# How should we stop the rich from cheating?



## vilk (Dec 29, 2015)

It's a fact of life that super rich people in the United States don't pay the taxes they're supposed to by doing all kinds of loop-hole-ish stuff. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/30/b...vate-tax-system-saves-them-billions.html?_r=1

What do you think can be done to stop them? Keeping in mind that I am not economically smart, I was thinking couldn't it all be avoided with an income ceiling or an asset ceiling or something? All the money you make over [decided number] just automatically converted to 100% tax dollars. I personally don't think there's a man alive who deserves more than 1 billion dollars. There's literally nothing you should be able to do or contribute to earn that. No one is worth that much. Or is that an opinion that most don't share with me (honest question)? 

Or how about an aggressive imprisonment movement. Literally hunt down every single one of these guys and lock them up. New CEOs take over, pull the same shtick, lock them up. Start a War On Tax Evasion and treat it like it's a War On Drugs. Convert the DEA to the TEA and put mandatory minimum sentences on that ..... 

I've heard it said that removing our lobbying system would make it so that congressmen no longer have incentives to shelter these criminals and secretly defend their actions. Do you suppose that is so?

Like I said, I'm not smart about this kind of stuff-- but I do like thinking about it. I'd like to hear what you guys think about it even more.


----------



## Sumsar (Dec 29, 2015)

Well, you are on to the right track here.
I am from Denmark, but we have the same problem, even though we have a progresive tax system, which means that the more you earn the more tax you pay.
Effectively though it is the other way around: The more money you earn the more loop holes you can use and in the end pay less tax.

The short (Metallica) answer would be: KILL 'EM ALL!

Seriously:
I think removing the lobbying system is a good start for all (also the EU) as most politicians are brought and paid for by (you guessed it) the rich

Furthermore I think you should also make it so that you can't be elected for any democratic instituition more than twice FOR LIFE! So something like 8 years in total in either local parliaments, national or international (EU).

There is actually a political party in Denmark which inforces this on its members in a way: you can only be in national parliament for 8 years, then you have to wait for 4 years until you can be elected again.
Also an idea from the same party: The members pay most of their income from being in parliament to the party, which is then used as funds for election campains. The reason for this is that members of parliament are paid a ridiciouless amount of money, in such a way that as soon as you are elected to parliament you basicly become a millionaire (in danish money, but still a lot of money).

This insures (in a way) that the MPs better represent the population in the parliament. Basicly reduce the pay of MPs to something like the average income of the country, instead of making MPs the top 1% of society.

All in all, have democracy be for and of the 99% of people instead of the 1%.


----------



## Rev2010 (Dec 29, 2015)

vilk said:


> I personally don't think there's a man alive who deserves more than 1 billion dollars. There's literally nothing you should be able to do or contribute to earn that. No one is worth that much. Or is that an opinion that most don't share with me (honest question)?



I certainly do NOT share that opinion with you, and I am a guy that earns just shy of 73K a year, so I'm by all means not "well off". Firstly, it is my personally opinion that the government should never be able to take more than 49% or your earnings. Why? Because you brought in the income and in no situation should the government ever be "entitled" to take more, or an equal amount of your share. That they can take more is disgusting and criminal. As for the billion dollar comment, I'll disagree there too. There are quite a few billionaire's, Bill Gates being the first to come to mind, that have done wonderfully good philanthropic things with their wealth. Not everyone is greedy. 

As to the original question... well that's a doozy isn't it!? I work for a prestigious corporate law firm, I've worked for two over the span of 16 years. Let me tell you something... these people are the one's making the laws and they're all wealthy. And what do they do to keep a large income flowing? Make MORE laws and make the legal system so god damn convoluted no one can represent themselves in court, it's suicide. We HAVE to pay for lawyers as a result. It's become so bad, counties/cities often can't pay for prosecuting a high profile crime! Why has it gotten this bad? Because the lawyers are running the law in this country and making it so they keep the fat checks rolling in.

My firm has a founding partner that has several books on this problem and has his own not-for-profit organization to try and combat this "too-big law" problem. I've watched his interviews on the Daily Show, kinda cool being I walk into his office and help him personally all the time. But will it make a difference? Probably not. I know because I see with every election our attornies leaving the firm to go work for the Obama administration for example. It goes all the way up to the government. 

So, in essence it's going to take a good moral backbone, people in power with good moral backbone to stop this bullsh*t. Otherwise it's going to continue on and on and on while everyone is greasing each others hands and people that stand to take the hit have their puppets in positions of power.


Rev.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Dec 29, 2015)

I'm by no means an expert either, but a flat tax for everyone makes sense to me.

For example, 15% should be taken out of everyone's gross income...no loop hole or anything like that, just 15% right off the bat. 

And I have to agree with you about the billion dollar statement. There is not one human worth that much. Period. But at the same time, that statement seems extremely Un-American to me.


I pay my fair share why can't everyone else? Oh wait....they are freaking rich and can afford accounts and lawyers to find loop holes 



That's just my uneducated opinion. I would love to hear from someone who actually knows their stuff.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 29, 2015)

TEA? Taxes? 

That was funny to me, but I do agree at the same time... I agree that those who evade paying their fair share of taxes should fear the hand of the law more than they appear to, but I'm not sure an income ceiling is the way to go about it. Then again, like you, I'm not expert.


----------



## vilk (Dec 29, 2015)

Rev2010 said:


> Because you brought in the income



Did you though,_ really_? Does an individual bring in that income? I like to think that it's consumers, workers (most of whom probably reside in Asia), and a whole lot of other people who bring in that income.

Yeah, Bill Gates is a notable rich man because he can at least be tagged with heaps philanthropic deeds. But if he didn't spend the money on philanthropic causes, I'd like to think that we as a country would have still found a virtuous use for his excess money. What if we could instantly turn _every_ billionaire into a 'Bill Gates'?


----------



## Rev2010 (Dec 29, 2015)

Sumsar said:


> I think removing the lobbying system is a good start for all (also the EU) as most politicians are brought and paid for by (you guessed it) the rich



I've been saying this for ages as well. The idea that people, and even corporations, can donate money into political campaigns should be outlawed. Paying for future favors is what it is plain and simple. Problem is, if we outlaw that then only people of high wealth can run for president as it does indeed take a crap ton of money to advertise. Perhaps if the countries of the world instead made their own united political TV/cable advertising channels that could be provisioned solely for the populace to tune in and be able to access content from each political party runner. I dunno. All I know is running for president does cost a lot of money so it's one of those things where a new system needs to be enacted to prevent campaign donations that lead to future preferential treatments and hookups and such.


Rev.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 29, 2015)

Well what if tax money paid for a single outlet where all candidates were allowed to advertise themselves and forced to share time with one another? It would still cost a lot of money but perhaps not have to come out of the individual candidates' pockets.

Further, they all receive the same amount of time and advertising this way and if they have something important to say they better damn well do it lest they be cut off and forced to allow the next man/woman to speak.

Beyond that, it should be made illegal for them to accept any donations from PACs, corporations, etc under *this* system because the money couldn't possibly be needed for their campaign and thus could only serve to grease their palms. If former contributors wish to contribute, they can contribute to a pool of money divided among all candidates for the purpose of allowing them equal opportunity to campaign.

I'm not sure that would work, but theoretically it does. 

I imagine that in that case--should the individual candidate have the funds of their own, they could still invest in campaigning beyond that single outlet and in that sense, I feel there may still be an unfair advantage because the person who can pay for nicer signs and air time of their own will naturally "appear" to be the best candidate to the masses unless it then became illegal to campaign outside of said oulet. I'm not sure people would be too happy about that, but it *would* level the playing field and discourage the acceptance of "political donations".


----------



## vilk (Dec 29, 2015)

Outlaw lobbying and then impose a campaign spending cap?


----------



## Rev2010 (Dec 29, 2015)

vilk said:


> Did you though,_ really_? Does an individual bring in that income? I like to think that it's consumers, workers (most of whom probably reside in Asia), and a whole lot of other people who bring in that income.



Yeah, and all those people also _already_ paid taxes on their income and then are taxed YET AGAIN to spend that income whilst the company and retailers are all paying taxes again as income. Not to mention the business an employee works for was already taxed on that income they are then paying you, the employee.

Personally, in my opinion, sales tax is criminal and should be abolished. I'm all for income tax, even a slightly higher income tax to abolish sales tax. Income tax is obviously necessary as we all need to support infrastructure, the military, etc. But when I give my money over to another entity for a product the government has zero involvement. Why should they get a cut??? They didn't do anything for me or the business. Don't even get me started on Estate/Death Taxes.


Rev.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 29, 2015)

Property tax bugs me a little bit too... I paid taxes on the item when I bought it and now because it's value exceeds <insert number> I pay you a fee every year just because I have it? Hmm... 

Maybe there's more to it than that, but that .... does grind my gears if it actually is that simple.


----------



## Sumsar (Dec 29, 2015)

Konfyouzd said:


> Property tax bugs me a little bit too... I paid taxes on the item when I bought it and now because it's value exceeds <insert number> I pay you a fee every year just because I have it? Hmm...
> 
> Maybe there's more to it than that, but that .... does grind my gears if it actually is that simple.



Yeah I don't understand this fully either. Though I think some of it may be do to the fact that property gains in value over the years (quite a lot over the years actually) and so just owning a property is considered an income. As an example: My parrents brought an appartment 30 years ago for about 400000 DKK. Today it is worth like 6000000 DKK (note the added zero!)

In that view it does not seem so unfair to have property tax, as the gain in value is far more than the inflation over those years.


----------



## Rev2010 (Dec 29, 2015)

Konfyouzd said:


> Property tax bugs me a little bit too... I paid taxes on the item when I bought it and now because it's value exceeds <insert number> I pay you a fee every year just because I have it? Hmm...



Property tax is something I am ok with since it still deals with infrastructure (at least for houses) on at least some level, but yeah I am not cool with just how high those taxes have become. In some areas it's ludicrous and almost like paying rent, or more! Problem is, us humans just won't stop reproducing and space is precious and finite. You want to live in a heavily populated area or near a major city well get ready for the whammy!


Rev.


----------



## vilk (Dec 29, 2015)

Rev2010 said:


> Yeah, and all those people also _already_ paid taxes on their income and then are taxed YET AGAIN to spend that income whilst the company and retailers are all paying taxes again as income. Not to mention the business an employee works for was already taxed on that income they are then paying you, the employee.
> Rev.



OK... but... I don't see what that has to do with why the super rich ought not to be put through the wringer. You've just talked about the people who wouldn't be affected by a ceiling. Or did I miss something?


----------



## Rev2010 (Dec 29, 2015)

vilk said:


> OK... but... I don't see what that has to do with why the super rich ought not to be put through the wringer. You've just talked about the people who wouldn't be affected by a ceiling. Or did I miss something?



I was simply commenting back on your reply of, "Does an individual bring in that income? *I like to think that it's consumers, workers (most of whom probably reside in Asia), and a whole lot of other people who bring in that income*." - meaning the government is getting a lot of money already from consumer transactions brought about by said billionaire's.

It was a personal opinion about something relating to your reply as opposed to the entire topic at hand, to which I think I covered my opinion on that in my first reply no?


Rev.


----------



## vilk (Dec 29, 2015)

Oh. 

You said that it's wrong to take so much money from billionaires because they brought in the income. So then I said, they didn't really bring in the income themselves, which you also admit is true.
So why then is it wrong to take so much money from billionaires? 

I mean, you gave your opinion, but you didn't explain it all the way. You called it disgusting to take over half of someone's money... but if someone makes 2 billion, and gov't takes 1 billion... they still have a billion dollars so... what's the disgusting part of being a billionaire? Do you really feel that bad for the monetary loss of a dude who has a thousand million dollars? I personally can't. So why do you? 

I guess it's not _exactly_ exactly what this thread is about but I feel it's relevant enough to discuss. I mean unless you don't want to.


----------



## Bodes (Dec 29, 2015)

We have a problem in Australia where it is so damn easy to start a business and then instead of earning an income, that money goes into your business which owns property, which you pay rent on so effectively you are paying yourself rent and anything you do to your property is considered a loss towards running a business which comes off your tax.

You have a party at your business owned property: claim it against tax.

This is now happening not only with the rich, but in the upper-middle class as well.

The problem is that if the laws were changed, most of our politicians will be directly affected.

We have an issue that came to light last year where the Federal Senate held inquiries big businesses who contributed less than 1% effective tax rate on profits when our county's corporate tax rate is 30% on profits. It was big news in the lead up to the inquiry, but after a few days, it disappeared from the news completely. Something smells fishy about that. 

Senator Penny Wong was in charge of these inquiries, and seemed like she wanted to do the right thing by the Australian people, but am worried she was spoken to by certain people and had her mind changed about the issue.

I, too, am fairly uneducated when it comes to financial and economic matters, but I certainly know that the current system of tax avoidance is wrong, creating a huge discrepancy between the top end and bottom end of town.


----------



## Rev2010 (Dec 29, 2015)

vilk said:


> You said that it's wrong to take so much money from billionaires because they brought in the income. So then I said, they didn't really bring in the income themselves, which you also admit is true.



No disrespect intended, but you're not reading what I wrote correctly. I didn't admit it was true. My point was that the government is already sucking a sh*t ton of money that was already taxed from people just spending the "already taxed" money. The reason for my commentary wasn't to agree with your comment, it was to reflect on your personal opinion of "I like to think that it's consumers, workers (most of whom probably reside in Asia), and a whole lot of other people who bring in that income." So if at that rate, if it's mostly others bringing in that money, which is taxed, why should the government need 50%+ of a billionaires income? I still disagree. I feel anything 49% and under would be more fair than taking 50% or more of someone's income. 



vilk said:


> So why then is it wrong to take so much money from billionaires?



Because they put all of their time, money, and intellect to be able to come out with a product, technology, whatever that everyone wants or needs. Why should the government ever deserve half or more than half of that when it's the individual or organizations accomplishment? Why the hell is 49% too little??? In what circumstance should the government ever take half or more than half and why should the government ever be entitled to a larger sum?



vilk said:


> I mean, you gave your opinion, but you didn't explain it all the way.



Actually, once again, my comment was in regard to your reply to me, which somehow seemed to confuse you since it wasn't in regard to the thread topic. I think I explained my opinion to your thread topic in my first reply. If you'd like me to go into explicit detail on each and every single comment I make I wasn't aware you needed that much detail and will try to oblige in the future.



vilk said:


> You called it disgusting to take over half of someone's money... but if someone makes 2 billion, and gov't takes 1 billion... they still have a billion dollars so... what's the disgusting part of being a billionaire?



Nothing. But you're seeing it in black and white. You're seeing, "Oh you're super rich so STFU!!! I think of things in a fairness scale - what I personally consider fair, to which degree I do not believe it fair for the government to take exactly half or more. You can disagree but I seriously doubt my personal opinion here needs further explanation.



vilk said:


> Do you really feel that bad for the monetary loss of a dude who has a thousand million dollars? I personally can't. So why do you?



No, I don't "feel bad", but I do still think it's f*cked up that we live in a society that allows such greed as to be able to take half or more of a persons earnings _just_ because the successful person is a citizen of the country. 



vilk said:


> I guess it's not _exactly_ exactly what this thread is about but I feel it's relevant enough to discuss. I mean unless you don't want to.



You were the one confused by my followup response to your followup response.  If you'd like I can stay 100% on topic from here on out.


Rev.


----------



## vilk (Dec 29, 2015)

You know, it's pretty condescending the way you tell me that I'm confused. It's my opinion that you simply wrote too poorly to be understood the way you wanted, but I wasn't going to say anything...



I'm pretty sure I was just asking you to go deeper into _why_ you think it's unfair to take from someone who has too much to miss it. You're claiming it's not fair for the government to take more than half of someone's money because they've put in time, work, money, risk, etc. I'm essentially saying that as far as I'm concerned, no amount of time or work provided by an individual should earn more than a billion dollars. Yeah, I bet billionaires work(ed?) their rich butts off (maybe?)... but frankly it just doesn't add up. How can a single human being possibly work hundreds of thousands of times harder than another? There's only 24 hours in a day, everyone sleeps... How can two people have time, but one's is worth only a tiny fraction of the other's? I guess I admit that it's a subjective thing, but from a practical standpoint I feel that after a certain point that subjectivity starts to decrease.


You say it's f*cked up that society is so greedy as to want to take rich peoples money... but that doesn't make sense to me. Society is everyone. Even billionaires drive on the roads, drink the water, etc. To say that society is greedy for taking from someone who hypothetically has over a billion dollars just seems totally antithetical. The man is greedy; society is not greedy because it is giving to everyone. Isn't greed kind of an individual want?


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Dec 29, 2015)

Rev2010 said:


> Nothing. But you're seeing it in black and white. You're seeing, "Oh you're super rich so STFU!!! I think of things in a fairness scale - what I personally consider fair, to which degree I do not believe it fair for the government to take exactly half or more. You can disagree but I seriously doubt my personal opinion here needs further explanation.



Fair? You want to talk about fair? Taking money that could have given many many many people great lives and keeping it all for yourself? 

Thats being an asshole. You want to be an asshole and take money that should be dispersed more evenly to hundreds if not thousands of people, your ass needs to deal with the repercussions. 

Its like gravity. We were supposed to be in a nebula, but after long enough, capitalism makes the economy into a solar system not consisting of trillions of particles, but of 8 f*cking planets. There is only so much money, and people are multiplying. If your going to fight to take that money out of other peoples hands for no other reason than you can, then I don't have much pity for being fair to them.

Society gave those people the oppurtunity to make that money, they need to give a good portion of that money back to the society that allowed them to even have that chance.


----------



## Rev2010 (Dec 29, 2015)

vilk said:


> but frankly it just doesn't add up. How can a single human being possibly work hundreds of thousands of times harder than another?



Well that's something we agree on. I think society's distribution of pay is so far out of whack and causing so many problems. Like CEO's, why do they earn in one year what it takes the company's average employee 250+ years to make? But that's a different topic in whole and my point with billionaires was more aligned toward the genius that invents something that changes the world and all of society. For example, I think if someone invented teleportation and made it easily affordable that person would deserve the billions. But I think you and 7 strings of hate here are turning it more into a debate about utopian society values vs capitalism based society values and that's not something I have any care to get into. I will say one thing though, for a Utopian society we literally need to change human nature for it to have any dream of coming to fruition. 


Rev.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 29, 2015)

Sumsar said:


> Yeah I don't understand this fully either. Though I think some of it may be do to the fact that property gains in value over the years (quite a lot over the years actually) and so just owning a property is considered an income. As an example: My parrents brought an appartment 30 years ago for about 400000 DKK. Today it is worth like 6000000 DKK (note the added zero!)
> 
> In that view it does not seem so unfair to have property tax, as the gain in value is far more than the inflation over those years.



We pay property tax on cars in my state which definitely do NOT go up in value. Anything over a certain value we get taxed to own.

Well maybe not everything but we do pay on things that depreciate.


----------



## Rev2010 (Dec 29, 2015)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> If your going to fight to take that money out of other peoples hands for no other reason than you can, then I don't have much pity for being fair to them.



This part of your argument seems counter to your argument. The government is the one taking money out of people's hand solely because they can. Not sure what you meant by this so apologies if I just misread your statement. 

All these things said, why do you guys suddenly think the government taking more money from the people equals it being redistributed to the people? When have you seen that happen? Seems to me the government borrows and overspends at an exponentially alarming rate and I don't see the general middle class and poor benefitting from it. Many billionaires however, at least a number of them, have become major philanthropists. 


Rev.


----------



## sevenstringj (Dec 29, 2015)

Rev2010 said:


> Like CEO's, why do they earn in one year what it takes the company's average employee 250+ years to make?


Math. Take ebay for example. CEO salary ~$1,000,000. # of employees = 36500 (wow, I had no idea). If you were to strip his entire salary & redistribute it to employees, 1000000/36500 = $27. Even if you include his stock options and _s_hit, it's about 13000000/36500 = $356. I'm sure most could use an extra $356, but it probably falls short of what people imagine redistribution would accomplish.


----------



## Rev2010 (Dec 29, 2015)

sevenstringj said:


> Math. Take ebay for example. CEO salary ~$1,000,000. # of employees = 36500 (wow, I had no idea). If you were to strip his entire salary & redistribute it to employees, 1000000/36500 = $27. Even if you include his stock options and _s_hit, it's about 13000000/36500 = $356. I'm sure most could use an extra $356, but it probably falls short of what people imagine redistribution would accomplish.



That's assuming the company has that many employees for one. And for two, I wasn't really considering redistributing the excess into each employees salary, just making note of how over inflated their salaries are. The cost of those salaries are often passed onto the consumers/customers. But I like your point still  

*edit - just wanted to add something. Hillary Clinton made mention of this exact thing in one of the first democratic debates this year. She wants to tax the rich more, she says the Wallstreet fat cats. Let me ask, how many of you really believe she'll do that when she's president? And we all know she will be the next president. I seriously doubt that will happen and I personally think she's using that rhetoric for votes. Sorry for the OT. 


Rev.


----------



## Grindspine (Dec 29, 2015)

The gap will eventually become so wide between the ultra-rich and everyone else that social upheaval will occur.

History has shown that pattern so many times. I just wonder if it will occur in our lifetimes. 

The advent of credit made created a "middle class" where people spend as if rich, though they are indebted for life. This is only a buffer that postpones the inevitable conflict between the rich and the poor.

At thirty-seven years old, I realize that I will likely never pay off my student loans, own house and property, or ever truly be financially comfortable. That is with working three non entry level jobs and typically clocking fifty-five to sixty-five hours per work week. My student loan debt gains interest faster than I can afford to pay it. If I live to seventy, I will not have paid off the debts I accrued as a college student.

This economy is hopeless. It is only a matter of time before people become violent about it.


----------



## Vrollin (Dec 29, 2015)

We all saw The Dark Knight Rises.... Make it so....


----------



## lelandbowman3 (Dec 30, 2015)

I'm not posting this to discredit anything posted in this thread, but it shows that the issue is never as black and white as we think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ

It's good in terms of what it would take in terms of taxing the 1% and how the idea sounds nice, but it's not economically feasible.


----------



## TedintheShed (Dec 30, 2015)

As long as a person does not steal or defraud another person to obtain their wealth, I am of the belief that a person is entitled to as much wealth as they may muster. 

A am anti-popular sovereignty and pro-individual sovereignty. No tax is just. Here is a thought expereiment to illustrate:




> _THE "HOW MANY MEN" ARGUMENT
> The following is a thought-experiment intended to illustrate the moral problem of taxation as a matter of simple common sense.
> 
> "Suppose that one man takes your car from you at gunpoint. Is this right or wrong? Most people would say that the man who does this is a thief who is violating your property rights.
> ...



Thus, taxation in tantamount to extortion.


----------



## Sumsar (Dec 30, 2015)

You Americans and the way you see goverment as this evil guy who comes in the night to steal all your money and guns


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 30, 2015)

Is the How Many Men thing really applicable? Don't we technically agree to taxes in some way shape or form whether we agree with the concept or not? The number of things we're taxed on, I sometimes have a problem with, but I do believe that by agreeing to work in the US you're also agreeing to the taxes levied on your income. I could be wrong about that.


----------



## _MonSTeR_ (Dec 30, 2015)

As soon as taxes get too high, those with real wealth leave for somewhere more favourable. The same goes for business, make it unfavourable and your jobs go overseas, it's all balancing act. Those clever enough to sort it out usually are also clever enough to realise that instead of sorting it out, they can use it to get rich themselves... Then it becomes a case of how altruistic are they?


----------



## Grindspine (Dec 30, 2015)

TedintheShed said:


> As long as a person does not steal or defraud another person to obtain their wealth, I am of the belief that a person is entitled to as much wealth as they may muster.
> 
> A am anti-popular sovereignty and pro-individual sovereignty. No tax is just. Here is a thought expereiment to illustrate:
> 
> ...



That is bad logic: see "slippery slope argument".

Conversely, if the richest are allowed to horde, it leaves nothing for the poorest until they starve, leaving a starving work force. If they starve to the point of death, there is no work force to support the rich. The slippery slope can work both ways.

Throw in Kant's Universal Law theorem and we can propose if all citizens pay what they can afford (per Bentham and Mills' point of utility), society would continue to prosper.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Dec 30, 2015)

Sumsar said:


> You Americans and the way you see goverment as this evil guy who comes in the night to steal all your money and guns



if you kept track of many civil liberties are violated every day in the name of security you would be averse to government growth too



lelandbowman3 said:


> I'm not posting this to discredit anything posted in this thread, but it shows that the issue is never as black and white as we think.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ
> 
> It's good in terms of what it would take in terms of taxing the 1% and how the idea sounds nice, but it's not economically feasible.



its not. and the dirty secret is the wealthy are part of political class. many lawmakers on the national level have cashed in since being elected. so of course they write loopholes to the laws to protect their own wealth and interests.


----------



## will_shred (Dec 30, 2015)

I think that a billionare tax is a great idea honestly. Nobody, NOBODY needs more than a billion dollars. Past that point I think that a single person cannot efficently allocate that much money in a way the produces a social utility. I'm sure that some people will say "Taxation is theft, blah blah blah" to that I say, grow the hell up. If you can see beyond your own self interest, you might start to understand that one's actions can negatively impact those around you. Also, such a wealth tax may prevent too much power from being concentrated in to few hands. The question isn't how to put good people into power, because positions of power will always attract those who are willing to cut throats to get there. The question is how do we make sure that those in power fear a backlash against the working class enough so that they are less likely to try and screw us one way or another.


----------



## will_shred (Dec 30, 2015)

Sumsar said:


> You Americans and the way you see goverment as this evil guy who comes in the night to steal all your money and guns



some people do think that way, which is unfortunate. However the US government has, in fact, been hijacked by an extremely corrupt ruling class, who, in a rapidly changing society, are determined to preserve their hegemony no matter the social or environmental cost. At this point I don't think that's really even a debatable issue. I think many people who are typically "anti big government" are most often the one's who are opposing regulations to protect the working class, in favor of deregulation which directly benefits the ruling class and harms the welfare of the working class. Our government has been extremely wasteful in its spending, there's no question about that either. Just look at how private military contractors abused their contracts with the government, or how the financial institutions held hostage the retirements and pensions of millions of working class people in order to get the fed to bail them out to the tune of over one trillion dollars. However, that wasteful spending can almost always be traced back to someone (usually a private company contracting with a government agency) making a .... ton of money off of that waste.


----------



## Sumsar (Dec 30, 2015)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> if you kept track of many civil liberties are violated every day in the name of security you would be averse to government growth to



Well to me that is a smaller problem as I live in Denmark.

We have similar problems though. In the last 15 years our national politications have increasingly lost touch with reality and live in their own little bubble world where they think that rich people are the only ones who have and create value in society, and alot of them seem to be of the actual opinion that the poor, the imigrants, the refugees and a big part of the middle class should just be put in camps and killed and then the nation would be much better off.

Denmark used to be one of the richest countries in the world. We used to be a peacefull nation, who was leading on enviromental matters, had an extremely low poverty rate and where producing value through education and knowledge, and who supported human rights and liberty.

But yeah, our politicians has spent the last 15 years flushing all those good and noble things down the toilet.


----------



## asher (Dec 30, 2015)

sevenstringj: in reality, any CEO is making millions more than just his salary, through signing bonuses, other packages, and golden parachutes.

Fun fact #1: the majority of the very top richest people inherited all their wealth. How do we feel about that? They personally didn't work for it.

Fun fact #2: flat taxes are actually quite regressive, and hurt the lowest rungs of society far more than the upper rungs.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Dec 31, 2015)

This is one of the crazier-but-convincing solutions to this problem. An economist at Cornell came up with the idea of a "steeply progressive consumption tax"

his plan as he explains it would cut down the lower income tax burden while ratcheting up rates on the rich all while encouraging more people to save money. 

its a fun read if anything 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/b...8a&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink


----------



## Mike (Dec 31, 2015)

cwhitey2 said:


> I'm by no means an expert either, but a flat tax for everyone makes sense to me.
> 
> For example, 15% should be taken out of everyone's gross income...no loop hole or anything like that, just 15% right off the bat.
> 
> ...



Flat tax is still not fair though. Think of it like this. I make $10,000 a year and you make $10,000,000 a year. We both pay our flat tax rate of (for the sake of this made up scenario) 40%. I have $6,000 left which is near impossible to survive on and you still have $6,000,000 left. More than any person would ever need in a year. Basically the point I'm trying to make is even though the percent is equal, the dollar value taken hurts a lot less when you have a lot more.


----------



## DudeManBrother (Jan 1, 2016)

I wish more people understood what "income" tax is. If you're ever bored, look up the senate report of 1954 code and ponder the real question, why did congress change the forthright explanation of "non-resident aliens and foreign corporations" to "taxpayers"? And then clarified that they made no changes to their ability to tax? Are you a non resident alien? Are you a foreign corporation? No? Then youre not obligated to pay income tax, except you filled out a 1040 or w2, which they say is voluntary consent to be considered a "taxpayer". Then you can discover that the IRS operates under some title called "Department of Treasury" which in no way states that it has anything to do whatso ever with the united states of America. It is not to be confused with the "United States Treasury Department". There is valid documentation on an internal revenue commissioner, but nothing written on a valid usA agency called the IRS. 
How can anyone say in one breath they own their house, but if they don't pay a property tax, it can be taken away? How did you ever own it? It sounds like you pay a price for the privilege of usage. When you buy a guitar, how much tax do you have to pay yearly to "maintain ownership"? None? That sounds like something that belongs to you then. The big illusion is that income tax funds roads and schools. Total bull..... The IRS is a private company out of Puerto Rico and is a for profit criminal organization. Stop worrying about the tax breaks of big companies, and start asking why you are presumed to be a foreign corporation yourself. Hint, look up the definition of "person" in Black's law dictionary. Then learn the difference between an American and a US Citizen, the difference between your name and YOUR NAME, and brush up on the District of Columbia Act of 1871. You'll be far more upset than you are today, but at least you'll start to understand how corruption and deception built this "country"


----------



## asher (Jan 1, 2016)

:eyeroll:


----------



## DudeManBrother (Jan 1, 2016)

Lol


----------



## will_shred (Jan 1, 2016)

Well, according to the constitution, congress and state governments have a right to levy taxes, and it doesn't really put many restrictions on how. So... There isn't really a debate over whether or not "property taxes" are legal. 

Once again, I beseech those who believe that taxation is theft to actually think a little deeper about the issue. Income inequality isn't the problem, its how much income inequality. A little income inequality does provide a work incentive. However, too much income inequality is toxic. The battle between rich and poor is also as old as the country itself. Inequality peaked right before the first successful American revolution, our founding fathers, who themselves were part of an established colonial elite, realized that they could redirect a general sense of class resentment against the British, if they gave some concessions of rights to the underclasses. Note, that most of the rights extended only applied to white male property owners. Still a small fraction of the population. Back to my point. When income inequality becomes to great, it becomes destructive to the greater good. [That is, if you believe in a greater good.] A letter to the editor published in the New York Gazette in 1765 sums up the problem quite nicely:


> "Is it equitable that 99 (or rather, 999) should suffer for the extravagance or grandeur of one, especially when men frequently owe their wealth to the impoverishment of their neighbors?"


(Source, A people's history of the united states, by Howard Zinn) Income inequality becomes a problem when the upper class start to suck so much wealth and resources of the economy that it starts to hurt upward mobility. The minimum wage debate is a great example of this. Its not like walmart couldn't afford to pay their employees a living wage (also, before anyone dings me, a basic living wage is NOT an inflationary wage). But with the current system, Walmart has a legal obligation to their share holders, to make higher and higher profits, and they, essentially, chose not to pay their employees a living wage in order to boost stock prices. Those who work at walmart full time, and can't quite make it by, then may pickup food stamps or medicaid. So we, the people, with our tax money, subsidize Walmarts low wages. 

Another problem that comes with too much inequality are speculative bubbles. When you have a lot of people with more money than they know what to do with, they will often invest that money in speculative instruments. These are essentially bets on what commodity price will go where, when. For example, the housing bubble that burst in 2008. A lot of people made a lot of money, but at the peak of the bubble, housing prices were no where near a realistic market value. Meaning that lots of middle to low income families were now stuck with mortgages they could never hope to repay, and when the bubble burst, they lost all the equity in their homes. So even if they sold their home, they would still be stuck with a giant mortgage to pay off. So what did people do? They did the rational thing, which was to walk away from the mortgages. 2008 saw a historical record of home foreclosures and bank repossessions, and bankruptcy filings. With all these people no longer servicing their debts, the derivatives like mortgage backed securities, and subprime mortgage backed CDO's, all collapsed. This posed not just a problem for the rich who had invested in them, but millions of middle class people who had their retirement and pension funds invested in these assets (which were rated AAA by credit rating agencies). 

And this leads me into another issue that develops with extreme wealth inequality, corruption. Now, rich and powerful people will always be corrupt to some degree. but as the saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I think it could be argued that the more wealth and power you have concentrated at the top, the further removed those people become from the reality of working people, and the more likely they are to take more drastic measures to maintain their hegemony. It also becomes more of a problem, when, like we have seen throughout history and are once again seeing today, the ruling business class (IE the billionaires) and the political class, become one in the same. Their interests merge when a mutually beneficial relationship develops. In this case, the business elite fund political campaigns, and in exchange they promote legislation on behalf of the businesses. Not to mention the revolving door between the business elites and the regulatory agencies tasked with controlling them. Like Jamie Diamon serving on the board of the NY Fed when the bailouts were approved. This is a side effect of too much wealth concentration, because with high concentrations of wealth come high concentrations of political power. And the incentives of the business elites and the political class become one in the same. And especially when you have high levels of voter apathy like we are seeing today, the ruling class realizes that they can exploit the working class freely, because they will not be held accountable on election day, because they know you'll just blame immigrants. Again, historically this is nothing new. 

The reality is that not everybody can be a billionaire. When to much wealth gets concentrated in the hands to too few people, it means that there are less opportunities and less resources available to the rest of the people. Like Grindspine said, for the past 30 years the private debt bubble fueled by student loans, mortgages, car loans, and credit cards, has provided somewhat of a buffer for what's left of the middle class so that they can get their slice of the 'American dream'. Like Grindspine, many Americans are today no longer able to take on any more debt, and with most of the new income and wealth having gone to the top 1%, average people are less and less able to service the debts that they have been left with. Its also worth noting that under Obama's second term, 95% of the new wealth generated went directly to the top 1%. He is not, and was never a friend of the working class. The big banks are bigger than ever, after having looted the US treasury with the bailout and with the fed more then willing to pump them full of essentially free money, with no major structural reforms having been made, with no hedge fund managers or CEO's having been held criminally liable for their fraud, and with them investing in the same kinds of speculative instruments that lead to the crash of 2008, its setting up the perfect storm for another complete meltdown of the system. I think it could even happen as soon as this summer. 

I think we can all agree that wall street speculation doesn't really produce any social utility outside of enriching the rich. The argument made by the neoliberals at the start of the right wing take over with Reagan, was that with fewer tax burdens on the wealthy classes, they would have more money to invest back into their companies and their workers. What happened instead was that the upper class took their fortunes, and just kept growing them, and making themselves richer. The problem became that they weren't spending enough money. This leads to my next point, which is that a single person can only efficiently allocate so much wealth in a way that produces the kind of economic activity that we need to grow the middle class. If you've ever taken a basic macro economics course before, you might have heard the term "the wealth multiplier effect". If not, let me refresh your memory.


> "Every time there is an injection of new demand into the circular flow there is likely to be a multiplier effect. This is because an injection of extra income leads to more spending, which creates more income, and so on. The multiplier effect refers to the increase in final income arising from any new injection of spending.


. That is to say, in simple terms, 20,000 people with an income of 50k each, would generate more demand for goods then a single billionaire could. And it doesn't have to do with how intelligent they are, or anything. its just the fact that the billionare will spend proportionally much less of their income then the average middle class worker. 20,000 people making 50k each, will end up spending much more of that one billion dollars in a year then one person with a billion dollars would. How we have historically delt with the problem of to much inequality in our society, has been taxation. When the government is working well, we can actually put that tax money to good use, like infrastructure projects, and a robust social safety net. Things that can help the working class. The whole point of wealth redistribution via taxation is to try and negate the corrosive effects of unfettered capitalism. 


So fine, stay up on your high horse named Ayn Rand. Proudly boast that taxation is theft and that the rich have a natural right to get as rich as they possibly can, and that anyone who disagrees with you just doesn't understand life _or is a commie, or something_ but just understand that the kinds of dogmatic philosophy you are advocating for has demonstrably toxic effects on human society.


Edit: also, happy new year folks! Also edited for clarity.


----------



## will_shred (Jan 1, 2016)

lelandbowman3 said:


> I'm not posting this to discredit anything posted in this thread, but it shows that the issue is never as black and white as we think.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ
> 
> It's good in terms of what it would take in terms of taxing the 1% and how the idea sounds nice, but it's not economically feasible.



I think that video (if you can stomach the ad hominem attacks against the left) is a good demonstration of the actual spending crisis, that I'm not saying doesn't exist. However he didn't address how government debt markets (and investments by say, retirement funds and pensions of working people into those debt markets) are or aren't sustainable in the long run. He does demonstrate how taxation alone cannot sustain our current spending rates, however what he doesn't mention is that it is possible to sustain a debt, as long as we bring in enough tax money to service that debt when the payments are due, which the US government has never failed to do. People buy US government debt because its a safe investment, because there is always enough taxable assets to service the debt as well as pay for a decent chunk of discretionary spending. If we had a %40 asset to debt ratio, and worked on closing that gap by cleaning up wasteful spending and closing tax loopholes, the US government would continue to be viable for the foreseeable future. Because they would continue to bring in enough income to service the debt, paying back bond holders. Conservatives tend to treat public debt in much the same way as private debt, when in reality public debt works in a completely different way then private debt. If we had zero public debt, there would be an enormous whole in the market where people have historically placed their money as a safe place to make investments for things like retirement funds. It also does not provide an argument against taxation, but it does provide some interesting facts about public spending. 

I think John Greens video on public debt fills in a lot of the gaps in perspective in Mr. Whittle's video.


----------



## lelandbowman3 (Jan 1, 2016)

will_shred said:


> Well, according to the constitution, congress and state governments have a right to levy taxes, and it doesn't really put many restrictions on how. So... There isn't really a debate over whether or not "property taxes" are legal.
> 
> he battle between rich and poor is also as old as the country itself. Inequality peaked right before the first successful American revolution, our founding fathers, who themselves were part of an established colonial elite, realized that they could redirect a general sense of class resentment against the British, if they gave some concessions of rights to the underclasses. Note, that most of the rights extended only applied to white male property owners. Still a small fraction of the population. Back to my point. When income inequality becomes to great, it becomes destructive to the greater good. [That is, if you believe in a greater good.] A letter to the editor published in the New York Gazette in 1765 sums up the problem quite nicely: (Source, A people's history of the united states, by Howard Zinn) Income inequality becomes a problem when the upper class start to suck so much wealth and resources of the economy that it starts to hurt upward mobility.



I appreciate this post a lot.


----------



## TedintheShed (Jan 2, 2016)

Konfyouzd said:


> Is the How Many Men thing really applicable? Don't we technically agree to taxes in some way shape or form whether we agree with the concept or not? The number of things we're taxed on, I sometimes have a problem with,



100% applicable. If one does not have the justification to take the property of another without consent, then how may such a right be transferred to a group.?




Konfyouzd said:


> but I do believe that by agreeing to work in the US you're also agreeing to the taxes levied on your income. I could be wrong about that.



You are referring to implied or tacit consent, and I disagree with the concept. It is the basis Rousseau's social contract, but no contract can be entered into unless under explicit consent, and that is why taxation is unjust under current modern definitions.


----------



## TedintheShed (Jan 2, 2016)

Grindspine said:


> That is bad logic: see "slippery slope argument".



It is simply not an argument to simply claim a statement is fallacious without making the argument of _how_ it is fallacious. 

_Ignoratio elenchi _


----------



## will_shred (Jan 2, 2016)

I have a feeling that Tedintheshed will be reluctant to address the points I've made on taxation and income inequality. If he can't, he really can't justify his position outside of dogma. Not like that's never happened before though. Unless you straight up don't believe in the principal of trying to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. But then we get into philosophy, and the only philosophers who would disagree with that (that I can think of) are Hobbes and Rand. I think that Roseau's social contract still applies in this situation, unless you would like to stop driving on public roads, never apply for a public scholarship or grant, never call the police or fire department or ambulance, or utilize any other services that tax dollars pay for.


----------

