What can I say? I'm a trailblazer. ;-) Can't believe I gifted you with that setup. I've got to be more careful. ;-) back at you.
The 39% of taxes vs 50% of earnings and 10% of income vs 14% of taxes is not a statistic I have seen before. Is that truly the ratio?
No. It was purely for illustration (pulled them out of the air). I'd love to see some real numbers. In post 22, I was asking the freeper who posted the stats if they had any stats on income. Without knowing the whole equation, the posted stats are meaningless (despite how many times we hear them reiterated). I understand. I use hypotheticals too, to further a premise. I more or less figured that was what you were doing here, but I needed to ask anyway. I agree with your line of reasoning here.
It has been my understanding and intent, that the top scale paid somewhat of a disproportionate portion of the taxes. If that is not true, then I wouldn’t have a problem taking a look at it and considering some changes.
It's hard to determine what is "fair." If we had a "person tax," one could say that each individual should contribute the same dollar amount to operate the Federal government (they'd never survive!). But we don't--we have an "income tax." In this case, it is not surprising that the more income one makes, the more taxes they pay. When we hear of people making hundreds of millions of dollars in a single year, should they not pay tax on it just because they already paid a large amount? Would that argument work for Microsoft? (I don't think so). Had that individual not received the big salary, those same dollars may have been paid to employees--who would have been taxed on the income, or to investors--who would have been taxed for the dividend income. I'm just thinking outloud here--I don't know the answers. If you reread this, I think you'll see how I could be somewhat confused with the toughts you have posted. I get the general idea of what you're trying to address, but without you providing a little more specifiicity, I can't address exactly what you've got in mind. Flesh it out a bit more, and I'll be glad to comment on point.
Let me throw out some thoughts and you can bounce some comments off them. I'm going to go a bit contrarian on you. I think that broadens the scope of our discussion, but don't take it to mean I'm putting up some shrines that I don't want to see touched. That isn't my goal. When I think of someone making $2 million per year, I am not overly concerned about it. When it comes to taxes, I think they should pay a resonable amount. I am not comfortable with them being seriously impacted by them though.
Let's face it, if a person is making $2 million per year, they are doing it because they are providing/causing/facilitating income for other individuals. A guy making $2 million per year is producing something, employing people directly or indirectly, and is therefore already a cash generating cow for his employees, other employess who will sell his widgets, and the federal government. I want this guy to remain incentivised to be productive, in fact to be expanshionist. I want his funds to be freed up so he can do this. I do not see the federal government as a better place for his funds. Yes, he should be paying some taxes. I'm down with that sista. LOL My main emphasis is more in line with telling the federal government that the gig is up. Get off this guy's back. Get off his worker's back. Quit sapping the economy dry. That is not what this nation was ever intended to be all about. And so if we want relief for the rank and file middle class, or those conidered to be near or at poverty, I have the same message for the federal govenrment. Get off their back too.
The best thing our government can do, is free up capital in the hands of successful capitalists so that there will be jobs for everyone. Don't subsidize those at the bottom. Don't redistribute wealth. Allow the private sector to create wealth, and get out of the way. This may sound harsh, but IMO it is the only way to go. Whatever you subsidize, it will grow. I would rather see the government in effect subsidize the private or public entreprenours, and not subsidize those who are not working or producing. Once this policy was in place for five years or so, the economy would be humming, people would have had found a nitch, and they would be working themselves up the ladder. I would be willing to see a weening process implemented, but this is the direction I think we should move in.
I will admit that I really do shy away from the greed arguments. I don’t consider well to do people to be greedy. Many of them gift massive amounts of money to various causes.
I think there is a limit (a moral limit, so to speak--not anything that I think should ever be legislated). When some companies (like the banks currently being bailed out) pay their executvies hundreds of millions of dollars while pushing the law to the limit to report good short-term earnings, with no concern for the effect of their greed on the rest of America or wht they are leaving in their wake, I have a problem with it. That they then use those dollars to go fund their favorite charity choice doesn't excuse the behavior, IMO. That is fair enough. I do want to point out that we have thousands of corporate slots to fill in this nation. Those slots will be filled by a select few people who have experience in the mega-business environment and the comensurate mega-clout. These people are a commodity like any other limited asset. Corporations needing the services of individuals like this drive the compensation packages up. These dollar amounts sound astronomical to you and I, but they aren't when you consider the corporate values they will be managing. Mobil just reported a 22% increase in profits this last quarter over last year. We're talking about tens of billions of dollars in profits, let alone the total volume of business and assets their corporate CEO oversees. Let's say the guy gets paid anually $150 million dollars in cash and shares. Is that a huge sum when we're talking about a trillion dollars in yearly business he oversees? Not really. If he is turning in good numbers for the corporation, he's worth every dime of it. And if he isn't, he is still contractually guaranteed under his employment agreement. This all sounds very unfair to those of us who sweat it out for a normal job. Still, it is a business reality. I don't get worked up over this. When one of the corporations goes under and the CEO gets a severance package, that was what was negotiated up front. It's still an absolute pittance when you consider the overall worth of these corporations. And the idea the individual share holder gets hurt by this is not really realistic. The value of this compensation probably affects a share by 0.0000015% or some such. Overall, it's simply invisible.
Look, there are all sorts of financial ghurus who manage funds, run corporations, and finaincial insitutions. A guy can be a wizzard for years, and do great things, then miss something and suddenly be the kicking boy for a real disaster. That's the way it works. Even the best of these guys get caught with their pants down. Stuff happens. It's not always the top guy's fault. The business climate goes south, a large segment of the business is negatively impacted by something that happens to another company that you can't control... these things happen. I just don't get angry at the guys who work in this rarified air.
During this last melt down, our federal government pigs had their noses in the trough. They were hawking nonsensical loans for the poor and minorities that didn't have a prayer of being repaid. That's not the way to go about helping them. The way to go about helping them is to provide a business environment where their services will be needed in some capacity. This does bring me to my major problem with corporations, and it's a problem that is far from universally recognized or agreed with. I don't like seeing our corporations move jobs off-shore. I want their employees to be paying taxes in our nation. I want our technology kept here. I don't want to see our strategic national interests harmed by corporate decision making.
I say give corporats wide birth, when they support our economy. And when they don't, make 'em feel it.
With banks and lending institutions, there needs to be oversight IMO. I don't give them a complete pass in this last fiasco, but our government isn't doing it's job if it allows them to perpetrate criminal behavior. And when money is involved, there is going to be criminal behavior, if there isn't oversight. And there will be some even with oversight. When our government officials force fiscally insane practices on them, then those government officials need to go to jail. This 'get out of jail free' mentality when it comes to our Congressional members, is idiotic. Janet Reno, some of the Clinton administration, possibly even some of the Bush administration, some members of Congress, and perhaps even some banking or lending institution managers, should be considered for a room at Levenworth. What took place was very troubling all the way around. And I'm not convinced it isn't going to be continuing. The home bailouts of loans that should never have been floated in the first place are sheer loonacy. And reducing the payments on them for another five years, is how we got in this mess in the first place. Who the hell is minding the store folks? Even a layman can see severe problems with this.
I also have reservations when it comes to corporations. What hurts corporations impacts stockholders, employees, production, and ultimately the purchasing public.
What helps corporations is not always good, contrary to the mantra that I think C.O. might have been partially referring to. If Corporations pay less tax, someone else pays more. So, there is less disposable income to keep the economy going or for the little guy to start a small business. If that corporation simply uses the money to increase the salary of it's CEO, who did it help? Not the shareholder, not the economy, not production, etc.
I agree with your premise in the first half of the first sentence here. I've probably touched on this enough. If my comments above didn't make sense, I doubt they will here. I'll make a few comments, but I'll try not to be repetitive. Who ultimately pays corporate taxes? Corporate executives? You know who does. It isn't the corporation itself. You and I do when we buy their products, when we hold their shares, when we receive our dividends. Just a question here, so don't take it personal... how can you be upset about a corporate sallary equal to lets say $150 million, because it take money out of the economy, then support the idea a corporation should pay literally tens of billions more in taxes? The CEOs sallary does impact the corporation. I would submit it impacts the corporation in most instances positively. It can also impact it negatively. There are no guarantees in life.
There is a balance between them--the old swinging pendulum. Without seeing a detailed study as C.O. described I am inclined to defer my opinion on which side the pendulum is actually leaning. So am I.
Perhaps I'm too easy on corporations and lending institutions these days. I know that a man like Obama would love nothing more than to strip them bare to help the middle class (or poor). The problem is, the value of the middle-classes 401(k)s would tank. Corporate holdings of the insurance and investment industry would tank. Who would wind up taking it in the shorts? The very middle-class and poor people Obama would want to help. Slashing our corporations is a very bad idea. Is this a solid 100% rule to live by? I don't think so. Some corporate decisions have detramental affects on our nation, and I would like to see reasoned discussion on that.
Sadly, in this climate, there doesn't seem to be much reason in Congress.
Sorry this is so long. Don't feel that you have to address every bit of it. I will enjoy reading the response you do make. You and I can disagree and discuss issues, and I value that.