Unless, of course, you have enough confidence in your company's future stock value to believe it will gain enough to make up the difference. In the Microsoft of yesterday, with its value continuing to climb, that wouldn't have even been a question. In today's Microsoft, holding on to the stock would be a pretty big gamble. At least Balmer believes that to be true, and that isn't a particularly strong vote of confidence coming from the man at the top.
Clearly the only way MSFT could have grown under Ballmer would have been if the man had poured his company's extra cash into AAPL stock.
. It's more than he could ever spend in a lifetime.
.
Wrong. He's spending it right now. He's spending it to do charitable work. He's employing zillions of people in doing so. He's helping a zillion people times 1000 by employing those workers.
That is what he is spending his money on. What do you spend your money on? Toys? Do the people you give jobs to help others? Or are they toymakers?
If he wanted to, he could buy islands and airports and the Empire State Building. He could buy out all the tenants and make it into a giant personal pleasure palace. But instead, he carefully chooses to fund charitable organizations which help others to live an OK life.
And you question his asset allocations? Unless he had been able to amass that wealth, those charities would remain less funded, unable to help as many people. Had he not wisely allocated capital to profitable ventures, those profits would not have been made, and those people would not have been helped.
He represents what is good about people. He worked hard, and now he is in a position to do more good in this world than you and your entire family has done in ten generations.
So let me see what you think should have happened: Buffet should have been taxed marginally higher because of his success (lets say 50% of his total earnings as a hyperbole). That 20B goes to the government where approximately 25% overhead is used to administer it. The remaining 15 B is squandered on middle of the ground politics (you know, the ones that aren't to left or right wing to prevent political suicide). Maybe 10% (1.5B) of this reaches the truly needy (ie the sick, the legitimately impoverished, the disabled etc).
Or, Buffet could administer 37B directly to these truly needy individuals?
Some food for thought.
I don't agree that private charity is any substitute for governmental programs. For example, Catholic Charities would not allow gay couples to adopt children in need.
The percentages that you use - did you just make them up? Or are they some kind of reality-based numbers?
Speak for yourself. For some, it would involve the tearing away of years of unjustifiable prejudice, like tearing way a huge scab and revealing the enervated dermis. For some, learning is the most painful experience possible. For them, it is much easier to stow away in the comfort zone of the local loudmouth. Learning that he is wrong can be painful and it can involve painful reevaluations of one's very being, one's strongest self-image, one's life's work, or one's most basic viewpoints.
What if everyone you love is convinced of the same destructive shibboleths? Is it easy to learn the truth in that situation?
I really like the idea of indexing the gains against inflation - if you take a long-term investment that made 15% over 5 years, I'm not sure that's something you should be able to take a loss on, but certainly having to pay 18->???% of that as 'gain' isn't really right either.
Do you understand the concept? Why do you like the idea of indexing capital gains against inflation?
"the last company to make buggy-whips was probably the best of its kind. Still, no matter how talented the employees or how well-made the buggy-whip, the business is dead."
I don't agree that private charity is any substitute for governmental programs. For example, Catholic Charities would not allow gay couples to adopt children in need.
I wholeheartedly disagree. I believe that people should champion the causes they personally care about, including financially as appropriate, and not put their faith in government fixing society to their liking. The constantly shifting polarization of those in power (as every time we realize the current group is a bunch of screw-ups, we try to get the other side in) means that there is often little consistency in terms of funding for programs that do not have obvious bipartisan support.
If you care about stem-cell research, you help pay for it. If you care about gay couples being able to adopt, you help pay for the organizations that make this happen. That way your money is being used the way you see fit rather than the way the government sees fit (and without nearly as much overhead). This would also ensure that your tax dollars are not going towards many programs you believe are unnecessary. If the problem is that you won't donate unless you're being forced to via taxation, then I suppose you like the idea of supporting the cause more than you actually like it.
How are you even connected to the Internet right now without luxury technology? I thought the only way you communicated with anyone outside of your subsistence-living commune was by goat courier.
Ok, you have completely missed my point and have mangled my words into some unrecognizable form, but I will try my best to explain what I meant without sounding too condescending.
Luxury items accentuate an inequality between those with money and those without. Apple products are on the luxury end of their respective markets. Should Apple's products have a price ceiling so that even the poor can afford them? Or should Apple have to tier their pricing based on the income of the purchaser? The answer to both questions is of course no.
If people were only allowed to have an amount of money equivalent to what they'll spend in a lifetime, would that calculation preclude the purchase of luxury items unless they are deemed necessary? Does Warren Buffett have to state what his required computing needs are before he is allowed to say that he wants a top-o-the-line Macbook Pro with an SSD, along with future upgrades as technology progresses, included in his lifetime budget? In other words, do you calculate based on what people actually could spend in a lifetime or simply based on what will fit their stated requirements and no more?
I never once said there is no place for nice things. I really do love my Apple products, but I am also able to purchase them and provide for my family simultaneously without going into debt. I don't expect that because others don't have that same luxury the government should take away some of my Apple stuff and give it to those that can't afford it, even if for example I'll never use my computer to its full potential. I also don't expect the government to start handing out iPods and Macbooks with welfare checks (while also increasing my taxes) just to balance everything out.
OMG.... this is one of the few decisions I would agree with Ballmer on.... hell... if I were in his position I'd sell half. Don't blame anyone who would rather pay 18% Capital Gains tax on $1.3B over 39.5%.... Thank you butthead BO.
I think you're confusing the marginal tax rate with the Capital Gains tax. If one is in the 39.6% marginal rate (the highest rate), the capital gains tax on investments held over one year is going from 15% to 20%, assuming the Bush tax cuts expire, which the new House might not let happen anyway (or there may be a compromise, because Obama will probably cave.) It's only on investments held less than one year that the Capital Gains tax will go to 39.6% (from 35% currently), the same as the marginal rate on ordinary income.
And while the highest ordinary income marginal rate is going from 35% to 39.6%, the income at which you move into the higher rate has increased, so many rich people will fall into a lower rate (although I don't have those exact figures in front of me), actually reducing their tax burden.
My heart really goes out to billionaires who have to pay an additional 5% in taxes on their enormous gains. The fact is that even at 20%, this is a bargain. Why shouldn't capital gains be taxed the same as ordinary income? This is a favor to the rich who tend to earn more of their income from capital gains as compared to working for a salary, as most people do.
IMO, the intent of conservatives in Congress is to eliminate Capital Gains taxes in favor of ordinary income taxes so that only working people get screwed paying taxes.
And before you come down on me, I am heavily invested and have to pay capital gains taxes every year, so I'll be paying an extra 5% on anything I sell that I've held more than one year as well. (I think Ballmer can afford it a lot easier than I can.)
Also, even with the 5% increase, it's not necessarily beneficial to sell now. It all depends upon whether your reinvested post-tax gain is going to earn more or less than 5% going forward.
Furthermore, in the middle of Ronald Reagan's term, the highest tax rate (on 1984 taxable single income of over $85,000) was 50%. During the middle of Nixon's term (1972), the highest tax rate (on single income over $100,000) was 70%. For 2010, the marginal tax rate on income over $373,650 is only 35%. So the perception that the rich are getting killed on taxes because of Clinton and Obama is a complete fantasy.
I think you're confusing the marginal tax rate with the Capital Gains tax. If one is in the 39.6% marginal rate (the highest rate), the capital gains tax on investments held over one year is going from 15% to 20%, assuming the Bush tax cuts expire, which the new House might not let happen anyway (or there may be a compromise, because Obama will probably cave.) It's only on investments held less than one year that the Capital Gains tax will go to 39.6% (from 35% currently), the same as the marginal rate on ordinary income.
And while the highest ordinary income marginal rate is going from 35% to 39.6%, the income at which you move into the higher rate has increased, so many rich people will fall into a lower rate (although I don't have those exact figures in front of me), actually reducing their tax burden.
My heart really goes out to billionaires who have to pay an additional 5% in taxes on their enormous gains. The fact is that even at 20%, this is a bargain. Why shouldn't capital gains be taxed the same as ordinary income? This is a favor to the rich who tend to earn more of their income from capital gains as compared to working for a salary, as most people do.
IMO, the intent of conservatives in Congress is to eliminate Capital Gains taxes in favor of ordinary income taxes so that only working people get screwed paying taxes.
And before you come down on me, I am heavily invested and have to pay capital gains taxes every year, so I'll be paying an extra 5% on anything I sell that I've held more than one year as well. (I think Ballmer can afford it a lot easier than I can.)
Also, even with the 5% increase, it's not necessarily beneficial to sell now. It all depends upon whether your reinvested post-tax gain is going to earn more or less than 5% going forward.
Furthermore, in the middle of Ronald Reagan's term, the highest tax rate (on 1984 taxable single income of over $85,000) was 50%. During the middle of Nixon's term (1972), the highest tax rate (on single income over $100,000) was 70%. For 2010, the marginal tax rate on income over $373,650 is only 35%. So the perception that the rich are getting killed on taxes because of Clinton and Obama is a complete fantasy.
QFT. Now if we consider all the other taxes that people pay:
-Sales taxes (regressive)
-Property taxes (regressive)
-FICA (massively regressive)
-State income taxes (depends on the state, but most mildly progressive)
...then real, net taxation for most people is regressive. Which isn't enough for some, because whenever the talk turns to making the federal income tax even slightly more progressive, we hear about how it "unfairly punishes the rich." When what they really mean is that middle income people haven't been punished enough for their sin of not being rich. There's a lot of closet social Darwinism in this debate. Helps to be on the lookout for it.
The difference is that Warren Buffet didn't luck into his fortune...
Everyone who has a fortune, "lucks into," it in one way or another. Inheritance, circumstances of birth, being in the right place at the right time, stumbling on what turns out to be a good idea, etc. etc. In retrospect, it looks like they were really smart, hard working, and so on, but in reality, at the time that people who "earn" their fortunes begin to do so, it's always a matter of luck. For every one who has the luck, there are a thousand, or a million, people who work just as hard, have just as good ideas (evaluated at the time), and are just as smart, who don't get lucky and make a fortune.
It's human nature to assume that the successful, "had what it takes," but lots of people have what it takes and simply don't have the same luck. In reality, it's just the laws of probability at work: some will gamble and win big, others will lose. There are plenty of Steve Jobs and warren Buffetts in the world, but only one of them had the good fortune to benefit from circumstances to become the Steve Jobs and Warren Buffett we know today. The rest, by chance, made the wrong bet, weren't in a position to make the bet, were derailed by circumstances beyond their control, struck down by disease, hit by trucks.
So, yes, they worked hard for the money, but one of the reasons they were successful, one of the primary circumstances of fortune contributing to their success and wealth, is that they live in a society that allows them to be successful and amass wealth. A society that is built and maintained in very large part by the less successful, without whom the wealthy would have had no chance of wealth.
A certain amount of money has to be spent, and be spent by the government, to build such a society. To build the infrastructure that makes it possible, to create the circumstances that make it possible. Today, it seems, most Americans seem to have forgotten that, and seem to think that it doesn't take any investment to create and build a society. Our infrastructure is crumbling around us, the income and standard of living of the middle class declines year over year, millions are starving and homeless in the richest country of the world, while the wealthy, benefiting from 30 years of disproportionate and irrational tax cuts, amass greater and greater wealth, and, motivated by the most base selfishness, use that wealth to undermine the very foundations of our democracy.
Frankly, I am not impressed by billionaires who give money to charity, or billionaires who create their own charities, so they can control what happens with their money. In my mind, this is the ultimate act of egomania, selfishness and spite, intended to keep the money from being used by the society these people arose from in that society's best interests and to allow the wealthy to continue to control their wealth from their graves.
In tax policy, there is no such thing as fair, so it's entirely misguided to ask if this is fair or that is fair, or what is the fairest tax or policy. What is "fair" depends entirely on how you define 'fair'. What matters is what will produce the greatest benefit for the members of a society, and, in a democracy, that means the greatest benefit for the greatest number.
It's interesting to note that that period that "conservatives" often like to portray as, "the golden years of America," the 1950s, the Eisenhower years, had the highest tax rates on the wealthy of any period in American history. It's also interesting to note that a high percentage of this country's infrastructure was built, or planned for, in that period, or in the period leading up to it under FDR. Today, after 30 years of insane tax cuts for the rich, we invest almost nothing in infrastructure, nothing in the future, and there has been absolutely zero benefit from those tax cuts to the vast majority of Americans. The period since the election of Ronald Reagan has consisted of the most massive redistribution of wealth this nation has ever seen: wealth taken from the poor and the middle class and handed to the rich.
Are you poor or middle class? Do you think you pay too much in taxes? Well, as a share of the tax revenue of this country you do. But the answer does not lie in attacking government and taxes, the answer lies in taking back control of this country from the right, from the interests of wealth, not handing it to them. (And that's exactly what the right in this country represents, the interests of wealth, nothing more.) The answer lies in reversing the tax cuts handed to the wealthy over the last 30 years so that they begin to again contribute what is necessary to maintain and strengthen this country, rather than enriching themselves at your children's expense.
In a democracy, tax policies need to be highly progressive, not regressive. So, forget flat taxes, VATs, and all the other voodoo that the right proclaims as "fair". There is no fair: any policy, or no policy, is unfair to someone; there is only what will work, and those regressive plans will not work to maintain a healthy democracy. Quite simply, the wealthy need to pay a significant portion of their income as taxes because it is necessary that they do so to maintain our society, and because they can afford to. Estate taxes are necessary to prevent the accumulation of vast amounts of hereditary wealth, which itself undermines a democracy. And taxes must be used to redistribute wealth from the rich to those in need because the alternative is the disenfranchisement of crushing poverty which will continue to grow like a cancer on our democracy.
Everyone who has a fortune, "lucks into," it in one way or another. Inheritance, circumstances of birth, being in the right place at the right time, stumbling on what turns out to be a good idea, etc. etc. In retrospect, it looks like they were really smart, hard working, and so on, but in reality, at the time that people who "earn" their fortunes begin to do so, it's always a matter of luck. For every one who has the luck, there are a thousand, or a million, people who work just as hard, have just as good ideas (evaluated at the time), and are just as smart, who don't get lucky and make a fortune.
It's human nature to assume that the successful, "had what it takes," but lots of people have what it takes and simply don't have the same luck. In reality, it's just the laws of probability at work: some will gamble and win big, others will lose. There are plenty of Steve Jobs and warren Buffetts in the world, but only one of them had the good fortune to benefit from circumstances to become the Steve Jobs and Warren Buffett we know today. The rest, by chance, made the wrong bet, weren't in a position to make the bet, were derailed by circumstances beyond their control, struck down by disease, hit by trucks.
So, yes, they worked hard for the money, but one of the reasons they were successful, one of the primary circumstances of fortune contributing to their success and wealth, is that they live in a society that allows them to be successful and amass wealth. A society that is built and maintained in very large part by the less successful, without whom the wealthy would have had no chance of wealth.
A certain amount of money has to be spent, and be spent by the government, to build such a society. To build the infrastructure that makes it possible, to create the circumstances that make it possible. Today, it seems, most Americans seem to have forgotten that, and seem to think that it doesn't take any investment to create and build a society. Our infrastructure is crumbling around us, the income and standard of living of the middle class declines year over year, millions are starving and homeless in the richest country of the world, while the wealthy, benefiting from 30 years of disproportionate and irrational tax cuts, amass greater and greater wealth, and, motivated by the most base selfishness, use that wealth to undermine the very foundations of our democracy.
Frankly, I am not impressed by billionaires who give money to charity, or billionaires who create their own charities, so they can control what happens with their money. In my mind, this is the ultimate act of egomania, selfishness and spite, intended to keep the money from being used by the society these people arose from in that society's best interests and to allow the wealthy to continue to control their wealth from their graves.
In tax policy, there is no such thing as fair, so it's entirely misguided to ask if this is fair or that is fair, or what is the fairest tax or policy. What is "fair" depends entirely on how you define 'fair'. What matters is what will produce the greatest benefit for the members of a society, and, in a democracy, that means the greatest benefit for the greatest number.
It's interesting to note that that period that "conservatives" often like to portray as, "the golden years of America," the 1950s, the Eisenhower years, had the highest tax rates on the wealthy of any period in American history. It's also interesting to note that a high percentage of this country's infrastructure was built, or planned for, in that period, or in the period leading up to it under FDR. Today, after 30 years of insane tax cuts for the rich, we invest almost nothing in infrastructure, nothing in the future, and there has been absolutely zero benefit from those tax cuts to the vast majority of Americans. The period since the election of Ronald Reagan has consisted of the most massive redistribution of wealth this nation has ever seen: wealth taken from the poor and the middle class and handed to the rich.
Are you poor or middle class? Do you think you pay too much in taxes? Well, as a share of the tax revenue of this country you do. But the answer does not lie in attacking government and taxes, the answer lies in taking back control of this country from the right, from the interests of wealth, not handing it to them. (And that's exactly what the right in this country represents, the interests of wealth, nothing more.) The answer lies in reversing the tax cuts handed to the wealthy over the last 30 years so that they begin to again contribute what is necessary to maintain and strengthen this country, rather than enriching themselves at your children's expense.
In a democracy, tax policies need to be highly progressive, not regressive. So, forget flat taxes, VATs, and all the other voodoo that the right proclaims as "fair". There is no fair: any policy, or no policy, is unfair to someone; there is only what will work, and those regressive plans will not work to maintain a healthy democracy. Quite simply, the wealthy need to pay a significant portion of their income as taxes because it is necessary that they do so to maintain our society, and because they can afford to. Estate taxes are necessary to prevent the accumulation of vast amounts of hereditary wealth, which itself undermines a democracy. And taxes must be used to redistribute wealth from the rich to those in need because the alternative is the disenfranchisement of crushing poverty which will continue to grow like a cancer on our democracy.
Everyone who has a fortune, "lucks into," it in one way or another. Inheritance, circumstances of birth, being in the right place at the right time, stumbling on what turns out to be a good idea, etc. etc. In retrospect, it looks like they were really smart, hard working, and so on, but in reality, at the time that people who "earn" their fortunes begin to do so, it's always a matter of luck. For every one who has the luck, there are a thousand, or a million, people who work just as hard, have just as good ideas (evaluated at the time), and are just as smart, who don't get lucky and make a fortune.
It's human nature to assume that the successful, "had what it takes," but lots of people have what it takes and simply don't have the same luck. In reality, it's just the laws of probability at work: some will gamble and win big, others will lose. There are plenty of Steve Jobs and warren Buffetts in the world, but only one of them had the good fortune to benefit from circumstances to become the Steve Jobs and Warren Buffett we know today. The rest, by chance, made the wrong bet, weren't in a position to make the bet, were derailed by circumstances beyond their control, struck down by disease, hit by trucks.
So, yes, they worked hard for the money, but one of the reasons they were successful, one of the primary circumstances of fortune contributing to their success and wealth, is that they live in a society that allows them to be successful and amass wealth. A society that is built and maintained in very large part by the less successful, without whom the wealthy would have had no chance of wealth.
A certain amount of money has to be spent, and be spent by the government, to build such a society. To build the infrastructure that makes it possible, to create the circumstances that make it possible. Today, it seems, most Americans seem to have forgotten that, and seem to think that it doesn't take any investment to create and build a society. Our infrastructure is crumbling around us, the income and standard of living of the middle class declines year over year, millions are starving and homeless in the richest country of the world, while the wealthy, benefiting from 30 years of disproportionate and irrational tax cuts, amass greater and greater wealth, and, motivated by the most base selfishness, use that wealth to undermine the very foundations of our democracy.
Frankly, I am not impressed by billionaires who give money to charity, or billionaires who create their own charities, so they can control what happens with their money. In my mind, this is the ultimate act of egomania, selfishness and spite, intended to keep the money from being used by the society these people arose from in that society's best interests and to allow the wealthy to continue to control their wealth from their graves.
In tax policy, there is no such thing as fair, so it's entirely misguided to ask if this is fair or that is fair, or what is the fairest tax or policy. What is "fair" depends entirely on how you define 'fair'. What matters is what will produce the greatest benefit for the members of a society, and, in a democracy, that means the greatest benefit for the greatest number.
It's interesting to note that that period that "conservatives" often like to portray as, "the golden years of America," the 1950s, the Eisenhower years, had the highest tax rates on the wealthy of any period in American history. It's also interesting to note that a high percentage of this country's infrastructure was built, or planned for, in that period, or in the period leading up to it under FDR. Today, after 30 years of insane tax cuts for the rich, we invest almost nothing in infrastructure, nothing in the future, and there has been absolutely zero benefit from those tax cuts to the vast majority of Americans. The period since the election of Ronald Reagan has consisted of the most massive redistribution of wealth this nation has ever seen: wealth taken from the poor and the middle class and handed to the rich.
Are you poor or middle class? Do you think you pay too much in taxes? Well, as a share of the tax revenue of this country you do. But the answer does not lie in attacking government and taxes, the answer lies in taking back control of this country from the right, from the interests of wealth, not handing it to them. (And that's exactly what the right in this country represents, the interests of wealth, nothing more.) The answer lies in reversing the tax cuts handed to the wealthy over the last 30 years so that they begin to again contribute what is necessary to maintain and strengthen this country, rather than enriching themselves at your children's expense.
In a democracy, tax policies need to be highly progressive, not regressive. So, forget flat taxes, VATs, and all the other voodoo that the right proclaims as "fair". There is no fair: any policy, or no policy, is unfair to someone; there is only what will work, and those regressive plans will not work to maintain a healthy democracy. Quite simply, the wealthy need to pay a significant portion of their income as taxes because it is necessary that they do so to maintain our society, and because they can afford to. Estate taxes are necessary to prevent the accumulation of vast amounts of hereditary wealth, which itself undermines a democracy. And taxes must be used to redistribute wealth from the rich to those in need because the alternative is the disenfranchisement of crushing poverty which will continue to grow like a cancer on our democracy.
You removed the entire context of my quote, and thus completely disregards the fact that there is a striking difference between Warren Buffett and a lottery winner. Don't assume that I don't appreciate that some people have the breaks go for them and some against them, but I think you will concede that Buffet didn't just quick pick his stock choices.
And what is exactly an acceptable charitable contribution to you? Is it only worthy of your praise if it's made by someone of lesser means, or if they donate to a charity that is true to their heart is that also selfish and unworthy of consideration? Should someone dying of cancer not be able to donate to cancer research, because in essence they are selfishly hoping for a cure? In that case, should we ban all private contributions and only allow the government to always tell us what's important to us as a society and what's not?
Quite frankly I have seen government spending in action first hand, and I find it lacking in accountability for results. If the average taxpayer knew and cared about how their money was being frivolously wasted by our elected officials (both left and right) and government agencies there would probably be more "conservatives" than ever. And this is beyond government bailouts of private companies and banks. But your answer would be that we as a society are not paying in enough in taxes to cover the waste, correct? We can't fix the problem, so we'll just bandaid it? And what happens as we continue to add more government services that so many propose should be mandatory in a "modern society"? Just raise the taxes to cover it! The poor won't notice, nor will the cheats; nearly half of US households pay ZERO income tax (the top 10% pay over 70% of the nation's total income tax, but that's beside the point). Just let the rich handle it, because we know they have the money!
I am of the opinion that the government doesn't need to get bigger to protect us. We need to start demanding accountability from our government to protect ourselves. If we need to pay more taxes because the basic provisions of government (infrastructure, law enforcement, and a common defense) cannot be met with the funds that we as a society currently pay, then so be it. But if waste and corruption are left unchecked, they will only grow as the taxes get higher.
Your characterization of the rich as scheming devils with curly mustaches trying to stick it to the little guy is also laughable. They are using that money to undermine the fabric of democracy? Should we hold a national election to determine what should happen to their wealth? This is beyond lunacy; some of you people are genuinely convinced that the rich are the equivalent of socioeconomic terrorists. There are plenty of left-minded people with lots of money. If they support your agenda, are they more acceptable for your society? Do their charities do more good than ones picked by right-minded people? I certainly don't see them sending blank checks to the federal government and saying they're ready to take on the burden for the rest of us.
And finally, to pic a nit, the United States has a constitutional republic as its government and not a pure democracy. People and their private property are governed by laws and not the tyranny of the majority.
You removed the entire context of my quote, and thus completely disregards the fact that there is a striking difference between Warren Buffett and a lottery winner...
I wasn't really responding to your post specifically, just the idea expressed in the part I quoted. But, from the larger perspective, no, there is no difference between Warren Buffett and a lottery winner.
[The rest of my original post deleted. No point in arguing with the true believers who think we live in the best of all possible worlds.]
It's good to be wary of any argument that seems to be based on the concept of "you people" especially used in the context of defending a far more specific slice of the population. Be that as it may, the middle class in the US has been on a steady decline (as measured by income) for more than thirty years now. At the same time, the share of wealth held by the wealthiest Americans has skyrocketed, and their tax burden has been reduced. Oddly enough, in decades past we used to call the gap between the rich and everyone else Brazilification. But now that Brazil is actively growing its middle class, and ours is shrinking, we perhaps ought to rename it Americanification for accuracy's sake. Especially since some seem to be so enthusiastically in favor of it.
People are aware of their own pain, and continue to express their frustrations at the decimation of the middle class and the increasing concentration of the nation's wealth in the hand of fewer and fewer, but they're acting without much factual knowledge of just how bad this situation has become, or how it got that way. Here's an interesting piece on this subject, published just today:
Turns out, Americans don't have much of an idea how wealth is actually distributed in the country, and when asked favor a far more equitable distribution of wealth than the one we've got. Something more like (heaven forfend), Sweden.
Yes, absolutely it is the domain of our constitutional republic to decide whether our values as a nation are represented by this growing gap, and whether it leads to continued prosperity. They only way of keeping the wealth flowing more and more into the hands of the already wealthy is to make sure the majority of Americans remain in the dark, not understanding what's going on, or where their interests lay. Since our political system has been doing such a great at this for thirty years or more, I don't think the wealthy have much to fear.
Really? In what ways is government not accountable? What sort of actions does it take with a lack of accountability? Does it need to get bigger to actually invest in infrastructure and other necessary expenditures, or does it just need the cash and will to do so? And, since you are certain that it doesn't need to get bigger -- no doubt you think it is too big -- exactly what is the right size for the government of this country? Exactly where are significant amounts of money being wasted? (Besides in Iraq.)
I won't go into every specific, but I can give some notable examples.
The President's current political vacation jumps to mind. You can add it up with the tabs our illustrious executive cabinet members, representatives, and senators rack up when they take PR trips on the public dime. But truth be told, whatever there is to be gained in this current trip to India, it is certainly not enough to justify its outrageous cost to the American public. You can say that our officials will be held accountable come election time, but they should have been held accountable when budgets were set. If the money for the trip doesn't fit in the budget, pack lighter or enjoy the teleconference.
Defense program spending where it is not needed or has been mired by waste, fraud, and abuse, such as the case of the Osprey or the F22.
Government contracting waste, fraud, and abuse, such as with the FBI's VCF.
And you are obviously not familiar with the realities of government service. Please do not take this as an attack, because few people outside are. There are countless government employees that underperform and see no direct action taken as a result. You essentially only get fired from federal service if you break the law, so even the most underperforming employee can collect a guaranteed paycheck for sitting in a chair and drooling for 40 hours a week. No private company would ever turn a profit with employment policies like this. In technical fields the cream of the crop often leave because government service is far outpaced in terms of salary by the private sector (despite what government funded reports would have us believe), but the mediocre or worse employees sit back and collect their biweekly federal welfare like clockwork. You end up with a lot of high-level novices that will leave once they've proven their worth and a lot of lifetime mouth-breathing buffoons, with a smattering of decent employees that actually believe in their work. This type of environment is generally not conducive to productivity.
If you want recipes for fiscal responsibility in these areas and more, you don't need to be a financial wizard. Many of our government's budget problems are self-inflicted.
And you are right, I don't think the government needs to grow right now. That is not to say it will not ever need to grow. There is no private company in the US as large as the federal government with as many arms reaching out to as many people. It is already stretched to the breaking point and yet some would have it do more. How about we hold off on expansion until it has been proven they can responsibly manage a budget with what is currently on the plate? Raising taxes may give them more wiggle room for all the screwing off, but it doesn't attack the fundamental issues that plague large government.
Also, I would argue that the tax system is hardly the most efficient means of dissemination of funds to those in need. And the overhead required greatly diminishes the value that a dollar carries vs a private individual donating to an organization charged directly with helping the needy. Your scheme has the IRS, congress, and various federal agencies skimming off the top before anyone in need sees a penny. You have to pay the IRS employees processing returns, congress allocating funds (and then you have the pork that gets thrown in to get the funding approved in vote), the agency employees have to be paid, etc, etc. And then you have the issue that maybe congress doesn't fund the programs that you think will be most beneficial to society. What then?
I am neither rich nor poor, but I am rational enough to understand that no socioeconomic group of people can be judged on the actions of a few. If you are intellectually honest with yourself, you will concede that a significant number at the top end are not actively attempting to destroy the fabric of the nation as you would portray. Otherwise it would be akin to someone saying that the majority of poor people deserve what they get for spending beyond their means and not valuing education. The truth is always somewhere in between the extremes, and you do your cause no favors by playing in terms of absolutes.
If there is a problem with the system then there are mechanisms in place to change the system. But I contend the larger issue is that the brain of this system needs to be reprogrammed so that it has a chance to succeed under the current requirements before you start adding feature creep.
A fine post, with which I mostly agree. I appreciate people who are computer savvy, but are also well-versed in many areas. I noticed at work that many developers were talented programmers, but that was about it. Other programmers were like what you have demonstrated in your post today.
Comments
Unless, of course, you have enough confidence in your company's future stock value to believe it will gain enough to make up the difference. In the Microsoft of yesterday, with its value continuing to climb, that wouldn't have even been a question. In today's Microsoft, holding on to the stock would be a pretty big gamble. At least Balmer believes that to be true, and that isn't a particularly strong vote of confidence coming from the man at the top.
Clearly the only way MSFT could have grown under Ballmer would have been if the man had poured his company's extra cash into AAPL stock.
. It's more than he could ever spend in a lifetime.
.
Wrong. He's spending it right now. He's spending it to do charitable work. He's employing zillions of people in doing so. He's helping a zillion people times 1000 by employing those workers.
That is what he is spending his money on. What do you spend your money on? Toys? Do the people you give jobs to help others? Or are they toymakers?
If he wanted to, he could buy islands and airports and the Empire State Building. He could buy out all the tenants and make it into a giant personal pleasure palace. But instead, he carefully chooses to fund charitable organizations which help others to live an OK life.
And you question his asset allocations? Unless he had been able to amass that wealth, those charities would remain less funded, unable to help as many people. Had he not wisely allocated capital to profitable ventures, those profits would not have been made, and those people would not have been helped.
He represents what is good about people. He worked hard, and now he is in a position to do more good in this world than you and your entire family has done in ten generations.
So let me see what you think should have happened: Buffet should have been taxed marginally higher because of his success (lets say 50% of his total earnings as a hyperbole). That 20B goes to the government where approximately 25% overhead is used to administer it. The remaining 15 B is squandered on middle of the ground politics (you know, the ones that aren't to left or right wing to prevent political suicide). Maybe 10% (1.5B) of this reaches the truly needy (ie the sick, the legitimately impoverished, the disabled etc).
Or, Buffet could administer 37B directly to these truly needy individuals?
Some food for thought.
I don't agree that private charity is any substitute for governmental programs. For example, Catholic Charities would not allow gay couples to adopt children in need.
The percentages that you use - did you just make them up? Or are they some kind of reality-based numbers?
It's not difficult to learn.
Speak for yourself. For some, it would involve the tearing away of years of unjustifiable prejudice, like tearing way a huge scab and revealing the enervated dermis. For some, learning is the most painful experience possible. For them, it is much easier to stow away in the comfort zone of the local loudmouth. Learning that he is wrong can be painful and it can involve painful reevaluations of one's very being, one's strongest self-image, one's life's work, or one's most basic viewpoints.
What if everyone you love is convinced of the same destructive shibboleths? Is it easy to learn the truth in that situation?
I really like the idea of indexing the gains against inflation - if you take a long-term investment that made 15% over 5 years, I'm not sure that's something you should be able to take a loss on, but certainly having to pay 18->???% of that as 'gain' isn't really right either.
Do you understand the concept? Why do you like the idea of indexing capital gains against inflation?
Why is it fair to do so?
"the last company to make buggy-whips was probably the best of its kind. Still, no matter how talented the employees or how well-made the buggy-whip, the business is dead."
http://www.jedediahsbuggywhip.com/
I don't agree that private charity is any substitute for governmental programs. For example, Catholic Charities would not allow gay couples to adopt children in need.
I wholeheartedly disagree. I believe that people should champion the causes they personally care about, including financially as appropriate, and not put their faith in government fixing society to their liking. The constantly shifting polarization of those in power (as every time we realize the current group is a bunch of screw-ups, we try to get the other side in) means that there is often little consistency in terms of funding for programs that do not have obvious bipartisan support.
If you care about stem-cell research, you help pay for it. If you care about gay couples being able to adopt, you help pay for the organizations that make this happen. That way your money is being used the way you see fit rather than the way the government sees fit (and without nearly as much overhead). This would also ensure that your tax dollars are not going towards many programs you believe are unnecessary. If the problem is that you won't donate unless you're being forced to via taxation, then I suppose you like the idea of supporting the cause more than you actually like it.
Spain has enough solar power to replace one nuclear plant..that's good, right?
What do they do on rainy days?
Duh!
Obviously all they need to do is install the solar panels in the hills. Everyone knows the rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain!
How are you even connected to the Internet right now without luxury technology? I thought the only way you communicated with anyone outside of your subsistence-living commune was by goat courier.
Ok, you have completely missed my point and have mangled my words into some unrecognizable form, but I will try my best to explain what I meant without sounding too condescending.
Luxury items accentuate an inequality between those with money and those without. Apple products are on the luxury end of their respective markets. Should Apple's products have a price ceiling so that even the poor can afford them? Or should Apple have to tier their pricing based on the income of the purchaser? The answer to both questions is of course no.
If people were only allowed to have an amount of money equivalent to what they'll spend in a lifetime, would that calculation preclude the purchase of luxury items unless they are deemed necessary? Does Warren Buffett have to state what his required computing needs are before he is allowed to say that he wants a top-o-the-line Macbook Pro with an SSD, along with future upgrades as technology progresses, included in his lifetime budget? In other words, do you calculate based on what people actually could spend in a lifetime or simply based on what will fit their stated requirements and no more?
I never once said there is no place for nice things. I really do love my Apple products, but I am also able to purchase them and provide for my family simultaneously without going into debt. I don't expect that because others don't have that same luxury the government should take away some of my Apple stuff and give it to those that can't afford it, even if for example I'll never use my computer to its full potential. I also don't expect the government to start handing out iPods and Macbooks with welfare checks (while also increasing my taxes) just to balance everything out.
Does that clarify my position?
Too bad MS can't cash in Ballmer.
OMG.... this is one of the few decisions I would agree with Ballmer on.... hell... if I were in his position I'd sell half. Don't blame anyone who would rather pay 18% Capital Gains tax on $1.3B over 39.5%.... Thank you butthead BO.
I think you're confusing the marginal tax rate with the Capital Gains tax. If one is in the 39.6% marginal rate (the highest rate), the capital gains tax on investments held over one year is going from 15% to 20%, assuming the Bush tax cuts expire, which the new House might not let happen anyway (or there may be a compromise, because Obama will probably cave.) It's only on investments held less than one year that the Capital Gains tax will go to 39.6% (from 35% currently), the same as the marginal rate on ordinary income.
And while the highest ordinary income marginal rate is going from 35% to 39.6%, the income at which you move into the higher rate has increased, so many rich people will fall into a lower rate (although I don't have those exact figures in front of me), actually reducing their tax burden.
My heart really goes out to billionaires who have to pay an additional 5% in taxes on their enormous gains. The fact is that even at 20%, this is a bargain. Why shouldn't capital gains be taxed the same as ordinary income? This is a favor to the rich who tend to earn more of their income from capital gains as compared to working for a salary, as most people do.
IMO, the intent of conservatives in Congress is to eliminate Capital Gains taxes in favor of ordinary income taxes so that only working people get screwed paying taxes.
And before you come down on me, I am heavily invested and have to pay capital gains taxes every year, so I'll be paying an extra 5% on anything I sell that I've held more than one year as well. (I think Ballmer can afford it a lot easier than I can.)
Also, even with the 5% increase, it's not necessarily beneficial to sell now. It all depends upon whether your reinvested post-tax gain is going to earn more or less than 5% going forward.
Furthermore, in the middle of Ronald Reagan's term, the highest tax rate (on 1984 taxable single income of over $85,000) was 50%. During the middle of Nixon's term (1972), the highest tax rate (on single income over $100,000) was 70%. For 2010, the marginal tax rate on income over $373,650 is only 35%. So the perception that the rich are getting killed on taxes because of Clinton and Obama is a complete fantasy.
I think you're confusing the marginal tax rate with the Capital Gains tax. If one is in the 39.6% marginal rate (the highest rate), the capital gains tax on investments held over one year is going from 15% to 20%, assuming the Bush tax cuts expire, which the new House might not let happen anyway (or there may be a compromise, because Obama will probably cave.) It's only on investments held less than one year that the Capital Gains tax will go to 39.6% (from 35% currently), the same as the marginal rate on ordinary income.
And while the highest ordinary income marginal rate is going from 35% to 39.6%, the income at which you move into the higher rate has increased, so many rich people will fall into a lower rate (although I don't have those exact figures in front of me), actually reducing their tax burden.
My heart really goes out to billionaires who have to pay an additional 5% in taxes on their enormous gains. The fact is that even at 20%, this is a bargain. Why shouldn't capital gains be taxed the same as ordinary income? This is a favor to the rich who tend to earn more of their income from capital gains as compared to working for a salary, as most people do.
IMO, the intent of conservatives in Congress is to eliminate Capital Gains taxes in favor of ordinary income taxes so that only working people get screwed paying taxes.
And before you come down on me, I am heavily invested and have to pay capital gains taxes every year, so I'll be paying an extra 5% on anything I sell that I've held more than one year as well. (I think Ballmer can afford it a lot easier than I can.)
Also, even with the 5% increase, it's not necessarily beneficial to sell now. It all depends upon whether your reinvested post-tax gain is going to earn more or less than 5% going forward.
Furthermore, in the middle of Ronald Reagan's term, the highest tax rate (on 1984 taxable single income of over $85,000) was 50%. During the middle of Nixon's term (1972), the highest tax rate (on single income over $100,000) was 70%. For 2010, the marginal tax rate on income over $373,650 is only 35%. So the perception that the rich are getting killed on taxes because of Clinton and Obama is a complete fantasy.
QFT. Now if we consider all the other taxes that people pay:
-Sales taxes (regressive)
-Property taxes (regressive)
-FICA (massively regressive)
-State income taxes (depends on the state, but most mildly progressive)
...then real, net taxation for most people is regressive. Which isn't enough for some, because whenever the talk turns to making the federal income tax even slightly more progressive, we hear about how it "unfairly punishes the rich." When what they really mean is that middle income people haven't been punished enough for their sin of not being rich. There's a lot of closet social Darwinism in this debate. Helps to be on the lookout for it.
The difference is that Warren Buffet didn't luck into his fortune...
Everyone who has a fortune, "lucks into," it in one way or another. Inheritance, circumstances of birth, being in the right place at the right time, stumbling on what turns out to be a good idea, etc. etc. In retrospect, it looks like they were really smart, hard working, and so on, but in reality, at the time that people who "earn" their fortunes begin to do so, it's always a matter of luck. For every one who has the luck, there are a thousand, or a million, people who work just as hard, have just as good ideas (evaluated at the time), and are just as smart, who don't get lucky and make a fortune.
It's human nature to assume that the successful, "had what it takes," but lots of people have what it takes and simply don't have the same luck. In reality, it's just the laws of probability at work: some will gamble and win big, others will lose. There are plenty of Steve Jobs and warren Buffetts in the world, but only one of them had the good fortune to benefit from circumstances to become the Steve Jobs and Warren Buffett we know today. The rest, by chance, made the wrong bet, weren't in a position to make the bet, were derailed by circumstances beyond their control, struck down by disease, hit by trucks.
So, yes, they worked hard for the money, but one of the reasons they were successful, one of the primary circumstances of fortune contributing to their success and wealth, is that they live in a society that allows them to be successful and amass wealth. A society that is built and maintained in very large part by the less successful, without whom the wealthy would have had no chance of wealth.
A certain amount of money has to be spent, and be spent by the government, to build such a society. To build the infrastructure that makes it possible, to create the circumstances that make it possible. Today, it seems, most Americans seem to have forgotten that, and seem to think that it doesn't take any investment to create and build a society. Our infrastructure is crumbling around us, the income and standard of living of the middle class declines year over year, millions are starving and homeless in the richest country of the world, while the wealthy, benefiting from 30 years of disproportionate and irrational tax cuts, amass greater and greater wealth, and, motivated by the most base selfishness, use that wealth to undermine the very foundations of our democracy.
Frankly, I am not impressed by billionaires who give money to charity, or billionaires who create their own charities, so they can control what happens with their money. In my mind, this is the ultimate act of egomania, selfishness and spite, intended to keep the money from being used by the society these people arose from in that society's best interests and to allow the wealthy to continue to control their wealth from their graves.
In tax policy, there is no such thing as fair, so it's entirely misguided to ask if this is fair or that is fair, or what is the fairest tax or policy. What is "fair" depends entirely on how you define 'fair'. What matters is what will produce the greatest benefit for the members of a society, and, in a democracy, that means the greatest benefit for the greatest number.
It's interesting to note that that period that "conservatives" often like to portray as, "the golden years of America," the 1950s, the Eisenhower years, had the highest tax rates on the wealthy of any period in American history. It's also interesting to note that a high percentage of this country's infrastructure was built, or planned for, in that period, or in the period leading up to it under FDR. Today, after 30 years of insane tax cuts for the rich, we invest almost nothing in infrastructure, nothing in the future, and there has been absolutely zero benefit from those tax cuts to the vast majority of Americans. The period since the election of Ronald Reagan has consisted of the most massive redistribution of wealth this nation has ever seen: wealth taken from the poor and the middle class and handed to the rich.
Are you poor or middle class? Do you think you pay too much in taxes? Well, as a share of the tax revenue of this country you do. But the answer does not lie in attacking government and taxes, the answer lies in taking back control of this country from the right, from the interests of wealth, not handing it to them. (And that's exactly what the right in this country represents, the interests of wealth, nothing more.) The answer lies in reversing the tax cuts handed to the wealthy over the last 30 years so that they begin to again contribute what is necessary to maintain and strengthen this country, rather than enriching themselves at your children's expense.
In a democracy, tax policies need to be highly progressive, not regressive. So, forget flat taxes, VATs, and all the other voodoo that the right proclaims as "fair". There is no fair: any policy, or no policy, is unfair to someone; there is only what will work, and those regressive plans will not work to maintain a healthy democracy. Quite simply, the wealthy need to pay a significant portion of their income as taxes because it is necessary that they do so to maintain our society, and because they can afford to. Estate taxes are necessary to prevent the accumulation of vast amounts of hereditary wealth, which itself undermines a democracy. And taxes must be used to redistribute wealth from the rich to those in need because the alternative is the disenfranchisement of crushing poverty which will continue to grow like a cancer on our democracy.
Everyone who has a fortune, "lucks into," it in one way or another. Inheritance, circumstances of birth, being in the right place at the right time, stumbling on what turns out to be a good idea, etc. etc. In retrospect, it looks like they were really smart, hard working, and so on, but in reality, at the time that people who "earn" their fortunes begin to do so, it's always a matter of luck. For every one who has the luck, there are a thousand, or a million, people who work just as hard, have just as good ideas (evaluated at the time), and are just as smart, who don't get lucky and make a fortune.
It's human nature to assume that the successful, "had what it takes," but lots of people have what it takes and simply don't have the same luck. In reality, it's just the laws of probability at work: some will gamble and win big, others will lose. There are plenty of Steve Jobs and warren Buffetts in the world, but only one of them had the good fortune to benefit from circumstances to become the Steve Jobs and Warren Buffett we know today. The rest, by chance, made the wrong bet, weren't in a position to make the bet, were derailed by circumstances beyond their control, struck down by disease, hit by trucks.
So, yes, they worked hard for the money, but one of the reasons they were successful, one of the primary circumstances of fortune contributing to their success and wealth, is that they live in a society that allows them to be successful and amass wealth. A society that is built and maintained in very large part by the less successful, without whom the wealthy would have had no chance of wealth.
A certain amount of money has to be spent, and be spent by the government, to build such a society. To build the infrastructure that makes it possible, to create the circumstances that make it possible. Today, it seems, most Americans seem to have forgotten that, and seem to think that it doesn't take any investment to create and build a society. Our infrastructure is crumbling around us, the income and standard of living of the middle class declines year over year, millions are starving and homeless in the richest country of the world, while the wealthy, benefiting from 30 years of disproportionate and irrational tax cuts, amass greater and greater wealth, and, motivated by the most base selfishness, use that wealth to undermine the very foundations of our democracy.
Frankly, I am not impressed by billionaires who give money to charity, or billionaires who create their own charities, so they can control what happens with their money. In my mind, this is the ultimate act of egomania, selfishness and spite, intended to keep the money from being used by the society these people arose from in that society's best interests and to allow the wealthy to continue to control their wealth from their graves.
In tax policy, there is no such thing as fair, so it's entirely misguided to ask if this is fair or that is fair, or what is the fairest tax or policy. What is "fair" depends entirely on how you define 'fair'. What matters is what will produce the greatest benefit for the members of a society, and, in a democracy, that means the greatest benefit for the greatest number.
It's interesting to note that that period that "conservatives" often like to portray as, "the golden years of America," the 1950s, the Eisenhower years, had the highest tax rates on the wealthy of any period in American history. It's also interesting to note that a high percentage of this country's infrastructure was built, or planned for, in that period, or in the period leading up to it under FDR. Today, after 30 years of insane tax cuts for the rich, we invest almost nothing in infrastructure, nothing in the future, and there has been absolutely zero benefit from those tax cuts to the vast majority of Americans. The period since the election of Ronald Reagan has consisted of the most massive redistribution of wealth this nation has ever seen: wealth taken from the poor and the middle class and handed to the rich.
Are you poor or middle class? Do you think you pay too much in taxes? Well, as a share of the tax revenue of this country you do. But the answer does not lie in attacking government and taxes, the answer lies in taking back control of this country from the right, from the interests of wealth, not handing it to them. (And that's exactly what the right in this country represents, the interests of wealth, nothing more.) The answer lies in reversing the tax cuts handed to the wealthy over the last 30 years so that they begin to again contribute what is necessary to maintain and strengthen this country, rather than enriching themselves at your children's expense.
In a democracy, tax policies need to be highly progressive, not regressive. So, forget flat taxes, VATs, and all the other voodoo that the right proclaims as "fair". There is no fair: any policy, or no policy, is unfair to someone; there is only what will work, and those regressive plans will not work to maintain a healthy democracy. Quite simply, the wealthy need to pay a significant portion of their income as taxes because it is necessary that they do so to maintain our society, and because they can afford to. Estate taxes are necessary to prevent the accumulation of vast amounts of hereditary wealth, which itself undermines a democracy. And taxes must be used to redistribute wealth from the rich to those in need because the alternative is the disenfranchisement of crushing poverty which will continue to grow like a cancer on our democracy.
You might enjoy this article as well. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102202873.html
Everyone who has a fortune, "lucks into," it in one way or another. Inheritance, circumstances of birth, being in the right place at the right time, stumbling on what turns out to be a good idea, etc. etc. In retrospect, it looks like they were really smart, hard working, and so on, but in reality, at the time that people who "earn" their fortunes begin to do so, it's always a matter of luck. For every one who has the luck, there are a thousand, or a million, people who work just as hard, have just as good ideas (evaluated at the time), and are just as smart, who don't get lucky and make a fortune.
It's human nature to assume that the successful, "had what it takes," but lots of people have what it takes and simply don't have the same luck. In reality, it's just the laws of probability at work: some will gamble and win big, others will lose. There are plenty of Steve Jobs and warren Buffetts in the world, but only one of them had the good fortune to benefit from circumstances to become the Steve Jobs and Warren Buffett we know today. The rest, by chance, made the wrong bet, weren't in a position to make the bet, were derailed by circumstances beyond their control, struck down by disease, hit by trucks.
So, yes, they worked hard for the money, but one of the reasons they were successful, one of the primary circumstances of fortune contributing to their success and wealth, is that they live in a society that allows them to be successful and amass wealth. A society that is built and maintained in very large part by the less successful, without whom the wealthy would have had no chance of wealth.
A certain amount of money has to be spent, and be spent by the government, to build such a society. To build the infrastructure that makes it possible, to create the circumstances that make it possible. Today, it seems, most Americans seem to have forgotten that, and seem to think that it doesn't take any investment to create and build a society. Our infrastructure is crumbling around us, the income and standard of living of the middle class declines year over year, millions are starving and homeless in the richest country of the world, while the wealthy, benefiting from 30 years of disproportionate and irrational tax cuts, amass greater and greater wealth, and, motivated by the most base selfishness, use that wealth to undermine the very foundations of our democracy.
Frankly, I am not impressed by billionaires who give money to charity, or billionaires who create their own charities, so they can control what happens with their money. In my mind, this is the ultimate act of egomania, selfishness and spite, intended to keep the money from being used by the society these people arose from in that society's best interests and to allow the wealthy to continue to control their wealth from their graves.
In tax policy, there is no such thing as fair, so it's entirely misguided to ask if this is fair or that is fair, or what is the fairest tax or policy. What is "fair" depends entirely on how you define 'fair'. What matters is what will produce the greatest benefit for the members of a society, and, in a democracy, that means the greatest benefit for the greatest number.
It's interesting to note that that period that "conservatives" often like to portray as, "the golden years of America," the 1950s, the Eisenhower years, had the highest tax rates on the wealthy of any period in American history. It's also interesting to note that a high percentage of this country's infrastructure was built, or planned for, in that period, or in the period leading up to it under FDR. Today, after 30 years of insane tax cuts for the rich, we invest almost nothing in infrastructure, nothing in the future, and there has been absolutely zero benefit from those tax cuts to the vast majority of Americans. The period since the election of Ronald Reagan has consisted of the most massive redistribution of wealth this nation has ever seen: wealth taken from the poor and the middle class and handed to the rich.
Are you poor or middle class? Do you think you pay too much in taxes? Well, as a share of the tax revenue of this country you do. But the answer does not lie in attacking government and taxes, the answer lies in taking back control of this country from the right, from the interests of wealth, not handing it to them. (And that's exactly what the right in this country represents, the interests of wealth, nothing more.) The answer lies in reversing the tax cuts handed to the wealthy over the last 30 years so that they begin to again contribute what is necessary to maintain and strengthen this country, rather than enriching themselves at your children's expense.
In a democracy, tax policies need to be highly progressive, not regressive. So, forget flat taxes, VATs, and all the other voodoo that the right proclaims as "fair". There is no fair: any policy, or no policy, is unfair to someone; there is only what will work, and those regressive plans will not work to maintain a healthy democracy. Quite simply, the wealthy need to pay a significant portion of their income as taxes because it is necessary that they do so to maintain our society, and because they can afford to. Estate taxes are necessary to prevent the accumulation of vast amounts of hereditary wealth, which itself undermines a democracy. And taxes must be used to redistribute wealth from the rich to those in need because the alternative is the disenfranchisement of crushing poverty which will continue to grow like a cancer on our democracy.
You removed the entire context of my quote, and thus completely disregards the fact that there is a striking difference between Warren Buffett and a lottery winner. Don't assume that I don't appreciate that some people have the breaks go for them and some against them, but I think you will concede that Buffet didn't just quick pick his stock choices.
And what is exactly an acceptable charitable contribution to you? Is it only worthy of your praise if it's made by someone of lesser means, or if they donate to a charity that is true to their heart is that also selfish and unworthy of consideration? Should someone dying of cancer not be able to donate to cancer research, because in essence they are selfishly hoping for a cure? In that case, should we ban all private contributions and only allow the government to always tell us what's important to us as a society and what's not?
Quite frankly I have seen government spending in action first hand, and I find it lacking in accountability for results. If the average taxpayer knew and cared about how their money was being frivolously wasted by our elected officials (both left and right) and government agencies there would probably be more "conservatives" than ever. And this is beyond government bailouts of private companies and banks. But your answer would be that we as a society are not paying in enough in taxes to cover the waste, correct? We can't fix the problem, so we'll just bandaid it? And what happens as we continue to add more government services that so many propose should be mandatory in a "modern society"? Just raise the taxes to cover it! The poor won't notice, nor will the cheats; nearly half of US households pay ZERO income tax (the top 10% pay over 70% of the nation's total income tax, but that's beside the point). Just let the rich handle it, because we know they have the money!
I am of the opinion that the government doesn't need to get bigger to protect us. We need to start demanding accountability from our government to protect ourselves. If we need to pay more taxes because the basic provisions of government (infrastructure, law enforcement, and a common defense) cannot be met with the funds that we as a society currently pay, then so be it. But if waste and corruption are left unchecked, they will only grow as the taxes get higher.
Your characterization of the rich as scheming devils with curly mustaches trying to stick it to the little guy is also laughable. They are using that money to undermine the fabric of democracy? Should we hold a national election to determine what should happen to their wealth? This is beyond lunacy; some of you people are genuinely convinced that the rich are the equivalent of socioeconomic terrorists. There are plenty of left-minded people with lots of money. If they support your agenda, are they more acceptable for your society? Do their charities do more good than ones picked by right-minded people? I certainly don't see them sending blank checks to the federal government and saying they're ready to take on the burden for the rest of us.
And finally, to pic a nit, the United States has a constitutional republic as its government and not a pure democracy. People and their private property are governed by laws and not the tyranny of the majority.
You removed the entire context of my quote, and thus completely disregards the fact that there is a striking difference between Warren Buffett and a lottery winner...
I wasn't really responding to your post specifically, just the idea expressed in the part I quoted. But, from the larger perspective, no, there is no difference between Warren Buffett and a lottery winner.
[The rest of my original post deleted. No point in arguing with the true believers who think we live in the best of all possible worlds.]
People are aware of their own pain, and continue to express their frustrations at the decimation of the middle class and the increasing concentration of the nation's wealth in the hand of fewer and fewer, but they're acting without much factual knowledge of just how bad this situation has become, or how it got that way. Here's an interesting piece on this subject, published just today:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,1887934.story
Turns out, Americans don't have much of an idea how wealth is actually distributed in the country, and when asked favor a far more equitable distribution of wealth than the one we've got. Something more like (heaven forfend), Sweden.
Yes, absolutely it is the domain of our constitutional republic to decide whether our values as a nation are represented by this growing gap, and whether it leads to continued prosperity. They only way of keeping the wealth flowing more and more into the hands of the already wealthy is to make sure the majority of Americans remain in the dark, not understanding what's going on, or where their interests lay. Since our political system has been doing such a great at this for thirty years or more, I don't think the wealthy have much to fear.
Really? In what ways is government not accountable? What sort of actions does it take with a lack of accountability? Does it need to get bigger to actually invest in infrastructure and other necessary expenditures, or does it just need the cash and will to do so? And, since you are certain that it doesn't need to get bigger -- no doubt you think it is too big -- exactly what is the right size for the government of this country? Exactly where are significant amounts of money being wasted? (Besides in Iraq.)
I won't go into every specific, but I can give some notable examples.
The President's current political vacation jumps to mind. You can add it up with the tabs our illustrious executive cabinet members, representatives, and senators rack up when they take PR trips on the public dime. But truth be told, whatever there is to be gained in this current trip to India, it is certainly not enough to justify its outrageous cost to the American public. You can say that our officials will be held accountable come election time, but they should have been held accountable when budgets were set. If the money for the trip doesn't fit in the budget, pack lighter or enjoy the teleconference.
Defense program spending where it is not needed or has been mired by waste, fraud, and abuse, such as the case of the Osprey or the F22.
Government contracting waste, fraud, and abuse, such as with the FBI's VCF.
And you are obviously not familiar with the realities of government service. Please do not take this as an attack, because few people outside are. There are countless government employees that underperform and see no direct action taken as a result. You essentially only get fired from federal service if you break the law, so even the most underperforming employee can collect a guaranteed paycheck for sitting in a chair and drooling for 40 hours a week. No private company would ever turn a profit with employment policies like this. In technical fields the cream of the crop often leave because government service is far outpaced in terms of salary by the private sector (despite what government funded reports would have us believe), but the mediocre or worse employees sit back and collect their biweekly federal welfare like clockwork. You end up with a lot of high-level novices that will leave once they've proven their worth and a lot of lifetime mouth-breathing buffoons, with a smattering of decent employees that actually believe in their work. This type of environment is generally not conducive to productivity.
If you want recipes for fiscal responsibility in these areas and more, you don't need to be a financial wizard. Many of our government's budget problems are self-inflicted.
And you are right, I don't think the government needs to grow right now. That is not to say it will not ever need to grow. There is no private company in the US as large as the federal government with as many arms reaching out to as many people. It is already stretched to the breaking point and yet some would have it do more. How about we hold off on expansion until it has been proven they can responsibly manage a budget with what is currently on the plate? Raising taxes may give them more wiggle room for all the screwing off, but it doesn't attack the fundamental issues that plague large government.
Also, I would argue that the tax system is hardly the most efficient means of dissemination of funds to those in need. And the overhead required greatly diminishes the value that a dollar carries vs a private individual donating to an organization charged directly with helping the needy. Your scheme has the IRS, congress, and various federal agencies skimming off the top before anyone in need sees a penny. You have to pay the IRS employees processing returns, congress allocating funds (and then you have the pork that gets thrown in to get the funding approved in vote), the agency employees have to be paid, etc, etc. And then you have the issue that maybe congress doesn't fund the programs that you think will be most beneficial to society. What then?
I am neither rich nor poor, but I am rational enough to understand that no socioeconomic group of people can be judged on the actions of a few. If you are intellectually honest with yourself, you will concede that a significant number at the top end are not actively attempting to destroy the fabric of the nation as you would portray. Otherwise it would be akin to someone saying that the majority of poor people deserve what they get for spending beyond their means and not valuing education. The truth is always somewhere in between the extremes, and you do your cause no favors by playing in terms of absolutes.
If there is a problem with the system then there are mechanisms in place to change the system. But I contend the larger issue is that the brain of this system needs to be reprogrammed so that it has a chance to succeed under the current requirements before you start adding feature creep.
Everyone who has a fortune?
A fine post, with which I mostly agree. I appreciate people who are computer savvy, but are also well-versed in many areas. I noticed at work that many developers were talented programmers, but that was about it. Other programmers were like what you have demonstrated in your post today.