|
There are other reasons why people can vote for Romney though. They can also just really dislike liberals, women, hate minorities, be religious, believe Obama is the anti-christ, don't believe in global warming, think Iraq had WMD.
Given what Romney stands for aside from "praise the rich", simply his stances on global warming and cultural issues should be enough to question the intelligence of anyone voting for him. (not that Obama is that much better)
And ixi, did you really accuse others of wanting wage slavery when in the previous sentence you said we had to be grateful to the rich for granting us jobs? (how nice of them) It has always been the right that seems to prefer a return to the traditional values of serfs versus nobles.
|
On August 19 2012 17:33 ixi.genocide wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 17:23 Dirkzor wrote:On August 19 2012 17:13 ixi.genocide wrote:
I don't think you know what you are talking about. The personal income tax for the rich is 35%, the corporate tax rate is at 28% (due to the bush tax cuts) and the capital gains tax is 15%. The "Loopholes" that you mentioned is mainly due to capital gains low tax rates (high risk), and charity donations. Plus, when you combine property tax and sales tax americans pay more than most european countries. The problem is that life isn't a game, we don't all start out at the same place and that is mainly due to our families not making the same choices. Sure, romneys family was rich, and romney is rich, but I don't think it is a problem, and that is the difference.
Not that I know anything about this so don't take this an attack, but can you back up that claim? I've always assumed that most EU countries payed way more taxes then you did in the US. (I know Denmark is). Denmark is about 40% right? when you consider the approx 10% sales tax on top of 35% income tax you already have a higher tax rate, but property tax and state tax are also added on to this. Granted this is not the case for lower income families and the tax brackets range in the 30 percentiles. Also, the cost of living is typically higher, especially med insurance.
I'm sorry but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about (concerning European contries). The highest tax bracket in Denmark is 59%. Germany has the lowest peak income tax out of the countries in Western/Northern Europe at 47.8%. Furthermore, There is also something like sales taxes in every European country. However, it doesn't apply only to sales but also to services. The lowest "sales" tax in the EU is in Cyprus at 15%. Only 3 out of 27 countries have their "sales" tax lower than 20%. The highest "sales" tax in the EU is in Hungary at 27%. Also, of course there is property tax in European countries.
Claiming that people in the US pay more taxes than European citizens is plain wrong (excluding East Europe).
vat rates in the EU
income tax in some countries (incl. West Europe)
The only claim you make which might be at least partially true is that med insurances are more expensive in the US. Unfortunately, I have no idea how much Joe sixpack pays for his insurance, but in Germany for example prices for a single person start at about 100€ and can easily climb up to several hundred (when extending it to your wife and children).
|
Maybe your friend is voting for Romney because he's horrified at how Obama mismanaged the economy in his first term.
|
The tax issue is so much more complicated and muddied than people would have you believe. OP, if you come here and say things like "people voting for Romney don't believe in having the rich pay more than they do in taxes after all the loopholes and lobbying" or "are you going to sit here and tell me that those people are somehow worth thousands of times more than the next person", then you're not having an actual debate. You're just spouting off talking points/platitudes.
Let's tackle your comments in reverse order.
1) On the subject of the "worth" of a person:
There is indeed something odd about the growth of executive pay relative that of their employees. If you look at studies such as this (http://www.epi.org/publication/ib331-ceo-pay-top-1-percent/), you can see a huge boom in the ratios of CEO pay to employee pay that seem to correspond roughly with a boom in investment in the stock market. There are a lot of reasons for this, but the question the OP seems to be asking is "do they deserve it?" How deserving someone is of the money they earn is an interesting proposition, because it is not objective.
The best parallel to this is sports. Drew Brees just made over 100 million dollars on his last contract. He's making more than most CEOs of average sized to large firms. Is he really worth that much money? Is he that qualified? Did he have that much schooling? Has he really worked that much harder than anyone else to earn that much money? The conventional wisdom is that he "deserves" that money because someone was willing to pay him that money. Someone felt that they would make more money for themselves by paying Drew Brees such an extravagant salary. Brees didn't steal that money. No one was compelled to pay him that much. The market set his price and he went for that price.
Let's look at it another way to see a different view. Let's not even compare Brees against an average worker. Let's compare Brees, a "CEO-level" NFL player, to the NFL minimum salary. Let's look at the wealth gap between Brees and other players. Brees' contract is worth 100 million over 5 years, or about 20 million a season. The average NFL salary is 1.9 million (source: http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ycn-10423863) the minimum salary is 400,000 (source: http://www.steelersdepot.com/2011/07/2011-2014-nfl-minimum-base-salaries/).
So, Brees makes about 10 times the salary of an average NFL player, and about 50 times the salary of the lowest-paid NFL players. The gap between Brees and his fellow players is not as large as it is between CEOs and their employees, but it is hard to envision that Brees "deserves" 10 times more pay than the average NFL player based solely on how hard he works and how qualified he is. It's equally unlikely he's 50 times more talented/qualified than the lowest-paid rookies. The key point here is that he is a quarterback. He is effectively the CEO of the team. He is the face of the team. The most visible player whose actions have the highest risk and the highest reward. He receives a disproportionate amount of the blame when the team loses, and he receives a disproportionate amount of the praise when they win. His "value" to the team is higher than other players on his team because a good QB has the power to bring people to the stadium and make the team more money than a OLB or a CB (though those positions are important).
So, in conclusion, the reason CEOs make that much money is because someone is willing to pay them that much money. The reason workers don't make that much money is because no one is willing to pay them that much money. The widening gulf between executive pay and worker pay is concerning, but it is not intrinsically evil. We should try to understand what caused it and we should try to understand what it means for the future.
2) On the issue of people "paying their fair share":
Did you know that in the US over 49% of Americans do not pay ANY Federal income tax (source: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/19/chart-of-the-week-nearly-half-of-all-americans-dont-pay-income-taxes/)? That total has quadrupled since 1969. How can we expect responsible civic participation from people who don't pay into the system and therefore do not have anything invested in the success of that system? How is that their "fair share"?
So, let's look at tax burden across the US. Effective tax rates are down across the board since 1979 (source: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456) The upper 20% has had the smallest decrease (in absolute percentage) in effective tax rate among all groups. Interestingly, the top 1% saw a major decrease in effective tax rate from 37% in 1979 to 19% in 2007 (just before Obama took office). Contrary to what many people would have you believe, the poor and middle class are not paying more and the rich paying less. EVERYONE is paying less, and the upper-class are not getting a relatively better deal, but perhaps the mega-rich are.
Let's go back to our first point about people who do not pay taxes. Notice that a lot of high-profile programs right now are being sold to the US public as being paid for by the so-called Millionaires Tax (a small .5-1.5% tax increase on people earning more than 1 million dollars). Why? Well, millionaires make up a very small portion of the US electorate. Did you know that the top 5% of US households by income make at least $180,000 (source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032011/hhinc/new05_000.htm)? This isn't individual wage earners, but combined households. You're in the 60th percentile or higher if your household makes at least 60,000. 80th percentile or higher if your household makes at least 100,000.
If half of Americans do not pay taxes, then they would have no problem voting for programs that give them what amounts to "free entitlements". Why be picky about the programs we pursue or the quality/return of those programs if we don't have to pay? The rest of Americans are far less amenable to having their taxes raised. Politicians know this. They do a LOT of polling. They realize that if they say "We'll pay for this by raising everyone's taxes by 0.5%, and then raising taxes on millionaires by an additional 1.0%" that everyone will revolt and no one would vote for the bill. But, they do know that if they say "we'll raise millionaires taxes by 1.5%", that it is FAR more politically acceptable.
Interestingly, excluding the non-millionaires from the tax burden doesn't have a dramatic effect on the amount of money that is raised. This is because the tax burden is progressive. The top 20% of wage-earning families pay 70% of all US income tax. The top 1% pays nearly 25% of all US income tax. The bottom 60% of families pay about 12%. (source: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=2994&DocTypeID=7). When Republicans making everyone pay (including the rich), people usually ding them by saying that taxing the bottom-earning Americans actually wouldn't make much money. And it's true when you look at the numbers. But, even if you tell the rich to pay more, why doesn't everyone have to pay a little? Because, when people are asked to pony up for new taxes, suddenly they aren't so happy about the new programs and bureaucracies. (In fairness, while the top 1% pays 70% of the taxes, they also hold about 35-50% of the wealth, so it is roughly in line with what they pay. Top 20% has about 85% of the wealth in America. source: http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html)
So, the last issue about "fair share" that comes up is about the rich dodging their tax burden. This has to do with tax "loopholes" and offshore tax accounts and things like that. The issue here is that these things are usually legal (some rich people do illegal things with their money and they should be prosecuted for that). These are people who are simply doing everything they can (inside the law) to get the best deal for themselves. It's nothing that anyone here wouldn't do themselves if it was profitable for them to do so. After all, the people reading these forums are the types of people that have (generally) pirated games and music before, run ad-block on most websites and streams, and may have watched a restream of a pay-for broadcast. Everyone is looking out for themselves. As they should. But there is a lot of hypocrisy when it comes to pointing the finger at people for using legal "loopholes", when so many of us search for these loopholes ourselves in our every day life.
The last point to be made about "loopholes" is that is such a poorly defined word. A "tax loophole" in the legal sense, or when it is used in policy definitions, is any rule or ambiguity that allows someone to pay less taxes than they otherwise would. This includes things like special rules for capital gains as well as tax credits for students, first-time homeowners, and married couples. Is it fair that married couples pay less in taxes? That first-time homeowners get to pay less in taxes for buying a house? That people pay less for going to school? You may say "yes", but do they really DESERVE to pay less? No, but we incentivize certain behaviors that we think are good for our people by allowing them to pay less in taxes. Some of the rules about stocks and capital gains are to spur investment in American businesses, which helps the economy grow. Ending some of these "loopholes" is tricky because there were good reasons we started them in the first place. Some is due to lobbying, but not all.
So, what does this all mean? Well, it means that the notion of "fair share" is FAR more complicated than people would have you believe. The differences in the way that the rich and the rest of America earn money means that the tax system created over a hundred years ago cannot possibly stretch to cover everyone in a sensible way. There is so much room for tax reform, but don't let anyone tell you it is as simple as making people pay their "fair share". Rich people should pay more in taxes, but it is not clear how much. Everyone should pay some taxes, but it is not clear how much. Income inequality is a real concern for the future, but it is not a justification for demonizing wealth and holding rich people in contempt.
What your friend may believe, and the reasons he may be voting for Romney could be a lot more nuanced that you let on in your post.
|
On August 19 2012 19:41 Grumbels wrote:
There are other reasons why people can vote for Romney though. They can also just really dislike liberals, women, hate minorities, be religious, believe Obama is the anti-christ, don't believe in global warming, think Iraq had WMD.
Given what Romney stands for aside from "praise the rich", simply his stances on global warming and cultural issues should be enough to question the intelligence of anyone voting for him. (not that Obama is that much better)
And ixi, did you really accuse others of wanting wage slavery when in the previous sentence you said we had to be grateful to the rich for granting us jobs? (how nice of them) It has always been the right that seems to prefer a return to the traditional values of serfs versus nobles.
^ because people from the netherlands truly pay attention to our politics in a way that shows a very conservative party in a positive light. All those crazy things are also mimiced by our democratic party in a different way, such as giving handouts to people who don't deserve them (obama bucks). You live under a very different system buddy, don't hate on ours simply because you feel that these people are stupid. I doubt you fully understand anything about american poli sci (not that I know anything deep about the dutch system other than its parliamentary I believe), or that you have taken any college level class on U.S. Poli Sci.
On a different note
I'm very confused by people like you. You put down your friend saying that he is obviously not a high performer, so he shouldn't vote for romney? Are you saying that only high performing people, who obviously want to fuck over the middle and lower class should vote for Romney? Idk what your major is, but saying, "capitalism isn't fair!" is one of the main things low performing people say. They don't blame their lack of huge success on their own incapabilities, but on the system. Its the same thing that highschoolers blame when they aren't math/science based and do not get all the perks of the hard science medals for college. You are the kind of person who votes for Obama not because he actually belongs to your ideals deep down, but rather because you yourself are afraid that if deregulation were to occur, you would be left out because you, yourself are not a high performer, and thus need to be protected from people who outclass you.
I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm trying to put into other words what your friend might say about you knowing how far you put him down in this passage. Dude, you can be frank with your friends, but this was a lot. The fact is that if you were to actually study this topic, that is political science, economics, and government, you would understand that though the president matters when it comes to appointing a man to represent our country, to appoint supreme court judges, veto laws, and create executive orders, those are all very miniscule in power compared to the things congress has. If you think job "creationism" is stupid, you might want to look at iron triangles, and other congress created groups that allow for certain practices to continue for the good of corporations who fund part of the iron triangle, one of which is lobbyists (who are very important in congress because they inform congressman on the issues, even if it is with a spin, which most poeple do not know since they don't take the time to study government). If you want to make statements like you did, you have to actually back them up with a knowledge base, not pontificate them without basis.
EDIT: I should probably add this at the end just make it clear, the things I outlined above that you "are" you probably aren't I'm not saying you are a low performer and that you are easily out done. In fact you may be the complete opposite. I'm sure you are a great guy, what I'm trying to say (despite how aggressive it may sound and I apologize for that) is that there are two sides to each open ended argument and you fail to see his.
|
people recommending a higher sales tax and lower income tax as a way of balancing the budget don't realize how ridiculously imbalanced it is for people who pay taxes.
sales tax naturally taxes the poor more than the rich, the poor must spend a higher % of their income than the rich to survive.
if it costs 20000 annually to live in the united states, a man making 40000 and a man making 4000000 pay vastly different percentages of their income in sales. a man with 40000 income will pay 6400 according tot he igrok plan which is 16% of his total income, higher than the current maximum he would pay at 15% right now. while the man making 400000 will pay 402400 or 10.06% of his income which is lower than the 35% he pays now.
so yeah plans that try to balance off sales tax generally will force people in lower incomes to pay a higher percentage than the rich.
for instance that 12/10/10 crap that igrok likes. somehow lowering income tax drastically, and capital gains tax drastically is balanced out by a 12% sales tax.
|
The best parallel for CEO pay is not football athletes. You're saying that the question of why CEOs make so much money is very interesting and the reason might be that people are willing to pay them so much money (very eye-opening). Which ignores the question of the revolving door between CEOs, board members, investors and the like (in a sense they are setting their own salary). It ignores why companies are willing to pay CEOs so much money - even if they fail and nearly bankrupt the company. Or why these corporations have that much money to begin with.
It's a situation where an elite group rigged the system to reap more profits and now they have lackeys like you to utter pseudo-philosophy like "geeh, if things are the way they are, maybe that's just the way it is, it's all very complex anyhow".
|
I think there are several reasons why people vote against their economic interests (i.e. for the Republican Party when they are not extremely wealthy). Some have to do with voting for conservative social policy and just taking whatever comes with it. This quote from Steinbeck seems to fit your friend:
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
― John Steinbeck
I know he isn't "poor," but we are all kind of poor relative to the wealthy in this country.
|
On August 20 2012 01:12 Grumbels wrote:
The best parallel for CEO pay is not football athletes. You're saying that the question of why CEOs make so much money is very interesting and the reason might be that people are willing to pay them so much money (very eye-opening). Which ignores the question of the revolving door between CEOs, board members, investors and the like (in a sense they are setting their own salary). It ignores why companies are willing to pay CEOs so much money - even if they fail and nearly bankrupt the company. Or why these corporations have that much money to begin with.
It's a situation where an elite group rigged the system to reap more profits and now they have lackeys like you to utter pseudo-philosophy like "geeh, if things are the way they are, maybe that's just the way it is, it's all very complex anyhow".
Ignoring the ad hom about being a "lackey" or about "pseudo-philosophy", you're not making it clear what point you're trying to make. You talk about the parallel between CEO pay and football athletes not being the "best" but you don't say that it is wrong. Both are clearly instances where normal people look and go "how is what that person does worth that much money?".
It's not pseudo-philosophical to say that things are the way they are and it is all complex. It IS complex. Why, suddenly in the 1990's did CEO pay skyrocket relative to worker pay? (You'd see that chart if you actually read through my whole post and sources) It's difficult to say. It was during a democratic presidency (Bill Clinton). It was also during the tech bubble. It also corresponds to a similarly explosive growth in the stock market (source: http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/historical/djia1900.html).
Is it really just that there are lackeys on the board? Some people contend that (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0510/outfront-pay-bosses-ceo-chairman-why-executives-pay-is-high.html). But it seems far too simple for that to be the whole story. I've read reports that the incentive structures are simply oriented poorly. CEO compensation is usually tied to the performance of the company. But the performance is measured over the short-term instead of the long-term. So, a CEO is incentivized to take extreme risks, realize short-term rewards and therefore high-compensation, and then leave before the long-term harm follows.
The following story from the Guardian in the UK looks at the issue of CEO pay in that country (EDIT Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2011/nov/22/pay). It has a lot of back-and-forth about what is driving the out-of-control pay (one of the components they talk about is the "top footballer syndrome"). It talks about things like deferred payment, poorly aligned incentives, "top footballer syndrome", and even transparency as contributing to the phenomenon.
It's not "pseudo-philosophy" to see a complex issue and want to actually get into it, look at evidence on all sides of the issue, and really try to understand the root causes of things. I think it is a responsible way to look at the world. To hide behind overly simplistic platitudes like "its all greed and cronyism" doesn't really do the issue justice. It doesn't solve anything. It just entrenches more mistrust and hatred towards others.
EDIT 2:
Doing more looking into things and stumbled across this book review (http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/income-inequality-rising-stopped-says-author-163703247.html). Income inequality has risen in the US due to a lot of complicated factors, and the solution must address many of those factors. This doesn't just mean putting caps on executive pay or jacking up the income rate, but also providing more affordable education, price caps, health care, child care, etc. Still looking for more sources about what can be done to counteract this trend, but this book looks like one good source.
|
I liked Michelle Bachmann, but I guess I'm going to have to vote for Romney instead.
|
True friends don't let friends vote for Romney. Make sure you take his keys away until he sobers up.
|
On August 20 2012 00:20 ziggurat wrote:Maybe your friend is voting for Romney because he's horrified at how Obama mismanaged the economy in his first term.
this is why I can't vote for Obama.
I hate Romney too though lol.
time to just fucking move to Canada.
|
On August 20 2012 10:52 LuckyFool wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 00:20 ziggurat wrote:Maybe your friend is voting for Romney because he's horrified at how Obama mismanaged the economy in his first term. this is why I can't vote for Obama. I hate Romney too though lol. time to just fucking move to Canada.
Vote for a third party, it doesn't matter which one
|
On August 20 2012 15:43 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 10:52 LuckyFool wrote:On August 20 2012 00:20 ziggurat wrote:Maybe your friend is voting for Romney because he's horrified at how Obama mismanaged the economy in his first term. this is why I can't vote for Obama. I hate Romney too though lol. time to just fucking move to Canada. Vote for a third party, it doesn't matter which one
Probably johnson, because he will get vaguely significant numbers. It at least shows disappointment with choices presented. (I might end up protest voting...)
|
On August 20 2012 15:49 Froadac wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 15:43 sam!zdat wrote:On August 20 2012 10:52 LuckyFool wrote:On August 20 2012 00:20 ziggurat wrote:Maybe your friend is voting for Romney because he's horrified at how Obama mismanaged the economy in his first term. this is why I can't vote for Obama. I hate Romney too though lol. time to just fucking move to Canada. Vote for a third party, it doesn't matter which one Probably johnson, because he will get vaguely significant numbers. It at least shows disappointment with choices presented. (I might end up protest voting...)
I hope by protest vote you mean vote for a third party, because then it registers on some number somewhere. If you vote for ronald mcdonald or yourself I feel like it just doesn't get registered at all... right? Idk how this works
|
On August 20 2012 15:59 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 15:49 Froadac wrote:On August 20 2012 15:43 sam!zdat wrote:On August 20 2012 10:52 LuckyFool wrote:On August 20 2012 00:20 ziggurat wrote:Maybe your friend is voting for Romney because he's horrified at how Obama mismanaged the economy in his first term. this is why I can't vote for Obama. I hate Romney too though lol. time to just fucking move to Canada. Vote for a third party, it doesn't matter which one Probably johnson, because he will get vaguely significant numbers. It at least shows disappointment with choices presented. (I might end up protest voting...) I hope by protest vote you mean vote for a third party, because then it registers on some number somewhere. If you vote for ronald mcdonald or yourself I feel like it just doesn't get registered at all... right? Idk how this works
Yeah, yeah, I know. The only valid protest vote is a vote for the third guy. (Johnson, in this case) I may end up being pragmatic and vote for the lesser of two evils, but meh.
|
On August 20 2012 16:02 Froadac wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 15:59 sam!zdat wrote:On August 20 2012 15:49 Froadac wrote:On August 20 2012 15:43 sam!zdat wrote:On August 20 2012 10:52 LuckyFool wrote:On August 20 2012 00:20 ziggurat wrote:Maybe your friend is voting for Romney because he's horrified at how Obama mismanaged the economy in his first term. this is why I can't vote for Obama. I hate Romney too though lol. time to just fucking move to Canada. Vote for a third party, it doesn't matter which one Probably johnson, because he will get vaguely significant numbers. It at least shows disappointment with choices presented. (I might end up protest voting...) I hope by protest vote you mean vote for a third party, because then it registers on some number somewhere. If you vote for ronald mcdonald or yourself I feel like it just doesn't get registered at all... right? Idk how this works Yeah, yeah, I know. The only valid protest vote is a vote for the third guy. (Johnson, in this case) I may end up being pragmatic and vote for the lesser of two evils, but meh.
Only if you live in a state where it matters. I live in WA, so I'm disenfranchised anyway.
|
On August 20 2012 16:03 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 16:02 Froadac wrote:On August 20 2012 15:59 sam!zdat wrote:On August 20 2012 15:49 Froadac wrote:On August 20 2012 15:43 sam!zdat wrote:On August 20 2012 10:52 LuckyFool wrote:On August 20 2012 00:20 ziggurat wrote:Maybe your friend is voting for Romney because he's horrified at how Obama mismanaged the economy in his first term. this is why I can't vote for Obama. I hate Romney too though lol. time to just fucking move to Canada. Vote for a third party, it doesn't matter which one Probably johnson, because he will get vaguely significant numbers. It at least shows disappointment with choices presented. (I might end up protest voting...) I hope by protest vote you mean vote for a third party, because then it registers on some number somewhere. If you vote for ronald mcdonald or yourself I feel like it just doesn't get registered at all... right? Idk how this works Yeah, yeah, I know. The only valid protest vote is a vote for the third guy. (Johnson, in this case) I may end up being pragmatic and vote for the lesser of two evils, but meh. Only if you live in a state where it matters. I live in WA, so I'm disenfranchised anyway.
Aand california. You are entirely right, my vote is sort of invalid. It's late and I'm not thinking pragmatically XD
|
|
|
Yeah, good idea. A lot of people identify with a party, and not ideals. In fact, probably most.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
