A truly fair (and the only nonprogressive) system of taxation is not the flat tax, where the wealthy still pay much more than the poor, but a really flat tax

It's called a poll tax - a set amount per head.

This is the source of the Latin phrase "per capita".

Judaism instituted tithes - a percentage of net income. But that is not merely taxation, but also religious/moral development. A poll tax would not have the same personal impact on a rich citizen, and therefore not carry the same moral/spiritual lesson.

But secular taxation - to cover communal services - yeah, why should rich people pay more? And why shouldn't everyone have to pay something?

I think everyone should pay an equal percentage of income regardless of income level. The guy making $1000 should pay the same percent as the guy making $10,000. I don't think it's the slightest bit fair or reasonable for people to pay no taxes at all, especially such a large percentage of the population.

"Our nation was founded on the principle of "no taxation without representation." "

The obvious answer is that they have more "representation" justifying the extra "taxation."

Why not call the rich people lord and ladies while you're at it?

Personally I'd be fine with this form of taxation coupled with REALLY REALLY LARGE inheritance taxes. That way if you work hard and make lots of money great! Good on you.

If on the other hand your parents make lots of money and you lounge about all day doing nothing well screw you.

Just my two British pennys worth here.

"Thanks to Barack Obama, half of Americans currently pay no Federal income tax."

This is FALSE.

Congress, not the President, sets national tax policy and has 100% of the Constitutional duty to administer the budget.

There are plenty of reasons to loathe any particular President. But, just as Zaphod Beeblebrox before and after him, the President is a figurehead useful for distracting notice from the real seat of power.

-----

If you have a tendency to drone on about rich vs. poor, keep in mind that the rich don't have money because they inherit it - it's because they know what it is and how to use it. An inheritance tax never touched the Kennedys. Bleating about unfairness, or "the rich!" generally leads to measures that the real money people laugh at - while you make it harder on yourself!

"No representation without taxation" - an excellent idea, but it is much too late.

There is an old science fiction novel, I think it was by Jerry Pournelle, where the USA had segregated into "citizens" and "taxpayers". The "citizens" demanded free housing, food, drugs and entertainment - they were proud of being uneducated and never working at real jobs. Their privileges were paid for by the dwindling middle class "taxpayers", because if they were not, the "citizens" would riot.

Sadly, this fiction from decades ago is well on the way to becoming reality.

"If on the other hand your parents make lots of money and you lounge about all day doing nothing well screw you."

I hardly think that's what the majority of the wealthy do...Japan has an tax system like Britain, you can be taxed up to 55% of your income, and inheritance tax is steep. However, it doesn't affect the super-rich as much as it affects people like us, who've worked hard, have a nice home and would like to leave it to our son and his wife. With the Japanese tax structure as it is, he'd probably have to sell it to pay the inheritance taxes...lots of people become homeless this way in Japan, as extended families often live together.

Anyone here who built a house 30-40 years ago has seen the value of their land appreciate, and that's where they've got you...'Okay, you pay $250,000 inheritance tax'.

When someone inherits money and lies around all day, tell me, how does it affect you?

I would support a flat tax...if I thought the rich could be divested of their tax shelters. But since they can't, I won't.

*cough* The only Fair Tax is a consumption tax. The more you consume, the more you pay.

And who consumes the most?

To imply that the poor and wealthy benefit equally from our hybrid-capitalist system is just nonsense! To further imply that a vote is equal to the political influence of campaign contributions is even worse. It was the intent of the Founders that 'Government' be funded by the tariffs placed on the exchange of goods/ services and the taxes placed on the ownership of property. After considering the history of other societies, the Founders had good reason for choosing this method. The wealthy=Powerful were designated to pay more (originally intended to be 100%) because the obviously have the influence over the laws that get passed (ie. lobbyist). Wages and salary were not the same as income when the Constitution was written. I am not in favor of redistribution or socialism at all!!!!!! The only thing that is truly fair is to only tax consumption.....you pay the tax when you buy the goods or services. Anything less and we are back to 'force & fraud'. To argue that powerless people are somehow destroying our economy is like arguing that 'a bank went out of business because of the errors the tellers make'. May sound good in 'a moment' but it's just too thin. Change that doesn't affect the people at the top, is no change at all!

I'm sympathetic to flat tax arguments, but Kanazawa's ideas are silly and ill informed. Taxes aren't fees paid to live in a country, and as Ben David has pointed out, his idea for a 'really' flat tax is already well established.

The thing is, even people who don't pay income taxes, pay taxes. Taxes are implicated in every commercial transaction, which is why sales and corporate taxes tend to be regressive.

Actually, thank the Nixon administration for the whole Earned Income Tax Credit. Who could have predicted a rebate on taxes never paid, and letting the majority pay nothing would morph into a nation killer?

Besides Jefferson, anyway.

Nuke all corporate taxes. Corporations don't pay taxes anyhow, consumers do, and "corporate taxes" are a way to hide the true cost of government with an attractive class warfare mask.

Nuke all federal income taxes. Individuals shouldn't be dealing with the federal government for most things anyhow.

And anyone not paying net taxes can't vote. So if you derive all your sustenance from government grants, you don't get to vote since you don't have a positive contribution to society. Want your voice heard? Get off the dole.

My idea (in overly simplistic form) is to take the budget (the REAL budget of EVERYTHING spent at the federal level) and divide it by the GDP (or whatever would make a good approximation of consumption) and that becomes the new consumption tax rate paid by everyone.

I also think the calculations for all this should be worked out and published a month before elections so that there can be appropriate feedback in the system.

To talk about tax fairness while only mentioning the federal income tax is absurd. Most government taxes (social security, sales, property, etc.) are regressive (e.g. the poor pay a high percentage than the rich.) State income taxes tend to be flat once you hit a relatively low income. All government fees are regressive.

To discuss the tax structure in a credible manner, all taxes must be taken into account, not just the one that suit your agenda.

And anyone not paying net taxes can't vote. So if you derive all your sustenance from government grants, you don't get to vote since you don't have a positive contribution to society. Want your voice heard? Get off the dole.

I heart brian.

The wealthy should pay more in taxes, because the govt is providing security to protect more valuable asserts. The more valuable the asset, the more it costs to secure / insure it.

The wealthy should pay more in taxes, because the govt is providing security to protect more valuable asserts. The more valuable the asset, the more it costs to secure / insure it.

The Supreme Court disagrees.

Next!

What Kanazawa is really arguing for is a use tax. You pay for the government services that you use in proportion to the amount that you use. In this case the income tax would be abolished and replaced with some sort of assessment on usage of roads, parks, etc. I suppose that defense and other common services could be billed to everyone at the same rate.

Unfortunately, this would be extremely difficult to administrate making it costly and ultimately unfair. It would be much easier/cheaper to just have the flat tax. Then we can eliminate the IRS and contract out the administration services to a private firm.

"The wealthy should pay more in taxes, because the govt is providing security to protect more valuable asserts [sic]"

Government defense doesn't provide personal protection. Besides, taxes go towards more than just defense. Why should the wealthy pay more taxes for farm subsidies or other types of welfare that they make no use of?

Taxing people is a tricky business. Here recently our "representatives" voted to run up more debt, and keep tax rates low. In effect, they passed the buck to the next congress.

One cannot tax corporations. They just raise the prices of their goods, and continue to give their executives more pay than they are worth. In my opinion, Articles of Incorporation are a bad thing. I believe we need to get rid of central banks, and return corporations to their original temporary status. Corporate irresponsibilty stems from the fact that they are simply fined at the corporate level when they make decisions that kill people. If they had to operate as individuals, they'd lose their cars, houses and maybe have to go to jail when they shipped out tainted peanut butter, or irresponsibly drill for oil and make a catastrophy.

So many people are irate with welfare/dole citizens. When they talk about them you can literally watch their ire get up. I would pay money to be able to see a thermometer style readout of their cortisol levels. But talk them about a CEO making 10,000,000 a year and "earning" another 50,000,000 in bonuses, regardless of whether the company made a profit, and they just shrug and give you some cockamamy story about how they "have a job" and are "earning their way".

I'd like to propose that no one is worth $10,000,000 a year. There is nothing that any one person can do to warrant a paycheck that ammounts to 400 poverty level wage earners. What can one man do in a suit, talking and signing papers that is as usefull as 300 garbage men? or 200 auto workers? Nothing. These people live so high on the hog, they should be PROUD to pay taxes.

The "Tax break for the rich" that everyone was so up in arms, either against or for, would have ammounted to something like 4.9% of any income over $250,000. So at a half million income you'd have to pay $12K or so more in taxes (Thats roughly equal to a minimum wage job 35hrs a week for a year), and if you earned a million you'd have to pay an additional $49,000 in taxes.

I put it out there, and I'm one of those people who earn under 40k so my opinion doesn't count, but anyone who can take home a million, should be honored to kick in the extra 50K... after all, if it weren't for our Capitalsm, they wouldn't be earning that million, they'd be just another poor sucker.

I found it interesting, that there isn't a single member of the House or Senate that fell into the "tax bracket for the poor"... raise your hand if your surprised the "tax bracket for the rich" got protected, when all those voting on it are in it.

I appreciate you pointing out that you make less than $40k a year, Tank. What if I think there is nothing you can do that's worth $40k a year, and decide to take some? Would that be fair? Why is it okay to confiscate other's property, but not your own-whether or not you think they "deserve" it? Why do you think you get to decide what others can and can't make? Do you want someone else having that power over you?

Start a business in your garage, tank. Work hard and grow it. Make a few million, and then walk into a bar and hand some drunk $50k because he has less than you and you don't deserve what you've made.

@Simon Proctor.

Sigh.

You've fallen into a trap that a lot of liberals do when it comes to the inheritance tax.

Let's begin with the fact that the money has been taxed already. When Dad made a million dollars, he paid the IRS on that million. And please don't whine about how the rich have tax shelters and never pay taxes. The top 5% of wealth earners in the US account for 53% of all income taxes paid to the government. So the government thinks it can double dip simply because Dad died?

Second, you're assuming that the only people who are affected by the inheritance tax are people like Paris Hilton. The fact is that the inheritance tax affects many small businesses, and farmers.

Let's take my cousin who owns a cattle ranch in Montana. He has his land, his cattle herd, and his farm eqiupment. He's got precious little actual cash on hand. But if he dies tomorrow, his three kids get taxed on what is in his bank account, PLUS the land, the cattle and the machinery. Which in all will add up to what I am sure is over a million dollars. So now his kids either have to find a way to pony up $450,000 in taxes, or sell the ranch and everything on it. And these kids didn't "lounge about doing nothing". They WORKED. But hey, Uncle Sam has to have his.

Or how about Eugene Sukup, founder of Sukup Manufacturing Co. in Sheffield, Iowa? The 80-year-old started his grain bin manufacturing company 46 years ago and plans to pass the business down to his two sons. But, Sukup says if he and his wife died tomorrow, his sons would get a tax bill for $15 to $20 million, which would force them to sell off the business to pay the tax.

Are there lazy, good for nothing, slugs that have been fortunate to be born into wealthy families that provide cash for them to slack off? Yes. Well, suck it. Life ain't fair. I don't think it's fair that Bar Rafaeli gets paid $15k a day to throw on a bikini and stand in front of a camera, simply because she had the luck to be born to parents with right genes that allowed her to be beautiful. But again, life ain't fair.

Not being sarcastic/obnoxious, but genuinely curious about this issue and unable to find much credible info on the echo chamber of the interwebs:

Where are the numbers that UW Girl cites coming from (about a farm worth about a million costing $450,000 in estate taxes)?

From my understanding (or lackthereof?) it would seem that the cousin's farm would have to be worth more than $6 million for the $450,000 estate tax to apply ($5 million exemption + approximately $1.3 million at a 35% tax rate).

Also: there are special rules for businesses owned by the family that the kids intend to keep going after mom and pop die. Including a sizeable deduction based on the descendant's value in a business. I imagine that a lot of farms (that the kids intend to keep) would qualify.

Not saying I agree there *should* be an estate tax on family businesses...just trying to understand it.

In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/entitlement-america-head-household-making-minimum-wage-has-more-disposable-income-family-mak

This is what it has come to: Moochers and Producers, with the Producers slave-laboring for the Moochers.

Nice!

Here's one view of the problem. Many of the rich make their money on the backs of the non-rich. For example, who is fighting our wars, so that the rich have the freedom to continue increasing their wealth? It's largely people from working class families. I would support an immediate 10 to 20% tax surcharge on people of a certain income, say over $500,000 whenever we send troops into battle. Why? because rich people are making these decisions and they are taking none of the life and death risks. It will make them think twice about making these kinds of decisions. To say that rich people don't benefit more than poor people when we go to war is just unbelievably short sighted.

Just my two British pennys worth here.

Posted by: Simon Proctor at January 6, 2011 2:16 AM

Pulled that two pence out of yer bum eh? I always love it when people bring up the, "they'll keep power by inheriting all that money!" argument.

Fun fact, this year is the first in 50 or so years that a Kennedy is NOT serving in the US Congress. So how is that death tax working out on keeping down the entitled "nobility"? Rockefellers are still around too. Bill Gates in Washington State along with his lawyer daddy wanted to raise income taxes on the rich making more than 125-250k per year. He was willing to sacrifice his wealth to support a bankrupt government. Of course he's already made much of his fortune, protected it and gives away to all kinds of charities. Thats his choice, but somehow we should mandate that for everyone?

God, i look at the wikipedia page of bar rafeali (mentioned by sofar) by curiosity. And here is the best part:

Her relationship with DiCaprio caused one nationalist Israeli organization to send her a letter, later leaked to the press, in which she was asked, for the sake of "future generations of Jews", not to marry a "non-Jew"

For more serious discussion: I am 100% with obee. Plus who is benefiting the most of the infra-structures that allow to make business? you know this inter-state highway paid by federal money to transport goods....

Not to pile on Simon but the desire to work for the betterment of your children's lives is really a positive incentive.

I just want simple tax schemes. I would like to be able to take a Xanax and then see the total bill.

The hypothetical demand that everyone pay $10,000 in taxes fails because not everyone has $10,000 to pay. For someone making $30,000 a year, that is 1/3 of his income. He can't afford it.

Tank you are a moron.

A CEO for a major company has hundreds or thousands of jobs to consider, deals with other companies worth billions of dollars, and negotiates deals that are worth more than the gross national products of many nations you could name. They head companies that develop drugs that save lives or software that creates millions of jobs.

The CEO that succeeds at this job is worth whatever salary he can demand. And quite frankly, it isn't any of YOUR business, because it isn't YOUR MONEY that they're getting paid.

Is what Tiger Woods does worth hundreds of millions of dollars? On a practical level no. But millions of people are willing to buy products he endorses, and pay huge sums to go see him play the game. So his value is set by the value people place upon him.

Nobody is paying to watch garbage men work. It takes no education and no skill, if those 300 garbage men died tomorrow, 300 more could be found before their corpses stiffened. The work they do is necessary, but that does not decide its commercial value. The available labor pool of people able and willing to perform that task does.

And if it is so goddamned easy to be a rich CEO, why haven't you done it and retired already?

Nobody is "honored" to pay taxes, because paying taxes SUCKS.

---------------------

Obee I strongly disagree with you on the surcharge to high earners to pay for war. I WOULD agree with a war profits tax (a tax on companies that profit from war, to reduce the incentive to lobby for war, which I might add was a huge factor prior to WWI).

Taxing individual income makes no sense, every person with high income does not have a hand in politics, let alone an interest in sending people into fighting. Frankly I find the very idea of forcing people to pay a kind of "guilt tax" for a war they might have personally opposed, horrifying. What do we do next, levy a tax on people who do support a war and give a tax exemption to people who oppose it? That would be a form of speech oppression AND prevent people from supporting what they themselves to be right.

----------------------

And nico, the wealthy benefit enormously from the interstate highway system for the advantages of commerce. However your argument that they have a greater benefit than everyone else is just halfassed. Who really benefits? I'll tell you, the end user and consumer. The mass transit of goods means you can buy fresh fruit out of season, it means you have cheap meat and vegetables year round, it means you have ten thousand different choices of clothing purchases, instead of just the ones produced locally, it even means that the dumpster diving bum can eat easily from tossed perfectly good food because the tosser knows their next shipment will arrive soon and the bulk sales will keep the cost low.

Sorry, but while they make money, we save money AND have a vastly improved quality of life. You are one hundred percent WRONG.

And by the way, that federal money that paid for the fucking roads...where do you think it came from? The fucking taxes that rich guy already paid, since you didn't pay for squat.
---------------------

Tank Taylor, you're an idiot.

Not because of what you've posted, but because of what it shows you don't know about money.

Everybody think about this:

What makes you think that making it harder to be "rich" will make it easier for you?

Those guys already have $$ because they understand how to make money in competition with other market forces.

You don't.

And it shows!

"The wealthy should pay more in taxes, because the govt is providing security to protect more valuable asserts."

I get up to $100,000 dollars per bank account protected, just like you. One account per account holder per bank. I don't see any special security in place for someone like my husband who has more than $100,000 in assets, if it exists, I'd like to know about it.

"Let's begin with the fact that the money has been taxed already."

Exactly. I doubt anyone on here would agree to their income being taxed twice by the federal government, but are all for it when it's about' the rich'.

"Here's one view of the problem. Many of the rich make their money on the backs of the non-rich. For example, who is fighting our wars, so that the rich have the freedom to continue increasing their wealth?"

What percentage of the rich is that, the few that profit from war? Do you really think WWII was about giving 'the rich the freedom to continue increasing their wealth'?

What can one man do in a suit, talking and signing papers that is as usefull as 300 garbage men? or 200 auto workers? Nothing.

Tank, no one invests in a company or loans a company money because Bob is manning the phones at the call center in Stumblebum, Idaho or because Shirley is working the drill press at the factory in Dirtwater, Tennessee.

However, if the CEO is a respected business person with a solid plan to make or keep the company profitable, banks and investors are willing to risk money with the company; other companies are willing to partner with the company; and people are willing to buy the company's products, confident the company will be around for a while. A good CEO that can bring in investors and business partners and customers can be worth millions of dollars to a company.

And that's worth a great deal more than 300 garbage men or 200 auto workers.

Look at how Apple's then-declining fortunes picked up when it was announced that Steve Jobs was returning. With his return, investors were willing to put money in the company, the stock price increased, new products began rolling out, and, thanks to all that, the people who work for Apple still have jobs (and Jobs).

Lee Iaccoca managed to keep Chrysler afloat for years ... almost by sheer force of personality alone.

"It's largely people from working class families."

Last I checked we had a volunteer fighting force. For the poor who join, they get some neat perks they otherwise probably wouldn't get. My husband came from a piss-poor family, joined, and got his education and job training paid for WHILE he got paid to take it, and a sweet deal on a mortgage once we were ready to buy a house well after he was out. Not to mention plenty of rich(er) people have kids in the forces, or served themselves when young. My dad's rich, he was a marine in Vietnam. So your notion that "the rich" (as nebulous as that distinction is) profit from war while the poor get shat on from it is simply absurd.

Why should the wealthy pay more taxes for farm subsidies or other types of welfare that they make no use of?

Why should their be farm subsidies? Or daycare subsidies? Or WIC? Especially at the federal level.

If I am a farmer -- my farm should be able to survive from my wise choice of crops or live stock, my work, and my ability to sell my produce on the open market.

Also: there are special rules for businesses owned by the family that the kids intend to keep going after mom and pop die. Including a sizeable deduction based on the descendant's value in a business. I imagine that a lot of farms (that the kids intend to keep) would qualify.

The "special rules for businesses" is the key phrase in that statement. For example mom and pop own the farm and then the kids go off and become doctors and lawyers and such. Only one becomes a hayseed cowboy and buys his own farm. They other kids never paid keen interest in the farm that they consider a homestead. So mom and pa on the way to town get killed in an accident. Ma and pa were a sole proprietorship. (Inheritance automatically goes to spouse -- unless a will says otherwise.)

The only way that the kids can get the farm without paying inheritance taxes is if dad takes the time to form an LLC, S-Corp or fully incorporates and makes the kids minority shareholders with a will that splits pa's shares to ma then to the kids as he wants to.

The same examples apply to any family owned business from the butcher, baker or candlestick maker.

That takes us back to the first part about farm subsidies. Everyone complains about farm subsidies to corporations. That same corporation that owns 1/8 of the Nebraska farmland can sometimes be the seventh generation of families that have owned the property for the whole time.

One more thing about military service...

We read about sad sacks like Gore, Bush or Kerry trying not to disgrace themselves, but a fair number of well-off families have an honorable discharge as a condition to qualify for a trust.

Shortly after I reported to USS Madison, an MM1 was driven to the airport by the Corpman. He'd served his time and was going home to Connecticut. The Corpsman came back shaking his head. "I knew he was catching a plane, but I didn't think it would have his name on it!"

Radwaste, did you just make that up? Please give cite for your claim that "a fair number" of well-off families make military service a condition of the family trust. I know a lot of trust-fund babies and I don't know one that served.

Satoshi Kanazawa's essay is, bar none, the dumbest shit I've ever heard since I stopped watching Fox News.

I don't even know where to begin and don't have the energy to go line by line.

But, consider this; I used to be in the bracket that didn't pay any taxes. I was "on the dole" while using Pell grants to better myself, using food stamps while serving my country in the military, and using WIC to make sure that my three children grew up to be strong.

Thanks to these "socialist" programs, I am now able to pay plenty of taxes due to my very good income. I am proud to do so because I love my country.

None of my family starved to death without a home in the wealthiest nation on Earth. My oldest son is a good, strong, milk drinking boy who tomorrow will graduate from the United States Marine Corps boot camp. He too will spend a lot of time below the poverty line with all the "dredges of society" who won't be paying taxes. He can't wait to deploy. No, really, you don't understand ... he can't wait to deploy. That's what we do. When that's all over, he'll use his government provided training and government paid for education and redistributed wealth to make plenty of his own wealth to pay for your roads.

Aside from all the dumb shit in this essay that is completely divorced from facts, my point is that wealthy Americans should quit whining and pitch in. My family will.

Whistledick everything you said is fine and dandy except...the rich ALREADY ARE PITCHING IN.

They pay over half the total income tax of the nation. How much more should they pitch in???

Robert, I know that the rich are already pitching in. I just wish that they would quit being so fucking whiny about it.

How much more? I don't know, 3% more taxes seems reasonable. That's what the rich were paying in the Clinton era and that didn't seem to stifle the economy at all. C'mon man, we have very low taxes for what we get.

Robert,

The fucking taxes that rich guy already paid, since you didn't pay for squat.

If you want to pay me back for all the taxes I paid in this country, fell free, but I doubt you can sign this kind of check that easy (I did well these last years, upon my own standard, and yet was happy to pay my taxes).

I didn't wanted to elaborate, but since I am here, let's try to answer some question:

1) what is the meaning of a society?
2) what the society should secure around you?
3) who benefit the most of the presence of a society?

A society is a place where some persons decided to live together with a common set of rules, in order to have the stability to go with their lives, and to perform business.

I think that a state should offer at minimum: security (police + military), justice, education, infrastructure (road/train/airport).
I also naively believe that it should also provide a minimum elder care, and health care (but let's keep this aside anyway).

Now, every citizen enjoy the benefit of a functioning state, but which CEO could make apple working if let say there is little police in a country? Or what would be the point to have your factory in a place which is not connected by reliable transportation? Or in a place where the workforce is so uneducated that you can only produce potatoes with it? The states benefit both part, but the guy that reap up the most are the top player, so it is normal that they pay more taxes than the guy packing the meat. Plus if you hope to build a highway with the taxes from the meat-packers, you gonna have to wait some times.

I don't mind paying more than poor people in taxes myself. My standard of living is perfectly good for me and my family. If we start earning more money, yeah, we'll be taxed more but we'll still have more money than we do now.

The question isn't so much why do rich people pay more... but why do poor people pay less. Because we don't want them to starve, that's why. Moral issues aside, starving hordes make for an unstable society.

elementary, maybe you missed this: "Shortly after I reported to USS Madison,...".

I served on two subs and as staff at NFAS over 11 years. In that time, I met, well enough to know, four guys meeting that criterion. I knew the background of just about 300 people.

Now, just CINCLANTFLT had something like 600 thousand sailors in it at the time. Did you think the Navy is just a few people, like at WalMart?

Do the math.

I don't know why or if you find the idea repugnant, but think of this, too: it's not just a billionaire who sets up trusts for his children.

You know, those evil millionaires can be found down the street from you if you look.

NicoleK, my issue is not that "poor people pay less" - it's that poor people not only pay nothing, they get something taken from me AND they can vote to have MORE taken from me - for them!

And this isn't just about me. Wise men have been warning about this since the days of Tytler and de Tocqueville.

@Nico -

Look, at least 50% of the money that the government takes as taxes is wasted. Either maintaining programs that have completed their initial task and now do nothing, or as overhead, or as graft.

What I'm trying to say is that we could cut the budget by 50% and not lose any services whatsoever.

"The question isn't so much why do rich people pay more... but why do poor people pay less. Because we don't want them to starve, that's why. Moral issues aside, starving hordes make for an unstable society."

Well, yes, of course, but is there no limit to milking the rich?

Whoops. CINCLANTFLT is one guy. I meant to say there were that many working for him.

When talking about commands - the ships, for instance - it's customary to regard them as a person, embodied as the CO. Sorry if I was confusing.

@NicoleK,

You do realize that the US Treasury Department will take donations, right? Seriously. If you want to pay more in taxes, you already have the freedom to do so. You can write a check to the US Treasury Dept at any time. They'll take it.

I'm always curious to see just how many people like you who claim 'Oh, I'd be happy to pay more in taxes!!" actually write your IRS check for two grand more than you owe each April. I'm being very presumptive, but I'm going to guess you've never done that.

People who begin posts with attacks like "you're a moron" or "your an idiot" are merely saying to me, "you've struck a nerve in the withered away region of my mind that makes moral decisions"

It makes me chuckle. And then I go on to read what it is that they vomit up to defend their precious love of money.

I'm by no means a moron or an idiot. I've lived in a home that earned "millions" and it was an empty life. I have a greater goal with my life than piling up a some zeros in the bank so people can fight over them when I get ready to die.

If I had a million dollars in the bank, I would have to look back down my employment ladder and try to figure out who needs some of the excess I took.

Just because a CEO has a lot of charisma and makes stock prices go up, doesn't make him worth any more than the people who are actually doing the work. It makes him very valuable to the people who invest in stocks... who are economic ticks gambling on the hard work of others.

People who love money more than people think that risking capital is of greater value than risking life and limb. Tell that to the sawmill worker who's lost an arm working for $5 an hour so the sawmill owner's children can drive mercedes benzs and vacation on the Riviera.

Rich people got rich by taking more than their share. It's that simple. If you believe otherwise I feel that your rationality is clouded by your own love of money and desire to be rich.

If you love money, you're now going to be having the "Tank's an Idiot" response. Your cortisol levels will be elevated and your pulse will probably be elevated as well. Because you know that loving money more than other people's lives, and that taking more than your share is wrong, but you REALLY want to be rich.. REALLY REALLY BAD, or you already are.

The next thing you're going to feel, is that I say these things because I'm envious, or jealous of the rich. Wrong on both counts. I know a woman who recently was forced to die sitting in diapers full of her own feces, because people were in a hurry for her to die, and couldn't be troubled with helping her to the toilet.

Can you imagine, dying a millionaire because selfish caregivers had you ruled incompetent, and then wanted you to hurry up and die so they could benefit? That's the power of money my friends. If money has the power to anything, is has the power to create bad people who have no compassion.

If your heart doesn't go out the homeless, your compassion is defective. If your eye doesn't tear up thinking that some children live in near poverty so that CEO's can take fat bonuses... something's wrong with you.

And before you can swallow that pill, you'll call me an idiot, and get angry. It's a predictable response when one's erroneous belief system is challenged.

I am an idiot. I'm comfortable with it by your definition, and I feel sorry for you that you must live a life in love with ink on paper.

Nice turnout on this topic too Amy. It's always interesting to witness a lively debate.

I"m neither rich nor particularly desirous to be. I'm in nursing school, and I never WILL be, so that's good. It doesn't mean I hate those who have taken a different path, or that I think I'm more deserving of their money than they are.

I'd put our family's charitable giving-as-a-percentage-of-income up against anyones with the confidence I'm going to come out looking pretty damn good. I support the charities important to me. I think you are and should be free to do the same. What I do NOT think is that people should forcibly take away my income-WHATEVER I earn, to give to others. Period. For any reason save keeping them from starving and keeping a communal roof over their heads.

If you feel the rich took more than their "share" (as if wealth were finite and them having more means we have less) there are plenty of socialistic countries you could move to. Ours was founded on principles 180 degrees from that, and we have no desire or need to change that to suit you, Tank. And I haven't called you an idiot, but feel free to hide behind your strawman and call us all haters.

I guess I see the ideal society as having a strong middle class, with few people at either end of the spectrum. If a progressive tax can accomplish this, great. If a flat tax accomplishes this, great. I'm not an economist, so I don't know what would work (not that they know either).

I'm not ideologically opposed to any tax system that works. I would definitely be in favor of cutting taxes if it worked. I'd increase them if it worked. Whatever works.

What I'm not in favor is becoming one of those societies where the majority live in slums and the rich live behind walls. Sucks to be poor, obviously, but also sucks to be rich in those places because you're always afraid.

Here it seems to work well. There's a progressive income tax, but low business taxes, so lots of businesses come here. And I guess even the income tax must be pretty low as lots of rich people settle here to avoid taxes in other places.

Sorry about the pay cut btw. That blows.

I'm not hiding behind any straw men momo, nor did I accuse you of calling me an idiot or a moron, but one or two did. What I'm suggesting is that Capitalism isn't the fragrant rose of good life it's being sold as. We're coming to a point in history where it's becoming obvious to some, and others wish to "lalalalala" it away with their eyes closed and their fingers in their ears.

Telling me I should "move to another country" is about as unAmerican as anything I can imagine. I'm just as opposed to the government taking "my" money and giving it to someone else as you are, the biggest difference between us, it that I'm LESS OFFENDED by them giving it to the needy, than I am by them using it to subsidize the wealthy. Both are bothersome things. However, giving special breaks that primarily benefit the wealthy is not just unfair, it's immoral.

Paying anyone in the banking industry a BONUS in this economy IS WELFARE by it's very definition, they're just doling it out by the billions for the guys around the oval tables. Corporate welfare does offend me far more than the other kind. It's a perversion of social justice.

It's my belief that if we weren't living in a socialist nanny-state, the poor would be taken far better care of than they are now. We'd have very low unemployment. I believe that if the American people had not spent the last 70 years living under a liberal republican/democrat agenda... and yes, they're both liberal where corporations are concerned, we'd be still be a prosperous nation, rather than one on the verge of economic collapse.

My father was a tax protester in the 80's. He lost everything and was never charged with anything but Contempt of Court. He made the mistake of being a "ringleader", so they sent in an economic hit squad.

My college life came to an end because I had to take care of my father after the IRS took everything. It took 4 years of my life to counsel him out of becoming the original Oklahoma City bomber. Before that ever happened he used to sit around plotting how to blow up IRS buildings.

I have more cause to hate taxes than almost any multimillionaire in this nation. The tax system of America ruined my family. Place a value on that.

However, I love my nation more than I love money. I have lived well, and then fallen to poverty, and come back to the lower middle class. If you've not lived out of a $5000 travel trailer listening to your father rave about murdering IRS agents, you cannot possibly imagine my point of view any better than I can yours.

I am not afraid to point at a dead horse and call it a dead horse simply because it's considered bad manners to do so.

Capitalism needs some amendments. While it was great for a while, it has turned into something sinister and it's unbridled "progress" has led to the financial ruin of this nation.

All too often I'm called a Communist, or a socialist, or "left" because I don't agree with a Capitalist or right wing agenda.

I'm neither right nor left, and neither of them are "right". The American form of government and it's economic model are not the pinnacle of governmental and economic progress, they're merely a high ridge somewhere half way up.

What we have today for an economy more resembles a feudal monarchy than a free republic.

I don't see how you can say wealth isn't a finite resource.... wealth comes from labor, but the wealthiest classes don't labor they walk and talk. It has always been this way. It's nothing new.

Also, how can you say that the rich DON'T take more than their share? If you own a restaurant and you take home a million a year, and your employees are working for less than $30,000... are you not taking more than your fair share, after your initial investment is paid back?

A sales tax is the only fair one, and groceries should be exempt. A flat, sales tax. All states already have the system to collect already in place, it would just be the matter of writing a check to the fed once a month.

The income tax is as unconstitutional as Obamacare and Medicare and social security, a flat sales tax would be unconstitutional even, but it's the only fair tax.

All that crap said though, our banking system is the true problem of America. It creates wealth out of thin air, and in doing so, subverts the value of the dollar.

OK, Tank, I take back what I said about you. You're not a moron. You're evil. You're the enemy. If there's ever a revolution, we'll make sure that you're one of the first ones up against the wall.

Your posts are so filled with jealousy and envy that I'm surprised they don't show up in a green font. You want what you want and you don't fucking care who has to sacrifice so you can have it. Whine, whine, whine. You say you only make $40k? And you don't like that? Then get your sorry ass up on the couch, quit spending all your free time on online chat, and go learn a marketable skill. Or is the issue that you want to pull down six figures without lifting a finger? Well, that's too damn bad, because it ain't gonna happen. That's the real world, son.

You have made it absolutely clear that you haven't got the slightest idea what goes into running a business. You have no clue what a CEO or a business owner actually does. Further, you don't know the first thing about probability and risk. If you did, you would not have written any of the things you have written. And you have also made it absolutely clear that you aren't interested in learning, because if you knew, it would shatter your precious little preconceived communist worldview. That's right, your worldview is communist. Straight out of Marx. People who believe in Marx are the dumbest dumbshits on the planet, bar none. A century and a half of history shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it doesn't work. And yet you just keep right on.

So which do you want to be called? Stupid or evil? Or both?

"I guess I see the ideal society as having a strong middle class, with few people at either end of the spectrum. "

What makes you think that would constitute an ideal society? Let's take your statement to its logical conclusion. Since you evidently believe it's bad for differences to exist between people, let's make everyone's income identical. No matter what you do or how hard or how little you work, you get the exact same income as everyone else. Further, let's not allow anyone to have possessions that indicate social differences. Let's fill our cities with block after block of identical apartment buildings, with every unit identical right down to the paint and the decorations. And while we're at it, let's issue identical one-size-fits-all government-mandated uniforms for everyone to wear. Under these conditions, how long do you think there will be people who continue to take business risks and work hard? Or even work at all? After all, why work when your income is both guaranteed and capped? What's the motivation?

When you get right down to it, how wealth is distributed across the population is not much of the government's business. Attempts by the government to use tax policy to re-shape society are, by definition, dictatorial. The only legitimate purpose of taxes is to raise revenue so that the government can fund its Constitutionally-mandated duties. Period.

"The tax system of America ruined my family."

Oh. It's someone else's fault. That explains everything!

"People who begin posts with attacks like "you're a moron" or "your an idiot" are merely saying to me, "you've struck a nerve in the withered away region of my mind that makes moral decisions"..."

No, you're an idiot because your story indicates that you can't learn. It doesn't even support your assertions.

It would, however, suggest why your family couldn't read tax laws.

Tank, since you seem so obsessed with "fair", please go and read "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut. I mean, if you REALLY want to be fair...

Taxes are a fee for living in a nation, and everybody should pay a fee for goods and services that they purchase and consume.

Boorish and pedantic. A waste of 125 characters. Noise.

People who begin posts with attacks like "you're a moron" or "your an idiot" are merely saying to me, "you've struck a nerve in the withered away region of my mind that makes moral decisions" - Tank Taylor

Well, somtimes people really do write stupid idiotic things.

Also we really dont live in a capitalist economy.

Rich people got rich by taking more than their share. It's that simple. If you believe otherwise I feel that your rationality is clouded by your own love of money and desire to be rich.

Money makes good people better, or it makes bad people worse. Greed, inherently, is a human trait, and as such, the question is not "how do we stop greed?", but instead "what arena is the best mechanism to minimize greed?".

Throughout mankind's history, only the free market has accomplished this objective fairly, without coercion, in a competitive manner where success was based on an individual's accomplishments.

Also, in a free market, success is based on the service one renders to another. The better the service one renders, the better the reward that follows. The system you speak of (where the rich "take more than their share") is a statist system that allows markets to be coercively corner by government edict (you may know them as "laws" or "regulations"), which allows those whom have cornered the market (from their relationships with statist politicians) an unfair advantage to compete.

Hence, the large profits.

More unknown to history is that the regulations in the early 1900's were supported by "big business" because it was obvious that upstart competition was cutting into profits, and statist control over the market was the only way to stabilize prices (and,thus, stabilize profits).

Read some more Rothbard or Mises, or hell, even Rand. They should all straighten you out a little ;-)

"If you own a restaurant and you take home a million a year, and your employees are working for less than $30,000..."

Those employees didn't sign on the dotted line for the loans needed, didn't construct the restaurant, if it fails they can get another job tomorrow, not so for the owner. How many people make a million from a restaurant anyway??

My husband borrowed 11 million dollars to start his business. It's our behinds on the line, we lose our house, his parent's house, every damned thing we own if it tanks (it's successful though!). Same for your restaurant owner. Some people just don't understand the ins and outs of having your own business...seriously, they think you just sit back and rake in the cash. He works 60+ hours a week because he's the boss and he sets the tone of the organization. And he's one of the 'evil rich' you so despise.

"Rich people got rich by taking more than their share. It's that simple. If you believe otherwise I feel that your rationality is clouded by your own love of money and desire to be rich."

People with high salaries get paid those salaries because they have skills that merit those wages. I'm thinking of career professionals, I dont' know what I think about CEO salaries and don't know enough about that system to comment. A medical degree is worth more in the marketplace than a liberal arts degree. Any degree in many instances will benefit you more than just a high school diploma. The amount of work needed to attain it and the skills it provides you determines it's workplace value.

And you really don't understand simple economics.

"Also, how can you say that the rich DON'T take more than their share? If you own a restaurant and you take home a million a year, and your employees are working for less than $30,000... are you not taking more than your fair share, after your initial investment is paid back?"

Hmmm, you OWN the place, have the liability for it, whether it sinks or swims is all on you. So yeah, your share is nigh on 100%. The workers are paid what they are worth in the job market. There are any infinite number of people who can take orders, prepare food, serve it. None of them have a job at all without someone sticking their neck out and starting the place.

"A sales tax is the only fair one, and groceries should be exempt. A flat, sales tax. All states already have the system to collect already in place, it would just be the matter of writing a check to the fed once a month."

I am so on board with a national capped sales tax.

"People who begin posts with attacks like "you're a moron" or "your an idiot" are merely saying to me, "you've struck a nerve in the withered away region of my mind that makes moral decisions"

Or, more likely, they recognize an idiot when they see one.

For you to have 'struck a nerve' (as you believe), you would have had to present a true and accurate statement (however, the total truth in your comment could be applied into the eye of a needle without making it any harder to thread).

However. If the totality of the truth in your post was collected and gathered into a pile, that truth would be about 1 quintillionth of the diameter of a proton (and that's a generous assessment).

As Radwaste states, your problem isn't the truth of the statements of your opponents (though that is essentially approaching a fact), it's a reflection of the fact that your worldview is defined by envy.

For you, 'fair' means bringing everyone else down to your level, but in reality, it doesn't mean that you get what they earned by their own efforts.

You'd rather bring every one else down to your level than expend the effort to improve yourself.

See, here's the deal: You don't get to ride on the coat-tails of those who expend the effort to become successful. They did the work, they get to reap the benefits. You don't get squat, unless you also put in some effort.

Per Heinlein: 'TANSTAAFL' (there ain't no such thing as a free lunch).

You want something? EARN IT!.

You don't want to earn it? Learn to do without.

It's simple, and it matters. The rest of us were not put on earth to ensure your contentment.

Sometimes I hate piling on, but......

Paying anyone in the banking industry a BONUS in this economy IS WELFARE by it's very definition, they're just doling it out by the billions for the guys around the oval tables.

I worked IT in a smaller bank for close to ten years. We had to do follow the regulations and had 30+ different software packages. About twenty-seven had to be upgraded, by internal staff, on a regular basis for regulation changes. I was salaried and the odds of being less than 40 hours a week were between slim and none. I generally lost vacation time every year.

I didn't get massive bonuses and didn't get bonuses every year.

While I did a light scan of who got, and how much, went to bonuses -- the large majority were less than 15% of income -- and were for people who you know went above and beyond to keep the doors open.

Don't assume -- dig into the details and see who actually got the bonuses

Corporate welfare does offend me far more than the other kind. It's a perversion of social justice.

The term social justice equally offends me. What you are asking for is equal outcomes, not equal opportunity.

In the United States, as it was created, you have an equal chance at success or failure whether you were born to the Kennedy's or the Jones's. (To stay on topic we're going to ignore the racial topic -- I agree it's wrong but not germane to the original topic.)

As the Constitution was written -- It means that John Doe from a poor family in BFE, Kansas and John Smith born to an upper-class family in the same town both have equal access to go to the same colleges, go into business, go to work at McDonalds. They have a choice. They have an equal opportunity to succeed, or fail.

Social justice is the equality of outcome. John Doe went to a tech school for tractor repair and opened his own his own tractor tune-up shop that he franchised out and now makes $500K a year. Meanwhile John Smith gets out of high school, goes to work at Arby's and is drugging and drinking. John Smith makes about $25K.

Should we take $225K from John Doe and pay it to John Smith in the name of social justice?

Well, yes, of course, but is there no limit to milking the rich?

a cautionary tale: http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2008/10/tax_cuts_should_favor_the_rich.html

sorry it should be this link:

http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2009/05/the_laffer_curve_or_who_is_laughing_now.html

"Social justice is the equality of outcome. John Doe went to a tech school for tractor repair and opened his own his own tractor tune-up shop that he franchised out and now makes $500K a year. Meanwhile John Smith gets out of high school, goes to work at Arby's and is drugging and drinking. John Smith makes about $25K."

I have no problem with people who have worked hard and built a business and make half a million a year. They should be proud to pay their taxes and support the country that made it possible though, and not piss and moan about it. In that case, if you're sick of the taxes and living off francise income and don't have to turn a wrench anymore, run for public office and change the system yourself. In fact, we need people like that in office. Common sense people who have worked from the ground up.

This isn't nearly as common as people would like to believe.

Most well paid corporate executives rarely break a nail from the time they leave highschool until they get to sit around the big oval table and take home six figures with bonuses, let alone turn a wrench.

They have no idea what it's like to have a "real job" or to struggle. They are after the bigger better slice and everyone else be damned. Look at Wall Street and all the mega banks.

It's disingenuous to put the mid level bank IT worker into my example, I have no doubt you've earned your pay. I'm talking about the ones sitting behind private desks making decisions about hedge funds.... they're the ones that are participating in the massive corporate welfare program, and committing social injustices, like the sub prime debacle and the dismal state of the dollar!

No there's no social injustice in your example, unless there are people at the Tractor Tune-up shop who are not earning enough money to support a family on a single income...

and people working at Arby's making 25K are managers... one per store most likely earns that much.

How many corporate executives working at Arby's take home six figures while the people actually DOING THE WORK, live on $15,000 a year?

That's social injustice. No one in the whole Arby's business structure should be paid more than half a million, and if the bonuses don't go proportionally all the way down to the cash register, it's social injustice. There is greater reward in our system for coming up with a catchy commercial than there is in serving a million burgers.

Tank - Who the fuck do you think you are to place such demands upon the board of Arby's? Where do you derive the authority to declare what salary is excessive? Did we miss where you said you were the son of God?

You state that capitalism is unjust, and then use megacorporations as your example. We don't have capitalism here, we have corporatism. So the same people you'd like to see enforce "social justice" on CEOs are the ones who created the system in the first place.

Regulations and legislation have created an environment that favors large, bloated corporate bureaucracies over small, nimble entrepreneurs.

As if mere regulation could have saved the dinosaurs and prevented the rise of mammals.

so if you want to blame anyone, blame the social justice movement itself, for they are the ones who put the progressives in power that are sustaining the dinosaurs on the backs of the mammals.

Oh, look - is that an asteroid?

No there's no social injustice in your example, unless there are people at the Tractor Tune-up shop who are not earning enough money to support a family on a single income...

Actually, because of taxes and regulations, it's virtually impossible for someone below the executive level ($200,000+) to support a family on a single income.

Amy, that's always been the definition of social justice.

Cause if it were real justice it wouldnt require a qualifing word

If you want to vote in a credit union, you have to buy at least one share. It's the same with stock in a corporation. I think people who don't pay taxes should not be allowed to vote.

What did those on the cash register contribute to the building of the company? What proportion of the debt or liability do they shoulder?

"Most well paid corporate executives rarely break a nail from the time they leave highschool until they get to sit around the big oval table and take home six figures with bonuses, let alone turn a wrench."

I'd like you to prove that.

"Common sense people who have worked from the ground up."

Glad to see you gave Steve Jobs a pass with this phrase, Tank. The FedEx guy, too. Dale Earnhardt Enterprises. Jordan Motorsports (I thought you might want to see a man use his millions, gained from selling the spectacle of his talent, to hire others).

It's a good example of how and why you have no idea what you're talking about.

Here's the sun-came-out-all-of-a-sudden reveal for you: smart, hardworking people do not make huge sums merely earning an hourly wage, and they should not, as they are merely doing what they are told.

Any dog can do that. Serious moneymakers innovate, use market communication and coordinate activities to make jobs possible.

You know, I'm not rich. It really bothers me to see some nitwit whine because they actually think rich people keep their money and hide it so nobody else can have any.

That's not what happens at all.

"Tank - Who the fuck do you think you are to place such demands upon the board of Arby's? Where do you derive the authority to declare what salary is excessive? Did we miss where you said you were the son of God?"

is it really necessary to cuss me for having an opinion that a half million a year is more than reasonable compensation for any labor? When people descent into verbal abuse it indicates that their belief systems are being challenged and they are lashing out in reflexive self defense.

If you feel the need to verbally attack someone, you should look inwardly to make sure you're not holding something too dear that needs to be scrutinized.

I ask that anyone explain to me what's wrong with saying, half a million is enough. Seriously, what can any single person do that warrants "compensation" so great that if that same money were spent in outer Botswana, it would forever change the destiny of everyone in a village of 1000 people?

I can only surmise that you fantasize, with relish and glee, of earning such pay for yourself. I can also only surmise that you believe the economy can bear the burden of these economic parasites who have the gall to ask for such exorbitant pay? It simply cannot bear the financial burden of providing Luxury Class Welfare for the few any longer.

We are facing a complete toppling of the Dollar in the near future because of these excessive pay demanders. The only way out of our problem, short of nationalizing the central bank, is to defend the working class, and to ensure single income wages for every family somehow.

"Actually, because of taxes and regulations, it's virtually impossible for someone below the executive level ($200,000+) to support a family on a single income."

I love this gem. I could make due just fine on $50K. But I don't need a new car, ever. Suits, ties and 50 pairs of shoes. I only need one, modest home.

I'm curious. Brian. Imagine yourself with a $15,000 a year minimum wage job for a few minutes. Unless you've already socked away enough money to live for the rest of your life without working, you're still in danger of this. One of those people above you could come to covet your slice of the pie, and your job could go away.

How would you and your family survive on so little, and why do you think anyone should have to?

Now ask yourself, how in the fuck is our nation going to survive with 20% unemployed, and another 20% earning $15,000 a year.... so the two two percent can rake in 9 figure salaries, and a bove, and own 80% of all real assets in the nation?

When I cuss it's concerning my nation and the things that trouble it. That makes me angry. When you cuss, it's at SOMEONE who has an opinion that you shouldn't be able to earn enough money to support 1000 people. And you want to speak to me about which of us understands social justice better?

Something is amiss with the system. In much the same way that moderate muslims make shelter for the extremists, and moderate liberals and conservatives get shouldered aside so that the extremists can run the show, the extreme weathists are using people like you, and you're not in a small category of people, to hide behind and rape our nation. Someone has to draw a line in the sand and say out loud, enough is enough. And personally, half a million should be enough for anyone to make it on.

Not until society in general sees excessive wages as a social faux pas and stops associating with these selfish people will our economy take a genuine turn back toward the black. You can pant and rave and cuss me all you like, but the truth is that it's these very wealthy few, that you and your type enthrone and worship, that are fucking up America for the rest of us.

If they're not careful, they're going to have a lot of hungry peasants at their wrought iron gates.

And Amy, are you suggesting that Davie Ogilvy is a good measure of the average person earning over half a million in this country? :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0

if you wish to enlighten yourself a little about how a culture of greed is destroying the financial legs of the world, here's an easy to follow, fun, animated bit that won't over challenge you brian. You'll have to strain your abilities though, these simple concepts place your fantasies of mega pay in danger, that you will likely find yourself not listening to what your watching, but instead listening to your inner Capitalist's fits of rage.

try not to love money so much that it blinds your sense of reason and fairness. It's very ugly to love money that much.

Tank, it's truly amazing that you don't recognize your own desire to have money you didn't earn given to others as you desire as greed.

This is really what's wrong: people that do not understand money at all trying to bend the system to their will.

What there is of it.

Another "reveal" for you: the market won't pay what a person is not worth.

But you want power you haven't earned, and to hell with other people.

"I'm curious. Brian. Imagine yourself with a $15,000 a year minimum wage job for a few minutes. Unless you've already socked away enough money to live for the rest of your life without working, you're still in danger of this."

Barring a total social collapse, Brian will never face that situation because he has marketable skills, and the capability to learn new skills as needed. He doesn't need to settle for a minimum wage job. Tank, a few facts that you seem to be unaware of: Most minimum-wage earners are under 25 and either live with or are supported by their families (the inference is that most of them are students). The average annual family income of a minimum wage earner is well over $50k. Two-thirds of minimum wage earners work only part time, by choice.

(Slight disclaimer: The article I linked to is based on 2005 numbers. The numbers have probably gotten somewhat worse since then. But we know what economic philosophy is largely responsible for that...)

Tank, the reason you aren't being taken seriously here is because you clearly aren't serious. Rather, you come across as very much of a spoiled brat. The entire philosophy that you have expressed is clearly based on your own avarice and lust for other peoples' money. Your philosophy, such as it is, is one that nearly everyone here considered and rejected out of hand long ago and see no reason to re-visit. To be blunt about it, you're annoying the grown-ups. Go to bed.

radwaste,

"the market won't pay what a person is not worth".

You're serious? Sounds like you're one of those capitalists who ascribe god-like powers to "The Market".

I'm not even gonna try to debate this one with you. You obviously imagine there IS something a person could do to be "worth" more than 20x what the average person earns. If one man can't work as fast as 20 men, or produce as much as 20 men, he's not worth 20 men. Just because he can inspire 20 men to do the work of 40 men, doesn't make him worth 20 men, it makes him worth one man, and 20 men worth double wages.

People polarize on this issue, and cling to the view held by their "side". What needs to happen is for us to use our own minds and stop regurgitating the crap pundits have barfed up for us to consume. If you think real hard on it, you'll come to the conclusion that for every billionaire, there are a multitude of people who got screwed our of their fair share of something.

I'm against economic molestation. How do you stand on it. Is it ok to economically molest people, so you can get rich, just because the law says it's legal?

Well, this is like wrestling with a pig, Tank. I expect to see you on Failblog.

You have the mistaken idea that talent only occurs in certain fields, and the further mistaken idea that the public cares identically for every form of talent.

Yes, Michael Jordan's performance IS worth 20 or more times that of another basketball player, and he is rewarded proportionally, by teams who have hard numbers to point to, for his performance.
Steve Jobs took a company floundering in his absence, trading at about $14 per share, and turned it into what it is today - a multimedia powerhouse. In the process, he took a bunch of other people with him into the monetary stratosphere.

Other people can do what Michael and Steve have done, but not many; they are the names you know that I can use, this go-round.

Now: the public does not want to watch, and will not pay to see your high-school chemistry teacher explain ionic bonding. The task is much simpler than chairing Apple or Jumpman. There are lots more people who can show Johnny and Susie what an ionic bond is.

Now to failures: you act as though no one ever lost a million bucks. Oh, yes they have, and when they do, the nation's finance experts notice the blunder and avoid them. Nobody wants to invest in a loser. How about the chemistry teacher? In the bottle a bit too much? Patted student fanny? We can get another one.

That's key: the rarity of talent. I suggest you just don't know what it is. You're still too hot about the family not reading tax laws and being caught out. Get over it.

-----

One thing you'd better learn is what money is. It's not "cash", that green stuff in your wallet. Have you even read a dollar bill before? What is a dollar? A promise to pay. To pay what?

It's just a marker. The "dollar" has no value at all except when moving. It might not even exist except as agreed-upon ticks in a computer somewhere.

It's a fiction, a marker indicating the level of concern which can be generated on a particular issue or task. Think of this: You get paid. You put $1000 in the bank. The bank says to another guy, "Sure, we can lend you $1000." Your $1000 leaves with the new guy. He pays wages. Those people put those $1000 in the bank.

Here's the mind-bender: where did the money go? Did it even leave the bank? The whole time this was going on, you were guaranteed you could withdraw your deposit.

So the bank lent $1000 to a guy backed by your $1000, and $1000 appeared in the bank as deposits from that other guy's workers.

So this is tough. I don't even think you can begin to grasp what's involved when you have a project a thousand people are working on that you have to coordinate. Why pay the conductor at all, huh? He just waves a baton, doesn't play an instrument. He doesn't do any work - he's just stealing from the symphony! Right?

But noooo, you're determined that "the rich" steal more than they are worth from other people. I know a lot of Miami shipyard workers would say otherwise. You know, "common sense" people.

Tank, you know that flagwords identify you to others, right?

"Fair share". "Economic molestation".

You might as well wear a sign that says, "Feed me, it's not my job!"

It's not that the system is perfect. It's that you have no idea how it works!

Rad, I think he's perfectly aware of that. It's how people from his tribe identify each other.

The truth is, Tank's viewpoint is based on narcissism. To spout off the things he spouts off, you have to believe that people are for all purposes interchangable parts; one person is as good as another. Your parents, your spouse, your friends, your kids? All easily replaceable. Now, the problem is, people who believe this may believe it in regard to other people, but when they try to apply it to themselves, they find themselves resisting it at a very elementary level of their brains. So how do they resolve this? Simple: they elevate themselves, and the people they like, above all the rest of humanity. Once you've done this, narcissism is intellectually justified. You come to believe, as Tank clearly does, that you are in possession of revealed truths that most people are incapable of understanding. In effect, you grant yourself godhood. This is pretty much the philosophical basis of leftism -- that leftists are Superior People, and therefore entitled to rule.

Oops. When I said, "Now to failures: you act as though no one ever lost a million bucks", I relly meant, "Now to failures: you act as though no one else ever lost a million bucks."

And that would be due to error, not mendacity.