The Ultra rich getting richer

[Michael Hardner]

And if the country does not provide the basics for living? People move, right?

Where do you "move" to if you live in one of the bottom nations ?

You don't get to move to Canada unless you're lucky, I'll tell you that.

Self-actualization? Is that the point where nothing matters anymore and one can devote himself entirely to the welfare of others? Sounds like the point where one decides to become a politician!

I think it's when you start to try to do something meaningful with your life.

[Bonam]

I think it's when you start to try to do something meaningful with your life.

What do you mean by meaningful? Meaningful by whose standard? To most people, a life that involves surviving, finding a partner whom they love, and successfully parenting offspring, is more than meaningful enough.

Being a social do-gooder is hardly what I'd consider a meaningful life.

[Pliny]

What do you mean by meaningful? Meaningful by whose standard? To most people, a life that involves surviving, finding a partner whom they love, and successfully parenting offspring, is more than meaningful enough.

Being a social do-gooder is hardly what I'd consider a meaningful life.

It isn't called being a social do-gooder at that level. It is called being a philanthropist - a lover of mankind. It is the point where one realizes that only he knows what the hell is going on and everyone else is full of crap.

[blueblood]

That was my point. Things dont go well for countries that neglect their poor and allow them to fall into extreme poverty. Thats the whole reason for the social safety net and limited socialism.

And things go worse for countries that decide to wage class warfare and raid the wealthy's bank accounts. See 1770's USA and modern day Venezuela. It was bye-bye England and bye-bye Hugo.

The USSR was NOT a country that that used limited socialism with a social safety net. The countries such as the US that won the cold war WERE though. You need to stop taking things to silly extremes.

The USSR had the biggest safety net of all, and the US for all intents and purposes does not. Which side won? For someone who advocates a big safety net, why do you want to emulate failure?

We don't know if "limited socialism" is successful, or not. Western Civilization is over 2000 years old. Universal Suffrage has existed for around 100 years. Judging by how things are going in developed countries, it might not be looking as good as intended.

During these days we are now paying the bill for the "limitied socialism" that the left has lobbyed so hard for. Almost every developed country has serious financial problems that has caused great turmoil eg. the tea party movement, strikes in France, riots in Europe. August makes the excellent point here, how much tax do we really need to pay?

Trudeau tried his "limited socialist" experiment, and it took Mulroney bringing in a tax ultimately blowing up the PC party in the process, and Paul Martin getting a free pass from the Reform party to slash spending, to pay for it.

No that revolution was against taxation without representation.

Any new tax is a tax increase. That also relates to issues the wealthy have, taxation without representation. If the wealthy are to be taxed at such high levels that you want, should they not have more voting power?

[Michael Hardner]

What do you mean by meaningful? Meaningful by whose standard? To most people, a life that involves surviving, finding a partner whom they love, and successfully parenting offspring, is more than meaningful enough.

Then that is self-actualization.

Being a social do-gooder is hardly what I'd consider a meaningful life.

Helping others may not be meaningful to you, but some have devoted their entire lives to it.

[Shady]

Helping others may not be meaningful to you, but some have devoted their entire lives to it.

Helping others with other people's money.

The top tax rate in the 1950s was 90% in the US.

So what? The global economy in the 1950s didn't consist of India, China, and an emerging South America. Not to mention that Europe was in the process of being rebuilt.

They will always cry a river for lower taxes, and lower earners will take up their cause for some reason. They're doing it still.

I haven't heard any crying of rivers. But it's only natural for somebody to want to keep more of the money they earn. Especially in a constantly competetive global economy. Higher taxes mean higher operating costs, which means less competetiveness. And when a business has trouble competing, it dies. And so do the jobs in provides.

[Michael Hardner]

Helping others with other people's money.

I didn't think Bonham's term "social do-gooder" referred to civil servants of any kind, so your point doesn't apply as far as I can see.

So what? The global economy in the 1950s didn't consist of India, China, and an emerging South America. Not to mention that Europe was in the process of being rebuilt.

So what ?

So... I had to go back a few steps to find out what my note was even about. As it turns out it, it was YOUR point:

"Michael Hardner:Let's see... taxes are continually falling for the wealthiest earners

Shady:That's not necessarily true."

Again - the top rate was 90%. So that's what.

I haven't heard any crying of rivers. But it's only natural for somebody to want to keep more of the money they earn. Especially in a constantly competetive global economy. Higher taxes mean higher operating costs, which means less competetiveness. And when a business has trouble competing, it dies. And so do the jobs in provides.

Right. But if they're lying, or merely misrepresenting their situation then why should we listen to them ? Answer: we shouldn't.

Unlike people who work for the civil service, we seem to agree that the motivations for the highest earners are self-serving: to pay less out of their pocket.

Let's just leave it at that.

[Shady]

So... I had to go back a few steps to find out what my note was even about. As it turns out it, it was YOUR point:

"Michael Hardner:Let's see... taxes are continually falling for the wealthiest earners

Shady:That's not necessarily true."

Again - the top rate was 90%. So that's what.

But taxes have continually fallen for all earners, not just the wealthiest. 50% of American income earners pay ZERO income tax. What do you think that number was in 1950?

[Michael Hardner]

But taxes have continually fallen for all earners, not just the wealthiest. 50% of American income earners pay ZERO income tax. What do you think that number was in 1950?

I'm sure it was lower, but you're batting back points that were made many posts ago, with regards to the fact that taxes HAVE FALLEN for the wealthiest earners.

It seems that you have acknowledged that, at least, so let's move on.

Yes, taxes may have fallen for all earners. I don't doubt that that is true.

[Bonam]

I didn't think Bonham's term "social do-gooder" referred to civil servants of any kind, so your point doesn't apply as far as I can see.

No, it didn't refer to "civil servants of any kind".

[Michael Hardner]

No, it didn't refer to "civil servants of any kind".

Thank you.

[Pliny]

I'm sure it was lower, but you're batting back points that were made many posts ago, with regards to the fact that taxes HAVE FALLEN for the wealthiest earners.

It seems that you have acknowledged that, at least, so let's move on.

Yes, taxes may have fallen for all earners. I don't doubt that that is true.

Income taxes have gone down since the fifties. Tax loopholes have been closed that were as wide as a barn door in the fifties. The rich never paid 90% of their income. It was always the middle class that pays the most.

But while income taxes have gone down other taxes, licences and fees have increased.

Overall taxes have not fallen over time for the wealthiest earners. The fact they own more and it is usually bigger and better means they are paying more taxes. Property taxes, gasoline taxes, user fees, sales taxes. Of course, the wealthiest can also defer their income taxes by maximizing their RRSPs as well. The middle class will scrape together what they can afford to put into an RRSP I suppose.

Tax freedom day, while we have gained a day or two in the last few years, has moved steadily from May to the latter half of June.

I thought we went over this already, Micheal?

[dre]

Overall taxes have not fallen over time for the wealthiest earners.

Id need to see evidence of that because I seriously doubt its true. Even as late as the seventies the upper most tax bracket was at over 70%.

1970 - 14% 71.75% IRS

1971-1981 15 brackets 14% 70% IRS

1982-1986 12 brackets 12% 50% IRS

1987 5 brackets 11% 38.5% IRS

1988-1990 3 brackets 15% 28% IRS

1991-1992 3 brackets 15% 31% IRS

1993-2000 5 brackets 15% 39.6% IRS

Between 1970 and 2000 the rich successfully lobbied to have their tax rates lowered from 71 percent to 39%, while the lower bracket actually got increased one percent. This represents a shifting of the tax burden the question is... to who?

The answer? To nobody.

How is that possible youre asking? Look what happened immediately after that upper bracket was gutted.

http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/ecology/natdebt.gif

As soon as those rates were slashed the US found it was unable to fund its own government, and they began to bleed red ink.

The wealthy had successfully shifted much of their share of the tax burden to the rest of the world.

[Pliny]

Id need to see evidence of that because I seriously doubt its true. Even as late as the seventies the upper most tax bracket was at over 70%.

Between 1970 and 2000 the rich successfully lobbied to have their tax rates lowered from 71 percent to 39%, while the lower bracket actually got increased one percent. This represents a shifting of the tax burden the question is... to who?

The answer? To nobody.

How is that possible youre asking? Look what happened immediately after that upper bracket was gutted.

http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/ecology/natdebt.gif

As soon as those rates were slashed the US found it was unable to fund its own government, and they began to bleed red ink.

The wealthy had successfully shifted much of their share of the tax burden to the rest of the world.

You are dreaming if you think the rich actually paid 70% of their income in taxes. A lot more research is necessary than a graph that shows government spending went out the roof.

Here is a comprehensive set of graphs where you can see revenues increasing, meaning taxes increased but spending went out of control.

[Bonam]

You are dreaming if you think the rich actually paid 70% of their income in taxes. A lot more research is necessary than a graph that shows government spending went out the roof.

Here is a comprehensive set of graphs where you can see revenues increasing, meaning taxes increased but spending went out of control.

Those graphs primarily reflect the effects of economic growth and population growth, they don't say much about tax rates.

[Michael Hardner]

Overall taxes have not fallen over time for the wealthiest earners. The fact they own more and it is usually bigger and better means they are paying more taxes. Property taxes, gasoline taxes, user fees, sales taxes. Of course, the wealthiest can also defer their income taxes by maximizing their RRSPs as well. The middle class will scrape together what they can afford to put into an RRSP I suppose.

...

I thought we went over this already, Micheal?

I don't remember seeing any proof that the wealthiest pay more than they did in the 1950s. Sales taxes and so on are regressive, so that's not really that convincing.

[Michael Hardner]

Pliny - As Bonham oints out, you didn't provide proof over rates.

Edited December 14, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[dre]

You are dreaming if you think the rich actually paid 70% of their income in taxes. A lot more research is necessary than a graph that shows government spending went out the roof.

Here is a comprehensive set of graphs where you can see revenues increasing, meaning taxes increased but spending went out of control.

And youre dreaming if you think the wealthy dont cheat just as much or more today.

And revenues increased by much slower than GDP (because again the wealthy had decided they no longer wanted to pay taxes and they found a government stupid enough and short sighted enough to allow it).

Rich people today have an even sweeter deal. Warren Buffet is taxed at a lower rate on his income than his SECRETARY is.

Like I said... they shifted their tax burden to Americas trade partners and as soon as they did that the national debt which had been pretty much stable since the 40's immediately began to balloon out of the control.

[blueblood]

And youre dreaming if you think the wealthy dont cheat just as much or more today.

And revenues increased by much slower than GDP (because again the wealthy had decided they no longer wanted to pay taxes and they found a government stupid enough and short sighted enough to allow it).

Rich people today have an even sweeter deal. Warren Buffet is taxed at a lower rate on his income than his SECRETARY is.

Like I said... they shifted their tax burden to Americas trade partners and as soon as they did that the national debt which had been pretty much stable since the 40's immediately began to balloon out of the control.

Please tell me what is cheating on taxes? Would that be utilizing the corporate tax rate?

High taxes don't create growth, the private sector does. Europe is learning that lesson now with their High Tax, high spending environment. So which gov't is stupid now?

How was the tax burden shifted to their trade partners? Canada has been slashing taxes for more than a decade. Is the U.S. debt out of control? It's a value added tax and program cuts away from being paid off (albeit at the expense of an administration).

It's not giving tax breaks to the US that's the problem. It's the fact that other countries can do what the US was able to do at a much lower cost. The US Fed is going to have to realize that 7-9% unemployment which is comparable to Canada is now a fact of life. The world is a far better place that the wealthy are able to keep more of what they earn. The fact that so much private capital has gone into emerging markets making them better is a testament to that.

[Pliny]

Pliny - As Bonham oints out, you didn't provide proof over rates.

If revenues increased I must assume rates went up. Or did they go down when revenues increased? That would mean the Laffer curve deserves some respect.

WE know spending increased. dre feels that the deficit rose because

taxes fell. That means the Laffer curve deserves no respect.

Overall, revenues increased. Taxes increased. Spending increased.

You need only look at the size of government, the public service, the increased departments.

When tax freedom day was first tabulated it was sometime in May. Now it is close to July.

There are all kinds of taxes. The government thinks that if they take less out of your left pocket you won't notice them taking more out of your right pocket.

We are in trouble when they can't justify further taxation. Because then they can't afford all their liabilities.

Can't wait for cap and trade.

[Bonam]

If revenues increased I must assume rates went up.

Look, if the economy grows, revenues can increase while tax rates remain the same or go down. The economy has grown hugely in the time-frame shown in those graphs.

[Pliny]

And youre dreaming if you think the wealthy dont cheat just as much or more today.

Cheat? They had loopholes before which isn't cheating and they don't have to today because the tax rate is not 90% or 70% it is a mere 39%. Much more palatable, although they still have some means of avoiding taxes.

And revenues increased by much slower than GDP (because again the wealthy had decided they no longer wanted to pay taxes and they found a government stupid enough and short sighted enough to allow it).

The government was stupid enough to commit itself to liabilities and spending it should never have.

Rich people today have an even sweeter deal. Warren Buffet is taxed at a lower rate on his income than his SECRETARY is.

Like I said... they shifted their tax burden to Americas trade partners and as soon as they did that the national debt which had been pretty much stable since the 40's immediately began to balloon out of the control.

It's the ponzi schemes they created that they can no longer afford.

[Moonlight Graham]

Here is a comprehensive set of graphs where you can see revenues increasing, meaning taxes increased but spending went out of control.

That doesn't mean taxes increased. Tax revenue would have increased if they stayed the same or were even lowered due to the increase in US population since the 70's.

[Pliny]

Look, if the economy grows, revenues can increase while tax rates remain the same or go down. The economy has grown hugely in the time-frame shown in those graphs.

True.

Personal income in the US rose from about five hundred billion in the early seventies to over twelve trillion today.

Carter raised taxes, Reagan lowered taxes, GHWB raised taxes, Clinton raised taxes, GWB lowered taxes.

Is there a place that all taxes and tariffs, fees, etc. are graphed over the years that gives us a tally?

I'm still looking.

Does tax freedom day have any significance for you?

These graphs show 1971 as an interesting and important benchmark.

[August1991]

Rich people today have an even sweeter deal. Warren Buffet is taxed at a lower rate on his income than his SECRETARY is.

But Warren Buffet pays alot more tax than his secretary.

----

Dre, we live in a world where some people will become richer and richer, while other people merely become richer. If your neighbour wins the lottery, would you complain on the grounds that the lottery win has made society more unequal?

In a small way, lotteries do make societies more unequal. They take a small amount from many people to make a few people very rich.

IMHO, the most depressing feature of this thread is its misunderstanding of life, and confusion with my lottery scenario.

Capitalism, like life, is not a lottery.

If our children and grandchildren are to live better, our society must offer incentives to create new ideas, and solve myriad problems. People must win prizes when they solve these problems - otherwise, why would they bother? (I have no desire to return to an ancient world where new ideas were randomly created.)

No doubt, we may give out the prize to the wrong person on occasion. But dre, you would have us stop giving out prizes completely in the name of some ideological obsession for equality. And because of your ideology, your obsession with equality, your children and grandchildren would suffer.

Edited December 15, 2010 by August1991