or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear - Page 6

post #201 of 225
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
No, you just proved my point. No one needs a mercedes. The expectation that it's normal to spend money like that is why (well, one reason why) my investment banker brother-in-law's wife pisses off his folks and the rest of the family.

Nobody even needs the new GM. The number of quality used cars is at an all time high. The point is that people should be free to decide what they buy with their earned income, and not have their choices limited by what the government decides to take and redistribute.

Quote:
This decision isn't a problem for people with even a moderate income.

Are you saying that PPO health insurance is the norm for someone earning $50k a year? I thought we were discussing the differences between $50k and $200k a year.

Quote:
BS. It may cost more, but there's a reason. I could live somewhere cheaper, just like anyone here could. But I like trees, the lake, diversity, good food, culture, old buildings, history and no need for a car.

The point is that you COULD live somewhere cheaper but choose to devote that money toward yourself, not give it to charity, not give it to the government. By your reasoning, you should be FORCED to live where it is cheaper by virtue of the fact that it still meets your need for housing while allowing the government to take more of your income.

Quote:
Depends on how you look at it, but either way it shows how rich we are as a country. Personally I think it makes a big difference.

You're welcome to believe it makes a big difference. Thank goodness you do otherwise you would live too far below your means and never trickle that money back down.

Quote:
But that's the difference between being 'rich' and being 'wealthy.' You are clearly confusing the two.

I've made a generalized statement stating that I was discussing income and not assets. I'm not confusing the two. We are discussing how one can have $200k of income a year and still be very average in terms of their living.

Quote:
But in terms of consumer goods, there really isn't a whole lot of difference between high-end goods and mid-range goods. Take the ibook, for example. These days it's faster than my powerbook, which just two years ago was I believe 3x as much.

Of course there isn't a lot of difference between the two. Yet they get to charge so much more for the high end. That is my point, 400% more income doesn't get you 400% better. It gets you about 50% better. So attacking people who make 400% more, pay a much larger tax burden and still only get about 50% better living for their lifestyle is stupid because the hill is already plenty steep enough to climb.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #202 of 225
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Nobody even needs the new GM. The number of quality used cars is at an all time high. The point is that people should be free to decide what they buy with their earned income, and not have their choices limited by what the government decides to take and redistribute.

I've never known anyone that's felt prevented from buying a particular car by their taxes. Never. Then again, I don't tend to hang around to listen to people that pretend they are victims.
Quote:
Are you saying that PPO health insurance is the norm for someone earning $50k a year? I thought we were discussing the differences between $50k and $200k a year.

I work at a university, meaning a whole lot of people making ~$50K and I do know from conversations that many go the PPO route which, as I recall, wasn't much of a difference in price and was worth it for people that go. I don't pay much attention to it and rarely go to doctors (knock on wood), but I do also know that at least one person in my family that is somewhere in the $50-$70 range went PPO and doesn't complain about the price.
Quote:
The point is that you COULD live somewhere cheaper but choose to devote that money toward yourself, not give it to charity,

Actually, I give plenty away, as do most people I know of all income ranges. Haven't you heard about our new vipassana center? Our area is also big into volunteer work. To be honest, I'm the odd one out with my lack of volunteer work. Never even did habitat for humanity. I do a lot of stuff for the city, though.
Quote:
By your reasoning, you should be FORCED to live where it is cheaper by virtue of the fact that it still meets your need for housing while allowing the government to take more of your income.

What are you, a communist? Capitalism means different places cost different amounts of money to live in.
Quote:
You're welcome to believe it makes a big difference.

I don't just believe it would blow to have to live out in a subdivision with a crappy suburban elementary education system, I know it would. But that's what people seem to like, so let them live there.
Quote:
Of course there isn't a lot of difference between the two. Yet they get to charge so much more for the high end.

I lived in suburban detroit for a number of years. There were a couple things I learned there. a) it may be cheap, but I fucking hate it and b) for what an average house costs here you could buy an estate with indoor pool there.

You pick your poison. Someone making $200K has one type of luxury out in the burbs and another type here. Either way they are rich.
post #203 of 225
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
I've never known anyone that's felt prevented from buying a particular car by their taxes. Never. Then again, I don't tend to hang around to listen to people that pretend they are victims.

Then you obviously don't hang around in the circles you claim because when what you pay in taxes for one year would buy a car or two free and clear, you are definately being prevented from buying a certain type of car.

Quote:
I work at a university, meaning a whole lot of people making ~$50K and I do know from conversations that many go the PPO route which, as I recall, wasn't much of a difference. I don't pay much attention to it and rarely go to doctors (know on wood), but I do also know that at least one person in my family that is somewhere in the $50-$70 range went PPO.

I see your mistake here. Please remember we are discussing HOUSEHOLD income and not individual. If you know someone at the university making $50k it is likely that most often their spouse is working as well and allows them more choices than someone who has one or both parties working just to earn that for the household alone. In cases where you are talking about $50k for a household, HMO vs. PPO is often a consideration that has to be made.

Quote:
Actually, I give plenty away, as do most people I know of all income ranges. Haven't you heard about our new vipassana center? Or how about all the volunteer work everyone I know in this city does? To be honest, I'm the odd one out with my lack of volunteer work. Never even did habitat for humanity. :
I do a lot of stuff for the city, though, including sometime doing shows for cable access.

You should probably dig into the details of this in AO.

Quote:
What are you, a communist. Capitalism means different places cost different amounts of money to live in. If you don't like it, try to revolt russia back.

Extreme progressivism is communism. For each to give and take as they are able and need. That is the whole point with progressive taxation. They don't "need" it so let's take it. The point is that it isn't right to take it. They have wants that they (you so you aren't offended) consider very important.

Quote:
I don't just believe it would such to have to live out in a subdivision, I know it would. But that's what people seem to like, so let them live there.

Not quite sure what you are saying here. It got a little garbled.

Quote:
Sure you are.

If you keep making the charge, elaborate.

Quote:
I lived in suburban detroit for a number of years. There were a couple things I learned there. a) it may be cheap, but I fucking hate it and b) for what an average house costs here you could buy an estate with indoor pool there.

You pick your poison. Someone making $200K has one type of luxury out in the burbs and another type here. Either way they are rich.

If they are still living off income, they can become very poor quickly. The government shouldn't precipitate this happening. The also shouldn't tax in a manner that makes it harder for those with incomes in this range to attempt to join the investment class.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #204 of 225
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Then you obviously don't hang around in the circles you claim because when what you pay in taxes for one year would buy a car or two free and clear, you are definately being prevented from buying a certain type of car.

No, most people in this area have crappy cars. Maybe if I feel benevolent I'll take some pictures of the large 3+mil houses with old volkswagens, toyotas or even old vans parked in the driveway. Seriously. The other day on the way to work I even tried to find a single new car. Nothing. I'm not kidding at all. Maybe it's the taxes

Personally, I wanted an accord, but I don't use the car, so we got something else. From carmax. Which I am now a fan of.
Quote:
I see your mistake here. Please remember we are discussing HOUSEHOLD income and not individual. If you know someone at the university making $50k it is likely that most often their spouse is working as well and allows them more choices than someone who has one or both parties working just to earn that for the household alone.

Actually, I found something very different working at universities. People that work at universities (the ones I've spent time in) are almost always the steady income earners in the family. It's really difficult to get fired, so people often work there when they absolutely need to have that constant, dependable income.
Quote:
Extreme progressivism is communism.

And few people want 'extreme progressivism,' so why even worry about it at this point?
Quote:
For each to give and take as they are able and need. That is the whole point with progressive taxation. They don't "need" it so let's take it. The point is that it isn't right to take it.

It's far more in depth than that. You should try learning about it. You might find it really interesting.
Quote:
you so you aren't offended

It has nothing to do with anyone being offended, it has to do with realizing it's an issue that deals with real people, not abstractions.
Quote:
Not quite sure what you are saying here. It got a little garbled.

At least, for once, you actually asked for clarification. Thank you.

The point is that it does make a difference, because I don't want to live in a subdivision or have to do all my purchasing at a mall. I despise malls.
Quote:
If they are still living off income, they can become very poor quickly. The government shouldn't precipitate this happening. The also shouldn't tax in a manner that makes it harder for those with incomes in this range to attempt to join the investment class.

There are only a couple big things stopping people from being comfortable financially in the US: 1) some minorities and immigrants don't have confidence or enough education, 2) other people aren't aware of how easy it is and 3) *this is the big one* -> americans simply spend too much money on crap. Sure, huge chunks of our economy are propped up by this, but that's also part of what's creating the disparity. Personally, I really shouldn't talk since this was my year of big, stupid purchases of junk I don't use.

edit: ra's post below actually hits the nail on the head of the biggest reason.

As for whether $200K is rich, let me repeat: You pick your poison. Someone making $200K has one type of luxury out in the burbs and another type here. Either way they are rich.
post #205 of 225
Rich is the man who's happy with what he's got.
post #206 of 225
Trumptman's living in fantasyland. $200k not rich. Like ass it's not.

And yet he thinks that households that are earning $15k (and there are more of those than there are households earning $200k) are not so bad off that the government should "redistribute" any wealth at all (most of such "redistribution" coming in the form of job training programs, community college programs, youth centres, medicare, etc.)

Compassion is not in his vocabulary.

Now. Let's look at happiness and standard of living.

Who are happier? Americans or... Swedes?

And who pays more taxes?

Ergo:

Socialist Democracy can lead to an improved standard of living.
post #207 of 225
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
No, most people in this area have crappy cars. Maybe if I feel benevolent I'll take some pictures of the large 3+mil houses with old volkswagens, toyotas or even old vans parked in the driveway. Seriously. The other day on the way to work I even tried to find a single new car. Nothing. I'm not kidding at all. Maybe it's the taxes
.
[/B]

Maybe it is the taxes.

Quote:
Actually, I found something very different working at universities. People that work at universities (the ones I've spent time in) are almost always the steady income earners in the family. It's really difficult to get fired, so people often work there when they absolutely need to have that constant, dependable income.

I don't think you quite got what I was saying. I didn't attempt to say that the university personal weren't the primary breadwinner vs secondary. Simply that since they earned $50k or so alone, that a spouse working would put them above the range of income were talking about for a household. There are lots of households I've encountered as a landlord where the family income is $50k a year and it takes two parties to earn that. The breakdown is typically full and part time with incomes of about 35k and 15k. The coverage is often Kaiser or something similar.

Quote:
It's far more in depth than that. You should try learning about it. You might find it really interesting.

I do plenty of reading thank you. The fact that I try to quickly sum up something for an internet forum post doesn't denote a lack of education in that area, it denotes an attempt to summarize.

Quote:
It has nothing to do with anyone being offended, it has to do with realizing it's an issue that deals with real people, not abstractions.

I don't spend my day teaching and dealing with abstractions. I teach children and deal with their parents. Since you seem to be in a place in your life where you no longer have to be concerned with earning a certain income, you ought to try it yourself as well.

Quote:
At least, for once, you actually asked for clarification. Thank you.

Your welcome. Anyone can let their brain get ahead of their fingers. It appeared that was what happened in your...sentence.

Quote:
The point is that it does make a difference, because I don't want to live in a subdivision or have to do all my purchasing at a mall. I despise malls.

Thanks for sharing.

Quote:
There are only a couple big things stopping people from being comfortable financially in the US: 1) some minorities and immigrants don't have confidence or enough education, 2) other people aren't aware of how easy it is and 3) *this is the big one* -> americans simply spend too much money on crap. Sure, huge chunks of our economy are propped up by this, but that's also part of what's creating the disparity. Personally, I really shouldn't talk since this was my year of big, stupid purchases of junk I don't use.

You and I share the exact same view here. So my question is to you, since we both likely agree that educational spending by the government is warrented why have the government constantly redistribute income to or from people who lack financial education or the willpower to do as they should with it?

As you have said, it really isn't that hard to become comfortable financially so why not educate and let the government stay out of the way? Why have them come in and redistribute money from those who understand how it work and constantly give to those who don't understand how it works and as a result, squander it?

Quote:
As for whether $200K is rich, let me repeat: You pick your poison. Someone making $200K has one type of luxury out in the burbs and another type here. Either way they are rich.

What they are is comfortable for this particular year. There is no guarantee they have been earning that all along or that they will continue to do so.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #208 of 225
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
If they are still living off income, they can become very poor quickly.

So, you want an entire tax structure based on the idea of not taxing people "too much" in one year, because they might not make that much the next?

What happened to that paragon conservative virtue "individual responsibility" here? Make a lot money one year -- you'd better be smart and save it if you're worried you won't the next. People who are frivolously spending their high incomes rather than saving aren't likely to save much more because you give them a tax cut anyway, so lower taxes or not, they'll still be screwed when their bubble bursts.
Quote:
The government shouldn't precipitate this happening. The also shouldn't tax in a manner that makes it harder for those with incomes in this range to attempt to join the investment class.

There's a limit to how much money large numbers of people can make by joining "the investment class". Ultimately for an economy to be productive, all of those investments have to lead up to people who actually do things and make stuff.

Being in the investment class might be a smart personal strategy, but the more common this becomes, the smaller the slices of the available investment pie become. An economy where the majority of people are earning the majority of their income from investments simply cannot work. Shall we set the US up as a nation of economic leeches who produce nothing more useful than decisions about allocations of capital resources while being fed and serviced by the labor of the rest of the world?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #209 of 225
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
So, you want an entire tax structure based on the idea of not taxing people "too much" in one year, because they might not make that much the next?

The point is that when you make that amount, you are supposed to be rich. Tax the rich right? The reality is that you aren't rich. You might become so if you can sustain this level of income over a period of time.

Quote:
What happened to that paragon conservative virtue "individual responsibility" here? Make a lot money one year -- you'd better be smart and save it if you're worried you won't the next. People who are frivolously spending their high incomes rather than saving aren't likely to save much more because you give them a tax cut anyway, so lower taxes or not, they'll still be screwed when their bubble bursts.

That is the point... how can you save it or invest it if the government takes it? The effective tax rate at $200k is 26%. That means you pay $52k in taxes that year. That isn't frivolously spending. That is just having it taken from you.

Now with that remaining money, you have to live. Then you also have to find some form of investment that yields a high enough return to beat inflation and also beat the goverment taking their share of your return.

So suppose you saved a whole $100k and managed to live on $48k you had left. You take the $100k and stick it in a savings account. You just lost money. The interest on the savings account doesn't beat inflation. A year later and especially several years later your money is worth less than when it went in. It won't buy what it would have when you first deposited it.

So suppose you invest it and get a 10% return. You beat inflation, great. However that gain, (even the interest from the crappy savings account as well) is taxed so it really isn't a 10% gain. Also a 10% gain is a great return for anything hands off and "safe". You certainly are not guaranteed that gain. It could become a loss. Does the government give you back the money if you had a loss? No. Does it exempt the gain from additional taxes after you have already paid income tax to earn it, and capital gains to invest it? No.

It's not as easy as it sounds.

Quote:
There's a limit to how much money large numbers of people can make by joining "the investment class". Ultimately for an economy to be productive, all of those investments have to lead up to people who actually do things and make stuff.

What do you think an investment is? If I invest in Apple stock, Apple does things and makes stuff. Everyone can be an owner of something.

Quote:
Being in the investment class might be a smart personal strategy, but the more common this becomes, the smaller the slices of the available investment pie become. An economy where the majority of people are earning the majority of their income from investments simply cannot work. Shall we set the US up as a nation of economic leeches who produce nothing more useful than decisions about allocations of capital resources while being fed and serviced by the labor of the rest of the world?

Investments are not finite. There are always new companies, new ideals, new products. The pie is not finite either.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #210 of 225
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
...


There's a limit to how much money large numbers of people can make by joining "the investment class". Ultimately for an economy to be productive, all of those investments have to lead up to people who actually do things and make stuff.

Being in the investment class might be a smart personal strategy, but the more common this becomes, the smaller the slices of the available investment pie become. An economy where the majority of people are earning the majority of their income from investments simply cannot work. Shall we set the US up as a nation of economic leeches who produce nothing more useful than decisions about allocations of capital resources while being fed and serviced by the labor of the rest of the world?

This is where people go wrong in their thinking. It's not a zero sum game. Markets grow and change based on the available funds. You're thinking is stuck on the "gold standard" where there is only so much gold to go around and if you don't own some you never will. We haven't been on the gold standard for ages. You need to update your economic thinking.
post #211 of 225
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
There's are reasons why people like Bill Gates Sr. support things like estate tax. Among them:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030127&s=gates

Explain that to the farmer's son who inherits the $1.2 million farm, but has to see it to say the 500,000 in estate taxes.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #212 of 225
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
The alternative is the government taking away the environment that allows a business to flourish and succeed. There is a cost involved with creating this economic opportunity and every business and individual that benefits has to give back to keep that environment viable.


They should give back more than a third? I say no.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #213 of 225
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
This is where people go wrong in their thinking. It's not a zero sum game. Markets grow and change based on the available funds. You're thinking is stuck on the "gold standard" where there is only so much gold to go around and if you don't own some you never will. We haven't been on the gold standard for ages. You need to update your economic thinking.

My comments have nothing to do with thinking of investment as a zero-sum game. They have to do with foundations of wealth.

You can't have a world in which everyone is primarily an investor in everyone else's investment firms, advertising agencies and banks, where the advertisers have nothing to advertise but investment firms and banks, and the only money in the banks comes from investments and advertising.

Someone has to farm the food you eat. Someone has to quarry the granite for the fancy countertops in your new McMansion, and someone has to cut the granite and install it. Someone has to deliver the gas for your monster SUV and someone has to repair the SUV when it breaks down.

Maybe someday we'll have robots to do all of this, but that day isn't here. If there's no one to do these things, your money is useless. If everyone can become rich by being an investor, there's no reason work hard at farming, quarrying, installing countertops, driving tanker trucks, or fixing SUVs.

Investing does serve some useful economic function, and certainly can boost the economy. Investment in and of itself, however, is not wealth and does not produce wealth, it merely helps distribute capital more efficiently so that ultimately more wealth can be created in the form of more concrete goods and services.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #214 of 225
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
My comments have nothing to do with thinking of investment as a zero-sum game. They have to do with foundations of wealth.

You can't have a world in which everyone is primarily an investor in everyone else's investment firms, advertising agencies and banks, where the advertisers have nothing to advertise but investment firms and banks, and the only money in the banks comes from investments and advertising.

Someone has to farm the food you eat. Someone has to quarry the granite for the fancy countertops in your new McMansion, and someone has to cut the granite and install it. Someone has to deliver the gas for your monster SUV and someone has to repair the SUV when it breaks down.

Maybe someday we'll have robots to do all of this, but that day isn't here. If there's no one to do these things, your money is useless. If everyone can become rich by being an investor, there's no reason work hard at farming, quarrying, installing countertops, driving tanker trucks, or fixing SUVs.

Investing does serve some useful economic function, and certainly can boost the economy. Investment in and of itself, however, is not wealth and does not produce wealth, it merely helps distribute capital more efficiently so that ultimately more wealth can be created in the form of more concrete goods and services.

Why do you turn it into an or question? You don't have to be an investor OR work full time. There are lots of combinations and possibilities. Also investment simply means that you own assets.(not including your home)

The examples you give with people owning farms, businesses and so forth. They are members of the ownership class. Their own businesses are their investments.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #215 of 225
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Explain that to the farmer's son who inherits the $1.2 million farm, but has to see it to say the 500,000 in estate taxes.



This has been beaten to death, you just apparently have chosen to ignore it.

Here's some choice bits. In the first, I found a farmer summing up all of the main points well.

Quote:
Neil Harl, an Iowa State University estate tax expert, said that in 35 years of conducting estate tax seminars for farmers he has "been unable to find a single case where estate taxes caused the sale of a family farm; it's a myth." Harl studied 1998, where 642_of the 47,483 taxable estates that year included farm real estate that amounted to at least one-half of the gross estate value, a whopping 1.35% of estate tax payers.


On April 8th, David Cay Johnston of the New York Times reported that the pro-repeal Farm Bureau was unable to show him one example of a farm sold because of the estate tax.

Quote:
Estate tax repeal advocates will go to great lengths to use the family farmer as their symbol in this fight. _Last August, repeal advocates had Montana rancher Lynn Cornwell deliver Congresss year 2000 estate tax repeal bill to President Clinton on a tractor. President Clinton vetoed repeal, indicating that it would primarily enrich the heirs with estates in excess of $5 million. "Half the benefit of that bill that came here on a tractor goes to 3,000 people," quipped President Clinton. "And I'll bet you not a single one of them ever drove a tractor."


Why is big business trying to associate farmers with the "death tax?" _Its simple. This is just another example of the corporate agribusiness agenda trying to hide behind the interests of independent producers.


The real pressures facing farmers in Missouri and all across the country are the monopolistic corporate stranglehold over the marketplace, farm policies that facilitate that takeover, and low prices that underwrite the profits of grain purchasers like Cargill, ConAgra, and ADM. If members of Congress really intended to help family farmers, they would enact a new farm bill that would ensure farmers a fair price from the market place for the food that we grow. When the problem is farm income and corporate concentration, the estate tax isnt even on the radar screen of farm policy fixes that family farmers are fighting for.


President Bush and his Secretary of Agriculture, Ann Veneman, say what farmers need is a repeal of the death tax and more free trade agreements. Isnt it ironic that Secretary Venemans first administrative act was to reinstate a pork tax that the nations hog farmers voted out in a national referendum. The pork checkoff is a failed and unpopular tax that hog farmers voted out 53% to 47% nationally with 64% of Missouri farmers favoring termination.

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/ra01/ratax.html

And from neil harl
Quote:
The precise number of farm estates subject to federal estate tax is not known. What is known is how many estates listed farm property but it is not known whether that was a farm landlord or an operating farmer. In 1998, out of the 47,483 taxable estates that year, in only 642 did farm assets including farm real estate equal at least one-half of the gross estate. Out of the 2.3 million who died in 1998, in only 1,418 estates did family-owned businesses or farms comprise a majority of the estate. USDA estimates that, in 1998, fewer than six percent of all farms had a net worth in excess of $1.3 million. Only 1.5 percent had a net worth of more than $3 million. With some planning, estates of that size can pass free of federal estate tax using the unified credit, the family-owned business deduction, special use valuation for the land and discounting for co-ownership and entity ownership.

http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agd.../HarlApr01.htm

and that specific farmer? I remember this from when the show aired:

Quote:
MOYERS: What about that rancher or farmer on that red tractor that delivered the bill to the White House in 2000?

COLLINS: That's an interesting case, because that rancher from Montana, we looked up his name and we found that over the last five years he's received $450,000 in farm subsidies from us the taxpayers. We the taxpayers have been an enormous investor in the Cornwall Ranch in Montana.

MOYERS: That's his ranch.

COLLINS: We are...we're sort of joint partners if you will.

And when he passes that farm on upon his death, we think that the taxpayer should have a claim back on that. It's just, this notion that we did it all ourselves, that is the great big myth here. And that's not to dismiss individual efforts; it's more that we just don't look enough at the role that society plays in helping people create wealth.

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/tr...heritance.html
post #216 of 225
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Why do you turn it into an or question? You don't have to be an investor OR work full time. There are lots of combinations and possibilities. Also investment simply means that you own assets.(not including your home)

I take it you meant either/or question... and no, that's not my point. My point is that while making income via investments might not be a zero-sum game, there are limits to how much wealth can be generated that way.

If you talk about how the wonders of tax cuts are going to help create a world full of happy investors building personal fortunes, you have to realize there are some serious limits to how far this can practically go and how well it would be likely to turn out. An excessive emphasis on creating wealth via investment rather than direct productive activity seems less likely to produce "the democratization of capital" than it does to produce more of the same that we've seen in the past few years: greater disparities in the distribution of wealth.
Quote:
The examples you give with people owning farms, businesses and so forth. They are members of the ownership class. Their own businesses are their investments.

Maybe our economy could be based on having more and more small business owners, but the trends seem to be mergers and consolidation, with fewer but bigger businesses disproportiately owned by small numbers of very wealthy owners, people who benefit far more from the profits of these businesses that do small investors with a few shares, often shares indirectly owned through mutual funds, the managers of which make more money and more reliable money than the small investors.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #217 of 225
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Explain that to the farmer's son who inherits the $1.2 million farm, but has to see it to say the 500,000 in estate taxes.

How did you arrive at your figure of $500K taxes on a $1.2M estate?
For 2004 tax year, $1.5M is excluded ($3M exemption for couples). This increases each year until sunset of existing code.
From 1980-1997, the exemption was $600K ($1.2M for couples) with a tax rate of 45% above that amount.
post #218 of 225
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I know plenty of teachers who are at the top of the pay scale in our district. That is $75k and their spouses make as much or more. We don't get into specific numbers because that is a bit voodoo and rude.

My wife has chosen to stay home but if she hadn't we would be well over $200k ourselves in income we must claim. We would have a boatload of deductions, but the point is that $200k isn't a hard number to reach. A lot of dual income professional families hit it quite easily.

Nick


I forgot you live in California. You guys must be doing quite well. There aren't many up here who make that.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #219 of 225
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
They should give back more than a third? I say no.

At least you're willing to acknowledge that they have to pay for an open field to even compete in. That's a start. Most conservatives ignore that from the beginning since it opens the door to dismantling the fundamental principles of conservative economic thought.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #220 of 225
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Go here. <---PDF

You get down to page 20 or so and it shows the the effective tax rate per quintile. $200k would put you in the highest quintile which means that even after all your tax breaks your tax rate for this year will be 27.5%. The middle quintile is 16.5% and the lowest 6.7%. So even with all those breaks the "rich" still end up paying a lot more. When you look at their share of liabilities, the upper 20% pay for 64% of all monies the government spends. (The top 10% pay for 50% of all government spending) The lowest 20% pay for 1.3% of all government spending.

If you don't consider that disproportionate, then get help.

Nick

How much did you pay in federal taxes last year, if I may, and in what catagory do you fall? Did you pay more than 27.5%? Most likely you did. I'll finish my though once you respond.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #221 of 225
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
How much did you pay in federal taxes last year, if I may, and in what catagory do you fall? Did you pay more than 27.5%? Most likely you did. I'll finish my though once you respond.

I'd be happy to discuss this, but in pm's if you like faust. Send me one and will continue.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #222 of 225
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I'd be happy to discuss this, but in pm's if you like faust. Send me one and will continue.

Nick

You know that any info you reveal will be passed among your opponents here, right? I wish I was wrong on this.
post #223 of 225
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
You know that any info you reveal will be passed among your opponents here, right? I wish I was wrong on this.

I've PM'd trumptman a few times and he's leaked the info himself. Don't get too high and mighty. It's unbecoming.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #224 of 225
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
I've PM'd trumptman a few times and he's leaked the info himself. Don't get too high and mighty. It's unbecoming.

Hey posting opinions that differ from the majority here, is apparently unbecoming.

I thought I was posting the obvious.
post #225 of 225
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
I've PM'd trumptman a few times and he's leaked the info himself. Don't get too high and mighty. It's unbecoming.

What the hell are you talking about?!?!?

I don't recall ever receiving a PM from you let alone a PM with some sort of private information?!?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear