Who OWNS your income/wealth?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 21, 2010 11:06 AM GMT
    "Who actually owns your income/wealth"?

    Just a thought that was broached on a Fox News show this morning...

    ...in light of the government's ability to arbitrarily declare that some income earners but not all earners, are exempt from a tax hike (restoration of higher tax brackets after the tax cuts expire)...

    ...can you / do you accept that the government (Federal in particular) has ownership of your total income and allows you to keep a portion for yourself?

    Judge Andrew Napolitano seems to think that by the current administration's actions and intentions, that the Fed does own your income before you do.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 21, 2010 11:53 AM GMT
    Strawman argument.

    There is no "tax hike." There is an expiration of tax cuts that GWB signed into law with an expiration date in order to hide how disastrous they would be for the deficit. What Obama is proposing is maintaining those tax cuts for the working and middle class that have been most harmed by the recession.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 21, 2010 11:06 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidStrawman argument.

    There is no "tax hike." There is an expiration of tax cuts that GWB signed into law with an expiration date in order to hide how disastrous they would be for the deficit. What Obama is proposing is maintaining those tax cuts for the working and middle class that have been most harmed by the recession.


    Which I do not necessarily argue against - and I did make mention (parenthetically) that it was a matter of restoring the previous tax brackets after the current tax cuts expire.

    My question simply is to see if people think that there earned income (or capital gains) is rightfully theirs, or if they believe that the government has first rights to it, and to arbitrarily claim as much of it as they see fit (be it 35%, 39.5%, 49%, or even the 90% of FDR/Truman's time...)

    There is "rend to Caesar what is Caesar's" and then there is "it ALL belongs to Caesar, and if you are a good plebeian, you just might get a few denarii to buy a loaf or two at the end of the day" (as a hyperbolic extreme, yes... I'm putting that out there).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 21, 2010 11:16 PM GMT
    So, Fox News is arguing that a progressive tax rate = ZOMG GOVERNMENT OWNS YOUZ!

    What does "ownership of your total income" even mean?
  • rnch

    Posts: 11525

    Sep 21, 2010 11:27 PM GMT
    "I owe my soul to the company store" icon_cry.gif
  • rnch

    Posts: 11525

    Sep 21, 2010 11:28 PM GMT
    also...LMAO @ the OP watching fox news' "fair & balanced coverage". icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 21, 2010 11:28 PM GMT
    The question is fallacious and phrased to force a desired response, hence is intellectually dishonest.

    You framed the question as one of "ownership", but talk about who pays for common services and how ( ie. "taxation.")

    But I appreciate the effort.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2010 12:21 AM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidSo, Fox News is arguing that a progressive tax rate = ZOMG GOVERNMENT OWNS YOUZ!


    What about a regressive tax (such as what the richest 1% pay)? Would Fox News still argue the same thing?

    wikipedia on regressive taxAccording to Congressional Budget Office estimates,[12] the federal tax system is a progressive tax for all but the richest 1% of Americans. According to the study, the lowest earning 20% of Americans (24.1 million households earning an average of $15,900 in 2005) paid an effective federal tax rate of 3.9%, when taking into account income tax, social insurance tax, and excise tax. The highest earning 5% (5.8 million households earning an average of $520,200 in 2005) paid an effective federal tax rate of 21.5%. However, the highest earning 1% of Americans (1.1 million households earning an average of $1,558,500 in 2005) paid an "effective" federal tax rate of 21.3%.

    Investor and multi-billionaire Warren Buffett has criticized the U.S. tax code as highly regressive, citing himself as an example: with an income of over $46 million, Buffet pays a tax rate of 17.7 percent, whereas his receptionist pays a tax rate of 30 percent.[13]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2010 1:17 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidIt's not surprising that the liberals don't understand your question.

    Their mental powers are more suited to "creative" endeavours like the arts, interior design and such.

    Give them a question of logic and they go into brainwave overload trying to understand it all.

    To answer your question:

    Yes, the liberals believe that the government has "first dibs" to our income. They justify this with a line of thinking that kind of goes like this:

    a) a country is made up of citizens

    b) government's job is to ensure that all citizens are "well" (the "general welfare" misinterpretation by liberals)

    c) in order to provide for the general welfare of the citizens, whatever funding the government needs, the government must have because, after all, it is for the "general welfare"


    I'm bookmarking this for the next time you whine about being attacked on here. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2010 1:20 AM GMT
    Many liberals are driven by extreme class envy. They resent the ability of one generation in a family to leave wealth to the next generation. They consider it unfair.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2010 1:23 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    MunchingZombie saidSo, Fox News is arguing that a progressive tax rate = ZOMG GOVERNMENT OWNS YOUZ!


    What about a regressive tax (such as what the richest 1% pay)? Would Fox News still argue the same thing?

    wikipedia on regressive taxAccording to Congressional Budget Office estimates,[12] the federal tax system is a progressive tax for all but the richest 1% of Americans. According to the study, the lowest earning 20% of Americans (24.1 million households earning an average of $15,900 in 2005) paid an effective federal tax rate of 3.9%, when taking into account income tax, social insurance tax, and excise tax. The highest earning 5% (5.8 million households earning an average of $520,200 in 2005) paid an effective federal tax rate of 21.5%. However, the highest earning 1% of Americans (1.1 million households earning an average of $1,558,500 in 2005) paid an "effective" federal tax rate of 21.3%.

    Investor and multi-billionaire Warren Buffett has criticized the U.S. tax code as highly regressive, citing himself as an example: with an income of over $46 million, Buffet pays a tax rate of 17.7 percent, whereas his receptionist pays a tax rate of 30 percent.[13]


    This is what I find hilarious. A few greedy billionaires have convinced moderately affluent people (like SB or ShyBuffGuy) that Obama is going to steal their money. Instead of these guys saying "Hey! Maybe Warren Buffett and Bill Gates and the other billionaires have a point. We should have MORE tax brackets that take into account just how insanely wealthy certain people are (Gates, Buffett) and just what ridiculous incomes some people make through what amounts to gambling with the public's money (investment bankers, hedge fund managers). Maybe THOSE guys should pay more taxes!", they have fallen into the trap where they argue against their own long-term economic interests. So they applaud the fat fuck from New Jersey for taking on the "rich teachers" and yell about police officer pensions. All the while, the guys at Goldman Sachs are laughing their asses off the plebeians doing their dirty work for them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2010 1:25 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidMany liberals are driven by extreme class envy. They resent the ability of one generation in a family to leave wealth to the next generation. The consider it unfair.


    Actually, most of us are driven by a sense of social justice and realize that we've been through the largest redistribution of public (tax) dollars into the hands of the wealthiest Americans. Instead of realizing that and joining us, you are driven by your own delusions that we're jealous. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Sep 22, 2010 1:26 AM GMT
    This has nothing to do with class envy. There are wealthy liberals who feel the same as the poorer ones.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2010 1:26 AM GMT
    On the other end, many other liberals have had it so lucky in their lives that they feel only appropriate to help out the others that aren't so fortunate.
    (So anyone bother to answer my question on the J-curve of our tax system, i.e. the regressivity for the top 1%?)icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2010 1:27 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidOn the other end, many other liberals have had it so lucky in their lives that they feel only appropriate to help out the others that aren't so fortunate.
    (So anyone bother to answer my question on the J-curve of our tax system, i.e. the regressivity for the top 1%?)icon_rolleyes.gif


    i didn't answer it so much as buttress it. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2010 1:31 AM GMT
    Sorry, Christian, cross-post.
    http://www.economist.com/node/16843817?story_id=16843817&fsrc=rssToo good to live:
    People hate generosity as much as they hate mean-spiritedness

    SELFISHNESS is not a good way to win friends and influence people. But selflessness, too, is repellent. That, at least, is the conclusion of a study by Craig Parks of Washington State University and Asako Stone, of the Desert Research Institute in Nevada. Dr Parks and Dr Stone describe, in the latest edition of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, how and why the goody two-shoes of this world annoy everyone else to distraction.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2010 1:32 AM GMT
    rnch saidalso...LMAO @ the OP watching fox news' "fair & balanced coverage". icon_rolleyes.gif


    I like some variety. That, and Keith Olbermann just doesn't do anything for me icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2010 1:59 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidOn the other end, many other liberals have had it so lucky in their lives that they feel only appropriate to help out the others that aren't so fortunate.
    (So anyone bother to answer my question on the J-curve of our tax system, i.e. the regressivity for the top 1%?)icon_rolleyes.gif


    The regression would seem to drop off as the higher the income, even though taxed at a lower rate, the super rich income earner's tax burden still far exceeds that of the affluent folks (but not super rich) folks' burden.

    For example, let's look at Warren Buffet:

    He pays his receptionist a $95,000 salary, of which she pays 30% or about $28,500 in taxes (her net income becoming $66,500).

    But Warren pulls in $46,000,000 per year from all taxable income streams in that same year, and pays taxes at an adjusted rate of 17.7% (not all of it is wages, but is from capital gains taxes).

    He pays $8,142,000 - more than 285x what Ms. Receptionist will pay.

    To say that paying over $8M in taxes is too little is a stretch, even if we grant that Mr. Buffet is operating from pure motives when he says he ought to pay more (yet we hear little of him donating above his assigned tax burden to the IRS).

    Now if we were to punitively tax Mr. Buffet at a rate of 49%, that figure balloons to $22,540,000.

    That would be $22.5M removed from the economy that could spur jobs by being reinvested in various industries, that gets to be spent by a government which is no more accountable than any capitalist venture, perhaps even less so, since the government has no need to satisfy an expectation to create wealth or make a profit.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2010 2:04 AM GMT
    If we're talking about anybody else other than the Sage, $22.5M may be more productive sitting in a bank collecting interest, and that is what many of the rich may elect to do nowadays.
    But it's Mr. Buffett we're talking about, so this is probably not true. He is probably out stimulating the economy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2010 3:02 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    alphatrigger said
    Now if we were to punitively tax Mr. Buffet at a rate of 49%, that figure balloons to $22,540,000.

    That would be $22.5M removed from the economy that could spur jobs by being reinvested in various industries, that gets to be spent by a government which is no more accountable than any capitalist venture, perhaps even less so, since the government has no need to satisfy an expectation to create wealth or make a profit.



    Wonderfully stated.

    However, it will be lost on the liberals on here.


    That's a great theory, except that most are not stimulating the economy, they are - as Q put it - sitting on it.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Sep 22, 2010 3:14 AM GMT
    An introductory course in economics (or common sense) could inform you that the more affluent members have a significant portion of their earnings set aside into savings. Compare that to the poor who dip into their savings account to get by each month (negative savings). Suggesting that removing the tax cuts for the wealthy will diminish their investment funds by 100% is a baseless calculation.

    If you're wealthy enough, you don't rely on tax cuts to make your investment, you go after it as soon as the opportunity presents itself.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2010 3:34 AM GMT
    creature saidAn introductory course in economics (or common sense) could inform you that the more affluent members have a significant portion of their earnings set aside into savings. Compare that to the poor who dip into their savings account to get by each month (negative savings). Suggesting that removing the tax cuts for the wealthy will diminish their investment funds by 100% is a baseless calculation.

    If you're wealthy enough, you don't rely on tax cuts to make your investment, you go after it as soon as the opportunity presents itself.


    Strictly speaking, socking serious wealth (on a scale with Warren Buffet's, for example) into a straight savings account would actually lose money in the current global climate.

    Consider where real inflation (and NOT the grossly understated CPI) is compared to what most banks offer on even the best savings accounts/certificates of deposit.

    They'd more likely have a larger percentage of their assets in semi-liquid forms, most likely hedged in a basket of commodities, funds, and foreign investments that most of us wouldn't have the first clue about.

    And these same super wealthy folks pay buckets of money to know where to position themselves well ahead of us rank-and-file, for when the economy REALLY starts getting nasty and the interest rates start getting ratcheted up.

    On a more practical note though, saving need not be the exclusive province of the rich.

    UNDERSPENDING and living UNDER your means is a great way to start setting aside at least 10% of your gross income - even if it is at a softer loss in a bank account until you get it moved to a situation that can at least keep up with real inflation.

    Or better still, pay down higher interest debts (especially credit card debt and anything else where the interest rate you pay is greater than the real rate of inflation)

  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Sep 22, 2010 4:41 AM GMT
    15qdzbt.jpg