What policies could possibly improve our economy?

[shawmutt]

They should pay more because they can pay more with marginal impact on their lifestyles, and because it is the wealthiest who benefit most from the society at large. 33% is hardly a high tax rate for the top tier of income.

There's a fundamental difference between me and you. 1/3 of someone's income is a substantial amount no matter how you look at it. 33% is not for the top tier, it is for those with between 164,000 and 357,000 taxable income. Any higher than $357,000 pays 35%.

As for the question "Did they not earn that money?" it applies to everyone who pays taxes. Why take money from the poorer people who benefit least from the economy and the society?

The poorest pay little to nothing in income tax, and about 3% of the total. I disagree that the poorer benefit least. They use more government services, and give very little back, throughout their lifetimes. The lowest income works the fewest hours, receives the most in government assistance in the form of welfare, federal grants, etc. Essentially, the "richer" half pay for the "poorer" half.

I'm not arguing against a progressive tax, I do agree with it, but I also think there needs to be a point where enough is enough. I think the tax brackets and percentages leave something to be desired, but increasing them on the "rich" is foolish.

And as for your final assertion, it's essentially meaningless as it stands.

Perhaps you can provide examples where increased government revenue results in better economic policy. I can name two that haven't--welfare and social security.

[barts]

Quote by: shawmutt Perhaps you can provide examples where increased government revenue results in better economic policy. I can name two that haven't--welfare and social security.

It's not government revenue that results in better economic policy but rather the effects of revenue and expenditure.

The government funded infrastructure system from roads and transportation systems to a legal system that makes business possible makes for a better economy. It's government funded education system that makes an educated workforce possible. In fact, it's government expenditure that makes a sophisticated economy possible. Historically, it was government funding that made the populating of the American west possible.

It's quite myopic to suggest that governments raising revenue and making expenditures does not frequently make for better economic policy.

[shawmutt]

The government funded infrastructure system from roads and transportation systems to a legal system that makes business possible makes for a better economy. It's government funded education system that makes an educated workforce possible. In fact, it's government expenditure that makes a sophisticated economy possible. Historically, it was government funding that made the populating of the American west possible.

Yet our infrastructure is crumbling, including our schools. Our education system is a joke, and we are quickly falling behind the rest of the world. Government funded education? K-12 no longer produces any "educated workforce". "The rich" pay for college out of their pockets, the poor get grants and government assistance, paid for by who? What you consider "the rich". Myopic indeed.

[dixon]

Quote by: barts To help the American economy, 1. Raise taxes on wealthier Americans, those with more than $100,000 of taxable income. These are people in the top 5% of the American economy,

Top 5% make over $150,000 and currently pay about 60% of federal income tax

[Aussie]

Quote by: shawmutt There's a fundamental difference between me and you. 1/3 of someone's income is a substantial amount no matter how you look at it. 33% is not for the top tier, it is for those with between 164,000 and 357,000 taxable income. Any higher than $357,000 pays 35%.

Holy cr@p, i'm already paying that at $60 000pa in Australian dollars!!!

[ironeagle]

Quote by: nerdvincent Sorry, but this is a very irresponsible statement. You produce $300 worth of goods or services in a day, they give you $75 "to take care of your family", they put $225 clear in their pocket for "owning" the factory, thank you and see you tomorow for the same sh*t? And you just say you don't care of being given "just what is needed to be kept alive" instead of being given the integrity of what you produced (minus the cost of production and the potential investment)? You say that their un-earned money will benefit the whole? You prefer drinking water from the drain and swallow the occasional spitting of the capitalist instead of drinking it directly from the fountain? But you should care. Capitalists won't pee in your toilet.

That's right because it's their right to earn income on their business as long as they are paying fair wages that reflect the cost of living they have no responsibility to make other people rich on their businesses, sorry for those of you who are socialist and think companies should be "owned by the people" but if you want thta kind of success then open your own business.

Let me tell you something I have worked really hard on my Cosmetics business and am hoping to open a new boutique this upcomming year. Now why should I put $50,000 into it, risk the possible failure and loss, pay all the overhead, and in addition to a fair wage, why would I hand over 70% of my companies earnings to my employee, just because she sold an eye cream? Fair wage is one thing but if they want to earn partners wage then they need to pay partners overhead expenses, do partners work even if that means hours that don't bring in pay and hold the same responsibility and share product and business materials costs, otherwise they haven't earned it. My starting wage per hour will be $10.00/h plus commission, which is higher than most jobs here in my city, more than fair and generous with room to advance, if they want more then they can work as hard as I have and self fund their own company.

[shawmutt]

Quote by: Aussie Holy cr@p, i'm already paying that at $60 000pa in Australian dollars!!!

Yeah, but you get medical coverage for that. FWIW, that works out to about $89,000 here, and you'd be in the 28% bracket.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: ironeagle That's right because it's their right to earn income on their business as long as they are paying fair wages that reflect the cost of living.

It is their right because the laws says so, it's not necessarily "good sense". How do you define fair wages? I define it as the amount of services/goods produced without the capitalist taxation.

Quote by: ironeagle Let me tell you something I have worked really hard on my Cosmetics business and am hoping to open a new boutique this upcomming year. Now why should I put $50,000 into it, risk the possible failure and loss, pay all the overhead, and in addition to a fair wage, why would I hand over 70% of my companies earnings to my employee, just because she sold an eye cream?

You worked hard and you earned your money, I've got nothing against that. But tell me, what is the concrete value of "risk of failure and loss"? We do not need risky investment, we need to produce goods for the people, stability and social equity.
What about a society where you can have fair "wage" as I defined above for everybody, with no need of this gambling thing?

Quote by: ironeagle Fair wage is one thing but if they want to earn partners wage then they need to pay partners overhead expenses, do partners work even if that means hours that don't bring in pay and hold the same responsibility and share product and business materials costs, otherwise they haven't earned it.

Why do you embarass yourself with unpaid hours with the hope of having over-paid hours when you can have a pay reflecting the work done in the system I describe?

[barts]

Quote by: shawmutt Yet our infrastructure is crumbling, including our schools. Our education system is a joke, and we are quickly falling behind the rest of the world. Government funded education? K-12 no longer produces any "educated workforce". "The rich" pay for college out of their pockets, the poor get grants and government assistance, paid for by who? What you consider "the rich". Myopic indeed.

Clearly the United States' tax rate is too low, if you can't afford to run and maintain the basic infrastructure and services of the country.

[Derach]

Quote by: barts Clearly the United States' tax rate is too low, if you can't afford to run and maintain the basic infrastructure and services of the country.

As with any economic crisis, the solution is two fold. Bring in more revenue, and spend less of it. Most americans believe the solution to America's current crisis lies mostly with the latter. Americans don't trust what government has been doing with its revenue over the past 8 (20?) yrs ... so in their opinion, giving them more money isn't the answer. Forcing them to be accountable for their spending is.

[ironeagle]

That's rediculous the businesses do not set the taxes, and businesses can't sell product to customers at cost or they can't pay their employees or them selves, markup is the way business is done, if people have such a problem with that concept then they need to grow their own food, farm their own crops and weave their own wicker baskits, good luck making your own computer. Fair pay is equal to that of what the work is worth, the value of the sale and the necessary wage for an employee to earn a reasonable living.

By the way your dream of riskless business is just a fantasy every business has risk of failure, of downturn , low sales just as it has a chance of great sucess and popularity, If i stock my store with the necisary $10,000 in products and it bombs I'm out $10,000 at least not including other business overhead costs. I'll be darned if I'm going to sell those products for less than a total of $20,000. Businesses are not free services and goods providers for people who don't like to pay for their electronics, makeup, fast food, movies etc. They are places of business to earn money and pay employees, it seems to me you're just hating on these businesses for being richer than oyu and it makes you mad but yet you can have your own business if you work hard for one.

Do you know what's worse than a corporation who overcharges for a handbag? People who expect free amenities and luxuries for nothing while people are starving, at least the corporation pays famililes wages so they can feed their children nutritious meals. You act like these privledges are rights, well their not.

[shawmutt]

Quote by: barts Clearly the United States' tax rate is too low, if you can't afford to run and maintain the basic infrastructure and services of the country.

I disagree, given the dismal cost to benefit ratio of our military, our schools, and our healthcare, clearly the money the government gets is not well spent. Would you shovel money into a failing business and hope that takes care of everything?

[dixon]

Quote by: nerdvincent It is their right because the laws says so, it's not necessarily "good sense". How do you define fair wages? I define it as the amount of services/goods produced without the capitalist taxation.

"Capitalist taxation???? Is that what most of us would call profit?

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: dixon "Capitalist taxation???? Is that what most of us would call profit?

I guess so.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: ironeagle That's rediculous the businesses do not set the taxes.

My allusion to taxation was allegorical: you pick money from what the dude produced. That's why I laugh at republican who are against taxes which would (when the money is well spent, which is more than uncommon) benefit the whole, calling it stealing, when they fully support and even worship "capitalist taxation" which is the same but only for the benefit of the individual.

Quote by: ironeagle and businesses can't sell product to customers at cost or they can't pay their employees or them selves, markup is the way business is done.

I don't argue the way business is done, I argue the way business should be done. Also, where did I say we should sell at cost? I'm fully aware of the value added to a product by services.

Quote by: ironeagle if people have such a problem with that concept then they need to grow their own food, farm their own crops and weave their own wicker baskits, good luck making your own computer.

I'm all for subsitence farming, but this is more about personal taste than being an actual part of my theories.

Quote by: ironeagle Fair pay is equal to that of what the work is worth, the value of the sale and the necessary wage for an employee to earn a reasonable living.

Thank you. Only "what is worth" is an arbitrary concept in a capitalist society.

Quote by: ironeagle By the way your dream of riskless business is just a fantasy every business has risk of failure, of downturn , low sales just as it has a chance of great sucess and popularity.

Only in a planified economy a "falling" business do not involve "risk and failure" for the employees and employers, but reconversion to satisfy the needs of the people better.

Quote by: ironeagle Businesses are not free services and goods providers for people who don't like to pay for their electronics, makeup, fast food, movies etc.

Never said such thing.

Quote by: ironeagle They are places of business to earn money and pay employees, it seems to me you're just hating on these businesses for being richer than oyu and it makes you mad but yet you can have your own business if you work hard for one.

Absolutly, exept that I see it as a place to earn money to pay "employees" (a word which doesn't have the same meaning), considering yourself an employee in charge of administration and managing with a "wage" reflecting the work done.

Quote by: ironeagle Do you know what's worse than a corporation who overcharges for a handbag? People who expect free amenities and luxuries for nothing while people are starving, at least the corporation pays famililes wages so they can feed their children nutritious meals. You act like these privledges are rights, well their not.

I'm not expecting luxuries (nor am I interested in them), I'm urging hypocrite capitalist which buy those luxuries with the starving people's money to stop making profit out of them (through capitalist taxation). You blame me of advocating for crimes capitalist are doing right now in your face.
Also, and most of all, corporation do not pay families so they can feed their childrens: they give them a part of the money from the goods they produced and and eat with what they stole from them. The workers are feeding those parasites, not the contrary.

[grandpa]

Quote by: nerdvincent My allusion to taxation was allegorical: you pick money from what the dude produced. That's why I laugh at republican who are against taxes which would (when the money is well spent, which is more than uncommon) benefit the whole, calling it stealing, when they fully support and even worship "capitalist taxation" which is the same but only for the benefit of the individual.

I've often noted this myself. And it's not like Republicans have seen taxpayers' money well-spent, either.

Anyway,
"...another solution would be to institute rationing, abolish the banks and their unworkable debts, abolish mortgages, bring everything into social ownership, abolish the government and its machinery and set up the unions as a new type of government in which people will have their say via their 'real economy' work (i.e. worker councils)."
Political Affairs Magazine - The Capitalist Crisis and Credit (2008)

Grandpa h.

[Derach]

Quote by: nerdvincent My allusion to taxation was allegorical: you pick money from what the dude produced. That's why I laugh at republican who are against taxes which would (when the money is well spent, which is more than uncommon) benefit the whole, calling it stealing, when they fully support and even worship "capitalist taxation" which is the same but only for the benefit of the individual.

Your missing the element of competition in a genuinely free market that exists to temper greed. The government has no balancing force equivilant to competition. You can't start a competing police force and give people the option of paying their share of taxes to your private entity or paying it to the government. You can, however, start a competing private company and force greedy managment either to tighten their belts or go out of business when you operate more efficiently (maybe by operating with less profit). Like say you wanted to start manufacturing cars and you did it so efficiently that the major established manufacturers could no longer compete with you because they got greedy with corporate perks, paid huge bonuses to managment, agreed to irresponsible contractual obligations to labor unions, failed to be responsive to consumer demands ....

oh ... never mind

bad example.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: Derach oh ... never mind bad example.

Kind of.

[Jzyehoshua]

1. Eliminate free trade agreements.
2. Institute a sweeping tariff to tax imports by 90% of how much lower their home country's minimum wage is than our minimum wage.
3. End Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Return soldiers but create government jobs of some kind for their continued employment.
4. Cap home interest rates at 15%.
5. Set bailout conditions on companies that get or have been bailed out by the government capping CEO salaries to no more than 500 times the average worker's pay.
6. Disallow extension of loan time lengths during refinancing.

[barts]

Quote by: shawmutt I disagree, given the dismal cost to benefit ratio of our military, our schools, and our healthcare, clearly the money the government gets is not well spent. Would you shovel money into a failing business and hope that takes care of everything?

I believe I discussed--albeit very briefly--the military, schools, and health care in my original post. If the money, as you say is not well spent by government, then perhaps Americans are simply not competent enough to run a country or to elect a good government. Perhaps once the domestic resources have run out, and more jobs have been outsourced, America will simply decline into irrelevance because of this incompetency--the once prosperous American will be no more. If that's the case why bother improving the economy, if all that will do is delay the inevitable.

I think you make a good case that America is simply a big "failing business" and there's no point shoveling money into it.