|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sundubuman
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: seoul
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:24 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| sundubuman wrote: |
Lefty loonies hate to admit that rich Americans pay a hugely disproportionate amount of tax, which benefits all of society,.
|
Of course, the rich make a hugely disproportionate amount of the money in this country. Do you have any idea what the top marginal tax rate was before Kennedy cut it? The rich should count their lucky stars.
Saying that tax cuts for the rich have boosted the economy, you would need to prove that we are still on the right half of the Laffer Curve. That ceteris paribus thing is also hard to reconcile though. But the old tax rates didn't seem to stop the 90s boom. Nor did the 90% top marginal rate halt the post-war boom. |
Making money in a free economy and paying money to the state are 2 very different things. The wealthy by and large choose to make more money, but by and large, don't choose to pay more in taxes.
for what it's worth.
And remember, the super rich, who pay a hugely disproportionate share of taxes, often give away much more in charity than they would ever pay in taxes....ie, Gate, Buffet, Carnegie et al.....
this is a very good thing for society....for it takes private wealth and applies it to the public good....without the public monster (government) wasting it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sundubuman wrote: |
Master's Degree actually, and 2 BA's. Subscribe to the Economist, Fortune, and Foreign Affairs.
And yes, read them cover to cover.
And, again, this article was from the NYTimes, the media outlet most eager to see the Bush administration fail in any and all endeavors.
Lefty loonies hate to admit that rich Americans pay a hugely disproportionate amount of tax, which benefits all of society,.
Actually Ddeubel, it is you folks who abdicate independent thought, and are stuck reading and obsessing over Marx's Das Capital and various Chumpsky treatsies, dreaming of a society where smarmy pseudo-intellectuals run socialist bureaucracies that discourage ambitious folks from building business and wealth. |
Bought them at degree mills, then, I'd say.
20 percent own 80 percent and pay..... 80 percent? Bull. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sundubuman wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| sundubuman wrote: |
Lefty loonies hate to admit that rich Americans pay a hugely disproportionate amount of tax, which benefits all of society,.
|
Of course, the rich make a hugely disproportionate amount of the money in this country. Do you have any idea what the top marginal tax rate was before Kennedy cut it? The rich should count their lucky stars.
Saying that tax cuts for the rich have boosted the economy, you would need to prove that we are still on the right half of the Laffer Curve. That ceteris paribus thing is also hard to reconcile though. But the old tax rates didn't seem to stop the 90s boom. Nor did the 90% top marginal rate halt the post-war boom. |
Making money in a free economy and paying money to the state are 2 very different things. The wealthy by and large choose to make more money, but by and large, don't choose to pay more in taxes.
|
You maka da money, you paya da taxes. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't make money. I don't see anyone turning down the opportunity to get rich because of taxes. To answer my question above, the top marginal tax rate was 94% before Kennedy cut it to 70%.
| Quote: |
for what it's worth.
And remember, the super rich, who pay a hugely disproportionate share of taxes, often give away much more in charity than they would ever pay in taxes....ie, Gate, Buffet, Carnegie et al.....
|
wrong.
For every Gates, Buffet, and Carnegie there is a Vanderbilt, Astor, and Stewart. See http://www.forbes.com/2004/09/23/cz_dw_0923philan_rl04_3.html.
http://society.guardian.co.uk/voluntary/comment/0,,1812435,00.html
| Quote: |
According to the 2006 trends in charitable giving published last week by the Charities Aid Foundation (Caf), the super-wealthy are also the super-tight. The richest 1% of the population in Britain, despite owning a quarter of all wealth, contribute a miserly 7% of the �8.2bn given to charities by individuals. And the top 10% - which includes that mega-rich 1% - own more than half of all of wealth but fare little better in the generosity stakes, contributing just over a fifth of giving, amounting to a parsimonious �1.1bn.
That leaves the vast bulk (79%) of the �8.2bn coming from the benevolent pockets of the rest of the population. But this is no surprise. Previous studies by Caf and the Institute of Fiscal Studies have calculated that the richest 10% give less than 1% of their income to charity. In contrast, the poorest 10% hand over 3%. |
In the US, the majority of large gifts are to educational or cultural institutions.
http://www.forbes.com/2004/09/23/cz_dw_0923philan_rl04_2.html
| Quote: |
Gift Or Pledge Recipient Year
Joan Kroc $1.5 billion Salvation Army 2004
Walter Annenberg $1 billion Metropolitan Museum of Art 2002
Gordon Moore $300 million California Institute of Technology 2001
Ted Turner $250 million Nuclear Threat Initiative 2001
Thomas Monaghan $220 million Ave Maria University 2002
David Geffen $200 million UCLA School of Medicine 2002
Joan Kroc $200 million National Public Radio 2003
Sidney Kimmel $150 million Johns Hopkins University 2001
Jon Huntsman $125 million University of Utah 2000
Irwin Jacobs $110 million University of California-San Diego 2003
Irwin Jacobs $100 million San Diego Symphony 2002
Ruth Lilly $100 million Poetry magazine 2002
Paul Allen $100 million Allen Institute for Brain Science 2003
Alfred Mann $100 million Technion - Israel Institute of Technology 2004 |
trickle down is obviously a fallacy, as the rich get richer and poor get poorer.
And economically, why shouldn't the rich pay more? Have you ever heard of decreasing marginal utility? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
