Dollar Devaluation

There is no doubt that the nation has a structural problem with wealth distribution. There is also no doubt that almost all of the things done by both political parties will only create dependency, further concentrate wealth, and not fix the structural problem. And once folks realize that this is a political goal [of both parties], and not a policy failure, they will begin to understand 21st century politics. Neither Fox nor MSNBC will tell you this because you aren't supposed to understand it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The problem is that rich people have abilities few others do. And I'm not talking about the ability to buy Rembrandts, private islands and livers. I'm talking about the ability to enjoy the fruits of wealth while paying little to no tax.

The solution - roundly condemned by rich people as invasion of privacy - is global accounting of economic activity, and global action against corruption, double-dealing, fraud and theft.

 

This is a case of the cure being worse than the disease. The folks making the rules are the same as the folks you're trying to monitor. If anything has a less-than-zero chance of working, this is it. It always surprises me how quickly people are willing to give up their rights, and expect a good outcome from it.

 

Yeah, the US government is the only one who subjects its citizens to global taxation. Why should the US collect on income I earn in India, China, or Germany? They say they have that right. I would say as a solution that they US should only tax US income, and cut their spending to live within their budget. Spending cuts are the answer, not greater, more intrusive government control of your life.

 

I know that people with something to hide are among the quickest to complain about invasion of privacy.

I agree that we all have a right to privacy, but I don't agree that it includes the right to engage in economic crimes without consequence.

The law requires employers to tell the government who they pay and how much they pay them. It requires retailers to declare how much they sell, and to pay taxes on that amount, regardless of profit or loss. It requires citizens to declare their income, and pay taxes on it.

Why should so many people engaging in so much economic activity be required to declare it, while so many others are allowed to say nothing, and to claim their rights are endangered by expecting them to do otherwise?

 

This goes for governments as well as anyone else, wealthy or not.
And as a side note on what's "fair" with who pays what in taxes - [FONT=&quot]The upper of the upper pay a disproportionate share of that too, the Top 1% of earners = 37% of taxes paid, the next bracket 2-5% accounts for another 20%. So about 57% paid by the top 5%[/FONT]

 

Your reasoning has been used by tyrants throughout history to oppress the people -- only those with something to hide have a reason to resist oppression.

It has been a rule of law for a long time that governments can only tax economic activity that occurs within their borders. It is amazing to see someone from Texas, of all places, support unlimited power to investigate and tax people everywhere on everything -- and call it an economic crime if they resist.

What have we come to? But you entirely missed the point which is that the folks you are trusting to write and enforce the laws against the "economic criminals" are agents of the "economic criminals." So who do you think they will squeeze? You or their bosses? Think twice before giving them this power.

 

For comparison, the top 1% of earners earn 20% of the total income, and the top 5% earn about 35%. In concrete terms, using 2008 numbers, a person earning $160K paid on average some $32K in income tax, while a person earning $33K paid on average $4.5K.

I can't speak for anyone else, but 10% of what I earned as a graduate student seemed like a much greater burden than 20% of what I earn now. (Not that I've made it into those rarefied brackets.) Remember, those on the high end of the scale may pay a "disproportionate" amount of tax, but those on the low end have to pay a "disproportionate" amount to cover food and shelter.

 

Why does it seem that everyone believes that the "rich" pay 'little to no tax'? I do not believe that is true. And also, I am curious as to why it seems 'rich' people have such a bad name; at least that's what I'm picking up here: "The solution - roundly condemned by rich people as invasion of privacy - is global accounting of economic activity, and global action against corruption, double-dealing, fraud and theft."

Lucy

 

not including the 49% or so that pay 'zero' income tax...right?

 

Yes, this gets my goat. Everyone should have to pay some income tax ... even if it's just $100.
The fact that 1/2 the population of the U.S. gets a free pass just isnt right.

I think I pay 50% of my salary in federal, state, local, social security, medicare, and property taxes.
I feel like I am taxed to death and subsidize all those freeloaders.

Everyone should have a vested interest in our government and tax system.
​

 

Couldn't say. The source I used (http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html) doesn't break out the bottom 50%, which in 2008 earned 12.75% of total income and paid 2.7% of total income tax. If you did drop the tax rate for that entire cohort to 0, though, it would only cost you 2.7% of total revenue. Conversely, sharply increasing their tax (to make it "proportionate"), while it might devastate their finances, would make only a trivial dent in the nation's budget.

 

Like Cloud said, "economic crimes" is defined by the very governments that are overspending to begin with. I am on salary Texas John, and have all of my income reported. I agree with your wrath of people who underreport income in the US to escape their share of taxes, but I believe your descendants would rue the day you allowed to happen. Government never shrinks, it never gives back civil liberties unless by revolution.

The solution to all problems in government is never too few taxes, it is always too much spending.

 

agreed - that's why, IMO, any increase does NOT go where (the excuses used) say it will...

 

The largest problems that seem to be mentioned so far are the legislature lawmakers and enforcers. The only solutions seems to be the same unfortunately. But they aren't like weeds that pop up after a rain, they are elected by the populace ( Us). Why are some re-elected in states time after time, even though they are the worse offenders? Because often they are the Kings/Queens of Earmarks, money designated for their state electorate, and as long as their areas sees the money for fleecing projects, they will continue to be re-elected. I know that this dates many of us, but the phrase from Pogo is accurate. "We have met the enemy and they are us". we have no one to blame but ourselves collectively. IMO.

Jim

 

"Fair" is what you are required by law to pay. People who work for a living have little means to do otherwise, because their employers report their income to the government, and deduct tax payments from their wages.

People who are "self-employed" report what they will to the government, which means in reality they report as little as they think they can without provoking an audit.

Rich people have all the tools of a self-employed person, plus the services of professionals schooled in the art of tax avoidance.

Corporations have all the tools of rich people, plus the legal fiction they themselves are persons.

Transnational corporations have all the advantages of the above, plus the legal fiction they themselves are multiple persons.

Really rich people have all the advantages of the above.

 

Please don't paint everyone with the same broad brush..for there is also a matter of personal integrity. This discussion imho has gone far from it's original topic, dollar devaluation. Since it has, I feel justified in commenting. As there are honest "poor" people, there are also honest "rich" people, as well as honest companies and dishonest companies. Many of the statements I'm reading sound a lot like sour grapes to me.

Just my opinion ,
Lucy

 

Although the responsibility ultimately resides with the voters, as you indicate, there is almost no chance of changing things via the ballot. Both political parties are in agreement on every major policy decision. The only choice is whether to pay for ever higher spending via more taxes or via more deficits. And it is nearly impossible for any third party candidate to run a credible campaign with ballot access, fundraising and media coverage the way it is. Many people continue to believe this can be changed by voting when the reality is that candidates of both parties are bought and paid for long before their names are allowed to appear on the ballot. I have no suggestions on how to change the situation.

 

I accused nobody of crime. Tax avoidance is legal, tax evasion is not.

The difference is that most rich people have the tools to engage in legal tax avoidance, while most non-rich people do not.

BTW, "Many of the statements I'm reading sound a lot like sour grapes to me" is the wrong metaphor. Sour grapes are fruits you are unable to acquire, so you disparage them. What you probably meant was "Many of the statements I'm reading look bright green (with envy) to me" or something to that effect.

Being rich, or a sycophant of those who are, is no excuse for ignorance.

Just my opinion,

John

 

I am sorry if you took my post to say that you may have accused anyone of a crime. I must have worded it incorrectly, for my point is to say that I am seeing a lot of negative statements about the "rich" folks. Many people resent the rich; it is a fact I am well aware of. Sycophant is a big word and will probably have a lot of readers checking the definition -- I did have to look that one up, so perhaps I AM ignorant. But, sycophant, no. Not me. Must be something else.

By the way, here is the Wikipedia definition of sour grapes: "The phrase sour grapes is an expression originating from "The Fox and the Grapes," one of Aesop's Fables . It refers to envious behaviour, especially pretending to not care for something one does not or cannot have, a condition called cognitive dissonance. " And that is what I meant. Perhaps that is saying the same as your suggestion, "..bright green (with envy), though I have never heard that as a metaphor.

I am at this moment not quite sure what your statement "Being rich, or a sycophant of those who are, is no excuse for ignorance" is for.

Lucy