Is it wrong to want to dispossess the wealthy?

Nobody needs more than $250K per year to survive. Period.

No one gets rich by themselves, wealth does not exist without the context of the society. Progressive taxes are good.

Providing relative economic equality through taxation has absolutely nothing to do with communism.

If you take 90% or more of someone's possessions, that is not providing equality, it's a government taking and sounds basically like communism.

shit? Who decides what is wealthy? Who decides what to take,

Sorry... just had to do it.
:D

Cletus

nt

Now I do. I'll becareful in the future.

not communism or 1984

Our system would have to be changed drastically in fundemental ways to accomidate such a tax structure. And if we are going to drastically change it, we have better options.

But there is nothing morally wrong with the idea on its own.

AND TAXING SOMEONE IS NOT TAKING THINGS FROM THEM

FUTURE PAY IS NOT YOUR PROPERTY YET
When on earth did americans get the stupid idea that they are entitled to get as much money in the future as they want. And that changing the economic structure is the same as stealing.

Edit: No it isnt comperable to what the Nazi's did to the Jews, and I find that comparison repugnant.

I get a paycheck for work earned in the past. I get taxes taken out of that.

Thus it would be based on your FUTURE pay for your FUTURE work. Thus that pay is NOT yours. Thus making the income tax higher would not be stealing from you.

Do you believe that my future pay is the Government's?

That said, I do not equate the taxation system to "stealing".

Things that dont belong to you, arent yours. Just because I plan on buying a house in 20 years doesnt mean I own a house. And something that got in the way of me getting that house wouldnt be stealing that house from me.

You plan to sell your labor for a certain price in the future. You havent yet, so that price is not yourse.

Sure as hell could have fooled me. My pay reflects work done, not some fantasy future.

How on earth is this confusing so many people?

If you have a commitment to pay at a certain level based on contract, then that is yours.

Your contract discusses what you are obligated to do and what an employer is obligated to pay you, it doesnt say anything about what the government can tax, nor is it allowed to.

the whole "taking isn't taking" bit...

a tax rate (do I need to pull the dictionary out?).

BTW, if its not mine, then why is it the Government's?

When the time comes that you earn it, the government can tax it.

Just like they do now.

in the bank. I haven't killed anyone, I take care of my family, my parents, and grandparents. I send my cousins to school. Adopt an orphened child and I donate to historically black colleges and I pay my taxes.

In that senario you think I don't have the right to have the money I earned?

Is that what we're saying here?

If so. Ya'll are effin nutz.

Are you an anarchist?

ANARCHY!!!

I've got beer... let's go!

Cletus

I favor TEQUILA...behbey

You might as well say *vodka*, you heathen!
lol

Cletus

1 Tequila
2 Tequila
3 Tequila
Floor...
:crazy:

ANARCHY RULES!

tee hee hee :crazy:

:D
I'm a flexible Anarchist.

Cletus

hey, it was lucky for us all that i had a few thousand hanging around i could spare, otherwise, if not for peeps like me, in the, "nobody needs 250 thou to live on" category, who would have funded Kerry and moveon and norml.com so generously? hey, are you forgetting that some liberals actually DO make a lot of money? And we pay our taxes, some of us actually pay more than necessary, saying, oh what the hell, and not claiming a deduction. My honey did that last year. As we left the accountant's office, I said, "Oh, go back, I forgot a big deduction!" and he said, "Nevermind, honey, we've got enough, we have to pay some taxes" and he didn't go back, he just let it ride. and we vote for people who would even raise our taxes, while lowering taxes for lower wages, and we are just hoping they will raise the taxes of millionaires MORE! You know, 250 thou is what you get if you spend 200,000 in college loans getting advanced degrees. Then you have to do a job that would make others squeamish or scared to death. You don't get paid those kinda bucks for nothing, you know. Then your kids get ready for college, and they aren't eligible for any government aid, because, you make too much money, so, you send them two at a time at a cost of 30,000 per year to college. Then you help your nieces, nephews or your friends kids get through college. Meanwhile, after you pay off the loans you took while spending 12 years in college, you are still doing a physically and emotionally demanding job where people wake you from a deep sleep and ask you to make life and death decisions. You may not get an undisturbed night's sleep for a week. Don't you think people who work this hard and stress this much deserve a little extra cash, beyond the bills, so that they have some comfort, a secure old age, and maybe a vacation? We need to raise the standard of living for all Americans and should not allow people to live below the poverty line without assisting them. An upward distribution of taxes is called for, but, you must not plan to distribute it so heavily at the bottom of the top. 250 thous is still the bottom. We could stand a small increase, but, the owner class above 5 mil requires a greater distribution. If they would pay there share, yep, we'd pay a little more, happily so, if it would relieve our problems. You shouldn't have to pay a penny of taxes if you are under 60 thou, and anything under 50 thou should be considered poverty line and eligibile for assistance. But, the upper middle class can't bear ALL the burdon. Distribute it upward even more heavily, but proportionately, it is extreme to want to take 70% from anyone. Even in the 5 mill class, a redistribution of up to 50% would be more than sufficient. What motivation would people have to found companies, like, say, Microsoft, if they couldn't achieve wealth doing it? So, yeah, take part of their wealth, but not ALL. Really, you must allow a little extra luxury for a reward for those who strive for excellence in necessarily complex positions. And aren't you glad when we have a few thou left over to donate to democratic candidates?

Where in the heck did that come from?

Im curious how this magical system works.

"Alms for the Governor?"

Wouldn't it be nice if the Pentagon had to hold bake sales to meet their budget instead of your kids school?

Cletus

probably wouldn't taste very good though:(

eliminated? Please, stop making stuff up, magically.

If it is wrong for the government to take money out of the system. It is wrong for the governement to take money out of the system anywhere.

So when someone argues that the government shouldnt be able to tax income because it belongs to them, they are arguing that the government has no right to tax.

If you could please stop attacking me every time you dont understand something, id appreciate it.

:crazy:

so could you please stop spamming this discussion with that fact.

they are legitimate responses...:eyes:

the fact that you argued that the government shouldnt be able to tax you.

Thus the fact that you then went on to post some variation of "I pay my taxes" several times does, at least to me, qualify as spam.

"the government shouldn't be able to tax income because it belongs to them"?

And please don't say its about the right of the Government to tax income. We aren't arguing that.

And please don't say I'm attacking. I have called no one "selfish" and "stupid" on this thread. Others have though.

The poster argued that because income was earned and needed, it shouldnt be taken by the government.

:smoke::crazy:

the one I replied to saying that you argued against taxation

Please reread what he wrote. He said he PAID his taxes.

What on earth does that have to do with anything?

Thanks for the backup.

I was beginning to wonder if I really did say I was against taxes.:crazy:

Silly me, I assumed you were referring to the post you replied to.

in the bank. I haven't killed anyone, I take care of my family, my parents, and grandparents. I send my cousins to school. Adopt an orphened child and I donate to historically black colleges and I pay my taxes.

In that senario you think I don't have the right to have the money I earned?

Is that what we're saying here?

If so. Ya'll are effin nutz.

Thanks for wasting my time.

We were discussing an income tax, not a tax of your savings.

Sheesh.

:cry:I'm sorry, but, you missed the point here also.:cry:

How is that being "off-topic"?

You know, this forum is about debate. Debate is hard when one side keeps throwing up condescension all the time. People often type stuff the first time that is not clear. Xultar has repeatedly expanded on her original statement and you have met it like a brick wall. That gets us no where and is a complete waste of time.

So, thanks for wasting my time, too.

Seriously...have you ever seen anything like this thread. I'm gonna bookmark this puppy.

That makes one of us.

:)

I was posting about an income tax.

The reply was about a tax on his savings.

That is off topic.

yet when re-posted you claim its not the one you were talking about (is that what you're saying???). Its always been the same post 75, talking about a tax on savings.

You have referenced post 75 as an example of someone not believing in the validity of an income tax system. Are you still saying that?

When I post about income tax, and someone posts a reply about how they should be able to keep thier money, I make the silly assumption they are arguing against the income tax I am discussing and not some new hypothetical tax that has nothing whatsoever to do with my post.

Maybe we should ALL pay closer attention to posts we are responding to from now on.

So other people dont have to be psychics.

I hope you have a nice New Year's. Peace and love and all that.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Self-deleted....I responded to the wrong post.

then be prepared for it to go the other way. Should the government be allowed to take 100% of everyone's income away in taxes?

:eyes:

You made an argument that implied all taxes are wrong.

I didnt think you actually believed that, so I called you out on it.

NOT WHAT I SAID...

comeon now baby...you gotta meet me 1/2 way. Please read my post.

There are people in this thread who are saying that people shouldn't be able to earn what they want. I was saying if I pay my taxes get off my back.

Don't ya get it?

So I assumed you were addressing my points. Obviously that was a flawed assumption.

Read your post again in the context of income tax. Then you will see what I thought you were saying.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2887413&mesg_id=2887592&page=

Direct quote from your post...
When on earth did americans get the stupid idea that they are entitled to get as much money in the future as they want. :crazy: And that changing the economic structure is the same as stealing.

I responded to the right one. I added the :crazy: after the craziest part.

BUHWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

I was talking about an INCOME tax.

What in gods name are you laughing at?

I posted in response to a discussion about income tax and you respond by arguing against a non-existant tax on savings.

Nobody won anything. You changed the topic, I missed it, confusion ensued. Why are you laughing?

based on confusion that was at the very least mutual?

The only person confused by her posts was you.

You dont think the goverment should take your money, isnt that what you just argued?

I want. They wanna take 90% of my money... That's some CRAZY SHIT.
People are saying that people shouldn't need to live on more than 250K a year. Who are we to judge especially if they are paying their taxes.

People are saying wanna disposess 'WEALTHY' people but who defines wealthy.

I pay taxes now and they aren't doing right by me. What's this 40 million for a coranation and 35 million for aid in the worst natural disaster in my life time.

So If I give ya'll 90% of my money in taxes, that makes ya'll rich, then who's gonna tax ya'lls asses.

I am not advocating a 90% income tax, wealth dispossession or anything of the sort.

You made an argument that excluded all taxation of income, I pointed that out.

That is all.

We are talking rates here.

Is an argument against any taxation of income and can be construed as an argument against all taxation.

Please tell me if what I wrote resembles anything being asserted here in post #140.

HELP A SISTAH WILL YA...

You argued that because you earned your pay it shouldnt be taken.

Thus all income tax, and really all tax is wrong.

The government has to take money out of the economy somewhere, or it has no money and doesnt exist.

Lets stop having the same argument in 12 posts.

That said, you are misconstruing what was said in that post, as the original poster has tried to tell you several times.

It is, as I said, possible the poster was discussing some hypothetical tax on savings.

If so the poster certainly wasnt clear on this and was massively off topic of the post he replied to.

The poster certainly didnt explain of that sort in later posts. Mostly the poster insisted that he paid his taxes, a fact completely immaterial to anything we are discussing.

:smoke: ???

That you earn and need your money, so why should the government be able to take it.

That is not an argument against a high tax rate. That is an argument against ANY tax rate.

No one ever said what you just stated.

It does appear that perhaps the poster was confused and thought that income taxation would tax alraedy held wealth. But if you assume the post is on topic, discussing an income tax, then it says everything I said.

In what field? I know plenty of people who work hard, who want to work hard. They'll never accumulate $5 mil. The reason for that is, you don't get $5 mil by working hard. You get it by screwing people. Whether you screw people because you want the money, or whether you like that line of work (even though it screws people over) and end up with $5 mil, you're not working hard. You're making business decisions that other people carry out, most likely. {i]They're working hard.

You make big profits by screwing customers, or screwing employees. You make big profits by getting more than you give. As in, you get $10 mil in sales, but to the people who made it all possible (your employees), you give them $5 mil.

That is just the way it is.

I work hard and invest my savings. That is not some evil, anti-Democratic activity. I have never screwed anyone over and resent the your implication that I have. Your painting of all people who work and save with a broad brush is absolutely ridiculous.

with the intent (or at least the hope) of getting more out than you put in. Do you know what corporations (where you invest your money) get the money that they give back to you? They squease it out of employees or customers.

'Course, you may actually lose money by investing it. And you probably didn't invest it with the intent of walking away with less than you put in. But the workers who made the money, who did the work creating a product to sell, almost always walk away with less than what they put in. And that is where you get your profits.

we take the infusion of investment capital and increased our employment by about 50%. But, I guess you think that's all fairy tales.

BTW, why do you automatically assume I invest in the stock market?

It is absolutely incredible how some DUers just start assuming and run away with it.

you don't do so in order to lose money. You expect to get as much or more than what you put in. Right? Otherwise you would just put it in a savings account. (Though admittedly interest on a savings account doesn't match the cost of living.) Where do you think this money comes from?

Companies are supposed to use the money that gets invested into their company to improve their company, to improve the products and services. If only 50% of the money invested in your company expands its employee-base, what are they doing with the rest of the money? But, never mind that; they're doing such a good job, helping the job market (and never mind what they take from the employees they so graciously feed).

Corporations are self-serving. They exist for profits, not for customers or employees. There is almost always someone sitting at the top of the ladder, doing nothing more than making decisions - and lots of money - while other people who do the actually work are just getting by.

You can't get something from nothing. And that is no fairy tale.

...employee-base??? Please do not twist my words.

I said the investment capital allowed us to increase our employment by 50%. That has NOTHING to do with what you stated.

But what I said is still relevant, that's the intention behind investing in companies, to help them grow when they can't do so without help. Where, then, do the profits go? (I assume the company makes profits, otherwise it wouldn't be able to attract investors.)

All the stock market does is add more players to the field. Employees are still not payed in proportion to the wealth they bring in. But it's not the company's fault because they have to pay investors. And it's not the investor's fault because their retirement is at stake. It's too bad for the employees, whose livelihoods and standards of living are in jeopardy. The ones with the most at stake lose out. "Sorry, guys. We have to downsize in order to look as though we're making profits in order to attract investors who will create more jobs."

If your company is different, I rather think they are the exception and not the rule. But good for you, and good for them.

(Employee Stock Ownership Plan), where the employees own a significant amount of stock. These are becoming less of the exception.

"Come on, workers: work harder. It was always in our best interest for you to sacrifice real wages, but now it's also in your best interest."

That's like allowing someone to steal from me, if they only give me a little bit back. No, that's like helping someone steal from me, and maybe I'll get something back.

"Sorry, we can't give you a raise because it'll affect our profit margin. But having a high profit margin means you'll get more money when you retire, after we split it with other share holders and CEOs."

I shouldn't make fun of it before knowing all the details. Are employees the only people who can own stock with those kind of plans? If so, I would be all for it. If not, sorry: I think it's a scam designed to make it easier to steal from employees.

In our company they own over 50% of the stock. I think in most ESOPs it has to be that way in fact. Our has meant that in about a five year period, every employee has earned about 3 yrs salary in stock value (over and above what they earned in the 5 yrs).

The employees have benefited greatly.

so long as the company doesn't pull an Enron.

Most of them have failed.

The value of the company divided by the number of shares outstanding along with intangible benefit (goodwill, brand name, etc.) is the "value" of the company. The company, depending on the industry, the future outlook, etc. will have a stock price which is a multiple of that "value". If the company reinvests in the company to improve the company as you suggest they should (and they should) and they improve their products then the company is worth more. If the company is worth more the "value" is worth more which means the stock price is now higher, which means if I bought the stock lower (i.e. I gave my money to the company for them to use to improve the company), I can now say "Company, job well done, I want my money back" and I sell my shares of stock and now have more money then I had before. That's not a fairy tale, and it's not getting something for nothing. I LOANED them my money to improve the company and when they did, I took my money out of that company so I can redeploy it in a different way.

Cheers!!

from screwing people, but it's not correct to say working hard doesn't allow you to make $5M. It's working hard to YOUR ABILITY that you are not grasping.

Money flows from taking risk around a "big" idea that will affect many people.

An actress takes a lot of risk. She moves to LA with nothing in her beat up Ford Escort except for 3 acting books. She lives in a crummy apt with 5 other people while waitressing while she studies acting and goes to acting school. 10 years later, she's an "overnight success" and is on "Friends" a show that over a decade generated millions, tens or hundreds of millions of laughs, sold billions of dollars through associated advertising and launced 40 new trends (like "the Rachel") which allowed 19,000 hairdressers to cut their clients hair more frequently (in order to keep those layers "just" right) and thus added to their income.

Or someone gets out of graduate school with a degree in Biochemistry, spends 10 years working in a research lab fooling around with 3 molecules until they figure out how toensure the "dirt" is unable to stick to the molecules, they patent the idea which takes a lot of risk because they pay for it themselves so they own the patent (so let's say a $10,000 cost to get the whole thing patented), then they put together a business plan (no easy feat in itself) and then they take the risk of rejection by going to 50 banks/Venture Capital funds for funding which they get, they quit their research job (which had a good salary, benefits, retirement, health insurance) to run the company (which may fail) and then 5 years later they are on the front page of Business Week for the pair selling milllions of pairs of Twill Khaki men's and women's pants that NEVER needs to be cleaned. Now you have 3 million people with 3 pairs of pants each that never need to be cleaned saving them money because they don't take them to the dry cleaners or they don't use the water and soap to wash them.

So your idea that the only way to be rich is to scam someone is WRONG. The way to be rich is to inheriet it OR have a big idea and take a risk. The way to be moderately well off (at minimum) is to get a good education in a field that is in demand, and work for someone else and every week, rain or shine, put 10% of your paycheck into a savings account.

We don't need wealth redistribution. We need better Boards of Directors, we need people to have better ethics and morals, we need people to VALUE education and get educated, we need people to understand that they CAN CREATE the life they want if they plan it first and then follow their plan. If they choose to get up, pull on jeans go to their "job" for little pay because anyone can do it, and then go home when the whistle blows AND they don't work over time to educate themselves to be able to do something more demanding, then they need to realize that the plant or yard or place of employment could be shut down and they will be SOL, if they, themselves don't have a Plan B and C and D.

"AND TAXING SOMEONE IS NOT TAKING THINGS FROM THEM"

How can you possibly say that? It most certainly IS a taking...

it then you are taking from me.

Remember the Boston Tea Party?

This nation wasn't formed on the basis of progressive taxes and certainly not taxation at the kind of insane rates you are quoting. Those who are productive (as well as those who can "scam large sums of money") will all leave this country and quit working. Then who is going to create new markets from nanotechnology, broadband communicaation, super-cooled LNG, magnetics, new forms of energy, virtual reality, etc.


THIS SUPER PROGRESSIVE TAXATION IS NOT THE ANSWER AND IS DOOMING OUR PARTY.

Taxation is a means to an end. Let's talk about what we want to do, and then determine how we pay for it, creatively.

YOU WANT TO TAX, JUST BECAUSE YOU THINK SOMEONE MAKING $X DOLLARS A YEAR IS "BAD"??????????? That doesn't make sense.

Republicans already think that Democrats are either overly educated urban (jewish) intellectuals (who don't know nuthin about reel living) or they are poor, unwashed, lazy-assed, dumb folks holding their hands out for a free ride and whining about their "entitlements".

There are no entitlements. We're entitled to breathe air and to have equal access to deploy our abilities. The results of our abilities are NOT GUARANTEED TO US. :grr:

what do you mean by "super" progressive. I agree that 90% is absolutely ridiculous. At what point does progressive become "super" progressive?

There is so much waste, inefficiency, beauracratic bungling. We don't need as a Democratic party to focus on taxation, that dooms us. We need to focus on efficiency, on getting it RIGHT and spending less, not getting it WRONG and Spending like the Repugs. Talk of taxation will always lose an election. Always.

39.6%. That sounds okay with me.

I want better Board of Directors, more ethical/moral behaviour, people to value education, for us as a country to recognize and applaud self-determinism, for those who DO seek handouts to be taught and motivated to get beyond that. I believe health care must be affordable, which mine isn't ($14,000.00 a year just for the medical premiums with a $1000.00 deductible). I believe in a Social Security program.

As a matter of economics, there is a level of health care that has to be determined to be accessible to all. Those who can pay for it are welcome to other options (face lift, liposuction, etc.)

But we as a party MUST stop talking about taxaation. Let's talk the value we provide.

or at least, close to it, I say bring it BACK!!!!!

It is taxing their *income*.
Now, perhaps if they are overextended and living from paycheck to paycheck, like I've heard happens to some newly wealthy rappers and pro atheletes, their possessions *might* be in danger of being repossessed.

A high tax rate is *not* Communism.
The tax rates in the US peaked during and right after WW2 and for the wealthy were upwards of 80% of their income.

Cletus

It is a government taking of what you have. I would hope that if it got that high that athletes and performers simply would walk in response.

somewhere in this ball park?

My guess is that one would have to raise, significantly, the cut off point at which wealth is taxed at a high rate (and we will never pass any rate that high again, save a lasting, severe crises.)

that includes how severe the shift back was - as well as how high the rates became... I think we have swung back into immoderation in terms of policy.

this particular subthread is talking about a 90% rate.

call me a threadjacker if you will :shrug:

So no one is taking anything away from you.

I would hope that anyone who walked away from the arts or sports because they couldnt make obscene amounts of money wouldnt let the door hit thier butts on the way out.

90% is too high, but its a heck of alot closer to just than what we have now.

It means income in the future.

Where are you having difficulty?

you used two together, which opens it up to interpretation.

Please, let's not be snarky. We're supposedly having an intellectual discussion here.

Future pay is just that.

Seriously.
The wealthy in the US used to pay *WAY* more in taxes than they currently do.
In fact, the current rates are the lowest in American history.

It is a government taking of what you have.
This is what governments *DO*.
And it is of what you *earn*.

I would hope that if it got that high that athletes and performers simply would walk in response.
You're kidding, right?

50 years ago entertainers were paid a pitance in comparison to today.

Cletus

That doesn't make it the way to go, now does it?

You can advocate for 90% taxation or even 100% taxation if you wish. I will not.

That doesn't make it the way to go, now does it?
And yet somehow the comparison between the ownership of human beings by other human beings and the wealthy paying higher taxes just doesn't *quite* ring as true as it should, does it?

I'd cry crocodile tears for the "poor, poor wealthy" as they consume more resources than many small countries but I can't even really manage that much.

You can advocate for 90% taxation or even 100% taxation if you wish.
I wasn't.

I will not.
I have no interest in making you.
And I doubt seriously if you would ever be effected by such a tax.

I was merely responding to what I found to be flaws in your reasoning.

Cletus

When did this become Anarchists Underground?

Isn't always the way to go.

We did a lot of things in the past and many of them were at best unwise.

century *somehow* managed to survive all the while paying such "exorbitant" tax rates!

I'm betting they were penny pinching misers, eh?

Sigh.

Cletus

from basically nothing to enormously high rates. If you had those rates for a very long time, they would serve to de-motivate.

from basically nothing to enormously high rates.
To back to nearly nothing.
And actually no, they started out higher than currently for the wealthy prior to WW2.
So they weren't "all over the place".

Quite obviously there were political pressures/reasons for raising and lowering such taxes... my point is that the *wealthy survived it*.
And quite nicely, too, from what I can tell from "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous".

If you had those rates for a very long time, they would serve to de-motivate.
And "demotivating" the wealthy is bad?
Sorry... I can't buy into that.
:D

Cletus

Each individual case should be evaluated individually. And clearly slavery is not a comparison to democratic taxation.

When it's up to 90%, it' not Democratic. Heck, it's not even Socialist. It's pretty much Communist taxation at that point.

We're going to take pretty much everything from you and give it to everyone else. But keep earning at that level.

Democratic means the result of a process that represents the people.

You know, based on the word democracy.

Tax rates can neither be democratic nor undemocratic.

You obvioulsy have no idea what communism is. Lets just say that in communism, the tax system, as we know it now, wouldnt exist.

Than anything else. So, yes, I know what Communism is despite your nasty tone.

Democratic is based on democracy. Communism, which the 90% plan comes close to, has nothing to do with democracy.

You just proved that.

They are two different forms of government, they have nothing whatsoever to do with income tax rates.

A communism could have a 5% income tax, a democracy could have a 90% income tax. Tax rates dont define government structures.

Not just a textbook. And yes, I don't need to make you believe me because clearly nothing I say will convince you.

As practiced, communism is the ultimate taker. As practiced, democracy is the lowest and socialism falls in between.

You just gave me your own personal analysis and summation of communism.

Communism has a real meaning, one you either ignore or dont know.

Democracy is about the ability to vote.
And if the majority want to raise taxes, taxes will be raised.

We're going to take pretty much everything from you and give it to everyone else. But keep earning at that level.
Or do like the Rolling Stones and move to America.
:D
Or don't... retire and enjoy the fruit of your labor.
Or slow down and spend more time with your family.
Because at some point the pursuit for wealth for the sake of wealth is detrimental to the consumption of resources, if nothing else.

Cletus

A government type is defined by its actions.

If a democracy takes the wealth of its citizens, it is no democracy.

Communism refers to the economic and political structure, not the income tax rate.

Im sorry that you thought it referred to something else.

Duh.

Scenario 1. A King in a Monarchy issues a 90% income tax.
Scenario 2. A military dictator issues a 90% income tax.
Scenario 3. A democratically elected government issues a 90% income tax.
Scenario 4. A communal 'government' issues whatever a 90% income tax would look like in a communist scoiety.

Whilest the tax rate of a given nation is of course influenced by the structure of the government, it is not determined by it or a reflection of it.

A government type is defined by its actions.
Then I suggest you double check the definitions for what government types you are comparing.
Communism is about *ownership*. Ownership by all citizens and adminsitered by the state.
Democracy is about the right to vote.
There is actually nothing discordant with the concept of Democratic Communism... a government elected by the people to oversee the property of the people.

America is a *capitalist* country which, while technically not being a "government type", has become so thoroughly integrated with the concepts of a Democratic Republic as to be something else entirely.

If a democracy takes the wealth of its citizens, it is no democracy.
A democracy is simply one in which everyone gets to vote and has *NOTHING* to do with "the wealth of its citizens".
Sheesh.
You've confused the capitalist notion of private ownership with Democracy.

Cletus.

To most people it seems our industrial-capitalistic heritage is more vital than our democratic heritage.

90% is too high.

I suspect the rates were higher back then because of the war.

But why is 90% "too high" given that it has been scientifically proven that you can buy happiness for roughly $3 million dollars?

At what point does wealth become *too much* and simply and excuse?

Seriously... do we *need* all the crap that rich people buy to entertain themselves while extreme poverty exists in the world?

Cletus

And SSI Disability just got adjusted to $805 a month for me. That puts me at...$9660 a year, gross. By the time I'm done paying bills, I usually have about $300 left for the month.

On the other hand, it takes money to make money and many of the richest folks are NOT self-made. I would have maybe inherited some of my mother's money, but that seems unlikely now. Suddenly being in possession of a house worth perhaps $200,000 would not make me self-made, now would it?

So, I think the rich should pay more of a percentage than the middle class. The problem is that that tax laws are written with the rich in mind. Do you think the loopholes are mistakes? I don't.

How could Madonna live on $250K a year?
:D

I say give them $1000k a year but they can't give any of it away when they die(except maybe a small percentage to their kids).
It all goes to help Welfare and aid to single mothers.

That'll show 'em what "doing good" really means.

Cletus

a fundie forcing their values on me.

So, yea, I suppose it is "fundy" in the sense that it's the fundamental basis for civilization.

:D

Cletus

because they have some cooked-up cocka-mammy crazy ass idea of what is wealthy.

I'm not feelin it. So if they think some one is tooo wealthy then we gotta jack'em up and take their money. Is that what we are about now?

Will they give equally to historically black schools who need more help than white schools? I doubt it.

This is some crazy shit we got goin here in this post/poll whatever it is.

If you'll look back I "moved the bar" to $1000k a year.
A recent study done in England of lottery winners determined that roughly $3 million actually "buys happiness".
Not $3 million annually, mind you... just $3 million.

So if they think some one is tooo wealthy then we gotta jack'em up and take their money. Is that what we are about now?
As opposed to taxation on what planet?

"Taking peoples money" is what governments *do*.
Have *always* done.
Will *always* do.
The Enlightenment gave us the concept of *self rule* and with it a relief from arbitrary taxation.
The only time people didn't pay taxes is when they didn't benefit from the protection/services of the state, typically.
How on earth can *anyone* imagine that such a thing exists in the US today?

What is wrong with a progressive tax on *income* that works its way up to 90% if you make over $1 million a year?

Will they give equally to historically black schools who need more help than white schools? I doubt it.
Why?
Are there no laws where you are to prevent that?

This is some crazy shit we got goin here in this post/poll whatever it is.
Yea, ain't it cool?
I love watching people try to wrap their heads around these kinds of things.

Cletus

Wealth should be a measure of prosperty, health, happiness, serenity etc. But it usually isn't. It's usually thought of as money. And you are equating it to a defined dollar amount, which is not wealth at all as I think of it. I think wealth is a "diparity" index which allows the wealthy to have that which is "in short supply". If the supply is constrained enough to allow bidding up of prices then those who can bid higher will win the prized item. Thus they must have more than others so they can bid higher. Wealth has always been relative, never a "number". It's a bell shaped (or someother shaped) curve. In our society it's at least a bell like curve, while my understanding is that in Mexico it would be a U shaped curve - lot's of poor people, lot's of rich people, no people of "average" means.

"Bob we have given you a raise. From 249 k to 251k."

BOB screams "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"

Because it is only income over a quarter million that is taxed at 90%.

And one would advance that index at the rate of inflation.

So what if Bill Gates earns 10 million next year rather than 100 million? Won't he still be able to make payments on his college loans? ;-)

Don't let the naysayers dis you.

depends on where you live and number of dependents.

Oh, you aren't kidding...
Sorry!


I would find a way to spend the $$$ if I had it...

I would donate more and use it for good - but, there are a few things I have gone without for too long!

;-)

Check out the income tax rates for the 1950s. The top brackets were ABOVE 90%. That's right. And the economy was stagnating. JFK pushed tax cuts through congress and got that rate down. I don't remember now what he dropped it to, but it was a huge cut. The cuts worked, and the economy picked up markedly.

Those who do not learn from history will try to repeat it.

and I believe that those who are able to make the money should enjo the money. Money can make life easier, more fun, allow you health.... THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING REALLY WEALTHY. WEALTH ISN'T THE PROBLEM.

The problem is people - and the limits of their ethics, morals and values.

Socialism, total wealth redistribution is NOT the answer. A higher level of individual conscious and laws that really prosecute illegal corporate, white collar (and blue collar) government behaviour is something more needed. It isn't right for the top level to make hundreds of times what the next level down makes, but that is a problem that goes to the ineffectiveness of the Board of Directors of most companies. That's an "ethical" problem.

We need more :grouphug: :pals: :love:

how about just imposing 70 percent on those making 5 million per year? At that rate, nobody making less than 60 thou would have to pay a penny, if the OWNER CLASS paid 50% or more. Dispossesing the wealthy is as snotty as dispossesing the poor. Both are usually accidents of birth. I am all for raising the minimum standard of living for all Americans and eradicating poverty and starvation worldwide, but, you would be getting very carried away to suggest that those making a mere 250 thousand a year should have to pay 70%. That would be totally unnecessary, and you would have a hard time finding brillent minds willing to go through medical school and law school and other professions for such a paltry future. Look, if you are going to have to get advanced degrees to qualify for your profession, and if your profession is then going to be demanding physically and emotionally, you are not going to do it without at least having financial comfort. You must reward excellence or excellence will disappear. And in America today, 250 thou is just comfort, that is not "wealth". Wealth is the 100 or so "owner class" families who are bringing in multi millions per year, and yes, they could pay a lot more, and if they did, we could solve our problems, and the middle class could still pay less.

So yes, it is wrong to want to do away with them.

Was that the question?

As in all polls, the problem is that "dispossess" is not defined.

Sheesh.

According to some dictionary the current usage of "dispossess" is:

"to put out of possession or occupancy <dispossessed the nobles of their land>"

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=dispossess&x=10&y=14

When xultar said "do away with them", s/he didn't necessarily mean to *kill* them, or some such thing. Simply taking away rich folks' money also counts as "doing away with them". On the face of it, there are two ways to get rid of rich people - take away the riches, or take away the people.

:eyes:

I would have never thought of looking in the dictionary for a definition.

Now that we have out of the way, what do you mean by "dispossess"? By your use of the definition, I assume you mean taking away of ALL property and money (i.e. possessions). I am not for that of course. But the poll, alas, left me NO other options.

That is what is wrong with the poll.

And, while we are at it, the poll does not define "wealthy". Go ahead and look that one up.

Rather, you *specifically* said that the problem with every poll is that "dispossess" is not defined.

lol

All (ok most) humor aside, definitions don't get you very far (if anywhere). If it cannot be assumed that the listener is a competent speaker of English - and the poll question used English in a completely standard manner - then asking after definitions will simply lead to a useless regress. This is because definitions are given in, well, words. If you don't understand the original word, there's no reason to believe that you'll understand the words in its definition. And we're off and running on a regress of definitions.

It's conceivable that *specificity* could have been asked for, but "disposses" is pretty specific, as any competent English speaker knows.

LOL - for the poll to be meaningful for you, should it have had an infinite number of choices: take awway $1 from the rich, take away $2, $3,...? I wouldn't call it a "flaw" that the poll didn't do this, though some suitably philistine thinkers might.

The whole I-mean-by-"dispossess" versus you-mean-by-dispossess notion also leads to linguistic nihilism. I mean by it what any competent English speaker means by it. I share a language with competent English speakers, and "dispossess" is part of it.

We have to assume that the listener AND the poll originator are competent speakers of English.

If the poll originator (who is conveniently absent from the thread..arrggh) meant dispossession in its totality, then I would be surprised if anyone voted for it. But, after a month on DU, nothing surprises me anymore.

THEIR POLL.
I reflect what they originally said. The "do away with them" was replaced by the word "disposess" which was added after my reply.

I'm keeping my reply the way it is to reflect the craziness of the original poll question.

as in all polls...stupid choices.

so we should leave them alone.

because some wealthy people do great things with their money, we should leave all wealthy people be?
interesting logic.

Okie dokie. If that doesn't sound crazy to you, then Democratic Underground isn't the place for me to be.

(so that he supposedly has the *right* to be a million times as wealthy)
then maybe DU isn't for you.

So, can you compare your musical skills to Mick Jagger or your baseball skills to Alex Rodrigues or your writing skills to Thomas Wolfe?

Mediocre doesn't pay well. Excellence pays very well.

If you make it difficult for people to really want excellence, then why strive for it?

I'll let a regulated free market do it.

What a great idea.

Government control? Show me where that has worked.

need I go on? btw, AliciaKeyedup - have you ever met a corporation, casino, or wealty class that you didn't support?

...for 15 years due to Government over-controlling the economy. Ever wonder why you don't read books any more about how great the Japanese businesses are?

ON Edit: Corrected spelling.

to acquire wealth in any means possible, regardless of the consequences or suffering of others. You know... like the Bu$h's

and i am serious ..no joke

I'm thinking that pre-civilization these are the people who got eaten by wild animals and/or fell into tar pits because they just didn't know when to stop.
Know what I mean?

Cletus

is all about I can't hang.

This is just as crazy as some of the shit the fundies do.

:yourock: :loveya: :thumbsup: :hug: If you ever go, xultar, take me with you!!

that from graft... that from ridiculous compensation for poor stewardship of companies and industries... that from lobbysist bribes and payoffs... all of that ... nothing wrong with dispossession of illgotten gains.

wealth that is honestly earned, and is producing additional wealth for others (through economic endeavors) that is not hording resources but recognizing the value of better wages in the long run (companies do better when there is a broad consuming class, which requires disposable income)... whole different category altoegether.

One thing, this move towards putting the wieght of taxation on EARNED income (that is, economic productivity) is foolish - and moves us far backwards.

Case in point - Bill Gates.

He made his fortune by producing substandard actually dangerous software at inflated prices while using every legal and illegal trick in the book to eliminate competition.

And made tons of Microsoft employees and investors wealthy. I am no fan of his, but you understate his case.

his wealth is stolen from the innovators who created the breathrus that he stole. And the Gov't nailed him on his rip-off of the Internet browser -- which is why Gates backed Bu$h in 2000, and the Bu$h administration repaid the favor by taking a dive on the settlement and letting Gates and Microsoft off scot-free.

So thieves like Gates are dangerous to all of us; Gates stealing other peoples' breakthrus (in particular, the Internet browser) led directly to Gates helping Bu$h steal the 2000 elections.

Damn right we should confiscate Gates -- at the very least so that he can never help another George W. Bu$h to power.

----------------


P.S: Bill Gates has RETARDED the PC revolution -- because nowadays, savvy innovators & investors know better to invest time & money in any breakthru that Bill Gates might one day decide to steal.

What Bill Gates did worked. The railroads helped build America, but they were largely built by taking land from people in sleazy ways. It doesn't change the fact that they were wildly helpful.

than Gates...

I'll leave the details as a research project...

of course "what Gates did worked"; but Bill Gates had nothing to do with making those breakthrus work -- or creating them. Gates and Microsoft are parasites on the PC revolution -- nothing more. And like all parasites, they sapped the vitality of their host; in this case by retarding progress and driving creative innovators out of the field...

But what Gates did did not work for the rest of us -- or for the innovators whose companies and lives he destroyed.

And tho' what Gates did in 2000 to help (s)elect Bu$h worked -- but only for Gates and his fellow Rethugnican thieves.

Stolen wealth is dangerous, because the Ken Lays, Bill Gates, and the like who do the stealing end up stealing the government as well.

Or somesuch?
I recall something fishy about how he "acquired" the version of DOS he turned into MSDOS.

But I concur... Gates and MS have done nothing positive for the PC revolution.

Cletus

has Linux loaded on it.

Unfortunately, because of my profession I've actually had to pay for Microsoft products.

I look at it as justification for the right to bitch and whine about Microsoft rather than supporting them.
LOL

Cleteus

And extra points for a funny subject line!

He did not STEAL MS-DOS. I have always said Bill Gates never had an original idea in his life but he did not STEAL anything. Go Back and read up on it. IBM is still kicking themselves but he came to what he is now because he took an idea that already existed and followed through legitimately when no one else believed it would pan out. He gambled and it paid off. No one else was willing to take the chance.

The Swiss learned this lesson also with the invention of the quartz watch which they thought would NEVER EVER catch on. Well a little company named Seiko didn't agree. And the rest is history. Now the Swiss watch industry is no where near what it use to be and Seiko made a shit pile of money.

...reads it.

But, I feel its like when the paper prints a retraction inside the front section, three days later. No one sees it, and misinformation reigns supreme.

a version of DOS that was *not* developed by Microsoft.

Quite obviously "steal" was a bit of hyperbole on my part, but the intent is the same.
IIRC, he didn't pay the author of that bit of DOS for his services/product and might have even been sued over it.
Not that this means much.
A judge decided that the MS version of Windows didn't actually infringe the Apple version... which is complete horsepoop as anyone with half a brain can tell discern.

Cletus

from IBM. And Windows basically came from Xerox. Bill Gates "bought" it, formed Microsoft and tweaked it then sold the hell out of it as Microsoft Windows. Did he really "develop" any of it? Not really. But it still doesn't change the fact that IBM didn't believe personal PC's would ever be as huge as they are today thus their decision to sell off DOS to that fool Bill Gates who had a pie in the sky plan that they believed would never come to fruition. It's the EXACT same situation with the Swiss. Seeing as they are the ones that "developed/invented" the quarts watch not Seiko.

I don't get why people are so quick to condemn Bill Gates. So he used someone else's idea. Big deal. That someone else was willing to unload it because of their belief that it would never amount to anything. We can all relate to the "Damn, I should have/have not done -----". Bill Gates could have failed in that venture and no one would be saying a word other than what a fool he is.

As for the comments that Bill Gates did nothing for the computer industry. That may very well be the case for some, but I would venture to guess that all those people that bought MS operating systems and software and made him that 45 billion might disagree with you.

too wealthy? :shrug:

I'd favor (relatively) low income tax, as this money is earned, and extremely high inheritance tax, as this money is not earned.

but I definitely favor progressive taxation. I recall from economics classes arguments that too-aggressive taxation stifles the incentive and initiative for entrepreneurs to create new wealth. I argued back that, if these overly-wealthy individuals don't want to work harder in order to overcome that obstacle to quicker accumulation of wealth, they should get the hell out of the way. Allow NEW entrepreneurs from the middle class to step up and lead the way - entrepreneurs whose prime motivation isn't profit margin.

For all the uproar about 'librul perfessers' in our universities, that 'pug professor really chapped my ass! Perhaps that's why I got a 'C' in her macroeconomics class.

from their raid on our Social Security (which WE paid for with our FICA), to their eliminating taxes on the income of the wealthy -- so that only wage-earners like us pay taxes, to their Medicare drug plan that funnels OUR tax money direct to Big Pharma (with no benefit whatsoever to old people), to their fat-cat no-bid contracts to Halliburton and the like, and on and on and on.

If the Bu$h-Rethug rich have no respect for OUR money, OUR assets, OUR national treasury, and OUR property rights, why should we have any respect for their alleged property rights?

Damned right we should confiscate those rich Rethug thieves!

No one can truly own more than they can carry in both hands while running full speed.

... they only have to run faster than the guy next to them... (which may or may not be full speed)

Would make moving much easier.

Cletus

Damn right it is!

this doesn't address the wages that are kept low because of corporations, where it's not one rich guy keeping wages low, but a board of directors or CEOs, doing it "for" the stockholders.