it has been years since i did any inquiry of rigor/ involving myself to engage on this post makes me feel smart/ as if i still have the goods to dig deep/
i thought to post it in case...
--------------------
If
we all paid taxes by check, the tax form was also our election ballot,
and the more taxes we paid the more our vote counted---this nation would
look very different
- Maven Huggins i just think there might be some dark corners in your postulate. for who is more addicted to people's money than the banks. they house and use everybody's money? but the projects they support and build in creating wealth, who does it serve now? not a cross section of people
it seems as if you wrote something new but what you wrote is what obtains now and it does not have that outcome so i am trying to work it out in my head.
i guess i would have to ask, who do you see as the elements:
lets start with: "the more taxes we paid"
you only pay taxes according to income . and then after a certain level the people with the most income have loopholes and systems by which to avoid paying taxes so that is the first weak conjunction in your theory i think...>>>{who really pays?}
right now i think the people who pay the most income by proportion are the poorer and lower income groups yet they are the ones with the less power to control or lobby ...that too puts a crick in your postulate
so the other question is : who are the people you identify as " knowing how to build and create wealth"? "who are the people addicted to other people's money"?
and how do you see "we'd be more prosperous and everyone would live better"? cause we have a system that is very much anti- we
so let me learn more. I am intrigued - Steve Vandewalle: Right now society looks at poverty as a distribution problem, as if there's X amount of wealth, and the rich steal it all from the poor. In reality, the reason the 'poor' have anything at all is because of the rich. If I print $100 and hand it to someone not working, (or even as corporate bailout for that matter) all I've done is watered down the dollar. The inflation that results represents a tax that hits the poor the hardest. If instead I pull some metal out of the ground and build $100 worth of hardware to sell, I've created $100 worth of new wealth. Now you can print $100 that's backed by something, and you grew the GDP by $100. Our current system does all it can to discourage this. 'The poor' for the most part are not people who want to be permanently that way. By rewarding productivity at any level we provide ways to move up, rich or poor. The rich of today were the poor of yesterday. So if the people that know how to convert raw materials into wealth vote the system to support their approach, the GDP grows, and there's more for everyone. If the people dependent on the government are the majority, they are voting themselves parts of an ever dwindling pie.
- Maven Huggins hm. we just walked into another doorway. with a whole new set of caveats. i wonder if i want to dismantle or deconstruct them all...one central piece is what is the creation of wealth in these modern twenty first century time and for the poor no less, the majority of the population. let me take some time
- Steve Vandewalle A question I like to ask hard line liberals is, "If you could double the income of the poor, but in the process you'd tripple the income of the rich, would you do it?" TYpical answer is no----the issue isn't giving more to the poor, but the income gap. What the heck does a starving person care about the income gap? Double income would make life better. Beyong that who cares how much someone else makes? The only way to decrease the gap is by making it so no one can be wealthy---bring down the top, even if it brings the bottom further down.
- Lee Kiester Maven is being Obtuse? I love the loophole garbage you toss out there. Currently the Top 1% Pay 30% of All Income Tax Collected. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05in05tr.xls However, lets look at the last year the IRS has reported. This shows you that the top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes. The top 1% pay 39%. So the inequality of revenue stream is not where you think it is.
- Maven Huggins no obtuse is not having comprehension and deep critical thinking skills as well as depth of knowledge. it also means garnering information not prepared or spoon fed
i am not going to scour the above but i am almost sure i used the word proportion. another way to speak of this is tax burden.
Data and Statistics are numbers that can be sliced, diced and cut up in any number of ways and you only get to the truth if you look at one pie in several dimensions.
low and moderate income people pay a larger portion (proportion) of their income to taxes than the rich or wealthy
i am not speaking, thinking or writing about the contribution of income tax to federal sources by which group, but that is studied here as well
read and be enriched
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3505
There is a difference. I love when not so smart people show themselves up
my muse was "who pays more taxes? by what dimension? total or proportion..if one is to talk about vote association to tax payment.
proportion of income and/or/versus total paid
www.cbpp.orgNon-partisan research and policy institute working on federal and state fiscal policies and public programs that affect low- and moderate-income Americans - Maven Huggins http://www.businessinsider.com/no-the-rich-do-not-pay-all...
www.businessinsider.comPoor people don't pay federal income tax, but they pay lots of other taxes, adding up to about 13% of their income overall. - Maven Huggins my point is the post raises some hairy factors. the last link i posted relates to the thorny issues about who decides how to spend money and build wealth is different at opposing sides of the spectrum: federal versus local/ which opens up grand schemes and dams for policy.
it is still an intriguing idea vandewalle. an excellent question to research and volley. a worthy academic inquiry!!
No comments:
Post a Comment