Psychology of money and taxation

[fj1200]

Agree that one probably can't choose to part of the BBOM...but they could choose to create their own fortune and be a part of the red-blooded, new-money social class!!

I think that overstates it. You can choose to work hard, take risks, etc. but success is not guaranteed.

[SassyLady]

I think that overstates it. You can choose to work hard, take risks, etc. but success is not guaranteed.

The idea is that you can choose to pursue this course ..... it's still a choice to try or to not try. Some people even reach the upper tier of wealth without working hard, or taking risks...they could have been just lucky or opportunistic.

On the other hand, many of us are easily satisfied and don't have to become uber wealthy to be happy....sometimes being successful is having a home, food, clothing, being healthy and having a loving family and loyal friends.

So .... success means different things to different people.

[fj1200]

The idea is that you can choose to pursue this course ..... it's still a choice to try or to not try. Some people even reach the upper tier of wealth without working hard, or taking risks...they could have been just lucky or opportunistic.

On the other hand, many of us are easily satisfied and don't have to become uber wealthy to be happy....sometimes being successful is having a home, food, clothing, being healthy and having a loving family and loyal friends.

So .... success means different things to different people.

Well said.

[Palin Rider]

Social classes in the USA are by choice, taxes under the current system aren't. So really, one IS fair since we control our own destiny (class), while the other, tax, is not.

Didn't your mama ever tell you that life wasn't always fair?

There's a reason that it isn't, by the way, and the reason has nothing to do with political parties or ideologies.

[Mr. P]

Didn't your mama ever tell you that life wasn't always fair?

There's a reason that it isn't, by the way, and the reason has nothing to do with political parties or ideologies.

There is no reason taxes can't be fair. Just for the hell of it tell me what the reason is that they're not except for the current structure of course.

[Palin Rider]

There is no reason taxes can't be fair. Just for the hell of it tell me what the reason is that they're not except for the current structure of course.

If by fair you mean that everyone would pay the same percentage rate, the reason is that a progressive structure is healthier for the economy.

If that's not what you mean by "fair," tell me your definition.

[Pagan]

If by fair you mean that everyone would pay the same percentage rate, the reason is that a progressive structure is healthier for the economy.

If that's not what you mean by "fair," tell me your definition.

Only way for that to happen is to completely do away with income tax and just have sales tax that exempts food (not prepared food) and medical expenses.

Income tax's especially the way the are in the U.S. the rich don't pay tax's, the middle class does.

[Mr. P]

If by fair you mean that everyone would pay the same percentage rate, the reason is that a progressive structure is healthier for the economy.

If that's not what you mean by "fair," tell me your definition.

Really, how so? I mean, looking around at this Oh so healthy economy ya gotta prove this one.

[fj1200]

Income tax's especially the way the are in the U.S. the rich don't pay tax's, the middle class does.

They don't?

[fj1200]

Really, how so? I mean, looking around at this Oh so healthy economy ya gotta prove this one.

In for the proof to this one.

[Missileman]

Only way for that to happen is to completely do away with income tax and just have sales tax that exempts food (not prepared food) and medical expenses.

Income tax's especially the way the are in the U.S. the rich don't pay tax's, the middle class does.

The rich pay taxes, but they wind up paying a lower percentage as compared to middle-income through loopholes and exemptions. I would really like to see a national sales tax replace income tax. The added revenue from those who don't ordinarily pay income tax would be huge!

[Pagan]

They don't?

In for the proof to this one.

Nope, it's called Trusts and offshore accounts along with an army of "Tax Lawyers" and politicians in their pockets.

If you think Millionaires are "rich" you're a few decades behind, Millionaires are "Middle Class".

[Palin Rider]

Really, how so? I mean, looking around at this Oh so healthy economy ya gotta prove this one.

Not that the current economic troubles have anything to do with progressive taxation, but sure.

Point 1: It's well known that the middle and working classes spend a much higher percentage of their incomes on consumable goods and services than the wealthiest households do.

Some people, including Adam Smith, say that this is reason enough for a progressive tax:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Point 2: The "Reaganomic" argument that the rich will invest their windfall from a flatter tax assumes that all this extra investing power will be used to create new wealth.

Point 3: In practice, we've seen most of this money go into stocks and bonds in the last couple of decades. That doesn't create new wealth; it simply reallocates existing wealth.

Point 4: More money for people buying consumables increases demand AND causes money to change hands more often (increasing the tax base). That increased demand is one of the strongest forces behind creating new wealth.

[Missileman]

Point 3: In practice, we've seen most of this money go into stocks and bonds in the last couple of decades. That doesn't create new wealth; it simply reallocates existing wealth.

So money invested in companies doesn't contribute in any way towards company growth leading in a lot of cases to increased employee roles and individual income(wealth)?

[Mr. P]

Not that the current economic troubles have anything to do with progressive taxation, but sure.

Point 1: It's well known that the middle and working classes spend a much higher percentage of their incomes on consumable goods and services than the wealthiest households do.

Some people, including Adam Smith, say that this is reason enough for a progressive tax:



Point 2: The "Reaganomic" argument that the rich will invest their windfall from a flatter tax assumes that all this extra investing power will be used to create new wealth.

Point 3: In practice, we've seen most of this money go into stocks and bonds in the last couple of decades. That doesn't create new wealth; it simply reallocates existing wealth.

Point 4: More money for people buying consumables increases demand AND causes money to change hands more often (increasing the tax base). That increased demand is one of the strongest forces behind creating new wealth.

All you've proven here is the old saying is still being used today. "If ya can't dazzle em with yer brilliance, baffle em with yer bullshit". I'm not empressed and you failed to prove your claim that "a progressive structure is healthier for the economy". You Failed.