Here is a good example why raising taxes on the rich won't work

[wuapinmon]

So you are saying that progessive tax system is fair because its gets money from the lucky ones? That is the ethical reason for progressive taxes?

Additionally how is a rich person disproportianetly benefitting from what the country offers?

I say its the other way around.

A poor person pays a lot less for the same police, fire, public education and Army than a rich person does. The poor are also eligible for free medical care among other services.

I'm telling you that the police, fire, and rescue services in South Central are nothing like Bel Air. There is no way that you can claim these are equivalent. Where I live now, the majority of the cops are volunteers working 2-3 shifts a week because we can't afford to pay them...they work because they are civic-minded and probably like the work. Compare this with the folks in Summerlin, NV. It's not even the same thing....nada que ver. The parks in poor neighborhoods are decrepit and they are pristine around the rich. Cracked sidewalks get replaced in rich places. The poor pay a lot less and they get a lot less. It's not the same thing, but we're not talking about fire, police, and education, we're talking federal taxes, right?

[wuapinmon]

Good point...especially since we live in a nation where everyone rich or poor has the same vote. Therefore they have say in who pays that tax.

The rich have capital to throw into lobbyists to get them loopholes for tax shelters. You can't honestly believe that the vote of one poor man vs. one rich man is the same. Sure, in an academic sense, but congressmen pay attention to rich people who write checks. They pay attention to poor people who band together and raise enough hell to get the attention of the media gatekeepers.

[SeattleUte]

You list practical reasons but no ethical reasons. I guess you prove my point. It isn't ethical but because the government can it does..

I only list practical reasons? Only because you say so. You certainly think it's an ethical thing to tax rich people at the same rate or lower (in the case of a consumption tax) than poor people. The converse is as much rooted in ethical concerns. Why wouldn't it be? My values different than yours. Are you surprised? ("They only list practical not ethical reasons" sounds like something you're just repeating. It's funny you enshrine yourself with an "ethical position" but not those who favor graduated taxes.)

Lets see.... He was over the federal reserve for 19 years over which most was fantastic growth. I'm sure its all his fault a bunch of banks lent money to people for houses they couldn't afford.

Everyone understands that this depression was decades in the making, and the root of it is Greenspan's monetary policy. Greenspan created the insatiable hunger for debt. Greenspan's historical purpose and role is now to serve as a villian, a mandacious and incompetent sort of villian. His reputation is beyond destroyed. This crisis is going to need villians. This is probably necessary in order for us to recever and glean important lessons. We're going to need a story, and Greenspan's role will not be unimportant, I assure you. Alan Greenspan=Neville Chamberlain. Greenspan's nostrums will be like, "I have a piece of paper signed by Herr Hitler. . . "

Btw.. who gives a shit if people hold her in low regard universally. In fact that would put her in pretty good company.

"Greed is good." That's brilliant! BRILLIANT!!!

[il Padrino Ute]

Let's say, hypothetically, that we had a totally flat tax. Let's say your income was taxed at a 10% rate. Let's say person A earns $30,000 a year, while person B earns $30,000,000. Person A will pay $3,000 in taxes, and Person B, $3,000,000.

That's all well and good, but the truth of the matter is, Person A will miss that $3,000 a lot more than Person B will miss that $3,000,000. Even if the tax rate were, numerically speaking, identical, the tax burden would fall much harder on Person A than Person B.

The ethical argument for a progressive tax is that the way to measure the impact of the tax burden is not necessarily the rate at which you pay taxes.

That's not to say that a very steep progressive tax is necessarily the way to go, either. I like Utah's system, personally. Utah has a nominally "flat" tax, but offers tax credits to tax brackets of lower income. The result is a system that you might as well call progressive, but tries to tax at lower rates across broad groups.

How do you know the person making $30M would miss the $3M less than a person making $30K would miss the $3K?

Are you speaking relative to your income? If so, you can't make that call.

[Mormon Red Death]

Everyone understands that this depression was decades in the making, and the root of it is Greenspan's monetary policy. Greenspan created the insatiable hunger for debt. Greenspan's historical purpose and role is now to serve as a villian, a mandacious and incompetent sort of villian. His reputation is beyond destroyed. This crisis is going to need villians. This is probably necessary in order for us to recever and glean important lessons. We're going to need a story, and Greenspan's role will not be unimportant, I assure you.

You seriously think Greenspan created the insatiable hunger for debt? It was all him and his monetary policy? Maybe you better sit this one out champ.

Will his role be unimportant? certainly not but the accusation that Greenspan created the mortgage problem is completely ridiculous. Could he have done things different? Probably but as you know hindsight is 20/20. He was reacting to the situations as they came.

[Mormon Red Death]

I only list practical reasons? Only because you say so. You certainly think it's an ethical thing to tax rich people at the same rate or lower (in the case of a consumption tax) than poor people. The converse is as much rooted in ethical concerns. Why wouldn't it be? My values different than yours. Are you surprised? ("They only list practical not ethical reasons" sounds like something you're just repeating. It's funny you enshrine yourself with an "ethical position" but not those who favor graduated taxes.)

Fine your values are different than mine.

[SeattleUte]

You seriously think Greenspan created the insatiable hunger for debt? It was all him and his monetary policy? Maybe you better sit this one out champ.

Will his role be unimportant? certainly not but the accusation that Greenspan created the mortgage problem is completely ridiculous. Could he have done things different? Probably but as you know hindsight is 20/20. He was reacting to the situations as they came.

We're talking about perception, not reality. I only ever talked about what the world thinks of him.

[SeattleUte]

Fine your values are different than mine.

Thank you.

[All-American]

How do you know the person making $30M would miss the $3M less than a person making $30K would miss the $3K?

Are you speaking relative to your income? If so, you can't make that call.

I admit, I am making a wild assumption when I say that.

I do have a few reasons behind this wild assumption, though, and you may evaluate them as sufficient or not as you wish.

Many of the costs associated with a basic standard of living are fixed. You can always spend more on food, housing, clothing, health care, transportation, et cetera, but there comes a point where the only way to spend less on any of the above is to go without them.

If a very wealthy person is forced to downsize their budget, they may buy a less expensive car, live in a less expensive house, or buy food at a less expensive store. If a poorer person is forced to downsize their budget, they may find that the only way to make ends meet is to forgo certain essentials, such as health or drivers insurance, or even the more basic essentials such as food, clothing, and shelter.

Now, you're right; I can't really tell you how person A or B would feel, because I've never been in the position of person A or B. I'm making guesses, so if I'm wrong, feel free to disregard.

[Brian]

Actually we just want to tax the rich to balance our budgets and continue paying for services that are enjoyed disproportionately by the rich (police, fire, military, parks and rec, public roads, highways, etc. all benefit the rich more than the poor).

I never see the police in my neighborhood.

Great benefit I'm getting, eh?

[il Padrino Ute]

I admit, I am making a wild assumption when I say that.

I do have a few reasons behind this wild assumption, though, and you may evaluate them as sufficient or not as you wish.

Many of the costs associated with a basic standard of living are fixed. You can always spend more on food, housing, clothing, health care, transportation, et cetera, but there comes a point where the only way to spend less on any of the above is to go without them.

If a very wealthy person is forced to downsize their budget, they may buy a less expensive car, live in a less expensive house, or buy food at a less expensive store. If a poorer person is forced to downsize their budget, they may find that the only way to make ends meet is to forgo certain essentials, such as health or drivers insurance, or even the more basic essentials such as food, clothing, and shelter.

Now, you're right; I can't really tell you how person A or B would feel, because I've never been in the position of person A or B. I'm making guesses, so if I'm wrong, feel free to disregard.

My question sounded more harsh than I intended. Sorry 'bout that.

I can understand why you'd say that, as from my perspective as well, an income of $30M is a helluva lot of money. I've just been around long enough to know that there are folks who live beyond their means, no matter their income. It's all relative.

[il Padrino Ute]

I never see the police in my neighborhood.

Great benefit I'm getting, eh?

Start breaking the law so you can get your money's worth of that service.

[KillerDog]

I never see the police in my neighborhood.

Great benefit I'm getting, eh?

I've noticed that you see the cops a lot more in poor neighborhoods. Maybe I don't know what I'm looking for.

[SeattleUte]

I've noticed that you see the cops a lot more in poor neighborhoods. Maybe I don't know what I'm looking for.

Translation: Poor people are deservedly poor because they're bad. Look how many more crimes they commit.

[KillerDog]

Translation: Poor people are deservedly poor because they're bad. Look how many more crimes they commit.

Nope, just pointing out that the above opinion that poor people don't get as much for their tax dollars (assuming they pay any) isn't born out in my experience. You really want me to be worse than I am. I'm a bad enough person without you trying to act like I'm worse. BTW, of the two of us, which has been more impoverished during their lifetime and which had the most advantages? I'm curious because you sure seem to take the side of the poor and disadvantaged but iirc, you are quite well off and always have been.