For those of you who think the tax cut was only for the rich.

No, I don't advocate losing all three people in the middle class. But I don't agree that the world I paint leads to a diminished middle class at all. Few people are going to want to work the kind of hours that an entry-level trader works, and not that many people will have the savvy. It's just that a few people who *would* work hard enough and *are* clever enough will never get the chance. So we can't just label them lazy and steamroll ahead, IMO. Well, we can and we do, but I think it's unbalanced and difficult to defend, if you allow yourself a few shades of gray anyway.

 

Sorry for putting pragmatics in your little ideal philosophical world Ref. But yes, people from all over the economic spectrum contributed to an economy that was a big part of Microsoft and Wal-Marts/Sam’s success. People like Sam Walton and Bill Gates have also had government (the people) paid contracts, and they have had more to lose if there is an insurrection or foreign invasion (which the state is responsible for keeping it from happening). So yes, the economy and government that all Americans have been a part of or funded is a big part of these guys success. Do you really think if they lived in Sweden, Russia, Iraq or virtually anywhere else they would have been equally successful. Do you think their success occurred in a vacuum, I didn’t know they left America as young boys to some desert Isle where they built their companies with their bare hands only to return to a greedy government and peoples who want something for nothing. I guess I should buy some now biographies and get the real story.

For the record I never said they didn’t work hard, neither am I jealous--bully for them--I have used some of their products/services, I never said the government should take all their wealth [I would hate that their poor children suffer so (sarcastic)], but ya’ll go try selling the public that taking 20-30% of 100+ Billion estates in unreasonable, inequitable, darn flat unfair!!!. Heck, why have taxes at all. Should only ordinary income be taxed? Should only investment income be taxed? Should only purchases be taxed? Should only property (houses, cars, ESTATES) be taxed? What the hell, why have taxes at all. I fail to see any moral superiority or dubiousness of 1 form of taxes over any other, I think we look for a reasonable, equitable, pragmatic (hopefully simpler w/fewer loopholes) tax system—I don’t think excluding estates of any magnitude from all taxation fits into this.

And you call my statement the most gratuitous thing you ever heard, the outrage

 

--I am glad you recognize both parts to this.

--now social security is in the fray.

Why have taxes paid on income? Many countries have only sales tax. Or instead do away with income or sales tax both and ONLY tax property, or ONLY tax investments (capital gains). Or ONLY tax estates. I can think of some on the surface equitable reasons for the later taxes--why tax what some individual earned with their bare hands (income tax, sales tax) when you can tax that earned through investments only. Why not let all the people keep all the money they earned when they are alive and can spend it, and just tax the heck of it once they are gone and the individual who earned it can't spend it anymore. However, I think when you take a balanced view you will see holes or at least incomplete elements in all these rationales. I see nothing special why estate taxes are more deplorable than any other tax, in fact one could argue income taxes (which the individual responsible for paying the tax earned the money in real or more symbolic terms) may very well should be lower than capital gains (money generated just by investments--but I understand "work" goes into them too—one of the holes I was talking about) and estate taxes (see next comment).

The tax isn't applied while the earning individual is alive and can spend it, or just before death on their death bed, it is after death and is applied on the estate not the physical body of the individual earner. Thus it isn't a tax on the deceased individual earner's body but a tax on what the non-earner Junior receives. The spirit of this debate could make a good Monty Python skit about a real "Death Tax" where you have to pay your fair share to the taxman or they won't let you die or something.

Your are right on that my original statement was not made flippantly (the idea that Gates/Walton successes were positively influenced by the American economy/government, and that this interdependence is reasonable to consider regarding the relevance and fairness of taxes for estates of their magnitude or even far less). I understand you disagree and that is fine. However I also think many people pretty much believe the underlying premise on the "jealous of the white rich man" money grubbing economy draining sub-earners comments and a pinch of flippancy in them is no reason to let them slide by.

 

Refman

I know you deeply believe these statments, but they aren't self evident and you offer no relevant arguments.

My wife and 4 siblings work as nurses and they believe we need single payer.

In Canada the doctors are much more secure in their practices, due to the fact that unlike here they are not competing for those patients who still have insurance. A GAO study during the Clinton years showed this. It also showed that Canadian physicians in private practie averaged about 100K per year and could set up their private practices wherever they wanted since they didn't have to avoid poor neighborhoods where nobhody has health insurance or money.

I have some doctor friends in Houston who would be in favgor of the Canadian system. Others who aren't. Did you know that a dotor in private pratice needs several highly paid people just to submit the horrible complicated paperwork to HMO's and other private plans just to be paid? Getting paid involves much less paperwork in Canada.


You confuse single payer with two other irrelevant issues. 1) malpractice premiums and 2) student loan payments.

If you want, let's address your two extraneous concerns. Give medical students reduced tuition and let's handle malparactice the way they do in Canada. Then let's have single payer so the 45 million odd Americans who don't have insurance don't have to suffer.

 

And where exactly would they go???

Medicine in the US is much more lucrative then anywhere else. The critisism of the US medical system is usually focussed on the uninsured rather than doctor compensation.

Sadly, glynch paints an overly rosey picture of the Canadian medical system. Getting paid may involve much less paperwork in Canada, but then the pay is often much less too.

While I am proud of the Canadian system I recognizes that it too has some serious problems. Just don't think that if you reform the US system, the doctors and nurses will quickly depart.

They would need somewhere to go first!

 

By the way.

I agree with Ref about Estate Taxes. This is already taxed income. Why should the individual who saved their money to provide for themselves or their heirs (and therefore had a greater estate when he died) pay more tax then the person who made the same money, yet spent it all???

I expect Ref and I would differ considerably on appropriate levels of taxation, but I'm with him on the estate tax issue!

 

bnb, I take it you are Canadian so I'll defer to you on the rosey part perhaps.

You do realize that 45 million Americans are unisured? For them the US system is without discussion the worst in the advanced world. I tleads to totally unecessary illness, pain and death.

 

<b>B-bob</b>: Who's being "stopped?" I know I wasn't offered one of those jobs, but then I didn't pursue one either. We all make choices in life. Some are regrettable and we just have to make amends. Some are stupid and amends are hard to make.

 

hi giddyup, fair question

I'll admit up front I'm a bleeding heart, but I hope that doesn't diminish my point, which is: some people were not given choices to regret, really. If you grow up as, say, part of the urban poor, with your single mom working her ass off to barely keep the lights on, and then you get your worse-than-nothing public education. Let's say you work hard, but after graduating HS you still aren't well educated, you have no money, and you're ready to line up for a crappy job, if you're lucky.

How has that person made any decision that led him away from having a high-paying job? Now, if the kid I describe is a good capitalist, he will take whatever he can find around him to get ahead, to ascend the economic ladder. Well, if he's clever and brave, that might be a gun or some crack he can sell to people around him. Not cheery. But other than that, he can work a crappy non-union job for barely no money, and, as some would have you believe, "rob" money from the rich because they pay higher taxes.

Okay, I've got to check out for a while. Too too much going on at work. later, folks.

 

(okay, just one more)...

basically, no, no, no. It is not anyone's fault but the kid's for turning to crime. That being said, it is good capitalism to be as efficient as possible with your resources and to make the greatest economic advancement you can. Working your ass off, slowly, year by year, to barely scrape into the middle class is piss poor capitalism when crime could get you much further ahead much faster. And Ref, my dad worked his way up too, from growing up literally on dirt floors, eating rice and beans, to the service, using the GI bill to get a college degree, etc. yes, it can happen. Agreed, for some cases. I don't think hard work and smarts will get every kid out of every situation they face though. That's part of the american dream I just don't believe. maybe we differ here, and if we do, I pray you are right and I'm very wrong.