Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) have both sponsored legislation that would provide for an increase on federal income taxes affecting those who made more than one million dollars. Sen. Bernie Sanders's plan would raise about $50 billion while Rep. Schakowsky's plan would raise nearly $75 billion.
Why would taxation of the ultra-wealthy be in the best interests of a society? Contrary to conservatives that are still delusively coughing up the now-debunked mime of supply-side economic theory, the wealthy do not magically create jobs.
In fact, both conservatives and liberals equally admit that more jobs are created by small businesses and entrepreneurship than the ultra-wealthy.
Moreover, in the past 30 years, wide-ranging developments have occurred including greater wealth inequality much like that of the Depression era, a weak manufacturing sector and blue-collar industries leaving a lot of the less educated population unable to find livable wage jobs, an education system still following the original factory-style ruts it was created on, and a deregulatory environment which has allowed the richest 400 people in America to own as much wealth as the bottom 50% of the entire U.S. population.
This is not about the tired attacks on those who "work hard" or about "penalizing" wealthy people. This is about staying true to those values that are dearly held: the belief in everyone's right to equal opportunity and the strengthening of liberty, especially from the tyranny of plutocracy, which is exactly what has happened in the past three decades.
From the beginning of the erection of the United States of America, America has always had wealth and bounty at its beck and call. While the population was doubling every two decades, while genocide of the Natives was occurring, while exacting almost free labor in the form of hereditary slavery, America gained unprecedented natural resources and land to feed the appetite of its highly mobile and industrious populace while pushing towards Manifest Destiny.
Just as one knows deep in the heart that nature, fortune, and circumstance gave America an unredeemable bounty that can never be repaid except by the blood of the oppressed; so too do Bernie Sanders and Jan Schakowsky both know that without taxes on the fortunate and circumstantial wealthy, America will only be able to continue with its growth by the blood of today's oppressed.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 97
Francois Marie, thank you for a well written and informative news article.
Taxing the productive to pay for the unproductive is never viable in the long run. It causes those who are productive to either stop being as productive or change their location to a place where it cannot be taxed or exploit loopholes.
When you start placing excessive taxes on the wealthy you are exceeding the purpose of the tax system, which is to pay for government services.
I am not a millionaire -- I would like to be one. However, the government already takes over HALF of what I earn each year in taxes. This is more like confiscation of my income than a tax.
Moreover, these people are only creating burdensome systems that become more burdensome year after year after year. (Look at Social Security.)
The system itself is inefficient. Look how many FEDERAL agencies we have just for LAW ENFORCEMENT. (The FBI, the Secret Service, the US Marshals, the DEA, and so on come to a list of over 100 agencies that enforce Federal Laws. WHY?
Giving Congress more revenue is like handing car keys and whiskey to teenage boys!
Just remember that eventually, you build a system where there is no unequal distribution of wealth, only an equal distribution of poverty.
Are you saying that the people that have more than $1M income in a calendar year some how had other opportunities? Are you suggesting that unless you start out 'poor' that you have an unequal opportunity? What about those who started poor that are recieving that high level income were somehow given unfair opportunities? Are you saying that everyone that recieves over $1M had unfair opportuinties and didn't work hard or smart or didn;t sacrifice to deliver services or create businesses or didn't do something that others were willing to pay for?
If any of those who are recieving this level of income started with nothing and legally earned what they are recieving, then your claim about 'equal opportunity' is at best wrong and quite possibly nothing more that an excuse to get more money to be wasted by the government.
Rather than simply going after more money it would do more for all of us if the effort was to see how our money is spent and only continue to support those that are most effective and to try new programs with a chance to be ever more effective.
We always like the Horatio Alger stories about those who "pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps" but this is a giant mythology originally created by the French Romantics: Hugo, Dumas, et al. Think The Count of Monte Cristo, e.g.
I'm not saying categorically that wealthy people didn't or don't work hard. Find that anywhere in the article. Butif you are asking me my opinion I'd say it has nothing to do with working hard. (as i pointed out.) Inherited wealth isn't the result of hard work. Wouldn't you agree? GWBush worked extremely hard, the guy was an incredible people-person, motivator, and worked tirelessly to get out the vote for dad, and later, for himself. But if you are going to tell me that he worked hard for his money...
Furthermore, I'm not concerned with anecdotes and those wonderful anomalies of rags-to-riches. Poor people make money all the time in every society That doesn't prove that everyone has the same equal opportunities. Why don't we hold up Frederick Douglas, WEB DuBois, Soourner Truth, and Booker T Washington and say see, here's my evidence that slavery doesn't necessarily mean you don't have opportunities.
Wealth begets wealth; but this does not mean that there won't be the nouveau riche. But if you take a look at the Koch brothers, or the Walton family, you can see how much inherited fortunes are worth. Read the witings of sociologist C. Wright Mills who analyzed the top 400 families in America and you can see startling (for you) trends and directions of wealth.
You have a false sense of merit. This is something I can't understand: a free market (although there is no such thing) will value certain positions as more important due to their merit and pay them accordingly. Thus, hedge fund managers are highly useful and valuable to a society, right? Your foundations of seeing the world don't hold up to evidence. People that continue to believe this and push the party line are more beholden to an illusory idea (that hard work pays off, that merit is recognized, that you are ultimately paid what you are worth, etc., etc.) and will not even listen or analyze the empirical evidence that questions their view. They'll only combat it with wonderful anecdotes about the rags-to-riches andrew carnegie or somebody else.
You are absolutely right that we shouldn't "simply go after the money" but should ALSO continue to be more effective with our expenditures. The problem is, R's and I disagree where that glut is: R's believe it is "an entitlement society" and I think its a glut of corporate subsidies, corporate tax breaks, defense (they mean War) spending, multiple wars, and so forth.
I surely believe in the elimination of "tax breaks" corporate or personal for that is a sure distorion of the 'free market'. I also believe that what people get 'free', they have not sacrifice for, they will at best under value and most likely waste it.
I am also tired by those who claim they only want to 'tax the rich' because it is 'fair', when in reality they only want more money and think it is easier to get it from the rich by trying to create animosity of them in the poorer (voters).
You can say the Waltons have not earned their money, but I offer that their father earned it (giving people what they wanted) and he should have the right to choose how it is spent. I would also offer that his children sacrificed while he was building the business, and if they are so undeserving, then what have the politicians, the governemnt employees, and those who may recieve government moneys done to deserve it?
If the money is earned legally, then why should the governemnt confiscated simply because that person has died? I noticed you excluded Bill Gates in your examples or Warren Buffet, who can be richer than them and yet they seemed to have reach that wealthy classes. Since Gates accumulated his wealth while his parents were still alive he must have done something other than inherited it. You may not like the Kochs or the Waltons, but simply dislikeing them doesn;t seem an appropriate reason to take what was fairly earned. I notice you don't include some one like George Soros, I would say the method he acguired his money provided less value to the public than Walton or Koch, but simply because I don;t appreciate what he does with it doesn;t mean he should have it taken from him.
I would offer that the truly wealthy and so many of those who are near wealthy didn;t do it by sheer hard work becauase in today's world it is about hard and about smarter work, that means education. The rags to riches can still happen, but they must go though school and learn.
As fro the hedge fund managers, since they are being paid by the people would are RISKing their moneys with them, then what they get paid is not my business. How my neighbor spends his money on cigarettes and alcohol is not my business.
I start by asking how will a program perfromance, what it is desinged to change, is measured before I ask about the money it will take. Because if there is no measures of perfromance then they is little likelihood that the purpose will be met.
I am also tired by those who claim they only want to 'tax the rich' because it is 'fair', when in reality they only want more money and think it is easier to get it from the rich by trying to create animosity of them in the poorer (voters).
Very well put.
With a little encouragement, it opens up the discussion.
I wonder why those that are so quick to want the 'wealthiest' money they are never interested in asking how the 'wealthy' got that money, how they kept the money, and what they do with the money.
I believe the answer to each of those questions cold help others to acquire more money, keep more money, and do more with their money.
It is too bad that some one like François Marie has never read the book the "Millionaire Next Door". It is not that any of us will become millionaire, but it give good examples how everyday people can acquire the money and can keep so much more of it.
First comment you said: tax wealthy is fair( to some). I say tax the money. the wealthy have the money, therefore they ought to be taxed. In other wrods let those who can afford to do it.
Your second comment you asked why "those are quick" I do wonder where people get their money. And i'm not concerned with te frugal millionaires next door, because those aren't the ones getting taxed!!!! people who MAKE 1 million dollars EACH YEAR get taxed a little bit more. Don't you see the diffeernce betwee someone who is a millionaire in NET WORTH and somebody else who MAKES a million dollars EACH YEAR?!?!?!
WE all know how buffet thinks he should n'ot be paying less htan ihis secretary. ANd no, i don't htink any one (wo)man shoudl have that type of money. Have you ever heard of a checks and balances? Don't you think that those with tons of money can buy govt? Are you not scared of that? Are you not scared of don corleone who's "got all the politicians in his pocket but doesn't want to share"? The mafia lords in fromer soviet countries?
This is now less about "liberty" and "freedom" and more about "power."
You rely too much on free choice of everybody. Theire are exigent circumstances that create very differnt opportunites. YOu say "people who invest their money with hedge fund mangers" Who do you think those "people" are? They ARE the plutocracy. When you look at percentages and who makes money off capital gains, and dividends, and who gets on to boards of directors, it is not "[the] people". So while the rich run the country, of course, due solely to their merit and not their pockets, you and I and the real people are the ones who suffer.
I don't know the Ks or the W, but from their business practices they are very avaricious and eschew their civic responsibilities all the while creating more wealth and power for themselves.
I'm not sure, but werent' there laww suits against gates and microsoft? Anti trust, monopoly, etc.?
As to "earning", how about the govt created an economic environment where one CAN "earn" the money? ANd to make sure that OPPORTUNITY is available to all, not just a hereditary aristocracy.
Should we set prices for all things like this? Should a person who makes $100,000 pay $30/gal for gas, while someone who makes $20,000 pays $4/gal?
This is NOT taxation -- it is redistribution of income. It is STEALING from the ones who produce to give to the ones who do not.
“In other wrods let those who can afford to do it.” if they are paying for everything then why shouldn’t they have a bigger say in how it is spent? I say everyone should pay then everyone is paying, makes a sacrifice, and everyone has a say.
“I do wonder where people get their money.”, then ask. I am aware of one guy that in 20 years of working for couple of different employers he will earn over a half billion dollars in salary (no commission, not stock options. Do you wonder what he does for that money?
“buffet thinks he should n'ot be paying less htan ihis secretary.”, he is a hypocrite because he can pay as much as his secretary by simply not using all the tax loopholes. Have you ever asked yourself why he is giving away all his money to the Gates foundation and not the government that he feels all others should give more to?
“Don't you think that those with tons of money can buy govt?” I am not scare of those who have the money to buy it is the people who sell themselves that scare me.
“and more about "power."” The power exists and people have it, I am more worried about those who justify how they wheeled that power with ‘good intentions’ rather than with results.
“"people who invest their money with hedge fund mangers"” I say that because it is their money and as long as it is legal they can spend it to get the best value. I am surely no one to tell them if they are over paying, I don’t know, but it is their money. Are you worried that those investing in the hedge funds and paying so much are being taken advantage of?
“who makes money off capital gains, and dividends, and who gets on to boards of directors, it is not "[the] people".” Why shouldn’t they since they are the ones taking the risks with their money. Why should the people that don’t take the risk (don’t invest in a company) have any say on how that company does business (as long as it is within the law)?
“you and I and the real people are the ones who suffer.” How are we suffering?
“very avaricious and eschew their c ivic responsibilities all the while creating more wealth and power for themselves.” I suspect there are both rich and poor people that you have described, but I am not sure it applies to all the ‘wealthy’. As best I can tell the 2nd and 5th richest are giving it all away and on a drive to get their peers to give at least half of theirs away, I guess you have a higher standard than me.
“I'm not sure, but werent' there laww suits against gates and microsoft?” I believe it was another billionaire, Larry Ellison who own Oracle that brought the suit.
“not just a hereditary aristocracy.”as best I can tell so many of the billionaires today and other wealthy people, like the Gates, Jobs, Ellison, all did it with work and learning and were not from any aristocracy. If you define aristocracy as those who inherited their money, I would offer that a fool and their money is soon parted, just look at those who gave their money to Madoff.
Just because someone is wealthy doesn’t mean they got special treatment, had special opportunities, or that those who aren’t wealthy didn’t have similar opportunities. I might be that each person made a choice on what they were willing to sacrifice, what they had as their purpose, and what they had to offer others. Financial success nor is personal success simply due to hope.
You realize you have given on so many both a new tool for getting more money to spend and a reason to grow governement. They would need probably half again as many goiovernemnt employees to develop, maintain, and expand the pricing you describe, and then they would have to hire thousands to enforce it.
You could be an innovative force for those controlling two branches of government. A new hero to them.
Is that a fair assumption?
To whom do the trees belong? The air? The water? The minerals? The myriad other natural resources? You may think it all fine and dandy if someone "owns" the trees and owns the river and owns the coal and the oil, and whatever else--the means of production, etc. I don't. Property rights is a rigged game. Why? Because of its parthenogenesis: the kings and monarchs had it first, then it was slowly gained by the nobility. Then it has been gained by a larger class, the upper class, (the majority of middle class don't actually OWN their property). I don't lend too much credence in so-called property rights, until the opportunity to have property rights can actually be enjoyed by ALL.
Yes if the law gives right to the land and what they do with that land such as plant tree, did a lake, and even the air about it (someone owning next to them cannot build so that the structure is over the land the own or the tree limbs that cross over their property lines) their property is prevent or they are given control of it.
I believe in property rights because that is a major contibutor to the development of this conuntry and even a reason why so many countries have become more affluent. When people have control of what they gain from their efforts they are motivated to invest more to improve their lives.
Do you think I should be able to decide on how you should spend the moneys that are yours? If not then you believe in property rights. If you do feel I or the government should make the desicions that you don;t believe in capitalism and do feel the individuals are smart enough to make the decision about their life.
I am not talking at all about my neighbor who wants to build a fence or take down a tree!!!!!
You start with the assumption that property rights are fair and opportunities for ALL. From their your argument is logical. I am questioning the assumption. I am arguing that it isn't fair, it isn't equitable, it isn't ethical, it isn't available to all in the same way.
To whom does the moon belong? America? Because we planted a flag? Its a celestial body. IT belongs to NO ONE. But mark my words, we know the war for space continues to this day. Who "owns" space? This is absurd thinking! It is a common good, a public good, a shared good. Together we need to do what is best for ALL people, not serve and protect the interests of the powerful who happened to have planted their flag on it! That's what I'm getting at. I'm not talking about your car, and your house, and your computer, and your "property" (or mine). I'm talking about Property that really matters.
"I'm not talking about po-dunk people like you and me!" I am not sure what yuo mean by 'po-dunk" is where we live or is it we aren;t as smart?
Here in Michigan we have some fairly big companies, Kellogg in Battle Creek, Gerber in Fremont, Dow Chemical in Midland, are you talking about the people in these 'po-dunk' place?
I never say anything is 'fair', I never expect 'fair'. I am about consistent so people cna have an idea of what to expect and about opportunity.
Property rights offers consistency, people have an idea of what they can reasonably expect if they spend their moneys on property. When people can have infleunce on how what they invest in will be in their control in the future. It is back to my questions; "Do you think I should be able to decide on how you should spend the moneys that are yours?"
As for who owns the moon, it doesn;t matter until we want space to do something for us (like provide us with minerals or a place to live) and we want people to invest their money in developing it.
I am not smart enough to "we need to do what is best for ALL people," and I have not heard of anyone on this earth that is smart enough to know what is best (quality of live, personal asperations, etc.) for all the people. In truth with all you good intentions I am no confident you know what is best for me let alone all the people. For me how owneshhip of my car, my house, really matter, and if other people's/entities are treated any different then I worry that I could soon be treated in that manner.
Here in Michigan a local city (Romulus) took private property and terned over to GM for development because the city leaders said it would be best for the city. Con you guess how mcuh development has been done by GM and benefit the city in the last few years since they got the property. Do recall what happened in Conneticutt where they took peoples lifelong homes to give to a company for the betterment of all, the land was taken, the homes torn down, but the compnay never got the land. YOu may believe in some handful of people should have the power to decide what is for the betterment of all, I don't.
When I sacrificed my time, effort, and abilities to purchase something then I believe I should have control of it, even if I am a 'po-dunk' person living in 'po-dunk' Michigan.
Your example of romulus supports my contention! They gave it to GM, a PRIVATE corporation. And then they are going to ensure that you and I and every podunk can't mess with vested interest. That's exactly my point.
You are concerned with Private property only AFTER the fact. I concerned with the myriad ways of OBTAINING property which then becomes "private".
I hear your concern about, if it happens to them, it can happen to me. But I see that it is ALREADY happening and you are SUPPORTING it by fighting so hard to keep in place the property rights concept we currently have in place. Look at foreclosures. I know you know very well, being in michigan what that has done. You know very well that the BIG corporations are benefitting while the podunks (and that's the last time Ill use that word) are losng their homes, have no jobs, and are looking forward to what?
I agree with not having some elite telling us what is good for us. But I see this happening already: neo libs, plutocracy, the very wealthy. I know your property is important to you. that's really not what i'm arguing about. You have conflated two issues because they both pertain to property. I'm creating a division between the super wealthy (the very very very few) and the rest of us. Where the line is drawn, I don't precisely know. That will always be contested. But surely, a line already exists. Class exists in america.
I want laws that benefit all (or the majority), instead, we have laws that support the few. That's what i'm arguing about, that's the point i'm trying to raise.
Think how you run your household: you don't let your children starve becuase they don't work! You don't let your kids go without healthcare because they can't afford it! You don't let your kids go uneducated because they're going to be the world's next ditch diggers. FOr all these peple that like to equate the fed govt to a house hold, why don't they be a little consistent and treat society as a family and not their enemies and competitors?
Government seems to work best when it develops the rules and ensures everyone uses the same rules rather than when the govenment starts manipulating the rules because of politicians good intentions or the food intentions of others.
It isn;t classes, wealth or poor, educated or illiterate, race or gender or lifestyle, that causes the system not to work, it is individuals of every class that think they are smarter and know what is best for the rest of us that manidpuate the system to achieve their view of things that creates much of the distrust of our government and politicians and each other.
I do see class in the sense of dividing people, I see people that are envious and unwilling to make the sacrifices to achieve what they envy that expect the 'system' to deliver their justice.
I have to admit I may have met one of two of the 'wealthy' and they seemed very capable people, I have met too many well intended politicians that want to right the injustice of their less than wealthy constitiunents, the later has been about create "class" based on wealth and then made special efforts to breakdown the class differences.
I won't ever be rich, and I like my life, my chidren could be rich but that doesn;t seem to be a goal of theirs, what I want is the opportunity to choose and the confidence at what level I do achieve that I will have the same oppotuunity under the law to choose and control what I have acquired.
We chose to sacrifice to learn enough so an employer wanted to hire me, we work smart enough so they want to keep me employed, we went without special luxuries and so did my kids so they were fed (they had a lot of Mac and Cheese), we made choices so we had meidical care, we emphasized education as my parents did (but the kids had to choose to learn), when we decide to have children we made it our purpose to prepare them to be adults and responsible. Now that they are adults, they choose what they will sacrifice and for what those sacrifice will be for. We do not tell them how to life, how to raise their children, it is their life they have the right to make their decisions even though they are not the ones I would choose.
As foe competition, it is good for it helps us select what is most effective.
If by them you mean the ultra wealthy, heck, they don't create jobs now.
If by them you mean small business owners and entrepreneurs, and god forbid, people with ideas that need funding, then, as I pointed out in the article, as a small business, etc., no they shouldn't be taxed more. On the other hand, if they happen to fall under the $1m + category, then they should pay the tax.
The fact is recognized that small businesses produce more jobs than large corporations. The fact is also recognized that the $250k tax bracket only encompassed 3% of small businesses which were actually very large businesses in that they accounted for about half of the revenue of small businesses (remember the fight about extensions and how this was pointed out by those populist Republicans?).
Ergo, taxing the very wealthy isn't going cause a downturn in job creation; I'd predict the opposite.
1) I see "3/4 of all businesses are non-employed firms... accounting for 3.4% of total receipts" in other words, not very lucrative.
2) Table 3 I added all the businesses that reached up to "999, thousand" for receipt size 2002, got 4,498,845 and divided by total (5,697,759) to get: ~79%. (Lets round up to 80%). Thus, 3/4 of ALL businesses are non-employed firms, then of the remaining 25% that employ, 80% (!!!) are under $1 million total RECEIPTS, and we've got a nice link that supports my "facts" and doesn't show that "the larger small businesses provide most of the jobs." In point of fact, the larger small businesses provide most of the RECEIPTS. Read here, here, and here.
"Most nonemployers are self-employed individuals operating very small unincorporated businesses, which may or may not be the owner's principal source of income. These firms are excluded from most other business statistics"
http://www.census.gov/econ/nonemployer/index.html
Many people are employed as independent contractors so the "employer" doesn't have to be responsible for benefits, worker's comp, unemployment, social security, medicare, etc...
1) Receipts are "net of taxes".
2) The 80% of businesses you identified produced 15.6% of the jobs (17,539,937 out of 112,400,654). That leaves the remaining 20% of businesses providing 84.4% of the jobs!
2nd comment. your math is WAY out of whack. my table was referring to RECEITPS, nothing to do with employmetn.
Refer to table 2a: firms with less than 500 employees total 58m + the ~20m unemployeRs = 78m, compared w/ 56m for businesses over 500 employees.
Regardless, I'll be more specific. job creation not job employers. And that's the fact that both Rs and Dems use to support small businesses. Job creation, not job employers. Take a look at table 2a and 2b. 500+ employers accounted for 443,110 jobs created! Cf. to total 2674270 OR a whopping 16.6% job creation! Wow. But then, add in the extra and unaccounted for nonemployeR jobs of 1,877,679, and I suppose ne could argue the percentage of job creation for firms larger than 500 employees ould be 443,110/4551949 = 9.7%.
I looked back at my comments and see i was specific: "The fact is recognized that small businesses produce more jobs than large corporations."
Mike, you give me a lot of cool info that I enjoy reading, but c'mon. You were trying to twist what I said to something that supports your view. Idon't argue that large businesses EMPLOY lots of people, I just posited as a fact, the fact that small businesses "produce" more jobs, or "create" more jobs. WHich in fact, according to these two years (2002 and 2004) shows is a fact.
I posted somewhere already. If we took ALL THE MONEY, not just a percentage of ALL billionaires in this country it would not help us much at all. It also wouldn't help much if we took ALL THE MONEY from all the millionaires. You know why? Because stupid politicians would see a new windfall and they'd spend twice what came in.
Spending cuts have to happen. Reducing the federal government has to happen. Nothing else will work.
Socialism... Capitalism...
What is capitalism Marilyn? Have we ever practiced it in America?
Consider how to set the price of bread. You must pay for the bread, which means paying for the grain and other parts of making bread.
What is the price of grain? The cost of the growing and harvesting of it.
What is the price of growing grain? The cost of the farmer, his labors and seed, etc.
What to pay the farmer? Enough so he can live and eat.
He eats bread. How much do we charge for bread?
It is a CIRCULAR REFERENCE. It cannot be resolved, nor arbitrarily set.
Irrespective, I'm not against capitlasim and freee markets (just with lots of qualifications!)
That solution being, "A Flat Tax" no loop holes, no one gets by, rich or poor doesn't matter, you pay according to what your base income is per year. The only exceptions being, the number of dependents you may claim, otherwise there is no other deductions, excuses, loop holes and no more looking for ways to lower your IRS responsibility.
This is not something that most people, rich or not so well off, are even willing to consider, much less support. Why, because throughout our lives, we have been programed to find the best tax preparer, best tax attorney, best tax consultant, any kind of tax expert who knows all the secret loop holes and unthought of deductions to lower our taxable burden/responsibility. Which in turn gives us the personal feeling of, "ahh ha, whoopie, hey hey", once again, I've put one over on the government.
The second reason no one wants the country to adopt such a sensible form of taxing the American citizens, is because such a system would mean putting tens of thousands of those same aforementioned tax preparers, attorneys and consultants, and their respective office staff out of a job. Which is not a desirable answer to the problem.
Even though I concur with Congressman Paul, I still believe that there is another tax problem in our country which would be far more financially lucretive to our treasury than just introducing a flat taxing system for the American citizen.
That being, Both the federal, states, county and city governments have for years been allowing corporations to deduct everything conceivable in order to avoid paying taxes. It has gotten to the point where the federal government now owes an oil company 19 billion in tax refunds, taxe monies which were never paid to the IRS to begin with. What the hell kind of taxation is that !!! The IRS will tax a citizen, charge interest and add penalties when the citizen can not pay his/her taxes on time. The IRS will garnish a citizens wages without concern as to how such garnishment will negitively effect the outcome of that person being able to support his/her family, in order to get what the government determines is owed to them.The federal government even allows corporation to relocate in foreign countries and export their manufactured goods back to the USA with little to no assessable import taxes for doing so.
State, county and city governments are constantly in bidding wars with other such entities for corporations to relocate their businesses to their location. The tax incentives being offered to such corporations have gotten to the point of offering no business taxation whatsoever for 5, 10, even up to 20 years if the corporation relocates. Some governments are even buying the land needed for the corporation to relocate and charging the corporation one dollar ($1.00) per year in property taxing and leasing fees, while at the same time, raising citizens personal property taxes in order to reclaim the government loses in tax breaks and incentives to the corporations. This is pure madness !!!
Such inequitable taxation only serves to make the rich, richer and the poor, poorer and it must be changed for the good and welfare of this country and it's citizens.
But you think this wouldnt' happen with the flat tax either?!?!?!
Once again, those with money could figure out the ways to have no income tax liability.
Flat tax with no loopholes will never work because then the rich really will have to pay their fair share.
The flat tax on consupmtion is ridiculous becuase the percentage of income that poor people pay toward consumption is 100%, that of the rich is, i don't know,... less. The flat tax would be like the sales tax. Very regressive.
That's why the "fair" tax has a prebate which untaxes everyone of the basic necessities.
The words "fair" and "tax" cannot be used together because "fair" is purely subjective.
Rule #1. Life is not fair.
Now lets make the distinction. Capitalism is an economic theory, Communism is a form of government.
The 2 dont go hand in hand.
China has the fastest growing economy and it produces more millionares than the US, England and France combined.
They dont have workers rights. They dont tolerate disent.
Anyway, how do you separate two inextricably linked facets of society: economy and government?! Govt is NOT economy, but it DOES enforce it. System of economy REQUIRES govt consent.
Now, I'm trying to decipher your point, L. You say China is the "closeslt to true capitalisst society", then you give some of your evidence: 1) "fastest frowing economy" and 2) "produces more millionaires". What these two pieces of evidence have to do with what type of economic sysem one has is beyond me. UNLESS you are being tautological and implying that fast growing economies and millionaire production are de facto signs of capitalism, in which case your argument just fell apart.
Then you add 3) "no workers' rights" and 4) "no toleration of dissent". These are two outgrowths of govt policy that actually have much to do with our free market capitalistic system: no workers rights: isn't that what republicans are attacking now? They seem to believe that you are free to choose to either take a job or not, and that competition will somehow raise wages, increase benefits, and bring back long-dead pensions!!!
As far as dissent, well, the dissenters are in the minority, because the majority of Repubs are neo liberal free market ideologues along with about half the idiot democrats, so dissenting from this system is practically stifled by virture of the small amount of people who see through the lies.
They are WORTH a lot of money, yes. That money is largely held in the form of stocks, bonds and other assets.
A heavy tax burden on these people would mean choking off money for investments in corporate stocks and bonds, limiting the ability of companies to grow and expand -- thus limiting the number of jobs that could be created.
Moreover, it would mean many of them would no longer invest in municipal bonds, state bonds, etc. Drying up the revenues for expansions of schools and other public expenditures.
You are right Y. We need rich people. They're what make the world go round. Why if it weren't for rich people all our economic opportunities as well as our schools, and jobs would all be "drying up."
In doing so, he angered the Church, the Boyars (nobility) and many others. He moved the Capital from Moskva to St. Petersberg, which was briefly named Petrograd (to sound less German during WWI) and until 1991 was Leningrad.
Lenin was the criminal who was responsible for the death of many in the name of "The People" and the man who paved the way for the real murderer -- Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili (Stalin).
My father told me much of Stalin, but the opened archives after the fall of the USSR have told much more, like his plan for a nuclear war in November of 1953 (he died in March, saving us from that one). At the time, the USA did not have an H-Bomb, but the USSR did.
Why should you wish to take what someone has earned to give it to those who have not earned it?
Power and wealth in the hands of the few is dangerous to the peons. Under all those people, many suffered.
It doesn't matter what system you have. The systems aren't even demarcated as everyone suggests when they drop words like capitalism and socialism etc. THey are not isolated purities.
You talk so much about "earning". Do you really think people on the ground floor of Microsoft in the early 80s "earned" their millions? DO you think that, what's that bald, fat, you're fired guy's name, trump, do you think he's a good business man? Who makes millions and loses millions? How many times has he been bankrupt; what does he actually produce? GW BUsh, aside from running various companies into the ground, he also decided to run our country into the ground. It didn't hurt his cronies, they got rich. How do you justify this idea that if you have money ergo you "earned" it?!
That's identical to saying, "of course the Jews, gypsies, homos, poles were guilty... if they weren't, then why were they in concentration camps?" You evidence is tautological and erroneously prima facie.
The Roman Church and the Orthodox Church were far wealthier than most, the Pope was far wealthier than most monarchs. (He was the one telling everyone how they should give up their worldly goods, no?)
Russia was nothing like Europe. People were rich or poor. No middle class at all.
Lenin made everyone poor, except the Party elites, but he was not in it for the money -- he wanted power.
Stalin was less into the wealth than Khrushchev or Brezhnev. Brezhnev was much more concerned with material wealth, especially automobiles, his country dacha, his expensive suits and so on.
But how do you think the people at Microsoft got their millions? Did they steal it?
No, they thought through a PLAN to create a computer operating system that would work on a standard platform. THAT is what made them popular. It is much like VHS and Beta -- Beta was technically superior, VHS had a better market plan.
But both were not the result of theft or magic -- they were the result of WORK.
With most start-ups, the creators are betting most of what they have on their companies. MOST FAIL. The deck is stacked against them, so when they make it and become big, they earned it.
BTW: Of the two, which do you think provides more if his wealth to charity (by choice), Gates or Jobs. It is an easy question.
He authorized the murder of people including the Tsar and his family, without even a show trial.
Do not tell me Lenin was no criminal!
Remain a raspizdyai.
Since Hitler was never tried for his crimes, I suppose you think he was not a criminal either.
I got lucky with a product. I should reap all the money (because that's the reward, right?).
You pointed out, Y., that most "FAIL". Did they not work hard? Did they not earn something? Or did they just earn poverty?
production should be for the BENEFIT of society. Notfor some reward that few receive to the detriment of others. And you miss the point of microsoft millionaires anyway. Lots of people got stock options and who knows what they actually contributed to the success of microsoft.
You know what the problem with the us auto industry is? labor unions of course.
You know what the problem with AT&T was? Lack of competition of course.
No. Thereal problem with at&t and auto i. was greedy employer pigs who rested on legacy. auto i. didn't innovate because their product sold. Then japan offered things in the 80s that packard wanted to offer in the 50s. Oh well. why change if you are making big bucks.
at&t DID innovate, but they had a monopoly (and their "experts" testified before congress all the time to tell he govt how much at&t should receive for universal service and other subsidies.) not to mention the R&D dept. They had lucent 5e technology back in the 60s. Why didn't they use it? Why change if you';re making the big bucks==legacy. they already had switches that worked and were paying off handsomely.
It has seldom anything to do with "earning" Y. Power accujmulates usually around wealth. And wealth then, in the bourgeois dream, begets more wealth without producing anything. These companies were/are making enormous profits which uts into their necessity to innovate and adapt (adapt to what, nothing is forcing them to?). Unlike conventiaonl economic theory, the CONSUMER does not benefit from efficiencies, the employers do.
It is a matter of several things you do not understand. It isn't just luck. It is the matter of being willing to work on a vision of things.
If someone has a vision of a product and brings it to the market at the tight time and makes money with it, they generally spent a great deal of time and effort on it. They didn't generally spend half an hour at it and then make millions.
Even when they inherited wealth, that wealth was ALREADY taxed. It was the lawful property of the person who gave it away. The government has already taken its share, why are they entitled to more.
Money and property belong to those who have earned them. They DO NOT belong to a government that says "you may have some scraps of what you have worked for."
Actually, the old pre-1980 ATT had an entirely different problem by the way. They had set out to be a telephone on every desk in America. They did it and then wanted to move into other markets. That is why they had to move on.
You have a view that all companies are run by heartless people. I think you have gotten this from watching how corporate figures are portrayed on TV and motion pictures. Real people are more complex.
François Marie Apr 1, 2011, 1:29pm EDT
I got lucky with a product. I should reap all the money (because that's the reward, right?).
Luck may play a role, but most of it is work.
But let us take luck. If you play the State Lottery and win $300 Million -- you should be happy if the State taxes 99% of that and you get $3 Milliion, right?
But if you invest $3 Million and years of work, the State should STILL be able to tax you the same way, is that what you believe?
Japan just lowered its corporate taxes, make the US the worst place now to do business, tax wise. Aren't we proud?
US Corporate tax rate: 46.8%, including a 27.6% profit tax, 10% labor tax and 9.2% in other taxes. America's tax reforms have made it harder for businesses to pay taxes.
Then you add state and local taxes to that and how can you wonder why our companies are fleeing the country? We're #62 of 62. Canada is #10. Ireland is #7 and that's why lots of companies are going there now.
Which states are the worst to do business in?
North Carolina is 10th worst, then Rhode Island, Minnesota, Maryland.
Iowa is 6th worst, then Ohio, Connecticut, New Jersey. California is 2nd worst with New York being worst of all. This information is available at businessinsider.com and at http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/bp60.pdf.
What's interesting (and rather stupid) is that rather than changing tax codes to be more business friendly, both in the percentages and in the difficult of filing and the amount of time required to do so, the communities will offer tax incentives to certain businesses to lure them to the area. North Carolina, for instance, although the worst climate for business was able to lure Dell. And when those incentives expire or when another state offers a better one, off they go. That has happened with Illinios' high taxes and Wisconsin's new business tax incentives; Illinois is becoming the loser and Wisconsin the winner as businesses move.
Supposedly there are 84 corporations - big ones - paying no taxes this year in spite of having profits. Most of them earned the majority of their income overseas and should not have to pay taxes here on money earned in other countries, since they'll be paying taxes in those countries. The others were given incentives by our own federal government, either specifically to them or in the tax codes for everyone. That's the way it is.
It's no different than our personal taxes. Is if fair that such a large part of our population pays zero taxes and that some actually get "refunds" of money they never paid in? That's the way the tax code is written. Is it fair that people who are buying homes get to deduct mortgage interest? Is it fair that people who donate to charities get to deduct that? That's the way the tax codes are written. Rather than getting angry at the tax filers, people need to get angry at the tax law makers.
With enough money a company can hire smarter accountants/tax attorneys so business taxes are so bad.
Are you going to answer the question, though? When? Describe it. Was it when we were "freely" competing for land? When we were "freely" using chattel slavery? When we were "freely" hiding behind protectionism and high import tariffs?
There's a reason it's called the American Dream--because you have to be asleep to see it. George Carlin.
As to your non-peer reviewed, Tax Foundation's own economist's reports, see how the Tax Foundation's State and Local Tax Rankings are Unreliable
and again, Tax Foundation Figures Do Not Represent Typical Households’ Tax Burdens
You point out something very perspicacious, and then just blow it with your ideological conclusion: "That's the way the tax codes are written. Rather than getting angry at the tax filers, people need to get angry at the tax law makers." Unfortunately, the tax filers (with cardres of accountants and hundreds of millions of $$$ spent on lobbying) help write the tax codes. Do you think the middle class lobbies and writes the tax codes? Do you think big business writes the tax code? Read the articles linked to my "GE pays no taxes" article and see how GE helped write tax codes, as well as lobbied heavily and "worked behind the scenes" to alter tax policy. They aren't the only corporation that does it. Neither are congress people who may be beholden to a major business in their area going to back down from arguing for favorable tax breaks to their business.
If you really think businesses go over seas because of taxes, think again. Tax shelters work just fine. Incorporating in DE or NV work fine. Having subsidiaries and funneling money that way do fine. Lobbying extremely hard for NAFTA CAFTA and every other AFTA they can works fine. Lobbying for those tax incentives (you know, because corporations are people too, and they have the right to have their voices be heard) so they can leave the country works fine too.
I belive there are several reasons a business goes overseas, and just one is taxes. There is also the work force (culture to work), necessary knowldge and skills to do the work effectively, the immediate and lon-term costs of labor, there is the regualtory environment, there is the proximity to the raw materials, the end user, the necessary transportation, there is the desire to develop future markets, etc.
Remember businesses can ask, just as labor can ask, it is the decisions the elected and government officials make that tells whether the businesses or labor gets what they asked for (not necessarily what they expect).
As to where the businesses locate also has to do with how much the people want them their.
A simply example, with all the interest in wind energy and the asociated jobs in west Michigan many locals are doing everything thing they can to prevent them being built here (land or water).
I Am The American Dream
I also like this definition of an American:
J. Hector St. John de Crévecoeur, a French immigrant who became a New York farmer said, "What then is the American, this new man? . . . He is an American, who leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds . . . The American is a new man, who acts upon new principles; he must therefore entertain new ideas, and form new opinions. From involuntary idleness, servile dependence, penury, and useless labour, he has passed to toils of a very different nature, rewarded by ample subsistence.--This is an American. (from essays, 1782--Letters From An American Farmer) From: The American Ideal of 1776
Personally, I would put alot more trust in charts and statistics than in a George Carlin quote, although I like the man and his humor, further, I miss both. I spent 5 days with him on a location job and found him to be quite friendly as well as easy to talk to.
Well, I had to attribute it to somebody. But it is an interesting take on why it is called "the American Dream", and one which , I thikn, holds enormous truth.
You are hostile towards unions and union members, politicians, Pres. Obama, Hillary Clinton,
You are totally against all abortions, abortion clinics and abortionist
You are down on America in it's current state of affairs, all Democrats, all Liberals, social or otherwise as well as the IRS tax system and you believe that taxes corrupt society
You believe that Democrats in general are socialist liberals and Democratic politicians are insidious, corrupt, lying, degenerate, drunks and druggies
You also believe that Liberal Socialism is the reason for what you consider to be the inevitable decline and degeneration of the American society and further, that America is quilty of exporting such degeneration around the world
You also believe that such politicians will get what they have coming to them in the 2012 general elections for being useless sucking leeches of the working mans pay check
You further believe that more Americans are employed in the public sector than in the private sector
Now if I have understood your feelings and beliefs correctly, then man, it is clear that you are one unhappy camper.
You are entitled to your opinions, but maybe you should consider refraining from using such inflamitory, demeaning and derogatory language in discribing those who millions of Americans chose to lead America. We are all proud Americans and should act appropriately when referring to or speaking of, one-another.
I would point out that Hillary Clinton is the U.S. Secretary of State and therefore has nothing to do with any preceived "entropy" within America, since her duties as Madam Secretary, pretains expressly and only, to foreign matters of state and nothing relating to matters here at home.
Further, Pres. Barack Obama is the rightfully and legally elected President The United States and it's considered to be highly un-American to speak of and refer to our president in such derogatory terms.
I would also like to point out to you, that there is no such thing or person as a "Union bagger thug" since union members are hard working guys just like you and me. Men and women who are only trying to support their families and to afford them a good middle class lifestyle.
I would also point out that both Republican, Democrats and Independants are politicians who have different ideology in politics, not "insidious" as you have labeled them to be. Neither do I believe that politicians are "pimps and corrupt politicians" which you accuse them of being. To me, they are the authors writers and proposers of national governmental law and policy for all of Americans.
And last, but certainly not least, The President of the United States, Mr. Barack H. Obama is without a doubt no "nincompoop" he is a well educated man who holds a doctorate in Constitutional Law and has served as a Constitutional Law Professor, as such, there is no way he can be viewed as being anything as demeaning as you named him to be.
Our politicians may not be perfect and in fact, none of them even close to achieving that status. However, they deserve our support and admiration for doing their best to keep America the best place to live anywhere in this world.