I want to keep my comment out there for someone like max to respond to

What is stopping these good honest hard working people from starting their own business?

I mean, look at ben and Jerry's or chic fil a. They have different priorities than ConAgra and McDonald's. If its so easy to make millions, why don't they do it and allocate it as they see fit?

For max as an attorney, he probably knows lots of lawyers who make a good living working for someone else... And some who make a killing on their own... And some who struggle mightily on their own. Here the opportunities are identical, but the outcomes are all across the board. Honestly, if the outcomes rather than opportunities were identical, who would take the risk of going on their own?

[quote='Max Power' pid='7584915' dateline='1329845873']

Quote:Thats, what do you call it again? A strawman? I never said anything about capping anybody's earnings. I want to tax progressively.

Not really. I guess I asked the wrong question. Where do you draw the line between equal opportunity and equal results? How far would you take it? You like to use the comparison of the factory owner and the assembly like worker at that factory and point out the disparity of income without stating clearly what you think their incomes should be. Please clarify exactly how you would redistribute wealth.

(02-21-2012 12:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I want to keep my comment out there for someone like max to respond to

What is stopping these good honest hard working people from starting their own business?

I mean, look at ben and Jerry's or chic fil a. They have different priorities than ConAgra and McDonald's. If its so easy to make millions, why don't they do it and allocate it as they see fit?

For max as an attorney, he probably knows lots of lawyers who make a good living working for someone else... And some who make a killing on their own... And some who struggle mightily on their own. Here the opportunities are identical, but the outcomes are all across the board. Honestly, if the outcomes rather than opportunities were identical, who would take the risk of going on their own?

Nothing except maybe the availability of money. THere are small business that open everyday. Of course, not everyone wants to run their own business and not every small business owner makes lots of money(many also go out of business everyday).

But that is precisely the point, Robert.

There is risk in starting your own business. There is risk that reaps reward or failure. They don't make millions "just because"... They make millions because they took the risk of LOsINg millions. Most workers take very little risk, so their reward is significantly less.

(02-21-2012 12:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I want to keep my comment out there for someone like max to respond to

What is stopping these good honest hard working people from starting their own business?

I mean, look at ben and Jerry's or chic fil a. They have different priorities than ConAgra and McDonald's. If its so easy to make millions, why don't they do it and allocate it as they see fit?

For max as an attorney, he probably knows lots of lawyers who make a good living working for someone else... And some who make a killing on their own... And some who struggle mightily on their own. Here the opportunities are identical, but the outcomes are all across the board. Honestly, if the outcomes rather than opportunities were identical, who would take the risk of going on their own?

Start up capital (that at least they don't need to borrow so they don't have to worry about making interest and rent payment) and business acumen? What bank is going to loan to a factory worker with a GED? And most of them dodn't have rich friends who can pool together to get it off the ground.

I never said it was easy to make millions. It takes skill that not everybody has, and luck doesn't hurt either. (Neither does connections, or already having money.)

Quote:Not really. I guess I asked the wrong question. Where do you draw the line between equal opportunity and equal results? How far would you take it? You like to use the comparison of the factory owner and the assembly like worker at that factory and point out the disparity of income without stating clearly what you think their incomes should be. Please clarify exactly how you would redistribute wealth.

I don't want equal results. I want a progressive tax system (more progressive than we have). I don't want to take the factory away from the factory owner. I don't want to cap anybody's salary. I think people should probably pay around 50% of every dollar earned over $250,000, and 70% (the optimum point of the Laffer curve) of every dollar earned over $5 million but I'd settle for raising it back to the Clinton level (38%). These are about the rates we had under Eisenhower.

You could probably describe me as a social democrat, the ideology that dominated the British Labour party for most of the 20th century. Only I don't think we should nationalize industries (except in exigent circumstances like the auto bailout) and nor do I think we should have single provider health care (ie, government run hospitals).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democrat

Quote:Contemporary Social democracy is defined as a political movement that seeks to profoundly reform capitalism to align it with the ethical ideals of social justice, rather than creating an alternative socialist economic system.[3][4] Contemporary Social democratic policies include support for a welfare state, Keynesian macro-economic policies, and collective bargaining arrangements to balance the power of capital and labor.[5] Examples of contemporary social democracy include the Nordic model and social market economy.

(02-21-2012 02:57 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 12:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I want to keep my comment out there for someone like max to respond to

What is stopping these good honest hard working people from starting their own business?

I mean, look at ben and Jerry's or chic fil a. They have different priorities than ConAgra and McDonald's. If its so easy to make millions, why don't they do it and allocate it as they see fit?

For max as an attorney, he probably knows lots of lawyers who make a good living working for someone else... And some who make a killing on their own... And some who struggle mightily on their own. Here the opportunities are identical, but the outcomes are all across the board. Honestly, if the outcomes rather than opportunities were identical, who would take the risk of going on their own?

Start up capital (that at least they don't need to borrow so they don't have to worry about making interest and rent payment) and business acumen? What bank is going to loan to a factory worker with a GED? And most of them dodn't have rich friends who can pool together to get it off the ground.

I never said it was easy to make millions. It takes skill that not everybody has, and luck doesn't hurt either. (Neither does connections, or already having money.)

Quote:Not really. I guess I asked the wrong question. Where do you draw the line between equal opportunity and equal results? How far would you take it? You like to use the comparison of the factory owner and the assembly like worker at that factory and point out the disparity of income without stating clearly what you think their incomes should be. Please clarify exactly how you would redistribute wealth.

I don't want equal results. I want a progressive tax system (more progressive than we have). I don't want to take the factory away from the factory owner. I don't want to cap anybody's salary. I think people should probably pay around 50% of every dollar earned over $250,000, and 70% (the optimum point of the Laffer curve) of every dollar earned over $5 million but I'd settle for raising it back to the Clinton level (38%). These are about the rates we had under Eisenhower.

You could probably describe me as a social democrat, the ideology that dominated the British Labour party for most of the 20th century. Only I don't think we should nationalize industries (except in exigent circumstances like the auto bailout) and nor do I think we should have single provider health care (ie, government run hospitals).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democrat

Quote:Contemporary Social democracy is defined as a political movement that seeks to profoundly reform capitalism to align it with the ethical ideals of social justice, rather than creating an alternative socialist economic system.[3][4] Contemporary Social democratic policies include support for a welfare state, Keynesian macro-economic policies, and collective bargaining arrangements to balance the power of capital and labor.[5] Examples of contemporary social democracy include the Nordic model and social market economy.

So you want me to be forced to pay 50% of my income to big brother. I don't think so. How about we broaden the tax base so EVERYONE has skin in the game. I know you've heard this before but, you do realize we can't tax our way to prosperity right?

Questions.

How much deficit would the government still have if they confiscated the wealth of the top 10% of all earners?

What budget cuts would you support to help balance the budget, assuming you realize we can't tax our way out of this?

How much of a deficit is too much for you?

How much debt would you burden your children with?

Quote:So you want me to be forced to pay 50% of my income to big brother. I don't think so. How about we broaden the tax base so EVERYONE has skin in the game. I know you've heard this before but, you do realize we can't tax our way to prosperity right?

Questions.

How much deficit would the government still have if they confiscated the wealth of the top 10% of all earners?

What budget cuts would you support to help balance the budget, assuming you realize we can't tax our way out of this?

How much of a deficit is too much for you?

How much debt would you burden your children with?

I said 50% of every dollar over $250,000, yes. No, I wholeheartedly disagree with taxing the poor and people living paycheck to paycheck. I never suggested we could tax our way to prosperity.

I don't know. I don't want to confiscate all of anybody's wealth, just future income. (That wealth can be taxed though with estate taxes or other means).

Defense and corporate welfare.

I don't have a number. The acceptable rate of the growth of the debt depends on the growth of the tax base, and the state of the economy (because we shouldn't be trying to pay down the debt in a recession because it will make it worse).

(02-19-2012 07:16 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Also, I object to the idea that rich people "earned" or "worked" for their riches any harder than people with less money. Capitalism isn't equitable. If your dad owned a factory, and gives you the factory, and you just maintain it and rake in millions, don't give me BS about keeping what you've "earned." Now I'm not advocating we do away with capitalism but we shouldn't let it run wild either and compensate for its inequities through wealth redistribution.

There is no way that wealth redistribution will ever incentivize someone to start or grow a business. How will you encourage economic growth if you want to increase punishments (taxes) on business?

(02-21-2012 04:33 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(02-19-2012 07:16 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Also, I object to the idea that rich people "earned" or "worked" for their riches any harder than people with less money. Capitalism isn't equitable. If your dad owned a factory, and gives you the factory, and you just maintain it and rake in millions, don't give me BS about keeping what you've "earned." Now I'm not advocating we do away with capitalism but we shouldn't let it run wild either and compensate for its inequities through wealth redistribution.

There is no way that wealth redistribution will ever incentivize someone to start or grow a business. How will you encourage economic growth if you want to increase punishments (taxes) on business?

You're thinking about this all wrong. The more you steal from them the more they have to earn to provide for their families and every other mooching a@@ family out there that's on the government teet. So...by taxing them more we are stimulating the economy. Silly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/busine...ons&st=cse

Despite what Grad has tried to insinuate many times on here, I am not a Mankiw disciple. Friedman and Hayek would be more like it. Mankiw is another neo-Keynesian, just a bit more conservative politically, and I am decidedly not a neo-Keynesian.

Nevertheless, I quote him occasionally because he sometimes expresses very well a number of things that I agree with. This article is one of those occasions. And if Grad is lurking, note that I'm not parroting Mankiw here. I've been saying all of these things since long before this article was published. Maybe Mankiw is parroting me.

(02-21-2012 05:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/busine...ons&st=cse

Despite what Grad has tried to insinuate many times on here, I am not a Mankiw disciple. Friedman and Hayek would be more like it. Mankiw is another neo-Keynesian, just a bit more conservative politically, and I am decidedly not a neo-Keynesian.

Nevertheless, I quote him occasionally because he sometimes expresses very well a number of things that I agree with. This article is one of those occasions. And if Grad is lurking, note that I'm not parroting Mankiw here. I've been saying all of these things since long before this article was published. Maybe Mankiw is parroting me.

I'm in. I especially like his "TAX BADS RATHER THAN GOODS" proposition.

Agree brookes and 69/70. What you tax, you get less of... And max wants to tax success.

How about THiS max, rather than try and figure out where to get trillionsnofmdollars of revenue from,many don't we try and not spend trillions of dollars?? I mean, negative infinity to 36% is pretty regressive.... Especially in that those actually paying the top bracket aren't anywhere near the wealthiest, and to impose the sort of tax you suggest would decrease investment capital and job creation, at least in the us.

If you want Eisenhower tax rates, you have to go back to Eisenhower shipping rates and industrial capabilities... We just don't live in that world anymore... Not to mention Eisenhower entitlement program levels.

If you want Eisenhower rates, or JFK tax rates, or anything else before now, you also have to use definitions of taxable income that were in effect then.

To give you an example of the impact, consider that when the top rate was lowered from 50% to 28% in 1986, the definition of taxable income was changed simultaneously and virtually dollar-for-dollar with the rate change, so the people who were paying 50% before 1986 actually paid almost precisely the same dollar amount of tax at 28% after 1986. That means that the definition of taxable income almost doubled in that one bill, not to mention changes in income definition in the 1982 TEFRA and other acts. As a tax return preparer from the 1970s to today, it has been my experience that rate decreases were pretty much offset by differences in how taxable income was defined, so that high income individuals are actually paying pretty much the same tax on the same total income today as they were in 1975.

The Bush tax commission in 2005, and both the Bowles-Simpson commission and the Domenici-Rivlin committee in 2011 recommended the same approach--lower tax rates across a broader base. That's the way Europe has been going for 20-30 years. It's time for us to move to a world-class tax system.