The Vicissitudes of Voting

Originally posted by rwingett
Yes. That's correct. So?

So... you're not concluding something about political democracies by using the US case?

Originally posted by Palynka
So... you're not concluding something about political democracies by using the US case?

Huh?

Originally posted by rwingett
Nothing, or nobody, is going to arrive to save you. There is no messiah. It's up to you (and everyone else) to collectively save yourself. In that regard there is indeed much you can do.

But it seems that most people like the system the way it is now. They don't want to be saved.

As for those who are poor and want something different -- what specifically should they do?

Originally posted by rwingett
Huh?

I'll give you some time to think, although I won't get my hopes high.

Originally posted by rwingett
If the poor were to push for their own interests directly within the economic sphere with half the intensity they have in the past within the political sphere, they would be half way home to actualizing their own emancipation. But instead they are deceived into thinking that politics is the sole field where their grievances can rightfully be aired. But as we can see, a purely political democracy without economic democracy is an empty shell.

Now explain to me how the poor are to push these interests without the necessary money or skills?
Anybody who has the money or skills is trying to maintain the status quo.
Even labor unions usually end up serving money interests and end up being led by people with both management skills and high salaries whose main interest is to maintain the status quo.

Originally posted by quackquack
Tax policies in the US do not favor the rich. A neutral tax policy would be the government collects taxes in the way a sandwich shop owner sets prices. If you want a sandwich you pay a fixed price regardless of your income. We have a graduated income tax and therefore the wealthier not only pay more taxes they pay at a higher rate.

Surely that is false? Were you perhaps joking? In my experience, the super rich pay the least tax by far.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Surely that is false? Were you perhaps joking? In my experience, the super rich pay the least tax by far.

Actually, that is how a graduated income tax works. The more you make, the high percentage you pay. If I were to double my salary, I would pay more than twice as much in taxes. This policy clearly favor those with less money.

Originally posted by quackquack
Actually, that is how a graduated income tax works. The more you make, the high percentage you pay. If I were to double my salary, I would pay more than twice as much in taxes. This policy clearly favor those with less money.

I'm copying over (with minor corrections) what I posted in the "Limbaugh leaves New York" thread on July 16.

In a graduated income tax system, the equity is guaranteed by the fact that taxation is equal for each portion of income taxed. Using figures chosen for the sake of argument, let's imagine a country where tax rates are 10% up to 10,000 dollars, 30% up to 50,000 dollars, 50% up to 200,000 dollars and 75% thereafter.

A millionaire, like a man who earns 50,000 dollars, pays 10% tax on his first 10,000; both keep nine thousand of that first ten thousand. On the next 40,000, both pay 30% and keep 28,000. The man who earns 50,000 has now reached the limit of his income and keeps 37,000 in total. The millionaire also has 37,000 of his first 50,000. So nothing unequal about that.

As it happens, the millionaire then pays 50% of his next 200,000, and 75% of his final 800,000, ending up with 337,000 dollars in total. But the other man would pay the same if he started to make more money. Equality before the law is therefore satisfied.

It's possible to imagine a tax dispensation where the 75% tax rate applies across the whole of the millionaire's income, so that he'd keep only 250,000; and in this case I'd agree that the principle of equality before the law has been violated, since different tax schemes would be applied to the same portion of the individual's income (ie, the man who earns 50,000 is keeping 70% of that 50,000, where the millionaire is keeping only 25% of his first 50,000). This system would also have the absurd consequence that someone who received a payrise taking him into the next tax bracket might actually lose money overall.

However, the actual system in dispensations where progressive taxation is in force is the way I outlined it in the first example, and I can't see how this violates the principle of equity.

It depends on you idea of equitable. Most people believe one person, one vote is equitable. I think it is equitable that when I buy a cone of ice cream (or when I pay a toll at a bridge) I pay the same amount as a person who makes twice as much and the same as a person who makes half as much. Same service same price. Taxes would be equitable if they worked the same way.

Income tax to me is an example of the masses imposing their will on the wealthier. Almost 50% of this country does not pay at all. Different people pay, different amounts. You don't get any extra votes, you don't get extra product. Perhaps there is a need to redistribute but lets not lose the fact that we already have massive redistribution programs in the United States

Originally posted by quackquack
Actually, that is how a graduated income tax works. The more you make, the high percentage you pay. If I were to double my salary, I would pay more than twice as much in taxes. This policy clearly favor those with less money.

But if you were to have your income structured in such as way as to have it come mainly from "capital gains", then you'd be paying much much less in taxes. This policy clearly favors those who already have lots of money

What percentage of Warren Buffett's annual income comes from a salary?

Originally posted by quackquack
Actually, that is how a graduated income tax works. The more you make, the high percentage you pay. If I were to double my salary, I would pay more than twice as much in taxes. This policy clearly favor those with less money.

But the super wealthy do not pay tax based on that system. The vast majority of their income does not come in the form of a salary.
I don't know a lot about the US systems, but here in Africa, once you get above a certain level, you find ways to avoid paying tax - even on income. Thats just how it is.

Also poorer countries usually have higher tax rates, so world wide, the poorest people pay the highest tax.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
But if you were to have your income structured in such as way as to have it come mainly from "capital gains", then you'd be paying much much less in taxes. This policy clearly favors those who already have lots of money

What percentage of Warren Buffett's annual income comes from a salary?

Lets look at the total bill because that's what matters: Warren Buffet pays far more capital gains taxes and more income tax than virtually everyone in the world. And this is consistent with the reality that the US has a system where those with less money have imposed their will to tax those with more.

Originally posted by quackquack
Lets look at the total bill because that's what matters:

So you are dodging the question? What percentage does he pay?

Originally posted by quackquack
Lets look at the total bill because that's what matters: Warren Buffet pays far more capital gains taxes and more income tax than virtually everyone in the world. And this is consistent with the reality that the US has a system where those with less money have imposed their will to tax those with more.

Warren Buffet is in favor of heavy and progressive estate taxes.

Warren Buffett continues to satirize the hard work myth with his now infamous
characterization of inherited wealth as “privately funded food stamps” (Lowenstein,
1995, p. 334). To Buffett, inherited wealth is perversely analogous to inherited talent.
He argues that if talent can’t be passed down to later generations, neither should money.
“Warren explained that if he were the quarterback of the Nebraska football team it
wouldn’t be fair of him to pass down the job to a son or daughter, and that he felt the
same about his money” (Lowenstein, 1995, p. 336).
The food stamp metaphor is interesting since public welfare pales before private
“unearned income.”

http://www.estatesettlement.com/unlimitedweath.pdf

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g65/babalootoo/ParisSmall.jpg

Critics of the estate tax also defend their position by emphasizing the virtues of
hard work and private property. They argue that it is unfair to work hard your entire life
and not be able to leave your accumulated assets to your children. Furthermore, the
estate tax is vilified as a “virtue” tax, penalizing work, savings, and thrift.
In response to the hard work assertion, Gates and Collins invite the reader to
imagine a series of advertisements profiling the true beneficiaries of estate tax repeal
(Gates and Collins, 2004, pp. 65-66). One ad shows a group of third-generation
millionaire teenagers, draped in Armani clothes pleading, “I’ve never worked a day in my
life and I’m hoping I never have to. Please repeal the estate tax.” Another implores, “My
family started the Acme Corporation and I would like to inherit $140 million in
appreciated stock without paying taxes. Please help me by repealing the estate tax.”

http://www.estatesettlement.com/unlimitedweath.pdf