World welcomes Obama win

[BigPapaVol]

I would say that taxes paid as a percent of your disposable income is in many ways a more fair metric of the actual burden you feel from taxes.

but disposable income is a very flexible measure. Taxes as % of earned income is the measure. Our progressive system clearly places the vast majority of the burden on the top 10% of earners. There's not a way to rationalize it without minimizing the time and effort of the high earners. Squishy measures would only serve to mask the obscene disparity in the system.

 

[BigPapaVol]

it isn't if the discussion we are having is a tax rate discussion...

it is, unless your starting the entire discussion from the standpoint that disproportionate taxation is somehow equitable.

 

[TennTradition]

but disposable income is a very flexible measure. Taxes as % of earned income is the measure. Our progressive system clearly places the vast majority of the burden on the top 10% of earners. There's not a way to rationalize it without minimizing the time and effort of the high earners. Squishy measures would only serve to mask the obscene disparity in the system.

I agree that disposable is not a solid quantity to measure and could be manipulated ... but if done fairly and objectively, I stand by my point that it is a more accurate measure of *burden*. You can't expect the bottom 5% to pay the same amount of taxes as the top 5%, they would have to borrow money just to pay their taxes (this is just an example, I know this isn't what is being argued for). When you have to pay a basic amount to feed your family and pay your rent/house payment (and to be fair - this needs to be a reasonable amount, not beyond your means)...then you only have so much more money to give.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I agree that disposable is not a solid quantity to measure and could be manipulated ... but if done fairly and objectively, I stand by my point that it is a more accurate measure of *burden*. You can't expect the bottom 5% to pay the same amount of taxes as the top 5%, they would have to borrow money just to pay their taxes (this is just an example, I know this isn't what is being argued for). When you have to pay a basic amount to feed your family and pay your rent/house payment (and to be fair - this needs to be a reasonable amount, not beyond your means)...then you only have so much more money to give.

I'm not advocating they pay the same in gross dollars, just the same as a % of earned income.

Disposable income based taxation implies that those who don't need their incomes should simply work to donate money to poorer people (not that they aren't already, but it would get worse).

 

[TennTradition]

I'm not advocating they pay the same in gross dollars, just the same as a % of earned income.

Disposable income based taxation implies that those who don't need their incomes should simply work to donate money to poorer people (not that they aren't already, but it would get worse).

But this argument only works if the government is willing to curb its spending - which our's has proven it is not willing to do, under a democratic or republican administration. As long as the total dollars being spent are sufficiently high, you can't tax at one constant amount and leave the lower income individuals with a sufficient amount to feed/clothe/shelter families.

 

[TennTradition]

....and if we had a constant % we would still probably hear people (stupidly) complaining....the top 15% of wage earners pay 50% of the taxes!!!

(Disclaimer: I'm not saying the top 5% pay 50% arguments are stupid...I don't see this as horrific as some here...but it is not stupid...unlike the above statement about 15% paying 50%).

 

[BigPapaVol]

I agree that disposable is not a solid quantity to measure and could be manipulated ... but if done fairly and objectively, I stand by my point that it is a more accurate measure of *burden*. You can't expect the bottom 5% to pay the same amount of taxes as the top 5%, they would have to borrow money just to pay their taxes (this is just an example, I know this isn't what is being argued for). When you have to pay a basic amount to feed your family and pay your rent/house payment (and to be fair - this needs to be a reasonable amount, not beyond your means)...then you only have so much more money to give.

burden means spending 12 hours per day at work and being paid for roughly 7 of them. If that's not burden, I don't know what is.

This burden and disposable income language reeks of total wealth redistribution. While we've sold it to our nation (because it's easy to get Paul to support a scheme whereby Peter is robbed to pay Paul), but it's no less socialist. It's become the norm, so people START the conversations as if it's just the way it should be. There is no way to even pretend that some language makes it fair. It's by it's very definition absolutely unfair.

 

[BigPapaVol]

But this argument only works if the government is willing to curb its spending - which our has proven it is not willing to do, under a democratic or republican administration. As long as the total dollars being spent are sufficiently high, you can't tax at one constant amount and leave the lower income individuals with a sufficient amount to feed/clothe/shelter families.

I just don't buy it. Leave enough investment money in the hands of our wealthy and tax receipts will go through the roof, even with a flat or consumption tax scheme.

I understand that you approach this with the premise that progressive taxations is the only solution, but it's not. It's simply what we're conditioned to.

 

[TennTradition]

I just don't buy it. Leave enough investment money in the hands of our wealthy and tax receipts will go through the roof, even with a flat or consumption tax scheme.

I understand that you approach this with the premise that progressive taxations is the only solution, but it's not. It's simply what we're conditioned to.

I will definitely give you the point that I approach the argument looking for progressive taxes. If you can generate equal revenue by a flat tax, then I have no problem with that. I do not feel the need to make high income earners work 12 hours to be paid for 7 while low income workers only work 8 hours to be paid for 7 unless it is necessary to meet the government's tab while allowing low-income earners to feed/clothe/shelter their families (and get to/from work, etc.). I am certainly not arguing for wealth redistribution, but I am probably pretty conditioned to believe that regressive taxes do hurt the low-income earners.

 

[BigPapaVol]

....and if we had a constant % we would still probably hear people (stupidly) complaining....the top 15% of wage earners pay 50% of the taxes!!!

(Disclaimer: I'm not saying the top 5% pay 50% arguments are stupid...I don't see this as horrific as some here...but it is not stupid...unlike the above statement about 15% paying 50%).

I think the complaints would drop significantly if we all shared equally in the burden. I don't think the wealthy's share of the gross dollars remitted would drop enormously, but the number of net users (as opposed to net providers) would diminish some. All of that burden would come off the wealthy.

Side effect: people clamoring for programs today and educational money and free crap would at least be the same people helping to pay the bill. Heck, some might even stop begging for our horrendously inefficient gov't to solve their problems.

 

[volsforever27]

I think what's missing here is a little common sense. The rich are always going to pay higher taxes, that's a given. There's is a huge difference between fair taxation and punishment... you can quote figures all day long, but that's just reality. If you tax the rich too highly, it hurts the economy, and isn't that the main point of this discussion? They will take their money elsewhere... if they don't spend it here, where will the money come from to replace it in the coffers? I'll give you a hint, it won't be the poor...

Of course, it helps to have people in Washington who spend wisely.

 

[vader]

So says the mod from the mountaintop, do we really look like ants from there? k:

No, you look like someone who could not have a political discussion without resorting to juvenile namecalling. I have never seen an ant do that.

 

[volsforever27]

No, you look like someone who could not have a political discussion without resorting to juvenile namecalling. I have never seen an ant do that.

It was a joke vader, but somehow I don't think I was entirely to blame, but maybe I haven't been here long enough to get the benefit of the doubt? Oh well, maybe if I write a blog...

 

[vader]

It was a joke vader, but somehow I don't think I was entirely to blame, but maybe I haven't been here long enough to get the benefit of the doubt? Oh well, maybe if I write a blog...

I wasn't singling you out, man. You were definitely not alone. I gave you both the benefit of the doubt by not giving you rules infractions for the spat.

I understand that tempers run a bit hot when it comes to politics, let's all just try to keep it somewhat civil.

 

[volsforever27]

I wasn't singling you out, man. You were definitely not alone. I gave you both the benefit of the doubt by not giving you rules infractions for the spat.

I understand that tempers run a bit hot when it comes to politics, let's all just try to keep it somewhat civil.

Fair enough, it felt like I was singled out, when I see several do much worse...

I honestly dont lose my temper as much as it just goads me to push it farther. Usually I make peace though (or I try to).

 

[TennNC]

fundamental socialist misconception. People earn what the market will bear for their particular function. Nobody is wealthy BECAUSE other people are poor. People earning (read: not inheriting) their wealth are paying an enormous amount of taxes, but you're implying that they should be cool with that because poor people have made them that way. The two do not follow. They can, but do not have to in the least.

Moreover, you're saying that a high earner deserves to pay a third (it's actually more) to Uncle Sam, as if his / her time spent earning it is somehow less valuable than the time spent by those earning less. Many of the high earners out there work enormous amounts of time for their money.

Again, simple rule of working in a capitalist society: people are paid for their work exactly what the market will bear. Nobody in any senior position has forced anyone to take lower paying positions, since most employees willfully perform their function. If low earners don't like the position, there are alternatives, but paying less taxes or receiving gov't cash shouldn't be one of those options.

I spend most of my time arguing with you over things you make up about me. Things I simply don't say. Such as those in bold above. But I know you'll keep making this stuff up b/c you have an audience who's buying it.

Here's what I posted:

"one of the reasons they're making this much money is that there are a lot of people under them making a hell of a lot less than they are."

Name one company where this isn't true.

 

[volsforever27]

I spend most of my time arguing with you over things you make up about me. Things I simply don't say. Such as those in bold above. But I know you'll keep making this stuff up b/c you have an audience who's buying it.

Here's what I posted:

"one of the reasons they're making this much money is that there are a lot of people under them making a hell of a lot less than they are."

Name one company where this isn't true.

Call me crazy, but if they paid them as much or more wouldn't they cease to be rich?

 

[VolDad]

I understand that tempers run a bit hot when it comes to politics, let's all just try to keep it somewhat civil.

For the most part I am suprised how civil the board can be when discussing politics, race, or religion.

 

[TennNC]

Call me crazy, but if they paid them as much or more wouldn't they cease to be rich?

I don't understand what you mean.

My point is that nothing happens in a vaccuum. E.g. the other thread about the girl who works hard to get good grades - that's a false analogy b/c in school, everyone can make good grades if they are smart and study hard - and there's a limit to what grades you can earn. In a capitalistic economy (which I believe in, btw), that will never happen. There will ALWAYS be more people at the bottom than at the top, no matter how hard everyone works. And there's no limit to how much you can earn.

No single individual can get enormously wealthy without more people doing less-paying work below them. And then to expect that you both will pay the same % of what you earn is kind of a naive idea. It just won't happen.

 

[VolDad]

Here's what I posted:

"one of the reasons they're making this much money is that there are a lot of people under them making a hell of a lot less than they are."

Name one company where this isn't true.

I am sorry but I just do not follow. If I understand you, you think people are making more money because others are making less. One has nothing to do with the other.

People get paid more because their skill set is valued more and there are fewer people who have their skills.

The reason people are making less money is because there is an abundance of people with their skill set.

It is all supply and demand.

Name one instance where this is not true

 

[VolDad]

My point is that nothing happens in a vaccuum. E.g. the other thread about the girl who works hard to get good grades - that's a false analogy b/c in school, everyone can make good grades if they are smart and study hard - and there's a limit to what grades you can earn.

In a capitalistic society, everyone can make good money, if they get educated and work hard.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I spend most of my time arguing with you over things you make up about me. Things I simply don't say. Such as those in bold above. But I know you'll keep making this stuff up b/c you have an audience who's buying it.

Here's what I posted:

"one of the reasons they're making this much money is that there are a lot of people under them making a hell of a lot less than they are."

Name one company where this isn't true.

you spouted a worn out mantra of those courting votes of the poor. You said people are wealthy because they are subjecting less wealthy people or they're getting wealthy at the expense of others. It's tired tripe and is exactly not true. People earn much money because someone even wealthier views them as worth the money or they are selling products to people willing to pay for them. That's capitalism.

I suppose entrepreneurs don't register with you, but there are hordes of them that make enormous money without paying any staff whatsoever. Investment bankers make huge money because of specialized skills and relationships. Ditto McKenzie consultants. Those people all make tremendous cash because of their education, ability and plain hard work. It's not even remotely because someone else is having to work cheap. Ergo, one of the reasons large swaths of people are wealthy hs nothing to do with a subordinate labor force, making your comment wrong rather than misquoted.

 

[VolDad]

Good read

The Neal Boortz Commencement Speech

boortz.com: More Boortz The Neal Boortz Commencement Speech

 

[TennNC]

I am sorry but I just do not follow. If I understand you, you think people are making more money because others are making less. One has nothing to do with the other.

People get paid more because their skill set is valued more and there are fewer people who have their skills.

The reason people are making less money is because there is an abundance of people with their skill set.

It is all supply and demand.

Name one instance where this is not true

I don't disagree with anything you're writing. I'll try to explain using my company as an example.

The company is owned by partners. They have revenue and expenses. They want to keep expenses down and revenue up - that's how they make a lot of money. They need people working to generate revenue. So the more they can get out of those people while paying them as little as possible, the more they'll make. If the company is top-heavy, they're not going to make a lot of money b/c they're not producing as much for what they're paying (paying a few people a lot in salary). If it's bottom heavy (paying a lot of people much less in salary), they put more money in their pockets b/c they're getting a lot of production (revenue) for what they're paying (payroll).

My question is if there's a successful company where most workers are NOT making significantly less than the few high-income earners at the top?

 

[iceman9]

I don't disagree with anything you're writing. I'll try to explain using my company as an example.

The company is owned by partners. They have revenue and expenses. They want to keep expenses down and revenue up - that's how they make a lot of money. They need people working to generate revenue. So the more they can get out of those people while paying them as little as possible, the more they'll make. If the company is top-heavy, they're not going to make a lot of money b/c they're not producing as much for what they're paying (paying a few people a lot in salary). If it's bottom heavy (paying a lot of people much less in salary), they put more money in their pockets b/c they're getting a lot of production (revenue) for what they're paying (payroll).

My question is if there's a successful company where most workers are NOT making significantly less than the few high-income earners at the top?

Yes your writing this several threads, ok, we get it. Why strive to be the best, why push to go where no one else goes, go to that mountain top. Lets how set at home, do nothing, collect our checks, and have big bro take care of us. We get it all ready.