HR-2: Repeal of "Obama Care"

[Simon of the Playa]

my temper tantrums are much worse.


especially since im 6'5

[Elderberry]

Jstep wrote:

To start: The rich should pay more taxes. Why? Because they get more from the government. It's the same principle as insurance. The bigger and more expensive your house, the more you pay to insure (defend) it.

By that logic then, we should be insured for our health according to our BodyMassIndex. The FATTER you are, the MORE you pay!

Hey Simon! You forgot one, which I read again just last year,,,,

Catcher in the Rye

Not only should we, but we already are. Assuming we can even buy it if we could afford it, at least that's the way it was before the affordable health care act.

JK

[JStep]

I really appreciate your information, and response.

Admittedly, I am uneducated, and, not well read.
But, know what seems "right" to me.
That said, I like to think I keep an open mind, and, if things are put such that I can see the logic, am not opposed to a change of said attitude.

It seems, a lot of what you say above, makes the argument for getting "rich". Is it not the idea, that, we work hard, strive, and, at times use "luck" to get ahead, to reap those benefits of wealth?

Nothing wrong with getting rich, not AT ALL! As I said, I'm a capitalist. BUT, capitalism run amok is not good for society. I would love to be a multi-millionaire. And I believe that if I am so fortunate as to achieve great wealth (somehow) I will not forget that nothing exists in a vacuum. One argument I always come back to (follow me on this) is that "nothing in a vacuum" state of society. Everything is connected, there are finite resources. When conservatives cry "I don't want my tax dollars paying for welfare, food aid, community centers and homeless shelters" then my rebuttal is "Well, we, as in society, are going to pay for people to live one way or another. Whether it's through a strong social welfare state via taxation, or through a police-prison state via taxation. As well as highewr insurance rates (due to more crime), etc."

It seems, the struggle to "get there" is what drives societies engine.
And, if you take that away.........well.

No argument there.

I have close friends, origially from the former Eastern Block. And, that's one thing they decry. They say, when it was no real benefit, to do better, make more with less, etc...........no one wanted to get there, and, everything slowed. No one was enthusiastic, because, it got you nowhere.

No argument there either. That's why I am a capitalist. Capitalism is a terrible economic system and the best one we've ever come up with. I don't think anything I've said contradicts that.

I'm not so sure I agree with the premise the "the rich" take all their money and put it in banks.......I think they invest a lot in business, real estate, and stocks (which, if I understand it, helps businesses gain capitol for operation, expansion, and jobs.)

Well, I did preface that I was responding in very general terms, and my statement there is a generalization. Bill and Melinda Gates do great things with their money, so does Warren Buffet. But in general, and this has been studied by economists, tax breaks to the wealthy do not "stimulate" the economy. Tax breaks to the people who live paycheck to paycheck do because they need that cash to live. They don't have the option to use it for interest generating purposes or to gamble on the stock market. Give working class and poor people money, they will spend it, whether on goods and services or to pay down their debts. This is not controversial, it's a well known phenomenon.

And, even if they do put a lot in banks, isn't that the engine that drives loans and such? Things the middle and lower folks need to get a "leg up"? Sure, there are unscrupulous bankers and loan agencies, but, in general, isn't that the idea?

I wasn't speaking to the banking system and arguably I'm sure there are benefits to having wealth poured into banks. I do venture a strong suspicion that putting that money into the hands of working class people, the poor and small businesses would do a TON more to generate supply and demand based commerce.

Progressive income taxes, estate taxes and capital gains taxes used to be much much higher and were considered to be fundamental to making America a land of opportunity where anyone with a sharp mind could work hard and possibly achieve great wealth.

That, seems conflicted, to me.
I admit, maybe I don't understand, though.

How to taxes (money that goes to the government, to be mostly wasted), make for opportunity to get wealthy?

Ok, here's where the disconnect lies (I believe) in your mind. You're working from the popular notion that The Government is some foreign entity. WE are the government. The government that built the highways, sea ports, the internet, on and on. Taxing income to a (in theory) transparent government run by those elected by the people to do their work is FAR preferable to having no government or a very poor government. If this was a pure plutocracy then nothing that doesn't generate instant profits would get done. Government fills this role.

So we're not "giving the government money", we are pooling a portion of everyone's income, according to ability to pay, so as to regulate markets, build and maintain infrastructure, defend the soil and society, etc. If you and your family set up a pool to pay for, say... Burning Man. You wouldn't say "I don't want to give my family money" or "I don't want to give the Burning Man pool my money".

I do believe the Birchers and think tanks I mentioned earlier have a lot to do with this disconnect that tricks people into regarding their own country as a foreign outsider.

More to the point: Progressive income tax means people paying their fair share. In order for a 10% flat tax to work, you'd have to cut government spending to a fraction of it's current level. That means highways fall apart, docks and sea ports decay, the military closes bases and mothballs equipment, the private industries that rely on government contracts dries up, crime goes up as the poor resort to other-than-legal methods of getting the cash they need to eat and live, police stations reduce staff, fire stations reduce staff and equipment, hospitals turn patients away, etc etc. Hell the internet probably wouldn't even exist yet.

and, why, if penalized too heavily, would anyone with a sharp mind, want to get there? The incentive seems like it would decrease, proportionally, to the higher and higher tax rates.

The catch lies in your use of the term "too heavily". Corporate and progressive income tax on wealthy individuals was much higher in, say, the 1950's through the 1970's. That was a freakin GOLDEN AGE. The American Century. The more our systems of government, education and social welfare have been degraded, the worse things have become with stagnant wages for working class people, an ever increasing gap between the very rich and everyone else, and a government that is drowning in debt.

and, seemingly, lead to more "cheating" or taking assets "off shore", to avoid such an issue.

The practice of exploiting loopholes and hiding currency in foreign banks has been steadily eliminated through legislation over the last several decades. Interestingly, coinciding right along with the push to continually lower taxes on the very wealthy and deregulate the financial markets.

[JStep]

Jstep wrote:

To start: The rich should pay more taxes. Why? Because they get more from the government. It's the same principle as insurance. The bigger and more expensive your house, the more you pay to insure (defend) it.

By that logic then, we should be insured for our health according to our BodyMassIndex. The FATTER you are, the MORE you pay!

Well, yeah... that's how insurance already works. The higher the risk, the higher the cost. Not sure if you meant this as snark or not, but seriously, that's how insurance works.

[Elderberry]

I really appreciate your information, and response.

Admittedly, I am uneducated, and, not well read.
But, know what seems "right" to me.
That said, I like to think I keep an open mind, and, if things are put such that I can see the logic, am not opposed to a change of said attitude.

It seems, a lot of what you say above, makes the argument for getting "rich". Is it not the idea, that, we work hard, strive, and, at times use "luck" to get ahead, to reap those benefits of wealth?

Nothing wrong with getting rich, not AT ALL! As I said, I'm a capitalist. BUT, capitalism run amok is not good for society. I would love to be a multi-millionaire. And I believe that if I am so fortunate as to achieve great wealth (somehow) I will not forget that nothing exists in a vacuum. One argument I always come back to (follow me on this) is that "nothing in a vacuum" state of society. Everything is connected, there are finite resources. When conservatives cry "I don't want my tax dollars paying for welfare, food aid, community centers and homeless shelters" then my rebuttal is "Well, we, as in society, are going to pay for people to live one way or another. Whether it's through a strong social welfare state via taxation, or through a police-prison state via taxation. As well as highewr insurance rates (due to more crime), etc."

It seems, the struggle to "get there" is what drives societies engine.
And, if you take that away.........well.

No argument there.

I have close friends, origially from the former Eastern Block. And, that's one thing they decry. They say, when it was no real benefit, to do better, make more with less, etc...........no one wanted to get there, and, everything slowed. No one was enthusiastic, because, it got you nowhere.

No argument there either. That's why I am a capitalist. Capitalism is a terrible economic system and the best one we've ever come up with. I don't think anything I've said contradicts that.

I'm not so sure I agree with the premise the "the rich" take all their money and put it in banks.......I think they invest a lot in business, real estate, and stocks (which, if I understand it, helps businesses gain capitol for operation, expansion, and jobs.)

Well, I did preface that I was responding in very general terms, and my statement there is a generalization. Bill and Melinda Gates do great things with their money, so does Warren Buffet. But in general, and this has been studied by economists, tax breaks to the wealthy do not "stimulate" the economy. Tax breaks to the people who live paycheck to paycheck do because they need that cash to live. They don't have the option to use it for interest generating purposes or to gamble on the stock market. Give working class and poor people money, they will spend it, whether on goods and services or to pay down their debts. This is not controversial, it's a well known phenomenon.

And, even if they do put a lot in banks, isn't that the engine that drives loans and such? Things the middle and lower folks need to get a "leg up"? Sure, there are unscrupulous bankers and loan agencies, but, in general, isn't that the idea?

I wasn't speaking to the banking system and arguably I'm sure there are benefits to having wealth poured into banks. I do venture a strong suspicion that putting that money into the hands of working class people, the poor and small businesses would do a TON more to generate supply and demand based commerce.

Progressive income taxes, estate taxes and capital gains taxes used to be much much higher and were considered to be fundamental to making America a land of opportunity where anyone with a sharp mind could work hard and possibly achieve great wealth.

That, seems conflicted, to me.
I admit, maybe I don't understand, though.

How to taxes (money that goes to the government, to be mostly wasted), make for opportunity to get wealthy?

Ok, here's where the disconnect lies (I believe) in your mind. You're working from the popular notion that The Government is some foreign entity. WE are the government. The government that built the highways, sea ports, the internet, on and on. Taxing income to a (in theory) transparent government run by those elected by the people to do their work is FAR preferable to having no government or a very poor government. If this was a pure plutocracy then nothing that doesn't generate instant profits would get done. Government fills this role.

So we're not "giving the government money", we are pooling a portion of everyone's income, according to ability to pay, so as to regulate markets, build and maintain infrastructure, defend the soil and society, etc. If you and your family set up a pool to pay for, say... Burning Man. You wouldn't say "I don't want to give my family money" or "I don't want to give the Burning Man pool my money".

I do believe the Birchers and think tanks I mentioned earlier have a lot to do with this disconnect that tricks people into regarding their own country as a foreign outsider.

More to the point: Progressive income tax means people paying their fair share. In order for a 10% flat tax to work, you'd have to cut government spending to a fraction of it's current level. That means highways fall apart, docks and sea ports decay, the military closes bases and mothballs equipment, the private industries that rely on government contracts dries up, crime goes up as the poor resort to other-than-legal methods of getting the cash they need to eat and live, police stations reduce staff, fire stations reduce staff and equipment, hospitals turn patients away, etc etc. Hell the internet probably wouldn't even exist yet.

and, why, if penalized too heavily, would anyone with a sharp mind, want to get there? The incentive seems like it would decrease, proportionally, to the higher and higher tax rates.

The catch lies in your use of the term "too heavily". Corporate and progressive income tax on wealthy individuals was much higher in, say, the 1950's through the 1970's. That was a freakin GOLDEN AGE. The American Century. The more our systems of government, education and social welfare have been degraded, the worse things have become with stagnant wages for working class people, an ever increasing gap between the very rich and everyone else, and a government that is drowning in debt.

and, seemingly, lead to more "cheating" or taking assets "off shore", to avoid such an issue.

The practice of exploiting loopholes and hiding currency in foreign banks has been steadily eliminated through legislation over the last several decades. Interestingly, coinciding right along with the push to continually lower taxes on the very wealthy and deregulate the financial markets.

Well said.

JK

[ygmir]

thanks JStep.....good info.......you may have created just a little crack...........

[Elderberry]

thanks JStep.....good info.......you may have created just a little crack...........

LOL Let's hope so!!!! Lord knows I've been trying.

JK

[ygmir]

I should wholly include you, JK.......soory for the faux pas

I may be a slow thinker, but, given time, clarity, and explanation, I can comprehend some things.

[Elderberry]

I should wholly include you, JK.......soory for the faux pas

I may be a slow thinker, but, given time, clarity, and explanation, I can comprehend some things.

If it's one thing you are not, it's a slow thinker. Actually, J-Step does has a way of articulating his arguments that I have come to respect. He's actually helped to clarify some of my thinking on certain issues as well, as has your constant questioning on the issues.

I have a hard time keeping my emotions on the topic under control at times--something else I'm working on.

This has been a most enjoyable thread for me.

JK

[JStep]

thanks JStep.....good info.......you may have created just a little crack...........

Crack kills.

Hey, just had a thought... Maybe a way of seeing my point of view (and not necessarily agreeing with it) would be to turn the whole question on it's head:

A) Why should someone who makes a lot more money than average pay a higher than average proportion in taxes?

Transposed to:

B) Why should people who make only a little money pay the same proportion of taxes as those who have millions and generate exponentially more income in interest without even having to work?

==

$5 million generates 400K per year at a measly 8% interest rate. Remember, the $5 mil isn't taxed, it's not income. Taxing the interest income at 40% nets the US 160K, leaving the poor beleaguered millionaire a mere 240K yearly income, without lifting a finger to benefit the society that provides him with such a lucrative method of making money without expending any labor or capital.

It's not socialism to acknowledge this fact and progressively tax the very wealthy. If you taxed the guy supporting his family on 50k per year at 40%, he'd be in debt before he drove to work. If you taxed the multi-millionaires at 10%, the US would be (even further) in debt before said millionaire could drive to the bank.

[littleflower]

hey, i agree with jstep too!

the world must be coming to an end or something.

[Elderberry]

hey, i agree with jstep too!

the world must be coming to an end or something.

OMG Hallelujah praise the lord!

JK

[Simon of the Playa]

HAIL SATAN!

[Roberto Dobbisano]

equal time, it's only fair.

[ygmir]

[youtube][/youtube]

[Trishntek]

I'm not sure how a discussion about repealing PPACA became the age-old debate about taxing the "rich",,,,, but for my $.02 on that subject,,,,

A "rich" guy owns a fleet of trucks. Who do you think pays more taxes for using the roads, excise taxes, motor carrier fees? You or him? Plus he pays half the SS taxes for all his employees.

A "rich" guy sells liquor, smokes and a few groceries on the corner. Who do you think pays more sales and property taxes, yearly fees and licenses and half his employees SS taxes? You or him?

A physician employs two nurses, a scheduler and an assistant. While visiting an average of 40 patients per day, he consumes power, has multiple phone lines, uses large quantities of various medical supplies and also pays half the SS taxes for his employees, property taxes and fees, and $$$$$ malpractice and other liability insurances, and would be better off paying medicare and medicaid patients $5 to go somewhere else than treat them. Who do you think pays more taxes? You or him?

My point is, everything being equal, business people already pay more in taxes by the shear nature of their business. Then, due to increases in taxes targeting them, they are the wicked, evil businessperson for reducing their workforce to compensate.

Everybody complains about the huge corporations taking in Billions of dollars. I don't hear anyone complain about the taxes they pay on those Billions. Keep in mind they risk $$$$$$$$$ before the investments start paying. When you consider that the fed, state and local gubmints combined take in more money per gallon of gas, kWh of electricity, ton of coal etc. than the companies' net profits on those commodities, I'm befuddled by the angst toward the wealthy.

[Roberto Dobbisano]

word of advice.


stick with what you know...


Dildos.


so when a Dildo Discussion comes up, you will be the Expert.


not until then, please.

[Elderberry]

I'm not sure how a discussion about repealing PPACA became the age-old debate about taxing the "rich",,,,, but for my $.02 on that subject,,,,

A "rich" guy owns a fleet of trucks. Who do you think pays more taxes for using the roads, excise taxes, motor carrier fees? You or him? Plus he pays half the SS taxes for all his employees.

A "rich" guy sells liquor, smokes and a few groceries on the corner. Who do you think pays more sales and property taxes, yearly fees and licenses and half his employees SS taxes? You or him?

A physician employs two nurses, a scheduler and an assistant. While visiting an average of 40 patients per day, he consumes power, has multiple phone lines, uses large quantities of various medical supplies and also pays half the SS taxes for his employees, property taxes and fees, and $$$$$ malpractice and other liability insurances, and would be better off paying medicare and medicaid patients $5 to go somewhere else than treat them. Who do you think pays more taxes? You or him?

My point is, everything being equal, business people already pay more in taxes by the shear nature of their business. Then, due to increases in taxes targeting them, they are the wicked, evil businessperson for reducing their workforce to compensate.

Everybody complains about the huge corporations taking in Billions of dollars. I don't hear anyone complain about the taxes they pay on those Billions. Keep in mind they risk $$$$$$$$$ before the investments start paying. When you consider that the fed, state and local gubmints combined take in more money per gallon of gas, kWh of electricity, ton of coal etc. than the companies' net profits on those commodities, I'm befuddled by the angst toward the wealthy.

This is not true. Though the actual tax rate for business is high if you look at the percent number on the books that corporations are required to pay, the effective rate (the actual amount they actually pay) is much lower. Many of the largest corporations in this country pay no tax on their income at all. Some even get money from the gubment, so that not only do they not pay any tax, the actually end up with more money in their coffers!

I have no angst toward the wealthy, I can assure you of that.

JK

[thisisthatwhichis]

Uuuuggghh.... I know this had to turn to taxes on the rich eventually, but the mis-representation of economic realities thrown around here driving me loopy. Where is CSS when you need him!?!?

[Elderberry]

Uuuuggghh.... I know this had to turn to taxes on the rich eventually, but the mis-representation of economic realities thrown around here driving me loopy. Where is CSS when you need him!?!?

Well, you're here. Now pick up the slack!

JK

[Elderberry]

Who said this and is it an economic reality?

"Our spending has caught up with us, and our debt soon will eclipse the entire size of our national economy."

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statemen ... t-magnitu/

JK

[JStep]

I'm not sure how a discussion about repealing PPACA became the age-old debate about taxing the "rich",,,,, but for my $.02 on that subject,,,,

A "rich" guy owns a fleet of trucks. Who do you think pays more taxes for using the roads, excise taxes, motor carrier fees? You or him? Plus he pays half the SS taxes for all his employees.

A "rich" guy sells liquor, smokes and a few groceries on the corner. Who do you think pays more sales and property taxes, yearly fees and licenses and half his employees SS taxes? You or him?

A physician employs two nurses, a scheduler and an assistant. While visiting an average of 40 patients per day, he consumes power, has multiple phone lines, uses large quantities of various medical supplies and also pays half the SS taxes for his employees, property taxes and fees, and $$$$$ malpractice and other liability insurances, and would be better off paying medicare and medicaid patients $5 to go somewhere else than treat them. Who do you think pays more taxes? You or him?

My point is, everything being equal, business people already pay more in taxes by the shear nature of their business. Then, due to increases in taxes targeting them, they are the wicked, evil businessperson for reducing their workforce to compensate.

Everybody complains about the huge corporations taking in Billions of dollars. I don't hear anyone complain about the taxes they pay on those Billions. Keep in mind they risk $$$$$$$$$ before the investments start paying. When you consider that the fed, state and local gubmints combined take in more money per gallon of gas, kWh of electricity, ton of coal etc. than the companies' net profits on those commodities, I'm befuddled by the angst toward the wealthy.

Close but no cigar. The business pays it's own taxes, it is a separate entity from the business owner. A business owner allocates himself a paycheck, this is his income, and that is what is he pays. Clever small business owners just pay themselves very little on paper, thus paying little to no personal income taxes, and then skim what they want from the business. Illegal, sure, but common. Embezzlement from your own business is hugely common.

[Elderberry]

I'm not sure how a discussion about repealing PPACA became the age-old debate about taxing the "rich",,,,, but for my $.02 on that subject,,,,

A "rich" guy owns a fleet of trucks. Who do you think pays more taxes for using the roads, excise taxes, motor carrier fees? You or him? Plus he pays half the SS taxes for all his employees.

A "rich" guy sells liquor, smokes and a few groceries on the corner. Who do you think pays more sales and property taxes, yearly fees and licenses and half his employees SS taxes? You or him?

A physician employs two nurses, a scheduler and an assistant. While visiting an average of 40 patients per day, he consumes power, has multiple phone lines, uses large quantities of various medical supplies and also pays half the SS taxes for his employees, property taxes and fees, and $$$$$ malpractice and other liability insurances, and would be better off paying medicare and medicaid patients $5 to go somewhere else than treat them. Who do you think pays more taxes? You or him?

My point is, everything being equal, business people already pay more in taxes by the shear nature of their business. Then, due to increases in taxes targeting them, they are the wicked, evil businessperson for reducing their workforce to compensate.

Everybody complains about the huge corporations taking in Billions of dollars. I don't hear anyone complain about the taxes they pay on those Billions. Keep in mind they risk $$$$$$$$$ before the investments start paying. When you consider that the fed, state and local gubmints combined take in more money per gallon of gas, kWh of electricity, ton of coal etc. than the companies' net profits on those commodities, I'm befuddled by the angst toward the wealthy.

Close but no cigar. The business pays it's own taxes, it is a separate entity from the business owner. A business owner allocates himself a paycheck, this is his income, and that is what is he pays. Clever small business owners just pay themselves very little on paper, thus paying little to no personal income taxes, and then skim what they want from the business. Illegal, sure, but common. Embezzlement from your own business is hugely common.

I might resemble that remark, though I'm not sure I would call it embezzlement. They are simply expenses and deductions that I am entitled to according to the tax code.

JK

[Trishntek]

I'll give that major corporations do indeed escape tax burdens where possible, But that is the crux of problem. They will do business and outsource in countries where taxes are most attractive. That is exactly why GE can claim losses in the U.S. 35% tax rate, and profits in Ireland's 12.5% tax rate or China's 25% tax rate.

But individual businesspersons taking in $250k or more in our local communities DO PAY MORE TAXES by the nature of their business. How much money does the grocer actually get for a pack of smokes? I would bet not even 10% of what the state and fed get for it. What do they do to earn the lion's share for that pack of smokes? NOTHING!

And BOB, you must be a BOB cuz you sure obsess about my dildo collection. Do I detect a bit of envy?

[JStep]

I'm not sure how a discussion about repealing PPACA became the age-old debate about taxing the "rich",,,,, but for my $.02 on that subject,,,,

A "rich" guy owns a fleet of trucks. Who do you think pays more taxes for using the roads, excise taxes, motor carrier fees? You or him? Plus he pays half the SS taxes for all his employees.

A "rich" guy sells liquor, smokes and a few groceries on the corner. Who do you think pays more sales and property taxes, yearly fees and licenses and half his employees SS taxes? You or him?

A physician employs two nurses, a scheduler and an assistant. While visiting an average of 40 patients per day, he consumes power, has multiple phone lines, uses large quantities of various medical supplies and also pays half the SS taxes for his employees, property taxes and fees, and $$$$$ malpractice and other liability insurances, and would be better off paying medicare and medicaid patients $5 to go somewhere else than treat them. Who do you think pays more taxes? You or him?

My point is, everything being equal, business people already pay more in taxes by the shear nature of their business. Then, due to increases in taxes targeting them, they are the wicked, evil businessperson for reducing their workforce to compensate.

Everybody complains about the huge corporations taking in Billions of dollars. I don't hear anyone complain about the taxes they pay on those Billions. Keep in mind they risk $$$$$$$$$ before the investments start paying. When you consider that the fed, state and local gubmints combined take in more money per gallon of gas, kWh of electricity, ton of coal etc. than the companies' net profits on those commodities, I'm befuddled by the angst toward the wealthy.

Close but no cigar. The business pays it's own taxes, it is a separate entity from the business owner. A business owner allocates himself a paycheck, this is his income, and that is what is he pays. Clever small business owners just pay themselves very little on paper, thus paying little to no personal income taxes, and then skim what they want from the business. Illegal, sure, but common. Embezzlement from your own business is hugely common.

I might resemble that remark, though I'm not sure I would call it embezzlement. They are simply expenses and deductions that I am entitled to according to the tax code.

JK

If you're entitled to it I don't think it's quite the same as skimming off the till or using the company credit card to buy personal goods.

[JStep]

I'll give that major corporations do indeed escape tax burdens where possible, But that is the crux of problem. They will do business and outsource in countries where taxes are most attractive. That is exactly why GE can claim losses in the U.S. 35% tax rate, and profits in Ireland's 12.5% tax rate or China's 25% tax rate.

But individual businesspersons taking in $250k or more in our local communities DO PAY MORE TAXES by the nature of their business. How much money does the grocer actually get for a pack of smokes? I would bet not even 10% of what the state and fed get for it. What do they do to earn the lion's share for that pack of smokes? NOTHING!

And BOB, you must be a BOB cuz you sure obsess about my dildo collection. Do I detect a bit of envy?

See my previous reply to you, I think you're still conflating the personal income taxes paid by the business owner from the taxes paid by the business. The business is it's own entity subject to it's own taxes. The guy who owns the place has his income taxed, progressively, according to personal income tax code, not corporate or business taxes.

Someone who takes home a paycheck of 250K+ is taxed the same as any other 250K+ earner, whether he owns a business or not. There are many people above that tax bracket who do not own businesses.

[Trishntek]

They may not all own businesses, but I contend they DO EMPLOY people. As mentioned above, if they are truly wealthy, they do indeed have choices of citizenship, residency and property ownership. And they will go where it least affects their wallet. Thus, an actual decrease in revenue for gubmint and the tax increase is nullified by a net loss in revenue.

[Elderberry]

They may not all own businesses, but I contend they DO EMPLOY people. As mentioned above, if they are truly wealthy, they do indeed have choices of citizenship, residency and property ownership. And they will go where it least affects their wallet. Thus, an actual decrease in revenue for gubmint and the tax increase is nullified by a net loss in revenue.

If "the wealthy" had the same or greater potential to earn more if they resided in some other country, it would seem to me they would have flocked to those countries in droves a long time ago.

The opportunities are much greater here and employing there. Not the other way around.

JK

[JStep]

They may not all own businesses, but I contend they DO EMPLOY people. As mentioned above, if they are truly wealthy, they do indeed have choices of citizenship, residency and property ownership. And they will go where it least affects their wallet. Thus, an actual decrease in revenue for gubmint and the tax increase is nullified by a net loss in revenue.

Well, my point was that the activities of a business is of little relevant consideration to how the wealthy should be taxed on their personal income, whether or not they own a business. Linking the two seems to confuse the two scenarios. Almost as if the guy who's income is 250K plus due to owning a business should be taxed less by simple virtue of owning a business, whereas the guy who earns 250K plus without owning a business should be taxed more.

Further, just because someone makes 250K plus doesn't mean they employ people, necessarily.

In any case, I think this is a divergence from the topic I was discussing which was my defense of the progressive taxation system, taxes on capital gains and the estate tax. These are mechanisms by which we (as a society) mitigate the effects of dynasty and keep a more equitable proportion of wealth "in the system". (And I must admit to shifting the focus from the specific topic of health care reform into a more general discussion of the merits of these mechanisms.)

I'm fiscally conservative by some measures, but decidedly a social liberal. I have nothing against "getting rich", but also feel that checking greed with liberal social restraints is a natural, and necessary, component to fostering a healthy, productive and prosperous society at large. It is not only the unique capitalist/entrepreneurial spirit which exploits our natural greed to foster commerce that built America into what it is (or once was)... it is also the checking of that natural greed through a balanced social welfare system that equals out the playing field somewhat so that the possibility of great wealth is more accessible to all of us rather than simply the birthright of a lucky few.

Ok, this soapbox is getting wobbly..

[ygmir]

IIRC somewhere in the founding documents, it was mentioned that an "inheritance tax" (and, quite substantial) was to be levied, to prevent "dynasties" and or feudalism..........
I'm not sure I agree, but, do see it's point.