Zultar, compared to much of the world, we are insanely wealthy. Compared to 25 years ago, we are more insanely wealthy as a nation than we were then, just in the available technological advances alone - so those points remain true, but were part of a different philosophical discussion.

As for Draug's wealth now....$150K is *NOT RICH*. The Democrats themselves say it is NOT RICH....but the class warfare rears it's ugly head once those numbers start bouncing around. And what will be ignored is he works *2* jops to make this money, just as it is ignored that many "wealthy" people in this country put in insanely long hours to get where they get.

You are targeting him for a question about tax rates under the premise that, "Given that you are well off compared to the average slob...do you hold a reasonable belief on taxes? Or are you a greedy bastard?" (I paraphrase...lol)

Here's fair: Everyone pay the exact same percentage. THAT is fair.

When I go to the grocery store, Hamburger costs $2.89 on a great day whether I am a millionare or a welfare bum. The price of milk is consistent regardless of my ability to pay. Same with gas, clothes, movie tickets, phone bills, hookers, marijuana...see, I'm hitting necessities and nice-to-haves all together...there is a reason for that...

So...why is it that when it comes to the Federal Government, which consists of necessities (national defense...and little else) and a bunch of "nice to have", the price of the product goes up with my income?

Why are you not outrages at the inconsistent pricing of every other product and service you buy in light of your insistence that the cost of goods and services from your government is dependent upon your income?

Krellin, I have to say that though I might disagree with your opinion, your response has been civil and intelligent. That, in itself, is plenty of reason for me to continue our discourse and perhaps disagreement.

I never claim that Draugnar is rich. I specifically said that I think he's relatively well off but not wealthy (and now adding rich to it). Moreover, your paraphrasing is rather unfair and biased. When I asked those questions, there was no morality or superiority attached to the questions; any such bias or spin, I think, is your own doing. I honestly do not understand the complexity of taxation well enough to say whether a progressive tax or a flat tax is better. I think the math gets complicated when you really try to understand it.

I do think that everyone should pay the same tax rate, a flat tax, just like we pay the same tax to get a hamburger (even then, there are regional differences, but they are minor that I am going to ignore them). I don't think there should be loopholes or tax deductions for the rich when they buy/own more stuff. I think this was introduced as an incentive for rich people to spend more but I could be wrong.

Now, the question goes to whether the middle/low/poor should get some sort of break. In an ideal world, I would hope that we would not have the poor. I have no problems with the low income class, and I think people are spoiled as to what they think is "necessary" as you probably do. A flat panel TV, cable, cell phones with texting/internet, and ps3 are all luxuries; if they pay money for that and they have debts or have trouble making ends meet, then damn it, they are responsible. The government cannot be held responsible for people's stupid action, but we can improve the general level of education and we can create circumstances/environments where people are more likely to succeed rather than fail. We should hold people responsible for their own actions, but we do need to recognize that statistically and pragmatically speaking, the circumstances have a very big effect as to what most people would do.

The tax deductions/breaks I was thinking of for the middle/low/poor would be to ensure that they would have a reasonable mean to pay for all the necessities. I am mostly thinking of the low income class and the poor; I'm not advocating tax breaks so that middle income class can afford a nicer kitchen.

And in another thread, I also argued for government sponsored programs that would support the low/poor income bracket. The education of a middle income class student is vastly different than those of the poor. They are exposed to a myriad of ideas, situations, and places that the poor don't have access to. Most of us have no issues with going to the bank and making a saving/check account, but many poor people don't have them (even when they don't cost anything) because they don't know enough about it and/or subconsciously afraid of the unknown. Little things like having a checking/saving account versus paying cash for everything can mean the difference of a house or not by the end of their lifetime.

Draug, what do you do for a living? Just curious, seems like you're going to have a very good Christmas this year! My Christmas bonus will probably be just enough to get a new set of speakers, but then, I work for a non-profit and they're going through tough times at the moment (but the lovely part of working for an NFP is that the higher-ups take the hit to their wallet before we ever do, so I'm not feeling the pain).

"I never claim that Draugnar is rich..." If he had come on and said, "I'm getting $150 bonus for my Manager's Postion at McDonalds" would you have asked him what he thinks about the tax rates on the rich?

Of course you asked him the question because you think he is "rich"...or at least significantly richer than you are. THAT is why this whole tax rate debate is so insidious. You are a pawn of the politicians, my friend...

@Zultar - Fair question.

No, I am not in favor of a 35-40% flat tax. First, that is so excessively high that the feds would be swarming in money and pay off the debt in no time. Second, that discourages investment and makes the rich decide to just take salaries like I get. The rich make their money by investing it just as I invest for my future retirement. Taxing that the same, no matter what percentage, as earned income is foolhardy and would be the death of America's entrepreneurial spirit.

I would be in favor of a flat tax on earned income of say 25% with a standard deduction of 5000 per household plus 2500 per person. So the first 7500 for a single person would be tax free. 10K for a couple, 12,500 for a new family with a baby, etc.

Then I would put a flat rate on capital gains of 20% but not let investors/speculators carry losses across years nor offer a household/individual deduction. You lose big one year, you owe nothing, but that doesn't mean you can spread that big loss across two ro three years. Each year jumpstarts anew.

Then the Romneys and Obamas paying at least 20% of their income, a poor family with two minimum wage incomes paying only 12%, a single person working at McDs paying less than 15%, someone on welfare essentially paying nothing (welfare would be classed as earned income as they didn't risk anything to make it) and any household making more than 5 times their annual deductions paying 20% or more with a cap at 25% because everyone gets the deductions and no one gets taxed more than 25% after deductions.

But to do this, we need to do away with sneaking in other taxes like Obamacare and Social Security and states need to be capped at 5% and cities at 1.5% We can't allow cities and states to gouge their citizens and consider a person in Ohio and a person in California to be considered on equal footing. True taxation equality means taking away the ability to excessively gouge their citizens as well.

And I would have to hit up saving for the woodshop. 4500 covers the basic building, but not the foundation or site prep or running electric to it or heating it. To do it right would probably mean twice that or more.

Now you are regressing into the smarter-than-thou stance. If someone makes a statement and if it disagrees with your opinion, then that person must have been a puppet or a liberal uneducated fool who is just listening and regurgitating the professors' talk, or in this case, that he is a pawn of the politicians. You have to see the arrogance in taking that stance: you are the essentially the only one who's a thinking person. Your last sentence, as many of your last sentences tend to be, amounts to an ad hominem attack. You said nothing about the issues, you didn't criticize my statements, but rather, you retreat to the position that you are indeed special and superior to everyone else and if anyone disagrees with you, well, then there must be something wrong with them.

I asked him because he said his total income is 150K, a six digit figure income. I didn't really care about his bonus.

@Stackelberg - I'm a senior level software engineer/developer. My title in Integration and Implementation Consultant, but I consult to my company's (a major player in the software industry) customers. The specific product I implement is my companies knowledge management servers. Like SQL server, they are just a tool and still need applications written to interface with them. So I am an expert in the tools, in .Net, and in integrating diverse systems (see the CAD integration stuff I discussed earlier in this thread). With 30 years in the business, I have worked my way to making this income.

@krellin - I wouldn't say I worked two jobs as much as I work a job and run a side business. It's part of the reason I haven't had a lot of time to do the other thinsg I love as much, like woodworking.

Well, I didn't expect Draugnar to show up in between posts. So, I was addressing Krellin, not Draugnar with my last statement.

I hear your argument, Draugnar, about the high tax rate, but is there sufficient evidence that it would "kill the entrepreneurial spirit?" or is that just an argument/opinion?

And for a metalshop to make rusty shivs, you don't really need foundation or a building; just a couple buckets of water and some pointy iron-based metals.

Ah, so you have useful and practical skills. I should have considered the possibility that such skills could be useful before I became an economist...

Seriously, though, sounds like you've got a lot to be proud of and a lot to be happy for. It's nice to see an example of hard work really paying off.

Plenty of evidence. The fact is investment in this country grew when the capital gains tax got cut (the one about to be rolled back if wee go over the so called fical cliff) and it is just common business sense that you evaluate your ROI and chose a risk/reward balance you can live with. As you tax capital gains more, reward becomes less for the same risk and ROI decreases, making other means of gathering wealth more viable in the risk to reward analysis.

It's why I choose to have most of my retirement in Roth IRAs. They money I make in them is tax free because it was taxed up front where as traditional IRAs and 401ks are taxed in full upon withdrawal.

And the power tools in my woodshop would do a better job on the multis than the rusty shivs anyhow.

I *am* buying this for certain, however. But I need to negotiate a better shipping rate thn what they want.

http://www.cigarsinternational.com/prodDisp.asp?item=M-HUMMT1500-DS&cat=10

I will be filling it with these:

http://www.cigarsinternational.com/prodDisp.asp?item=CS-AMA&cat=3 - One box each of Signature and Classic. This is my favorite cigar
http://www.cigarsinternational.com/prodDisp.asp?item=CS-OPA&cat=3 - A box of Manchas.
http://www.cigarsinternational.com/prodDisp.asp?item=CS-ARA&cat=3 - A box of Coronas.
http://www.cigarsinternational.com/proddisp.asp?item=CS-CGA&cat=3 - A box of Coronas when they come in from backorder.

Taxes on returns from investment are very bad, because the returns from investment is exponential. If taxes reduce your ROI from 5% to 2.5%, then over 30 years, a dollar is worth 48% as much.

Taxes on investment also reduce the total amount of taxes that can be collected in each year. Over 30 years at 10%, one dollar will become $17.45 (not real dollars, obviously, because I'm ignoring inflation), compared to just $4.32 at 5%. But the capital gains taxes don't collect the full $13.13 difference - they only collected 5% of the return each year, which is substantially less. Most of that $13.13 difference is just destroyed by taxing capital; both the government and the person being taxed could be made better off by raising the tax on labour income and eliminating the tax on capital income.

"I asked him because he said his total income is 150K, a six digit figure income..."

Exactly. Class warfare. What difference does it make what his income is? I don't address yoru points because *my* point is that your whole discussion is pormpted by your inherent class warfare idiology.

What is **right and fair** is right and fair for everyone. What is **right and fair** is not determined by base income level.

If he says taxing the rich more than the "poor" is a good idea, then he is a fair minded rich guy (even though he is not, by definition rich...but you ASK him becuase you percieve him as rich...that is why you are making such a big deal about his income, as opposed to asking some hamburger flipper at McDonalds). If he says taxing the rich is a bad idea, he is just another greedy rich bastard.

It's the same as if *I* were to ask a poor slob flipping hamburgers are McD's "Do you think the 35% tax rate on the rich is fair?" You would *naturally* expect my repsonses to him to be as follows:
If he says it is fair, I will praise him for his intellegince and level headedness. If he says tax the rich bastards more, I will condemn him.

If he answer the questions in *either* manner, I will condemn him, because the tax rate we are discussing is some arbitrary straw man the Democrats are throwing out, and in truth has *no* meaning to solving any fiscal problem. The defninition of "rich" at $250K is also a meaningless number. I assure you, the lifestyle of someone maknig $250K per year can vary widely, depending on how that income is earned (straight salary, vs capital gaines, for example) and whether or not they own a business or just work for the man. $250K is an insane arbitrary number...but what is *IS* is this....a *big* number that most Americans never see themselves making. You can phrase $250K like this, "A quarter of a MILLION dollars...." Ewwww...that's RICH!!!

It is an EMOTIONAL target meant to foster class warfare.

THAT is why the discussion is null and void from the get go. THAT is why you falling for the line of questions you think you are so high-minded in pursuing is tripe.

The question we need to ask is what tax rates fund the government sufficiently to meet the *required* responsibilities of the Federal Government by law/by the Constitution. What tax rates, taking in to account the *dynamic* nature of economies, will *maximize* tax collections while maximizing economics growth, such that over time the overall tax burder will become and increasingly *smaller* percentage of GDP, thus freeing more money of the American business man to create more jobs, etc. THESE are teh types of questions we should ask.

Any question that includes the word "FAIR" or the notion of "fairness" in what is purely an economic question means that you have become yet another sheep for the politicians who use economic warfare to secure their life-long voting blocks...

Hey Draug I'm gonna be in cuba for a few weeks you want me to pick you up anything?

Thucy, can you tell me why the CEO of Oxfam needs 330,000 a year?

I could feed you some line about incentives and securing talent, but the reality is that he doesn't.

Nothing is perfect in this world my friend, but some things are still better than others.

It's a she these days though isn't it. Whoops *she

@YJ - A couple real Cohibas (I can send you the info so you know what to look for) would be nice. Just some 6x48 Corona size (I think it's the #2 size).

Fixed tax rate cannot possibly work. It is not fair at all.

Fixed tax perfentage is absolutely fair. You provide a deduction for basic cost of living and then no one gets penalized for gerting ahead in life. It is the most fair tax system there is.

@Draug

Submitted for your consideration:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/6/3732520/lenovo-thinkpad-twist-review

So basically you make a graduated system in reverse by allowing deductions for rent, food, utilities, gas, etc. and then phaseing them out as income gets higher. So whats the point?

Wait.. wait. Fixed rate taxation? You're quite serious?

Lmao welcome to 1862.

Cost of living deduction is fixed and not itemizable and the tax table is then "send 25% to us" not this complex.code that has an ever increasing rate plus standard ornitemized deductions. Nope all standard and fixed. Every hoise gets X deduction and every person gets Y.

Just to be clear, you are against progressive taxation?

He's for the poor paying more as a % of their income than the rich. And he calls that fair. Because he makes 150K, of course it's "fair" for him to pay nothing and the poor to pay more.

lol tax policy really gets right to the heart of the class divide doesn't it. like little else.

"how much of your wealth do you owe society?" isn't an easy question to answer.

but if you don't think of it in terms of *owing* (which it really is), then you've not got your priorities straight.

you're paying the government back for paying it forward with you, that goes for every single one of us. some of us get screwed by the government sometimes, but *every one of us* has benefitted.

People really don't talk about that enough. I know it's not kosher to praise the government, but let's not forget why taxes exist.