Who is your choice for our next President ?

[ERDoc]

I agree that this is true, but this is also true in other countries with dramatically different tax systems and economic realities.

However, just because everyone has the opportunity to succeed and advance (like most -- all? -- first world countries), does everyone have an equal opportunity to succeed and advance?

Obviously this is not the case, right? People are inherently unequal, and some of us are born with advantages that others lack. There's no question that in any country, being born a child of wealthy parents conveys a greater likelihood of "success" as measured by a high income.

Is everyone wealthy in the US (or anywhere else), deserving of their success? How hard has Paris Hilton worked in her life? Is everyone poor lazy or a malingerer? Or have some people just had the bad luck to be born to crappy parents, in impoverished neighbourhoods with poor schools and little potential for upward social mobility? How is social mobility affected by regional disparities in the education system, employment opportunities, or cost barriers to university education?

Clearly while everyone has the opportunity, not everyone has an equal opportunity. To what degree money should be spent to equalise the available opportunity, depends on your personal political bent. But I'd argue that a large percentage or poverty and a large percentage of wealth have more to do with a person's parents and upbringing than their personal work ethical or intellectual capacity.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. The poor shouldn't blame the rich for being poor, nor should the lower middle class blame the upper middle class. What we should do is take a look at the system as a whole, in any country, and ask whether this is the society we want, and whether things can be done to improve the opportunity for people in general.

I'm not sure. I don't have any training in economics. I like this when it works out in my favour, but it seems like missed revenue. This seems to be continuously missed in all the fiscal responsibility debate -- that the decision to cut taxes is essentially a decision to spend. There's an opportunity cost associated with it.

I think here we disagree again. I'd argue these two points:

* I don't think there's a need for everyone to pay something. If someone's extremely poor, they're already paying taxes in other forms, and the best thing for them may be not to pay income tax. I would certainly agree that beyond a certain income level, there seems no reason why someone should pay a net zero tax rate.

* Graduated taxes make sense. If someone makes $20,000 / year and you tax them 10%, and take away $2,000, this is a bigger difference than taking someone making $100,000 /year and taking $10,000. There's a basic level of income you need to put food in your mouth and a roof over your head. Once you start getting beyond that point it's disposable income. An individual may choose to buy a bigger house, or a second house, or a fancier car, or a bunch of electronics, but this becomes money that's no longer necessary to their survival. Why shouldn't someone benefiting more from society pay a little greater share?

All the best.

All good points sys. I never meant to imply that everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed. Everyone is dealt a different hand, some less desirable than others. If you want to better yourself or put yourself in a position where your children will be able to make their lives better, there are plenty of forms of assistance and opportunity (this is a generalization and doesn't necessarily apply to our current situation). I agree with you that a lot of your success depends on your parents and it has nothing to do with money. Kids of any socioeconomic status can achieve success if they have the support and interest of their parents. You can throw as much money as you want at the problem but it won't do anything if there is no motivational force to take advantage of it. It's a sad state when being dependent on the government is something to be proud of. I'm only 36 and I remember when I was younger, being on govt assistance was considered embarrassing (I was never on govt assistance for the record). Now days, it has become something to be proud of. I realize that there are people that truly need it, especially in our current situation. We should be helping people, but helping them to become independent and successful, not supporting them for their lives. I saw an 18y/o girl in the ER a few months ago was proud of herself because she got her very own Medicaid card and showed it off. I know that is an extreme example but it is a symptom of the problems with our system.

On the flip side, as you mentioned, there are those with money who I don't consider successful, Paris Hilton would be one of them. I agree to some degree that those that have more money should pay a little more, so I guess I cannot say I am totally against a graduated tax system. I would rather see a fair tax system where you are penalized (taxed) for your consumption and not your success (earnings). If you spend more, you pay more. In the end it is a graduated system. If we are going to stay within the current system though, I still think everyone should pay something. There is no reason that someone who is making minimum wage cannot pay $1 per year.

Flaming, I suppose you would propose that any money collected from that 100% should be divided up among everyone else so that everyone makes $1 million per year? Wow, there's incentive to try harder.

[Asysin2leads]

Flamingemt, as always, your ignorance is astounding. You are one of those people I would classify as being "So ignorant, they don't even know how ignorant they are." I'm guessing a high school diploma or a GED wasn't a requirement for certification in your parts?

[JPINFV]

If I were king your first million would be tax free, everything over a million taxed at 100%, that is fair, no one needs more than that too live in the us.

1. Who decides what to do with the tax dollars?

2. What about income taken outside the US?

3. What about charities like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? Do you think if the Gates were only making $1 million a year that their charity would be so successful? Shouldn't someone who makes more than a million dollars be allowed to decide what their money should go to support?

Or have some people just had the bad luck to be born to crappy parents, in impoverished neighbourhoods with poor schools and little potential for upward social mobility? How is social mobility affected by regional disparities in the education system, employment opportunities, or cost barriers to university education?

How do you suggest the government or society fix crappy parents? Considering that some of the schools with the worst outcomes get some of the most money, are the schools crappy, or is it crappy parents who expect the schools to overcome their crappy parenting?

Are there real cost barriers to university education, or is it not every major will produce someone with the skills and knowledge necessary to pay back their tuition? Are all majors created equal, or is there a difference between the hard sciences and, say, ethnic studies or philosophy? Heck, does everyone need to go to college, or do we also need to focus on changing societal views on trades and vocations?

I'm in medical school, but I know that I'd never be able to pay for medical school without student loans.

But I'd argue that a large percentage or poverty and a large percentage of wealth have more to do with a person's parents and upbringing than their personal work ethical or intellectual capacity.

I would argue that parents and upbringing has a huge effect both on intellectural capacity and work ethic, especially work ethic.

* Graduated taxes make sense. If someone makes $20,000 / year and you tax them 10%, and take away $2,000, this is a bigger difference than taking someone making $100,000 /year and taking $10,000. There's a basic level of income you need to put food in your mouth and a roof over your head. Once you start getting beyond that point it's disposable income. An individual may choose to buy a bigger house, or a second house, or a fancier car, or a bunch of electronics, but this becomes money that's no longer necessary to their survival. Why shouldn't someone benefiting more from society pay a little greater share?

...because they often have the choice not to buy those things. The classic case study was the 1991 Federal luxury tax, which put a lot of people out of business when the rich decided they didn't want to pay an extra 10% for a new yacht. Who needs a new yacht to survive? Well, it's life or death to the people building and servicing yachts.

Edited January 1, 2012 by JPINFV

[flamingemt2011]

If you were a good enough Florist, Designer, Writer, Actor, or Musician, how come you need to have government assistance to pay your bills? Or are you only friends with the lousy ones?

Spoken like a true socialist. Obama would be proud of you.

Spoken like true republicans living off the government but in denial that you do. I do not know where you work, but if you are in EMS, you are totally funded from the government tit. You are either funded by a municipal government body through taxes, or you work for a private/hospital service that is funded through Medicare/Medicaid. Either way, the government pays your salary and benefits.

Do either of you have any idea how much health insurance costs, I do not mean your portion, I mean the whole bill for you and your employer combined ? It's between $600-1000/month, for a bare-bones plan. When you work for a small employer (less than 20 employees) or are self-employed, it is nearly impossible to get an affordable health policy, and if you have any pre-existing conditions, you are toast.

Of course you two cannot be bothered with the facts, as you ask everyone else to do the opposite of what you have done, "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, and do not seek government assistance", when you probably have all of your boots and clothes (for work) provided to you by the government, if not directly at least indirectly as you deposit your government paycheck every two weeks.

If we had everything over a million dollars that ten of these people earned, we would not need charity JPIN, we would not have a national debt, we could afford free college tuition, healthcare, and social security for everyone, and could probably take your tax rate down to zero.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/

[ERDoc]

Flaming, you grasp of basic real life concepts is pathetic. There is a difference between working/earning money and having the govt hand you money to reach a specific goal. Asys and Herbie are not getting a handout for doing nothing. They are working and being compensated for such work, just because the money ultimately comes from the govt is irrelevant. They are providing a good/service and the buyer (aka govt) is compensating them for it. I can't speak for either of them, but I am far from a republican. I'm a moderate/independent that leans slightly left. I am tired of seeing the money I bust my ass for get wasted by people who have nothing to contribute. Don't get me wrong, there are people out there that definitely need the assistance and I enjoy helping them but I see my hard earned income being wasted constantly by people that don't need it.

Your math and basic comprehension skills also suck. The Forbes article lists the net worth of those people. It IS NOT their annual income. There is a huge difference but you obviously don't understand that since you are using that article to make your argument. Let's assume for a second that those numbers are annual income. Using your plan and taking the money from the top 10 earners, you end up with $269.9 billion (and that includes taking away the million you were kind enough to leave them). According to usdebtclock.org, as of this moment, our national debt is $15.2 trillion. So, if you take all of that money that you have taken from those on the top of the list and apply it to the nation debt, you are left with about $14.9 trillion in debt. You have paid about 2% of the current debt. You haven't even touched the other things you talk about. If you can show me evidence of how much money would be collected per year, if we took everything over $1 million in annual income, your argument might be valid.

[flamingemt2011]

Nice try doc, but let me school you a little on economics. First of all, I never said we would pay off everything in one year, I imagine it will take many more years to dig out of this economic mess that republicans created, and yes net wealth is the same as income, it is just a different way of looking at it. Most of these billionaires do not draw a true pay check, if they do it is a modest amount. Rather, they are paid in stock options and bonuses, that are taxed differently. Then the "invest" in houses, boats, cars, jewelry, investments. There is where the comment about Buffett paying a lower percentage in taxes than his secretary rings true. We have never had such a large income gap between the haves and have nots as we do right now. The common man's wages have been stagnant or reduced for the past decade, as the CEOs and boardmembers continue to give each other raises.

Here are a few facts that may interest those of us who are not in the 1% that control this country.

http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#the-gap-between-the-top-1-and-everyone-else-hasnt-been-this-bad-since-the-roaring-twenties-1

[ERDoc]

If you are going to school someone you should know what you are talking about. First, the annual US budget (based on 2010) was $3.456 trillion. According to YOUR plan we are still running a $3.1 trillion deficit per year, so after 10 years we are talking a $31 trillion deficit without adding interest and we still have not touched those other things.

No, net worth is NOT annual income. Bill Gates DOES NOT get $59 billion per year in income, stock, options, house, cars, etc. That is the total value of everything he has earned/saved over the 20+ something years he has been working. He is self-made and deserves everything he got. Any one of us could have made a different life-choice and ended up in his position. His foundation has donated $28 billion to people who need it and they plan on donating 95% of their remaining wealth in the future (wikipedia). Giving that amount of money to the govt will accomplish nothing but squander it. The govt is horrible at running/managing anything. They would piss it away over fighting between the parties and anything that was left would be wasted on a study to decide where to spend it.

As much as I hate to agree with you, I will agree that something needs to be done with the tax codes as I have previously argued but I won't rehash my arguments.

[flamingemt2011]

Really doc, we could all choose to be Bill Gates. If that is so, why isnt everyone a multibillionaire, if it is so easy, we all would have done it. As far as government spending, you are assuming we would continue at present levels. I would not. How much money is wasted on corporate wellfare and tax breaks for the rich. Those figures are what is quoted by their accountants after they do all their funny math to it.

Reminds me of an old joke, 3 accountants are applying for a job, and are asked one single interview question: "What is 2+2 ? The two that answered "4" were not hired, the candidate who got the job answered, "What would you like it to be?"

If we quit sending the money to the Oil companies, the defense department, the rich banks, and wall street, we could probably cut our spending in half. Those who support trickle-down economics do so because they still believe that they will somehow become a millionaire one day, and feel they will be hurt by increase taxes. But the fact is, if you are over 30, you are pretty much at the income level you will be for the rest of your life (within 25-50k).

[ERDoc]

We all have the opportunity to be like Bill Gates. There is plenty of opportunity out there you just have to find it. Why would we not assume that the govt would not continue it's present spending or increase it? Our politicians from both sides have their heads so far up their asses that they can't get anything done.

[flamingemt2011]

Really, 20 million unemployed, but all we have to do is say "I am Bill Gates", I am Bill Gates", I am Bill Gates", and all will be just fine. Sorry doc, maybe in your circle of friends that is true, but not in the real world. Simple statistics should tell you that if only 1%of america has this much wealth, I do not think we can blame the other 99% for not reaching the goal. And for many of these super wealthy, it was given to them by their parents.