Zippin Pippin likely to cost half-million more than anticipated

I don't know if it's an exaggeration. I mean some degree of true freedom is given up under any kind of rule, I suppose.

Isn't the right to vote just the freedom to choose which freedoms you're willing to give up? :)

EDIT- (or rather which person you want deciding which freedoms you'll be giving up.)

djDaemon said:

Are you suggesting the two are mutually exclusive?

I suppose it appears so the way I phrased it, but no.

Gonch, I prefer to think of it as voting for the person that will hopefully give us the back freedoms we've already given up. Unfortunately, that's not the case most of the time.

There is no power/money for politicians in limited government. So I don't expect to see it any time soon (and I don't think there are enough folks who truly want limited government anyway -- unfortunately).

Vater said:
What incentive do I have to make more money if the government is going to take a larger percentage?

The incentive is that you still have more money.

I'd rather make $300k and have the government take 40% than make $30k and have the government take 20%, wouldn't you? I personally would love to be paid well enough to afford $1 or 2 million dollars in taxes. That'd be awesome. I'd stack the money in the back of my Ferrari and drive it to the IRS myself. They I'd let them keep the car.

I'd rather make $300k and have the goverment take the same 20% they're taking from those making $30k.

Whats wrong with someone who makes 10 times as much paying 10 times the taxes (or better yet having a consumption tax that has someone spending 10 times as much paying 10 times the taxes)? Why should they pay 20 times the taxes? Because they can seems like a very weak argument. They can afford to pay more for everything so why don't we make them subsidize everything?

So would everyone, but the premise was based on our current system and Vater's query.

Come to think of it, I'd rather make $300k and pay nothing while I laugh at those making $30k paying 20%, but we can all dream.

edit: GO BUCKS: STOP INTERRUPTING! :)

I'd rather make $300k, pay nothing, and then have those making $30k pay their 20% directly to me.

Now you're talking. But make it 50%.

If I can also have sex with the poor dude's wife, I'm in.

kpjb said:
The incentive is that you still have more money.

Seriously though - the tax system is f'd up enough as it is.

In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17...

The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners -- households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 -- paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

No only do I think that's wrong in principal, but also that kind of reliance of the many on the few seems like a big mistake just waiting to bite us in the ass eventually.

Maybe the incentive to make more should be that it's pretty difficult to hold up your end if you don't?

If I can also have sex with the poor dude's wife, I'm in.

And they have to give me piggyback rides whenever I ask.

Fun with statistics! I'm in!

In 2006, the top 10% of earners in the U.S. accounted for 73% of all taxes paid. That sounds pretty bad, until you learn that (in 2007) the top 10% also possessed 84% of all financial wealth in the country. So on that basis, those at the top aren't even paying at tax parity with the bottom 90% -- they're paying a smaller percentage on their financial wealth than the rest of us. We would need to increase the tax burden on the richest merely to bring them in parity with the other 90% -- let alone any considerations of adopting some kind of socialist 'progressive' tax structure.

Now, can someone please roll Mark Twain once or twice in his grave? ;)

So now you want to tax wealth in addition to income (even though you taxed the income, when it was earned, used to buy the things that we call wealth)?

Ensign Smith said:
In 2006, the top 10% of earners in the U.S. accounted for 73% of all taxes paid. That sounds pretty bad, until you learn that (in 2007) the top 10% also possessed 84% of all financial wealth in the country. So on that basis, those at the top aren't even paying at tax parity with the bottom 90% -- they're paying a smaller percentage on their financial wealth than the rest of us.

Wait one darn second, they sure didn't put it that way on Fox! ;)

Thanks so much for that, I was feeling kinda lonely there for a bit...LOL!

Ensign;

That sounds about right, but I thought it was in the 70% in terms of wealth. However, lots of studies define wealth differently. Anyhow, you have a link for that data...I love that sort of stuff.

Again not disputing the numbers...just like to read that kind of data when I can find it...there are not a lot of wealth concentration studies out there. Another thing I always caution with these type of wealth comparisons is the outlier effect. If we correct for the Gates, Jobs (all 5-10) of the uber-rich...how does that affect the numbers? On the bottom end there is a basement = 0. On the top end it is infinite. we know what this does to statistics...

As for taxes, we have an income tax. Should we have a wealth tax? Is a wealth tax constitutional? I'm guessing it might be since the estate tax passes. But that always interests me. My inherent sense of fairness tells me a flat tax or fair tax on consumption is the right thing to do with obvious deductions for subsistence. But somehow, the current system is seen as fair by some people...and I do not get it.

In a country with an abysmal savings rate, I am not sure why anyone would want a tax that creates an incentive not to save. But it wouldn't be the first time government policies created the wrong incentives.

How would a wealth tax even work? Would you tax the value of financial wealth of everyone every year or just the increase in value from year to year? If its the full value of financial wealth each year, investment returns will need to outpace the tax rate or folks will be better off dumping the investment. If you only tax in the increase in value (how will you make value determinations as to value for all wealth in the country year after year), how much different is that than what we have now? You would effectively be taxing income which is what we do now (though we require realization for tax liability). Or do we just increase income taxes on the rich because they have too much wealth?

Gator: it's lonely being right, mi amigo. ;)

There are plenty of other indices than the one I presented to show that the rich get off easy in the good ol' USA. And 'wealth taxes', if you want to call them such, are certainly well represented by property and estate taxes, among others. Not that I'm advocating such a specific entity as you describe.

Ensign Smith said:
There are plenty of other indices than the one I presented to show that the rich get off easy in the good ol' USA.

Easier than the 50% who pay nothing come federal tax time?

Wow. They are good.

These stats about effective tax rates are kind of interesting. There has been a lot of rhetoric about equalizing tax, but it looks like it hasn't got any more equal on the low end. Another example of funny talk by politicians that doesn't match action.

kpjb said:

Vater said:
What incentive do I have to make more money if the government is going to take a larger percentage?

The incentive is that you still have more money.

Took the words right out of my mouth. I don't see anybody turning down pay raises to avoid paying more money to the government. It's understandable that nobody likes to pay taxes, but they're an absolutely necessary part of an organized society.

The biggest issue with having a flat tax is that while it may seem fair in principle, it would substantially lower what the well off pay, and significantly increase the tax burden on the poor and middle class. The highest earners would win big time at the expense of everyone else.

As for the 47% who pay no federal taxes, the New York Times wrote this article that explains why that number is somewhat disingenuous. Personally, I'm more concerned about companies that can post billions in profit and pay exactly $0 in US federal taxes, yet other countries in which they do business manage to get their cut.