takeru51 said: There's yer problem chief... The top 1% have 33% of the country's money (as of 2005). Therefore, shouldn't they be paying 33% of our taxes?

 No "chief" I don't think that is true at all.  The percentages are irrelevant because just having money isn't and shouldn't be taxable.  No tax system should penalize people for saving money, its just down right illogical.

As for whether or not 1% of the people should be paying 33% of the taxes. No and quite frankly it frightens me that people think this is logical.  I cannot fathom what would make people think it is fair for one person to be forced to cover the cost of another person.  The simple fact is that the entire idea is punishment for success.   This is essentially socialism, and in reality this is a basic socialistic expansion technique...(promising the money of the rich to the poor and middle class to gain their support).  

I'm sure there are a lot of people that like the idea of someone who has more money than them paying for them.  Its a really great idea if you're the one benefitting from it.  But it doesn't make it a fair plan. 

I still think the best way I have heard to do a tax system is a sales tax.  If you can treat everyone equal and still get the rich to pay the overwhelming majority of the taxes then I would call that a good system.  

ultraslick said: @OP - Because people are idiots. IMO If Hilary is elected, I won't have pride for my country anymore. What happens when she is on her time of the month- another war will be started!

 I'm not a big Hillary fan either, but that was just sexist and stupid.

Final-Fan said: My post quoted above was focused entirely on refuting your allegation that the estate tax was some kind of horrible burden on the survivors. If someone inherits $100 million, I don't think anyone's going to be thrown out on the street if the government takes half of it. And similarly, 40% of $1 million a year hurts a lot less than 40% of $40,000 a year. If by "fair" you mean "everyone pays a the same tax rate" then the FairTax is perfect. But the rich can afford to pay a larger share of their money in taxes, even leaving aside arguments about "evening out" the rich/poor disparity. The simple fact is that people have necessities like food, shelter, transportation, etc. that take up money, and people with a lot of money have a lot MORE left over afterwards. And the IRS won't just disappear, you know -- taxes will still have to be collected and that collection will still have to be enforced. (However, it is true that the IRS will be able to be considerably smaller due to the different tax collection technique.) And the IRS budget is a tiny, tiny fraction of the total budget. I think that most people would say that taking MORE money from those in the $15k to $200k range and LESS from those in the $200k+ range is not what they would prefer.

Ok but is this about fairness as a whole or just taking as much money from the wealthy without taking so much as to make them not classify as wealthy anymore?  

The reason I ask is because you seem to be ok with an estate tax on the rich but if the same were applied to you or your family then suddenly it would not be ok?  How would you say it is fair with a straight face if that is the case?

Simply because they have more?  If that is your answer then once again I will say you are penalizing success which is at its heart a socialistic concept.

Once again I can understand that the rich will have to pick up more than other people because that is just the economic reality of the situation.  What I do not agree with is this idea that we should maximise this "extra" they are paying or that we should be looking for new ways to tax them that we don't tax anyone else.

This is why I have repeated this idea of "treating each person the same" so many times.  

 

Sqrl said: takeru51 said: There's yer problem chief... The top 1% have 33% of the country's money (as of 2005). Therefore, shouldn't they be paying 33% of our taxes?  No "chief" I don't think that is true at all.  The percentages are irrelevant because just having money isn't and shouldn't be taxable.  No tax system should penalize people for saving money, its just down right illogical. As for whether or not 1% of the people should be paying 33% of the taxes. No and quite frankly it frightens me that people think this is logical.  I cannot fathom what would make people think it is fair for one person to be forced to cover the cost of another person.  The simple fact is that the entire idea is punishment for success.   This is essentially socialism, and in reality this is a basic socialistic expansion technique...(promising the money of the rich to the poor and middle class to gain their support).   I'm sure there are a lot of people that like the idea of someone who has more money than them paying for them.  Its a really great idea if you're the one benefitting from it.  But it doesn't make it a fair plan.  I still think the best way I have heard to do a tax system is a sales tax.  If you can treat everyone equal and still get the rich to pay the overwhelming majority of the taxes then I would call that a good system.

The Problem with that system is the rich don't spend proportially what they make compared to everyone else.  As the saying goes "The Rich get Richer".  Which causes a gap between the Rich and Poor, which when it grows too high is a giant destabalizing factor as there is less money, and less resources for those who arn't rich to get by... eventually there isn't enough... and then the poor get pissed off about... well starving and violence happens.

Hence why you tax total income... so you can somewhat keep the gap between the rich and poor equal.  The rich are still rich, the poor are still poor, but nearly everyone gets their stomaches fed and nobody ends up being decapitated by Robespierre.

That's also i'd imagine a reason for the Death tax... to try and limit fortunes being passed on from one super rich person to another, creating a dynasty that works as a defacto "noble class".

It might not be "fair" but these taxes pretty much are meant to keep just the right balance between rich and poor to get political balance.  Even then the rich are still getting richer, the poor poorer and the middle class disapearing.

It's the price we pay for living in a flawed world.  I mean hey, ever think about how many unneeded abortions happen just because jackasses can't figure out that maybe they should be on the birth control pill and that they should wear condoms.

Sure they both fail occasionally but if you use one... or better yet both.  You're pretty set.

Sqrl said: takeru51 said: There's yer problem chief... The top 1% have 33% of the country's money (as of 2005). Therefore, shouldn't they be paying 33% of our taxes? No "chief" I don't think that is true at all. The percentages are irrelevant because just having money isn't and shouldn't be taxable. No tax system should penalize people for saving money, its just down right illogical. As for whether or not 1% of the people should be paying 33% of the taxes. No and quite frankly it frightens me that people think this is logical. I cannot fathom what would make people think it is fair for one person to be forced to cover the cost of another person. The simple fact is that the entire idea is punishment for success. This is essentially socialism, and in reality this is a basic socialistic expansion technique...(promising the money of the rich to the poor and middle class to gain their support). I'm sure there are a lot of people that like the idea of someone who has more money than them paying for them. Its a really great idea if you're the one benefitting from it. But it doesn't make it a fair plan. I still think the best way I have heard to do a tax system is a sales tax. If you can treat everyone equal and still get the rich to pay the overwhelming majority of the taxes then I would call that a good system.

1.  Welcome to the thread.  Did you see the data in my response to the same post you responded to? 

2.  Are you sure you're not confusing socialism with populism?

3.  Why should the ones getting 33% of the money not pay 33% of the taxes?  Isn't that equal?  What difference does it make if the group in question is only 1% of the population?

Sqrl said: Ok but is this about fairness as a whole or just taking as much money from the wealthy without taking so much as to make them not classify as wealthy anymore? The reason I ask is because you seem to be ok with an estate tax on the rich but if the same were applied to you or your family then suddenly it would not be ok? How would you say it is fair with a straight face if that is the case? Simply because they have more? If that is your answer then once again I will say you are penalizing success which is at its heart a socialistic concept. Once again I can understand that the rich will have to pick up more than other people because that is just the economic reality of the situation. What I do not agree with is this idea that we should maximise this "extra" they are paying or that we should be looking for new ways to tax them that we don't tax anyone else. This is why I have repeated this idea of "treating each person the same" so many times.

 You do understand how the estate tax helps keep the US from completely becoming a plutocracy? Personally I'm in favor of living in a more meritocratic society. 

Kasz216 said: Sqrl said: takeru51 said: There's yer problem chief... The top 1% have 33% of the country's money (as of 2005). Therefore, shouldn't they be paying 33% of our taxes? No "chief" I don't think that is true at all. The percentages are irrelevant because just having money isn't and shouldn't be taxable. No tax system should penalize people for saving money, its just down right illogical. As for whether or not 1% of the people should be paying 33% of the taxes. No and quite frankly it frightens me that people think this is logical. I cannot fathom what would make people think it is fair for one person to be forced to cover the cost of another person. The simple fact is that the entire idea is punishment for success. This is essentially socialism, and in reality this is a basic socialistic expansion technique...(promising the money of the rich to the poor and middle class to gain their support). I'm sure there are a lot of people that like the idea of someone who has more money than them paying for them. Its a really great idea if you're the one benefitting from it. But it doesn't make it a fair plan. I still think the best way I have heard to do a tax system is a sales tax. If you can treat everyone equal and still get the rich to pay the overwhelming majority of the taxes then I would call that a good system. The Problem with that system is the rich don't spend proportially what they make compared to everyone else. As the saying goes "The Rich get Richer". Which causes a gap between the Rich and Poor, which when it grows too high is a giant destabalizing factor as there is less money, and less resources for those who arn't rich to get by... eventually there isn't enough... and then the poor get pissed off about... well starving and violence happens. Hence why you tax total income... so you can somewhat keep the gap between the rich and poor equal. The rich are still rich, the poor are still poor, but nearly everyone gets their stomaches fed and nobody ends up being decapitated by Robespierre. That's also i'd imagine a reason for the Death tax... to try and limit fortunes being passed on from one super rich person to another, creating a dynasty that works as a defacto "noble class". It might not be "fair" but these taxes pretty much are meant to keep just the right balance between rich and poor to get political balance. Even then the rich are still getting richer, the poor poorer and the middle class disapearing. It's the price we pay for living in a flawed world. I mean hey, ever think about how many unneeded abortions happen just because jackasses can't figure out that maybe they should be on the birth control pill and that they should wear condoms. Sure they both fail occasionally but if you use one... or better yet both. You're pretty set.

 Answering paragraph by paragraph:

Conversely if you tax the rich an unreasonable amount, they begin leaving the country with that money in search of places that don't tax them to hell and back.  And this is something that is happening now and happens a lot faster than rich people hording wealth forever...which takes forever =P.  Most wealthy people understand that it is best to have their money working for them.  They generally invest and that money is constantly in the system which sort of kills your point here. By having that money invested they stand to lose and gain quite a bit which provides plenty of balance. And again I will say I have yet to hear a good argument for penalizing those who wish to save money.  

The number of rich and poor people by percentages is remaining relatively stable, although this doesn't mean these are the same people.  There is quite a bit of fluctuation in the rich side of things and not nearly as much on the poor side of things.  This rich turnover again provides a stablizing factor that prevents your scenario from happening.

As for the estate tax being a balancing factor, I don't think this is neccessary at all.   It is definitely a lot easier to make a bunch of money when you are rich but it is also a lot easier to lose a lot of money when you are rich.  History has shown that the richest estates in the world quickly fall from grace over the course of 2 to 4 generations or so.  There are probably exceptions to this but by in large it is true.  Most of the time a great deal of the money is left to charities, or split up amongst dozens of people.  I have a hard time believing that the problem you described is or would be anywhere near as big of an issue as you portray it to be.

Ultimately I think your argument deals far too thoroughly in generalities, it really is an oversimplistic view of what is going on and makes it seem as if the rich are just getting richer because they are rich.  When in reality only some are increasing their wealth and those are the ones who are investing and providing jobs and economic growth.  To tax them specifically for the reason that they are spurring growth and providing jobs is beyond ridiculous. It is once again a penalty for success.  

 

fkusumot said: Sqrl said: Ok but is this about fairness as a whole or just taking as much money from the wealthy without taking so much as to make them not classify as wealthy anymore? The reason I ask is because you seem to be ok with an estate tax on the rich but if the same were applied to you or your family then suddenly it would not be ok? How would you say it is fair with a straight face if that is the case? Simply because they have more? If that is your answer then once again I will say you are penalizing success which is at its heart a socialistic concept. Once again I can understand that the rich will have to pick up more than other people because that is just the economic reality of the situation. What I do not agree with is this idea that we should maximise this "extra" they are paying or that we should be looking for new ways to tax them that we don't tax anyone else. This is why I have repeated this idea of "treating each person the same" so many times.   You do understand how the estate tax helps keep the US from completely becoming a plutocracy? Personally I'm in favor of living in a more meritocratic society.

If you are referring to the way the rich influence the political system then I would say it is a concern but the shortcoming of one system shouldn't be the reasons for implementing shortcomings into another system.

In other words we should fix what is broken (ie campaign finance) rather than break something else.

PS - Let me know if I understood you properly.

Sqrl said: Final-Fan said: My post quoted above was focused entirely on refuting your allegation that the estate tax was some kind of horrible burden on the survivors. If someone inherits $100 million, I don't think anyone's going to be thrown out on the street if the government takes half of it. And similarly, 40% of $1 million a year hurts a lot less than 40% of $40,000 a year. If by "fair" you mean "everyone pays a the same tax rate" then the FairTax is perfect. But the rich can afford to pay a larger share of their money in taxes, even leaving aside arguments about "evening out" the rich/poor disparity. The simple fact is that people have necessities like food, shelter, transportation, etc. that take up money, and people with a lot of money have a lot MORE left over afterwards. And the IRS won't just disappear, you know -- taxes will still have to be collected and that collection will still have to be enforced. (However, it is true that the IRS will be able to be considerably smaller due to the different tax collection technique.) And the IRS budget is a tiny, tiny fraction of the total budget. I think that most people would say that taking MORE money from those in the $15k to $200k range and LESS from those in the $200k+ range is not what they would prefer. Ok but is this about fairness as a whole or just taking as much money from the wealthy without taking so much as to make them not classify as wealthy anymore? The reason I ask is because you seem to be ok with an estate tax on the rich but if the same were applied to you or your family then suddenly it would not be ok? How would you say it is fair with a straight face if that is the case? Simply because they have more? If that is your answer then once again I will say you are penalizing success which is at its heart a socialistic concept. Once again I can understand that the rich will have to pick up more than other people because that is just the economic reality of the situation. What I do not agree with is this idea that we should maximise this "extra" they are paying or that we should be looking for new ways to tax them that we don't tax anyone else. This is why I have repeated this idea of "treating each person the same" so many times.

I would treat someone inheriting $10,000 differently than someone inheriting $10,000,000 because -- guess what -- it's a different situation.  If I had a rich uncle I expected to inherit millions from -- and in fact I DO have a wealthy uncle, but I don't know his net worth and haven't seen his will -- I would be making the same exact arguments.  I'm not saying I would fork over the $2 million tax bill with a smile on my face, but I would still vote to keep the law even knowing that would happen to me. 

"Treating each person the same" -- Do you tell someone in a wheelchair to suck it up or do you build him a ramp next to the staircase?  Rich people are more able to pay a high tax rate without hardship, so we do, to benefit society. 

Final-Fan said: I would treat someone inheriting $10,000 differently than someone inheriting $10,000,000 because -- guess what -- it's a different situation. If I had a rich uncle I expected to inherit millions from -- and in fact I DO have a wealthy uncle, but I don't know his net worth and haven't seen his will -- I would be making the same exact arguments. I'm not saying I would fork over the $2 million tax bill with a smile on my face, but I would still vote to keep the law even knowing that would happen to me. "Treating each person the same" -- Do you tell someone in a wheelchair to suck it up or do you build him a ramp next to the staircase? Rich people are more able to pay a high tax rate without hardship, so we do, to benefit society.

Its not a different situation.  It is someone dying and leaving their estate to their friends and family.  Why does it make a difference if I leave $10,000 worth of posessions or $10,000,000 worth of posessions. It is still the final request of a person who has just died and it is being ignored because the government wants to cram its hand down their pocket one last time.  I'm sorry but you just cannot convince me that this is "ok".

Aside from that there are so many problems with the tax, for example: Would you think it is ok if your uncle leaves you an authenticated baseball bat signed by Babe Ruth and certified as the last bat he used to hit a home run with.  Oh...but wait, you can't keep it because it is valued at $20m and in order to pay the estate tax it has to be sold. Sorry better luck next time, maybe next time your relative dies and specifically gives you a priceless treasure the government will decide that it is ok to follow their wishes....but only if you can fork over the cash!