Fair share; not 43.6%.

What does this have to do with NY residential real estate?

Look at it this way: the top 1% of Americans owns 35% of all privately held wealth. The next 19% owns 50%, and the bottom 80% owns 15%. The income tax represents about 45% of the Federal budget, and pays for defense and all the alphabet soup (DOJ, FBI, CIA, ATF, DOP, FDA, etc, etc), and interest, and discretionary expenses (infrastructure, aide to states, and your dime for CPB and Planned Parenthood.) Think of it as a coop: not everyone pays the same maintenance; if you own a 4,000sf apt. on the 12th floor, you'll pay more than the guy who has a 1 bedroom on the third floor.
By that measure, although progressive in nature, income tax is not as fair as it could be. The bottom 20% are renters and don't pay maintenance at all, so someone has to carry them (unless you want a homeless camp across the street.)
Wealthy people benefit from being safe, secure in their wealth, with police at the ready and a strong currency; their assets are protected. Why shouldn't they pay in proportion of ownership, plus a little bit extra for the poor?

Well put.

What percentage of wealth does the top 0.1% own?

increase capital gains taxes for those with earned incomes of over $200k or so. simple, done, enough said.

$200K? Why is it in the best interests of this country to remove aspiration. Getting to $200K is within everyone's dreams either for themselves or for their kids. No, we shouldn't be raising taxes at $200K.

Kudos, maly, very well put.

The issue I have is this - setting the additional taxation level at $200,000 or $250,000 seems as unreasonable to me as is the setting of the current 'Mansion Tax' in NYC at $1,000,000. Taxing the 'rich' I have no problem with, but I think that should start at $500,000 or $1,000,000 of annual earned income. And I think the 'Mansion Tax' should also be raised as well, to something like all purchases above $2,000,000 or $3,000,000.

Two charts destroy TOP:

http://www.cbpp.org/images/4-13-11TopTenTaxCharts1.jpg

http://www.cbpp.org/images/4-13-11TopTenTaxCharts4.jpg

More charts like the same, proving that the US is a low-tax country across the board, and for the rich, amongst OECD nations.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2011/04/top-ten-tax-charts.html

matsonjones, I know many wish (myself included) the mansion tax level were raised...but considering how much revenue the city gets out of this, not a chance in hell...

Maly,
That analogy doesn't work. If I am on a higher floor with a setback terrace; I have a tangible increased benefit vs lower floors. I enjoy better views, outdoor space etc. No problems paying this.
In my example; I don't get any tangible increased benefits vs the other 98% of the country. Everyone enjoys the same rights and protection from the military(as you put it alphabet soup). In fact, I would argue that I have less services available to me such as welfare; medicaid etc.
Throwing around the phrase "pay your fair share" just adds insult to injury since I pay more than my fair share. It' this rampant falshood that people making over 250k pay no taxes that really makes my blood boil.

Additionally, the argument that we are a low taxed nation compared to the world does not fly. Some of these nations are only quoting federal tax; we have state/local taxes that we pay on top. It's basically just an argument that it could be worse. Am I supposed to take comfort in that?

scriber17, if you're in the top 1%, would it be worth more to you to prevent people & foreign governments to confiscate all of your worldly possessions than it would be worth to someone who lives hand-to-mouth working the third shift at Seven-11, plus another part-time job to pay back his child's medical bills? I'd guess it would be worth many times more, on any basis.

You're supposed to take comfort in the amount that you get to keep (not what you pay in taxes), and the goods, services and feeling of stability that that money provides.

"Additionally, the argument that we are a low taxed nation compared to the world does not fly. Some of these nations are only quoting federal tax; we have state/local taxes that we pay on top. It's basically just an argument that it could be worse. Am I supposed to take comfort in that?"

Even with state federal and local combined, we are still on the low to middle end. Just because you live in NYC does not mean its like this for the whole US. Rich people in Texas or even (seriously) California for that matter pay lower taxes overall.

Well, the analogy isn't perfect, because a coop building is a solid thing, while in reality the penthouse triplex on top of the "building" that is the US keeps expanding. My point is that it costs money to maintain the building, and it makes sense to apportion maintenance is proportion of ownership of shares. If you have millions in assets, employ thousands of people, and make millions more every year, you benefit from the infrastructure much, much more than Joe Q. Public in the rented studio for which he pays half of his take-home income.
It costs a lot to maintain a standing army, the alphabet soup and the research and infrastructure which allows for US companies to be successful and profitable.
If you don't feel you enjoy the benefits of a top-shelf life, you're either not in the top 10% or you lack perpective. I don't know you, so I can't tell for sure. Right now, in our coop analogy, we're running the building at a deficit, because the guy who owns the triplex penthouse only pays 29% of the cost of running the place, even though he owns 35% of the shares. The funny thing is that people around the 90th percentile (average $120,000/yr income, $500,000 of assets) pay a much higher percentage of their income than people at the top 1% (mostly because of the low tax rate on capital gains.)
To go back to my coop analogy, he's the guy with a 1 bedroom on the park side of the building, who has 0.75% of the shares and pays 1.2% of the total maintenance. Is that you? or are you one floor up, in a 2-bedroom, owning 1.5% of the shares, paying 1.6% and whining?

"[income] Gains at the Top Dwarfed Those of Low- and Middle-Income Households"

http://www.cbpp.org/images/4-13-11TopTenTaxCharts8.jpg

From 1979 to 2007...please. Fair share?

Top 1 Percent's Income Share More Than Doubled Over the past Thirty Years

http://www.cbpp.org/images/4-13-11TopTenTaxCharts9.jpg

AND YET

"Effective Tax Rates on the Wealthiest People Have Fallen Dramatically"

http://www.cbpp.org/images/4-13-11TopTenTaxCharts4.jpg

Taxes on the wealthiest have FALLEN as their income has skyrocketed both in absolute terms and in relative terms. Fair share my ass.

"...When it comes to state and local taxes, the poor bear a heavier burden than the rich in every state except Vermont, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy calculated from official data. In Alabama, for example, the burden on the poor is more than twice that of the top 1 percent. The one-fifth of Alabama families making less than $13,000 pay almost 11 percent of their income in state and local taxes, compared with less than 4 percent for those who make $229,000 or more...."

Fair share my ass. State and local taxes in 49/50 states are REGRESSIVE.

http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html

From the same story above:

"It’s true that the top 1 percent of wage earners paid 38 percent of the federal income taxes in 2008 (the most recent year for which data is available). But people forget that the income tax is less than half of federal taxes and only one-fifth of taxes at all levels of government.

Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance taxes (known as payroll taxes) are paid mostly by the bottom 90 percent of wage earners. That’s because, once you reach $106,800 of income, you pay no more for Social Security, though the much smaller Medicare tax applies to all wages. Warren Buffett pays the exact same amount of Social Security taxes as someone who earns $106,800."

I think it's hard to argue against progressive taxation, but the question is how progressive, and how do you balance progressive taxation with regressive benefits. Personally, I want to treat the person who " lives hand-to-mouth working the third shift at Seven-11, plus another part-time job to pay back his child's medical bills?" very fairly, because this person is working hard and doing the right thing. But how do we treat the person who isn't working this hard and is demanding more and more benefits, and who protests in the street that the rich including the hard working rich should pay extra extra taxes.
By the way, this discussion caught my eye, but what's it got to do with streeteasy?

"the guy with a 1 bedroom on the park side of the building, who has 0.75% of the shares and pays 1.2% of the total maintenance"

The people *in high cost locations like NYC* making $200K-500K probably *feel* this way. In reality, they are probably paying close to their fair share imo.

"But how do we treat the person who isn't working this hard" ... by steeply taxing wealth, inheritance by adults, etc.

Why can't people stick to the numbers?
Obama isn't talking about increasing tax on the the top 1%, he's talking about the top 2%.
Although I think the analogy is flawed; I don't buy that I get a bigger benefit than the other 98% of the nation just because I have more quantatively speaking to lose. If I only had $1000 and lost it; vs $10 and lost it...in the end we both have zero.
Running with your analogy it's the guy in the penthouse that owns 24.1% of the shares but pays 43.6% of the buildings maintenance; and not "29% of the cost of running the place, even though he owns 35% of the shares." I would love to pay 29% if I owned 35% but that's not the case here; the ratio is actually inverse.

"Warren Buffett pays the exact same amount of Social Security taxes as someone who earns $106,800."

Social Security is a bad example because the benefit is also capped based on the maximum taxable amount. In other words, Warren is not getting million dollar social security checks, just a couple of thousands max.

I suspect you mean confiscating wealth. But let me ask you, under your confiscation plan, is that confiscation also going to benefit high earners who are hard working and productive for their earnings, i.e. will it serve to lower taxes on earnings?

My questions were to respond to Allan Hart.

Alan Hart

Jason10006: None of your posts deal with the top 2%; more like the top .05%.

It is wonderful to reference Warren Buffett. But how much more does Warren Buffett have vs. the last person in the 2% category? How enormous is the magnitude of difference?

lornek, your question assumes some sort of divine right by select individuals to amass huge amounts of money. It also makes one wonder what "hard work" is in your examples. "Hard work" is things like toiling in the fields, lugging rocks around, etc. ... not manipulating laws to amass wealth at the expense of others, which is (almost without exception) how the wealthiest in this country amass wealth.

The talk of top 2% or $250K/yr being "rich" really worries me...

I made the following comment on a related thread:

AMT was originally created to target what percentage of "rich" Americans? 155 out of 203,302,031 doesn't seem like a big percentage right? What percentage of Americans are hit by AMT now?

scriber17/lornek: your point of view is that of someone within that 2%, and extends only to those at the extremes of that bracket. Imagine how the difference between the bottom and top of that 2% brackets looks to someone at the 50th percentile. Or even much higher than that.

"As of 2005, there were approximately 146,000 (0.1%) households with incomes exceeding $1,500,000, while the top 0.01% or 11,000 households had incomes exceeding $5,500,000. The 400 highest tax payers in the nation had gross annual household incomes exceeding $87,000,000. Household incomes for this group have risen more dramatically than for any other. As a result the gap between those who make less than one and half million dollars annually (99.9% of households) and those who make more (0.1%) has been steadily increasing, prompting The New York Times to proclaim that the "Richest Are Leaving Even the Rich Far Behind." Indeed the income disparities within the top 1.5% are quite drastic. While households in the top 1.5% of households had incomes exceeding $250,000, 443% above the national median, their incomes were still 2200% lower than those of the top .01% of households. One can therefore conclude that almost any household, even those with incomes of $250,000 annually are poor when compared to the top .1%, who in turn are poor compared to the top 0.000267%, the top 400 taxpaying households."

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

Just take half of everyone's net worth over a billion dollars, every year until they are under a billion. First year alone should be about 400 billion. Don't worry about when they have no more money. Just go after 500 million to 1B and so on.

"One can therefore conclude that almost any household, even those with incomes of $250,000 annually are poor when compared to the top .1%, who in turn are poor compared to the top 0.000267%, the top 400 taxpaying households."

... only if the "one" referred to is within (or near) that group of people. Few people earning $30K would come to that conclusion, especially using the word "poor". They'd consider it an undifferentiated mass of rich bitches, and would no more differentiate between the front and rear of the pack than they'd split them up by weight or height in labeling their wealth.

Scriber17; I understand you don't get it. That was pretty clear all along. Someone who makes 250K or even 350K is going to see a relative small increase if the Bush tax cuts are repealed; something like $4,000 to $7,000 per year depending on the source of their income. Someone making $12M will see a significant increase, maybe as much as $1M extra or more, if their income is derived mostly from capital gains. The current system does not work, as amply demonstrated by our enormous debt. It's time to stop whining and pay for Bush and Cheney's excellent adventures.

"Jason10006: None of your posts deal with the top 2%; more like the top .05%. "

Not true, many of the graphs showed that the top TWENTY percent has done better. Try again.

But I am one who thinks that we ought to have two more brackets - $1MM and $5MM. Maybe (assuming 39.6% comes back) 42% and 45%.

Just in time!!!!

"The Rich Are Back! Luxury Spending Jumps As Income Disparity Widens"

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/rich-back-luxury-spending-jumps-income-disparity-widens-20110415-094912-274.html

When facts don't support the liberals' arguments, they just make up their own numbers. See jason . . .

alan thinks that any person who makes $200,000 or more is just lucky and should be happy if the government lets them keep any part of the result of the value of their hard work and skills.

I'm so glad the nation is turning against this beggar handout mentality.

WHich numbers did I make up, exactly? Here is one of the charts with quintiles, dummy.

http://www.cbpp.org/images/4-13-11TopTenTaxCharts8.jpg

Lucky, yes, LICcomm, but not "just". And yes, they should be happy if they get to keep a lot of money.

And prove any correlation between income and skills or hard work ... I can introduce you to more than a few skilled people with 7-day a week, no vacation, long-day careers. But they'll probably stop talking to me if I do.

That reminds me of the SNL (Weekend Update?) boast that George W works "24/7 ... 24 weeks a year, seven hours a week" or some such numbers.

Ah, the parasites will always demand more from the producers.
http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/atlas-shrugged-movie-trailer

The return of the large-size twisted-lady username! And we thought you were ultrabanned!!!

julia...you're out...i had no idea

I am not 6'4". I think anyone over 6'1" should have surgery to shorten their legs. It's not fair and they didn't do anything to deserve to be 6'2" or taller.

Nobody's getting taller at the expense of anyone else's height.

julialarge, how's the BeckRadio dittohead Jersey housewife bumpersticker-quoter life?

Not everyone is getting wealthier at the expense of someone else's wealth.

Just been really busy with all the shared sacrificing.

I'm the one who doesn't get it? When will people like you "get" that there's only so much people who get taken advantage of will take. For me, I've had enough.
But basically your argument has degraded to:
You should be happy keeping what you do keep; and it could be worse.
4k-7k is not that much more...
Off topic but; there's no correlation between income and skills or hard work ...
As a compromise, IMO there should be more brackets...lumping me together with Buffet is preposterous.

julia, do you eat the hearts of the middleclassmen after you rip them out in your group-think Liberian sacrifice ritual?

"there's only so much people who get taken advantage of will take" ... now you sound like a Communist revolutionary! Power to The People!

scriber17: "...there's only so much people who get taken advantage of will take. For me, I've had enough. "

The poor could say the same.

"...there should be more brackets...lumping me together with Buffet is preposterous."

Totally agree with that though.

How are "the poor" being taken advantage of?

LICComment, the poor in this country certainly have the best opportunity to move up relative to other countries, but you seriously don't understand how everything is stacked against them?

"LICComment, the poor in this country certainly have the best opportunity to move up relative to other countries"

That is a bald face lie. Every study ever done that I have seen has shown that in both intra- and inter-generational social mobility the US is nearly last amongst the OECD nations. Its MUCH easier and in fact statistically likely for someone in the bottom 20% to end up in the upper middle or upper 20% (or 10%) in virtually EVERY OTHER rich country than in the US. You just made shit up out of your ass.

jason10006: "That is a bald face lie."

It is only a lie if you interpret the statement using a specific jason10006 filter. Opportunity to "move up" does not equate to saying "moving from all the way from the bottom to all the way to the top." What does your studies say about moving from lower class to lower middle class, or lower middle class to middle class?

I've seen the same stuff too, in the Economist and elsewhere. IIRC the stats looked at movement up from any quintile to the next one, not just bottom to top. Just another example of our elementary and secondary education going to pot.

Economic mobility is just about the most enduring American myth.

If it is a myth, then the liberals' beloved Head Start is a failure and all that taxpayer money poured into the ever-expanding Department of Education has been a waste.

I'd love to see the Department of Education completely dismantled. Education in this country has only gone down since it was created.

Given the increase in inequality in the United States in recent years, the questions of how much mobility is present and whether the degree of mobility has increased become even more important. A number of recent studies, discussed below, have examined this question. Those studies that have measured relative mobility are generally quite consistent with one another (see Table 1), finding that mobility is significant and has remained stable over time. . . .

The few studies that have compared mobility in the United States and other countries have concluded that, despite significant cross-national differences in labor market structures, mobility rates seem to be quite similar across countries.

The Burkhauser, et al. (1996) study discussed above compares earnings mobility in the United States and Germany during the 1980s, using the PSID in the United States and the German Socio-Economic Panel in Germany. The authors find remarkably similar rates of quintile-to-quintile movement in both countries for transition periods of between one and five years. As reported above, the one-year mobility rate in the United States during the 1980s was 29 percent. In Germany, it was 28 percent. The five-year mobility rate in the United States during the same period was 45 percent; in Germany, 44 percent. There are slight differences in the magnitude of the movements for those who change quintiles. Individuals are more likely to move one or two quintiles in the United States, while they are more likely to move three or four quintiles in Germany. 19

Duncan, et al. (1993) use a variety of national longitudinal data sets to study transitions out of poverty in seven countries for families with children 17 or younger during the early to mid-1980s. 20 Examining post-tax, post-transfer income, they find that one-year transition rates out of the bottom decile of the income distribution are generally quite uniform across countries, with rates in six of the seven countries between 21 percent and 27 percent (the rate in Sweden was 16 percent). The United States was near the middle of the distribution, at 23 percent.

Aaberge, et al. (1996) consider income mobility in the United States and three Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden), but do not examine quintile-to-quintile transitions, and are therefore less comparable to studies discussed previously. Nevertheless, their results (using a mobility measure based on the Gini coefficient) also indicate that income mobility is quite similar in the United States and other countries with significantly different labor markets.

-Daniel McCurrer and Isabell Sawhill- "Economic Mobility in the United States"

"then the liberals' beloved Head Start is a failure and all that taxpayer money poured into the ever-expanding Department of Education has been a waste."

Which president grew the size of the DOE by implementing No Child Left Behind? Can you tell us the name and political party of that president LICC?

NWT - a complete asinine statement. Lets go to the uber-rich - would it surprise you that most billionaires in the US are self-made or at least the equal to those that are part of a family dynasty (rockefellers, waltons, gettys, etc.)

where is aboutready and the horatio alger "myth"?

Economic mobility in this country has declined every since they started building interstate highways. I'd like to see the interstate highway system dismantled.

rangersfan, it wouldn't surprise at all, either way. Where a few thousand(?) billionaires started doesn't matter. The odds are tiny no matter the degree of mobility. The fact is that most people end up where their parents were. A few better off, a few worse, most the same.

"Economic mobility in this country has declined every since they started building interstate highways. I'd like to see the interstate highway system dismantled."

Funny but true. Its also declined since the launch of the Fox Network (Not NEWS, I mean "Married With Children" et al.)

Also since the first Space Shuttle launch.

Also since the creation of the ATM machine.

Also since the breakup of AT&T.

Also since Disco "died" the first time around.

Etc.

Correlation does not equal causation.

But regardless, its easier to move up the economic ladder in most other OECD nations, and yes the fact that most other nations have better (and more unified) k-12 schools has a lot to do with it.

"...Social mobility and inequality

Upper bound

The American dream is simple: work hard and move up. As the country emerges from recession, the reality looks ever more complicated..."

Speak of the devil see
http://www.economist.com/node/15908469?story_id=E1_TVJDRQGJ

http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP_InternationalComparisons_ChapterIII.pdf

"While Americans have an optimistic faith in the ability of individuals to get ahead within a lifetime or from one generation to the next, there is growing evidence of less intergenerational economic mobility in the United States than in many other rich industrialized countries, at least according to the relative mobility measures commonly used in economic research.

...

While cross-country comparisons of relative mobility rely on data and methodologies that are far from perfect, a growing number
of economic studies have found that the United States stands out as having less, not more, intergenerational mobility than do Canada and several European countries. American children are more likely than other children to end up in the same place on the income distribution as their parents. Moreover, there is emerging evidence that mobility is particularly low for Americans born into families at the bottom of the earnings or income distribution.

Though based on shakier evidence, mobility rates in less developed countries appear to be lower than in the United States in some instances, but not significantly different in others. "

jason10006: "You just made shit up out of your ass."

Better than making shit out of your mouth I suppose.

Having the opportunities and whether people choose to take advantage of those opportunities is a different story/study. That is actually related to the decline in our education system because I think it has a lot to do with a decline in parenting skills. Parents who focus on the importance of education and drill it into their kids seems to *miraculous* end up in better schools... I am a believer that the students and parents are the ones most responsible for making a school great.

jason and aboutready seemed to miss this part from my post above:

"The few studies that have compared mobility in the United States and other countries have concluded that, despite significant cross-national differences in labor market structures, mobility rates seem to be quite similar across countries."

Socialist- irrelevant. As usual, you have no point.

how about this: you can pay your "fair share" of taxes when you control your "fair share" of wealth and earn your "fair share" of income.

we have a system enormously skewed to the benefit of a tiny portion of the population, and now they want to further shift the burden onto the waitresses, construction workers, call center operators, policemen, soldiers, teachers, janitors, housecleaners, bus drivers, and everyone else. pathetic.

Typical LICC... whenever he gets called out, he just says "Irrelevant." This is why you can't debtate him. He runs when he is disproven.

Well, the good news for those who want lower taxes is that there are a number of tricks that always seem to work against the Socialists and alanharts. For instance Republicans can find an Alan Hevesi or Carl Kruger to be on the dole, or implant a Rattner within a liberal administration. Or throw out $250 to all taxpayers as a nice bribe which conveniently doesn't go to the poorest. Otherwise, if a liberal gets too powerful, there's always the ways to foment anger by saying the guy wasn't born here.

So many tricks available.

Fortunately for the Koch brothers, since the alanharts just don't get that someone making $500K or $1MM could be a hard worker and treat them fairly, those $500K and $1MM workers are going to jump on the Koch bandwagon rather than be persecuted with punitive tax codes that support this: http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/26026-the-difference-between-democrats-republicans or this: http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/26130-overpaid-government-workers (see AvUWS)

(by the way, I searched Streeteasy for the word 'Peace' and saw some odd threads)

I think the Dept. of Education should be expanded. If the Republcians hate it, then it must be working. George W. Bush expanded the DOE more than any other president.

So either way you don't really care, you just don't like Republicans. Did a Republican bite you when you were a child?

happyrenter- that system is called FREEDOM. People given opportunity to freely conduct their lives amongst each other and keep the value of their work and efforts, measured by the open competitive interaction of a free people. If you want an authoritarian to centrally plan everyone's outcome, move to Cuba.

Socialist, let me break it down more slowly so you can understand- pointing to Bush is irrelevant when someone criticizes irresponble government spending. What Bush did is no excuse for what others do.

alan believes there is no correlation between skills and hard work, and income. And he supports this idiocy with a made up anecdote.

This is the foundation of liberal thinking . . .

Julialg, thank you. It's impolitic, but I want to stick up a little bit for the more wealthy. IMO, most of the working wealthy have gotten there through hard work and smarts, combined with the willingness to take risks, persistence and drive to achieve. They lead what I would consider miserable, pressurized lives in the process, and I don't begrudge them their rewards. As a society, it is our responsibility to take care of the vulnerable, sick, unable, etc., and to collaborate on education, medical services, etc. for the benefit of the community. But there are too many with expectations of receiving rewards, or disproportionate rewards, without such corresponding effort. Just not sure why, if you have/hard earned money, you are expected to give it to others because they have less. For example, while I'm by no means wealthy, I pay more in taxes than my neighbor who has 4 kids in public school. Shouldn't he be the one paying more?

I don't see any mention here of a flat tax in which everyone pays the same according to their income - using 10% as a simple example. Make a million, pay 100,000; make 100,000, pay 10,000. The wealthy would still pay much more, but it's a little more fair, or rationale, than a graduated formula that punishes those who are financially successful. If 10,000 is harder on you (because you have 4 kids) than 100,000 is on someone with more money, well that's the life you chose.

See that totally could work, except 10% wouldn't generate enough revenues. 22% would about cover it; play with the personal exemption a bit (say $12,000 per person, plus $8,000 per dependent), and the rest is taxed at 22%, no deduction whatsoever, no matter the source of income (wages, capital gains, inheritance, rents, etc). No more social insurance vs. income tax vs. capital gains tax, but all one pot to pay for all the Federal Governemnt does.
A couple, married or not, making $50,000 would pay $5,720, no matter if they own or rent. A single person making $250K would pay $52K. No more tax accountants, simplified tax collection, no more sweetheart deals for hedge fund billionaires or trustfund babies. And more importantly, no more whining.

"People given opportunity to freely conduct their lives amongst each other and keep the value of their work and efforts, measured by the open competitive interaction of a free people."

... Lord of the Flies?

Quite the opposite

Sounds like a marxist dream, where everyone is a virtuous, hard-working, honest laborer. No crooks, no criminals, just like the garden of Eden minus the snake. What could go wrong?
Has anyone read the PSI report on the financial meltdown yet? It shows exactly what deregulation and a laissez-faire attitude has wrought. The beautiful results of innovation in a free market, when "given an opportunity to freely conduct their lives amongst each other and keep the value of their work and efforts, measured by the open competitive interaction of a free people."

the open competitive interaction of a greedy people

the top 1% of Americans owns 35% of all privately held wealth. The next 19% owns 50%, and the bottom 80% owns 15%.

The problem here is the bottom 80%.
Slacker nobodies...drinking expensive coffee and buying homes they could never hope to afford.
Costco shopping wannabees who have convinced themselves that Ketchup, in bulk, is the way to long term prosperity. leasing cars that say, "I am somebody" when in point of fact that somebody is someone who can't prioritize. Let's tax these blood sucking bottom feeders at a rate consistent with their utilization of public spaces and public services. That top 1%...you don't see them crowding public schools with their children. You don't see them hogging space and playing loud music in on public beaches. They never screw your day at the check-out counter arguing about an expired coupon. All that 1% asks is that you don't scrutinize their business or political practices. You accept the realization that you are a surf. A surf living with indoor plumbing, a DVR with 500 channels, AC a summer a refrigerator full of carbs, sugars, and red meat. Surfs with healthy kids who attend publicly funded schools on the off chance that perhaps one of those surf kids is so smart that they beat the system and join the top 1%. It really happens!
That's the magic of the deal.
Now all we got to do is get the surfs to pay their fair share for their amazing deal.
(best in human history, so far)

Ah, yes, the endless war between surf and turf.

Exactly Alan!

Teachers, firemen, cops, union workers, middle managers are eating Lobster without a bib, drowning it in melted butter and complaing about the sales tax. OK, it's happening at Red Lobster and the actual origin of the seafood is in question but, their bitching with crustation meat stuck between their teeth.

" If 10,000 is harder on you (because you have 4 kids) than 100,000 is on someone with more money, well that's the life you chose."

this can't possibly be a serious statement.

They're for their....sorry, got some clam juice in the eye.
Damn Red Lobster....

Government has a role in providing a fair playing field through the judicial, regulatory and enforcement process. Government should not be centrally planning and redistributing wealth, to achieve equal outcomes or for any other reason. Big difference maly.

It seems that a lot of liberals here have their views because they don't want to admit to their own inadequacies.

happyrenter - "If 10,000 is harder on you . . . " Why can't it be a serious statement? People need to take responsibility for the lives they create. Unless, as stated previously, they have no control (sick, unable, etc.) - then they should be protected/cared for by society. I'm not unsympathetic to someone supporting a family on 100,000. That's hard, but having a family was their choice - and I don't think they should be excused from paying their proportionate share of taxes.

Have people here read Atlas Shrugged? Even if you think the wealthy are just greedy blood suckers, it might help form a more balanced pov about the producers vs the parasites. Or vice verse, depending on your politics. Besides, it's a good read.

OK people, now how to get the idea of flat tax into the relevant ear/brain? Seriously.

"I don't see any mention here of a flat tax in which everyone pays the same according to their income - using 10% as a simple example. Make a million, pay 100,000; make 100,000, pay 10,000. The wealthy would still pay much more, but it's a little more fair, or rationale, than a graduated formula that punishes those who are financially successful. If 10,000 is harder on you (because you have 4 kids) than 100,000 is on someone with more money, well that's the life you chose."

Totally agree. The parasites always want to game the system. 50% of your fellow Americans pay ZERO in federal income tax. They contribute nothing to the functioning of their society. When Gabolly are they going to pay their "fair share"?

"The beautiful results of innovation in a free market, when "given an opportunity to freely conduct their lives amongst each other and keep the value of their work and efforts, measured by the open competitive interaction of a free people.""

America tried that system in the late 19th and early 20th Century. Didn't really work for the non-Carnegies. http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/mmh/PittsburghSurvey/Pittsburgh/outside.cfm

>Government should not be centrally planning and redistributing wealth,

When we talk about this government that is going to be doing central planning and redistribution of wealth, which government are we talking about? Who is in charge? John Edwards for President? Elliot Spitzer, Jim McGreevey and John Rowland for Governors of the Tri-State area? Joe Bruno and Hiram Monserrate to run our senate? Maybe Christine "don't call me Ma'am" Quinn to change the rules for Mayor? If we have a problem with them and need to take it to a judge, Sol Wachtler? Who is in charge of this all-knowing government?

Even this utter idiot came to the realization that his expectation of the President God fell significantly short:
http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/20078
columbiacounty
about 12 months ago
ignore this person
report abuse
so...here's how we get started.
a politician stands up and says: there are no easy answers anymore. for a viable future, we need to have shared sacrifice. rather than try to figure out how and which programs to cut, lets start with a lengthy dialogue aimed at creating a process that is fair.
i naively thought that obama was that guy; i think he may have thought he was as well.

julia, did you check yourself out finally. you sure you were ready? best luck