- This topic has 5 voices and 39 replies.
-
Posts
-
“You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.” ~Adrian Rogers, 1931I saw this in a member's post and it led me to think of a modest proposal. Might we not opt for a cleverway to alleviate the tax burden on the many and at the same time assist the working poor or the non-working, but deserving (?) poor struggling to eke out a life in these trying times. What say you to this?1. Establish a means test for Social Security. Anyone with a retirement income of over 200k gets nothing nada, guhor, nil niente, zip, rien, zero. For these people it becomes like an insurance policy,not an entitlement. If fate is unkind and they fall into the gutter--it is then available. Neat!2. Place a surtax on all retirement incomes over 250k--a sliding scale a. 250k-500k 1 percent b. 500k-million 5 percent c. 1 million-10 million 10 percent d. 10 million-30 million 15 percent e. 30 million-50 million 20 percent f. 50 million-100 million 30 percent g. 100 million-500 million 40 percent e. 500 million or more-50 percentThis would also help pay of the national debt rather than giving it to our grandchildren to haul through their lives.Coda: One could escape this surcharge by paying half the tax into a fund to assist students in payingoff their loans to banks. OR--it could be donated to the Negro scholarship fund--either would do.By these proposals you might be able to lift the poor from being paupers without pauperizing the poor BMW , Jag and Mercedes classes.Now I have no idea how much money is involved--this is an intellectual exercise, not a bean counting class--that comes later.WillyD"You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity." ~Adrian Rogers, 1931
What forms of taxation would such a plan replace? I'm not clear on that. Also, what kind of “income” are retirees making if they are no longer working? I'm guessing you are referring to pension payments or sales of stock, etc. after retirement. I think you would almost have to know the amount of money involved to even consider whether it's viable. If the point is to help pay off the national debt, why the provision about the students or scholarship payments? Now you're moving out of reducing debt and into social engineering through the tax code. There are two basic ways of getting money to reduce the national debt - raise taxes or reduce spending (or a combination of these). The problem is that our politicians won't use extra tax revenue to pay off the national debt. They'll find another use for it that some interest group claims is "essential", whether this be studying field mice in California or putting internet connections on all school buses. So I say the first tactic we should use is to reduce spending.
Oh–this tax would be in addition to existing taxes and as I stated would apply ONLY to people in the upper income brackets. Income would be defined as money from all sources-annuities, stock dividends,trust payments, rental property--in short every dime coming in would be counted as income.I do not know whether it is viable as to how much money in would raise, but I am of the opinion that it would be considerable. It really does not matter--it would be more available to pay off the debt andtaken from people who can best afford it.The option of directing some of the tax money to student loans is an investment as well as an apologia forblowing the sides out of the economy by lack of foresight, greed and hubris. Untrammeled capitalism,where the regulators were cowed into submission, has produced a crisis that unless dealt with may wellhave our children acting as cubicle dwellers and pole dancing helots for our security holders. Social engineeringis not always bad. I like to look at the G.I. Bill and mortgage deductions as good things that flowedfrom that well. Would you not agree?We agree--politicians have the morals of a Roumanian bar hostess during the days of Queen Marie andmembers of most parties are guilty of fiscal imprudence.By adopting my proposal you would use the added revenue to pay off the debt--period. There would be no diversions to mice or men.
Oh--this tax would be in addition to existing taxes and as I stated would apply ONLY to people in the upper income brackets. Income would be defined as money from all sources-annuities, stock dividends,trust payments, rental property--in short every dime coming in would be counted as income.
So just to get this straight...these taxes would go on existing taxes? So the 1% tax on someone making $250,000 would go on top of the taxation applied to their existing tax rate? It seems to me that the 50% tax on someone making $500 million as a "retiree" would be added on to something like a 39% tax rate, meaning the government would be taking close to 90% of their earnings. Why not just cut out the middle man and give the whole thing to the government? Your plan borders on robbery and would simply force retirees to move outside the U.S. for tax purposes.
The option of directing some of the tax money to student loans is an investment as well as an apologia forblowing the sides out of the economy by lack of foresight, greed and hubris.
"Apologia"? I think you mean apology, not apologia, which is a "defense". Anyway, why do students need apologizing to? And why would does this apology have to be one paid in money? And what does an apology have to do with the national debt? I realize that "lack of foresight, greed, and hubris" are vices or things to be avoided...but generally they are not crimes in themselves.
Untrammeled capitalism, where the regulators were cowed into submission, has produced a crisis that unless dealt with may well have our children acting as cubicle dwellers and pole dancing helots for our security holders.
Oh, please! Please do not tell me that it's the job of regulators to save the economy! Which was it - capitalism, or regulation, which led the mighty American economy - and American citizens - to the height of prosperity through the 20th century? You don't thwart the entire free market in order to get back at a handful of criminals or others who manipulated the system. Capitalism isn't perfect, but it is the best system there is.
Social engineering is not always bad. I like to look at the G.I. Bill and mortgage deductions as good things that flowed from that well. Would you not agree?
No, I don't think that social engineering is necessarily bad. And yes, I do think that helping students out is a very good thing. But if reducing the national debt is of utmost importance, then reduce the national debt - don't tack on an unrelated social engineering plan to this. That's when every other special interest will also fight for their own part of the pie as well.
Flat Tax? I am really surprised that you would advocate this plan. It seems really unfair:1. I make 35 K and pay 10 percent---$35002. You make 1 million and pay 100ksounds fair--except for the fact that 3500 from my paycheck can really hurt whilst 100k from yourswould not unless you had a life style similar to a Pasha.The flat tax, I was taught, is regressiveThe progressive income tax is not--this is what we have now--it is the law! Mr. Forbes quest for acceptance of a flat tax went nowhere and for good reason--it could not be sold.
Do you recall what the top tax bracket was in the 1950's when we were top dogs?Let me comfort you. Let us say that the additional surcharge would apply to that sum remaining to you after all other taxes had been paid. Therefore--if you had an after normal tax income of $500, 000you would pay an additional 1 percent! Feel better now?Remember Willy Sutton? You have to tax (or rob) where the money is. The poor do not have it.
I guess I have a philosophical difference in that I do not think that simply raising taxes should be the answer to solving our nation's economic woes. Tax revenue simply goes to bureaucrats or politicians in Washington who spend it on unnecessary or imprudent programs, or perhaps they funnel it in directions which help them to retain power. Obama was elected into office after promising a million promises, so of course he, with the help of Democrats in Congress, and spending like mad men and have raised the national debt. What good has their spending done thus far? Higher unemployment? What will raising taxes do in this situation? It will simply allow for them to have more money to waste.
The job of the regulators is to police the investors whether they be prudent Prudence or Lance the cowboy.The regulators got bought, sold out, fooled, defanged, and ignored and the result is the horrid messthat the whiz kids and their ideological mentors have given us. Of course capitalism is a wonderful systemand provides unimagined wealth for all, but if it is not regulated you have a situation where the adultsgo to the beach and leave the kids to manage the store. Police are necessary in the best communitiesas they keep order, prevent us from hurting ourselves and other and allow life to be lived with somedegree of safety. Only idealistic fools such as Marx and Lenin really believed that man could beraised to a level where he would police himself. They should have read more Hobbes and less Rousseau.Without regulation the life of your investments is liable to be nasty, brutish and short. I recall thatwe come from a long line of predatory killer apes burdened with a territorial imperative we revealthis frequently especially in slow commuter traffic.
NO–tax revenue goes to pay my pension, buy rifles for the army and a million other worthy things. Ofcourse Obama spends money we do not have--most modern Presidents did including his immediate predecessor who did so at the same time he was giving tax breaks and fighting a war on credit.Obama inherited a horrible situation not of his making. I for one think he will be a one term Presidentbecause of the immensity of the task and the hostility of his detractors.
The job of the regulators is to police the investors whether they be prudent Prudence or Lance the cowboy.The regulators got bought, sold out, fooled, defanged, and ignored and the result is the horrid messthat the whiz kids and their ideological mentors have given us.
Why don't we cut to the chase. Who, exactly, are these "whiz kids" and what did they do exactly, in your opinion? We should be arguing about nameless figures or generalizations.
Obama inherited a horrible situation not of his making. I for one think he will be a one term President because of the immensity of the task and the hostility of his detractors.
No, Obama wasn't single-handedly responsible for it, but he made a bad situation far worse by his actions. It was of course of Obama's own making. Take a look at this image:http://jacksonville.com/files/u21234/Obama_Budget_Deficits.jpgBesides, unemployment under Obama exceeded the unemployment figure that he claimed we would reach without his stimulus plan!! That is the real telling point. Had he just left things alone, employment would have been better off!
The bright young men who went to wall street and came up with all these exotic investment opportunitiesthat were based on dubious assumptions of growth and worth. Their superiors--also looking at the astonishing commissions available--approved these risky ventures riding the expanding bubble and taking advantage of the reduced oversight that has been a factor in the industry since the 1980's. Less oversight,more room for risky and speculative securities. I do not blame the young men--they were just looking to make fantastic dollars in salary and bonuses. It is the way the system works except for the fact that the policemen were sitting in the coffee shop--perhaps told to do so. The dot. com. bust taught no lesson andthe housing debacle followed--it was not the fault of Barney Frank!
You are correct. History will judge as to whether he saved or help further cripple the fiscal stability of the nation. Obama is one man and I wish he would be more aggressive in his tactics. Perhaps he is too much of a gentleman–LBJ and Nixon had some excellent tactics which they used repeatedly–viz. Robert Caro's trilogy on Johnson–wonderful!
Flat Tax? I am really surprised that you would advocate this plan. It seems really unfair:1. I make 35 K and pay 10 percent---$35002. You make 1 million and pay 100ksounds fair--except for the fact that 3500 from my paycheck can really hurt whilst 100k from yourswould not unless you had a life style similar to a Pasha.The flat tax, I was taught, is regressiveThe progressive income tax is not--this is what we have now--it is the law! Mr. Forbes quest for acceptance of a flat tax went nowhere and for good reason--it could not be sold.
Okay then a national sales tax. How about that? Make it 10% and be done with it.
