‘Tax Me More’ Says Wealthy Entrepreneur

[Hygro]

If it's really about fairness and the utility of maximizing revenue, instead of taxing income, why not just cap the amount of wealth that can be owned by any one entity? $5 million should be enough for anyone to live comfortably on.

I'm certain you aren't serious, but I don't think it's a bad thing that some individuals manage personal wealth of enormous, billion+ sums. While I don't believe you can reasonably say you "own" that much wealth, you are certainly entitled to be the sole steward of that wealth, to spend it as you see fit. The key though, is the mentality of stewardship, thus the money would be used to create positive progress in the world. As you put it, at some point in the millions the diminishing returns for private utility of private wealth are so high it's silly to spend it on yourself. I think most rich people feel the same way.

Hell yeah. Replace Congress, the SC, and President with me for 6 months. I'll get this taken care of.

You're such a softy though; once you got through all the issues we'd end up with a bigger government.

I disagree. Its basically how all charity works...are you now going to argue that charity does nothing? I think you would be foolish to do so.

There is nothing preventing people who feel obliged to give the government more of their case from doing so. I often wonder why people who say 'tax me more' arent already giving more to the government regardless. I guess they say it only out of guilt, and a sense of public image. To say it, but not really do it, is rather disengenuous at best.

Charity doesn't scale to meet the needs of the nation.

I've said before that I am fine with a poverty level deduction if that's what it would take for a flat tax rate plan to be implemented.

Which is what we have, basically. 35% flat income tax rate, with a few tiers of need-based deductions for everyone below ~330,000 a year.

 

[Arakhor]

Spoiler :

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensur More..e their safety and that they work as advertised.



All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance -- now Joe gets it, too.

He prepares his morning breakfast: bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment checks because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the taxpayer funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved conservatives have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=899_1192998832

Hear, hear.

 

[MobBoss]

Charity doesn't scale to meet the needs of the nation.

How did our country exist then prior to the income tax?

Government is simply a beast that knows only how to consume. If you continue to feed it, its only going to grow. Scaling back is probably what we need most around here...

 

[Tani Coyote]

How did our country exist then prior to the income tax?

It existed without mass welfare programs.

I agree with cutting government spending, but to leave it to charity alone doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Especially if you can find measurable benefits to government intervention.

 

[Cutlass]

Everyone says they support cutting something from government. But there is nothing that people will agree to cut. And most of what people will agree to cut are the things it makes the least sense to cut.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Everyone says they support cutting something from government. But there is nothing that people will agree to cut. And most of what people will agree to cut are the things it makes the least sense to cut.

My ideas:

-UN budget: Seriously, dear god, these guys are clowns; we should pay 0.5% for our seat, 0.5% for veto power. Need I cite the whole "UN wastes time going after game developers for using their name and seal" crap?

-Nuclear production/arsenal: Enough already, sheesh. I'm sure we can cut the arsenal by quite a bit and still have a sizable deterrent.

-Politicians' wages: You're in government to govern, not get a free paycheck. They get enough benefits anyway don't they? We could also think about tying their paycheck to the economy so they have a good mind to only pass policies that benefit it.

Probably doesn't amount to much though. But they were topics I think most Americans wouldn't feel too strong about; contrast to trying to cut the military or welfare.

 

[Jabarto]

At best, saying things like "We should cut government waste" is like saying "I support ending world hunger". It's just a meaningless platitude.

At worst, it's completely ridiciulous. There isn't any evidence anywhere that a small government would fix anything simply by virtue of being small, and a lot of evidence that it would make things much, much worse.

 

[Tani Coyote]

At best, saying things like "We should cut government waste" is like saying "I support ending world hunger". It's just a meaningless platitude.

At worst, it's completely ridiciulous. There isn't any evidence anywhere that a small government would fix anything simply by virtue of being small, and a lot of evidence that it would make things much, much worse.

I'm not advocating small government so much as efficient government: any money confiscated by taxation should be spent better than it would in the private sector.

Therefore, if we find a program that doesn't really serve the public good - as welfare or defense would - we should gut it like a fresh kill in the forest. Similarly, any excesses in these programs should be cut.

Until the bipartisan support for these cuts is mustered though, go after the little things, like the ones I listed, that people probably don't <3 enough to give their metaphorical lives defending.

 

[Jabarto]

I'm not advocating small government so much as efficient government: any money confiscated by taxation should be spent better than it would in the private sector.

Therefore, if we find a program that doesn't really serve the public good - as welfare or defense would - we should gut it like a fresh kill in the forest. Similarly, any excesses in these programs should be cut.

Until the bipartisan support for these cuts is mustered though, go after the little things, like the ones I listed, that people probably don't <3 enough to give their metaphorical lives defending.

If it was unclear, I wasn't really referring to you. I actually have to give you credit for articulating what you want cut (and that it wasn't Medicare!).

You're more or less right, though. The point I was trying to get at - rather clumsily, I'll admit - is that most people think of cutting things like welfare when they hear the term "small government", and that's an entirely self-defeating decision.

 

[Hygro]

How did our country exist then prior to the income tax?

Government is simply a beast that knows only how to consume. If you continue to feed it, its only going to grow. Scaling back is probably what we need most around here...

That nation wasn't threatened with nuclear missiles, run by industrial capitalism, out of room for westward expansion, and vulnerable to worldwide pandemics...


In other words, from a defense perspective, we need a strong government to fend off other strong governments, we need a strong government to manage an economic system far more powerful and overwhelming than anything that existed in the time of our founding, we need a strong government to deal with a geography that is far more limited than one before, and we need a government that can address the health of the nation in short and massive order.

 

[Japanrocks12]

Never having to worry about having enough money to support oneself and one's family* should be reward enough for anyone who ever gets rich

* = assuming a modicum of fiscal responsibility

I'm confused; does taxing the rich remove this benefit of theirs?

 

[Cutlass]

My ideas:

-UN budget: Seriously, dear god, these guys are clowns; we should pay 0.5% for our seat, 0.5% for veto power. Need I cite the whole "UN wastes time going after game developers for using their name and seal" crap?

Trivial amount of money. And for the most part the UN serves US interests.

-Nuclear production/arsenal: Enough already, sheesh. I'm sure we can cut the arsenal by quite a bit and still have a sizable deterrent.

We have a new treaty in the works to cut the arsenal substantially.

-Politicians' wages: You're in government to govern, not get a free paycheck. They get enough benefits anyway don't they? We could also think about tying their paycheck to the economy so they have a good mind to only pass policies that benefit it.

Again, the amount is trivial. And do you really want to reduce the quality of Congress even further?

Probably doesn't amount to much though. But they were topics I think most Americans wouldn't feel too strong about; contrast to trying to cut the military or welfare.

In the end, most of the things people would agree to cut tend to be things that matter a lot to a small number of people, but don't matter at all to much of anyone else. So you have this little, very vocal group to defend the spending, but no one speaking to cut it.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Trivial amount of money. And for the most part the UN serves US interests.

Would that change if we reduced our contribution by what was it, 95%?

We have a new treaty in the works to cut the arsenal substantially.

Indeed, I remember it as being one of the policies I most liked about the current administration.

Again, the amount is trivial. And do you really want to reduce the quality of Congress even further?

Well if we tie their pay to the economic state of the nation, they at least have a vested interest in keeping it strong, rather than just a few select interests.

It also keeps politicians who actually place the money on their priority list out. Most of their pay should be in benefits; that way they have to stay in power to keep collecting from the taxpayers. It also keeps them from using money leeched from the taxpayers - often doing a terrible job - from using it once retired.

In the end, most of the things people would agree to cut tend to be things that matter a lot to a small number of people, but don't matter at all to much of anyone else. So you have this little, very vocal group to defend the spending, but no one speaking to cut it.

Sad, sad fact of American politics. All the big areas to cut have too strong an interest group behind them. But I suppose that's part of why they're big in the first place, eh?

 

[Cutlass]

Would that change if we reduced our contribution by what was it, 95%?

No real point. Trivial is trivial. And there's a moral point to being paid up.

Indeed, I remember it as being one of the policies I most liked about the current administration.

And it's not really that much money either. Nukes are cheap compared to aircraft carriers.

Well if we tie their pay to the economic state of the nation, they at least have a vested interest in keeping it strong, rather than just a few select interests.

It also keeps politicians who actually place the money on their priority list out. Most of their pay should be in benefits; that way they have to stay in power to keep collecting from the taxpayers. It also keeps them from using money leeched from the taxpayers - often doing a terrible job - from using it once retired.

Wouldn't work. Too much of a war about what works and what doesn't. And some things are out of their control.

Sad, sad fact of American politics. All the big areas to cut have too strong an interest group behind them. But I suppose that's part of why they're big in the first place, eh?

Even very small constituencies, like farmers, can have so much pull that no one is willing to take on the job of taking them on.

 

[Ajidica]

Well if we tie their pay to the economic state of the nation, they at least have a vested interest in keeping it strong, rather than just a few select interests.

It also keeps politicians who actually place the money on their priority list out. Most of their pay should be in benefits; that way they have to stay in power to keep collecting from the taxpayers. It also keeps them from using money leeched from the taxpayers - often doing a terrible job - from using it once retired.

I doubt this will work. Even the most deranged representatives (Michelle Bachman, I'm looking at you!) believe they are doing what is best for the country.

 

[JollyRoger]

How did our country exist then prior to the income tax?

Read the Lighthouse Act of 1790. You will see the Feds actually scheming to take property from private parties and states, plus using tax revenue to prove health care to private workers.

The job you currently hold may not have existed in meaningful abundance prior to the the income tax.