New Tax Breaks for the Rich Here in the USA

Remove all ads!

See Lord Sarevok, Yago shows a flat tax wouldn't end the bickering because he apparently thinks that it would be inherently unfair and that a "rich" man should pay not only more money but a higher rate as well. At least, if you can determine A. of his post to mean anything else let me know.

Yago, I really think most of what you wrote is tangential to the broader subject of taxes which was tangential on the original point anyways (for which I'm to fault.)

 

Flat taxes are would be ok, if expenditure on the other hand would be in check. If taxes are cut, while expenditure rises, like the growth of big goverment in the 80ies, it means that the burden of this expenditures are distributed among the remaining payers, resp. those payers, who's taxes haven't been cut in similar proportions. So, generally, a tax-cut could would demand, that the budget is not in the red numbers. If the budget is in giantic red numbers, the payment of those debts are shifted to those, who aren't benifiting of a tax cut.

 

Ummm, how are we supposed to afford this? No one has answered that. Or even thought about it. That's probably something important to be considered. Nahhh.

 

That's why I let go of the thought of going into national economics. Too much statistics. And the bottom line is, there is one view, which is presented by Darkwolf, that the productivity growth of the US in the 80ies was stimulated through tax-cuts. Then there is the other view, which says, that the productivity growth was closely related to new industries, which developed at that time, communication and computer-industries. So, I am a representant of this view, therefore the Americans would need more of Billy Gates like guys, who develop new industries, so the economy will not end in the state, which most European countries are now in. The postponed change in goverment spending, until ... now. But the Europeans weren't saved by a computer industry, which developed here much later than in the US. A aftermath of the technology drain of the WW2 and the time period after.

 

Whatever happens, the rich will stay rich. The poor will more than likely stay poor. The only hope is that things will get a bit better for the middle class. Cut the taxes on the middle class and see a very happy group of people.

 

Lol, agreement is still possible. I agree with Lord Depaara.

 

Well, I periodically volunteer at a homeless shelter a friend of mine runs so I understand that there are people who, in the US, are desperately poor.

That said, I don't know that the quote is... fleshed out I guess. What I mean is, I think it apparent that there is an expanding middle class that goes well beyond a normal population increase. The growth of the middle class is radically disproportionate to the growth of the other "classes."

Also, there has been a radical explosion in terms of the number of "rich."

Further, while there are desperately poor in even the wealthiest of nations, the average "poor" person today is so much better off today than a mere century ago that it isn't even a fair comparison.

So, while I understand the "rich get richer" viewpoint I think it can lead to a mistaken view that wealth, economics, etc is a zero sum game.

EDIT -- given that one of the asserted problems having to do with SUV's was the pollution being caused by the "rich" who drive them, I thought this was relevant:

http://autos.msn.com/advice/standardart.aspx?contentid=4020586&src=MSN

I particularly noted the Lexis mentioned since it is an SUV for the "rich."

[ May 31, 2003, 02:06: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

Oh yes, I'm sure all those folk at the country club, with all the SUVs parked out front, are very concerned for the environment. In fact, I bet most of them are card carrying Green Peace members. Most of them probably work at soup kitchens also, forcing them to miss a few rounds of golf.

Of course, that's when they are not down at their tax accountant's office complaining about how much they pay in taxes, or writing their congressmen, trying to prevent an increase in the mininum wage (while giving themselves huge pay raises). Heck, if there weren't any poor people to look after, how else would they handicap their golf games?

[ May 31, 2003, 03:36: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]