Another interesting angle to think about. The top 5% of income earners pay about 60% of the total income tax collected. While the bottom 50% of income earners pay only 2% of the income tax. If you want to start playing the class warfare game, seems to me a case could be made that the taxes should instead be raised on those making lower incomes.
=============================================================================
Since they control 95% of the wealth, 60% of the taxes appear awful small.
And if you continue to follow the path of trying to redistribute the material things to all regardless of their willingness to work and do the right things, over time you'll have less and less of those material things produced. Why should someone work hard when they can get taken care of for free?
====================================================
I like the CEO's take on "shared sacrifice". One very large bank in Oh, quit matching the worker's 401, touting everyone needs to sacrifice. This year, the CEO got a $1.4 million dollar bonus. The worker's, well they also took a cut in pay this year.
I can list other examples for you, if you'd like.
Funny how that redistribution works from the top. Why should a hard worker have to redistribute their paltry dollars to the rich ones?
So you're in favor of taxing wealth?
"Ben" wrote in news:j249if$4ov$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:
They MADE 100% of the wealth. And they're being robbed for their efforts.
They do in the UK. It's called the "asset tax."
I have seen that number tossed around, but NEVER with a citation.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D
The hard worker was not forced to redistribute any of their money. If they thought they could get better pay for the same work elsewhere they are free to leave and go take those better jobs. That's how free economies work. The market sets the rate for compensation.
With regard to executive compensation, a bonus of $1.4mil for the CEO of a large bank does not sound excessive. Often the bonus is a large part of their total compensation. If it's in line with similar CEOs and the bank is profitable, it seems reasonable.
Now compare that to true redistribution that the libs want. Their form is they take it from you by force, without you having a choice, other than to leave the country.
Well duh!
Just was replying to trader's comment of
"Another interesting angle to think about. The top 5% of income earners pay about 60% of the total income tax collected. While the bottom 50% of income earners pay only 2% of the income tax. If you want to start playing the class warfare game, seems to me a case could be made that the taxes should instead be raised on those making lower incomes."
You replied with a stat that I have never seen cited. The fact that you were replying to someone else is not really all that relevant since it was YOUR fact that you were making your point with. Still would like to see a cite from that from anyone. ]
Some states have similar ("personal property tax"), but I was asking him the obvious question.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Ben doesn't seem to undertand the basic process here. This is the second non-sequitor in a couple posts.
In article , "Ben" wrote: =
With regard to executive compensation I am not so sure. In the mid-80s or so Congress, in its infinite wisdom decided that executives were getting paid too much. So, in order to Fix That Situation, they passed changes in the tax law. The first effectively capped salaries (what they are paid for actually running the company) at $1 million or so by limiting the amount that could be deducted. Then, in an effort to align the interests of the executives with the shareholders, they tax favored the giving of options and bonuses. Of course this then meant that the executives were not paid for running the company, but for cooking the books. (and it meant compensation a few orders of magnitude higher than even the most captive board would have had the balls to give). The top was probably Merril Lynch just before it collapsed when the honcho got #$300K in salary but around $300 million in things that were supposed to align his interests with those of the shareholders.
>
Whats wrong with that, I thought greed was good?
There's a word for the destroyed incentive. It's called: "Going John Galt."
Next question: Do you understand the difference between "wealth" and "income"?
That's all I've seen from him. Typical of a leftist.
I think we should go back further, but, in addition I think they should cut the employee level, and wage rates to the same levels. Perhaps go back to 2007 this year, 2006 next year, 2005 the next year until everything gets "balanced". When we get back to the Nixon era, we can also go back on the gold standard.
Yeah, well the word for taking away what someone else earned, irrespective of what harm you are doing to that person or others is called "greed", and greed, aka "excessive desire" for something, is thought to be bad by most.
Who is John Galt, shrug?
First, it's not the thought, it's the action. Second, trying to compel someone not to think of "idea x" WILL make them crazy. And third, when a person goes John Galt he is often criticized for taking away what others want to take away from him.
An example of the latter is an entity that moves its facilities offshore, or to another state, to avoid Draconian taxes.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required