Give Oil Company profits to the people

[PandaBear]

IMO the whole who should be taxed more than the other guy debates are suppose to consider the following conditions:

1) The rich should always pay more taxes in absolute and percentage terms than the poor. Why? if you can afford to live better you are suppose to pay more, simply because you are more likely to give up luxuries than necessities than the poor. It is one thing to give up a BMW and have to drive a Chevy, but it is another thing to give up a Hyundai and have to ride a bike. Almost every non-3rd world country do this. Drug kingpins, dictators, oil princes, royals from 3rd world are the only exceptions to this rule.

2) A country needs taxes to support the infrastructures and investments for the future. How much of that is wasted vs how much of that is used effectively is up to expense side decision making, regardless of how much of that is taxed from rich or the poor. Remember, you may not seems to enjoy the taxes but you are. Your businesses may not exist without the infrastructure of the country like police, roads, educations of the poor that makes them your consumers, and the poor should also not take for granted the services they get because the rich are paying for like free education (ok, semi free in the US because the local taxes pay for it), low fuel price (relative to other countries) because our military is stabilizing the rouge oil producing nations (whether you like it or not, we are stabilizing the regions, and whether you think it is good and evil is a point subjects to debate), jobs that are here because the rich make a profit and they are not taxed out of existence, etc. Both sides benefit from a healthy and stable tax structure.


The most important:

3) Given that we need to be taxed and tax money needs to be spent effectively to support the nation's existence and its people's well being in general. It is now a matter of who should pay for what. Everyone is now penny pinching and trying to catch loopholes that benefit one more than the other. Let's not forget that we need to make sure that each sub-category is not taxed out of existence. For example, too much tax on the labor will cause out sourcing, and too much tax on the rich will make them move the companies overseas. Many companies generate huge profit in one product/service and use the profit to support another money losing product/service (think airline and auto industry). When a competitor shows up with no need to support money losing product/service, and starts a price war on the profit making product/service, then someone is going to go out of business. A country's tax system is the same way. Too much tax on the labor and the jobs move overseas, and too much tax on businesses and they move. We need a balance that can be sustainable.





So far I think the US is doing good. We can probably tax those that make 1 million+ a year more and keep the middle class happier (middle class like all the small business owners here) and without driving the lower income group like Mr. $9/hr to starvation.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
So far I think the US is doing good. We can probably tax those that make 1 million+ a year more and keep the middle class happier (middle class like all the small business owners here) and without driving the lower income group like Mr. $9/hr to starvation.

Sure, it is always OK to punish the minority for the good of the majority...
Quote:
The rich should always pay more taxes in absolute and percentage terms than the poor.

Define rich.
Quote:
like police, roads, educations of the poor that makes them your consumers, and the poor should also not take for granted the services they get because the rich are paying for like free education

I suggest that you take a closer look as to where most of the federal tax dollars go. It isn't these.

 

[Duffman77]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
So far I think the US is doing good. We can probably tax those that make 1 million+ a year more and keep the middle class happier (middle class like all the small business owners here) and without driving the lower income group like Mr. $9/hr to starvation.

Sure, it is always OK to punish the minority for the good of the majority...
Quote:
The rich should always pay more taxes in absolute and percentage terms than the poor.



Whether you have ever though about it before, all economically advanced modern democracies operate on an unwritten and unspoken social contract. Since we live in a democracy really the sky is the limit as to what can be done as long as the mob dictates that that is what they want. We have set up a society (law abiding citizens) that has decided to live under a system of laws. Those laws grant property rights to people and set up protections to maintain them. These laws are of mostly benefit to the wealthy that have property or assets to be protected. These are the laws that stop the poor from breaking down your door, looting what they need and torching your house after they are done. The other side of this contract has always been that the “haves” would contribute more than their fair share. When the “have nots” no longer receive what they perceive to be a fair end of the deal, what is to stop them from rewriting the rules? It is a democracy after all and majority rules.

What is a fair deal? That is constantly changing and will continue to change as society is dynamic.

 

[Drew99GT]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
I'd hardly say he's not paying SSI, if he has folks working for the company, he's paying the company 1/2 of their SSI. Joe Average doesn't have to pick up an extra approx 7% FICA for his employees. A business owner does. So to suggest that anyone who owns a business is not paying FICA is missing the big picture. They are likely paying more than us, if they have a few employees.

Also, even if he's only taking a small salary to stay in the 10% FIT bracket, he's really paying approx 14-15% FICA since his business picks up the other half of the FICA tab.

He's taking a risk. He's banking on the value of the company rather than taking the money now.

If it folds up, he has nothing to show for that labor.

There are two sides to that coin.

Most businesses fail. So for every success, how many failed?


His employees are small share holders who do the same thing as he does. He's taken the IRS to court and won! (my boss is the ultimate "legal" tax shelter proponent and will go after the IRS like a cat after a mouse).

 

[javacontour]

So he lets the employees share in both the risk and the reward. Doesn't sound so bad to me.

If folks want to share in oil company profits, let them buy stocks

Sounds like folks may have a shot at earning some sweat equity in the firm.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Tempest

Sure, it is always OK to punish the minority for the good of the majority...


Somebody has to pay for it, and punish is the wrong term. If we have flat tax, then Mr. $9 will probably be homeless or lose his job because his salary after tax is too expensive to the employer. Do you think this is punish? Do you think taxing a $200k exotic car more than a $15k econo box is a "punishment" to the rich? There are expense, someone has to pay for it, either we borrow and let the future generation pay for it and let them pay more (punish the future generation), let the poor guy pay more than he can afford (punish the poor), or let the rich guy pay more because he can afford it.

How dare the government punish me by charging me any more tax on my 1 Million per year income? Why should I pay more tax on my private jet than my butler's Taurus?

Does that make sense to you?



Originally Posted By: Tempest

Define rich.


Someone who can stop doing anything and his wealth will never go down, either his expense is well below his income that the compound growth will outpace his expense without any work put in.

Or, someone who are significantly above the living stand of the mean/median of the population and can afford a significant higher expense outside basic living standard. For example, the top 1% of the income bracket who take home 10% of the total nation income, etc. It is not a "you are rich or you are poor" dividing line, it increase exponentially, and is relative across the population.



Originally Posted By: Tempest

I suggest that you take a closer look as to where most of the federal tax dollars go. It isn't these.


So because the rich do not agree with what the tax money is spent on, they can decide that the amount of tax they pay is not fair to them, and ask for a lower tax rate or have the poor pay more for it? This doesn't make sense to me, or probably anyone if you ask me.

If the rich think the tax is not spend wisely then they should vote the idiots who come up with these wasteful spending out of office. The last time I heard both the rich and the poor are supporting their own special interests and are trying to out-vote each other out of office by blasting a wasteful spender image on both sides.

Military, that's currently what we used the most on (something like 60%+), and from what I remember a few years ago we only use 3% of our Federal taxes for general services. Now if you add in the sales tax, property tax, and misc local taxes that are in your state, you change this to a higher percentage of local services of your total tax. The part that we pay for local services and social program is not that high compare to other countries, and the services we get (education, police, health care, etc) in return are lower than other developed nations in Europe, Israel, etc because of this lower tax. You do get what you pay for. If someone doesn't like spending on military he/she can vote against it (indirectly, by voting the correct candidates), but that doesn't mean he/she should offload their portion of tax to the other guy, rich or poor.

 

[oilslick44]

The mantra in this country is ""Screw up, collect a check.

 

[oilyriser]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear

Originally Posted By: Tempest

Define rich.


Someone who can stop doing anything and his wealth will never go down, either his expense is well below his income that the compound growth will outpace his expense without any work put in.


I'd like to see that in practice. How much would the estate of King Tut be if they had taken his money and invested it in a mutual fund, instead of building that exhorbitant pyramid?

 

[Drew99GT]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
So he lets the employees share in both the risk and the reward. Doesn't sound so bad to me.

If folks want to share in oil company profits, let them buy stocks

Sounds like folks may have a shot at earning some sweat equity in the firm.


No, he gives them a tiny share so both he and them pay less tax. He's likely going to be forced by the IRS to pull the same amount he currently does through dividends as salary. Same for his employees. He's challenged every year. The year he won, he pulled more than the 15% bracket out just so it would look a little better to the IRS.

It's precedent and law that owners of small corporations can't pull all their income out at 15% and they must pay themselves an adequate salary.

How the guy won the case he won is beyond me.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Do you think taxing a $200k exotic car more than a $15k econo box is a "punishment" to the rich?


No, it punishes the people on the assembly lines that make the products. Higher price means less demand, even for luxury goods bought by the rich.

 

[MarkC]

Originally Posted By: oilslick44

The mantra in this country is ""Screw up, collect a check.


Actually, the mantra here is more like "Everybody whine." (Rich and not-rich)

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
If the rich think the tax is not spend wisely then they should vote the idiots who come up with these wasteful spending out of office.

That is the funniest thing I have seen in a long time. You expect 1% of a population to "vote out" people in office? That is why I brought up the point about the majority beating up on the minority. It is perfectly acceptable in this country for the majority to vote other people's money (well over 1 TRILLION $ annually) into their pocket for no work done. How is that right?
Quote:
Mr. $9 will probably be homeless or lose his job because his salary after tax is too expensive to the employer.

Interesting how some don't see the minimum wage this way.
Quote:
For example, the top 1% of the income bracket who take home 10% of the total nation income

Who pay 40% of the income taxes:

[URL]http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6[/URL]
Quote:
Military, that's currently what we used the most on (something like 60%+),

I see you didn't look it up as that is not correct. ~60% of the federal budget goes to social give away programs to buy the votes of the majority, with other people's money, so politicians that support them can get elected.
Quote:
Now if you add in the sales tax, property tax, and misc local taxes that are in your state, you change this to a higher percentage of local services of your total tax.

Vs. the return in "entitlement" money returned to them via Big G?

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
Since we live in a democracy really the sky is the limit as to what can be done as long as the mob dictates that that is what they want.

Then why have courts? If you accept the idea of mob rule, then there is no reason for them.
Mob rule is also a sure fire way to have a stratified population that generates 2nd, 3rd, and 4th class citizens. Strangely, history has show that those in the minority do not do well...

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
That is the funniest thing I have seen in a long time. You expect 1% of a population to "vote out" people in office? That is why I brought up the point about the majority beating up on the minority. It is perfectly acceptable in this country for the majority to vote other people's money (well over 1 TRILLION $ annually) into their pocket for no work done. How is that right?


So by your account the 1% population would be raided to an empty shell already, but it hasn't, and they are still doing well. You also forgot to mention that in the US, the people who has the money can buy votes indirectly via campaign contribution and the rich usually get more influence that way. More ads money means higher chances of winning. If the 1% of the population can't get what they want, why would we have special interest groups in the DC doing so well?

Quote:
Quote:
Mr. $9 will probably be homeless or lose his job because his salary after tax is too expensive to the employer.
Interesting how some don't see the minimum wage this way.


I know what you mean, the poor should pay more tax so the rich can have money to hire more of them right? I am not sure how can people live on a minimum wage nowadays (I am far from it). If you do the math there is no way lower tax on the rich and higher tax on the poor is "good for the economy". Almost all US politicians already agree that the stimulus package should be paid to the poor so they will spend it, because they can't afford to save as much of it as the rich does. That should tell you something.

Quote:
Quote:
For example, the top 1% of the income bracket who take home 10% of the total nation income

Who pay 40% of the income taxes:

[URL]http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6[/URL]

Who can AFFORD to pay 80% of the income tax, vs. someone who pay 13% income tax who can only AFFORD to pay 15%. Tax is a system to distribute expense based on who can afford more, not who is paying more than the other guy, if the rich don't like it, maybe a 3rd world country with a dictator can fit him better. Of course, the government with such a low tax may not provide the infrastructure that he can use to make his wealth to begin with.


Quote:
I see you didn't look it up as that is not correct. ~60% of the federal budget goes to social give away programs to buy the votes of the majority, with other people's money, so politicians that support them can get elected.

Is social security, medicaid, and medicare giveaway program? I assume your 401k and IRA are too. This is a separate tax that is subtracted from salary income before counting the federal tax, and in theory everyone uses it. Rich usually makes their money from non-salary sources and therefore don't pay these 2 (40%). I am not sure if this means they are ripped off to sponsor the poor. Unemployment and welfare is 324 Billion over 1.788 Trillion expense, how is that 60%?

US Federal Budget 2008


Quote:
Quote:
Now if you add in the sales tax, property tax, and misc local taxes that are in your state, you change this to a higher percentage of local services of your total tax.

Vs. the return in "entitlement" money returned to them via Big G?
You still don't get it do you, how the heck can people convince you that not all of your tax is for welfare or payout? I suspect the National Park is a payout to family, your local high school is a payout because your children go to private school, the paved road is a payout because you have an SUV and can go off road back home. Right?


I give up, arguing with you is pointless.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
You also forgot to mention that in the US, the people who has the money can buy votes indirectly via campaign contribution and the rich usually get more influence that way.

You are failing to mention that in this country, votes can (and are) be bought indirectly with money taken from other people at gun point. Nothing of the kind can be said about rich people.
Quote:
If the 1% of the population can't get what they want, why would we have special interest groups in the DC doing so well?

DOES NOT MATTER. Rich people only get their one vote, just as every poor person does. The tens of millions of poor people are able to vote money into their pockets from others, simply by voting for the right people.
Quote:
I am not sure how can people live on a minimum wage nowadays

If one is dumb enough not to make them self more valuable in the market place (i.e. education, which largely free to lower income brackets and minorities), then they deserve their situation. With 50% drop out rates in many poor areas, how do they expect to get ahead and why should you or I be responsible for their poor choices?
Quote:
Almost all US politicians already agree that the stimulus package should be paid to the poor so they will spend it, because they can't afford to save as much of it as the rich does.

Yes, that works...short term. As you soak the rich more and more, they get less and less interested in investment because their returns dwindle. (In the US, they can simply move to a more favorable tax rate state and the tax base moves along with them) This reduces the investment into business which create jobs and eventually reduces the overall economy. This increases joblessness and you have to have more gov. programs to help people, which requires more money, the rich get soaked some more... And on it goes. California is a shining example of this with some of the highest taxes in the US (approaching Euro levels) and they have a 15 billion dollar deficit this year.
Quote:
the government with such a low tax may not provide the infrastructure that he can use to make his wealth to begin with.

As is clearly demonstrated by your own link, infrastructure is not what the vast majority of tax dollars are being spent on.
Quote:
Is social security, medicaid, and medicare giveaway program?

Most assuredly. Are people repaid directly based on what they have put in? Not even close. People are paid by what the gov. decides they should be paid and the rest of us are taxes to allow for that policy. Ever heard of COLA for SS? That would not be necessary if the paid in amount directly affected the paid out amount. They are Ponzi schemes to keep politicians in office, and we are paying for it.
Quote:
how the heck can people convince you that not all of your tax is for welfare or payout?

Never said it all was, just most of it.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
I am not sure how can people live on a minimum wage nowadays

If one is dumb enough not to make them self more valuable in the market place (i.e. education, which largely free to lower income brackets and minorities), then they deserve their situation. With 50% drop out rates in many poor areas, how do they expect to get ahead and why should you or I be responsible for their poor choices?


So poor = dumb...that's nice.

Consider a place the size of America, and assume that everyone was (through their personal choices, drive and determination) educated to levels between Isaac Newton and Einstein...they are all educated geniuses.

X% of them will be flipping burgers on minimum wage...it's the market you see.

 

[Gary Allan]

That's the test that can't be passed in any argument. If you promote a philosophy, that can't be participated in by all ..no matter what effort, motivation, determination, or ability ..then you are ASSURED to have losers.

It makes no difference whether they're genius losers or dumb losers ..you can't avoid losers.

So don't pretend that there's a way out of every hole by some "process" ..it's only enabled by someone else taking your place in the hole. Luckily, this myth is sustain by ample numbers of those not well equipped to cope with the ever increasing complexities of our society.

 

[javacontour]

No, but often dumb -> poor.

They may inherit some money, but sooner or later, they will become poor if they don't get smart.

Saying dumb -> poor is not the same as saying poor = dumb.

I don't think anyone was saying the poor are dumb.

However, it's hard to argue against the notion that the dumb are just one decision away from giving up their status as rich.

Dumb doesn't mean uneducated either. I've seen plenty of "educated" folks do dumb things.

Sometimes I'm looking at myself (LOL) and other times it's observing others.

 

[Gary Allan]

Well, the bottom line is that even if everyone made right decisions ...got appropriately educated ..lived sensible lives ..there would still be the same economic divisions that we have today.

Sure you can end up at the bottom (wherever you consider the bottom). I myself have made several small empires and had them crumble ..and all without too much formal education (but I do a reasonable simulation of socialization) But I don't see a real "turn over" of the upper tier. What I see is an expanding black hole that's drawing toward the bottom and devouring more in the expansion.

 

[Duffman77]

Well Gary as much as I don’t agree with Tempest in his overall position he is right on the point of education. The reason doctors don’t answer the phones or do the janitorial work in their practice is simply their time is more valuable doing medical work because those skills are scarce and those others tasks are common tasks. Doctors make what they do because the training is long and there really aren’t enough of them. Have you ever met an unemployed doctor that wasn’t either centured by his professional body or wanted to be unemployed or working in another field? If everybody were educated to a high degree you wouldn’t see such specialization in employment and if you did the income spreads would be minimal.

Where I disagree with Tempest is on access to education. Equality cannot exist without equal opportunity and a university education can be simply out of reach of many people due to cost. Others may not have the time required due to family circumstances.