After watching this thread for quite some time I find that I am curious about something. Where does everyone think the money comes from when taxes are raised on the very wealthy? I don't care about, nor am I jealous of the wealthy. Maybe they should pay more taxes on some moral grounds. I don't know. But I do know that when the tax bill arrives the wealthy will probably write a check and won't think about it again. No problem. Unless you are employed by the bank/wall street that we just bailed out. We just spent a trillion dollars to bail out the financial sector and now we expect the wealthy to remove their money from there and give it to the government. So what happens when the banks, that we supposedly just made it illegal to bail out, start to fail again? If we make the rich dip into their massive savings to support our gluttonous government where will the banks get the money to pay the checks the wealthy write to the government? Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

__________________
States visited on L2 DL650A Adventure since 7-14-12

Please don't close this thread. It's my favorite. I look for updates to it daily, and I'm trying hard to stay on the sidelines.

.
Thanks for the reminder, Greywolf.
Lots of good stuff on "Calvin and Hobbes", where the social satire is so humorous exactly because it contains such a large dose of truth about human nature.
Rather like the old British comedy series "Yes Minister".

Drama & anger & rock-throwing (with half-truths) seem to have an inordinate attraction for some.
I'm not sure how or why the rage is so intense ~ it seems like something from a hillbilly Hatfields & the McCoys scenario.

This thread could continue to be of superior [non-oil thread] interest if participants could restrict themselves to cool logical analysis of society's trends & weaknesses : and to acknowledging [including to themselves !!] that there are many good points to be made on all sides of complex social issues ~ even taxation. Not just on two "partisan" sides . . . but on all the other sides, as well.

I rather like parables . . . as long as they are not complex and silly.
Of all the Christian parables, I must say I like best the one about the Workers in the Vineyard ~ it is so unexpected, so unconventional in its wisdom.

The aphorism [maxim?] about giving a man a fish or giving him instruction on how to fish . . . is also a great little story ~ short, sharp & shiny, and makes a good point about the dangers of inducing a dependency (a danger which is often glossed over, in some quarters).
But it is intellectually dishonest to present it as the whole picture.
Underneath, I think we all know that [in this imperfect world] we actually need to do BOTH : to give, and to teach.
.

That was very well done. Unfortunately giving a clear illustration of the current situation is not appreciated. Certain agendas are easier to push forward when you convince people the details are far to boring or difficult to understand. The knowledge vacuum can be filled by simple sloganeering.

Who is John Galt? A man who is about to see his neighborhood population explode.


Tom, this has been true for a very long time. Unfortunately your neighbor to the south is heading in a very selfish direction right now. It appears we are changing from a strong, independent minded nation of doers, into collection of people that demand other do for us. There is a growing part of our population sees success earned by someone else as something to be scorned, raided and redistributed. Yes, your neighbor is undergoing a lot of changes right now. Hard to say how far it will go. Ending up like Greece is years away, but that is the path we are traveling.

__________________

2012 XT1200Z Blue, 2012 XT1200Z Black

I needed to have an income for a frame of reference so I used a rough approximation of my household. I suppose I should have been specific about it but I really don't see what difference it makes.
I don'T harbor ill towards the wealthy either. I just can't see why they should pay a lower percentage of taxes than those who make less.

__________________
Joe S.
'12 Concours
'11 DL650
'10 Tiger1050
'01 HD FXD
'09 HD XR1200
'79 BMW R100

not reading it all

we have a friend of a friend who drove a Hostess truck

Made over 50K
Full Medical
Full retirement
6 weeks vacation

Thank God the Union saved him from that injustice*

* Yes ironically the Union got him that, and when they did they thought it was great. People are odd

__________________
Link Click Here >>> 2013 Northeast V-Strom Rally!

FILL OUT NEVA MEAL POLL If your attending
Also in events

8/2/2013

..........

__________________
13 DL650, 03 DR650, 95 DR350

They don't. When they have income, such as from a job, they pay as high or higher than anyone else.

But if they don't have a job, and instead have capital gains from investments, they pay the capital gains rate on that money.

Why is the cap gains tax rate lower than the federal income tax? Because investing is a risk, you may or may not make money. Investing is critical to our economy. A lower cap gains tax rate encourages people of all income levels to risk their money.

When people say they want the "rich" not to pay a lower rate than themselves they are saying they want the capital gains rate increased. I'm willing to bet almost none of these people realize that when the capital gains rate is raised that everyone (not just the rich) will be paying more. Every time anyone (yes, you) sells an investment there will be less proceeds from your risk coming your way.

So if you're retired living on a non-Roth IRA, you are asking to have your income reduced. Will that make you feel better that the "rich" are paying more? Guess what, they're not. Once you make investing unattractive here, the big money moves somewhere else to get a better deal. So the rich aren't pay more, but you're still getting less. Happy?

__________________

2012 XT1200Z Blue, 2012 XT1200Z Black

.
"Teaching a man to fish" is a good secular parable . . . if used intelligently.

Byron's parable [#140 ?] of the ten men at the restaurant, is over-complex and quite silly in its artificiality.
Back in the real world, matters are rather different.
We are not talking of exorbitant, confiscatory taxation of the rich . . . simply about a fair amount.
What is "fair"? ~ indeed, an arguable point. But when you look around the Developed World, you find OVERALL tax rates of around 30- 50% [yes, that's right : overall taxes on incomes, corporations, "duty" taxes, sales, goods & services, and CAPITAL GAINS, and a swag of hidden & half-hidden taxes].
Thus IMO it is fair for the rich to pay a "marginal tax rate" somewhere in that range. Including taxing (yes, at a lower rate) REAL capital gains, rather than shonky fake pseudo-capital gains . . . a la Henry Ford II's clever accountancy methods, noted in my earlier post.

Developing since the time of Adam Smith, there has been broad agreement [but not quite universal !] that fair taxation is "progressive" ~ i.e. the richer you are, the higher the proportion you pay out of your income.
Sometimes a counter-argument is put forward, that the rich should pay LESS, so that their wealth can "multiply and trickle down" . . . to the eventual greater benefit of the poor.
Alas, for such a charmingly simple theory, history has shown the idea to be quite false. (Not that that stops some people from reviving such wishful thinking, for their own emotional purposes.)

At a time of major recession combined with a massive, crippling Deficit [of various causes, including a large chunk arising from inappropriate military activity ~ including most recently the "9/11 response", which would IMO have been more wisely spent as covert billions rather than overt trillions] . . . there is realistically only one way forward : a mild, careful, intelligent, humane pruning of governmental expenditure plus a careful intelligent raising of taxation revenue. This, not a political proposal, but simply common sense.

DirtDad is very right to state that there's a considerable number of very generous Americans ~ especially among the Rich.
He is wrong [as usual?] to IMPLY that this generosity is widespread across the board. To an observer, there seems also a considerable number of Rich [and others !!] who have a selfishness & flintiness of heart somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan . . .

On this point, I must confess that, pretty much across the board, Australians are NOT generous. (So much for the suggestion, earlier in this thread, that Oz and USA citizens are very similar !)
Yes, if you are lost in the desert and encounter a typical Aussie, he will GIVE you a water-flask and probably give you the shirt off his back, too.
But back in the city, you will be lucky to get him to cough up more than $2 or $10 for a noble charitable cause.
Mostly it's a matter of culture, I think, [plus lesser taxation benefits ?] combined with a knowledge that in the background is a semi-generous governmental system that [largely] won't let people starve in the gutter [and will give everyone access to medical treatment in hospital !!].

For example, Aussies' international donations (by Aussie individuals & governments) amount to well under 1% of GNP . . . and for all I know, may well be exceeded by the combined efforts of Buffett and Gates.
.

Maybe you should review the World Giving Index 2011. It leads me to believe otherwise.
https://www.cafonline.org/pdf/World_...011_191211.pdf

__________________
2012 DL1000 Adventure (Tinkerbell)
PC-V, TRE, CR8EIX plugs, Madstad bracket, Madstad 22" shield, Fork brace, 17/43 gearing, Airhawks, Chinese mirrors, mirror extenders, RDL.