politics. Obama hit on a very popular theme with the DNC folks. He wants
a tax increase on wealthy people. There is little doubt but that he
will get what he is asking for. The section that I thought was
important:
"If we
want to reduce our deficit, our sacrifice has to be shared. And that
means even as we're making spending cuts, we also have to end the tax
cuts to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans in this country.
(Applause.) It's not because we want to punish success. It's because if
we're going to ask Americans to sacrifice a little bit, we can't tell millionaires and billionaires that they don't have to do a thing.”
How could one argue with this kind of talk? Millionaires and
billionaires are not carrying their share of the burden so we should tax
the hell out of them.
The audience that I write to doesn’t like Obama very much. They also
don’t like big government; they hate the financial institutions and the
fat cats with big bonuses. So I’m interested to hear what might be said
on this topic. Is Obama striking a chord with you? I understand if he
does. But you need to look where this is headed. If you are young, with
children, and have debt from education or a home and aspire for some
degree of success in your life; beware. What Obama is proposing is
headed your way.
When Obama talks of taxing millionaires and billionaires he is missing
the mark. He is pushing for a higher tax on income. What he doesn’t get
is that millionaires and billionaires actually don’t have that much
income. Yes they have wealth, but it is very easy to avoid paying taxes
on wealth. The people who will pay higher taxes are young people, not
the rich old fogies that have bundles in the bank. I got this note
from a young professional who works very hard and is far from wealthy.
He does make a decent income and that income will get squeezed by the
higher taxes that are coming.
I love
it when Obama talks about taxing the "wealthy" when he talks of high
taxable income. Since he targets people with high wage income, he's targeting young people without much wealth that have a lot of debt (student, home, etc). The wealthy are mostly older folks, many of whom have lots of their money in muni bonds and assets throwing off capital gains. The wealthy are also foreigners who
can invest in the US without US tax on their capital gains, and reduced
US tax on dividends if a treaty applies, and generally, no US tax on
interest income.If you want to hike taxes on engineers, doctors, lawyers, accountants, airline pilots, and others with householders in high-earning brackets, fine. But it takes balls to call them millionaires and billionaires.
In the President’s speech he had this to say:
I don't want a $200,000 tax cut that's paid for by asking 33 seniors each to pay more than $6,000 in extra Medicare costs. I don't want that. I don't want my tax cut paid for by cutting kids out of Head Start or doing away with health insurance for millions of people on Medicaid, seniors in nursing homes and poor children and middle-class families who are raising a child with a disability like autism. That's not a tradeoff I'm willing to make.
These sure sound like popular views. The President has defined the
debate here. This is about billionaires on the one hand and seniors,
Medicaid and Medicare recipients even kids with autism on the other
hand. But actually the proposal to increase income taxes will hurt a
different audience than those billionaires. Those that are going to get
hit, the young lawyers, doctors, airline pilots and business people of
all stripes are going to respond with their feet. They will not vote for leadership that puts the tax burden squarely on them.
The end result will be that the political pendulum will
shift to the extreme right. The House, Senate and the White House will
belong to conservatives. When that happens there will be a great
unwinding of the social programs that Obama champions. And all those who
think the solution is to tax wealth will be very disappointed with the
outcome.
"is inhertiance taxed like gifts with a gift tax?"
My view is they are the same...an inheritance is a gift from one generation to the next.
If however the inheritance passed down was obtained by fraud or criminal activity there is no lawful or moral reason not to confiscate it and give it back to the rightful owners...which is still not the state. It goes to who was defrauded.
"I just think not taxing inheritance will lead to accelerated wealth concentration in certain families which is in long term unsustainable..."
Well, everyone has an opinon on Bill Gates (and I'm no gushing supporter by a long shot) but he has put his wealth to work for some notable charities. Its his to do with as he pleases, he earned it and was taxed on it...by whatever monopolistic means, it was still legal. If he wants to set his kids up I don't care. If his kids aren't as intelligent enough to keep it...again...I don't care.
"...in a democratic government, as it becomes similar to a monarchist goverment."
I'm not a fan of true democracy. Bluntly speaking, a democracy can give a society slavery, socialism or a finely crafted dictator as all it requires is one more vote than the other side. It is the tyranny of the majority instead of the rule of law. What is broken in America, constituted as a republic, is law and its enforcement in my view.
The reason I feel it is broken is because of the tendency to say a majority say X, so we must follow X. That is democracy and thereby the law of the land. A republic says X is the law and no matter what your socio-economic status is, if you have violated it, you will be prosecuted under the law.
"I tried googling Kelso case and found multiple refences to different things so I am not sure what you are referring to."
My bad...different case. Kelo vs. City of New London.
A case where imminent domain law was used by the state, in partnership with a corporation, to extract higher tax revenue at the expense of one individual's rights. The law was used not for right of way procurement for a highway, not for some public works project...but only for tax revenue to the state. When that one cleared I was done with the notion we live in a republic. That was the dagger in the heart.
Its a democracy and I say to all who want it, good luck with it...it won't last and everyone will be quite surprised with the result.
"I am not personalizing this issue as I think i stand to lose significantly with an inhertance tax in place."
Neither am I and I won't ;-)
People will do what they have to do regardless of legality. Laws are created, modified or abandoned everyday...there is nothing mystical about law. Only its fairness to all that it covers. When the fairness is gone from it, it ceases being law and becomes something else...usually tyranny.
"I am all for capitalism and ones productivity should determine his benefits, but I dont think that ones parents productivity should determine his benefits that much. I think this is the fundamental flaw with capitalism. I dont have any solution to this problem but an inhertance tax does make a lot of sense to me."
If one cannot do with his past labors (his wealth) what he wishes to do with them, even after he has paid his obligation to the state via taxation on those labors, he is not free.
i dont argue that a person should not be free to give his wealth to others.
i think that tax on inheritance is as fair as tax on a winning lottery. To the reciever its pretty much the same, a stroke of luck. its the reciever thats being taxed not the giver.
So calculate the taxes you owe on every gift you've ever recieved in your entire life and send a check to the government.
And don't forget to include the interest (compounded monthly back to your first gift) and the penalty for your late fee.
Be a patriot and assuage your guilt ;-)
not that i feel any guilt. but if i were to write the laws of a republic i would write it that way. someone has to write the law :)
and im not patiriotic. to any country. I am not a citizen of this one.
i believe that guilt and patriotism are merely control mechanisms.
"not that i feel any guilt. but if i were to write the laws of a republic i would write it that way. someone has to write the law :)"
It took years to write our founding documents. The ideas behind the laws themselves came from a variety of places across the globe and many different places. They all center on the premise that the people are free.
"I am not personalizing this issue as I think i stand to lose significantly with an inhertance tax in place."
This above quote from you (among others) is why I played this little cat & mouse game with you...LOL...I don't know what "lose significantly" winds up meaning with an inheritance tax imposed on Americans when you say..."and im not patiriotic. to any country. I am not a citizen of this one...."
You don't get to decide then do you?...busted...and goodbye.
double post.
However I want to add that I do support an inheritance tax in my home country. Its not that I support an inhertiance tax only in other countries.
The country of which i am a citizen doesnt have an inheritance tax either.
I just think its a good principle to prevent dynastic wealth.
I stand by what I said.
You think the inheritance tax is an invasion on the freedom of the persion who is leaving an inheritance. I disagree, at most its an invasion on the freedom of the reciever. I just think its a reasonable compromise just as any other tax is considered a reasonable compromise.
junks without commentary come from bloggers without balls. Keep up the good work Bruce!
>Millionaires and billionaires are not carrying their share of the burden, so we should tax the hell out of them.
Nothing justifies theft.
>If you want to hike taxes on engineers, doctors, lawyers, accountants, airline pilots, and others with householders in high-earning brackets, fine
Theft is not fine.
>And all those who think the solution is to tax wealth will be very disappointed with the outcome
When success is punished, expect fewer successes.
Dr. Acula,
Wherever did you get the notion that engineers, or the full membership in any of the professions you mentioned were actually in "high-earning brackets". A few of those are; many aren't. And, the categories you mentioned, for the most part, deliver services to others. People in the professions have aquired more by being the best, or at least very good, at what they do.
The retired doctors that I know are comfortable but they are conservative in their living habits; their money supply is bounded.
Engineers? Engineers are employees. They don't make real money unless they move into management.
The rule of thumb in the middle class is that the more you earn the harder you work in all probability. I don't see any type of professional who has a good income that doesn't work hard and good work to boot. Note that I am not including wealth crony-capitalists who make a living off the State and are protected by the State.
One of the hard questions that never ever never gets asked of the "poor" is why they didn't work harder in school, high school, college, on the job, get a job, get a trade, etc. Nothing is expected of them (except to vote Democrat or collectivist) in the past, the present or the future. It is like they are passive players in their own lives and others must make the moves for them. Others still get blamed as the dependent poor fail repeatedly to help themselves in any way. They learn eligibility instead of qualifications.
The bigger point is that IF you believe you own yourself, then no one can force you to serve another. Redistribution becomes a form of servitude and is therefore immoral. Even if you believe the collectivist pablum BS you should realize there is a limit to what you can take/tax and still have people maintain any motivation to keep producing for others. If it worked well, then slaves would have been the happiest and most productive of all people as they were taxed at 100%, guided by a central planner who provided all their basic needs like food, shelter, essential medical care, rest, sleep, breeding and so on. No stress whatsoever. Just do as the central planner says for the greater good of all. Slaves are not smart enough to guide their own lives and therefore need an authority to guide them...just like we are completely incapable of doing our own retirement, medical care, wage negotiations, etc. So SSI, Medicare, etc. guided by the central planner is essential. We will get the same results.
As an engineer with only two more hours to go in my 14 hour workday, hoping someday to be in a "high-earning bracket" I complete agree.
More you punish the hard working and reward the lazy, fewer the hard workers and more the lazy you'll have.
Well, since the Fed is printing to infinity anyway, why don't we just ABOLISH all effin' taxes and be done with this vitriol?
I'm at least half serious...
Spot on Doc.
Completely agree with you Dr. Acula. It's amazing how readily most people will resort to theft and the Low State of Greed.
They should remember that when the state steals from people, it doesn't mean they will get their cut of the job.
Nothing justifies theft.
Agree, better to have millionaires and billionaires here rather than in Sovereign Man country.
Government producing nothing, it can only rob Peter to pay Paul and call it charity, which it is not, it is theft. We need government for basic services and military defense. We do not need the nanny state we have. It took FEMA how many days to get to the superdome? Government is not the solution to our social problems. Our nation was not founded to provide social security through taxation. It was founded for liberty...
Taxes rich people blah blah blah
High net worth people should be taxed into pernury until they buy us a reasonable working government.
How did they acquire said "high net worth", anyway?
"The secret of great fortunes with no apparent source is a forgotten crime, forgotten because it was properly carried out." -- Honore de Balzac
And if the Attorney General had any balls in his sac, we'd see a bunch of these assholes doing perp walks.
+10
+1
I for one certainly hope GE never has to pay a dime.
As someone brilliantly stated here on ZH
You don't tax the rich - they tax you!
A profound, and very true insight...
It's all such a stupid discussion.
Show of hands, please: how many folks posting are members of that group of a few thousand Americans "making" over $20 million a year?
(I predict it's zero. Folks who make real money don't post to message boards. They have people for that. I predict we're all just a bunch of fuckin' working stiffs, and even if we'll all admit it, we still won't do any better than bitch at each other.)
Me too. But only if it's because they are broken up in bankruptcy court.
+1 What a scumbag company. Worse than GS, GM and JPM.
I worked for GE Medical Systems in the dot-com era. Talk about a surreal experience of feeling like you were being initiated into the Borg collective. GE is a massive clusterfuck of a company with more heads/divisions/services than any company should ever have. Not to mention the corporate culture and ethos blows monkey chunks.
i once worked on a system whos manufacturer was bot by GE... and so i called for techinical support and they had no schematics or nothing and the systems barely 8-10yrs old so im quite stunned... and the tech on the phone reasonably points out that Ford no longer sells Model-T's so clearly GE had done its job.
You'll be happy to know that they can't do that any more. They got sued because they weren't allowing others to work on their equipment- and lost. The maintenance contract on an MR and CT machine can reach $100,000 a year. Now you know why they wouldn't let you work on it!
:D
When I was running the Signa LX, one of the engineers actually put a logo on my timer screen that showed the Borg ship with a meatball on it, zooming through space.
The caption said, "Resistance is Futile."
You probably still have a copy on your home PC.
:D
Young-ish lawyer here. Guess what. I have to live downtown and work long hours. That money doesn't go as far in the middle of a big city. And when my boss's taxes go up, he'll take it out of my check. So, there's no winning.
Now, I'm not dumb. So here's how I'll vote --> with my feet. If working longer hours doesn't pay enough, I won't do it. I'll be home playing with my kids, or shopping for that boat that I never had time for before. I don't believe the Republicans will help either. So we'll help ourselves: By making sure we have enough to live, and not working ourselves to death. I like going to the gym and going fishing. When the incentives change enough, so will my behavior.
Truth is, it's already started for people like me. The 2008 crash turned everyone into savages, and employers don't pay as much. Raise the taxes too, and our decision is automatic. That's the poison pill the economy will get.
That's showing em ! 1 lawyer working less = economy down the tubes....
The article I read was about RICH people. Not lawyers
LOL. Good one.
My short point: People respond to incentives. Cut take-home pay, and people will work less. You'll see that across the high-wage spectrum.
Exactly right! I've been laid off twice in two years and taken two substantial pay cuts. My first company eliminated all senior and top paid white collar people and rehired at half wage.
I have the same idea. Working nights and weekends most of my life just to reach a 40% tax bracket and then get targeted for elimination because of it doesn't make me want to redouble any efforts. The dumbasses in Congress including the Republicans want to turn SSec into a means tested welfare retirement system so there's really no winning this thing. Every extra effort will be rewarded with extra confiscation/redistribution/social justice.
Where is John Galt?
I suspect you are correct 100%.
I have already responded: RETIRED early, hahaha!
On the other hand I will not milk the rotten system for SS, Medicare, etc.
75,000 retirees costing 5 trillion a year.. that lifeboat myth already flipped.
US Tax revenue less than 24% of GDP.
14trillion/4=3.5 trillion budget..too broke for the elderly..
In fact, 14 trillion GNP and over 14 trillion in debt issued. So we are headed for sale when the collectors come.
The assumption has always been they will be paid, clearly the collectors never heard of something called bankruptcy ;-)
Ahhh... the good 'ole MRI beastie. ;)