LBriscoe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > wealthy don’t qualify for SS…wha??? Sorry, SS benefits are reduced if you have earned income prior to full retirement age. Earned income levels for the wealthy effectively wipe out their SS benefit until full retirement age.
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Somehow the police services, environmental > protections, public schools, and social services > in wealthy communities are much nicer than in the > ghettos. wealthy receive better services becaus they pay for them through higher taxes on higher land values. that’s the “somehow”. is there something wrong with that?
jbaldyga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bchadwick Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Somehow the police services, environmental > > protections, public schools, and social > services > > in wealthy communities are much nicer than in > the > > ghettos. > > wealthy receive better services becaus they pay > for them through higher taxes on higher land > values. that’s the “somehow”. is there something > wrong with that? Not to mention any Wall St ballers living in downtown Manhattan…is their access to the public NYC schools any different from anyone else?
Wealthy not qualifying for SS is only a proposal. That’s not the current reality. It is true that SS has a benefit cap and that it won’t support a wealthy lifestyle for the wealthy - they will need their own money for that. It’s also true that the wealthy don’t pay SS taxes on amounts over $90k, so for those who earn multiple hundreds of thousands or millions, they don’t contribute much to SS.
jbaldyga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bchadwick Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Somehow the police services, environmental > > protections, public schools, and social > services > > in wealthy communities are much nicer than in > the > > ghettos. > > wealthy receive better services becaus they pay > for them through higher taxes on higher land > values. that’s the “somehow”. is there something > wrong with that? The “somehow” referred to the fact that that bar guy #9 and #10 are getting premium beer. Another poster was arguing that everyone gets the same beer in the bar analogy. So you are helping make my point.
ok, but is there something wrong with getting premium beer or better government services if you pay for them?
It depends. My main point was to call out the hypocrisy of wealthy people complaining that they pay a higher share of taxes and then acting as if they get the same services as everyone else. If you’re willing to pay higher taxes to support a better school system, that sounds sensible ot me. But then don’t complain about how you’re paying more than other people who get a crappy system. Someteimes we also see the assumption that everyone is equally protected by things like police services, etc… Dave Chappelle’s comic routines are great at pointing out the difference between how helpful the police can be depending on what your social class or skin color are. The truth is that what is a “fair” taxation rate is a fundamentally unresolveable issue, because there are always competing versions of fairness, and people tend to gravitate to whichever metric suits their purposes. Version 1: Taxes are fair if people pay equally for the services that they recieve. Version 2: Taxes are fair if people’s contributions are equally “burdensome.” This can be used to argue for a flat tax if “burden” equals $ contributed, or it can be used to justify a progressive tax, if “burden” is considered in utility terms. Version 3: Taxes are fair if people receive the same services everywhere, whether they need them or not. This gets at the delivery mechanism and also whether the services provided throught taxes are equally useful to everyone. This version tends to separate the tax fairness issue from the tax efficiency issue. Taxes can be fair even if they are not efficiently used (though presumably people would want to improve efficiency without sacrificing fairness). There are others too, but I am blanking on them right now.
>>Somehow the police services, environmental protections, public schools, and social services in wealthy communities are much nicer than in the ghettos. Your point has merit, but these are only a fraction of overall government services and much of the problems are a result of dysfunctional local governments and communities where more funding does not neccessarily lead to improved results.
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It depends. My main point was to call out the > hypocrisy of wealthy people complaining that they > pay a higher share of taxes and then acting as if > they get the same services as everyone else. Huh? Can’t say I’ve ever seen/heard a wealthy person complain about the government services they receive. Wealthy people (at least those who manage to stay wealthy) are generally people of ability who would find a way to get along just fine without any but the minimal gov’t services (e.g. national defense, basic consumer safety regulations, etc). I do see them complain all the time that they are expected to pay for their services AND everyone else’s too. Why are they responsible for the well-being of everyone else? Are poor people entitled to more than they’ve earned? Why, because they “need” it? Why does the government get to usurp one persons wealth to fulfill another’s need? The result under this system is a class of beggars who bear no responsibility for their own well being. I would argue that if you take away this gigantic put option, the majority of these people would find a way to make a happy life for themselves. And they’d ultimately be happier (even with less potentially) because they’ll retain their own dignity. The flipside of this, like I’ve said before, is that the wealthy should be expected to succeed and fail on their own – no special politcal favors, no market protection, etc. Far from the current system on both sides of the coin.
my favorite question was posed by Ron Paul to Howard Dean: “If social security, medicare and all of these other services are so great - they why can’t they be optional?”
jbaldyga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bchadwick Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It depends. My main point was to call out the > > hypocrisy of wealthy people complaining that > they > > pay a higher share of taxes and then acting as > if > > they get the same services as everyone else. > > Huh? Can’t say I’ve ever seen/heard a wealthy > person complain about the government services they > receive. Wealthy people (at least those who > manage to stay wealthy) are generally people of > ability who would find a way to get along just > fine without any but the minimal gov’t services > (e.g. national defense, basic consumer safety > regulations, etc). > > I do see them complain all the time that they are > expected to pay for their services AND everyone > else’s too. Why are they responsible for the > well-being of everyone else? Are poor people > entitled to more than they’ve earned? Why, > because they “need” it? Why does the government > get to usurp one persons wealth to fulfill > another’s need? The result under this system is a > class of beggars who bear no responsibility for > their own well being. I would argue that if you > take away this gigantic put option, the majority > of these people would find a way to make a happy > life for themselves. And they’d ultimately be > happier (even with less potentially) because > they’ll retain their own dignity. > > The flipside of this, like I’ve said before, is > that the wealthy should be expected to succeed and > fail on their own – no special politcal favors, > no market protection, etc. Far from the current > system on both sides of the coin. OK, let’s look at this a little more carefully. We agree that the wealthy benefit from national defense. It’s nice to know that our soldiers are out there making sure no one can come and grab a piece of all our rich people. So that’s one large chunk of the budget (20%) that definitely benefits the rich and that they are “willing” to pay for. So let’s chalk that up in the “stuff that rich people like” column Now the wealthy really don’t need social security or medicare, since they have enough money to pay for themselves. Those are two really large portions of the budget (another 20% and 20%). In fact, basically defense, medicare, and social security are the ONLY real parts of the budget that will make any big difference to the long-term solvency of the United States. But the wealthy don’t actually pay all that much in taxes to Social Security. First of all, social security taxes don’t apply to unearned income, and even on earned income, they only apply to the first $107k. Now if you figure that the richest are earning substantially more than $107k and so not being taxed on large portions of earned income, and that the wealthy generally receive the bulk of their income through unearned sources (investment returns), and even non-salary business revenue is not subject to social security taxes, you conclude that the rich actually are already not paying very much for the programs that most impact the budget. So the rich really just need to come out and say “f*ck you old people; I don’t want to pay for the fact that you’re living longer, even though I’m not actually paying for you anyway. Just please die already, because paying for you is driving up interest rates.” Except that many of the wealthy already are old people, so why cut medicare and social security, when it’s nice to get those checks and not have to pay hospital bills. Now what about the rest of the budget. There’s all those safety net programs, which compose just under 15% of the budget. These are things like unemployment insurance, welfare, food stamps, school meals, etc. Now those things are really fun to cut. We all keep hearing about those welfare mothers who don’t want a job and have a lot of kids. Somehow some people assume that anyone on welfare must be a lazy bum, because they heard that there was this one person who abused the system. Now, tax loopholes for people who can set up their assets in an offshore fund aren’t considered abuse (because it’s legal!), but someone who stayed on welfare (because it’s legal!) is. A lot of the wealthy don’t seem to realize that these programs benefit them even if they don’t see it directly. Getting infectious diseases treated before they can morph into antibiotic resistent pandemics has some value, even if you don’t see it happening. Having some kind of alternative to collecting pitchforks and torches and looting your rich neighbors happens to be an alternative too. And then, is it really obvious that every wealthy person is a “person of ability,” unfairly penalized by contributing to the maintenance of the social and physical infrastructure that makes this country a desirable place to live and raise their family? Much wealth is simply inherited, and, in any case, with the concentration of wealth we’ve seen in the last 30 years, much wealth in the future will simply be inherited. And is it really so obvious that those who are poor or disabled are “undeserving” leeches on society? The real challenge is not really the tax system. It’s that this society is evolving toward a quasi-caste system, where the link between intelligence and hard work and compensation is vanishing. If you aren’t born wealthy or in the right community, your only real options to accumulate wealth are to cheat/trick people out of it, marry into it, or play the lottery. The wealthy really have a choice about whether they want the future of the US to be a society where the average person with some smarts and hard work can lead a dignified life, or whether they want to hole themselves up in their own gated communities, with private armies and say “let them eat cake.” What’s interesting is that many of the wealthy who gained their wealth by actually producing something of value for society are actually concerned that the ability for the US to continue as a land of opportunity is limited. Those who obtained their wealth by selling people stuff they clearly couldn’t afford and promising AAA returns with unrealistically high yields; this class of people seems to be in the “I should be able to keep whatever I could trick people into giving me camp.”
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The real challenge is not really the tax system. > It’s that this society is evolving toward a > quasi-caste system, where the link between > intelligence and hard work and compensation is > vanishing. Here we can agree, but our solutions seem to be much different. Your solution seems to be that the wealthy can afford it and since they haven’t really earned it, it belongs to “society” and deserves to be confiscated. My solution is to remove the government from all individuals’ successes AND failures. This inherently creates inequality, but it’s an earned inequality that is justified. People who create something that a lot of people value and are willing to pay for have earned the right to the money they make. The only way this system is not allowed to exist is through government intervention. The government picks winners and losers and trades them for political clout. >If you aren’t born wealthy or in the > right community, your only real options to > accumulate wealth are to cheat/trick people out of > it, marry into it, or play the lottery. B.S. >The > wealthy really have a choice about whether they > want the future of the US to be a society where > the average person with some smarts and hard work > can lead a dignified life, or whether they want to > hole themselves up in their own gated communities, > with private armies and say “let them eat cake.” No, the choice is in the hands of everyone who can vote. > > What’s interesting is that many of the wealthy who > gained their wealth by actually producing > something of value for society are actually > concerned that the ability for the US to continue > as a land of opportunity is limited. Those who > obtained their wealth by selling people stuff they > clearly couldn’t afford and promising AAA returns > with unrealistically high yields; this class of > people seems to be in the “I should be able to > keep whatever I could trick people into giving me > camp.” Again, agree. Don’t forget to include the politicians these people bought in the group of people who have ruined what was great about this country. Interestingly, these are the same politicians who buy votes by promising the world to everyone who “needs” something from the government…not out of love for his fellow man, but out of desire for power and position.
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > your only real options to accumulate wealth are to…marry into it trust me, i’m looking
jbaldyga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interestingly, these are the same > politicians who buy votes by promising the world > to everyone who “needs” something from the > government…not out of love for his fellow man, > but out of desire for power and position. why are brokers always portrayed as bad people?
bchad, respectfully, your comment strikes me as anecdotal, presumptuous and based on a lot of negative caricatures and stereotypes about a class of people that you seem to dislike. You are pretty freely imputing a lot of opinions to the wealthy but what is the evidence that they are so monolithic in their views on taxation and are so lacking in compassion relative to other human beings. I think you could have made a similar argument without all of the pejoratives. >>If you aren’t born wealthy or in the right community, your only real options to accumulate wealth are to cheat/trick people out of it, marry into it, or play the lottery. Can you define “right community”?
“right community” = “appropriately connected” It was an attempt to point out that social connections matter too, and not simply how much cash you have in the bank. – I don’t actually dislike wealthy people, although I can understand that that last post reads as though I do. I grew up in a family where one side came from money (lots of it), and one side was basically a middle class family who - although they never were in danger of starvation - also had to work and struggle for what they had. So, interestingly, even though I put “marry into it” because it seemed to be a category that needed inclusion, I guess I witnessed that myself. And, I can also say that the “poorer” side of my family has, on the whole, been far more generous and loving to me than the rich side, many of whom use money as a way to control and manipulate each other. I find many wealthy people, in the family, and elsewhere, complaining about “entitlements,” when, in fact, they are the ones who walk around shocked, shocked, that people don’t treat them in the manner to which they feel socially entitled. My problem is not with the wealthy. My problem is with a particular subclass of the wealthy who don’t have an appropriate sense of the degree to which luck has contributed to their position and status and don’t understand how easily things may have been different for them, through no fault of their own. That may be the luck of inheriting from a family. It may be the luck of being born at a time when a technology like the personal computer was ready to be accepted by the market, and being in the community where you can take advantage of that. It may be the luck of being born in a country that allows you to use your talents, or luck in being able to escape your oppressors in a foreign country in order to launch an enterprise here (or, somewhere else). When you realize how much of wealth and success actually comes from luck - even for talented people - and I’m not saying that talent doesn’t matter. You also have to start asking yourself how many people who are struggling have had bad luck. And when you think of all the ways that bad luck can affect people and how it can compound over time, you start to realize that just because you have money doesn’t, by itself, mean you deserve it any more than anyone else. Some of what you have is related to your work and efforts, and some has to do with luck. Increasingly, globalization means that we are 1) competing with absolutely every person and place on the planet, and 2) we are living (courtesy of technologies) in an increasingly “winner take all” society. Winner-take-all means that the difference between being #1 and #2 can be huge, between #1 and #10 even more gigantic, and between #1 and #1000 absolutely insurmountable. There will soon be 7 billion of us to compete with, and the winner will take nearly all. All of this means that the tiniest differences in luck can outweigh even enormous differences in skill, and also that tiny differences in skill will create enormous differences in results. When you realize this, you then start to recognize that it is in society’s interest to reduce the “winner take all” phenomenon, and part of this is to make sure that the people who are not current winners have some resources with which to compete and innovate. Again, I’m not arguing that we need a society where everyone has the same stuff and wears the same clothes or some kind of socialist structure. I abhor that too. But we do need a society in which the very wealthy and the very poor and those in the middle have some way to relate to each other, and that those who don’t happen to have won-and-taken-all actually do have a realistic opportunity to advance themselves. Now, why shouldn’t people be able to benefit from their luck. I don’t think that gains from luck are so awful that everyone needs to be stripped of those gains and we all have to live in exactly the same conditions or anything like that. In fact, I think that a lot of gains from luck should be kept by those with it, and I think the gains from hard work and talent should definitely be kept by those who have put in the effort. So what I don’t like is when people who are beneficiaries of wealth start to assume that anyone who doesn’t have it must be lazy and unworthy of compassion, help, assistance, or opportunity. Maybe this is because the wealthy part of my family came from “old money,” where the concept of “Noblesse Oblige” was venerated (in word if not always in deed). “Of those to whom much is given, much is required.” If I am sounding extra anti-wealthy on this board, it’s only because someone needs to stand up and say that the world should not be simply “every man/woman for themselves, grabbing whatever they can get.” The signal quality of a professional is that they are paid for the value that they create for people, and not the power that they can extract from people. Much of the wealth accumulation in the US over the past 30 years, particularly in the financial sector, have been people who have not arguably created much value for the economy, yet have been bailed out by the taxpayer and, after taking money and paying themselves handsome bonuses with it, have told everyone else that they can’t have a social safety net anymore because we’ve been too generous.
“Appropriately connected” is still pretty vague. But, I can only assume that this is a fairly broad definition given the diverse backgrounds that people have come from and still managed to accumulate wealth. – There is no question that luck plays an enormous role in people’s lives. The poorest in today’s America are still wealthier than probably 95% of human beings that have ever lived. Are you similarly frustrated that these so called poor do not have the “appropriate sense of the degree to which luck has contributed to their position and status”? >>we are living (courtesy of technologies) in an increasingly “winner take all” society. >>Winner-take-all means that the difference between being #1 and #2 can be huge I don’t agree. Winner take all means the winner takes everything and everyone else gets nothing, which is a not a condition that exists in the US at least. What you are describing is an increase in the disparity of wealth, which in and of itself, I do not find troubling, particulary given that much of the disparities are driven by age and other demographics. If the #1 guy has billions and the #2-10000 guys have millions then only those driven by envy should find this overly troublesome. >>and that those who don’t happen to have won-and-taken-all actually do have a realistic >>opportunity to advance themselves Take heart, they generally do in this country. The wealth (monetary and otherwise) and lifestyle of the average American is staggering by historical human standards!
^I like the cut of your jib.
I wasn’t going to throw my libertarian hat into this ring, but I did get a chuckle out of this… bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Somehow the police services, environmental > protections, public schools, and social services > in wealthy communities are much nicer than in the > ghettos. Are you really trying to argue that > everyone gets equivalent public services?? “Wealthy communities” do not have better police forces. In fact, the police in these areas are more akin to mall cops or glorified meter maids. Your confusing safe neighborhoods with having something to do with the police force. Correlation and causation you know? Same goes for public schools. I’m not sure how you define “better” but I assure you it has nothing to do with the amount of money one public school receives compared to another. Public schools in “wealthy communities” are better because the students are better (they come from a more supportive family environment, better opportunity to focus on their studies, etc.). I’m not sure anyone is saying public services are equivalent across the board. But I’ll argue all day long that throwing more money at them doesn’t make them better.
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Now the wealthy really don’t need social security > or medicare, since they have enough money to pay > for themselves. Those are two really large > portions of the budget (another 20% and 20%). In > fact, basically defense, medicare, and social > security are the ONLY real parts of the budget > that will make any big difference to the long-term > solvency of the United States. > > But the wealthy don’t actually pay all that much > in taxes to Social Security. First of all, social > security taxes don’t apply to unearned income, and > even on earned income, they only apply to the > first $107k. Now if you figure that the richest > are earning substantially more than $107k and so > not being taxed on large portions of earned > income, and that the wealthy generally receive the > bulk of their income through unearned sources > (investment returns), and even non-salary business > revenue is not subject to social security taxes, > you conclude that the rich actually are already > not paying very much for the programs that most > impact the budget. > Plus, for decades the payroll tax, which is highly regressive, has significantly overfunded the portion of the budget it is intended to fund – of course we never set aside those funds to prepare for demographic changes.