The Ultra rich getting richer

[Pliny]

But Warren Buffet pays alot more tax than his secretary.

----

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.

All people should be treated equal under the law not made equal by law.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm still looking.

Here Pliny - see the blue line on this graph

[Pliny]

It is easy to find that personal income taxes have gone down.

This article tells us that and all indicators are that personal income taxes are down.

Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.

The Institute for Canadian Policy Alternatives in it's critique of the tax freedom day calculation admits the overall personal tax burden has increased by 40% since 1961 up to 2003, when the critique was written.

Critque of tax freedom day

Although the critique argues taxes have not increased at the level claimed it still admits an overall increase in the personal tax burden since 1961.

I do not see how anyone can argue that taxes have decreased over time.

We didn't have a GST before the eighties. Although Harper has dropped it from 7 to 5% in the last few years.

We used to not pay taxes on water most places now have a water tax.

Taxes on gasoline, cigarettes, liquor, have all increased.

The mill rates on property taxes have increased along with an increase in property values.

City parking meters have gone up in most cities.

Transit has become more expensive and increased over and above inflation rates while auto drivers subsidize them. I have a transit tax on my hydro bill.

The combining of BC's PST and GST to form the HST takes less taxes out of the economy. This is good although on a personal level I will be paying more. Hopefully, lower costs to business will be reflected in costs and it will balance out but I'm not counting on it.

But the inflationary policy of governments for price stabilization eats up on average about 2% of our purchasing power every year. If we are on a fixed income it really hurts. If we get cola adjustments we don't notice it but here is where the poor and elderly get hit the hardest. As spenidng gets out of control and stimulus money starts to flood into the streets inflation is going to be even higher. Many more will feel this hidden tax eat away at their ability to pay their bills. Inflation is the single greatest contributor to the division of rich and poor than any other factor.

Don't show me a graph of how income taxes have come down and tell me how my taxes have gone down over time. The government, by swelling the ranks of the poor through inflation and other forms of taxation, is making income tax less and less relevant to the personal tax burden of the citizenry. Fines, penalties, fees, etc. are becoming more and more a part of the overall taxes we pay.

[Pliny]

Here Pliny - see the blue line on this graph

Yes. I see income taxes have decreased. Can you show me how much inflationary policies compare with those tax decreases and how the poor and those on a fixed income are affected? Since they pay no or low income taxes I suppose the inflation they experience is the only form of tax they pay. Besides sales taxes, water taxes, transit taxes, phone taxes, energy taxes, carbon taxes (currently only in BC), gasoline taxes, property taxes, .......

[Michael Hardner]

Yes. I see income taxes have decreased. Can you show me how much inflationary policies compare with those tax decreases and how the poor and those on a fixed income are affected? Since they pay no or low income taxes I suppose the inflation they experience is the only form of tax they pay. Besides sales taxes, water taxes, transit taxes, phone taxes, energy taxes, carbon taxes (currently only in BC), gasoline taxes, property taxes, .......

Why don't we cut to the point - are you suggesting that lower income earners pay more tax than before ?

[Pliny]

Why don't we cut to the point - are you suggesting that lower income earners pay more tax than before ?

Middle income earners are increasingly marginalized and lower income earners are made paupers by inflation and a widening of the tax base. They may pay no or less income tax but the cost of government to them is growing.

Inflation to you may not mean much but on a low salary or fixed income it becomes harder and harder to stretch your dollars. And with increased user fees for everything the government can think to tax, from transit to water to carbon, the ranks of the poor are swelling and the middle class shrinking.

At 2% inflation a person on a fixed income in 5 years loses ten percent of his purchasing power. If he is poor already he hasn't gained much by a decrease in income taxes of which he hardly pays anything at all in the first place.

We all lose that 10% but most of us can make it up in increased earnings or maybe even drops in the income tax rate unless we go into the next tax bracket.

It is definitely a stacked game against the individual.

[Michael Hardner]

Inflation to you may not mean much ...

I never said that.

Your whole post seems to be a response to the point (the germane point) that the rich have seen their tax rates go lower. So their deal gets better and better as time goes on.

We would need a new thread about the ultra poor getting poorer, I guess.

[Pliny]

I never said that.

I doubt you would even have considered it a from of taxation.

Your whole post seems to be a response to the point (the germane point) that the rich have seen their tax rates go lower. So their deal gets better and better as time goes on.

They have seen their income tax rates go lower, yes. Their deal doesn't in general get any better over time. As the middle class is increasingly marginalized so are the rich. Over time the rich will disappear. Just as they did in Zimbabwe.

We would need a new thread about the ultra poor getting poorer, I guess.

We are all getting poorer, it is less noticeable that the rich are getting poorer.

[Michael Hardner]

I doubt you would even have considered it a from of taxation.

Well, I wouldn't but it's a side discussion anyway.

They have seen their income tax rates go lower, yes. Their deal doesn't in general get any better over time. As the middle class is increasingly marginalized so are the rich. Over time the rich will disappear. Just as they did in Zimbabwe.

Wow. Did you notice just there where we went from the real (as in talking about real top marginal tax rates over time) to the unreal (the rich disappearing)?

We are all getting poorer, it is less noticeable that the rich are getting poorer.

Neither of those things are true in reality, just in your perspective. That post of yours is an elegant fan dance from the realm of the provable, to the realm of paranoid fantasy inhabited by libertarians and others.

[Bonam]

We are all getting poorer, it is less noticeable that the rich are getting poorer.

How do you figure? Keep in mind, what matters to determine whether you are materially "rich" or "poor" isn't the number in your bank account, but the value of material objects and services that you possess/access. In this regard, people in Western societies today are vastly richer than they were a few decades ago. We now possess all kinds of goods that never even existed just a short time ago, computers, mobile phones, etc. And, of the goods that did exist, today's versions are generally far superior. Cars for example are more efficient, have more features, enhanced safety, etc. The material wealth of our civilization is increasing rapidly, and the most significant factors affecting this are a HUGE deflationary pressure, which is associated with increasing technology making yesterday's products rapidly devalued, thus goods produced in a given year become much much cheaper over time.

The few % yearly inflation is negligible in comparison. Yeah a computer this year might cost 2% more than a computer last year, but it'll also have 50% better performance. Or you can still by last year's computer at 50% off. That is massive deflation right there. This applies to almost all kinds of goods that we can purchase, except groceries and fuels and perhaps a few other things.

Edited December 15, 2010 by Bonam

[dre]

All people should be treated equal under the law not made equal by law.

Im not sure why you guys would resort to this kind of unabashed dishonesty at this point, since the conversation has been pretty civil so far. You both know full well that Im not arguing for ANY kind of equality. In fact earlier in this thread I said its GREAT that there are rich people, and that desire for wealth is one of the key motivators in our system, without which it could not work.

Now I get this abject horse shit directed at me?

And because of your ideology, your obsession with equality

Id like too see some kind of evidence that Im advocating forced equality, or an admission that you guys are just liars, please.

Edited December 15, 2010 by dre

[Pliny]

How do you figure? Keep in mind, what matters to determine whether you are materially "rich" or "poor" isn't the number in your bank account, but the value of material objects and services that you possess/access. In this regard, people in Western societies today are vastly richer than they were a few decades ago. We now possess all kinds of goods that never even existed just a short time ago, computers, mobile phones, etc. And, of the goods that did exist, today's versions are generally far superior. Cars for example are more efficient, have more features, enhanced safety, etc. The material wealth of our civilization is increasing rapidly, and the most significant factors affecting this are a HUGE deflationary pressure, which is associated with increasing technology making yesterday's products rapidly devalued, thus goods produced in a given year become much much cheaper over time.

The few % yearly inflation is negligible in comparison. Yeah a computer this year might cost 2% more than a computer last year, but it'll also have 50% better performance. Or you can still by last year's computer at 50% off. That is massive deflation right there. This applies to almost all kinds of goods that we can purchase, except groceries and fuels and perhaps a few other things.

Government considers our estate calculating wealth so theyknow how much is their share.

Government is gradually destroying the economy and our freedoms become tighter.

Who knows what we could have aspired to or where we would be had governments not debased the currency, dragged us into two world wars, engineered what they thought was best for the good of all, and indebted future generations.

On the surface, as you point out we are materially better off than we were in the past. Have we done the best we can do?

If we keep to ourselves we can shut out most of what may be considered undesirable. We can ignore loss of freedoms, any hint of class warfare, unequal treatment by our government, the debasement of our money, increased national and personal debt in the nation, illiteracy, drug turf wars, terrorism, inflation, illiteracy we can be happy if we ignore these things and feel we are well off with our possessions since the government is gracious enough to leave us with a portion of our material assets.

If all is well with you then all is well. Some people are concerned about such things and how government creates them and what the growth of government will bring us in the future.

More wars, more welfare, less freedom and greater intervention in engineering every aspect of our lives, is that what we have to look forward to or can we just shut it out? A lot of us won't be able to and eventually none will.

Government must be kept in check not it's honest citizens.

[Michael Hardner]

Who knows what we could have aspired to or where we would be had governments not debased the currency, dragged us into two world wars, engineered what they thought was best for the good of all, and indebted future generations.

On the surface, as you point out we are materially better off than we were in the past. Have we done the best we can do?

Why don't you look at countries that basically had no government over that time and get your answer ?

The countries that have done the best since 1900 all seem to have had strong governments.

[blueblood]

Why don't you look at countries that basically had no government over that time and get your answer ?

The countries that have done the best since 1900 all seem to have had strong governments.

And some of the countries that have done the worst since 1900 have had "strong" gov'ts.

You would have to define what a "strong" government is. What is it? More importantly, does a "strong" gov't need to tax its citizens or more importantly its wealthy citizens heavily in order to be "strong"?

It can be argued that the "strong" government countries of Europe are in a lot of hot water right now.

It's not the amount of tax revenue a gov't can squeeze out of its country that makes it strong, it's the people in government making right decisions that does. The 64,000 dollar question is how much do those right decisions really cost taxpayers?

[Michael Hardner]

And some of the countries that have done the worst since 1900 have had "strong" gov'ts.

You would have to define what a "strong" government is. What is it? More importantly, does a "strong" gov't need to tax its citizens or more importantly its wealthy citizens heavily in order to be "strong"?

I'm thinking Europe, and North America... Australia... all of whom tax their people and all of whom are strong.

It can be argued that the "strong" government countries of Europe are in a lot of hot water right now.

It's not the amount of tax revenue a gov't can squeeze out of its country that makes it strong, it's the people in government making right decisions that does. The 64,000 dollar question is how much do those right decisions really cost taxpayers?

"Government making right decisions" doesn't address the question of what kind of government it is though... What kind of "right decisions" can a government that has only weak control over economic policy make ? What kind of "right decisions" can a dictatorship make ?

[blueblood]

I'm thinking Europe, and North America... Australia... all of whom tax their people and all of whom are strong.

"Government making right decisions" doesn't address the question of what kind of government it is though... What kind of "right decisions" can a government that has only weak control over economic policy make ? What kind of "right decisions" can a dictatorship make ?

Those areas of the world you stated are "strong", however they tax people differently and have different economic policies. So what you are saying is that "strong" governments are the governments of the developed world. I would say that is not quite accurate, it is the individuals of Europe, North America, and Australia that are "strong", not their governments. I would argue that the gov'ts of China, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea are strong due to the power over their citizens they wield. That's where the decisions angle comes in.

To your second point, a gov't wields significant influence over its jurisdiction no matter how strong its perceived to be. If it makes the right decisions, the country prospers (see developed world and emerging markets). If it makes wrong decisions, the country suffers (3rd world countries). The fact that a gov't has "weak" control over economic policy is a right decision in itself (see the cold war). China is an example of "right decisions" a dictatorship can make.

The fundamental question remains, how much tax does a government really need to collect in order to be strong?

[Michael Hardner]

Those areas of the world you stated are "strong", however they tax people differently and have different economic policies. So what you are saying is that "strong" governments are the governments of the developed world. I would say that is not quite accurate, it is the individuals of Europe, North America, and Australia that are "strong", not their governments. I would argue that the gov'ts of China, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea are strong due to the power over their citizens they wield. That's where the decisions angle comes in.

Theirs is a false strength. How many of those countries will have the same institutions in 20 years. Would you invest in North Korea ?

And I disagree - Europe and America are more similar to each other than they are to most other places in the world. They're strong and it's not because their people can do more pushups.

[bloodyminded]

I would say that is not quite accurate, it is the individuals of Europe, North America, and Australia that are "strong", not their governments.

I guess we're just genetically superior to the Earth's poor majority.

[Bonam]

I guess we're just genetically superior to the Earth's poor majority.

While I don't necessarily agree with his premise, there are different kinds of "strength" besides "genetic superiority". Just having a certain mindset can grant an individual a lot of strength. Perseverance, determination, independence, these are just personality traits that may or may not be encouraged to various extents in various cultures and can lead to an individual having different "strength".

Edited December 17, 2010 by Bonam

[Michael Hardner]

While I don't necessarily agree with his premise, there are different kinds of "strength" besides "genetic superiority". Just having a certain mindset can grant an individual a lot of strength. Perseverance, determination, independence, these are just personality traits that may or may not be encouraged to various extents in various cultures and can lead to an individual having different "strength".

There's nothing quite like patting yourself on the back, is there ?

Personally, I believe that our society is soft, and that many of us that do well are reaping the rewards that our ancestors guaranteed for us by their sacrifice.

[bloodyminded]

While I don't necessarily agree with his premise, there are different kinds of "strength" besides "genetic superiority". Just having a certain mindset can grant an individual a lot of strength. Perseverance, determination, independence, these are just personality traits that may or may not be encouraged to various extents in various cultures and can lead to an individual having different "strength".

There are millions of people living in many troubled nations who do backbreaking labour--sometimes literally backbreaking--for what we spend on a cup of coffee.

You don't think that requires perseverence and determination?

Do you think that if a successful Westerner had been born in Bangladesh, he'd likely be similarly successful, or even relatively? I beg to differ.

Edited December 17, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Michael Hardner]

Do you think that if a successful Westerner had been born in Bangladesh, he'd likely be similarly successful, or even relatively? I beg to differ.

Alternately, look at the immigrants who come here and work hard for a fraction of what we have.

[Pliny]

Why don't you look at countries that basically had no government over that time and get your answer ?

The countries that have done the best since 1900 all seem to have had strong governments.

What is the best? Won the most wars? Had the biggest social safety net? Redistributed wealth the best?

The countries with the most government have all failed, Germany (twice), Italy, Spain, Poland, Russia, Yugoslavia, Rumania, communist China. They were totalitarian socialist governments that failed. And as individual responsibility is lost to the state we can start looking at Greece, Italy (again), Spain (again), Portugal, Ireland, France, Great Britain, all on the verge of economic failure.

Right now there is a struggle in the US over the size of government. Americans are split on whether or not it should embrace more socialist concepts and have government become even bigger, with Health care, environmental oversight in all things. The rest of the world, of course wants to see it get in step with other western nations.

You may think that countries have done better since 1900 but actually it wasn't until 1914, WW I, the Russian revolution in 1917 and the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913, that the growth of national governments started and the birth of the failed League of Nations, reborn as the United Nations. Are all the western nations being brought to economic ruin to finally establish a more globally, "environmentally" sensitive governing body that supercedes national sovereignty?

What millions of lives would have been spared if there had not been any world wars or communist revolutions. What economically could have been achieved without the welfare/warfare state?

The growth of government is observed as national co-operation, spearheaded by environmental concerns.

But....Government is good. And we wouldn't ever have achieved anything if capitalist "social Darwinism" had been allowed to prevail. Everything would be centred around....ugh...Wal-mart. It seems to me that a lot is centred around Wal-mart so what would really have occurred?

[Pliny]

Theirs is a false strength. How many of those countries will have the same institutions in 20 years. Would you invest in North Korea ?

And I disagree - Europe and America are more similar to each other than they are to most other places in the world. They're strong and it's not because their people can do more pushups.

Now governments have "false" strength. You've lost the point on "strong governments" and now wish to define strong governments as having false strength. The fact is that the total state will always fail. So why ae we heading toward bigger more intrusive governments?

Europe and America are "stronger" nations because there is still more or less a balance of power, at least in perception, between their governments and their people but the balance of power is shifting to government. It's the source of the current dividing struggle in the States and the rioting in the streets of Europe. Europe has long past the point of individuals being important to society and the State being all. The rioting in Europe's streets is not particularly against the concept of big government but about the failure of big government to provide it's promised entitlements. In my view, the time is ripe in western continental Europe for right-wing dictatorships.

The progressive socialist, adopting more and more socialist concepts, will eventually reach the same end as the revolutionary socialist. It's the point where the individual is nothing and the State is everything.

I see a warning of how far we have fallen in the opinion of the left wing, who view the masses as stupid or the politically oriented skeptic who uses science to denounce any individual view or opinion and demands acceptance of it's theories from climate change to religion and we must all wait for it's determination of truth, in at least the consensual sense, from our greatest scientists.

Edited December 17, 2010 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

What is the best? Won the most wars? Had the biggest social safety net? Redistributed wealth the best?

The countries with the most government have all failed, Germany (twice), Italy, Spain, Poland, Russia, Yugoslavia, Rumania, communist China. They were totalitarian socialist governments that failed. And as individual responsibility is lost to the state we can start looking at Greece, Italy (again), Spain (again), Portugal, Ireland, France, Great Britain, all on the verge of economic failure.

You're comparing a whole lot of apples and oranges there. Did France fail ? Why are you including dictatorships along with democratic governments ?

Right now there is a struggle in the US over the size of government. Americans are split on whether or not it should embrace more socialist concepts and have government become even bigger, with Health care, environmental oversight in all things. The rest of the world, of course wants to see it get in step with other western nations.

You lose my interest when you try to say that the US is considering socialism. I'm interested in a serious conversation, not zealotry.