151–160 of 358 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This would hit people with savings in cash (or bonds), i.e. the middle class. The rich tend to have assets (or foreign holdings) which should be largely inflation-proof.
..and old people on fixed income.
So, inflating out of the problem won't help here.
My bad idea: Taxes and number of votes both increase on how "gifted" you are - smarter people would therefore have more say in the government, and have more incentive to make it more efficient and do it's job better. I have no clue how to measure or implement this.
Not to criticize but I think you missed his point. The way I read it the point of the article is this... We can't force the rich to pay more because they always find a way out of it. We know this because there were days when upper tax rates were 90% but tax revenue was roughly the same because the rich can lobby for loop holes and pay people to exploit those loop holes. The rich will find a way to keep from paying to…
The best ideas in this framework would use sliding rewards. But they will never happen. Take the HOV lane idea. Giving the top 1% access to HOV lanes is political suicide. But awarding hours for a special fast lane, linked to the infrastructure-based taxes you pay, sounds fairer. The family of 4 making $60K a year gets a few hours they can use when they need them, tax-exempt employees get nothing, and a CEO gets more…
The HOV-lane idea starts out in the wrong place. If you want to raise money from apportioning a scarce resource (in this case space on the road), you use prices, not taxes. Congestion charges have become very popular and successful in London—it's too bad Bloomberg's attempt to install them in New York failed.
Popular and successful with who, exactly? I don't know a single person that likes it. Traffic was reduced for a few years but now it's just as bad as ever. And the cost of public transport continually rises above inflation. At least they recently shrank the chargable area.
So what has it done, exactly, except raise income for the city and raise prices for businesses on the border and those who need vehicles to function?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US certainly pays out fewer of the sort of benefits we would call "welfare" (unemployment, food stamps, EITCs, etc.) than most nations in the Western world. Our pension systems are as generous as anyone's though, particularly Medicare. That is the real source of the trouble.
Medicare is for health coverage, and most countries give this to everyone, all the time, for nominal cost. Unless I'm missing something here. Although, US public per capita health expenditure is about equal to other countries. It just happens that they get far far less for what they pay. [1] [1] http://www.oecd.org/document/39/0,3746,en_2649_34111_3615779... - see health chart
Scott Adams is just talking about moving towards a visible aristocracy. These are the first baby steps. Soon the rich will have special privileges just like the old days.
Aristocracy is different from this. Generally, aristocracy is both hereditary and disconnected from actual wealth. In the UK, JK Rowling, even though she is richer than the Queen, is not an aristocrat. She is, in fact, upper middle class. Someone who's born into the aristocracy, even if they're not especially wealthy, is an aristocrat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is pretty disingenuous. I've held low-wage jobs, and so have most of the members of my immediate family, and taxes took a serious bite out our paychecks. You are referring to the federal income tax, as many people do in debates like this, but lower-middle class people pay a much greater percentage of their income in payroll taxes than do wealthy people; the "income tax" debate is misleading.
A person making $20,000 pays the same US federal payroll tax rate as a person making $100,000 (7.65% in 2010, 5.65% in 2011). This tax pays for Social Security and Medicare (retirement income and retirment healthcare). Federal income tax pays for most of everything else: national defense, public safety, infrastructure, education. In 2009, 47% of US households paid zero federal income tax. We are close to the point wh…
Second, payroll taxes are capped; you stop paying them after ~100k.
Third, your overall point is bankrupt. Regardless of what particular bucket of money their taxes are paid into, working people at all income levels are stung by our tax rates, which are in turn lower than virtually every other western industrialized nation. It is simply not the case that the working class has no skin in the game.
I think the best solution would be to get rid of income taxes and just have sales and property taxes. Taxing the rich a higher rate is always going to seem unfair to them because the only way those taxes can be lessened is by making less money. Taxing $2 million house at a special rate is a different story, it seems fair because if you don't want to pay the tax you live in a more modest house. Luxury cars, fur coats,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regardless of why he said it, it's the stated premise. Anything else is you making assumptions and accusations .
Scott Adams is at the very least making the assumption that the rich need some sort of appeasement. The specific ideas he mentions aren’t really relevant to this central point.
“The rich guys don’t want to pay the tax,” Gates père said on 60 Minutes Sunday night. “They’re defensive. I guess you could call it greed, I suppose. Wanting to not write another check, sure.”"
- http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/11/03/why-washingtons-tax-o...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Medicare is for health coverage, and most countries give this to everyone, all the time, for nominal cost. Unless I'm missing something here. Although, US public per capita health expenditure is about equal to other countries. It just happens that they get far far less for what they pay. [1] [1] http://www.oecd.org/document/39/0,3746,en_2649_34111_3615779... - see health chart
[deleted]