Thief13x on 30/8/2008 at 22:47
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
I would argue some of that but my spider-sense tells me you're one of those people to whom anything at all short of unregulated capitalism in all things is "omg commies". Feel free to correct me if i'm wrong!
I like Hannity's classic argument that has never once been anwsered by the dems:
"Currently, 10% of the population pays 70% of the federal income tax. If 70% is too little, what number is high enough?"As far as I'm concerned, I say we cut to the chase and put everyone's income in a commune and call ourselves the USSR
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
Anyway I'm excited about Obama not so much because I've read up on him in detail (I haven't)
relax, you're in good company in this country
Chimpy Chompy on 30/8/2008 at 22:57
How much of the wealth do those 10% have?
SD on 30/8/2008 at 22:57
Quote Posted by Thief13x
I like Hannity's classic argument that has never once been anwsered by the dems:
"Currently, 10% of the population pays 70% of the federal income tax. If 70% is too little, what number is high enough?"Even if it's true (and I don't trust a word that Hannity says) that statement is meaningless without considering (a) what proportion of income that top 10% of earners is responsible for and (b) other taxes apart from income tax.
Anyway, given that the top 10% of earners are (
http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/1245) the only group to have seen their incomes rise faster than productivity over the past 4 decades, I don't think I will be worrying too much about them; seems like they can look after themselves just okay. I think I'd rather worry about the children growing up in poverty who currently have no prospect of bettering themselves.
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
I've no idea what the Lib Dems would do.
I don't want to sidetrack an American politics thread with discussions of what happens in our little backwater, but it's broadly the same as our policy on most other things: (
http://www.libdems.org.uk/health/issues/nhsreform.html) decentralisation.
The_Raven on 30/8/2008 at 23:15
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Evidence please.
I'm pretty sure she's right on that one. I'll have to do some digging in order to back up the comment, though.
Starrfall on 30/8/2008 at 23:36
Quote Posted by Thief13x
I like Hannity's classic argument that has never once been anwsered by the dems:
"Currently, 10% of the population pays 70% of the federal income tax. If 70% is too little, what number is high enough?"Well if I'm mocking republicans, I say to him, "If you don't like it you can move the fuck out. LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT"
If I'm bothering to be serious, I say "I like the way you found a talking point that includes a nice high number (70%) that doesn't mean much. Tell me what percentage of their incomes they are paying and then I'll be able to tell you if I think it's too high or not you disingenuous tool."
edit: or to make it simpler you could even just include what percentage of america's wealth those top 10% hold
Chimpy Chompy on 31/8/2008 at 00:11
Thing is, you tax a rich guy at 50% and... what difference does it make to his life? Anything noticeable? Only 3 smart condos instead of 4?
That's why my concerns with high tax on the rich aren't ethical (they can afford it) but more practical (will they end up moving to another country, resulting in no tax paid here at all).
elkston on 31/8/2008 at 01:32
Quote Posted by heywood
No, as I said in my last post, picking Palin was the last straw for me with McCain. I used to admire the guy some years ago, but since then he's sold out his principles to get back in the party's good graces. And he's had a few "senior moments" in the last year, so I'd want a competent VP there to back him up. So I'm either going to skip the top of the ticket or maybe write-in a protest vote.
Oh, ok. I hope you'll tune in to Obama in the next few weeks though. I mean, unless you are just ideologically opposed to what he is offering.
jay pettitt on 31/8/2008 at 08:52
Quote Posted by Thief13x
I like Hannity's classic argument that has never once been anwsered by the dems:
"Currently, 10% of the population pays 70% of the federal income tax. If 70% is too little, what number is high enough?"It does occur to me that only ~40-50%ish of the US population can be expected to return income tax at all. Children, retired senior citizens and stay at home parents supported financially by their partners don't. Are you suggesting that children should pay more taxes to make it more fairer?
demagogue on 31/8/2008 at 09:17
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
but more practical (will they end up moving to another country, resulting in no tax paid here at all).
I think the bigger concern is more in the margins. How much harder will a savvy, creative person/business press on to do more highly marketable things after they've already made money? The more you tax the higher end, the more the signal comes across like society disfavors you pressing on farther; please stop being smart and ambitious now. If you do, we'll "punish" you. It encourages them to rest on their laurels. Maybe that's fine for them, but it's (supposed to) mean we're worse off by missing their next great brain-child (considering that some of the best selling things are bad for us, anyway, maybe that's not such a bad thing).
A guy like Warren Buffet doesn't seem to buy the argument, though. He thinks people at that level aren't really motivated by those kinds of signals anymore, and the idea itself pushes them forward, or they'd have to be so self-motivated to get to that level in the first place that they certainly wouldn't let, of all things, taxes stand in their way. I'd be curious to see if there are any empirical studies on the relationship, though.
SubJeff on 31/8/2008 at 10:29
Quote:
The more you tax the higher end, the more the signal comes across like society disfavors you pressing on farther; please stop being smart and ambitious now.
Absolutely. It really is like a punishment for success. I'm all for higher taxes for the insanely wealthy but for those who have just been "very" successful it's a real slap in the face.
Quote:
Thing is, you tax a rich guy at 50% and... what difference does it make to his life? Anything noticeable? Only 3 smart condos instead of 4?
It depends what you call rich. You need to quantify it before you can start making these statements. Imho anyone (in the UK) making over 1 million/year can be classed as "rich" and any earnings over that taxed at a higher rate. Any less and it's punishment for success. Taking the rich a bit more just makes social sense.
On the other hand there are always people who are just too lazy to do anything and certainly in the UK we have far to lax and attitude to this and just give them money for nothing.
