 million dollars to each of their sons, without paying any taxes at all.

Aren’t the rich so creative – you gotta love em!
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/01/mitt-romneys-kids-pay-even-lower-tax-rate-he-does [4]

NOTE: Did you know that nearly half of the current federal deficit is attributable to the tax breaks for the filthy rich by the Bush administration.

Love that tinkle-down-upon-us economics, it’s made for a wonderful booming economy.

#2 [5]

buzorro [6] wrote on February 15, 2012 at 6:02 pm

Speaking of the federal

Speaking of the federal deficit, allow me to digress and repeat what I'm sure I heard on PBS this morning, that the interest on the federal debt is finally greater than what is budgeted for the War Department. I saw that coming years ago. Usury used to be a sin. I wonder how many 'alleged' Christians realize this? Like so many other things, however, interpretations can be manipulated to fit our needs.

How many 'rich' people would there be if usury was a crime?

#3 [7]

DLEmerick [8] wrote on February 18, 2012 at 4:02 am

Look at the original tax

Look at the original tax code, way back when. It was a progressive idea, to tax all income from whatever sources, giving Congress the power to define what income is, or what rates should apply.

The progressive idea was a sound one, aiming only to tax the very wealthy, because most of the benefits of the State flowed to them, such as an army to protect them, their wealth, their property, such as an infrastructure, physical and fiscal, enabling commerce.

The idea of an income tax, in short, was to level the playing field a bit so that the wealthy paid for more for some of the many privileges of society that they enjoyed, so that the many (the 99% in modern parlance) did not have to subsidize the many privileges the wealthy enjoy.

Over the century past, though, the income tax has been turned into yet another weapon in class warfare, turned against the people, so that some, supra, can breezily declaim that many Anmericans pay no income tax -- when it was never meant that they should, originally.

That, I think, is the historical insight, into why America saw the need to reign in plutocrats, autocxrats, aristocracies of all sorts, ever blights upon democracy, a century ago. And, too as Paul Krugman variously opines, whose reemergence in the last few decades has so handicapped America's political economy, led to such great stagnation in real incomes for many average Americans, while the income share of the wealthier class has soared to unimaginable heights.

I do not envy the rich, but I see no reason to kiss up to them either, when it comes to social policy, of choosing what is a better America, a better life for Americans, all of us.

#4 [9]

buzorro [6] wrote on February 18, 2012 at 10:02 am

I tend to agree with you. Go

I tend to agree with you. Go back even farther in US history before there was an income tax. Somehow we managed to get by on tariffs. The legal argument for those opposed to the Federal Income Tax is that there is no wording in the original Bill to suggest that wages fell into the category of personal income.

#5 [10]

Oliver [1] wrote on February 15, 2012 at 1:02 pm

Hello? Hello? I last

Hello? Hello? I last commented on this over a year ago. I don't care to now. I don't care what you have to say either, for it is, by what ever choice of names you use, the eternal "sky is falling!!" I will stoop beneath my standards this one time, and say what has been said of my posts at times over the past 6 yrs. I've been online: You're boring! What have your tens-of-thousands of words accomplished in a positive way? Nothing! The only exception may be that they have been self-therapy for you.

So, the difference between my blather (as you a.k.a.Buzz have called my sum-total of posting) and yours is that I am real and you are not. And you take yourself far, far, far, far too seriously.

Stop by 504 Harvey sometime, I've been here almost 63 years, the landline's listed in the phone books, too. (for decades) And bring along "Buzz" too....But you two keep your jacket on, it's currently 41 deg. F. but that's better than the 37 a few days ago. 'u'

#6 [11]

buzorro [6] wrote on February 15, 2012 at 6:02 pm

'sup, Bro? Gotta admit this

'sup, Bro? Gotta admit this is the first time I've noticed you got a burr under your saddle. Gettin' cranky in our old age, are we? Smoke a fatty.

Penn's boring? One man's treasure is another man's junk. Nothing positive? The man is the yen to your yang. Perfect balance. I believe that there's room for all of us. 'It takes all kinds,' and Bro, we got 'em. So you don't like his 'delivery?' At least he's got something intelligible to deliver. I suggest if reading his posts is like watching a bad movie, then hit 'Ignore.' Eezy-peezy.

The truth of the matter is, and I can speak for Pen because we discussed this just the other day, is that we're like telemarketers. It's okay if 99 close-minded people reject our message if we can get one fence-sitter to use his eyes to see and his ears to hear. Yes, we point out the ugliness, the crime and corruption occurring regularly in our central 'corporatized' government. To you that's being 'negative?' Well that's what stopped the Vietnam Conflict, isn't it Bro? If everyone had simply rowed, rowed, rowed their boat 'gently' and 'peacefully' down the stream, being sure not to make waves, we'd still be in the jungles of 'Nam, killing those non-white people in black pajamas. But when the 'all-seeing eye' of the controlled media chose to show the millions of Americans protesting in the streets, when journalists weren't 'in-bed' with the military and scenes of bloodied US troops was the family dinner hour education every night, all this 'negativity' caused the majority to awaken from their slumber and write angry letters to their Congressmen and women.

So Pen and I choose to also awaken people from their slumber. The Truth shall set you free. Others choose to go within, to ponder their navel, as it were. That's okay too. There's always that 'Ignore' button...

You say that you don't care what he says, although you cared to comment. Eternal 'sky is falling.' Read your history books, Bro. What's happened to every 'democracy?' They eventually evolve into dictatorial tyrannies. What has happened to every empire? They fall. What's happened to every economy based on fiat currency? We are witnessing that right now in Greece. So, yes Bro', maybe the sky is not literally falling but the house of cards is. Ignore it if you choose to. 10,000,000 guns were purchased in the US last year, ammo has been in short supply ever since our Prince of Peace was elected on the promise of hope and change. Ha!

No, Bro, this is not self-therapy. It's an attempt to educate the masses about da massa'.

Pen is real, we all are...get real. I pointed out one reality to one of our local City officials and he agreed with me, will you? That us Danvillians have been in a Depression for so long that these alleged national economic downturns, recessions, whatever, barely affect us. We've been down so long that 'bad news' is normal to us.

Pen takes himself too seriously? You must be joking. Oh, I get it. Life is a joke to you, right Bro? To quote the rapist, 'You may as well just lie back and enjoy it.'

Thanks for inviting us for a visit. Although I can pick out a few tunes on my six-string, I don't think Pen even has a Jews harp. We should wear jackets, too? Put another log on the fire...

#7 [12]

Penteller [3] wrote on December 08, 2010 at 3:12 am

Oliver, I can assure you that [13]

Oliver,
I can assure you that I have never been a buzman nor he a penhead… well maybe he has sometimes… he’s so much more precise in his work.

You obviously do love labeling by asking me to somehow classify myself as a libertine, progressive, regressive or other such label. A seemingly odd request before you have even begun to engage me in conversation. In the world I came from, one only labels a man after you’ve talked to him enough to call him friend.

As for the rich. I think it’s a wonderful state of mind that none here will ever get to personally experience. For they live in a rareified world of isolation, protected by the best politicians that money can buy and have no need to ever cast a shadow upon these cyber halls and those of us who carry their load.

Over the last 60 years until 08, the largest federal deficits were always under Republic administrations (GAO statistics). By borrowing and spending such as George the W’s tax breaks that we new debate, Republican administrations were able to do as they please while claiming some sort of moral high ground by holding or “reducing” taxes at that point in time.

It was a highly successful tactic that kicked what looked like a can down the road, but as we approach it today we find it’s a live bomb growing ever bigger. And who benefited from these policies the most? Well over the last 10 years it was the wealthy, who saw their gains nearly double as folks like us lost ground.

I have no problem with the wealthy if they played with the same deck of cards we do, but they don’t, they’re marked, the dealer is on their side and the house will have their goons mug us, should we decide to leave the table early.

And how do I know this? Because the IRS has never been authorized by Congress to collect taxes on us, yet we are mugged all the time to support illegal wars and a for-personal-profit welfare state.

By the way, the wealthy are driven to the hanger and their private jet whisks them away, they never get in line with the sheeple nor get hassled by the ever growing police state that now fondles us and our children in public.
http://i.imgur.com/uaD6J.jpg [14]
Happy Holidaze

#8 [15]

Penteller [3] wrote on December 07, 2010 at 4:12 pm

Oh do I have a thing about

Oh do I have a thing about rich people!

Don’t you love how the top 2 percent own 98% of the wealth. I mean how kewl is that! You could own entire towns. Must be whose buying all the foreclosures eh?

Then there are the investment porfolios managed by professions that shave millions of dollars in taxes off thr ever increasing worth, by way of creating accounting.

But the ones I just love and RLOTF whenever I see them babbling on the evening news, is the business man the TV folks dug up, to talk about what raising taxes on him would mean.

He goes on and on about how if they raise his “personal” income tax, he probably won’t be hiring anyone new. Oh really? How does that work, considering that all expenses for the business are deductable so he could just bury the increase through just hiring someone?

But the ones that really have me LMO are the ones who claim they only made 50 thousand dollars last year. Of course they never mentioning that the vehicles they drive, the insurance that covers them, the trips afar, the meals out, are all tax deductable through their business.

Yup, gotta love em. A small percentage whose worth continues to climb as the rest of us dwindle, controls half the votes in congress through a regressive party intent on making them even richer.

Her are some old numbers that have actually gotten worse, but tell me....
How does increasing the tax burden on people who don’t even show up on the chart affect us? Oh yes, the tinkle on economic thing.
http://www.censusscope.org/us/chart_income.html [16]

#9 [17]

Oliver [1] wrote on December 07, 2010 at 6:12 pm

I think biased labels are

I think biased labels are kewl. In a way, a traditional American family has been sort of a dictatorship employing a "tinkle/trickle" down system. (fair deal since the kids can grow up if they wish, use their talent, intelligence and perseverance to become their own dictators and tinklers)

I hope Buzorro and Penteller mention sometime if they are separate people, please. And a self-description politically (etc;) would be nice too. All I can say for sure at this initial point is that neither of them sound very close to being wascally wepublicans but somewhere between the values of _________ and _________.

Regards,

#10 [18]

buzorro [6] wrote on December 07, 2010 at 7:12 pm

Yes, we were seperated at

Yes, we were seperated at birth.

You've read enough of both of our posts to know where we are, 'politically-speaking.'

Of course, Penn is much more literal (with a 't') than I.

But, back to the topic... I really don't know a 'rich' person, and maybe it's just the rich egotists that get the press...

Timmy Geithner, former Chairman of the New York branch of the Federal Reserve (where all the Fed chairmen come from), is named Secretary of the US Treasury. Oh, yeah, he's personally in arrears of several thousands of dollars to the IRS at the time...no big deal.

'Taxes are for little people.' - Leona Hemsley, billionaire hotel operator and real estate investor.

That's what I'm talkin' about, Oliver. You see, simple folk wouldn't dream of trying to screw the IRS. While 'they' consider it a perk...completely different mind-set. 'They' deserve all they can get, by hook or by crook.

#11 [19]

Oliver [1] wrote on December 04, 2010 at 1:12 am

An overall impression I have

An overall impression I have of all the "let's tax the 'rich' (either individuals OR big businesses) more harshly, let's take away their assets at death, let's redistribute *their* wealth when we feel they have *too much*," all this sort of talk seems to saying it's NO fair for a person to win a game of Monopoly and that he/she should be penalized for doing so. In short, that success should be punished.

Why assume everything about the 'rich' is so negative? Maybe a person had to sacrifice to save his money, maybe he toiled heroically to invent something (something of great benefit to mankind) maybe he was gifted, ambitious, wise, competitive,,,,,,what's wrong with any of this?

What's wrong with "sheltering" wealth in a charity? Isn't that a good use for money? I mean, if whatever it is is legal, then what's the problem?

You see, I believe the rich, whether they use loopholes or not, do good things, like provide jobs directly or indirectly. Certainly to LIVE in what most of us would call an exorbitant lifestyle requires a LOT of consumerism (someone has to make those yachts, swimming pools, diamond rings).
So, as I've said before, unless it's all being stored in a mattress, the money of the rich circulates among us and does the economy good.

#12 [20]

buzorro [6] wrote on December 05, 2010 at 9:12 am

Being 'rich' is a matter of

Being 'rich' is a matter of proportion. The richest man in this county wouldn't hold a candle to David Rockefeller, Bill Gates, George Soros, etc.

Yes, being rich doesn't necessarily mean that one is evil. After all there were 'good Kings.'

But as I said before, riches bring power, and power corrupts. So I believe that a safe generalization is that rich people are corrupt, although the degree of corruption will vary.

#13 [21]

William_D [22] wrote on December 03, 2010 at 5:12 am

Here's something that's

Here's something that's probably a bit extreme for my tastes but the author makes a few good points:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/End-Dynasty-Welfare-Start-by-Rob-Kall-1... [23]

I say "tax the hell" out of the top 2% anyway.

#14 [24]

cberg [25] wrote on December 04, 2010 at 10:12 am

Yea it's a bit out there, but

Yea it's a bit out there, but does have some good points. But I do agree with taxing the wealthy. The richest 10% control over half of all the wealth and the top 1% own as much wealth as the bottom 90%. With power comes responsibility and I say they should be responsible for the deficit accordingly. The capitalist system thrives on a system of "unfair." The rich get richer the poor get poorer. The fantasy notion that just by hard work you can climb your way to the top is just a myth, especially when it comes to those in poverty. When people gain off an unequal system (whether intentional or not), why should taxes be equal?

An interesting article about about a brochure published by "Responsible Wealth," a project of United for a Fair Economy.
http://www.pcdf.org/meadows/equality.htm [26]
And for more http://www.faireconomy.org/ [27]

#15 [28]

Oliver [1] wrote on December 04, 2010 at 11:12 am

We all still have only 1

We all still have only 1 equal vote. Wealth, as in all things in life, is relative. How can one fairly "cap" it? To me, anyone making 50,000/yr. is wealthy. As long as the laws are being obeyed, I hold no grudge against "the sky's the limit" in this unique land of hope & opportunity.

#16 [29]

thechampaignlife [30] wrote on December 05, 2010 at 8:12 am

We may have equal votes but

We may have equal votes but money still controls who gets elected with the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars it takes to win an election. That's the first problem that needs to be fixed and I say we randomly select the house to solve that.

I don't think anyone here is arguing for a cap but rather a sliding scale. Someone could still be a billionaire but would have to earn even more money to reach that. For instance, there could be a negative tax (i.e. refundable child tax credit) for those making under the poverty threshold (PT), no taxes due for those making 2x PT, 10% rate for those making 2x-5x PT, 25% for those making 5-10x the PT, 50% for those making 10x-100x PT, and 90% for those making over 100x PT. So you'd have to earn at least $10 billion to be a billionaire after taxes but it is still possible. The numbers are somewhat arbitrary but to a certain degree that is true with all of life. Why is the speed limit 65 mph and not 68? Because you have to pick a number at some point and you just try to get close to what most people would find acceptable while still accomplishing the goal (accident reduction or revenue generation depending on who you ask).

The wealthy may produce jobs through their extravagant spending but would not the less wealthy have also spent that money? Do the wealthy spend the money more effectively in the economy and, if so, should we give them even more?

Most wealth either comes from or produces resource domination. The entire country owes its existence to our forced migration of Native Americans off their land. I hold no grudge against the wealthy but I agree with the previous poster in that the gains one makes in an unfair system cannot fairly be treated the same. We all want to encourage innovation by allowing them to profit from their work but after a while it gets to be price gouging.

Not all charities are created equal and not all that's legal is good. Abortion and capital punishment are legal but many find those immoral. Laws should be designed to prohibit activities considered harmful by the supermajority (say 80%), leaving many areas where it may still be considered unacceptable but not illegal.

#17 [31]

Oliver [1] wrote on December 06, 2010 at 2:12 am

Wow, a person would be better

Wow, a person would be better off earning to just 100xP.T. at 50% tax (which is really approaching a level most people would rise up in arms about) because if he makes 101xP.T. the rate jumps to a whopping 90% and he'd have far less than the fellow at 100xP.T. level....Not a very good incentive to produce/excel/grow in my opinion.

And for WHAT purpose is all this high tax needed? Why, to send it to D.C., the very place that garners a rather lowwww approval rating rather consistently over the years,,,so that the feds. can think of clever ways to spend it wisely--though many do not believe the government spends its revenue all that wisely....except for the poor-who tend to take all handouts that are thrust upon them. (talk about buying votes)

The highest percentage of those with wealth already *do* pay a disproportionately high percentage of the income tax, something like 1% of them pay 30% of the tax......But, I guess that's not "sharing the pain" enough for some of the 'have nots'.

So, if you wish to really put the brakes on the spirit of capitalism (which is not a dirty word in my book) go ahead and tax 'em as obscenely as ya' kin git the votes for and Watch What Happens. But I think it is essentially this lower spot in the economic cycle that is again and forever rising the 'poor vs rich', 'us vs them' issue.

And thus it shall ever be, as the tractors plowed over the poor share croppers' modest abodes in the Great Depression and the dust bowls of OK and surrounding states, forcing 10s of 1000s to leave to the 'paradise' promised in the golden state of CA. (but I'm only 1/2 way through Grapes so I don't know how bad(ly) it turns out.

The issue doesn't really affect me personally anyway. I've (still) Got the Sun in the Morning and the Mollom Privacy Policy, er, Moon At Night".
Regards,

#18 [32]

thechampaignlife [30] wrote on December 06, 2010 at 8:12 am

That example was based upon

That example was based upon our current progressive income tax so the person making 101x PT would pay the the 90% only on that last 1x, 50% on the amount just below that, 25% after that, etc. I'd still rather a flat rate sales tax with flat dollar refund. I just pulled those rates and multipliers out of the air so they'd likely be quite different in actuality. A 90% tax rate is probably higher than it would actually be, although if you look at historic rates (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213 [33]), the average tax rate for the highest earners has been around 70%, the entire 50's were over 90%, and we're currently far below the average while our debt has spiraled out of control recently. If the average top tax has been 70% over the past 100 years and I think we'd all agree that we've had an overall pretty darn good run as a country these past 100 years, it's clear to me that a high top marginal rate will not impede progress. The top 1% paying about 30% actually isn't that out of order considering the top 6% make 33% of all income according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States [34]. Not sure what those numbers would look like with the numbers I threw out in my last post but, again, those in the top tier can more afford to pay than those at the bottom. If you expect the bottom 20% to pay 20% of the taxes, you're asking a lot considering they make under $20K and most of that is paying for food and housing just to live.

I agree that Congress has a lot of work to do in terms of reform on the spending side. A lot of spending can be curbed which will help public opinion. Some spending may have a bad image but does a lot of good and it is their job to market that overall benefit to us to change our minds. And of course just having more transparent and ethic elections and representation would do a world of good. Spending reform should occur before or at the same time as any rate increase and is the highest priority but both are going to be necessary to right this ship of spiraling deficits.

Perhaps others disagree but I'd have the same opinion regardless of the current state of the economy. But then again I'm looking at it from others' perspectives as I myself and perfectly comfortable financially living on about $33K in a 3 person household. I don't have an issue with capitalism but I do think it requires some controls over equitability to give everyone a fair shot at success. Given unbridled capitalism, we'd have no SEC and insider trading would be okay. The rich would get richer by controlling access to information and duping the less educated into giving away their resources. Not necessarily illegal (unless you make it so as we have) in a capitalistic society but definitely not fair.

#19 [35]

Oliver [1] wrote on December 06, 2010 at 1:12 pm

Yes, I am aware the tax rates

Yes, I am aware the tax rates were in the 90% range for people like Jack Benny and Bob Hope as recently as the 50s. I think that illustrates my point: the overall improvement in a typical person's standard of living since those days has *not* required that 90% burden since those upper rates over that period of time came down to the, what, upper-30% level?

Of course the wealthy should pay a bigger chunk of the taxes since they own a significant chunk of the wealth, but the value of their dollar is the *same* value as the dollar of those with far less. So, to squeeze 9 out of 10 dollars from them for an ever-bloating fed. bureaucracy that in turn will "redistribute that wealth" including in wasteful, unfair ways, well, to me that is almost akin to robbery.

Let's see how the vote goes for extending the current tax rates for next year. If they are extended and extended for the wealthy too, that would seem to state the obvious: you don't burden people with still more taxes in an economic time like this.

I'm repeating a lot, so, if I do bow out of this topic I'd sum it up like you first posted: It's a complicated matter.
Regards,

#20 [36]

thechampaignlife [30] wrote on December 06, 2010 at 4:12 pm

Our standard of living has

Our standard of living has continuously improved regardless of the rate of taxation but that has come at the cost of overwhelming debt, which just became an issue in the past 20 or so years and will impact future generations' standard of living as they are burdened by this debt. In the 60 years before Reagan, the average rate was 72%. In the 20 years since Reagan, it has averaged 36%. During those same periods, our debt as a ratio to economy size has gone from 48% (34% if you exclude the 1943-1962 war and recovery years) to 62% (it's currently at 94% due to the 2 "wars" and stimulus) according to http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1792_2010&view... [37] Federal Debt As Percent Of GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s. A 14% increase may not sound like much but that works out to $2 trillion more in debt on a $14 trillion economy. It's even worse when you compare the "normal years" (which includes the great depression and Vietnam) debt level of 34% to the current 94% debt load - we have almost $9 trillion more in debt than we should!

So that's debt. On the spending side, it's gone from 16% pre-Reagan (14% if you exclude 1942-46) to 20% post-Reagan. So spending has increased by about 50% while the top tax rate has fallen by about 50% resulting in our current situation of about 300% greater debt that we should have. I don't fault Reagan as much for the spending increase since he represents only about 11% of the increase (although I don't know about programs he might have put in place that affected spending after he left office) but he is definitely to blame for the collapse of the top tax rate. Again, you won't get any argument from me that government spending must be reduced and I believe it should in conjunction with a tax increase so we can right this ship.

Redistribution of wealth isn't an evil concept just like capitalism isn't an evil concept. Both can coexist and must be thoughtfully executed to lend a helping hand up to those who truly need it while still fostering the innovation that drives us. The emergency room is a microcosm of this where those of us with insurance pay a greater burden so that those without financial means will still get help when they most need it.

I still say spending decreased, reign in entitlement programs to only benefit truly needy, and flat rate sales tax on new goods with flat dollar refund as the trifecta solution.

#21 [38]

thechampaignlife [30] wrote on November 26, 2010 at 10:11 am

It's a complicated matter. I

It's a complicated matter. I don't have an issue with rich people specifically but I couldn't stand to be obscenely rich myself. My conscience would eat away at me knowing that I'm buying a 60" tv while some Sudanese toddler is starving. Heck, I feel that way sometimes as it is and I make less than 20% of that $250K that you mentioned and rarely buy new items over $100. I would hope others generally have some assemblance of empathy for the human condition but that is between them, their conscience, and their maker.

Although some may not pay anything to the IRS, they are not without paying taxes. Taxes are placed on darn near everything people spend their money on. From customs duties to corporate taxes, anything you buy already has that tax built into the cost of the product.

Now, in terms of tax policy, which is more fair: everyone pays the same amount or those that can afford more pay more? On big ticket items like national defense, we all reap the same reward so shouldn't we all pay the same in a fair system? If that means the teacher making $30k owes $40k in taxes while Warren Buffett also owes $40k, so be it because that is what's fair based on the benefit you receive. That obviously won't work so we have to charge more to those that can afford to pay more. My proposal would be to do that through a flat rate sales tax with a flat amount refund. On the surface, it would seem to be fair to those who think flat rate taxation is fair (though it isn't) while in actuality it is a progressive tax in that that flat amount refund means more to the low income.

#22 [39]

buzorro [6] wrote on November 26, 2010 at 11:11 am

Having no assumption that

Having no assumption that I'll ever be 'rich,' in the monetary definition, my hope is that a 'rich' woman will discover me and I'll soon be a 'kept man.' On the other hand, I also hope that I'll never be so hungry that I'll have to eat a rich person to survive.

All kidding aside, though, there have always been rich people and poor people,...always will. The problem comes with unbridled capitalism. After an individual has accumulated enough capital that even he/she can't fathom the amount, many then become drunk with the power that accompanies said riches. The drunkeness then becomes an addiction for more power. Thus, 'the love of money is the root of all evil.'

As far as taxes...we should have always done as our original government did. Now it's probably too late, since we don't produce anything anymore. Sales taxes place the greatest burden on the lower class. Property taxes place an 'unfair' burden on the middle class. A flat tax would be fair (like the Fair Tax) only if you also tax charities and foundations (where most rich people hide their money from the tax collector).

#23 [40]

thechampaignlife [30] wrote on December 03, 2010 at 8:12 am

I agree with taxing charities

I agree with taxing charities and foundations. My proposal for a flat sales tax to eliminate income, property, and other general purpose taxes is designed to least impact the lower class. It only taxes new goods so people like me that live off second hand stores wouldn't owe very much. And people buying a new $400K house would pay out the nose! And, to make it even better for the poor, you get a flat dollar refund regardless of how much you paid in taxes. So the rate may be 25% and you get a $400 per month refund. For someone spending $1000/month on taxed items, you'd actually get a net refund of $150. For someone spending $6000/month, the net amount you'd be paying would be $1100. It's a green tax policy since it encourages reuse, it works out to be a progressive tax since that $400 refund is worth more to the lower class (since they buy less items subject to tax), and on face value appears to be fair because everyone pays the same rate and everyone gets the same refund.