Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (111729)	2/24/2008 3:31:06 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

We have high deficits because of spending, not tax revenues.

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (111729)	2/24/2008 5:43:14 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

I've already mentioned property taxes. They are taxes on specific types of property (mostly real estate, but also cars and sometimes other forms of property). They aren't taxes on wealth (you don't pay them on having a million in the bank). i disagree they pay and equal share based on income. Wealthy people pay not just an equal share based on income, but well above an equal share. >>Actually they probably pay a more than equal share of income tax based on "their share of wealth" because many people pay no net income taxes.<< they don't. They probably do. OTOH I don't consider it that important. Its their wealth not the governments, and the government doesn't have any particular right to it. It already gets to tax their income. Fair is rather subjective here. It could mean you pay by the service you recieve, it could mean each person pays an equal share ($X from each person no matter what their wealth or income), it could mean an equal percentage of your income, it could mean an equal percentage of your income beyond a certain amount on which you don't get taxed, it could mean an equal percentage of your wealth, or an amount determined "by your ability to pay", you seem to be focused on the last two (or perhaps just the total wealth) there is a reason we have $9 TRILLION in debt 1 - Because we have a large economy and government, so that any deficits that aren't totally insignificant will reach very large numbers. Use the nominal dollar figure and we always have "record deficits". Use percentage of GDP and many countries have higher deficits and debt levels. 2 - Because the government spends too much. it is actually even worse... this will end in a depression and a war when it becomes clear we will never be able to pay off this level of debt and everyone takes their money and runs. The level of debt is less than one years GDP. Its hardly as unsustainable as you imagine. Negative? Sure, it probably is but $9tril, while an enormous figure in every day terms, is not an enormous figure as a percentage of our economy, or compared to the ability to pay the interest on debt. In other words its a negative thing or a problem, not a disaster. try buying 90% of a business and then paying only 80% of the expenses to run said business. you'd end up in court - and lose - so fast your head would spin. Maybe, but it also doesn't resemble the situation with our national debt. The government is paying 100% of the costs, its just borrowing 10% (or whatever the actual percent is). Businesses borrow money all the time. Borrowing too much (esp. when you don't get a good return) might not be prudent, but its not illegal or fraudulent. In this case the government itself doesn't get a return, the government for the most part isn't generating wealth, but rather living as a parasite off the rest of the economy. The parasite can slow the growth of its host, but as long as it doesn't take more than the host can endure, the host can continue to grow. The host gets a return on its investment, so it grows. As long as the government doesn't take so much (through taxes or borrowing) as to choke off the hosts growth than the debt is sustainable. >>You can argue that its "not paying your fair share" (whatever "your fair share" is supposed to mean),<< i defined it. you own 10% of america, paying at least 10% of the tax burden should be a minimum requirement. You defined your opinion of it. It isn't an opinion I share. More importantly whatever the morality or fairness of the situation, any attempt to impose a large tax increase on capital would reduce investment, and reduce wealth all the way around, not just for the very wealthy, so even if it is fair, it would be very foolish. it means someone else is subsidizing their portion of the government, as explained earlier through the business example. Your business example is a very poor analogy. Neither the rich nor the poor own the US government as an investment. They have a financial obligation to it, but only as a matter of law. The law says they owe X is taxes, then their obligation is to pay X in taxes. They have no moral obligation to pay beyond that, and arguably even no moral obligation to pay that much. The government is a separate entity from them, which has the power to impose costs on them. That doesn't mean that they morally owe any share of those costs. They owe it only as a matter of law, and as a practical matter. (The practical issue being that as long as the government doesn't go to far, paying for it is better than the alternative of anarchy, of course you can avoid anarchy, and even provide important public services at a far lower cost than what is paid for today's government.) the uber rich got significantly more purchasing power b/c some netted many millions in tax relief. the middle class likely lost purchasing power - EVEN AFTER THE "TAX CUTS". The middle class also increased its purchasing power and income. But even if they had lost both it wouldn't support your argument. If you and I where the only people around, and you doubled your wealth while I got poorer, that wouldn't mean I was subsidizing you. If a third person came around, and forced you to pay X, and me to pay 1/10th X, and then next year decided that you would only have to pay .7x while I would have to pay .09 (so you get a 30% cut, while I get a 10% cut) I still wouldn't be subsidizing you whether or not you have more wealth than me (or even a million times more wealth). It doesn't change anything when that third person is the government rather than an individual. And in fact in percentage terms the tax cuts for the wealthy were not greater than the tax cuts for other tax payers.