The Rich and Taxes: A Debate

[Baron Von PWN]

Baron - related question:

What is the difference between an investment banker drone who makes $200K (or $250K) and a union carpenter making $100K and a teacher making $50K and a janitor making $30K with respect to their "use of the government" as a means to their wealth?

I don't think there is a difference - they are all "workers." They work to achieve their wealth.

I do think that the "boss" who makes $800K is a different animal entirely, however. I wanted to get your thoughts on this.

Well I suspect the Janitor and possibly the Teacher may have actual need of direct government services. Whether these be health care services they could not personal afford (though i'm sure a teacher would have good benefits from their union) or some other form of direct government service.

The carpenter and Broker probably would be fully capable of providing for themselves without any help from the government. However they and all other members of society (from the lowest to the wealthiest) benefit from what I consider "indirect" government services. That is; creation of law and order through maintenance of police and a justice system, maintenance of infrastructure, creation of new infrastructure Conduct of foreign affairs (gaining trade agreements giving access to foreign markets and cheaper goods, reducing security risks) and the variety of other services which government undertakes. Those type of services are the superstructure upon which the rest of society is built. That is government's purpose to provide the basic stuff of society which allows it to continue to function.

Services which allow for a safe and orderly place to conduct business, allow you to be reasonably certain the products you buy wont kill you, allows you to gain access to as many markets as possible to gain the most clients as well as have the greatest variety of sellers. Large debts increase the costs of government and increase the risk of default which threaten governments vital services. I think safeguarding those things are worth more than the downsides of higher taxes on 2% of society.

Bear in mind I think the lowest taxes are the best taxes, providing the State is not facing financial troubles.

Aradhus and Baron - at what income level should we raise taxes? $100K? $250K? $500K? And when you pick your number, please indicate why. Thanks.

Good luck on your exam Baron.

I would say 250k+ as these are the top 2% of earners in US society. This ensures you are affecting only the truly wealthy and therefore most able to pay more. Yes, a tax rate of 40% is steep and yes it does have negative economic consequences, however Gov finances as they are there is a need to raise more funds. As well as a larger need to cut spending, the deficit should be slain by meeting partway.(some may scoff at 250k being considered wealthy but when you earn more than 98% of Americans I'm sorry but you are wealthy).

I agree that the partner would be negatively affected by the US government defaulting.
1.I do not agree that an increase in the tax rate is the only option (as you probably already know).
2.On the last point - how much of a moderating goal do you think the government has right now (at least vis-a-vis the rich)? Many would argue, including almost all staunch moderates and liberals, that the government has virtually no oversight right now, especially over the wealthy. And some would argue, including most liberals (and me), that the government, regardless of party control, does what most benefits the wealthy.

1. Of course, but It is a useful measure.
2. Stated goal? Very little, allot of this has to do with the vitriol associated with taxes. de-facto it has a slight moderating effect due to progressive tax rate and various social programs. I agree that government often does things which benefit the rich but that makes sense. It would be very foolish for government to realy harm the rich as then they start to destroy the wealth generating system, which would harm society as a whole. The tax rates being discussed wont be doing that.

Your response to #2 confuses me. Why would tax rates not harm the rich? Because they have so much to spend that an incremental increase to the tax rate would not harm them? I have to think about a suitable response, otherwise I agree.

I'm saying a tax increase, while it will obviously "harm" the rich, will do so only marginally. In absolute terms they still have allot of money. 60% of 250k$ is still allot of cash, and they will continue to live at the same if not very similar standard of living. The largest negative to these high rates of taxes is the likely reduction in investment/savings which would likely result. Which is why If i were king I would like to see such an increase be a temporary measure which would be rolled back once State finances were under control.

OT: I'm really enjoying this discussion everyone and I promise to respond to everyone but I really need to study for my Russian exam, so It might take me a while.

40% of 250k is still a lot of cash. the #1 problem, IMO, is all the people who will stop earning/working when they get to 249,999.99. You probably would end up with more taxes and benefits if you let that person earn over 250k to their hearts desire. You clamp down with a 60% tax rate, you will find less and less people making enough to hit that rate. and it's bad for liberty too.

Lincoln would probably freak

Only 2% (and I'm rounding up) of the population make 250,000 or more. It's doubtful that a lower tax rate on that 2% would cause that percentage to increase.

Their taxes fund what creates the possibility for their wealth.

Some would argue differently. I would argue that 40% of their wealth was not made possible by the federal government in most instances (but we're not basing tax rates on that). I would further argue that the rich are going to take care of themselves. For example, let's we have a partner making $800,000 a year. Let's say he currently has 5 employees. In Year 2, instead of paying 30% of his income to taxes, the partner pays 40%. Do you think he will (a) pay the taxes without complaint or (b) fire an employee so that he can increase his income which "covers" the taxes. It's almost always going to be (b).

I don't have a solution for this, but, well, I'm a believer in trickle down economics.

This all depends on how big a role you think the government plays in shaping your society and the way it functions. If we had no government at all would the same senior partner have the same standard of living? I suspect not, government creates a secure environment for the basic stuff of economics to function.

The legal system does--not necessarily the government.

No but it is a very large part of it. Government doese things outside of the legal system which also help for the creation of a secure environment for the economy.

What if he was operating under about half the size of government as it exists in the USA right now. He personaly would probably be much better off, but what about the rest of society? what would that do to median income? Drastically reduce the role of government and I suspect you would get something closer to the 1900's, ie. large majority low income.

This depends on a large variety of factors.

The government itself doesn't keep people rich or prevent poverty. People themselves do; they provide the opportunities and lack thereof to materially benefit themselves and others.

The government's main function is to engage in diplomacy (in order to represent all the politically united States--which I feel isn't necessary), to demand involuntary contributions with the threat of coercion, and to spend on public goods, which it deems can't be provided by the private sector.

The federal government is here to prolong its necessity. If things were decentralized, we'd still be fine---just less intrusive in world affairs.

Anyways i think government supports the rules which create the environment for the wealth and well being of society . Currently government has way too much debt, this is a threat to the system of rules which allows society to function. I think the benefits of raising Taxes to the highest earners will outweigh the negatives which inevitably occur as a result of taxes.

By raising taxes, you'll inhibit economic growth and development. Where do you think the money goes? Back into inefficient and unnecessary government-run programs because many within the government feel no need to balance the budget. It's not like they're some privately run corporation that will suffer the consequences of such a policy; therefore, there's no immediate incentive for them to correct things.

Spending needs to be cut first in order to balance the budget.

Part 1: I agree that government doese not make people rich or poor. It does however shape society and the economic system which determines whether people will be rich or poor.

I disagree the government's primary function should be to provide Macro leadership for the betterment of its society, which diplomacy plays a part of. If the US were to decentralize its foreign affairs down to say the state level it wouldn't be less intrusive it would be near irrelevant. As much as I disapprove of certain American misadventures that would be a Geo-political catastrophe.

Part 2: I agree raised taxes do inhibit economic growth and development, however increasing government debt will have a worse effect long term than raising taxes now and dealing with the deficit before you have to do something really scary. Tax increases absolutely should not be the only means of balancing the budget! Most of it should come from budget cuts, balancing purely through cuts would be too drastic.

[Baron Von PWN]

I repeat: Adults care about a functioning society.

okay, so when was America at it's peak of functioning? according to adults? when was it's weakest? what policies have contributed to better functioning society? Please keep it in the realm of "we want your shit" or "you dont keep to keep your own shit"

Our country was at its peak in terms of economic and military might relative to the rest of the world just prior to the outbreak of WWI in 1913.

Hmm, I would think post ww2 after most of Europe was thrashed, at least Economically, Militarily the Soviets could probably give you a serious run.

[rockfist]

The problem was our country had to borrow a lot to finance both of the wars, yes we had a larger capacity to borrow than any other nation.

[jimboston]

Earnings IS NOT EQUAL TO Wealth

Go read a fuckin' dictionary.

[jimboston]

A married couple in a major metropolitan area with earnings in excess of $250K... who both work... and who have two kids. This family is NOT "wealthy".

First... the tax rate for a married couple where both work and earn $250K combined is the same as a couple where one partner works and earns $250K. Yet the family where both work has expenses (related to childcare) that the family with one breadwinner does not have.
To those who want to tax the "rich"... is that "fair".

Sure... there are deductions for childcare... but they are so low as to be nearly meaningless. I had two kids in daycare at one point. Now I have only one. Still... we are "too rich" to qualify for subsidized care (even if we wanted it)... so we pay for private care. We burn through our deduction by March with only one kid in daycare. The deductions cover about 25% of actual expense.

Then... if we both work we have all kinds of expenses that a single-worker-family does not have. We have to maintain 2 cars... have 2 commutes, and spend twice as much on gas. We have to buy and dryclean twice as much clothing. We have to prepare and pack twice as many lunches or eat-out lunch more often. We have less time at home for dinners... so we tend to eat out dinners more often too. I could go on and on.

I am not advocating a single-income family should therefore pay more. I am pointing out additional flaws in the existing tax code.

This arbitrary number of what level of income makes one "rich" and someone else 'not rich" is idiotic. My family with both my wife and myself could earn substantially more than a family across the street from me, where only the husband works... yet because of these other factors, my lifestyle may be significantly lower.

Then there is housing. Forget about different areas and neighborhoods. I may live across the street from a couple with kids the same age and the couple the same age. (This is not the case for me but is for others.) Family1 buys the home exactly the same as Family2... right across the street, same lot size, same neighborhood, same size house, etc. Yet Family2 bought in 1996, and Family1 buys in 2001. Family1 is going to be paying a mortgage that's probably $700-$1000 higher per month. So now to have the "same lifestyle" and be "fair" F1 would need to earn $12K more per year... but wait now after taxes they need to earn $18K-$20K more per year. Yes... your mortgage interest is deductible, but not the mortgage itself.

What's the point of this rant? Is that you can't legislate "fairness" into the tax code the way the gov't has tried to do. Every time they try to fix one "inbalance" they create three more.

In a world with a Flat Tax (i.e. Flat % for idiots who don't understand the concept of a Flat Tax)(and no deductions)... people with more income pay more still. Fine... but at least it is clean and simple and easy to understand. I actually could argue for a "Flat Number"... but frankly it's not workable either.

Flat Tax is the least-bad option.

[rockfist]

JimBoston raises excellent points with the housing and childcare situations.

My wife and I paid over $30K in childcare costs this year. That's just day care its not clothing and diapers and furniture for the kids...not to mention toys. The problem with society is that the "looter class" as Phatscotty puts it has become so bloated necessitating taxes so high that its really hard to start out with kids and make it on one income. Its what pisses me off about old people. Their generation was raised on one income but they loot so much from our generation that both parents must work for much of our generation to pay off the old people, so our kids are raised by day care. My wife and I have a solution but many people do not. Its generational theft and it is immoral.

[Phatscotty]

How did the confusion come about? A major tax reform law signed by President George W. Bush in 2001 reduced estate taxes over eight years, until by 2009 legacies worth more than $3.5 million ($7 million for married couples) were taxed at 45 percent. Then in 2010, the law repealed the tax entirely. But the legislation expires in 2011, sending estate taxes back to their 2001 levels—a top rate of 55 percent on estates over $1 million. An estate tax has been in effect continuously since 1916, although limits and rates have varied over the years.

I little story about my friend who was just here, when we googled the details of the estate tax. Before the google, he was certain his parents would not be touched by the death tax. There was just no way that his parents had that much money, or could be considered "rich". When I told him, if the estate tax doesnt stay expired, that, just at a guess, according to the above, out of his families 1,000,000 that he and his 5 siblings would have to split 450k 6 ways.

OMG guess who is all of a sudden super interested in politics? He was goin off man. he jumped off the couch and came and double read what I was reading and said "holy shit"

[Aradhus]

Most partisan hack economists agree with what you're saying...

Most unbiased economists agree that tax cuts for the wealthy has the lowest multiplier effect for the economy. In other words its literally the worst thing the government can waste money on to try to stimulate growth.

funny, you say "unbiased" the very same words that Clinton and Obama used in the press conference the other day.....

Clinton - "Every single unbiased economist judges these tax cuts are good for the economy"

you speak about the gov'ts money as it if is theirs. You truly do not see what this is all about, which explains a lot of

Not holding their words as gospel or throwing it in your face. Just showing you the overwhelming majority, in their own words, that disagree.

That is NOT what he said. Clinton said on its own he wouldn't support the republicans position, because " I don't think my tax cut is the most economically efficient way to get the economy going again". "Every single unbiased economic study says the best thing you can do, if you're gonna take the tax cut path to grow the economy is to give payroll tax relief"." the agreement taken as a whole is the best BIPARTISAN agreement we can reach to help the largest number of Americans". Translation for conservatives: The republican proposals to extend the bush tax cuts to the wealthiest americans stink, but we have to accept them otherwise there won't be any agreement.

Other things Clinton said(Clinton who by the by, we all know presided over the best economic period in
of at least the past 30 years) "Unemployment benefit will be spent and will bolster the economy for the next couple of years", "payroll tax cut, according to all economic analysis, the single most effective tax cut you can do" "I think the people that benefit most should pay most, not for class warfare reasons, but rebuilding the middle class in America"

Aradhus and Baron - at what income level should we raise taxes? $100K? $250K? $500K? And when you pick your number, please indicate why. Thanks.

Good luck on your exam Baron.

I couldn't say a number, because I don't know enough about small business incomes etc, and picking a number would be arbitrary. I do think there is a number, where the benefit to small business no longer exceeds the benefit to society. 250k seems as good a number as any, but I haven't read enough yet to toss my hat in that ring.

[Phatscotty]

Most partisan hack economists agree with what you're saying...

Most unbiased economists agree that tax cuts for the wealthy has the lowest multiplier effect for the economy. In other words its literally the worst thing the government can waste money on to try to stimulate growth.

funny, you say "unbiased" the very same words that Clinton and Obama used in the press conference the other day.....

Clinton - "Every single unbiased economist judges these tax cuts are good for the economy"

you speak about the gov'ts money as it if is theirs. You truly do not see what this is all about, which explains a lot of

Not holding their words as gospel or throwing it in your face. Just showing you the overwhelming majority, in their own words, that disagree.

That is NOT what he said. Clinton said on its own he wouldn't support the republicans position, because " I don't think my tax cut is the most economically efficient way to get the economy going again". "Every single unbiased economic study says the best thing you can do, if you're gonna take the tax cut path to grow the economy is to give payroll tax relief"." the agreement taken as a whole is the best BIPARTISAN agreement we can reach to help the largest number of Americans". Translation for conservatives: The republican proposals to extend the bush tax cuts to the wealthiest americans stink, but we have to accept them otherwise there won't be any agreement.

basically said the same damn thing, if anything, your accuracy enhances my point. TY

[Aradhus]

If you're an idealogue who has no interest in facts, truths, reality that goes against your myopic vision, and have reading comprehension problems, yeah totally enhances your position.

[Phatscotty]

If you're an idealogue who has no interest in facts, truths, reality that goes against your myopic vision, and have reading comprehension problems, yeah totally enhances your position.

not if you actually see that my comment was about what the economists said, rendering your "overlap" into Clinton's statement about BIPARTISANSHIP. (doh!)

The economists did not factor in "bipartisanship" when they did their studies. There is just no way they could know the inner working of Congress or the process or how many would vote for this or that option.....

I see exactly where you went astray with this. nothing to do with facts, truths, or reality. Only what the un-biased economists said, along with Clinton, Obama, and half of democrats.

[Aradhus]

"IF you're gonna go the tax cut path..."

[Phatscotty]

"IF you're gonna go the tax cut path..."

nobody's taxes are being cut. Everyone is staying the same/not going up.

talk about a myth

[Aradhus]

Talk about an idiot. There are tax cuts in the plan, you putz.

[Phatscotty]

Talk about an idiot. There are tax cuts in the plan, you putz.

I'm familiar with the plan, except for I wasn't talking about the payroll cutz....

I was/they were talking about the rates. if you want to change it to the payroll cuts you can do that, but it isn't what I or the economist's were talking about. more specifically, the taxes rates on the rich....or so I thought

[Aradhus]

Talk about an idiot. There are tax cuts in the plan, you putz.

I'm familiar with the plan, except for I wasn't talking about the payroll cutz....

I was/they were talking about the rates. if you want to change it to the payroll cuts you can do that, but it isn't what I or the economist's were talking about. more specifically, the taxes rates on the rich....or so I thought

"IF you're gonna go the tax cut path..."

nobody's taxes are being cut. Everyone is staying the same/not going up.

talk about a myth

Yeah..

[Phatscotty]

Talk about an idiot. There are tax cuts in the plan, you putz.

I'm familiar with the plan, except for I wasn't talking about the payroll cutz....

I was/they were talking about the rates. if you want to change it to the payroll cuts you can do that, but it isn't what I or the economist's were talking about. more specifically, the taxes rates on the rich....or so I thought

"IF you're gonna go the tax cut path..."

nobody's taxes are being cut. Everyone is staying the same/not going up.

talk about a myth

Yeah..

The play on words is beneath you and lacks all context a previous conversation, which tells me I am just wasting time.

Your plan to get nominated for a Greekie will not work on me!

[Aradhus]

Mate, when we engage in conversation, I have zero interest in your reaction to the conversation, because I know you're impervious to reason and facts. Even if there was a mountain of evidence against your position, you're unpersuadable. I'm not. I've been persuaded by many a good conservative argument. My interest is in those persons reading the conversation who are reasonable enough to be persuadable, and maybe being able to discern who is unreasonable and who argues dishonestly.

[Phatscotty]

Mate, when we engage in conversation, I have zero interest in your reaction to the conversation, because I know you're impervious to reason and facts. Even if there was a mountain of evidence against your position, you're unpersuadable. I'm not. I've been persuaded by many a good conservative argument. My interest is in those persons reading the conversation who are reasonable enough to be persuadable, and maybe being able to discern who is unreasonable and who argues dishonestly.

dude, this is all about what most economists think. none of the above mentioned relates to the root of this exchange.

[Aradhus]

Mate, when we engage in conversation, I have zero interest in your reaction to the conversation, because I know you're impervious to reason and facts. Even if there was a mountain of evidence against your position, you're unpersuadable. I'm not. I've been persuaded by many a good conservative argument. My interest is in those persons reading the conversation who are reasonable enough to be persuadable, and maybe being able to discern who is unreasonable and who argues dishonestly.

dude, this is all about what most economists think. none of the above mentioned relates to the root of this exchange.

And your post prior to mine did?

Conversation, meet Brick Wall Scotty.

[Baron Von PWN]

A married couple in a major metropolitan area with earnings in excess of $250K... who both work... and who have two kids. This family is NOT "wealthy".

This family makes more than 98.5% of American households(2005).(sauce;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States). At what point would you consider a family to be wealthy?

First... the tax rate for a married couple where both work and earn $250K combined is the same as a couple where one partner works and earns $250K. Yet the family where both work has expenses (related to childcare) that the family with one breadwinner does not have.
To those who want to tax the "rich"... is that "fair".

I don't know how the American tax system works, but presumably both individuals could file their taxes separately and thus pay a lower rate. It seems unreasonable to me that simply because you are married your incomes are added together for tax purposes. Either way i would not consider the situation you describe as fair, and yet if your household makes over 250k a year, you earn more than98.5% of Americans. Obviously the vast majority of Americans are able to get by alright on much less than that.

Sure... there are deductions for childcare... but they are so low as to be nearly meaningless. I had two kids in daycare at one point. Now I have only one. Still... we are "too rich" to qualify for subsidized care (even if we wanted it)... so we pay for private care. We burn through our deduction by March with only one kid in daycare. The deductions cover about 25% of actual expense.

Then... if we both work we have all kinds of expenses that a single-worker-family does not have. We have to maintain 2 cars... have 2 commutes, and spend twice as much on gas. We have to buy and dryclean twice as much clothing. We have to prepare and pack twice as many lunches or eat-out lunch more often. We have less time at home for dinners... so we tend to eat out dinners more often too. I could go on and on.

I am not advocating a single-income family should therefore pay more. I am pointing out additional flaws in the existing tax code.

This arbitrary number of what level of income makes one "rich" and someone else 'not rich" is idiotic. My family with both my wife and myself could earn substantially more than a family across the street from me, where only the husband works... yet because of these other factors, my lifestyle may be significantly lower.

Then there is housing. Forget about different areas and neighborhoods. I may live across the street from a couple with kids the same age and the couple the same age. (This is not the case for me but is for others.) Family1 buys the home exactly the same as Family2... right across the street, same lot size, same neighborhood, same size house, etc. Yet Family2 bought in 1996, and Family1 buys in 2001. Family1 is going to be paying a mortgage that's probably $700-$1000 higher per month. So now to have the "same lifestyle" and be "fair" F1 would need to earn $12K more per year... but wait now after taxes they need to earn $18K-$20K more per year. Yes... your mortgage interest is deductible, but not the mortgage itself.

Again a household earning 250k a year makes more than 98% of other American households. If they are having difficulty paying the bills perhaps they need to re-access their spending habits.

What's the point of this rant? Is that you can't legislate "fairness" into the tax code the way the gov't has tried to do. Every time they try to fix one "inbalance" they create three more.

In a world with a Flat Tax (i.e. Flat % for idiots who don't understand the concept of a Flat Tax)(and no deductions)... people with more income pay more still. Fine... but at least it is clean and simple and easy to understand. I actually could argue for a "Flat Number"... but frankly it's not workable either.

Flat Tax is the least-bad option.

I agree the Tax code should have as few deductions as possible(and as a result lower rates). I disagree a flat tax is a better system, it places a heavier burden on those with lower incomes and at the same time would likely starve the state of funds. Any flat rate would have to provide the same level of funds as the current system. This would mean an increase for the lowest income earners and a tax cut for the highest earners, effectively a shifting of the state burden onto the poorest members of society. Yes you are paying the same percentage of your income, however after tax your absolute incomes are very different. Anyone currently paying more than whatever the flat rate would be getting more anyone bellow would be paying more off of an already smaller income.

[Night Strike]

The wealthy get more benefits of our society, they get more because of the many advantages they have, they should pay more as a result of that.

I guess you haven't heard of food stamps, Medicaid, unemployment, SSI, etc. Yeah, the rich are really reaping those benefits.

I don't think the guy making 300k$ after taxes is going to be suffering all that much.

You have NO RIGHT to determine how much anybody will suffer, including those who are richer than you. It's amazing you think you can steal more money from rich people just because they don't suffer like you do. The hubris is astounding!

Our country was at its peak in terms of economic and military might relative to the rest of the world just prior to the outbreak of WWI in 1913.

Right before Wilson f'ed everything up.

The problem was our country had to borrow a lot to finance both of the wars, yes we had a larger capacity to borrow than any other nation.

And why could we borrow so much money? Because we had been off all or nearly all of our prior debts. Paying off debts means you can borrow money when you absolutely need it (like during wars). Buying more debt while still in debt leads to bankruptcy.

An estate tax has been in effect continuously since 1916, although limits and rates have varied over the years.

Oh look, another mode of wealth distribution provided by Wilson.

I don't know how the American tax system works, but presumably both individuals could file their taxes separately and thus pay a lower rate. It seems unreasonable to me that simply because you are married your incomes are added together for tax purposes.

Filing separately means you're taxed at the single person's income rate, which is higher than the married filing jointly rate (more deductions for filing jointly), so it's actually the opposite of what you thought.

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

Sorry for the piecemeal post, it's replying to the highlights of about 5 pages of the thread since the last time I read.

[patches70]

Our country was at its peak in terms of economic and military might relative to the rest of the world just prior to the outbreak of WWI in 1913.

Not military might. Before WWI we didn't have much of a military to speak of.

The problem was our country had to borrow a lot to finance both of the wars, yes we had a larger capacity to borrow than any other nation.

It is not the wars, though war is an expensive and wasteful endeavor. We have a debt based economy and currency system. Money=debt. It is hard for people to imagine because too few understand what money is. In our system, if we want to create more money we have to borrow it. To pay off the debt means to destroy the currency. That is a Central Banking system for ya.

Look at your money. They are "Federal Reserve Notes". Not Treasury notes. We got those notes from the Federal Reserve, a private banking corporation. Every bill printed has to be paid back to The Fed eventually, along with the interest on that bill. Even if we paid back every dollar ever printed we would still owe the interest, and have no money left to pay it.

And why could we borrow so much money? Because we had been off all or nearly all of our prior debts.

Only Andrew Jackson ever paid off the National Debt all together. He also kicked out the Central bank, which is the only reason he was able to actually pay off the debt. So long as there is a central bank we will NEVER get out of debt. It is impossible, and is how the system is designed to work. It benefits only the Central Bank.

Paying off debts means you can borrow money when you absolutely need it (like during wars). Buying more debt while still in debt leads to bankruptcy.

Taking on more debt means only that more is taken from the citizens who have to pay taxes to service the debt.

Look at the 2011 budget. $240B is set aside to pay interest on the national debt and not one penny is allocated to paying the principle. This debt service is only going to increase more and more until it become unserviceable all together. Then things will get....interesting....

I don't think the guy making 300k$ after taxes is going to be suffering all that much.

This is one of the things that irk me most. How people seem to think that Government has a "right" get put their finger in every pie. Government is not entitled to get a piece of everything, contrary to popular belief. The more Government gets into, the more messed up things get. The more expensive it is to survive.

The Government and The Fed, printing up all this money, is having the effect of destroying the value of everyone's money. It is no coincidence that one generation ago it took only one parent working for a family to make ends meet and actually save some money. Now, it takes both parents working to just get by and still live paycheck to paycheck. Over that same period you can see the value of the dollar plummet to lose over 80% of it's value. That is why we have to work so hard and get less and less in return. What used to take 52 paychecks a year for a family, now takes 104 paychecks a year.

It is not the fault of "the rich". It is the fault of Government and poor fiscal policy that is forcing more and more citizens into giving up more and more time and effort away from their families just to put food on the table. Because of this too few are able to maximize their potential.

The foundation of the society is built upon the economics of the system. Our economics are all messed up and society is suffering slowly and surely. The debt based fiat currency system is on it's last legs. If we can fix that everything else will fall into line as sure as the sun rises.

The bonds that hold us together as a nation are being eroded away. Our politicians, most of whom have not a single clue about economics, happily magnify this effect of dividing us so that we cannot see what is happening. All for the sake of being able to "make the rules". To hold onto something they view as "power". The Market is the true power, and it cannot be controlled as the politicians think it can be controlled. The Market can be killed, it can be manipulated, but it can't be controlled. Every manipulation, every little tweak has a cause and effect that politicians don't seem to have any clue about. The Market always corrects, eventually. Right now, the powers that be, are doing everything they can to defer this correction. It will only make the pain that much worse for us all later. And all the while we poor schmucks keep fighting amongst ourselves, pitted one class against another. One group against another.

People better figure out what is the role of Government real quick. Our Founding Fathers gave us all the wisdom we need to know. All we gotta do is follow their advice and force Government to abide by the limitations set forth against it by our Founders. The rest is up to the individual.

[Iliad]

Just like the worst president thread, it's nice to see completely manipulated and created anger at Wilson.

Our country was at its peak in terms of economic and military might relative to the rest of the world just prior to the outbreak of WWI in 1913.

This is so incredibly wrong on so many levels. This is completely and utterly the opposite of the truth and I have no idea how you could possibly have gotten that concusion.
Firstly: prior to ww1 the military had not yet built up in America. It was a response to ww1 that America expanded it's military greatly. Even today about 60% of the world's spending on military is from America.Pre WW1 America: still pretty infantile compared to Germany, England, France and to an extent Russia and Austria Hungary.

Secondly: are you trying to say that compared to the world, America was less well off after WW1 then before? If so please read some history. WW1 ravaged and completely destroyed the European countries and the old superpowers and gave rise to America's status as a superpower. The European countries were so much weaker economically after WW1, while America not only mostly avoided the economic negatives of war but profited from war as European countries were running so broke they were borrowing from American banks to be able to spend for the war. I'm finding it hard to express how absolutely wrong you are. While America still had some serious competitors economically before WW1, such as Germany, it stood out greatly after WW1 above the rest of the world.

Thirdly: Military wise, you're also incredibly wrong. American military was still unprepared to deal with a major war such as WW1 in 1913, while the others in Europe had building up exactly for it. The arms race in Europe, especially the naval arms race, was escalating as time went on. So before the war, American military was relatively weak, while the European militaries were fairly powerful. However post the war, this was the opposite. The Austra-Hungarian military collapsed with entire power of the empire, the Russian army had basically deserted because of poor morale and domestic conditions, the Germans were mostly demilitarised and incredibly weak, France was damaged greatly by WW1, and Britain lost its power to the extent it was losing its influence over India. Meanwhile because America entered the war in 1917 and was still mobilising, it was at its peak of military power at the end of the war.
Fourthly: All the other states had either collapsed, like Austria-Hungary, Russia or to an extent Germany or were greatly weakened position domestically after WW1. The economic damage of WW1, especially to Germany as it was blockaded and 750, 000 civilians died, was enormous, while America avoided it.
Fifthly: WW1 and WW2 were the main reasons why America because such a huge superpower and only the Soviet Union could compare to it, in economic and military terms. To say America, ,before WW1, was wealthier and more powerful military compared to the rest of the world than afterwards is the same as saying the cast of Friends, before the debut of Friends, were much wealthier and more famous compared to other actors than afterwards.

In other words you're a fucking dumbass who's blindly accepted whatever the right wing news has told you about Wilson and that time and you're trying to pass off like you're knowledgeable at history when you were so incredibly, mind numbingly stupid and wrong.

[radiojake]

Just waiting for Nightstrike to post without mentioning the words 'Wealth Re-distribution'

according to this page, the USA has 4.6% of the world population, yet has 25.4% of World Net Worth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_dist ... _of_wealth


Totally sounds like a wealth re-distribution racket is occuring.

Wake up and realise that you live in on of the most priviliged countries in the entire world, and no matter how bad you feel you may have it, you will undoubtedly have it better than atleast 75% of people globally, possibly more.