(November 12, 2014 at 7:58 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Percent-wise, the rich pay less. A good measure of what should be payed is the percent of the total profit minus cost of living. The riches cost of living is a very tiny percantage of their income. The poors cost of living is a large portion of their income.

I don't even agree with this comment because often the same profits are taxed twice. A rich person(or anyone who owns stock for that matter) can be paying over 40% tax on their share of corporate profits.

I own stock in Intel. For the quarter ending September 27th 2014, Intel's effective income tax rate was about 27% . Then from those profits I am paid a dividend...which is then taxed again!.

Suppose Intel earned $1000. $270 would be paid to the government as tax. That leaves $730 dollars. Now suppose I am the sole share owner(for simplicity sake) and that $730 is distributed to me as a dividend. Up to another 20% of that $730 goes to the government....leaving $584 dollars. From the original $1000 the government took about 41%. I have 416 dollars less than I would have had if the government did not tax at all.

The government takes two bites out of the same pot because it makes it look like they are taxing less than they are. When you pay your dividend tax....you don't feel too bad that your share of a corporate profits are only taxed at 15-20%....but really it is much much higher than that.

Corporations should be taxed only on retained earning. Dividends should be taxed at the individual rate. If we did it this way the nominal tax rate of the rich would be much much much higher.

(November 12, 2014 at 9:30 pm)Heywood Wrote: Corporations should be taxed only on retained earning. Dividends should be taxed at the individual rate. If we did it this way the nominal tax rate of the rich would be much much much higher.

How did you determined "what ______ should be taxed?"

(November 12, 2014 at 10:06 pm)Surgenator Wrote:

(November 12, 2014 at 9:30 pm)Heywood Wrote: Corporations should be taxed only on retained earning. Dividends should be taxed at the individual rate. If we did it this way the nominal tax rate of the rich would be much much much higher.

How did you determined "what ______ should be taxed?"

When I say, "we should" I am expressing my opinion. Its up to the group to ultimately decide these things.

(November 12, 2014 at 10:12 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(November 12, 2014 at 10:06 pm)Surgenator Wrote: How did you determined "what ______ should be taxed?"

When I say, "we should" I am expressing my opinion. Its up to the group to ultimately decide these things.

I'm asking how is your opinion determined. What is the standard that your using?

His own. This is the problem with the word "economics" it still boils down to humans making justifications to get at resources. There is more than one POV on the subject, which means the best policy is to accept different desires, accept inequity to a point but keep the economy mixed but ultimately balanced and not lopsided. No one should want a nanny state like North Korea, or Stalin's Russia, but to say that business is moral "just because" is also bullshit. There is not one aspect of society that is not money driven. Nations bring in money by selling to the global market, including our foes. Political parties bring in money to keep power, including our foes. Religious institutions bring in money, including our foes.

When people say "My numbers work", I won't argue that they don't. The part they don't want to see is "FOR WHO". Money works for Saudi Arabia's Royal Family. Money works for China's communist style capitalism. Money worked for billionaire Gadaffi for a while.

Somehow Haywood thinks because we are a more open market one class knows what is best for the rest of us. Money doesn't automatically equal morality, anymore than belonging to a religion makes one automatically moral. Everything is run by humans and no aspect of society should have the right to dictate economics in a pluralistic society.

(November 13, 2014 at 7:33 am)Brian37 Wrote: His own. This is the problem with the word "economics" it still boils down to humans making justifications to get at resources. There is more than one POV on the subject, which means the best policy is to accept different desires, accept inequity to a point but keep the economy mixed but ultimately balanced and not lopsided. No one should want a nanny state like North Korea, or Stalin's Russia, but to say that business is moral "just because" is also bullshit. There is not one aspect of society that is not money driven. Nations bring in money by selling to the global market, including our foes. Political parties bring in money to keep power, including our foes. Religious institutions bring in money, including our foes.

When people say "My numbers work", I won't argue that they don't. The part they don't want to see is "FOR WHO". Money works for Saudi Arabia's Royal Family. Money works for China's communist style capitalism. Money worked for billionaire Gadaffi for a while.

Somehow Haywood thinks because we are a more open market one class knows what is best for the rest of us. Money doesn't automatically equal morality, anymore than belonging to a religion makes one automatically moral. Everything is run by humans and no aspect of society should have the right to dictate economics in a pluralistic society.

A couple of things.

First, I never have said, "My numbers work". I have no idea where you are getting that from.

Second. I do believe in something called "crowd wisdom" or "widsom of the crowds". If your curious about it you can google it...there is plenty of information and evidence for it online. I remember in 2008 when Obama was elected discussing the results with my liberal friend. I told him that given my faith in crowd wisdom....I had to acknowledge that Obama was likely the better person to be president than McCain.

Obama's performance has crushed my belief in Crowd Wisdom.