How to fix the US National Debt

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.


Alright, then households, your source says they own 56% of the wealth. Yes, some millionaires do work (many don't), but so does average Joe, and he has to pay taxes too. Every millionaire became a millionaire off the labor of others (millionaires like to forget this fact, but that doesn't make it less true), which is not to say they always exploit their workers (they don't have to be real employees: anyone that provides rich people with relatively cheap services counts): as long as they pay a fair wage the relationship is mutually beneficial. The millionaire and the worker need each other! Workers aren't sponging off your tax dollars: they are the one who offered their services for such a low price that allows you to make any profit at all! It is this fact that is often overlooked by the richer segments of society. What constitutes a fair wage? Well, it has to cover primary living expenses and then leave enough for the worker to enjoy a reasonable quality of life. Obviously healthcare is a primary living expense and obviously most of today's wages are not enough to cover it and leave anything left. This is true for most developed countries and it is a conscience choice to keep worker's wages low enough to compete with the rest of the world. Most developed countries prevent a violent revolution by compensating the workers in the form of benefits like cheap healthcare, paid from mostly the taxes of the rich. Alternatively they could increase wages up to the point that workers can purchase healthcare themselves. They have to do on or the other or the workers will become disgruntled because they feel exploited, that the relationship between them and their employers has become too one-sided. Either way, keeping the peace will cost the employers, be it in the form of wages or taxes. Other countries have shown that the second option is ultimately cheaper because services such as healthcare and education are cheaper when controlled by the government (this is not true of all sectors: I would hate the idea of the government running the car industry), simply because he government can keep prices down when private corporations would choose to squeeze as much out of people as possible (if employers decided to pay higher wages instead of taxes then private insurers would just up their premiums accordingly, causing workers to demand even higher wages and so on).
 
"We have no idea how much Trump gives in charity either."

That's right: we have no idea, he could be making all sorts of claims that aren't even true. Still, would you want the chances of you getting a scholarship depend on the current mood of the local rich instead of on your grades?
 


Haven't you read my posts? Rich people only have property because poor people allow them to acquire it with comparatively little effort. Apart from the occasional gold miner who strikes big time every millionaire earns money through employees and even through the local grocery storekeeper who is so kind as to charge him the regular price even though he knows he can have the millionaire pay more than regular customers. When the emplyees and storekeepers find they can't afford basic necessities anymore (probably because the millionaire is driving up prices) they stop being kind and the millionaire has the choice to pay more or risk his employees quitting on him.

Sure, go ahead, make taxes voluntary, but don't be surprised when employers choosing not to pay will go bankrupt because workers don't want to work for them.


"You seem to agree with the parasite mindset. I don't. My parents taught me how to take care of myself."

Unless you live in a shack you built yourself, from wood you cut yourself, using a computer you built yourself running on power you supply yourself with solar panels you built yourself using materials you mined yourself, and so on, you have no idea how much you depend on others for everything, particularly on low wages for the workers who really built all the sh*t you buy in stores from clerks with low wages.
 


It's not on the backs of the poor as long as there are fair wages involved, but you can't deny the rich depend on the poor to get rich, even when the relationship is mutually beneficial. The poor demanding the rich to pay taxes is therefore completely equivalent to them demanding higher wages, which they have every right to. If you'd rather they did just demand higher wages then that's your choice, but I've already explained why this will end up costing the corporations more than taxes.
 
oldman have you made your first million yet?

I'm on my way to my second ... the first being tied up in houses and some land.

I do voluntary work on a tech hardware site ... helping people come to terms with their futile existence .. .and trying to make them laugh at themselves ... and me on occasion (when I'm up to it).

I did have someone I was mentoring but you went crackers ... like republican Sao / Jatz !!

/without prejudice, malware or sql injection

You can be saved ... join the borg !!

 


The middle class are part of the workers, considering the vast gap in wealth and income between them and the rich. How can a worker go get another job when almost no one's hiring and not a single employer will offer a fair wage in that particular profession? Did you ever read about the 19th century when things worked exactly like you want them to and it resulted in whole families (of workers who worked 60 to 80 hours a week, with their children also working) having to live in one bedroom apartments (just like workers today in countries that have few labor laws)? Corporations discuss wages with each other (which is often more profitable than outright competition) and pay politicians to vote against wage or tax increases. Workers are still being nice and demanding higher taxes for corporations and healthcare reform through civil, democratic means instead of the (for corporations) more expensive massive increase in wages or the violent riot, but their patience won't last forever.

P.S. good luck on acquiring your first million, hint: don't try to get it through hard work (there are not enough hours in a day to get rich that way), just capitalize on some advantage you got for free, like a government scholarship or money from mom and pops for a good education, a pretty face, being friends with people who are already rich or try sweet lady luck (I hear the stock markets are always open for bets)...

I plan on being well off someday as well, but I won't delude myself by saying I did it all on my own: I'll always remember my government gave me the means to go to college and stay healthy while at it and therefore I'll happily pay my taxes, and not ask for tax cuts, no matter how rich I become.
 


The top 1,5% of households have incomes of $250,000 or more per year, it's the amount Obama choose as the line between rich and not rich. Rather than a gradual build up all statistics show a sharp decline of the number of households at increasingly higher income marks. There is just such a sharp distinction between households making $250.000 a year or more and everyone below. Notice that this number is smaller than the number of millionaire households you came up with, that's because there are people with a $100.000 income who own a $700.000 house, a $100.000 car and have $100.000 in the bank. Still, even the people who earn between $250.000 and a million own less wealth than the 412 American billionaires. There is just so much wealth concentrated at the top. I honestly wouldn't mind breaking up the highest tax bracket into different tariffs for the over $250.000s, the millionaires and finally the billionaires.

But I'm backing out of this thread as well, gotta do other stuff, good luck on acquiring your first million, just remeber the little people who helped you get there.
 


Yes, the wealthy should pay some taxes over their property (if it's an investment like a house, not a car), but not a lot. After all, if the government hasn't screwed up then they've already collected taxes over the income that was used to buy the property in the first place.

Mind you, I'm constantly calling to trim the welfare state here in Europe, so I'm not a socialist or someone who thinks the rich should pay for everything. If it were up to me Donald Trump could keep $20 million of the $42 million he makes, and if he doesn't like it he can leave and figure out how to protect his property without the support of American firefighters, courts, cops and ultimately the military (which exists mostly for his sake: China and Russia are likely much more interested in Donald Trump's wealth than in average Joe's lawnmower). However I do draw the line at education and healthcare. Those have to be affordable and accessible to everyone, otherwise a country has nothing meaningful to offer its citizens and is just plainly being immoral if it then has the nerve to ask anything from those citizens (like military service or income tax from the poor)
 


Yes, I know that, it's the same in Europe, except here there are no Bush tax cuts. Taxes on investments are much lower than 50%, both here and in the US and that's not a problem. Reversal of the current tax cuts, closing off of loopholes, elimination of tax incentives for things like outsourcing, plus installing a $100/month fee (sounds like a lot? Just remember today's premiums...) per adult for universal healthcare, while keeping all other taxes the same would pretty much provide enough income for the government and the states to work with. Tax revenue will still be less than in Europe but since Americans don't seem to be missing many non-essential social services Americans currently don't get, while Europeans do, America doesn't need as much tax revenue either. If America could commit itself to making corporations and the rich pay the taxes they're supposed to, while trimming the military and building healthcare and education systems as cheap and efficient as those of Europe (or Canada), then America should be able to eke out a small surplus. These are the things I proposed in my first post.
 


If it were really halve of your incomes you'd pay more taxes than the Swedes, so I have to call BS on that one: you don't even have VAT! And no, you don't pay $135/month for your healthcare, such rates don't exist in the US, it's actually closer to $1350, your employer deducts most of that from your paycheck.

As for the military: would you feel less safe if America had 3 times as many aircraft carriers as the next country on the list, instead of 5 times as many?
 
That is ridiculous: $135/month is about a third of the national average, and that's per person! I think you need to have a talk with your employer if he's shielding your real premium for you. Actual premiums are much higher than what you think you pay, there are many statistics who indicate this and even simply dividing American medical expenditures (minus medicare and medicaid) yields an average of $4000 a year for every man, woman and child in America (of which part receive medicare/medicaid and thus does not pay into private insurance, while obviously all children don't either). It's not just statistics, people I know in the US confirm they pay much more than $135.

As for the taxes: I'm not kidding, the Swedes pay on average 50% taxes, although this might be higher for poorer people since they pay more VAT (compared to their income). Americans only pay around 30% on average, though I guess you could increase that number by buying twenty tonnes of cigarettes each month.

"Military: I would rather have 10 times as many aircraft carriers as the next country on the list."

I didn't know you were so afraid of the British...
 
I noticed that the discussion is about taxes.

What needs to be done is the Bush Tax cuts need to expire and set up an equal tax rate to every person and business. That way one is not getting a better advantage over the other.

Another thing: There is a 'class warfare', it is the loss of the middle class.
 
How have the Bush Tax cuts generate jobs? In all my years of watching Bush...I have never heard of employment growing exponentially over the tax cuts...only more overseas jobs...

I say equal taxes, it is because we NEED to equal taxes....for states. States are suffering right now. My home state has crappy roads and a broken school system...and Intel,( our largest employer), has millions in revenue just from revenue, and not employees.
 
oldmangamer, I suspect we channel each other. You obviously have a clear understanding of the individual rights (and responsibilities) on which this country was founded.
Saying Government "gave" someone a tax break is like saying the neighborhood burglar "gave" you your TV.
Back to the original topic...
Get the government OUT of everything that isn't a government job, no matter how beneficial it may [appear to] be. It isn't their job to confiscate people's earnings to fund their programs. That specifically includes welfare, foreign aid, farm subsidies; if it looks like a trough, it stays empty. Put down career criminals, and those guilty of repeated willful wrongdoing, after stripping them and their estates to penury.

Hmmm, I'm starting to get worked up about the parasites; better cool off first.
 


Well then, be prepared to pay twice as much for everything, because workers won't put up with not being able to afford jacksh*t while the rich make record profits. Mark my words: you'll end up paying for the needs of workers somehow, whether it's through taxes or through higher prices and wages.
 
^ I think he was referring to the fact that any possible split in the economic system would bring people to have to supported by the government. Kind of like going form capitalism>socialism>communism>totalitarianism.
 


The term workers refers to everyone who has to work to support themselves. You may be thinking it's all about supporting yourself and your relatives, but so does the guy who grows your food or builds your cars. Getting rid of government subsidies will cause these people to starve to death unless they demand higher wages and prices, that you will have to pay, in turn you'll demand a higher wage as well, this goes on until the billionaires on top end up losing their tax cuts to the higher wages of their employees and higher prices of goods they purchase. There is no such thing as a free lunch: you'll either have to pay taxes or pay for high wages and prices because the people who sell you goods and services want to be able to live off that practice, on way or another. Which will cost you less? Well, you won't be paying for the unemployed anymore, so that's a plus, but on the other hand you won't have a government with the power to prevent, or at least, slow down a vicious circle of inflation and decreasing spending power caused by corporations selling essential goods and services continually upping their price every time workers get higher wages and then some, that's a minus and a big one considering as much as 6% (and rising) of America's GDP is already wasted on healthcare that's more expensive then it ought to be. Then there's the cost of education which is also in a vicious cycle of ever rising tuition (faster than worker's wages)... Well, you get the point. In the end paying taxes is cheaper, that's why every developed country chose that option.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom