The Top Fifth

[Landlord]

So....LOMS....I assume you agree that the state has the right and justification to set an amount like 40,000,000 and basically take everything else when someone dies.

 

 

A right and a justification? No, I would not say that. I'm also no economist or finger-pointer towards the rich as some awful scapegoat so to pretend like I have any clue on details of such a thing, such as a $40,000,000 threshhold, would just be posturing on my part.

 

 

That being said, though, at what point are we couching pure greed and self-obsession in more pleasant rhetoric? Even if my father is a billionaire, what do I need a billion dollars for? I don't. At what point does the betterment of my country and my fellow man supersede my devotion to my own personal right towards something I think I am entitled to? I don't know the answer.

 

I would say that we, collectively as a society, have a responsibility to each other, and that the state seems like the logical enforcing entity to turn to when so many individuals are unwilling to share a vested interest in the 'us' and use all of their power only for the 'self'. Our country's history is much more proliferated with taking/stealing/exploiting our fellow man than it is with helping him, which is a shame, because I do not think that has to be reality. I think we're capable of more.

[Danny Bateman]

Rousing discussion here. Definitely took a turn from where the thread started. I've been busy today, so I haven't been able to respond very much. i did want to say to BRB, in response to your post #111 earlier... I've no doubt that no matter what we do or what approach to social welfare programs we take, be it extensive or non-existent, there are always going to be people who fall through the cracks. Of course there are people who have the right makeup to succeed and those who don't Some people will succeed and some will fail regardless of the situation they're placed in.

 

That there will always be the failers is not a justification to me to not try to give a stronger ladder of opportunity to those who more badly need it. I'd much sooner examine alternative ways to try to level the playing field than accept it won't work and just save the money.

[Landlord]

Here's where I got the numbers on poor people paying more in taxes. Links to the actual report as well:

 

 

 

 

 

According to the report, the lower one’s income, the higher the effective state and local tax rate. Combining all state and local income, property, sales and excise taxes that Americans pay, the nationwide average effective state and local tax rates by income group are 10.9 percent for the poorest 20 percent, 9.4 percent for the middle 20 percent and 5.4 percent for the top 1 percent, the report said.

 

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/1/15/the-poor-pay-a-higher-percentage-of-income-in-taxes

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

Rich or poor, everyone should be taxed the same. Making this a tax only on people with assets in excess of X-million dollars doesn't change my opinion.

It seems like this is an argument for a flat tax structure.

 

I'm surprised. Paul Ryan is not that fiscally conservative.

 

Hey! Comparing me to Paul Ryan should be in the Shed thread.

 

 

 

 

 

You did it to yourself, man. I read that as your seeming approval of a flat tax as well.

[Danny Bateman]

Here's where I got the numbers on poor people paying more in taxes. Links to the actual report as well:

 

 

 

 

 

According to the report, the lower one’s income, the higher the effective state and local tax rate. Combining all state and local income, property, sales and excise taxes that Americans pay, the nationwide average effective state and local tax rates by income group are 10.9 percent for the poorest 20 percent, 9.4 percent for the middle 20 percent and 5.4 percent for the top 1 percent, the report said.

 

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/1/15/the-poor-pay-a-higher-percentage-of-income-in-taxes

 

To piggyback on this, here's an article about what the tax return from 2005 that Trump chose to release showed about his taxes.

 

It said that he paid $36.5M in income taxes, $31M of which (or ~85% of it) was though the alternative minimum tax, which is designed to ensure that those who would otherwise pay next to nothing in taxes due to extensive use of loopholes and write-offs pay SOMETHING in the appropriate ballpark.

 

Shocking revelation: Trump and the GOP want to repeal the alternative minimum tax. If he could, he would eliminate 85% of his income taxes. Even if it necessarily introduces a socialist bent to the conversation, it's worth examining the haves and have-nots and how they play in the big picture here.

 

And here, socialist is the correct term. Not communist. Stating RedDenver is espousing communist ideas because he's proposing a more generous Estate Tax is a gross overreach. You can call it a stupid tax and disagree with it without saying any iteration of it is communist. A communist system would make it difficult to accrue an estate in the first place.

 

Remember, only a Sith deals in absolutes. A surprising number of very wealthy people support increasing the estate tax - of note, Warren Buffet, George "boogeyman" Soros, President Jimmy Carter & Bill Gates' dad.

[RedDenver]

So....LOMS....I assume you agree that the state has the right and justification to set an amount like 40,000,000 and basically take everything else when someone dies.

I've asked and so far no one has really answered, but what would you do to fix/modify the estate tax and still raise enough taxes for the nation? And if you also think wealth inequality is a problem currently, then how would you address it?

[JJ Husker]

Here's where I got the numbers on poor people paying more in taxes. Links to the actual report as well:

 

 

 

 

According to the report, the lower one’s income, the higher the effective state and local tax rate. Combining all state and local income, property, sales and excise taxes that Americans pay, the nationwide average effective state and local tax rates by income group are 10.9 percent for the poorest 20 percent, 9.4 percent for the middle 20 percent and 5.4 percent for the top 1 percent, the report said.

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/1/15/the-poor-pay-a-higher-percentage-of-income-in-taxes

Okay. I kind of thought you must be using all taxes combined to make that statement. But wanted to be sure it wasn't some wild claim on income taxes.

[JJ Husker]

For the record, I don't really have a problem with some sort of estate tax that would exclude a large chunk i.e. the first $40M. The thing I think we have to be mindful of is that any inheritance tax should not be structured such that it causes the heir to have to sell off the assets to pay the taxes. I'm not sure how that gets accomplished but, as in BRB's example of a family ranch, I don't think the result should be forcing people out of an established company or family business. But yeah, maybe there needs to be a point where enough is deemed enough and the overflow starts to benefit society and not just the lucky heirs. However, I hate to see it justified by claiming the state made it possible. Yeah the state made it possible but anyone who accumulates that much wealth should already have contributed their fair share over the course of accumulating that wealth. If they haven't, then let's fix that problem.

[RedDenver]

For the record, I don't really have a problem with some sort of estate tax that would exclude a large chunk i.e. the first $40M. The thing I think we have to be mindful of is that any inheritance tax should not be structured such that it causes the heir to have to sell off the assets to pay the taxes. I'm not sure how that gets accomplished but, as in BRB's example of a family ranch, I don't think the result should be forcing people out of an established company or family business. But yeah, maybe there needs to be a point where enough is deemed enough and the overflow starts to benefit society and not just the lucky heirs. However, I hate to see it justified by claiming the state made it possible. Yeah the state made it possible but anyone who accumulates that much wealth should already have contributed their fair share over the course of accumulating that wealth. If they haven't, then let's fix that problem.

I think we agree more than we disagree here.

[JJ Husker]

I'm glad we have some common ground RD.

 

The other thing I think that needs to be acknowledged is that there will always be haves and have nots. We can't get too bogged down in really trying to equalize wealth. Besides the socialist connotations of that it just isn't realistic. I think we can right some injustices and create a fairer system but we have to be okay with having some filthy rich people and some people who are virtually starving to death. I'm sorry, I know that sounds cruel and heartless but I cannot come up with one historical precedent that leads me to believe it could ever be any other way. I think there are limits to what can be accomplished in lifting people from poverty and tamping down the hording of excess wealth. We can sure create better opportunity and a more level playing field but to some extent the results are going to settle where they may.

[RedDenver]

I'm glad we have some common ground RD.

 

The other thing I think that needs to be acknowledged is that there will always be haves and have nots. We can't get too bogged down in really trying to equalize wealth. Besides the socialist connotations of that it just isn't realistic. I think we can right some injustices and create a fairer system but we have to be okay with having some filthy rich people and some people who are virtually starving to death. I'm sorry, I know that sounds cruel and heartless but I cannot come up with one historical precedent that leads me to believe it could ever be any other way. I think there are limits to what can be accomplished in lifting people from poverty and tamping down the hording of excess wealth. We can sure create better opportunity and a more level playing field but to some extent the results are going to settle where they may.

I actually agree with everything you've said. I'd like to believe we can do better than the bolded, but maybe it's not practical.

[JJ Husker]

 

I'm glad we have some common ground RD.

The other thing I think that needs to be acknowledged is that there will always be haves and have nots. We can't get too bogged down in really trying to equalize wealth. Besides the socialist connotations of that it just isn't realistic. I think we can right some injustices and create a fairer system but we have to be okay with having some filthy rich people and some people who are virtually starving to death. I'm sorry, I know that sounds cruel and heartless but I cannot come up with one historical precedent that leads me to believe it could ever be any other way. I think there are limits to what can be accomplished in lifting people from poverty and tamping down the hording of excess wealth. We can sure create better opportunity and a more level playing field but to some extent the results are going to settle where they may.

 

I actually agree with everything you've said. I'd like to believe we can do better than the bolded, but maybe it's not practical.

Yeah, I hope we can do better than that too. And I dont think we should ever quit trying as long as it exists. But I think it is somewhat inevitable. Seems the natural state of the world has always had too much starvation, lack of healthcare, poverty etc.

[Danny Bateman]

But, if we truly want to claim the mantle of the greatest country on Earth, we cannot just give up trying, regardless of what the natural state of the world is.

 

I have to believe that as long as the United States is around, we will have people here who fight for betterment of their fellow human beings.

[zoogs]

I don't think "how things currently are in the United States" describes the inevitable natural state of the world. There are other countries that have developed better solutions in a variety of areas -- healthcare, for example; or gun control. But we drag our feet because, I suppose, attitudes here differ.

[Landlord]

 

 

I'm glad we have some common ground RD.

The other thing I think that needs to be acknowledged is that there will always be haves and have nots. We can't get too bogged down in really trying to equalize wealth. Besides the socialist connotations of that it just isn't realistic. I think we can right some injustices and create a fairer system but we have to be okay with having some filthy rich people and some people who are virtually starving to death. I'm sorry, I know that sounds cruel and heartless but I cannot come up with one historical precedent that leads me to believe it could ever be any other way. I think there are limits to what can be accomplished in lifting people from poverty and tamping down the hording of excess wealth. We can sure create better opportunity and a more level playing field but to some extent the results are going to settle where they may.

I actually agree with everything you've said. I'd like to believe we can do better than the bolded, but maybe it's not practical.

Yeah, I hope we can do better than that too. And I dont think we should ever quit trying as long as it exists. But I think it is somewhat inevitable. Seems the natural state of the world has always had too much starvation, lack of healthcare, poverty etc.

 

 

 

 

These problems are as old as time, but at the same time, America has a uniquely ugly culture of, 'welp, obviously can't do anything about that really terrible thing that everyone else in the world seems able to do something about, so no sense in even trying!'