• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Taxing The Rich To Pay for Healthcare

Tex

Well-known member
There has been discussion on taxing those making over $250,000 to pay for the health care plan. Leaning H had this government philosophy:

If the Governement comes to ANYONES ranch and says give some up because you have TOO MUCH, I disagree with that philosophy! And that is what i think the current adminastration is pushing! From Halliburton to Leaning H Livestock.......... The government usually gets in the way of the economy and retards growth. They have screwed up enough projects. How 'bout we let hard work and bright ideas have a chance? :D

Leaning H, I agree with you on these points. It is the fear of going too far to the left and its economic consequences however I feel this hand is often overplayed.

The talk now on the health plan is an increase of taxes of those making above $250,000. How many people in the United States is in this group as a percent of small business owners or total population?

According to Wikipedia, those making over $250,000 comprise only 1.5% of the population:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

The republican call that this will hurt the economy because it will tax small businesses. If it does, it will only be 1.5% of the population and it seems that unless you are playing with definitions, small businesses income (as defined after business deductions) affected by this will be very small.

If you google this subject, you will find a lot of garbage mostly arguments to protect that 1.5%. Although I couldn't find a good number and I hope someone else posts one with a source for small businesses that make (net income, not gross) over $250,000, this is probably comprised more of trust babies, CEOs, movie and sports stars than small businesses.

Leaning H has a good point that we don't need government to continue to take more and more of the economy and I agree with him but with more and more people losing their jobs and their healthcare, I tend to think the "rich" can pick up some of this slack until some quality jobs come back with healthcare.

I tend to think that politicians will be protecting their own sources of income which probably comes from this 1.5% of people in the U.S. than making good policy for healthcare reform.

If you are one of those people crying over this and can't find a way to keep from being over that $250,000 with all the accounting tools out there, let me make a suggestion: Hire someone. It will help the economy and I am sure you can get them to do something useful even if it is not highly profitable to yourself, do it for your country. Men and women in uniform sacrifice much more when they serve our country in uniform.

Tex
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Tex, if you watch President Obama's weekly address he mentions an individual that did not have health insurance, and was stuck with an unexpected $10,000 bill.

My first question would be, what did the individual spend his health insurance budget dollars on? Will the government become the control on your bugetary priorities also?

Next question would be, if you do not control the price that professionals charge for their services, how would you reduce the costs?

It was not the insurance industry that was causing the cost in this case, but the medical care industry.

Third question.

How well has the Government controlled costs in the past? Are they good stewards of taxpayer money?

THE testimony by Congressional Budget Office chief Douglas Elmendorf that the health-care legislation in Congress "significantly expands" costs shocked Capitol Hill. Yet the evidence shows that government-run care has always been more costly than private-sector care.

Since 1970, Medicare and Medicaid's combined per-patient costs have risen from $344 to $8,955, while the combined per-patient costs of all other US health care have risen from $364 to $7,119.

Medicare and Medicaid used to cost $20 less per patient than other care. Now they cost $1,836 more. (And that's even without the Medicare prescription-drug benefit.)
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07182009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/govt_care_costs_more_179841.htm

As far as "share the wealth", if you don't want the wealthy, then tax them away to another country. I'm sure they are more than happy to employ cheaper labor offshore.

It is the wealthy that keeps the middle class employed and able to buy consumer goods and pay taxes, is it not?
 

Tex

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Tex, if you watch President Obama's weekly address he mentions an individual that did not have health insurance, and was stuck with an unexpected $10,000 bill.

My first question would be, what did the individual spend his health insurance budget dollars on? Will the government become the control on your bugetary priorities also?

Next question would be, if you do not control the price that professionals charge for their services, how would you reduce the costs?

It was not the insurance industry that was causing the cost in this case, but the medical care industry.

Third question.

How well has the Government controlled costs in the past? Are they good stewards of taxpayer money?

THE testimony by Congressional Budget Office chief Douglas Elmendorf that the health-care legislation in Congress "significantly expands" costs shocked Capitol Hill. Yet the evidence shows that government-run care has always been more costly than private-sector care.

Since 1970, Medicare and Medicaid's combined per-patient costs have risen from $344 to $8,955, while the combined per-patient costs of all other US health care have risen from $364 to $7,119.

Medicare and Medicaid used to cost $20 less per patient than other care. Now they cost $1,836 more. (And that's even without the Medicare prescription-drug benefit.)
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07182009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/govt_care_costs_more_179841.htm

As far as "share the wealth", if you don't want the wealthy, then tax them away to another country. I'm sure they are more than happy to employ cheaper labor offshore.

It is the wealthy that keeps the middle class employed and able to buy consumer goods and pay taxes, is it not?

I am not taking the Obama position here but I will argue the points.

I was a health insurance agent many years ago and I saw a lot of uninsured people. The reasons were various but were mainly due to cost. There just wasn't enough money in the budget to cover those costs. They usually worked for small companies, very small, and could not get group insurance. They sometimes had pre existing conditions and other problems that kept them from getting insurance. I saw many people who were sick while having insurance and then losing it because of their sickness. Then they were uninsurable due to pre existing conditions. I also saw a lot of people who could not get additional medical care because they couldn't pay their old bills. I also saw people who were pushed into bankruptcy because of an illness. There were many reasons and many different cases. The people who could and did get insurance were usually low risk people that insurance company had the odds in their favor that they would be "profitable" because of these conditions. I saw it all up front and personal sitting across the table with real people, not some statistic or impersonal argument based on greed.

Having said all that, the people who had a big insurance company and a big group had it made. The big group kept them safe as they couldn't be singled out like baitfish to be eaten by the system.

The big group had contracts with all of the providers and those contracts kept their costs down. People without these contracts were often charged 3, 4 or more times more than those who had a good insurance company bargaining for them. Believe me, I saw the bills and tried to help as much as possible giving the tips I had learned. Big groups have the business to have these kind of contracts and bargaining power. Their motive for decreasing medical costs was their spread and it seemed to have a real effect on keeping their costs down but not the industry as a whole.

On your quote of medicare costs, I would need to look at where the quote comes from to view its credibility. One point I would bring up is that older people use more care than any other group and with additional technology, it seems like the costs go up due to additional care. I think outside of women in the birthing years, the elderly are the largest users of medical services. The amount of usage has to be considered when comparing these kind of figures and people are living longer so the medical costs per patient are more.

On the rich leaving the country, let them leave. Let them take their money and invest it in Africa or Venezuela, or where ever else they go. Let them also take their citizenship if they don't want to pay taxes here.

Rich people don't make jobs, demand makes jobs. Rich people do control jobs with their wealth however. This can easily be fixed with better policies.

I am not scared if rich people leave the country. I don't like them hiding taxable money in Swiss banks and other offshore tax havens. When they hide money and avoid taxes, it creates more taxes on me and my family because someone has to pay for schools, defense, roads, etc......

If they run off with all their money then they also have to leave all the markets that makes that money grow. Like I said, let them invest in wherever they end up going, just don't let them have any claims of what taxes pay for in our country like roads, infrastructure, defense or peace. Let them fight it out in Mexico or where ever. I would like to see some of these movie stars make successful movies overseas or sports players, or Wall Street guys. I say the next time they say they are going to threaten to take their marbles and leave tell them not to let the airplane door hit them on the way out where they would have to get medical care here in the U.S. Let them get it in Mexico or where ever.

I for one am not going to leave for the greed and self interest that motivates these arguments. I have too many friends and family here and I CARE MORE ABOUT MY COUNTRY THAN I LOVE MONEY.

Tex
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Tex said:
As far as "share the wealth", if you don't want the wealthy, then tax them away to another country. I'm sure they are more than happy to employ cheaper labor offshore.
Tex

Are you old enough to remember the Jimmy Carter inflation years? We were getting 15% cost of living raises every year. Once Obama starts printing away on the dollars to pay his bills, $250K could be middle income. Before the Carter inflation, middle income was way less than what it is now. Bear in mind Carter didn't go in debt anywhere near this current level.

I remember living high on the hog at $30K annual gross income.

Inflation was a killer for those on Social Security or fixed incomes. They weren't getting the cost of living raises we were getting.
 

Tex

Well-known member
backhoeboogie said:
Tex said:
As far as "share the wealth", if you don't want the wealthy, then tax them away to another country. I'm sure they are more than happy to employ cheaper labor offshore.
Tex

Are you old enough to remember the Jimmy Carter inflation years? We were getting 15% cost of living raises every year. Once Obama starts printing away on the dollars to pay his bills, $250K could be middle income. Before the Carter inflation, middle income was way less than what it is now. Bear in mind Carter didn't go in debt anywhere near this current level.

I remember living high on the hog at $30K annual gross income.

Inflation was a killer for those on Social Security or fixed incomes. They weren't getting the cost of living raises we were getting.

Yes, that is a real risk. Fiat money has its problems.



Tex
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Tex said:
The republican call that this will hurt the economy because it will tax small businesses. If it does, it will only be 1.5% of the population and it seems that unless you are playing with definitions, small businesses income (as defined after business deductions) affected by this will be very small.

Tex

The problem is not about rather these people can handle the hit, it is rather they will take the hit.

As a small business owner, when my profits take a hit or my personal income takes a hit, I make adjustments to compensate.

Over the years my personal income has not fluctuated very much, I pretty much have made the same or more each year. But my number of employees has changed by as much as 80% time to time. I have an amount I want to make personally and I will secure that, if taxes go up or my gross goes down, then I cut my payroll to make an adjustment to my personal pay.

This is how taxing the small businessman will in the end trickle down to less jobs and harder times for the average person. Because even if only 1.5% of the population make that much income. I guarantee you they provide way more than 1.5% of the Jobs in America.
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
John Fund today On the Trail, the Wall Street Journal: "Beware Obamacare's Fine Print." I referenced this earlier. "There's a reason the Obama health care plan is being rushed through Congress this summer -- because the American people would likely never support it if given time to absorb and understand such fine print," as the unions being exempt from any tax increase on any health care benefits provided by their boss. "If the union carve-out isn't sufficient to excite public anger, wait till you hear about the version of the Obama plan prepared by Senator Edward Kennedy, which would specifically exempt Members of Congress from many of its provisions. As the US Office of Personnel Management notes, Members of Congress 'enjoy the widest selection of health plans in the country.' According to page 114 of the Kennedy bill, a similar array of choices would not be available to other Americans in the future. Instead, they would be shunted into health insurance plans under the straightjacket of whatever the government decides is a 'basic' plan."

So the question that needs to be asked, the only question, really, you need to call your senator and your member of Congress and you need to ask them very simply: Are you going to opt out and forgo your current health care plan in order to join the health care plan provided for most Americans by the Obama government? And what do you think the answer you're going to get is? The answer's: Hell, no, I'm not giving up my health care plan, but we can't provide this kind of health coverage for every American. So members of Congress and the Obama Administration will not be subjected to the health care plan they are going to come up with. This is what the doctor was trying to get at in his question to Obama. Okay. You're going to come up with a public plan. Your wife or your daughter comes down with an illness that your current plan, the public plan, doesn't cover. Are you going to opt out of it because you can? And are you going to go get better coverage? He wouldn't answer the question. The answer to the question is: He is never going to be subjected to the plan that they come up with for everybody else. So you need to, just today, send them an e-mail and call them up and ask them: Are you going to give up your current health care plan and enroll in the new public plan the Obama Administration comes up with? You know damn well they won't.

It's over. If members of Congress are not going to join the plan they're devising for you, you don't want the plan. You don't want the plan. And I can tell you right now they're not going to give up the health care plan they've got. And they're not going to join any piece of garbage plan they come up with for all the rest of us. If they tell you they'll think about it, they're not telling you the truth. Obama wouldn't even answer that question last night. He started talking, (paraphrasing) "We're treating too many people for too many things they shouldn't be treated for. We're not focusing on quality of coverage. We're focusing on quantity." That's obfuscation. Just ask 'em. Are you going to give up your health care plan, Senator So-and-So, and join the public plan with all the rest of us, the plan that you write for us, the plan that you vote on, the plan you might not even read before you vote on it? Just like you didn't read the stimulus bill, and just like Waxman doesn't even know what's in his own cap-and-trade bill because he hasn't read it. Are you going to opt out of your health care plan that you have now that everybody knows is so great and join us in the public plan you create for everybody else?

If they say no, then the whole thing is off the table. If it's not good enough for them, it's not good enough for you. They don't have, and should not have, the power to determine what you can do taking care of yourself. You should not give up the power that allows them to say they will permit you to do that and to do that but they won't permit you to do this, as you seek your own health care. If you turn your health care over to the state you're giving up all control over your health care. You are in a crapshoot. You may as well have walked into a casino. If you think your life is going to improve by giving up control of your own health care, and your family's, in exchange for some wizards who cannot manage Medicare, cannot manage Medicaid, cannot manage Social Security, cannot manage a DMV, cannot manage the Great Society and the War on Poverty, cannot manage the Porkulus Bill, cannot manage a damn thing they do, you're going to turn over something as important to you as health care decisions to a bunch of people who will not even enroll in the same plan they're going to make you enroll in? The answer is no.
 

Tex

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Tex, was there ever inflation pre-FED?

Yes there was. When money was based or backed by gold whenever gold was found or imported into a country like Spain did when they took gold from the Americas I am sure there was inflation.

Same with the California gold rush.

Inflation is the relationship between money, in whatever form like gold or notes, to the goods available.

If the population grows and the demand for gold backed money does not, the money actually becomes worth more than it was before.

This reality was a problem in the economy until we had the fed. It was the issue that William Jennings Bryan spoke of in his famous speech "Crucify me on a cross of gold" where Bryant and the agriculture community desperately needed the money supply to expand with the demand. Bryant wanted the money to be backed by silver and not just gold (which it eventually was) because there was a great find of silver in California that could help increase the money supply to match demand and not have the fluctuations in the currency from worth more to worth less due to the demand/supply relationship of money. By the way, this was based on the "Mother Lode" find by the ancestors of William Randolf Hearst and the Comstock lode which greatly increased the supply of silver.

The bankers didn't want their money "devalued" with extra money in the system by putting silver in it along with the limited gold. It would reduce the value of the gold backed money they had and increase the currency. William Jennings Bryan and the agriculture community needed extra money to be able to use it to trade with. The gold was pretty much locked up by the bankers.

We have solved a lot of these kind of problems of not having enough money in circulation by having a fiat currency. Money supply can be adjusted where as gold and silver supply was random, based on new supplies being found, and largely captured by big money bankers.

There are problems with fiat currency in that increases can cause inflation if they get the demand/supply out of balance. The fed has worked hard on a policy of getting this balance right and measuring their success by inflation. A slight positive inflation rate is better than a negative because a negative has a lot of problems that William Jennings brought to the political fore front.

We have a lot of money going into the system right now because we have had deflation and the fed wants to stop that deflation. That deflation has happened because of the contraction in value of housing because of the Wall Street and banking frauds (I say frauds because it was a bubble that was allowed by the fed and the "creation" of money through the additional capital that higher housing prices brought).

This contraction in the economy made it necessary to put more money into the system and that is what TARP and the bail out was about. The contraction in money and its consequent contraction in lending was about to cause severe economic disruptions and still did because of the magnitude of the problem.

A slight positive inflation rate is fine for an individual if their income correspondently increases. If inflation goes up by 2.5 percent and your income does the same over time, then your value in relation to money is unchanged. Economists measure this relationship by a term called "real income" which is basically income adjusted in relation to inflation.

When dealing with numbers like $250,000 and not having taxes be based on the "real" value of that money in time terms, there can be tax income bracket creep as inflation continues and eventually, even if your income went up by the inflation rate, you would be in a higher tax bracket.

That was the problem with the minimum alternative tax "creep", Social Security payments in relation to buying power and other terms that did not have inflation adjusted numbers.

When the economy picks up, it is time to gradually, without killing the economy, pull back the money supply. Volker did this to pull us out of the Carter - Reagan era of inflation. It stabilized the relationship between money and goods.

Sorry for the limited explanation. This topic and what we know about it is huge and not simple. It isn't just common knowledge but everyone experiences the consequences so they know about it when it happens.

Tex
 

Tex

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Tex said:
The republican call that this will hurt the economy because it will tax small businesses. If it does, it will only be 1.5% of the population and it seems that unless you are playing with definitions, small businesses income (as defined after business deductions) affected by this will be very small.

Tex

The problem is not about rather these people can handle the hit, it is rather they will take the hit.

As a small business owner, when my profits take a hit or my personal income takes a hit, I make adjustments to compensate.

Over the years my personal income has not fluctuated very much, I pretty much have made the same or more each year. But my number of employees has changed by as much as 80% time to time. I have an amount I want to make personally and I will secure that, if taxes go up or my gross goes down, then I cut my payroll to make an adjustment to my personal pay.

This is how taxing the small businessman will in the end trickle down to less jobs and harder times for the average person. Because even if only 1.5% of the population make that much income. I guarantee you they provide way more than 1.5% of the Jobs in America.

Those fluctuations have more to do with demand. If wealth is concentrated at the top, demand for the vast majority of people is weaker because the balance between what they get (and they spend what they get by and large-- consumer demand) and what the top gets is out of whack. Money can be too concentrated at the top and it can ruin the economy and consumer demand.

Demand creates jobs, not wealth. Wealth can satisfy that demand with investments that profit from it, but wealth in itself doesn't create demand especially when it is concentrated up at the top where it is saved and not spent. The average person has to spend to get by in life. The very wealthy spend because they want to. They already have the basics covered like food, housing, transportation and the things you spend money on. This is probably one of the better cases for a graduated tax rate but there are others.

My big concern is not just the tax rate but how much the government takes of the pie. There are theoretical limits to how big the government can get in relation to the GDP and we have seen the consequences of reaching those theoretical limits in other countries. The spending in recessions has to come close the surpluses in the good times adjusted for growth and other factors. This was a big problem with the Bush economics. They didn't save when the economy was good, they just kept spending. It is kind of like a small business. If you spend all when you have jobs and don't save for when you don't have a job, you will not make it in the long run. Same with cattle. If you go and spend all the money you made selling cattle and don't save any, you will not have enough to get you by when you are not selling. It is the old ant and grasshopper story.

Tex
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Tex said:
aplusmnt said:
Tex said:
The republican call that this will hurt the economy because it will tax small businesses. If it does, it will only be 1.5% of the population and it seems that unless you are playing with definitions, small businesses income (as defined after business deductions) affected by this will be very small.

Tex

The problem is not about rather these people can handle the hit, it is rather they will take the hit.

As a small business owner, when my profits take a hit or my personal income takes a hit, I make adjustments to compensate.

Over the years my personal income has not fluctuated very much, I pretty much have made the same or more each year. But my number of employees has changed by as much as 80% time to time. I have an amount I want to make personally and I will secure that, if taxes go up or my gross goes down, then I cut my payroll to make an adjustment to my personal pay.

This is how taxing the small businessman will in the end trickle down to less jobs and harder times for the average person. Because even if only 1.5% of the population make that much income. I guarantee you they provide way more than 1.5% of the Jobs in America.

Those fluctuations have more to do with demand. If wealth is concentrated at the top, demand for the vast majority of people is weaker because the balance between what they get (and they spend what they get by and large-- consumer demand) and what the top gets is out of whack. Money can be too concentrated at the top and it can ruin the economy and consumer demand.

Demand creates jobs, not wealth. Wealth can satisfy that demand with investments that profit from it, but wealth in itself doesn't create demand especially when it is concentrated up at the top where it is saved and not spent. The average person has to spend to get by in life. The very wealthy spend because they want to. They already have the basics covered like food, housing, transportation and the things you spend money on. This is probably one of the better cases for a graduated tax rate but there are others.

My big concern is not just the tax rate but how much the government takes of the pie. There are theoretical limits to how big the government can get in relation to the GDP and we have seen the consequences of reaching those theoretical limits in other countries. The spending in recessions has to come close the surpluses in the good times adjusted for growth and other factors. This was a big problem with the Bush economics. They didn't save when the economy was good, they just kept spending. It is kind of like a small business. If you spend all when you have jobs and don't save for when you don't have a job, you will not make it in the long run. Same with cattle. If you go and spend all the money you made selling cattle and don't save any, you will not have enough to get you by when you are not selling. It is the old ant and grasshopper story.

Tex

Maybe for some Tex. Most I personally know are flipping their money and taking less profit. There are all kinds of ways to expand and let the business take a hit for the next 3 1/2 years.

Of course, with less income, there will be less spending and down hill transfers. Things like eating out less which impacts tipping for waiters/waitresses and less business overall for the restaurant etc.

It all gets way more complicated than even the best of best can explain. It also gets regional and cultural.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Tex said:
aplusmnt said:
Tex said:
The republican call that this will hurt the economy because it will tax small businesses. If it does, it will only be 1.5% of the population and it seems that unless you are playing with definitions, small businesses income (as defined after business deductions) affected by this will be very small.

Tex

The problem is not about rather these people can handle the hit, it is rather they will take the hit.

As a small business owner, when my profits take a hit or my personal income takes a hit, I make adjustments to compensate.

Over the years my personal income has not fluctuated very much, I pretty much have made the same or more each year. But my number of employees has changed by as much as 80% time to time. I have an amount I want to make personally and I will secure that, if taxes go up or my gross goes down, then I cut my payroll to make an adjustment to my personal pay.

This is how taxing the small businessman will in the end trickle down to less jobs and harder times for the average person. Because even if only 1.5% of the population make that much income. I guarantee you they provide way more than 1.5% of the Jobs in America.

Those fluctuations have more to do with demand. If wealth is concentrated at the top, demand for the vast majority of people is weaker because the balance between what they get (and they spend what they get by and large-- consumer demand) and what the top gets is out of whack. Money can be too concentrated at the top and it can ruin the economy and consumer demand.

Demand creates jobs, not wealth. Wealth can satisfy that demand with investments that profit from it, but wealth in itself doesn't create demand especially when it is concentrated up at the top where it is saved and not spent. The average person has to spend to get by in life. The very wealthy spend because they want to. They already have the basics covered like food, housing, transportation and the things you spend money on. This is probably one of the better cases for a graduated tax rate but there are others.

My big concern is not just the tax rate but how much the government takes of the pie. There are theoretical limits to how big the government can get in relation to the GDP and we have seen the consequences of reaching those theoretical limits in other countries. The spending in recessions has to come close the surpluses in the good times adjusted for growth and other factors. This was a big problem with the Bush economics. They didn't save when the economy was good, they just kept spending. It is kind of like a small business. If you spend all when you have jobs and don't save for when you don't have a job, you will not make it in the long run. Same with cattle. If you go and spend all the money you made selling cattle and don't save any, you will not have enough to get you by when you are not selling. It is the old ant and grasshopper story.

Tex

During a recession and tough times Demand for goods decreases and as that Demand decreases cost cutting is natural, but when you also tack on an increase in taxation on those that employee people. Not only will you get an employment decrease due to Demand for product or service caused by a faltering economy you will also get higher unemployment due to the Demand the Government is putting on those who employee people.

You will get a double whammy hit on the. Then when you throw in the inevitable inflation on top of all this then you are getting the Triple Crown.

In reality during a recession of this magnitude, Govt spending should be cut, taxes on those that provide jobs should be cut and tax rates on individuals should be cut. Give people a reason to expand their businesses instead of shrinking them!
 

Tex

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Tex said:
aplusmnt said:
The problem is not about rather these people can handle the hit, it is rather they will take the hit.

As a small business owner, when my profits take a hit or my personal income takes a hit, I make adjustments to compensate.

Over the years my personal income has not fluctuated very much, I pretty much have made the same or more each year. But my number of employees has changed by as much as 80% time to time. I have an amount I want to make personally and I will secure that, if taxes go up or my gross goes down, then I cut my payroll to make an adjustment to my personal pay.

This is how taxing the small businessman will in the end trickle down to less jobs and harder times for the average person. Because even if only 1.5% of the population make that much income. I guarantee you they provide way more than 1.5% of the Jobs in America.

Those fluctuations have more to do with demand. If wealth is concentrated at the top, demand for the vast majority of people is weaker because the balance between what they get (and they spend what they get by and large-- consumer demand) and what the top gets is out of whack. Money can be too concentrated at the top and it can ruin the economy and consumer demand.

Demand creates jobs, not wealth. Wealth can satisfy that demand with investments that profit from it, but wealth in itself doesn't create demand especially when it is concentrated up at the top where it is saved and not spent. The average person has to spend to get by in life. The very wealthy spend because they want to. They already have the basics covered like food, housing, transportation and the things you spend money on. This is probably one of the better cases for a graduated tax rate but there are others.

My big concern is not just the tax rate but how much the government takes of the pie. There are theoretical limits to how big the government can get in relation to the GDP and we have seen the consequences of reaching those theoretical limits in other countries. The spending in recessions has to come close the surpluses in the good times adjusted for growth and other factors. This was a big problem with the Bush economics. They didn't save when the economy was good, they just kept spending. It is kind of like a small business. If you spend all when you have jobs and don't save for when you don't have a job, you will not make it in the long run. Same with cattle. If you go and spend all the money you made selling cattle and don't save any, you will not have enough to get you by when you are not selling. It is the old ant and grasshopper story.

Tex

During a recession and tough times Demand for goods decreases and as that Demand decreases cost cutting is natural, but when you also tack on an increase in taxation on those that employee people. Not only will you get an employment decrease due to Demand for product or service caused by a faltering economy you will also get higher unemployment due to the Demand the Government is putting on those who employee people.

You will get a double whammy hit on the. Then when you throw in the inevitable inflation on top of all this then you are getting the Triple Crown.

In reality during a recession of this magnitude, Govt spending should be cut, taxes on those that provide jobs should be cut and tax rates on individuals should be cut. Give people a reason to expand their businesses instead of shrinking them!

No, I think you are dead wrong on this in our current situation.

If you are talking about increasing the taxes on the average person, then you would be right.

Instead, the policies being suggested are to increase taxes on those making a whole lot and distributing, through health care reform. This will allow those smaller businesses to afford health care for their employees at what expense? At the expense of the top income earners. This will increase the incentives for small businesses to hire because the costs of health care to their over all costs will be lower. More small businesses can then hire more quality people.

When you mix up taxes on the wealthy and "invest" it in the middle, more demand will occur. This is what will get the economy going more, not less.

If not taxing the wealthy is better, why are we not hiring more now?

Government spending does not need to slow right now in a recession but it will need to get back in balance when the private economy picks up.

Traditionally this hasn't happened except under Clinton and it made a powerhouse of an economy, the problems with trade policy and the China policy set aside, which would show up later (now).

There are limits to this policy, however. If getting more income is ever worse than not getting more income (rich are talking not about this, but about their deal getting worse, not negative), then you would have a point. That is the relationship I spoke of about the size of the government.

Tex
 

Tex

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
It's the ongoing class warfare game that statists keep feeding so that they can grab more power.

We have had class warfare but it hasn't been called that. It has been called "free trade" with communist China that came with huge strings attached. It was the exploding budget in good economic times buffeted in the short run by tax decreases for the rich while the deficit was going up, up, up.

Now I am all for tax cuts but that means you have to cut the spending first.

We have had class war fare when we have a judiciary that does the kind of things that happened to Schumaker and others.

We have had class warfare when the big banks were able to scam the financial system by packaging with Wall Street loans that were not risk adjusted to the "little" investors. Interesting that Goldman knew not to "invest" in their own scams in this area.

We have had class warfare when we have the best politicians money can buy.

We have had class warfare when the regulatory agencies in the federal government took a vacation but still got paid.

We have had class warfare when the Washington bubble is funded and staffed by lobbyists from companies with the money.

We have had class warfare when the republican party handed out chairmanships based on campaign contribution amounts.

We have had class warfare when the rule of law became the rule of men.

We have had class warfare when corporations were given the right to market frauds because it benefited the "consumer surplus"

We have had class warfare when pensions were taken by companies to use as capital, paying high salaries to top management who then gave the bankrupt pension plans that they bankrupted to the federal government. All the while politicians kept their campaign contributions.

We have had class warfare when we outsourced goods in Walmart to China's oligarchs (they have the 5th highest number of billionaires in the world down to 28 from 66 after the meltdown)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_billionaires#World_wide_top_10

I think we have had class warfare. It just hasn't been called as such until it was a convenient excuse for the rich and powerful to keep their positions.

I think we have had class warfare when companies turned earnings into market power by buying up the competition and concentrating industries.

I think we have had class warfare when we have had outrageous no bid contracts.

I think we have had class warfare when the outcome of court cases depends more on the amount you spend on lawyers than the actual facts in a case and equal application of the law.

I think we have had class warfare when politicians looted the federal treasury and we had deficts so bad that we had to borrow from the Chinese billionaires and government.

I think we have had class warfare when we traded with China and allowed all the profits to go to communist party leaders making them billionaires.

I think we did have class warfare when CEOs and big owners were getting bonuses while their companies tanked.

The big problem with class warfare is not that it is occurring, but that the crooks of the world are giving the other rich people a bad name because of the wealth category.

During the French Revolution, many rich and poor innocents were killed due to the excesses of the few that were ruling. This is what class warfare and the lack of application of real justice not the bought justice we have today will possibly lead to. The rich have just as much of an interest in curtailing these excesses as everyone else but they just don't know it. The excesses of some have caused many of the "rich" to fall in wealth as a lot of other people although their wealth cushions them a whole lot more.

When we have a taking of the wealthy's assets, not just their income, you might have a better case. To protect themselves, they need to make sure that the people who are gaming the political and economic system meet justice (Madow is just the tip of the iceberg kind of like Martha Stewart was the example shown to the world while nothing real was being done to the real culprits).


I think this is just another code word to allow the actions of the crooks to continue unabated.

I just read Goldman is claiming "profits" while not following the guidelines of the tier 1 asset requirements. This is allowing them to game the system again.

Yes, we have had class warfare but that definition might not be defined in the way some would want.

Tex
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
While I agree with most of your points, Tex, I would think that you are describing a sold-out governement as opposed to class warfare.

What I see the libs doing - yet again- is throwing gas on the old evil rich proletariat keeping down the poor expolited working class. It's horse crap.

Take a look at the comments on Cafferty's piece on CNN today and you'll see what I'm talking about. You'll see post after post of class victims making comments like "The rich can do with 1 Butler instead of 2" or "Bush made them rich with his tax cuts, they can pay it back" Flipping idiots chugging the statist koolaid.

Just because Fred makes $250,000 and Jim makes $20,000, Fred doesn't owe Jim a damn thing. With a few exceptions, what you have is the sum result of the decisions you made in life. Fred should be able to keep what is his, what he has worked for as an example to Jim. Jim and the minority in his tax brackets are already paying half the taxes, why penalize them further?

Now we're going to have some people paying over half of their money back in one tax or another to the various government entities, and they've got to pick up the tab on health insurance for the people who not only don't pay taxes, but receive them? And this is done in the name of "fairness"? That's crap, Tex. That is NOT the country our forefathers set up. That is the kind of country Marx would set up.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Yes there was. When money was based or backed by gold whenever gold was found or imported into a country like Spain did when they took gold from the Americas I am sure there was inflation.

I'll look into it a little more, but I have read before that there was only inflation during the Civil War, but after that, not until after 1913 again.

But I'll have to do a little more looking.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
While I agree with most of your points, Tex, I would think that you are describing a sold-out governement as opposed to class warfare.

What I see the libs doing - yet again- is throwing gas on the old evil rich proletariat keeping down the poor expolited working class. It's horse crap.

Take a look at the comments on Cafferty's piece on CNN today and you'll see what I'm talking about. You'll see post after post of class victims making comments like "The rich can do with 1 Butler instead of 2" or "Bush made them rich with his tax cuts, they can pay it back" Flipping idiots chugging the statist koolaid.

Just because Fred makes $250,000 and Jim makes $20,000, Fred doesn't owe Jim a damn thing. With a few exceptions, what you have is the sum result of the decisions you made in life. Fred should be able to keep what is his, what he has worked for as an example to Jim. Jim and the minority in his tax brackets are already paying half the taxes, why penalize them further?

Now we're going to have some people paying over half of their money back in one tax or another to the various government entities, and they've got to pick up the tab on health insurance for the people who not only don't pay taxes, but receive them? And this is done in the name of "fairness"? That's crap, Tex. That is NOT the country our forefathers set up. That is the kind of country Marx would set up.



Long answer:




You are right about the grouping of the rich and mixing that with the corruption. If we had a more perfect world we would be able to sort these things apart through our laws and through enforcement of those laws through the court and a more fair economic system (which wasn't there for Schumaker) which was my point about the French Revolution. In the French Revolution many people lost their heads due to the revolution that were not the culprits the lynch mobs were after. The elite in that country took the brunt of it when the populace that was tired of their tyranny revolted and it was messy. That is the best reason why it should be avoided by addressing the corruption issues.

I have real problems with the current health plans that are on the table and I do worry that we might turn the benefits of capitalism out because of its faults. The devil is always in the details and the "rich" seem to own those devils, but not all the rich as you say. The motivations of capitalism

I will answer this question in an analogy about crime and the concentration of wealth that might be a little hard to follow but I will try.

One of the best ways to decrease crime is to have a growing economy with a lot of opportunities for people to participate in the economy. Inner cities and a lot of blighted areas just don't have opportunities that are better than the opportunities that crime provides. There still is no excuse for crime. All the policing in the world won't solve this problem as a good economy can.

During the revolutions of the past, the revolutions were there because of a grabbing of the opportunities by an elite and yes, rich ruling class. The big guys left the little guy out and then blamed their condition on the little guy they basically abused with their power. An economy where opportunities are captured by a few does the same thing.

I am happy that Bill Gates was innovative and became a billionaire. I have no problem with innovation and work being turned to wealth. I do have a problem when the wealth controls the opportunities. The biggest way to control opportunity is to abuse economics to increase your wealth. It is done because we allow it but the results are the same. Wealth gets concentrated and then the wealth buys the rules. This leaves the little guy out. We like to use Bill Gates as an example of success but he did delve into economic abuse by trying to abuse his market power and crowd out other's opportunities. Some of that has been changed and stopped. That was what the whole Microsoft Explorer lawsuits were over. We did stop those abuses and it led to others being able to innovate and be a part of the economy.

When corporations can force what are called Pareto Inefficiencies onto the market with their market power we all lose (look up Pareto Efficiency). It concentrates wealth and makes the markets preform at a sub optimal rate. Do all the rich or elite get the blame for these things when the people get fed up with it? You betcha. Is it fair? No. Is it optimal? No. It would have been optimal for Pareto efficiencies to rule the day not market power or just power induced Pareto inefficiencies. Pareto Efficiency is road the optimum capitalism can provide in the form of an economy.

Then we come to bargaining power. Bargaining power is the power of people to be able to get Pareto Efficiencies enforced if it is balanced. Without it, the wealthy do their deal to increase their wealth at the expense of others, not at innovation and work just as the old economies of the world did. We tend to confuse profits as good without respect of how they were obtained. If profits are obtained by creating Pareto Inefficiencies and scamming others we don't seem to be able discern it. That causes a sub optimum economy as a whole and reduces opportunities for those who are not the chosen few in power.

Unfettered capitalism will result in a crash just as greed has created our current situation. Wall Street was ballywhoed when they made all their profits but they were making a lot of those profits by the scams that are being unveiled right now. It was capitalism or greed that had no ethics or laws and policies that prevented the frauds and now we are all paying for it through a crashed economy.

I agree with you that we shouldn't take from those who are innovative and work hard and give to those who don't in theory. The imbalances above create the need to change those imbalances through government policy of what some would call redistribution of wealth but others would call people getting fed up and taking back what was taken from them in a collective way such as taxing the rich to pay for programs for the poor who were left out. It is where correct theory in one area was not followed and then corrected by blunt public policy to try to get back to that optimum economy.

We don't have a problem with too much wealth in this country. We do have a distribution problem though.

It is better to have an economy that is shared. It will bring the crime rate down and prevent a revolution.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
While I agree with most of your points, Tex, I would think that you are describing a sold-out governement as opposed to class warfare.

What I see the libs doing - yet again- is throwing gas on the old evil rich

proletariat keeping down the poor expolited working class. It's horse crap.

Take a look at the comments on Cafferty's piece on CNN today and you'll see what I'm talking about. You'll see post after post of class victims making comments like "The rich can do with 1 Butler instead of 2" or "Bush made them rich with his tax cuts, they can pay it back" Flipping idiots chugging the statist koolaid.

Just because Fred makes $250,000 and Jim makes $20,000, Fred doesn't owe Jim a damn thing. With a few exceptions, what you have is the sum result of the decisions you made in life. Fred should be able to keep what is his, what he has worked for as an example to Jim. Jim and the minority in his tax brackets are already paying half the taxes, why penalize them further?

Now we're going to have some people paying over half of their money back in one tax or another to the various government entities, and they've got to pick up the tab on health insurance for the people who not only don't pay taxes, but receive them? And this is done in the name of "fairness"? That's crap, Tex. That is NOT the country our forefathers set up. That is the kind of country Marx would set up.


Short answer:


It is better to have an economy that is shared. It will bring the crime rate down and prevent a revolution. We will have a better country too and people willing to fight for it to protect it because they share in it. It isn't just about the individual example (I could come up with a million examples of abuse). It is about the common good, not in a Marxist way, but in a Machevelian good ruler way that is pragmatic enough for the rich to keep their wealth.
 
Top