The link is blocked from my work computer. I could discuss the title, but I'd mostly be making wild speculations and speaking gibberish. Would it make you feel better if I did?
|
The link is blocked from my work computer. I could discuss the title, but I'd mostly be making wild speculations and speaking gibberish. Would it make you feel better if I did?
That would actually be kind of fun...
But the link is basically a link to this quote.
"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there -- good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea -- God Bless! Keep a Big Hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along." - Elizabeth Warren
That would actually be kind of fun...
But now you've sucked the fun out of it by explaining the link to me.
Would it be off topic to mention that I'm against paying taxes for services that can and in many cases have been privatized? I actually don't care if it is, I'm saying it anyways, but because of this quote I can now add "I like getting full credit for my success" to my list of reasons why.
Isn't that why we pay taxes? Sounds like they want someone to pay more of their fair share.
|
Isn't that why we pay taxes? Sounds like they want someone to pay more of their fair share.
You mean like GE who paid no taxes for the past two years despite having billions in profit? AND got a $3+ billion tax benefit in 2010 on top of it.
The term "fair share" is a little disconcerting considering how absolutely screwed up the tax system is. GE was able to escape paying taxes because most of its reported profits (~$9 billion) were offshore. Meanwhile, US citizens who work overseas are still required to pay taxes (though I think the first $91k is removed from the tax calculation).
Kind of a far cry from $91k to $9b though ...
|
|
Now, take the entrepreneur who risks his life savings and retirement on a gamble that his start up will succeed and subsidize him so that he's risking nothing. Pay him for the years of late night work he spends while maintaining his normal 40+ hour/week job. Then you can claim that his profit belongs to everyone else.The link is blocked from my work computer. I could discuss the title, but I'd mostly be making wild speculations and speaking gibberish. Would it make you feel better if I did?That would actually be kind of fun...
But the link is basically a link to this quote.
"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there -- good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea -- God Bless! Keep a Big Hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along." - Elizabeth Warren
Really? How did he acquire his life savings? Isn't he still using roads, police, etc...
You can invest your life savings in Afghanistan, Somalia, etc...and because there is no stable government you won't be able to get educated workers, safe passage to markets, protection from "protection rackets" etc...Not to mention knowing that should something happen to him, there is a social safety net to protect him and his family from falling to starvation level, meaning the "risk" is far less in a place with good government than it would be in a place without it.
You seem to have missed the entire point of the quote.
Now, take the entrepreneur who risks his life savings and retirement on a gamble that his start up will succeed and subsidize him so that he's risking nothing. Pay him for the years of late night work he spends while maintaining his normal 40+ hour/week job. Then you can claim that his profit belongs to everyone else.The link is blocked from my work computer. I could discuss the title, but I'd mostly be making wild speculations and speaking gibberish. Would it make you feel better if I did?That would actually be kind of fun...
But the link is basically a link to this quote.
"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there -- good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea -- God Bless! Keep a Big Hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along." - Elizabeth Warren
I was Thinkning along the lines of a small business owner like my dad. He is his only employee and he had not taken vacation longer than a four day weekend for 15 years. He works as hard as he wants to and he likes it, but he is one of the people that would
I was Thinkning along the lines of a small business owner like my dad. He is his only employee and he had not taken vacation longer than a four day weekend for 15 years. He works as hard as he wants to and he likes it, but he is one of the people that would
He's making over 250,000 a year.. net?
|
|
I was Thinkning along the lines of a small business owner like my dad. He is his only employee and he had not taken vacation longer than a four day weekend for 15 years. He works as hard as he wants to and he likes it, but he is one of the people that wouldHe's making over 250,000 a year.. net?
Name his buisness and I will bet it benefits from the things listed in the quote, among other things provided by the social contract.
Everyone likes what you get living in the first world, but you have to pay for it if you want it to continue.
So we should then, according to the quote, pay directly for roads, education, and police, instead of providing the state with a huge hunk of tax money that they can use to enrich themselves, right? And, you know, if you actually ask people what they want to pay for, I'd bet very few would mind paying for roads, education and police. It's stupid huge bank bailouts, stupid huge corporate bailouts, stupid wars, stupid rent for huge loans from abroad, stupid political studies, stupid government programs, stupid paranoid securitocrats, and a thousand other things that VERY few would choose to pay for.
The point of the quote is that we should all stop paying taxes for that, not that raising taxes is always a good thing, right? =)
|
I like the way you think Sissyl. We should set up more toll booths to collect the road money, and have the police bill citizens after each call. We can put all schools on the college tuition system. And then when we need to go to war, the public can just hire mercenaries to get the job done. And studies can be done based on the public need instead of government need. Maybe finally get that single payer health plan people have been talking about.
Looks like my post was cut off, but my Dad already pays taxes for roads and stuff like everyone else. He does not make 250,000 a year, that would be nice, but he is not comfortable enough to hire anyone else now, even though he needs the help. So raising taxes will put him out of business. If people do not like companies like GE from not paying taxes then simplify the tax code and vote for representatives that support your cause. The government is in power only because we the people allow it, so we can only blame ourselves for the way things are now.
I was Thinkning along the lines of a small business owner like my dad. He is his only employee and he had not taken vacation longer than a four day weekend for 15 years. He works as hard as he wants to and he likes it, but he is one of the people that wouldHe's making over 250,000 a year.. net?
Name his buisness and I will bet it benefits from the things listed in the quote, among other things provided by the social contract.
Everyone likes what you get living in the first world, but you have to pay for it if you want it to continue.
He pays taxes, so he already helped build roads, paid for my school and pays the police salary. So because he owns a business are you saying he should pay a higher percentage than other people? That does not sound fair.
I like the way you think Sissyl. We should set up more toll booths to collect the road money, and have the police bill citizens after each call. We can put all schools on the college tuition system. And then when we need to go to war, the public can just hire mercenaries to get the job done. And studies can be done based on the public need instead of government need. Maybe finally get that single payer health plan people have been talking about.
Not quite my meaning. I was thinking more along the lines of an extremely simplified police tax, road tax and education tax. Politicians using money for other things will simply have to finance it through voluntary measures. After all, if the politicians claim that the people stands behind invading, say, Burma, then there should be no doubt that they can get enough donations for it, right?
I like the way you think Sissyl. We should set up more toll booths to collect the road money, and have the police bill citizens after each call. We can put all schools on the college tuition system. And then when we need to go to war, the public can just hire mercenaries to get the job done. And studies can be done based on the public need instead of government need. Maybe finally get that single payer health plan people have been talking about.Not quite my meaning. I was thinking more along the lines of an extremely simplified police tax, road tax and education tax. Politicians using money for other things will simply have to finance it through voluntary measures. After all, if the politicians claim that the people stands behind invading, say, Burma, then there should be no doubt that they can get enough donations for it, right?
Do you mean like those pesky fruit fly experiements in paris, france?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The CEO of GE is the new Job Csar isn't he? Hmmm...
Do you mean like those pesky fruit fly experiements in paris, france?
I really gotta hear this...
Looks like my post was cut off, but my Dad already pays taxes for roads and stuff like everyone else. He does not make 250,000 a year, that would be nice, but he is not comfortable enough to hire anyone else now, even though he needs the help. So raising taxes will put him out of business. If people do not like companies like GE from not paying taxes then simplify the tax code and vote for representatives that support your cause. The government is in power only because we the people allow it, so we can only blame ourselves for the way things are now.So raising taxes on income over $250,000 or on certain deductions for people making over $1 million will put him out of business even though he isn't in those categories? Those are the only Democratic proposals on the table at the moment.
No one is proposing special taxes on small businesses below that cap.There is a proposal, the only one Republicans have shown any support for, to simplify the tax code by removing deductions and lowering the top rate. That might save him a little, depending on where his income falls, but is more likely to cost him, and the rest of us, in lost deductions.
He works in remodeling, so most of his clients are restaurants, mom and pop shops and small business offices. When they get in financial trouble, it stresses him out because work drops.
I think we should just go to a flat tax rate with no deductions, just pay 17% on everything, I just picked that number out of the air.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really gotta hear this...Do you mean like those pesky fruit fly experiements in paris, france?
You see, problem with your approach is that most people don't have a clue. It a horrible truth about our respective societies, but a pertinent one none the less. People just don't understand the ways in which money they see as 'wasted' by government, actually fuels our society's scientific advancement or economic growth.
One example of this is the parable of Sarah Palin and the Humble Fruit fly. During her bid to be one seventy something heart attack away from being president, she who must not be invoked gave a speech, in which the following lines played a prominent part.
"You've heard about some of these pet projects, they really don't make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not."
She was talking about cutting other peoples 'stupid pet project' to fund her own pet project, autism research. I played well to the audience there, and received massive cheers.
But life is rarely as simple as political rhetoric wants us to believe, because you see, the humble fruit fly is a marvellous beast. With only four chromosomes, the fruit fly has a tiny genome, but it also exibits versions of an estimated 75% of human disease causing genes. Fruit flies, or more accurately Drosophila melanogaster, is "arguably on a par with the mouse as the founding model organism for the field of genetics."
Fruitflies, along side mice, our the future of medical research, because of the usefulness of their genome in the exploration of genetic causes of disease.
The fruit fly itself has opened up important avenues of research. Carolina Institute for Developmental Disabilities, at UNC, issued this statement in the wake of she-who-must-be-ignored's speech.
"The discovery, made in Drosophila fruit flies, may lead to advances in understanding autism spectrum disorders, as recently, human neurexins have been identified as a genetic risk factor for autism."
Palin got a massive cheer, for deriding the source of possible cures for autism, while trying to provide funding for the self same thing.
This trend flows through modern society.
We live in a time of scientific and technical renaissance. Now, a large portion of that is down to private industry. But such advancements are almost exclusively technological. New medicines, faster computers, that kind of thing. Amazing, wonderful things....but they are all built on the back of scientific advance, advancement almost exclusively paid for by use, through our governments.
This conversation might well not be happening without wouldn't be happening without British military advancements in computing for cryptography, or European in CERN, where many important internet protocols where born, and american investment in communications networking that gave birth Internet proper. It almost certainly wouldn't be happening without US investment in basic research into physics, especially quantum physics which gave us the transistor.
Curiosity driven research funded by government has been the driving force behind scientific advancement in the last two centuries. Even the theory of evolution by natural selection owes its existance to some degree to the investment of governments in scientific research(the vessal on which darwin travelled, as on a map making expedition for navy.)
There is good reason to believe that should government stop funding such 'wasteful' project, the difference in funding would not be made up elsewhere.
The LHC at CERN for instance, if it finds what it is looking for or not, will advance our understanding greatly, but it is in no way certain to provide any profitable application for companies. It cost is so vast, that no single company, nor coalition their off could afford to fund its construction and the running of the experiment, with the risk of no returns. Governments can take that risk, and science can say 'well shit, everything we thought we knew about physics is wrong, time to start looking for a different explanation' Which we all benefit from in the long term, but is an answer that would probably kill a company.
We already know charity can't do it either. It was the historical model, individual patrons funding research, or persuing it themselves. While it did provide some advancement, it was considerably slower than that which has occurred since the professionalisation of science. Even now, rates of charitably giving to science research, outside of a very few diseases, is almost no existant, as a share of charitable activity.
People just don't get how important this stuff is to their life.
As a result, they won't choose to pay for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looks like my post was cut off, but my Dad already pays taxes for roads and stuff like everyone else. He does not make 250,000 a year, that would be nice, but he is not comfortable enough to hire anyone else now, even though he needs the help. So raising taxes will put him out of business. If people do not like companies like GE from not paying taxes then simplify the tax code and vote for representatives that support your cause. The government is in power only because we the people allow it, so we can only blame ourselves for the way things are now.So raising taxes on income over $250,000 or on certain deductions for people making over $1 million will put him out of business even though he isn't in those categories? Those are the only Democratic proposals on the table at the moment.
No one is proposing special taxes on small businesses below that cap.There is a proposal, the only one Republicans have shown any support for, to simplify the tax code by removing deductions and lowering the top rate. That might save him a little, depending on where his income falls, but is more likely to cost him, and the rest of us, in lost deductions.
He works in remodeling, so most of his clients are restaurants, mom and pop shops and small business offices. When they get in financial trouble, it stresses him out because work drops.
I think we should just go to a flat tax rate with no deductions, just pay 17% on everything, I just picked that number out of the air.
How do you deal with the fact that 17% of the income of the very poorest is crippling taxation, and for the very richest has absolutely zero discernible impact on quality of life?
Not to mention the fact that such a tax would seriously harm your fathers businessin a way the proposed changes would not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, because some tax dollars are well spent, all of them are? I would say research within natural sciences falls well within what I would call education. Social sciences, and lately, so-called "climate research", however, are too far gone as political fields, and should be relegated to voluntary donations. Oops, there go most of the social studies programs and other previously tax-financed crap. Because, at the end of the day, people want new cancer medicines, but social studies is going to find itself running VERY dry on money if they have to find donations. Take a look at what happened in Russia after 91 - the political/social sciences were the first casualty because nobody needed or wanted them.
So let me get this straight...because this factory owner had a good idea, a great work ethic, the drive and energy to make it work, all while contributing his own fair share of tax money for roads, emergency services, military, governmental stability, etc....he should have to give a bigger chunk of his earnings to support those others who do not have the ideas, work ethic, drive, energy, or inclination that he possesses?
Sounds like a load of shit to me.
|
"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there -- good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea -- God Bless! Keep a Big Hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along." - Elizabeth Warren
The factory owner and all the workers employed by the factory paid taxes.
That's the justification for benefiting from these public services.What's the issue?
He works in remodeling, so most of his clients are restaurants, mom and pop shops and small business offices. When they get in financial trouble, it stresses him out because work drops.
I think we should just go to a flat tax rate with no deductions, just pay 17% on everything, I just picked that number out of the air.The overwhelming majority of those restaurants, mom & pop shops and small business offices will make well under $250,000 net profit. Even if they did make more, remodeling would be a business expense, thus deductible from that profit. I understand that them being in trouble means less work for him, but high marginal tax rates aren't why they're in trouble.
<I started to write a long Flat Tax rant, but ZombieNeighbours said it better and simpler. >
How does higher taxes help them? It just does not pass the duck test to me. If I earn more money, then I should pay a higher tax percent then someone else who makes less than me? Where is the incentive to succeed? It just sounds like we should hate rich people because they have more than us. That sounds like Marxism or communism, where the worker has a right to the factory the owner built.
|
|
I didn't claim that higher taxes would help them. I claimed that none of them were likely to be in the brackets anyone is considering raising taxes on.
The incentive to succeed is that despite paying maybe 5% more tax on it, you're still making more money! Would you turn down an extra $100,000 because you'd have to pay 5% more tax on it and only get $70,000 instead of $75,000?
But you're still taking $5000 extra dollars of someone else's money.
Frankly, I don't want anyone feeling they have a "right" to five grand of money I earned. Shrug.
Jeff, maybe we are talking about two different things. But I do not see that if my dad had one employee, then that employee has a right to my dad's company. He doesn't. He gets his pay and benefits, but that is it. He should not be able to take anything but that from my dad. But the lady sounds like my dad owes something to his employee more than his pay aka more taxes.
|
|
Jeff, maybe we are talking about two different things. But I do not see that if my dad had one employee, then that employee has a right to my dad's company. He doesn't. He gets his pay and benefits, but that is it. He should not be able to take anything but that from my dad. But the lady sounds like my dad owes something to his employee more than his pay aka more taxes.
It's actually worse than that. She's saying that if your dad makes a profit thanks to public services, he has a responsibility to pay a "hunk" of it back to ALL the other tax payers.
Despite the fact it was NOT that taxpayers that put up any of the capital to start your dad's company. It was your dad's money.
And despite the fact that IF your dad's company fails, every taxpayer isn't going to send him money back to make up for his losses. He's going to be out that money, not the taxpayers.
Jeff, maybe we are talking about two different things. But I do not see that if my dad had one employee, then that employee has a right to my dad's company. He doesn't. He gets his pay and benefits, but that is it. He should not be able to take anything but that from my dad. But the lady sounds like my dad owes something to his employee more than his pay aka more taxes.It's actually worse than that. She's saying that if your dad makes a profit thanks to public services, he has a responsibility to pay a "hunk" of it back to ALL the other tax payers.
Despite the fact it was NOT that taxpayers that put up any of the capital to start your dad's company. It was your dad's money.
And despite the fact that IF your dad's company fails, every taxpayer isn't going to send him money back to make up for his losses. He's going to be out that money, not the taxpayers.
That's why is sounds so unfair to me. They want him to pay more only because he succeeded at work, but forget about it if he failed. This lady should be a politician or a lawyer.
|
|
So you are opposed to any taxes at all?
Nobody wants anyone taking their money, but we have to fund civilization somehow.
That was in response to a question about incentive. When talking about incentives, the question is does losing a few percent to taxes mean it isn't worth putting the extra work in? So does losing that $5000 mean it isn't worth working to earn the $70,000?
I'm not against taxing. There are public services that everyone needs that everyone should contribute towards.
(And I feel that "everyone" should include the 40-something percent of people that pay no income tax at all. Shrug)
The problem is it can quickly become an ugly slippery slope. So losing 5k for 70k is fine. What about 10k? How about 35k? What's the acceptable value? It still comes down to the fact you are taking someone else's money that they earned.
|
|
So let me get this straight...because this factory owner had a good idea, a great work ethic, the drive and energy to make it work, all while contributing his own fair share of tax money for roads, emergency services, military, governmental stability, etc....he should have to give a bigger chunk of his earnings to support those others who do not have the ideas, work ethic, drive, energy, or inclination that he possesses?
Sounds like a load of s&#~ to me.
1. You are projecting a lot onto that factory owner. My experience has been more mixed, often involving family money and/or government backed small business loans.
2. The owner can have all of those positive aspects you are projecting, but if he is in the 3rd world where the government doesn't provide the listed things, it won't do them a damn bit of good. They will pay as much if not more in kickbacks and bribes that don't provide those services.
3. Those things the government provides don't occur magically. They need to be paid for. Infrastructure doesn't magically occur, it is paid for. The internet you are currently using, tax dollars at work.
Taxes pay for teachers, police, fire-fighter, soldiers, etc...
|
|
Jeff, maybe we are talking about two different things. But I do not see that if my dad had one employee, then that employee has a right to my dad's company. He doesn't. He gets his pay and benefits, but that is it. He should not be able to take anything but that from my dad. But the lady sounds like my dad owes something to his employee more than his pay aka more taxes.It's actually worse than that. She's saying that if your dad makes a profit thanks to public services, he has a responsibility to pay a "hunk" of it back to ALL the other tax payers.
Despite the fact it was NOT that taxpayers that put up any of the capital to start your dad's company. It was your dad's money.
And despite the fact that IF your dad's company fails, every taxpayer isn't going to send him money back to make up for his losses. He's going to be out that money, not the taxpayers.
well, capital is taxed differently than income, in part to recognize those risks. I think you'll find most of the people who are serious about advocating higher marginal rates are also serious about funding a basic social safety net. A lot of tax policy is coming from a very rawlsian place.
If you really feel like getting theoretical you can also look into questions of primitive accumulation and accumulation by disposession. Y
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What she's doing is trying to counter the argument, made by many, that I'm a self-made businessman, didn't get any help from anyone so I don't owe anyone anything.
Well from my own experience it's usually "I'm a self-made businessman, I already pay taxes so why is everyone expecting me to pay even more?"
That those who did extremely well benefited from that support more than others did and therefore have the responsibility to pay more of that forward so the support is still there for the next one who comes along.
And here's the big issue. Just because someone benefited more -maybe from wise business choices?- they have to pay more back in?
I'm sorry, but if we're both homeless and a stranger gives us both $5, if you blow yours on strippers and I set up a lemonade stand and turn my 5 into 20, I'm not giving you ten bucks. :)
Completely agree, and well put.
|
|
OK, drop the "employee's have a right to an employer's company/factory/whatever". That is not what the quote states, at least as far as I have understood it. The quote, as I read it, was making more of a point of leveling the playing field so that those in higher income levels actually do pay their fair share.
Currently, this is not the case.
With major corporations paying little to no income tax while earning billions in profits while the rest of us, be it in the role of worker or small business owners/employers, actually do pay taxes, there is no legitimate argument to be made that those corporations (or even those individuals who benefit from a 15% tax rate because they make their living off of investing and pay only capital gains tax) should not have to pay tax that is proportionally in line with what the rest of us have to deal with.
|
|
Jeff, maybe we are talking about two different things. But I do not see that if my dad had one employee, then that employee has a right to my dad's company. He doesn't. He gets his pay and benefits, but that is it. He should not be able to take anything but that from my dad. But the lady sounds like my dad owes something to his employee more than his pay aka more taxes.
The lady is saying if you end up getting rich thanks to the fact that you live in a country that provided an infrastructure that allowed you have a working business, that is awesome. But you should understand it was built on the backs of those who came before you and built the infrastructure, and understand you have an obligation to pay forward for the next generation.
The electrical system that your Dad plugs his tools into. Infrastructure.
The roads and rails that bring the materials to the suppliers, where he picks them up and takes them to customers. Infrastructure.
The phone and internet lines used to get business. Infrastructure.
The insurance he gets, generally government backed. The FDIC protection on his bank account, etc...
People like to complain about government and taxes while accepting all the benefits.
It's annoying.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You folks down south also have a problem with tax expenditures, your congress iikes to hide spending programs in the tax code and then pretend they don't exist, or pretend they are tax cuts instead of spending programs.
You need to lower your corporate tax rate, get your small business rate down to 10-15%, add in a non regressive vat, raise your top personal margins and start taxing foreign accrued property income instead of letting it sit offshore.
That way you can continue to buy our oil and lumber and we don't have to ignore chinas human rights violations and constant attempts to spy / infiltrate our government. Your friends and allies want you to get better damn it!
YMMV :)
|
|
You folks down south also have a problem with tax expenditures, your congress iikes to hide spending programs in the tax code and then pretend they don't exist, or pretend they are tax cuts instead of spending programs.
Oh very true. But usually the ones I've seen (and I've only picked up a couple. I'm sure there are many more) ARE for public utility (road repairs, etc).
Still doesn't stop politicians here from claiming "Look! Look! I made a spending cut!" :)
And great catch on the capital tax above too.