Taxes on the Rich !~

[Shryke]

The "people dying in the streets" argument is just a distraction, and has no validity. We have shelters, social services, and yes even welfare to help these people out.

I didn't even bring it up. Someone else brought it up and Swordfish called it hyperbole.

I was just pointing out that, no, it's not hyperbole to say that the more you take out the social safety net, the more people you will see falling through it straight to the bottom.

And yes, guaranteeing a minimum standard of living is EXACTLY what the social safety net does. It says "No matter how poor/lazy/stupid/whatever you are, we will give you money so you can at least not die in the gutter". If you don't guarantee a minimum standard of living, people will fall below it.

Can you show me stats on this?

I gotta run out in a sec, but I'll dig them up later.

They aren't as easy to find as you might think.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

What reason is there to believe we're going to bother so very much more in the private sector?

Statistically, fiscal and social conservatives outgive their liberal counterparts by leaps and bounds when it comes to private charities. Most of us can say it because our money is where our mouth is. How about the progressives? Do you all send extra money to the government to ensure that social programs are covered? No? You pay the bare minimum that is asked of you?

Such compassion rings hollow from those who are desperate for others to pay more, but won't commit themselves. So perhaps you won't look after the poor in the absence of government. We will.

[Artas]

Chataya,

No, it's not a language issue - it's simply me mixing things up. Reading back that last post, I see that I jumped from "minimum standard of living" to "minimum wage", which is not what you were talking about. Ugh... I'm probably trying to do too many things at once... My apologies for putting words in your mouth and confusing the discussion.

That said, I still maintain my original point that a minimum standard of living *should* be guaranteed. Provided, of course, people aren't able to take care of themselves. Nobody is arguing that a healthy person with a college education should get welfare by the government because he happens to feel he's entitled to a huge mansion and two cars. I'm thinking more in the line of the homeless, as I said before.

Swordfish,

I'd love to hear your arguments against minimum wages, if you're indeed against them.

As far as the alleged hyperbole is concerned, let me put it this way: if no minimum level of existence is guaranteed, how does it *not* logically follow that some people would starve to death? What's to prevent that from happening - charity? Or do you think everybody should be able to get a job?

[Shryke]

Statistically, fiscal and social conservatives outgive their liberal counterparts by leaps and bounds when it comes to private charities. Most of us can say it because our money is where our mouth is. How about the progressives? Do you all send extra money to the government to ensure that social programs are covered? No? You pay the bare minimum that is asked of you?

Such compassion rings hollow from those who are desperate for others to pay more, but won't commit themselves. So perhaps you won't look after the poor in the absence of government. We will.

Generally we'd like to set up a system to deal with the problem rather then relying on charity, which doesn't always cover all areas/peoples/etc and can often come with strings attached.

[Stego]

A minimum standard of living had better be guaranteed.

If it's not, what happens when the rules change? What happens when it's not a weak paper currency that's not backed by gold? We're a Yosemite disaster away from a halfway return to the dark ages. Do you really want to live among folks who do not have a fully ingrained sense of the personal rights of any and all human beings?

Heh, you see it today if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

We treat the perpetually poor like animals and then we gasp when they act like animals. Best believe they could act like animals all over you, given half the chance.

[Shryke]

Just a quick thing I found while looking for data before I run out:

the average size of newly built houses has continued to rise from just over 1,600 square feet in the late 1970s to nearly 2,300 now.

So while Chats can quote stuff from the 50s about "doubling house size", the data I'm talking about goes back to the 70s.

We've seen a 44% rise in house square-footage, a 1 small room rise in number of rooms per house and about a 75% rise in how much the average family pays for housing.

Sounds a bit off to me.

[Stego]

a 75% rise in how much the average family pays for housing.

It's a lot more than that in urban areas.

[Relic]

We treat the perpetually poor like animals and then we gasp when they act like animals. Best believe they could act like animals all over you, given half the chance.

But...but...guns. Guns!!

[Iskaral Pust]

Most do get it. But for those grousing that progressive rates are too unfair to the rich, they should consider that income disparity in this country has grown exponentially this decade. As progressive as our tax rates are, they have done nothing to stem the ability of the top 1% to run laps around the other 99% in terms of income. The ability of income to pereptuate itself at that level of wealth far exceeds anything the government could do to take it away from them. I have no sympathy for the sentiment that we're "squeezing the rich" in any way, shape or form.

Also, tangentially related to your second point, the rich get a deduction for all their private funding and charitable contributions so really even there, at their most altruistic, the government's still kicking in 35%.

But the only way to tackle that top 1% is taxing capital, not income. We have a wealth distribution with an incredible right tail: there is a small proportion of people who own a huge share of wealth. And we have hardly taxed them since Reagan. Our system is progressive right up to the point where you actually get wealthy: where dividends and interest on capital replaces income from labor.

Instead, our narrow social competitiveness makes it easier to foster tax wars and resentment between economic tranches that are close enough to be visible to each other: the middle class versus the upper middle class. In the background, the truly rich are so far out of sight that no-one even notices the taxes they aren't paying.

I think you and I agree a lot in this area, but the discussion is still harping on income tax.

We agree on the tax deductions.

[Jaime L]

Sure. Nevertheless, if the government had to fund the entire 100%, we'd be fucked. i am tempted to go into another tangent about how this type of more localized donation is significantly more effective than federal spending on local programs, but i fear the thread spiral that would result.....

Oh, I agree. A lot of the important safetynets built into our society wouldn't function without philanthropy. There's just no way to force people to do it. I'd argue the vast majority of the top 1% give something to some charity or foundation at the very least to prove to themselves they're good people, though I would imagine it varies widely in degree. I think the true test would be to see who was still giving and how much without the benefit of the tax deduction. I think it also serves as a major impetus for corporate giving as it provides both publicity and can function within a coherent tax planning strategy.

All this is another way of saying, if we had a higher marginal rate for the top 1% there'd be even more giving as a result of an even greater deduction.

[Jaime L]

But the only way to tackle that top 1% is taxing capital, not income. We have a wealth distribution with an incredible right tail: there is a small proportion of people who own a huge share of wealth. And we have hardly taxed them since Reagan. Our system is progressive right up to the point where you actually get wealthy: where dividends and interest on capital replaces income from labor.

Instead, our narrow social competitiveness makes it easier to foster tax wars and resentment between economic tranches that are close enough to be visible to each other: the middle class versus the upper middle class. In the background, the truly rich are so far out of sight that no-one even notices the taxes they aren't paying.

I think you and I agree a lot in this area, but the discussion is still harping on income tax.

Well said. And yes, we do agree. I've seen enough of super high net worth returns to know that they completely control when they have income and when it does come it comes almost exclusively in the form of long term capital gains when they break off a piece of that capital. They get taxed at the same rate on this type of income as people who make $30,000 or less. It's perverse.

I think your focus is completely correct in that we need to keep our eyes on the true anti-progressive loophole built into the tax system.

[Swordfish]

Well said. And yes, we do agree. I've seen enough of super high net worth returns to know that they completely control when they have income and when it does come it comes almost exclusively in the form of long term capital gains when they break off a piece of that capital. They get taxed at the same rate on this type of income as people who make $30,000 or less. It's perverse.

I think your focus is completely correct in that we need to keep our eyes on the true anti-progressive loophole built into the tax system.

On this we agree.

So again, I don't think that the 'we're squeezing the rich' argument generally comes into play when you are talking about taxing that top 1%.

Because most of the time, those are not the ones being squeezed anyway.

[Jaime L]

On this we agree.

So again, I don't think that the 'we're squeezing the rich' argument generally comes into play when you are talking about taxing that top 1%.

Because most of the time, those are not the ones being squeezed anyway.

Yeah. Can't believe there's not more focus on this. That 15% capital gains rate was the biggest gift anyone could've given the ultra rich and it happened relatively recently. 2003. As of 1997 the rate was 28%. Absurd.

[DanteGabriel]

But the only way to tackle that top 1% is taxing capital, not income. We have a wealth distribution with an incredible right tail: there is a small proportion of people who own a huge share of wealth. And we have hardly taxed them since Reagan. Our system is progressive right up to the point where you actually get wealthy: where dividends and interest on capital replaces income from labor.

Instead, our narrow social competitiveness makes it easier to foster tax wars and resentment between economic tranches that are close enough to be visible to each other: the middle class versus the upper middle class. In the background, the truly rich are so far out of sight that no-one even notices the taxes they aren't paying.

I think you and I agree a lot in this area, but the discussion is still harping on income tax.

We agree on the tax deductions.

I can agree with this. My quarrel is not with people making, say $300,000 a year. I'm all about squeezing the everloving fuck out of the capitalist class like our aforementioned Citibank executives whose income goes into eight figures even when they're riding their bank (and our economy) into the ground.

[Swordfish]

Yeah. Can't believe there's not more focus on this. That 15% capital gains rate was the biggest gift anyone could've given the ultra rich and it happened relatively recently. 2003. As of 1997 the rate was 28%. Absurd.

Yep.

[Iskaral Pust]

Yeah. Can't believe there's not more focus on this. That 15% capital gains rate was the biggest gift anyone could've given the ultra rich and it happened relatively recently. 2003. As of 1997 the rate was 28%. Absurd.

We* all knew the Bush tax cuts were a ridiculous giveaway to the super-wealthy. They even threw in "carried interest" as a capital gain for hedge funds and private equity.

*Unfortunately this is just the reasonably well informed "we" and apparently excludes those patriotic deficit hawks in the GOP and tea party movement.

My proposal would be that capital holdings above a certain level, say $1 million, would pay a tax of 1% each year, regardless of gains or investment income. Tax-exempt funds like 401(k), 529, IRA, etc would still be tax exempt. That's not dissimilar to what that capital pays in investment fees each year already (before anyone screams that it is too onerous).

[Insert Edit]

If you guys can agree...

nah, what I'm I saying? I must be drunk.

[potsherds]

I can agree with this. My quarrel is not with people making, say $300,000 a year. I'm all about squeezing the everloving fuck out of the capitalist class like our aforementioned Citibank executives whose income goes into eight figures even when they're riding their bank (and our economy) into the ground.

I agree as well with Jamie and Isk. Thanks for having the discussion you two. :)

[Shryke]

Yeah. Can't believe there's not more focus on this. That 15% capital gains rate was the biggest gift anyone could've given the ultra rich and it happened relatively recently. 2003. As of 1997 the rate was 28%. Absurd.

I just kinda always assume when one is talking about "Progressive Taxation" and "Taxing the Rich" or what have you, you are talking about Capital Gains as well as Income. (Unless stated otherwise)

It just doesn't make sense any other way.

[Jaime L]

It's weird to see most of the board reaching a consensus on something. Might have to close this thread while we're ahead.

I just kinda always assume when one is talking about "Progressive Taxation" and "Taxing the Rich" or what have you, you are talking about Capital Gains as well as Income. (Unless stated otherwise)

It just doesn't make sense any other way.

Yeah, except the vast majority of the focus that exists is purely on income tax. Even Obama's vaunted tax increase that everyone made so much about was purely on income, of those earning more than $250,000. What if he said he was reinstituting the 28% Capital Gains rate instead once the 15% tax holiday ran out? What kind of kind of visceral reaction would that create? Would the Teabaggers even notice?