Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 159

Thread: Should the rich pay more taxes?

  1. #61
    Labor is in it for themselves just like management is. Why does it cost 2 to 3 thousand extra to build an American car?
    I quit after getting my first black belt because the school I was a part of was in the process of lowering their standards A painfully honest KC Elbows

    The crap that many schools do is not the crap I was taught or train in or teach.

    Dam nit... it made sense when it was running through my head.

    DM


    People love Iron Crotch. They can't get enough Iron Crotch. We all ride the Iron Crotch for the exposure. Gene

    Find the safety flaw in the training. Rory Miller.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    On the mat.
    Posts
    1,682
    Quote Originally Posted by RD'S Alias - 1A View Post
    Either way it's a class war.

    Reply]
    Yup

    The rich want less taxes for themselves and their buddies.


    Reply]
    That is because they are paying more in taxes each year than most people even make in that time....they are getting the short end of the stick , especially when you consider they are providing the engine that drives the over all economy, hires the employees, and pays them the salaries in which small portions of which go to taxes. In other words, if you make $50,000 a year, and pay $12,000 of that in taxes, your employer is probably paying 50,000 in cold cash to the government for his taxes (Higher bracket, makes more etc...)

    I'm sure he's wondering whats so fair about him having to pay $50,000 in taxes, when you only have to pay $12,000.

    Sure he wants to pay less for him and his buddies..imagine if YOU had to fork over FIFTY G'S every year!!


    The poor want more taxes on the rich and less on themselves and their families.

    Reply]

    And that is exactly what they got...stick it to the rich so they don't have to pony up!

    It is unfortunate that the rich are winning it.

    Reply]
    Winning it? How do you figure? when was the last time YOU had to dish out an average person's yearly salary to the tax man? sound more like the rich man is getting heavily shafted to me!!

    People in Mexico make less than I pay in taxes.

    They do drive the economy...and that is the problem. It is systematic, it is not a matter of fixing it, it is a matter of getting rid of it.
    I'm sure that you are a glorified 21st century peasant like the rest of us...unless you're pulling in over several million a year.
    The rich man makes the rules that he knows many cannot follow...the rich man makes the decisions for the way poor people conduct their lives, while he does not have to see how really hard it is...the rich man gives you all the opportunities in the world but if you get out of line, whammo!

    It makes sense for many to side with the rich, they have the weapons and the means...but Robin Hood will always be a hero to me...even if he'd be called a terrorist by today's double standards.
    A unique snowflake

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    On the mat.
    Posts
    1,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Jack II View Post
    .

    True, those guys may be parasites, though I would more than not call them conmen, but your right, the big difference is I am not paying there severance. It's not even close to the only difference I see, but I will concide that.







    Good for you. A lot of people don't want to live like that.



    That is a genuine statement of grade A horsesh!t. Talk about changing around what someone said.



    No they don't.



    Canadian right....yep...could of guessed it. Which means its a lot of uneducated garbage about the US to follow.



    And here comes the cowpie, served up warm and toasty. Dude, everyone in America has access to healthcare, you will not be turned away, but the best part is since most of the healthcare system is private based, we have the very best in the world, its where people come to get the real deal.

    Get a better job so you can buy a couple of books and get a more solid understanding of the geopolitical formation you are trying to dis. Not just the liberal internt propaganda.



    Bawhaha....what the hell is in the water up there.
    I may be uneducated about the US in some regards, but I'm sure you know all about the world outside your country!

    For the record I am on the Dean's honour list and am currently completing an honours program. I think long and hard about what I say. IN fact, I have attended extensive seminars and done extensive research on most of these subjects, I wonder if you finished grade school? Or did you inherit daddy's business?

    As to getting onto the streets, seriously dude, you must be up in some gated community too afraid of the beggars to try and figure out how other people live. I have compassion and I try to understand the way people are treated.

    People come to America to get "The very best in the world" if they are rich. Sorry buddy, most of the world is not a fat overpaid American or Canadian for that matter. I know you're so concerned about your little scrap and don't want the baddies coming to get it, but you should pick up a book. Or maybe some spirituality, or even some compassion.
    A unique snowflake

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Bondi, Sydney Australia
    Posts
    2,502
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue View Post
    Labor is in it for themselves just like management is. Why does it cost 2 to 3 thousand extra to build an American car?
    Rogue,
    Everybody is in it for themselves, except of course for me.

    I do take your point.

    And of course, massive salaries and bonuses for management have nothing to do with the price of an automobile, as BJ has already established, its the lazy workers, bludging their way through an 8 hour shift sticking widgets into doohickeys, so they can go off and drop a few tinnies of beer before they head over and crash the yogurt truck into one of those unemployed crack mammas after work, breeding up more of the scum of society to pick your pocket for the next generation....

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Behind you!
    Posts
    6,163
    Quote Originally Posted by unkokusai View Post
    The two are inseparable.
    Economic policy and political viewpoint are inseparable. Economic testing and political viewpoint are inseparable. MP was asking what tests it would be valid to use: of course, people's answers will show their colour, but the question could quite easily be neutral.

    For example, CBA is a testing procedure often espoused by the left and renowned for subjectivity.

    Merry was asking if the rich should pay more and if so, how should that be determined. He wasn't saying they should be and it should be determined by XYZ. Of course he has his opinions, but that's as objective as you're gonna get, matey.

    For once your talent for understatement, pithy one-liners and put-downs isn't enough to contribute to the argument (though, in many threads they're quite spot on! )
    its safe to say that I train some martial arts. Im not that good really, but most people really suck, so I feel ok about that - Sunfist

    Sometime blog on training esp in Japan

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    koko
    Posts
    2,723

    We got a bleeder here!

    Quote Originally Posted by WinterPalm View Post
    I may be uneducated about the US in some regards, but I'm sure you know all about the world outside your country!

    For the record I am on the Dean's honour list and am currently completing an honours program. I think long and hard about what I say. IN fact, I have attended extensive seminars and done extensive research on most of these subjects, I wonder if you finished grade school? Or did you inherit daddy's business?

    As to getting onto the streets, seriously dude, you must be up in some gated community too afraid of the beggars to try and figure out how other people live. I have compassion and I try to understand the way people are treated.

    People come to America to get "The very best in the world" if they are rich. Sorry buddy, most of the world is not a fat overpaid American or Canadian for that matter. I know you're so concerned about your little scrap and don't want the baddies coming to get it, but you should pick up a book. Or maybe some spirituality, or even some compassion.


    Oh, the EMOTION!

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    koko
    Posts
    2,723
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Punch View Post
    Economic policy and political viewpoint are inseparable.

    For once your talent for understatement, pithy one-liners and put-downs isn't enough to contribute to the argument
    Really? 'Cause you just agreed with me and I didn't have to type all that jive you just wrote.



    (I liked the "spot on" part though! )

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Yum Cha View Post
    Rogue,
    Everybody is in it for themselves, except of course for me.

    I do take your point.

    And of course, massive salaries and bonuses for management have nothing to do with the price of an automobile, as BJ has already established, its the lazy workers, bludging their way through an 8 hour shift sticking widgets into doohickeys, so they can go off and drop a few tinnies of beer before they head over and crash the yogurt truck into one of those unemployed crack mammas after work, breeding up more of the scum of society to pick your pocket for the next generation....
    The problem with losing our manufacturing edge is that it's caused by everyone involved, including the consumer who just wants some cheap crap. Sadly what management takes out of a company is a drop in the bucket compared to what some retired workers do.

    washingtonpost.com
    General Motors Getting Eaten Alive by a Free Lunch

    By Allan Sloan

    Tuesday, April 19, 2005; Page E03

    A free lunch can be the most expensive meal in the world. For living proof, look at General Motors. A big reason that GM has gotten into such trouble is that the pension and health care commitments it made to employees decades ago seemed to be a free lunch.

    The United Autoworkers placed a high value on these benefits, but the accounting rules of the time placed no cost on GM's risk of providing them. So the UAW and GM made deals that were heavy on benefits, relatively light on wages.

    Lower salaries meant that GM reported higher profits, which translated into higher stock prices -- and higher bonuses for executives. Commitments for pensions and "other post-employment benefits" -- known as OPEB in the accounting biz -- had little initial impact on GM's profit statement and didn't count as obligations on its balance sheet. So why not keep employees happy with generous benefits? It was a free lunch. Besides, GM's only major competitors at the time, Ford and Chrysler, were making similar deals.

    Now, as we all can see, pension and health care obligations are eating GM alive. The bill for the "free" lunch has come in -- and GM is having trouble paying the tab. In the past two years, GM has put almost $30 billion into its pension funds and a trust to cover its OPEB obligations. Yet these accounts are still a combined $54 billion underwater.

    "Any market economist would tell you that things that are 'free' are overconsumed," says Greg Taxin, chief executive of Glass, Lewis & Co. "That's true of pensions, it's true of OPEB, and it's true of stock options in the '90s." That's a lesson the SEC seems to have ignored, given last week's decision to let companies delay counting the value of options as an expense. But that's a topic for another day.

    GM began its slide down the slippery slope in 1950, when it began picking up costs for medical insurance, pensions and retiree benefits. There was huge risk to GM in taking on these obligations -- but that didn't show up as a cost or balance-sheet liability. By 1973, the UAW says, GM was paying the entire health insurance bill for its employees, survivors and retirees, and had agreed to "30 and out" early retirement that granted workers full pensions after 30 years on the job, regardless of age.

    These problems began to surface about 15 years ago because regulators changed the accounting rules. In 1992, GM says, it took a $20 billion non-cash charge to recognize pension obligations. Evolving rules then put OPEB on the balance sheet. Now, these obligations -- call it a combined $170 billion for U.S. operations -- are fully visible. And out-of-pocket costs for health care are eating GM alive.

    GM spokesman Jerry Dubrowski says the company expects to pay $5.6 billion in health care costs this year for 1.1 million people covered by its plans. That's up from the $3.9 billion it shelled out in 2001 to cover 1.2 million people.

    "At the time GM began offering these benefits, no one had any idea that the costs for prescription drugs and medical services would explode the way they have," Dubrowski said. True. But the UAW was astute (or lucky) enough to push the risk of covering these costs onto GM.

    GM's pension funds are in pretty good shape, thanks to an $18.5 billion infusion two years ago. GM got this cash by selling bonds at relatively low rates, hoping to resolve its pension problems once and for all. This maneuver has been successful so far, but funding the pension plans has consumed much of GM's borrowing power and strained its balance sheet.

    At the end of last year, GM says, its U.S. pension funds showed a $3 billion surplus. GM's pension accounting, which assumes that the funds will earn an average of 9 percent a year on their assets, is highly optimistic. But things are under control -- as long as GM stays solvent.

    By contrast, OPEB is out of control. At year-end, OPEB was $57 billion in the hole, even though GM threw $9 billion into an OPEB trust in 2004. The company has no legal obligation to pre-fund these costs, but it's trying to show the financial markets and its workers that it's dealing with them. The OPEB trust has a hefty $20 billion of assets -- but GM calculates its obligations at a staggering $77 billion.

    What's more, GM says they're rising at 10.5 percent a year. Thus, even though President Bush's Medicare prescription drug benefit whacked $4 billion off GM's OPEB obligation last year -- thanks, George -- it covered barely half the year's increase in the liability.

    If GM were making lots of money selling vehicles, this would all be manageable, sort of. GM could buy enough time for demographics to bail it out, as more retirees begin getting Social Security and Medicare, reducing GM's costs, and other retirees die off. Its ratio of retirees to workers, currently 2.5 to 1, would shrink. Alas, GM's vehicle business is in the tank. Unless GM starts making money on vehicles or gets a break from the UAW or the federal government, things are going to get really ugly. I hope that doesn't happen, but it easily could.

    The bottom line: Whenever you offer someone a free lunch, make sure that you'll be able to pay the bill when it comes in.

    Sloan is Newsweek's Wall Street editor. His e-mail address is sloan@panix.com.

    © 2005 The Washington Post Company
    Last edited by rogue; 05-22-2007 at 09:22 PM.
    I quit after getting my first black belt because the school I was a part of was in the process of lowering their standards A painfully honest KC Elbows

    The crap that many schools do is not the crap I was taught or train in or teach.

    Dam nit... it made sense when it was running through my head.

    DM


    People love Iron Crotch. They can't get enough Iron Crotch. We all ride the Iron Crotch for the exposure. Gene

    Find the safety flaw in the training. Rory Miller.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Posts
    6,190
    Economic policy and political viewpoint are inseparable. Economic testing and political viewpoint are inseparable.
    I never said they weren't.

    However, there is a big difference between taking a political stance because a particular analysis seems to stand on its merits, and adopting a particular economic policy because of your political viewpoint.

    I think, as much as is practicable (since I recognize that we all walk around with particular assumptions) the analysis should drive your political viewpoint; ideology per se should not drive policy.

    I think that is the mistake being made by many people. They allow their ideology to override sober analysis of a problem. You run into this all the time with 9/11 conspiracy theorists and people who think AQ attacked us because of U.S. foreign policy. Actual reading of actual AQ documents and transcripts would make it quite clear that WHOEVER the top dog in the free world was, AQ would attack them, sooner or later.

    I'm suggesting only that on many issues we be as objective and thorough as possible. It occurs to me that this may be one of them.

    As I should have expected, this thread has largely degenerated into a tiff over social justice vs. personal responsibility, instead of coming anywhere near the original question. Oh well.
    "In the world of martial arts, respect is often a given. In the real world, it must be earned."

    "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand. "--Bertrand Russell

    "Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends of every country save their own. "--Benjamin Disraeli

    "A conservative government is an organised hypocrisy."--Benjamin Disraeli

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Bondi, Sydney Australia
    Posts
    2,502
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue View Post
    The problem with losing our manufacturing edge is that it's caused by everyone involved, including the consumer who just wants some cheap crap. Sadly what management takes out of a company is a drop in the bucket compared to what some retired workers do.

    - followed by lengthy story about GM going broke paying entitlements to workers that have mounted in cost over the years -
    I see Rogue, another example of mis-management: bad short-term gain negotiation, non-existant forward planning and irresponsible financial management by overpaid "management" being blamed on the workers and paid for by the stockholders?

    Glad to see I'm winning you over mate.

    We here in Oz have the same problem, for example, with QANTAS, where employees have negotiated great benefits, but which are now becoming a burden, and making problems for the financial viability of the organisation in a new competitive environment. So, tragically, they wind up the company, or threaten to, and re-negotiate or re-structure. In the bad old days, they didn't even have to carry the long term liabilities on the current account, kind of like the US Social Security pension. Nowdays, its harder to get away with that kind of 'see no evil' accounting.

    I have another suggestion, perhaps the reason GM is going broke is because they make sh1t cars?

    Oh, and I agree with you on the "Cheap cr@p" issue. People whine about it all, but still love to dance in the middle of a pile of cheap cr2p, like monkeys like to smear sh1t on their fur and pretend to be all dressed up.

    Back to one of my original points, consumers drive the economy, not entrepreneurs. Dollar votes.


    Cheers

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Behind you!
    Posts
    6,163
    Looks like I didn't put that very well.

    I was disagreeing with you Unkokusai... as I think you know... but since MP doesn't seem to realize I was agreeing with him either, let me try again.
    Quote Originally Posted by Merryprankster View Post
    ...What say you?

    Has anybody done any studies estimating the relative benefit to the rich from common property and services? Do they benefit - in a proportional sense - more heavily than the middle class or poor? (ie, they can trace a greater percentage of their wealth/income to public goods/services than the middle class/poor?)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Punch View Post
    Economic policy and political viewpoint are inseparable. Economic testing and political viewpoint are inseparable. MP was asking what tests it would be valid to use: of course, people's answers will show their colour, but the question could quite easily be neutral.
    Since he is not making economic policy, and he not putting forward any particular type of testing/study (he is asking what others think about what type would be feasible, or whether we think the rich even do benefit more), he has separated his political viewpoint from his economic opinion. His question is asking us our colour. You've shown yours in that you obviously don't agree that rich people benefit more heavily than the middle class or the poor... but wait, no you haven't, you've gotten all judgmental about why he was asking and about your opinion that a higher taxation grade can only be seen as some kind of punishment. It ain't necessarily so.
    its safe to say that I train some martial arts. Im not that good really, but most people really suck, so I feel ok about that - Sunfist

    Sometime blog on training esp in Japan

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Jack II View Post
    I disagree. I don't believe that description comes close to being compaired to the one I stated, in the context of "as bad." Nor was mine pulled out of thin air.

    First off, he had a job, so ergo he was contributing and more than anything will get another job, which unlike the career welfare mom just wants to sit on her kester and collect checks and government perks like a free car and lowered rent. Also just because Mr. Executive negotiates his leaving package, which may include large payouts, is just indicative of the successfull position he has achieved in life. It's part and parcel of where he is at.

    Most rich people did not get there by a accident nor did poor people get there by a accident. Economic status is often a good or bad life decisions. What this is is that certain people hate the concept of profit, in specific they hate those that have the ability to make what "they" term an excessive profit.
    why not get rid of welfare all together
    tax the rich as is appropriate and give money to poorer(note not food stamps just plain hard cash) families and take it away aftert a period if they dont get jobs
    this will force ppl to beocme independant as opposed to dependant while still providing support

    as for big CEO's driving the economy

    to some extent they do but they are dependant on consumers just as they are dependant on the big compnies to provide what they want to consume

    so if people habe more incentives to get jobs and make money then they can consume more thus driving the economy

    u might wonder as to what kind of society this might create tho
    but hey if u want to be a shallow consumer or change your life and go beyonf that then a prosperous economy and society will provide the stable nase from which that can occur
    there are only masters where there are slaves

    www.myspace.com/chenzhenfromjingwu



    Quote Originally Posted by Shaolin Wookie View Post
    5. The reason you know you're wrong: I'm John Takeshi, and I said so, beeyotch.

  13. #73

    Let's pick up the discussion again...

    Quote Originally Posted by Merryprankster View Post
    Most of the time when I read about the rich paying more taxes, the argument runs along the lines of tax burdens (ie, the rich can afford it, etc). They also talk about social justice, which I don't really dig as an argument.

    Only rarely, and in a not fully developed form, in my opinion, is what I consider to be a potentially more compelling argument, should it pan out: The rich derive greater benefit, on the whole, from common property and services.

    Business, for instance relies on the interstate transportation system. Public education creates a cadre of at least competent people that the rich employ in various capacities to make more money. In essence, publicly supported infrastructure, in a variety of forms, is a common good that the rich may derive greater utility from, individually, than the middle class and poor.

    For the purposes of this discussion I would include corporations in this construct.

    Note that I am not necessarily suggesting we increase taxes (although I think it's a good idea), I am merely making a tentative argument for progressive taxation.

    What say you?

    Has anybody done any studies estimating the relative benefit to the rich from common property and services? Do they benefit - in a proportional sense - more heavily than the middle class or poor? (ie, they can trace a greater percentage of their wealth/income to public goods/services than the middle class/poor?)
    One thing that I believe is wrong with your argument is including corporations in with rich people. You can have a company of poor folks or rich folks who do not own a company. To me including the two together cloudies the water.

    If a company uses the interstate highway system then they should be taxed for it's use. These days it would be quite easy to tax say trucks hauling goods, and a company's trucks could be taxed for using federal and local infrastructure. Of course they will pass that tax down to the consumer.
    When it comes to rich people, regardless of whether they are the salt of the earth, or whale turds on the bottom of the Marianas Trench, should be taxed just like anybody else. I'm for a simplified tax. That means no loop holes, easy to figure out how much you owe whether by flat rate or a simple bracketed rate.
    I quit after getting my first black belt because the school I was a part of was in the process of lowering their standards A painfully honest KC Elbows

    The crap that many schools do is not the crap I was taught or train in or teach.

    Dam nit... it made sense when it was running through my head.

    DM


    People love Iron Crotch. They can't get enough Iron Crotch. We all ride the Iron Crotch for the exposure. Gene

    Find the safety flaw in the training. Rory Miller.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Posts
    6,190
    Rogue, that's an interesting division, and one I hadn't considered. I was thinking that corporations are "legal people," in many senses, so just lumped them in.

    Is there a way for us to figure out what the indirect benefits of public infrastructure/services are, relative to income as a whole, and incorporate that into our taxation scheme? I think that's what I was actually asking. And the reason I was asking it is because I would find analysis of something like that, provided it was done in a reasonably thorough, straightforward way, rather compelling. By way of example, presumably the Walton family has a greater vested interest in our transportation infrastructure, our civil security, our national security and our diplomatic relationships with other countries. This would extend to education as well, etc.

    While it's clear they "owe more" in the absolute sense, which a flat tax would accomplish, I'm asking do they owe more in the RELATIVE sense? That is - do they derive a greater relative benefit than a middle class individual? Also, do they derive a greater or less relative benefit than what they are currently paying out?

    The question I am asking is basically "given their tax burden now, are they paying too much or too little, and do we have any analytical mechanisms/tools that could give us a reasonable conclusion?"

    This is in contrast to social justice arguments and personal responsibility arguments, which I find ludicrous unless there is a good cost-benefit analysis attached.

    Question - is there enough room in our economy for a VAT tax (which would make every echelon in the chain pay, not just the consumer) and an elimination of the income tax altogether? Some economic growth would be lost to be sure, but I don't know how much.

    One thing I am definitely not in favor of is a wealth tax, as some people have proposed (albeit not on this thread). You can be asset rich and cash poor. That would be a killer!
    Last edited by Merryprankster; 05-23-2007 at 06:37 AM.
    "In the world of martial arts, respect is often a given. In the real world, it must be earned."

    "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand. "--Bertrand Russell

    "Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends of every country save their own. "--Benjamin Disraeli

    "A conservative government is an organised hypocrisy."--Benjamin Disraeli

  15. #75
    The rich man makes the rules that he knows many cannot follow...the rich man makes the decisions for the way poor people conduct their lives, while he does not have to see how really hard it is...the rich man gives you all the opportunities in the world but if you get out of line, whammo!

    Reply]
    This is a warped statement...NO ONE makes the rules for me, and no one but ME makes the decisions for the way i conduct my life...regardless of my level of income.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •