silvrsvt Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 While I found the document interesting, it leaves out some huge details. In particular, it compares the earning of men, while not mentioning the HUGE change in the earnings of women. Well at the same time, you didn't need two incomes to provide for your family either Canadian stats indicate that women still aren't paid anything like men in most salaried positions, receiving something like 25-30% less than their male co-workers for positions of equal seniority. Please supply details about this "HUGE" change. Going from 0% to even 70% of men's wages is a HUGE change Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted July 26, 2011 Author Share Posted July 26, 2011 (edited) Canadian stats indicate that women still aren't paid anything like men in most salaried positions, receiving something like 25-30% less than their male co-workers for positions of equal seniority. Please supply details about this "HUGE" change. 8 Reasons Why The "Gender Pay Gap" Is A Total Sham According to highly acclaimed career expert and best-selling author, Marty Nemko, “The data is clear that for the same work men and women are paid roughly the same. The media need to look beyond the claims of feminist organizations.” On a radio talk show, Nemko clearly and forcefully debunked that ultimate myth - that women make less than men - by explaining why, when you compare apples to apples, it simply isn’t true. Even the White House report: Women in America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being explains why. Simply put, men choose higher-paying jobs. Here are 8 reasons why the widely accepted and reported concept that women are paid less than men is a myth. And, in case you’re wondering, Nemko’s source of information is primarily the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics - rock solid. 1. Men are far more likely to choose careers that are more dangerous, so they naturally pay more. 2. Men are far more likely to work in higher-paying fields and occupations (by choice). 3. Men work in less desirable locations. 4. Men work longer hours than women do. 5. Men are more likely to work on weekends. 6. Even within the same career category, men are more likely to pursue high-stress and higher-paid areas of specialization. 7. Unmarried women who don't have children actually earn more than unmarried men. 8. Women business owners make less than half of what male business owners make, which, since they have no boss, means it’s independent of discrimination. Here's something else you might not have known: Women In Tech Make More Money And Land Better Jobs Than Men Edited July 26, 2011 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Retro, Far and away, the best predictor of individual mobility is the ability of the individual to start their own business. I doubt that you can find any one that thinks it is easier today than it was in the past. The problem is not Wal Mart. The problem starts at city hall, and then builds through every imaginable layer of government. When people are saying that government is the problem, this is what they are really talking about. They have probably just learned that there is no chance to start that new company in their garage, that they will be required to file more paper work than they can comprehend, and that the fees and permits will add thousands to the cost of start up. I just discovered that the permits and fees to build a patio cover will be several times the cost of the cover itself. Now how does that effect the guys that sell these things? While I found the document interesting, it leaves out some huge details. In particular, it compares the earning of men, while not mentioning the HUGE change in the earnings of women. The other absolutely monstrous change is the nature of the households that are being compared. The number of single parent households today was unimaginable in 1990, and incomprehensible in 1970. Did you ever expect that children born and raised by their married birth parents would be in the minority? The liberation of the 60's comes with a few unintended consequences and a price to be paid. xr7g428, I can sympathize with that for any business that involves manufacturing, hazardous operations, food service, or taking on employees. I am always horrified at how much regulatory requirements drive up the cost of my services (through extra submittals, environmental impact statements, planning reviews, traffic and water use studies, energy analyses, superfluous structural calcs (on common and routine elements), etc.. Yeah - it is very difficult to put together a consulting proposal that a client can swallow, and it takes a real bite out of my business. On the other hand, if we have an earthquake, we probably won't have casualties in the 5 and 6 digit range. However - I've said it before and I'll say it again, in my own case - since my work doesn't involve manufacturing, waste disposal, unusual water or energy use, or employees (so far) - the biggest single detriment to setting up shop is letting go of that company health plan (which issue - for better or for worse - was decided for me). I think for a lot of people - particularly those contemplating a sole proprietorship, that can factor very large into the decision. I'm sure it also factors very large in the decision of a small business to take on employees or not, and also impacts the quality of help they are able to attract, should they choose not to provide that benefit. As far as the document I linked, it is balanced and thorough. The main thing it addresses is this question of "The American Dream", as measured by "opportunity" - and I was specifically thinking of roadtrip's claims about how we draw people from all over the world for "opportunity". That opportunity is no longer happening here. If you're looking to rise up out of poverty, the high-tax, social welfare states of Northern Europe are a better bet. As I said earlier, the fact that we are still attracting economic and political refugees from Mexico (and even that started reversing in 2009) is hardly a ringing endorsement of prospects here. It just means we are preferable to Mexico (still - although as I pointed out, their GINI index is falling as ours is rising, and is nearly equal now). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadtrip Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Yet the numbers show that everybody but that top 10% has been screwed over the last 30 years, and you think this is a good thing, and knee-jerk with "the Russians are coming!", when anyone suggests that a more equitable taxation system might benefit the society as a whole. Everybody but that top 10 percent? Everybody? What is it with you people who suggest that all is lost, all is hopeless, that each and every one of us is mired in some sort of Dickensian nightmare from which we have no hope of escaping? My income is nowhere near that top ten percent, but I can claim that my income and standard of living have risen steadily over the past 25 years, ever since I got out of the music business. I have a good job in management with a multinational bakery company, where I am assigned to grow sales, which creates more jobs. Came up through the ranks. Business in my district is brisk, with sales up over double digits vs. LY, in terms of both dollars and units. Am I under pressure to sell (the horror!)? You bet. But I'm good at it -- I couldn't keep my job if I weren't -- and I enjoy it. Get this straight: No one is my master -- not my boss, not the GOP, and not some group of men in some smoke-filled room where all the big decisions are made. I pointed out that the top ten percent of income earners in the U.S. pay 70 percent of all federal income tax revenue, which I think is a pretty progressive system (correct me if you think I'm wrong). I asked you and retro-man how much more they should have to pay. Neither of you would give me a direct answer, and all you can offer is blithe and incoherent comments like those in the above quote, when a simple answer would have sufficed. I gave you the opportunity to answer my question, but you rail for a "more equitable taxation system." OK. Let me try again: Define what you think would be "more equitable." An indication of the new 3rd world financial set-up in the US is the decreasing social mobility over the last 30 years. It's never been easy to climb out of the poorhouse, but the GOP elite have gamed the system to make it even harder. Increasingly, "socialist" Europe is starting to offer better chances of upward mobility than the land of Horatio Alger. Sad. Please provide evidence of the "GOP elite" gaming the system to make upward mobility even harder. Who are these GOP "elite?" Sarah Palin? Michele Bachmann? What are their motives and long-term objectives? To depress, rather than grow, the economy? And that would be good for long-term investments? How so? What is this "system," and how have they "gamed" it? This sounds like a crime against humanity! You should call a federal prosecutor. In the meantime, I won't be holding my breath waiting for indictments. And I will wake up bright and early tomorrow morning, ready for the day -- thinking about all I can do, rather than what you and retro-man telling me what I can't do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Roadtrip, you're working and you're upbeat. I cannot criticize you on either of those counts. It's very admirable. I will not belabor any of the points I have been trying to make - well, maybe once more (and this is all - I swear): If you had shown the lopsided distribution of the rewards of our society to someone 50 years ago, they would have been horrified. If you had shown them to Reagan, he would have been horrified. I'm sure we did not, as a society, decide at some point "You know those banana republics down South have been looking pretty good. What say we change it up a little and try a plutocracy?" I'll go back to my "immaculate conscience" comment once more: It must be really nice to be able to wash your hands of other peoples troubles by pinning the blame all on them and their flawed characters, and [insert new wording here] wash your hands of any shared responsibility as a citizen for a system that creates more and more uneven results every year. The miracle of the immaculate conscience. You either accept that Plutocracy is a preferred system for our society, or you speak out and do something to counter the Plutocracy that is so clearly, obviously, emerging. Or, keep your head down, do your job, take care of yourself and your loved ones, and be upbeat. I do not criticize you for that, and wish you continued success in bringing delicious baked goods to the world, and security for yourself and your family. Oh - re. your question: How about 20% of income for everybody at the Federal level - and means testing for "entitlement" programs? The means testing would be a little progressive - the flat rate would be regressive in that poorer people would still pay a higher portion of their income in sales and other taxes. And, after all, my original response to Ranger's post was meant to be tongue in cheek. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted July 26, 2011 Author Share Posted July 26, 2011 (edited) Oh - re. your question: How about 20% of income for everybody at the Federal level - and means testing for "entitlement" programs? The means testing would be a little progressive - the flat rate would be regressive in that poorer people would still pay a higher portion of their income in sales and other taxes. The latest information from the Congressional Budget Office is from 2007.... The effective Federal Personal Income tax rate for all persons is as follows....... Lowest Quintle -6.8% Second Quintile -0.4% Third Quintile 3.3% Fourth Quintile 6.2% Fifth (Highest) Quintile 14.4% Top 1% 19.0% Top 5% 17.6% Top 10% 16.2% Average for all quintiles is 9.3% The TOTAL effective Federal individual tax rate (all personal taxes including payroll) is as follows.... Lowest Quintle 4.0% Second Quintile 10.6% Third Quintile 14.3% Fourth Quintile 17.4% Fifth (Highest) Quintile 25.1% Top 1% 29.5% Top 5% 27.9% Top 10% 26.7% Average for all quintles is 20.4% Edited July 26, 2011 by RangerM 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Please provide evidence of the "GOP elite" gaming the system to make upward mobility even harder. Can you say "trickle down"? Who are these GOP "elite?" Well, you can start with the Koch brothers. I'm sure that you could compile a list quite quickly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 The latest information from the Congressional Budget Office is from 2007.... The effective Federal Personal Income tax rate for all persons is as follows....... Lowest Quintle -6.8% Second Quintile -0.4% Third Quintile 3.3% Fourth Quintile 6.2% Fifth (Highest) Quintile 14.4% Top 1% 19.0% Top 5% 17.6% Top 10% 16.2% Average for all quintiles is 9.3% The TOTAL effective Federal individual tax rate (all personal taxes including payroll) is as follows.... Lowest Quintle 4.0% Second Quintile 10.6% Third Quintile 14.3% Fourth Quintile 17.4% Fifth (Highest) Quintile 25.1% Top 1% 29.5% Top 5% 27.9% Top 10% 26.7% Average for all quintles is 20.4% Hmmm. So my guess was about right. 20% would pretty much cover it. Ever since I started working (in the 70s), I have had the intuitive sense that about 1/3 of my income was going to taxes. Government spending at all levels currently runs to about 32% of GDP - so that intuition is pretty close too - however taxes at all levels are currently running to about 28% (hence the deficit). Truth be told, I'd be fine with about a third of my income going to take care of parks, bridges, defense, the fire department, the needy, etc.. since that's what I've always assumed it was. If it were, we wouldn't be running a deficit, we wouldn't be playing chicken with our financial future, and we wouldn't be turning massive amounts of people out into the streets. But the anti-tax hysteria (and its handmaiden, "trickle down") are some kind of article of faith. Faith in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Anyway, that's my view of the situation. I would be perfectly fine with a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, with some provision for emergencies - but think it is a dangerous time to do it now on account of the dysfunctional political climate. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted July 27, 2011 Author Share Posted July 27, 2011 (edited) Hmmm. So my guess was about right. 20% would pretty much cover it. Ever since I started working (in the 70s), I have had the intuitive sense that about 1/3 of my income was going to taxes. Government spending at all levels currently runs to about 32% of GDP - so that intuition is pretty close too - however taxes at all levels are currently running to about 28% (hence the deficit). Truth be told, I'd be fine with about a third of my income going to take care of parks, bridges, defense, the fire department, the needy, etc.. since that's what I've always assumed it was. If it were, we wouldn't be running a deficit, we wouldn't be playing chicken with our financial future, and we wouldn't be turning massive amounts of people out into the streets. But the anti-tax hysteria (and its handmaiden, "trickle down") are some kind of article of faith. Faith in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Anyway, that's my view of the situation. I would be perfectly fine with a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, with some provision for emergencies - but think it is a dangerous time to do it now on account of the dysfunctional political climate. I don't think we've established that 20% would cover it. Also, since the Top 1% is already at 19.0% (effective), and you raise it to 20.0%, are you also planning on doing the following? Lowest Quintle -6.8% raised to 20% Second Quintile -0.4% raised to 20% Third Quintile 3.3% raised to 20% Fourth Quintile 6.2% raised to 20% Fifth (Highest) Quintile 14.4% raised to 20% What would be the response if a republican were to propose such a plan? As I established in this post, current total levels of government spending (all levels) is not 32% of GDP, but at 40%. Current (total) revenues are as you stated ~28%, however. We have a spending problem. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (government source), the total private (ie. NON-government) wages/interest/dividends/etc is about $10 Trillion. I included only private sources when I calculated that number, because government employees' wages/pensions/benefits originate from that sum. 20% of that is $2 Trillion; a number that is $0.85 Trillion greater than the estimated $1.15 Trillion in Total federal revenues from income taxes. That extra $0.85 Trillion would cover about half the federal deficit in fiscal year 2009 or 2010. We have a spending problem. Edited July 27, 2011 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadtrip Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 You either accept that Plutocracy is a preferred system for our society, or you speak out and do something to counter the Plutocracy that is so clearly, obviously, emerging. Actually, I'm not too concerned about this "Plutocracy" you speak of. If you read your history going all the way back to our country's infancy, our country has, for much of its history, been led by what any of us would call "the privileged class." Many of the Founding Fathers were, in fact, slave owners. They have been called the "landed gentry," privileged land owners who were, as it turned out, the most influential members of society at the time. We should consider ourselves fortunate that they were so influential, no? So this Plutocracy actually emerged more than 235 years ago, and gave birth to the greatest and most prosperous nation the world has ever seen. So it seems to me that the philosophy of what constitutes good government carries far more weight than mere privilege (i.e., the rule of law vs. the rule of man). The framers of our Constitution understood that perfectly, even though they themselves were Plutocrats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 (edited) I don't think we've established that 20% would cover it. Also, since the Top 1% is already at 19.0% (effective), and you raise it to 20.0%, are you also planning on doing the following? Lowest Quintle -6.8% raised to 20% Second Quintile -0.4% raised to 20% Third Quintile 3.3% raised to 20% Fourth Quintile 6.2% raised to 20% Fifth (Highest) Quintile 14.4% raised to 20% What would be the response if a republican were to propose such a plan? As I established in this post, current total levels of government spending (all levels) is not 32% of GDP, but at 40%. Current (total) revenues are as you stated ~28%, however. We have a spending problem. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (government source), the total private (ie. NON-government) wages/interest/dividends/etc is about $10 Trillion. I included only private sources when I calculated that number, because government employees' wages/pensions/benefits originate from that sum. 20% of that is $2 Trillion; a number that is $0.85 Trillion greater than the estimated $1.15 Trillion in Total federal revenues from income taxes. That extra $0.85 Trillion would cover about half the federal deficit in fiscal year 2009 or 2010. We have a spending problem. Of course, a flat tax would be terribly regressive. If you pay half your income in taxes and your income is $50,000.00, you are strapped. If you pay half your income in taxes and your income is $500,000.00, you slip from rich to just well-off. You were right about current spending being higher than the 32% that I had believed. I am shocked that it is as high as .... 39.18% is the figure I got from the Tax Foundation. I agree with you that there is a spending problem (which is why I also agree there need to be cuts). However, there is also a revenue problem - caused by tax cuts, unfunded wars, and finally the "Recession". If you cut spending (government at all levels, averaged across states) from the 39.18% of GDP that it is currently by 6 points, you would get to 33% (my mythical sweet spot.). If you returned tax revenues to the levels they were in year 2000 (when we were headed to paying down the deficit), the gap would be completely closed. The gap is too big to be bridged solely by spending cuts - or by tax increases. Myself and 64% of Americans polled last week understand this. Blind ideology, extremism, politics run amok, and a sociopathic desire to bring down the Presidency are behind the foolish, cruel, and reckless cuts-only approach. Polls show the majority of Americans favor a compromise solution. They also show that Americans are tending to side with Obama on this, over the Republican "leadership". Of course, if the Republican "leadership" derails the American and world economy into the ditch over this, Obama will be smeared with the failure too - no matter who caused it. They seem to be counting on it. If neither side compromises, the economy spins off the road into the ditch and Obama loses the next election: Republican "win" (everybody else lose). If Obama caves completely to their ridiculous cuts only approach, Obama loses his own consituency: again, Republican "win". Anybody who thinks Boehner, McConnell and gang have got their minds on anything more noble than that is deluded. Going from 39.18% of GDP spent to 27.9% of GDP spent would mean a 29% cut in spending across the board (if my math is correct). Anybody who thinks we can do it without working on the revenue side too is out of their mind. Edited July 27, 2011 by retro-man 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron W. Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 You were right about current spending being higher than the 32% that I had believed. I am shocked that it is as high as .... 39.18% is the figure I got from the Tax Foundation. I agree with you that there is a spending problem (which is why I also agree there need to be cuts). This has been posted more than once by more than one poster, the government must learn to spend no more than it receives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Retro, you have to start looking beyond wage earners to understand the impact of so called "progressive" taxes. Not many wage earners make $500K or even $300K. Most of the people who have that kind of earnings are business owners. It is not unusual to find a small business owner that is grossing $6 million a year in sales. To be credit worthy, and all of these small businesses need a line of credit if they have any chance of growing, they HAVE to net better than 5%. That puts the owners income at $300K a year. At $300K the owner is the top tax bracket for state and local taxes, probably subject to the alternative minimum tax even if he has some interest deductions, (keep in mind that his home mortgage interest deduction is also being capped). His kids won't be able to get any kind of scholarship regardless of their grades because they will be disqualified because of the asset value of the business. This guy is paying full price for everything. I know that you are not going to fell sorry for this guy, and I am not asking you to. But you should consider how increasing his taxes effects you. For this typical small business owner, when he looks at hiring a new worker, or expanding his business, he can only do things that are extremely profitable. Incrementally, his next dollar of profit id cut in half by taxes. Working harder pays half as well. This makes the business owner extremely risk adverse. He isn't going to make any moves that are not very very safe. Now to make it worse, if you raise his taxes he MUST make changes. Intuitively he knows that higher taxes are going to take money out his customers pockets. Over time he will increase his prices to pass the tax expense to his customers, but he must act now to maintain adequate profitability. If he doesn't make the 5% net profit called for by the bank, he will lose his line of credit. The bank may even call the note and he will have to come up with the balance due right away. So he is going to cut expenses, immediately. Since there is a good chance that his sales will decrease following a tax increase, he will most likely cut his biggest incremental expense first: employees. Unfortunately Obama has never seen how small business really works so I believe that he has no idea what the practical effects of his actions really are. He likes the forest, but has no idea what it takes to grow a tree. When our small business owner finally decides it is time to retire, he will sell the enterprise. It will be taxed at the capital gains rate of 15%, even though every dollar was already taxed the day he earned it. Pundits that know nothing will call it unearned income, and decry that his tax rate, on what is effectively his retirement nest egg is not high enough, while they enjoy a pension that is tax free in many states or a tax sheltered 401K. Ignorance of how small business works is dangerous. Jobs are not being created by the mega corporations (except WalMart) We can kill the golden goose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 This has been posted more than once by more than one poster, the government must learn to spend no more than it receives. The 32% figure also came from the tax foundation - but I think it may have been a 2008 number. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 (edited) Retro, you have to start looking beyond wage earners to understand the impact of so called "progressive" taxes. Not many wage earners make $500K or even $300K. Most of the people who have that kind of earnings are business owners. It is not unusual to find a small business owner that is grossing $6 million a year in sales. To be credit worthy, and all of these small businesses need a line of credit if they have any chance of growing, they HAVE to net better than 5%. That puts the owners income at $300K a year. At $300K the owner is the top tax bracket for state and local taxes, probably subject to the alternative minimum tax even if he has some interest deductions, (keep in mind that his home mortgage interest deduction is also being capped). His kids won't be able to get any kind of scholarship regardless of their grades because they will be disqualified because of the asset value of the business. This guy is paying full price for everything. I know that you are not going to fell sorry for this guy, and I am not asking you to. But you should consider how increasing his taxes effects you. For this typical small business owner, when he looks at hiring a new worker, or expanding his business, he can only do things that are extremely profitable. Incrementally, his next dollar of profit id cut in half by taxes. Working harder pays half as well. This makes the business owner extremely risk adverse. He isn't going to make any moves that are not very very safe. Now to make it worse, if you raise his taxes he MUST make changes. Intuitively he knows that higher taxes are going to take money out his customers pockets. Over time he will increase his prices to pass the tax expense to his customers, but he must act now to maintain adequate profitability. If he doesn't make the 5% net profit called for by the bank, he will lose his line of credit. The bank may even call the note and he will have to come up with the balance due right away. So he is going to cut expenses, immediately. Since there is a good chance that his sales will decrease following a tax increase, he will most likely cut his biggest incremental expense first: employees. Unfortunately Obama has never seen how small business really works so I believe that he has no idea what the practical effects of his actions really are. He likes the forest, but has no idea what it takes to grow a tree. When our small business owner finally decides it is time to retire, he will sell the enterprise. It will be taxed at the capital gains rate of 15%, even though every dollar was already taxed the day he earned it. Pundits that know nothing will call it unearned income, and decry that his tax rate, on what is effectively his retirement nest egg is not high enough, while they enjoy a pension that is tax free in many states or a tax sheltered 401K. Ignorance of how small business works is dangerous. Jobs are not being created by the mega corporations (except WalMart) We can kill the golden goose. Oh, I'm quite sure we have killed the golden goose. Your hypothetical businessman (and you and me) are relying on a public that has a need for our goods or services, and the capacity to pay for them. Your UAW workers starting at $27k / yr. at the new GM small car plant aren't in the target demographic of any business that I've ever designed for. They're barely half way there. Those people who lost their good paying jobs are removed from our pool of prospects. They're removed from the customer base of our pool of prospects. Your high-turnover, insecure, commoditized, self-insuring, contract, temporary, part time, slashed wage workforce is removed from our pool of prospects. You can rack your brain and figure out how they got that way. I'm sure that everything you say is true about the effect of taxes on a business. Still, cut taxes all you want. It doesn't mean squat if nobody in your market area has the disposable income for your goods or services. The term "unearned income" (unlike "death tax" for instance) was not crafted for political ends by "pundits who know nothing". It is a very old, very standard, business term, to be found in any standard dictionary of business terms. The meaning of the term is clear and obvious. It's called that for a reason. There is a legitimate and necessary role for investment, and there is a point of diminishing returns in the financialization of an economy. We are disastrously far beyond that point. Plenty of economists agree on that. Roadtrip, I'm not going back to the 18th century without a fight. If you want to swing the pendulum back toward slavery and wooden dentures and outdoor plumbing and the whole nine yards, have at it. I'm not going with you. Our illustrious forefathers had only just thrown off the yoke of a hereditary aristocracy. They had slaves, but realized it was wrong. They were at least moving in the right direction. We are not. p.s. stop me before I post again. Edited July 28, 2011 by retro-man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Retro, May I take a moment to tell you how much I enjoy your writing? If it didn't pay worse than being an architect, or for that matter clerking at the QT, It really seems that you have talent. The main reason I come to this board is that for some reason, there are some real writers here. So the answer is:no, I won't tell you to stop posting! So exactly when was it that entry level unskilled labor was in your target demographic? You are selling this demographic very short, or you are just out of touch with what the money will buy outside of the Seattle area. These folks are buying houses right now. They are buying flat screen TV's and cell phones and iPads and tons of stuff that did not even exist 10 years ago. The world they live in is very different from the one you and I grew up in, three TV channels and test pattern at midnight, phones with cords and rotary dials, and every heart attack the prelude to a funeral. As to the term unearned income, you are very wrong in the origin of the term. It was created by the Internal Revenue Service to describe all income that was not wages. Wages were reported as earnings, and everything else fell into "unearned" income. Things like Social Security income, Unemployment benefits, pension income, or any number of other things are all called "unearned" income. I spent the first 5 years of college thinking I wanted to be a CPA before I went to law school. Here are a few examples of the definition: Disability payments or other funds that an individual receives without any physical or mental work performed. Examples of unearned income may be Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits, income from a trust, investments, support payments or funds received from any other source other than work. www.state.in.us/fssa/ompp/3328.htm Money that was not earned (ex. pensions, annuities, insurance benefits, military allotments, teacher’s retirement, Workman’s Compensation, Miner’s pension, Black Lung Benefits, etc.). www.arkansas.gov/dhs/webpolicy/TEA Policy/tea_glossary.htm One funny exception: strike benefits paid by the union are now considered to be earned income (Federal, not all states) You can't say the UAW got nothing for the contributions! Investment income falls into the category, too, but the bulk of unearned income is actually Social Security and other benefits. The term has been demonized to make people think that there are a bunch of people out there who get "money for nuthin' and their chicks for free". What you are really hating on is long term capital gains. Capital gains taxes are the taxes paid on investment income where the money has been invested over 1 year. Any earnings that happen in a shorter time are taxed the same as wages. The interesting thing about capital gains taxes is that they are only paid when the "investor" decides to cash out. In the real world here is how that works: That small business owner sells his company to retire. He gets a big check, lets say a few million. For that one year, he is now in that very top percentile of household earnings. And by cashing in his life's work, he gets to use the capital gains rate for the money he gets from the sale. But his taxes on earned income are all now calculated at the top rate for every thing. The next year he won't be in the that bracket, but some one else who sells their business will be. Those fat cats that every one loves to hate on are probably living down the street from you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David The Bruce Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Retro, are you saying that costs for services should be more for people that make more money? Isn't that like saying rich people should pay more for a gallon of milk then poor people because they can? are you seriously saying that the cost of services should be based on income? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadtrip Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 (edited) Roadtrip, I'm not going back to the 18th century without a fight. If you want to swing the pendulum back toward slavery and wooden dentures and outdoor plumbing and the whole nine yards, have at it. I'm not going with you. Our illustrious forefathers had only just thrown off the yoke of a hereditary aristocracy. They had slaves, but realized it was wrong. They were at least moving in the right direction. We are not. You need to get control of your overly active imagination, because it's letting you create straw men out of thin air. Nowhere in my post did I suggest that we go back to the 18th century, nor did I express a desire to swing the pendulum back toward slavery, wooden dentures, and outdoor plumbing (I do admire the works of the Viennese Classicists, though, but that's a subject for a different day . . .). You wrote of a "Plutocracy that is so clearly, obviously, emerging." I was merely pointing out (or hoping to point out) that this emergence of a plutocracy that you speak of is not a recent phenomenon. Really, it's not. The Founding Fathers were, by definition, plutocrats -- government by the wealthy. I also pointed out that it was their philosophy of what constitutes good government that carried more weight than mere privilege -- meaning government by the rule of law, rather than government that would serve their own self interest. The content of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, with, among other things, a goal of freedom from tyranny and equal treatment under the eyes of the law, does not sound like something we (and you, in particular) would expect from your average group of wealthy plutocrats. And I think we can both agree that those wealthy plutocrats were able to set aside their own self interest in order to produce those two amazing documents. Just because someone happens to be a plutocrat does not render him incapable of doing what's right for the people, as the Founding Fathers and the Framers demonstrated. I mean, come on! Not only is plutocracy an age-old reality in American politics, it's pervasive in both parties. So I'd advise you to get off the plutocracy bandwagon, as it doesn't hold water. I will readily admit, however sadly, though, that the concept of "citizen legislators" (as envisioned by the Framers) has been lost in the reality of career politicians funded by bundled campaign financing enabled by lobbyists motivated by manipulating the tax code. I recommend two simple fixes that go hand in hand: term limits and a flat tax. They say that a big drawback of term limits is the elimination of institutional knowledge, that that knowledge would only be retained by bureaucrats and lobbyists. A flat tax -- and along with it, an elimination of the corporate income tax (corporations don't pay taxes; they merely pass them on to their customers) -- would eliminate the need for most lobbyists. (Corporations also pass their lobbying costs on to their customers.) And with a flat tax, the economy could save a bundle on compliance costs. The bureaucrats should remain because of their institutional knowledge, but with a renewed organizational focus on risk management (see NASA for lessons learned), along with some score-keeping for performance (just like we in the private sector are subjected to). Get those bureaucrats to focus on the risk of failure (focus like a laser, as if they are actually working for NASA, where, as Flight Director Gene Kranz famously said, "Failure is not an option."), start keeping score and rewarding success, and before long, those bureaucrats will be giving us taxpayers our money's worth. The legislators will be focused, too, on what they were elected to do, rather than on their reelection campaigns. Eliminate the career politicians and institute the flat tax, and you get rid of a big chunk of present-day, self-interested politicians, which I think is both a farce and a reality. It's not about how they got into the system that motivates them; it's what they get from the system. Edited July 28, 2011 by Roadtrip 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 I was merely pointing out (or hoping to point out) that this emergence of a plutocracy that you speak of is not a recent phenomenon. Really, it's not. You're right, Roadtrip. IIRC, Benjie, for example, had a monopoly on paper in the Colonies, and set up the first printing franchise system, just like Kwik-Kopy or whatever. As you know, the founders saw it as a republic first, and a democracy second, so there was an oligarchic elitism from the founding. However, advances in technology in the early 1800's produced something these pastoral founders could never have imagined — the rise of industrial America and the emergence of the "super" oligarchs, like Jay Gould, Andrew Carnegie et al. An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought. Simon Cameron US financier & politician (1799 - 1889) This fabulous wealth allowed the buying and selling of politicians on an unheard-of scale, and in reaction, the emergence of populism with politicians like Bob Lafollette in the mid-west, and the emergence of "socialist" political efforts in the big eastern seaboard cities. So, history repeats, and 100 years after Carnegie, we get Reagan and the oligarchs continue to consolidate, as the numbers show. Now, the question is, has the plutocracy started to ossify, has the point of diminishing returns for the oligarchs been reached in taking ever-larger portions of the American "pie"? However, as long as junk food remains cheap and FOX is on the air, today's techno-peasants can have their bread and circuses, and life goes on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 Gentlemen, it has been an honor playing with you tonight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 No kidding. I have to tell you, the rest of the world is looking at America right now and saying, wtf? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 Oh I know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 I say we vote every one of these idiots out of office. If they have an I by their name they are automatically disqualified. Or at least the ones who refuse to cut spending and balance the budget. This is SO ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 (edited) Cut spending, balance the budget, yes, but for heavens sake, just raise the freaking debt limit. This current crisis really has nothing to do with spending going forward. Edited July 29, 2011 by suv_guy_19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted July 29, 2011 Author Share Posted July 29, 2011 Problem is the only cutting being offered is cuts in growth of spending, not actual reductions in spending from today going forward. That is the sticking point for many in the Tea Party. The want a bill that forces the U.S. Government spend less tomorrow than it does today. Many aren't going to relent on the debt ceiling until that happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.