Wealth, What is it?

[TheMercenary]

Lets talk weath.. I would appreciate it if you all commented in an effort to refocus the discussion and take advantage of an interesting bit of thread drift from the Hillary/McCain thread.

Let's start with individual income. Leave big corps out of this but you can include CEO's or anyone who has income and pays taxes.

So what is wealth? How do you define it?

Is it:
anyone who makes more than you?
anyone who makes $XXXX, and what is that amount?
should people who make more than you pay for those who make less, if yes how much more do they have to make than you make before they start to pay more?
should the gobberment assign a number to divide out and heavily tax those who make more?
if people make more and worked real hard all of their lives to get to that point should they pay for those who do not?
should wealthy people get more breaks on taxes?
how much in dollars do wealthy people pay vs. those who make less than them, I mean in real dollars, do they actually contribute more or about the same?

what burden should a person with wealth, say a person who at one time was poor making 20k, built up a family business and now owns a community farm and 5 stores, who now gets about 300k per year in income for his family, how much should he pay in taxes? Compare that to a person of your choice, highschool drop out who works at Burger King, or college kid who got a great education but now works at Starbucks because his degree got him no where and daddy cut off his gravy train? What is this persons role? Should the guy who owns the farm pay for the other people? He already employs people on his farm and in his stores.

[Flint]

The answers, in order, are:
up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, a, b, select, start

Edit: But, seriously. I'm busting my ass right now to support my family while going to school and helping to raise two little babies. I've been up until 2am every day for the last month. I'm busting my ass to get more money for my family. Someday, when I get there, I don't think I will self-impose a salary cap. And whatever money I am making at that point will be built on the foundation of the ass-busting I'm doing today. I think I'll be wanting to keep that money, thank you.

[TheMercenary]

Last week the Congressional Budget Office joined the IRS in releasing tax numbers for 2005, and part of the news is that the richest 1% paid about 39% of all income taxes that year. The richest 5% paid a tad less than 60%, and the richest 10% paid 70%. These tax shares are all up substantially since 1990, and even somewhat since 2000. Meanwhile, Americans with an income below the median -- half of all households -- paid a mere 3% of all income taxes in 2005. The richest 1.3 million tax-filers -- those Americans with adjusted gross incomes of more than $365,000 in 2005 -- paid more income tax than all of the 66 million American tax filers below the median in income. Ten times more.

For the political left and most of the media, this means only that the rich are getting richer, so of course they're paying more taxes. And it is true that the top earners have increased their share of total income. Yet, as the nearby table shows, the rich showed more rapid gains in reported income shares in the 1990s than in the first half of this decade. The share of the richest 1% jumped to 20.8% of total income in 2000, from 14% in 1990, but increased only slightly to 21.2% in 2005. This makes it hard to pin their claim of "rising inequality" on the Bush tax cuts, though the income redistributionists are trying. By this measure, the Clinton years were far worse for "inequality."

continues:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html

[lookout123]

Wealth, IMO, is not a dollar amount but a situation of sustainability. If a person could quit their job today and live off their investments for the next five years without changing their lifestyle I consider them wealthy. Good for them.

I don't believe their tax rate should be any higher than any other person's just because they have attained financial independence. Yep, I'm one of those people that strongly supports a flat tax. Say everyone in the US gets their first $35,000 tax free. (Just a random number that seems like it would allow for a living wage beneath that.) Every dollar over that is taxed at the same percentage without regard to their total income. I don't know the percentage that it would require - 7%, 10%? I really don't know, but I'm certain that if there were no loopholes, no tax shelters for money to hide then the actual required percentage would be relatively low.

Here's the kicker. Those making $70,000/year would be paying significantly less than they do now. Those making $200,000 would be paying less than they do now. Those making $1,000,000 + annually would quite often pay MORE than they do now, because the loopholes and shelters would be gone. Many of those high earners would still support the plan though because they would no longer have to pay expensive lawyers and accountants to avoid big tax bills.

The only ones who have anything to lose by this plan are the lawyers, accountants, and IRS agents who live off the confusion surrounding our current tax code. Oh, and let's not forget the politicians who would lose a lot of the sting from their class warfare arguments. I personally feel nothing could be more transparent, fair, and healthy for the future of our country than a flat tax with a floor.

Without googling the charts, I'd say you'll find while the uber-wealthy pay less in percentage points they pay vastly more in dollars into our current tax system.

[TheMercenary]

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every
day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten
comes to $100. If
they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it
would go something like
this:

* The first four men (the poorest) would pay
nothing.
* The fifth would pay $1.
* The sixth would pay $3.
* The seventh $7.
* The eighth $12.
* The ninth $18.
* The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate
dinner in the restaurant
every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the
owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said,
"I'm going to reduce the
cost of your daily meal by $20."

So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group
still wanted to pay
their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So, the first four men were unaffected. They would
still eat for free.
But what about the other six, the paying customers?
How could they divvy up
the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his
'fair share'?

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is
$3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the
fifth man and the sixth man
would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.

So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be
fair to reduce each
man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he
proceeded to work out the
amounts each should pay.

And so:

* The fifth man, like the first four, now paid
nothing (100% savings).
* The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
* The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%
savings).
* The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25%
savings).
* The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22%
savings).
* The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16%
savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the
first four continued to
eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the
men began to compare
their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the
sixth man. He pointed to
the tenth man "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I
only saved a dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should
he get $10 back when I
got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"


"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in
unison. "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for
dinner, so the nine sat down
and ate without him. But when it came time to pay
the bill, they discovered
something important. They didn't have enough money
between all of them for
even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college
professors, is how our tax
system works. The people who pay the highest taxes
get the most benefit from
a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for
being wealthy, and they
just may not show up at the table anymore. There are
lots of good
restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor of Economics
536 Brooks Hall
University of Georgia

[lookout123]

heh, I like that one Merc.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Last week the Congressional Budget Office joined the IRS in releasing tax numbers for 2005, and part of the news is that the richest 1% paid about 39% of all income taxes that year. The richest 5% paid a tad less than 60%, and the richest 10% paid 70%.

That is taxes only on declared (taxable) income. With tax shelters and numerous other money games, reality is the wealthiest pay less than 20% in taxes.

That was the point bluntly made by Warren Buffet on Ted Koppel some years ago. Buffet pays a smaller percentage of his income than even his receptionist. Less than 20%. And Buffet's taxes are also in agreement with the political spin posted by TheMercenary. TheMercenary forgot to mention that vast amout of wealth that gets exempted from any taxes whatsoever - and still ends up in the pockets of the richest income earners. Tax exempt incomes never appear in TheMercenary's numbers. TheMercenary forgot to mention that part? No. He simply was told how to think by the party extremists. Also called lying by telling a half truth.

Or to rephrase it in TheMercenary type of logic: TheMercenary does not have a sufficient sized brain to understand it. Did we mention he also lied about his miltary carrer?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

Did we mention he also lied about his miltary carrer?

What's a carrer??

What lie was supposedly told?

I served 20+ years of continual active duty in the U.S. Army and retired in 2002. I don't beleive that I lied about my service. If so please subport your statement or shut the fuck up. What is your service record?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

TheMercenary....TheMercenary ...TheMercenary...TheMercenary ...TheMercenary ...TheMercenary...bla, bla, bla....I am a Ted Kazenski want-a-be.... bla, bla, bla... hear me roar... bla, bla, bla, bla....

Nice.

[Griff]

I've been thinking about consumtion taxes lately. I think UT addressed the idea in a global warming thread since it can address CO^2 as well. It should improve savings. It should help get us out of the class warfare game which the parties love so much. What positives and negatives do you guys see? As far as who is wealthy, I don't care unless they are passing what should be their costs, whether we're talking gov programs or pollution, onto the rest of society.

[TheMercenary]

Griff, I think an elimination of all deductions and going to the proposed Flat Tax would be a good start. Of course many people who feed off the system of taxes, the IRS, etc would be out of a job, overall our income as a nation should improve. No one has the balls to take a chance on it and make it happen. The biggest negative would be in the transition period.

[classicman]

I agree with the flat tax idea although it does create some economic issues elsewhere, in the long run it appears it would be a net positive for the country.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Griff

I've been thinking about consumtion taxes lately. I think UT addressed the idea in a global warming thread since it can address CO^2 as well. It should improve savings. It should help get us out of the class warfare game which the parties love so much. What positives and negatives do you guys see?

I've mentioned before that Texas state taxes are run this way, and I love it. It works very well here.

[TheMercenary]

Well I guess I will not be voting for him.

Obama: Payroll tax on incomes above $250,000

Jun 13 12:24 PM US/Eastern
By CHARLES BABINGTON

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - Democrat Barack Obama would apply the Social Security payroll tax to all annual incomes above $250,000, which he says would affect the wealthiest 3 percent of Americans.
The presidential candidate told senior citizens in Ohio on Friday that it is unfair for middle-class earners to pay the Social Security tax "on every dime they make, while millionaires and billionaires are only paying it on a very small percentage of their income."

The payroll tax is now applied to all income up to $102,000 a year, which covers the entire amount for most Americans. Under Obama's plan, the tax would not apply to incomes between that amount and $250,000. But all annual income above the quarter-million-dollar amount would be taxed under his plan.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

[BigV]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Well I guess I will not be voting for him.

Obama: Payroll tax on incomes above $250,000

Jun 13 12:24 PM US/Eastern
By CHARLES BABINGTON

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - Democrat Barack Obama would apply the Social Security payroll tax to all annual incomes above $250,000, which he says would affect the wealthiest 3 percent of Americans.
The presidential candidate told senior citizens in Ohio on Friday that it is unfair for middle-class earners to pay the Social Security tax "on every dime they make, while millionaires and billionaires are only paying it on a very small percentage of their income."

The payroll tax is now applied to all income up to $102,000 a year, which covers the entire amount for most Americans. Under Obama's plan, the tax would not apply to incomes between that amount and $250,000. But all annual income above the quarter-million-dollar amount would be taxed under his plan.

Cite.