Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>In the UK?<<< Yep, I converted it to $s to make it easier for everyone.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Right now I am getting very tired of slashing children services budgets. I am now having to cut vital services. I would rather pay a little more tax (and I am sure I am not alone)
Originally Posted By queenbee It eventually becomes a burden for the economy as a whole. The rich person will at some point accumulate all the material things they desire. So, rich people's propensity to spend goes down over time. If there is less demand by the poor because of things like high unemployment, little savings and stagnant wages obviously the rich will not use their money to create jobs either. I want to hear what the GOP is going to do to increase demand not supply.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>The rich person will at some point accumulate all the material things they desire. << The very wealthy are never satisfied. It's just they way they are wired. If you or I were to win 50 million in the lottery we'd would probably call it a day and spend the rest of our lives relaxinga and doing hobbies and whatever else stimulates us. What stimulates the very wealthy is the accumulation of wealth. It is important to never forget this. How many tycoons work until they keel over? I'll give Bill Gates credit, he actually had enough sense to turn MS over to Steve Balmer.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>So, rich people's propensity to spend goes down over time.<< Spending is an afterthought for the very wealthy. Unlike mere mortals like us they spend a tiny percentage of their wealth and income as it is.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo That is rediculous and unrealistic DAR - roads, defence, health and safety, social services, education, libraries, social housing, parks and gardens, museums, zoning permits, law enforcement, fire safety. All of these areas would be radically slashed. Tiering is the farest way to combat social deprivation.
Originally Posted By queenbee Oh, I agree that the very wealthy continue to accumulate wealth. What I meant is what you said, "they spend a tiny percentage of their wealth and income". In other words, at some point they have all the houses, iphones, cars they care to have. The ultra wealthy are not near as beneficial to the economy as the GOP would have us believe.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan The idea is that the wealthy, wanting to accumulate more wealth, will invest their money in stocks and bonds which allows industries to grow and add jobs, or start new companies themselves, which generate jobs for others. This is the classic "trickle down" concept.
Originally Posted By ecdc Fantastic deconstruction of the Republican contract, SG. Absolutely fantastic. Ditto Jeff on taxes.
Originally Posted By mawnck The whole point to the 91% tax bracket we keep hearing about, as I understand it (and you know someone will correct me if I'm wrong) wasn't to soak the rich, but to prevent companies from paying that much in the first place. No sense in turning over 75% of your operating budget to the executive team if they're just going to have to give it to the government anyway. That way companies are forced to do something else with their money, like hire workers, raise pay, invest in infrastructure, and other Socialist things like that.
Originally Posted By ecdc I have yet to hear a single response to the fact that the tax bracket under Dwight Stalin Eisenhower was as high as it was. To argue that higher taxes for the rich is socialist is to argue the United States was a socialist nation the entire duration of the Cold War.
Originally Posted By hopemax It seems the only people more appalled at the Pledge than the left, is the right. Well maybe not, but From the founder of RedState.com, the equivalent of DailyKos.com <a href="http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/09/22/the-republicans-pledge-is-perhaps-the-most-ridiculous-thing-to-come-out-of-washington-since-george-mcclellan/" target="_blank">http://www.redstate.com/erick/...clellan/</a> "Yes, yes, it is full of mom tested, kid approved pablum that will make certain hearts on the right sing in solidarity. But like a diet full of sugar, it will actually do nothing but keep making Washington fatter before we crash from the sugar high." "This document proves the GOP is more focused on the acquisition of power than the advocacy of long term sound public policy. All the good stuff in it is stuff we expect them to do. What is not in it is more than a little telling that the House GOP has not learned much of anything from 2006."
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I'm not wealthy (at least in the standards we are discussing here) but I take offense to the notion that the wealthy are somehow "wired" a specific way so that they never have enough. That is like saying the poor are "wired" to remain poor and I suspect most people would take offense to that. There seems to be a lot of pretty ugly jealousy in here. Those who I know who are "wealthy" worked their butts off to become so and by and large are significant contributors to society. In addition to their tax burden they are also philanthropists. Are all wealthy people? No. But many are. And, as we discuss these tax brackets we are not even taking into account the state or local tax burden which also comes from your bottom line. I pay a gas tax which, among other things goes to a regional bus service that does not even service my community. And, I'm ok with that. I understand it is a philosophical argument. But, I think my federal, and local tax burden (we have no State tax in Florida but they make up for that with our property taxes) is plenty fair. With my discretionary income I contribute to faith based initiatives, buy school supplies for the underfunded classroom and support as many charitable organizations as I can. Until the local, state or Federal representatives start showing me that they won't be wasteful in their spending then yes, I'm drawing a line in the sand.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << I'm not wealthy (at least in the standards we are discussing here) but I take offense to the notion that the wealthy are somehow "wired" a specific way so that they never have enough. That is like saying the poor are "wired" to remain poor and I suspect most people would take offense to that. >> I didn't make that statement about the wealthy. However, when my next door neighbor who is worth about a half-billion dollars uses the exact same words to describe how he shelters his money and would rather accumulate more than spend more, it makes it hard for me to disagree with that characterization. My neighbor is pretty honest about these things.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Until the local, state or Federal representatives start showing me that they won't be wasteful in their spending then yes, I'm drawing a line in the sand.<< I don't think that, aside from a few anecdotal stories being trumpeted far and wide by the "not mainstream" media, you can even make that case. Is government really any more wasteful or incompetent than your average mega-corporation? And HOW DO YOU KNOW? Cause Breitbart has videos?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I don't even know who Breitbart is. But, I would say government has a fiduciary responsibilty to the people and by and large I see a lot of waste. If I invest in a corporation and I don't like what they are doing...I can sell. That isn't an option for a tax payer. (Yes, you can move out of the country but I'm trying to be a little realistic.)
