Top 1%

[ERD50]

Amoral | Define Amoral at Dictionary.com

"Synonyms
See immoral. "

Wait, now I'm confused. What did nun mean?

One for the grammar thread!

I thought I knew what nun and I meant, but now I'm confused too.


Oh well, in this context, I think we both took amoral to align with that first definition:

not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.

Dang English language! -ERD50

 

[Alan]

The Occupy Wall Street folks...some of them are wearing the badges...see them on the news sometimes.

I assumed he meant outside the house, not just on the TV. Even on the TV, I only see them on news programs.

 

[Midpack]

I've read several articles that suggest we should Federal target revenues (taxes etc.) at 19% of GDP and Federal spending at 20% of GDP. Probably not abruptly, but within 10 years at the longest.

Along with a lot of moderates ±, I'm more than fine with what that implies given where we actually are now.

I'm not the first to say it by a long way, everyone is going to have to pay more taxes AND spending is going to have to be reduced across the board. Politically we seem to be a million miles from that middle ground at the moment, but I haven't given up hope someone will actually apply some data to the debate eventually, unlike what the far right and the far left have been doing lately.

 

[Hamlet]

I'm on board with your targets.

Note that I suspect that the chart attached is based on assumptions that will not turn out to be true. I think it is assuming that a lot of the temporary tax cuts we currently enjoy will actually be allowed to expire. Given the way things have been working, I'd be sceptical that it will actually work out that way.

I've read several articles that suggest we should Federal target revenues (taxes etc.) at 19% of GDP and Federal spending at 20% of GDP. Probably not abruptly, but within 10 years at the longest.

Along with a lot of moderates ±, I'm more than fine with what that implies given where we actually are now.

I'm not the first to say it by a long way, everyone is going to have to pay more taxes AND spending is going to have to be reduced across the board. Politically we seem to be a million miles from that middle ground at the moment, but I haven't given up hope someone will actually apply some data to the debate eventually, unlike what the far right and the far left have been doing lately.

 

[Midpack]

I'm on board with your targets.

Note that I suspect that the chart attached is based on assumptions that will not turn out to be true. I think it is assuming that a lot of the temporary tax cuts we currently enjoy will actually be allowed to expire. Given the way things have been working, I'd be sceptical that it will actually work out that way.

Who knows. What seems clear to me is we can't stay where we are now at 15% revenue and 25% spending, or the sustained deficits this chart projects. And there's no sign growth is going to magically make things better that I can see. Why we (politicians, media and electorate) waste most of our time talking about relatively small "fixes" and "what's off limits" defies logic, but sadly not beyond comprehension.

 

[Animorph]

I've read several articles that suggest we should Federal target revenues (taxes etc.) at 19% of GDP and Federal spending at 20% of GDP. Probably not abruptly, but within 10 years at the longest.

Along with a lot of moderates ±, I'm more than fine with what that implies given where we actually are now.

I'm not the first to say it by a long way, everyone is going to have to pay more taxes AND spending is going to have to be reduced across the board. Politically we seem to be a million miles from that middle ground at the moment, but I haven't given up hope someone will actually apply some data to the debate eventually, unlike what the far right and the far left have been doing lately.

Relative to the chart, we are being forced into unusual deficit spending due to deleveraging during the past few years. While it may continue another 5 years, it shouldn't be permanent. Likewise, the Bush tax cuts won't be permanent either if Congress insists on doing nothing. We know Social Security is actually in decent shape, if you don't count the fact that Congress owes it a ton of money. I don't think it's as bad as it looks in the chart.

 

[samclem]

Chicargo School aren't concerned with people at all, just markets.

Those markets and the industries they represent do more good, and feed more people, than all the do-gooders and charities combined. Let's not lose sight of where wealth and prosperity are created (so that the bounty can later be redistributed).

 

[Independent]

I've read several articles that suggest we should Federal target revenues (taxes etc.) at 19% of GDP and Federal spending at 20% of GDP. Probably not abruptly, but within 10 years at the longest.

Along with a lot of moderates ±, I'm more than fine with what that implies given where we actually are now.

I'm not the first to say it by a long way, everyone is going to have to pay more taxes AND spending is going to have to be reduced across the board. Politically we seem to be a million miles from that middle ground at the moment, but I haven't given up hope someone will actually apply some data to the debate eventually, unlike what the far right and the far left have been doing lately.

I'm going to guess that if I look at the details behind that chart I'd discover that health care (Medicare, Medicaid, Federal employees and retirees, ...) makes up much of the growth in spending.

We know that we already spend much more than any other rich country, something like 16% of GDP vs. 11%. If we simply copied the health care system of any other country, we'd save ourselves most of that increase.

 

[Huston55]

Wise choice of words (assuming it was intentional, and I think it was), as amoral does not imply immoral.

But so what? When I think of the Adam Smith story of the butcher, baker, brewer providing services for their own welfare, not the welfare of others, I think it is an amoral system that works pretty well.

I actually have more 'faith' in that system, then I do in a system where we simply rely on 'faith' that people will do the 'right thing'. Esp in a world where we may not agree on what the 'right thing' is. But in a free market transaction, both parties feel they are getting a fair deal, or they simply move on.


-ERD50

Those markets and the industries they represent do more good, and feed more people, than all the do-gooders and charities combined. Let's not lose sight of where wealth and prosperity is created (so that it can later be redistributed).

Thank you. Let's please keep the religion and do-gooder-ness out of the economy. It's already complicated enough.

Back to the OP, I'm trying my best to become a member of the 1% (by ALL definitions). And, I keep coming back to this forum for help to do it.

 

[nun]

Amoral | Define Amoral at Dictionary.com

"Synonyms
See immoral. "

Wait, now I'm confused. What did nun mean?

Without morals...ie not good or bad.

 

[nun]

Wise choice of words (assuming it was intentional, and I think it was), as amoral does not imply immoral.

-ERD50

Thank you for the compliment

 

[jdw_fire]

Originally Posted by Animorph
Seems like you'd need to have a table that listed every possible buy year/sell year combo and the resulting inflation correction. And we'd have to look up that number for each sale. While I like the idea, and it would be nice with Turbo Tax doing the work, no way would I want to add that task to a non-computerized return.

Yeah, that was pretty much my thought unless you assigned every year an "index value" without regard to the day of the year. Thus a holding period of 1/1/2008 to 12/31/2011 would be treated the same as 12/31/2008 to 1/1/2011, even though the latter was barely half as long.

just use the published monthly table of CPI index values

 

[justplainbll]

Ekaterina Rybolovleva seems o be an interesting example of a top 1 per center.

 

[rescueme]

I'd like to see the tax code simplified so that capital gains and dividends are taxed as income.

They are taxed on the corporation side before "you get yours", and again on your side with personal income tax when you receive the gains/dividends.

So how much total tax do you feel is fair in your world?

BTW, that's why I think statements by some folks (e.g. Buffett) that he "pays" less tax than his secretary are taken out of context. Sure, his cap gains/dividends may be taxed at 15%, but that's not the total story. If the corp tax was not paid, we could assume he would have received a higher amount in distributions.

Add the corp tax and the personal gains tax together and then compare it to his secretary - who did not take the risk that any investor does when investing for income.

I would agree that gains/dividends be taxed as normal income, but then get rid of the corp tax before doing so.

 

[ziggy29]

I would agree that gains/dividends be taxed as normal income, but then get rid of the corp tax before doing so.

You don't even need to completely scrap the corporate tax in order to treat dividends fairly -- just exempt the portion of profits the company pays out in dividends from taxation and tax what they don't pay out. Then it would make complete sense to treat dividend income as ordinary taxable income.

Capital gains could be treated as ordinary income as long as there was some provision to avoid taxing a large chunk of "phantom gains" due to inflation.

 

[rescueme]

You don't even need to completely scrap the corporate tax in order to treat dividends fairly -- just exempt the portion of profits the company pays out in dividends from taxation and tax what they don't pay out. Then it would make complete sense to treat dividend income as ordinary taxable income.

Exactly (you improved my comment - thanks!)....