|
DesideriScuri -> RE: Reagan Philosophy agrees with Obama's on Wealthy (4/12/2012 6:21:58 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: xssve
quote:
Is it fair that those who are getting the most welfare benefits are those who are paying the least? Is it fair that those that are getting the fewest welfare benefits pay the most? Is it fair that those that make 46% of the nation's AGI pay 70% of the nation's income tax? No and yes, the benefits principle, look it up. There is more to it than WIC coupons for milk and food stamps, there are roads and bridges, interstate highway systems, air traffic control, regulation, law enforcement, courts, the military, etc., etc., etc., the entire apparatus of a modern economy, all of which benefit people engaged in commercial business activity disproportionately to those who work for them - i.e., without roads, a Wal-Mart employee has to start earlier to get to work - but without roads, there is no Wal-Mart, it could not exist, and you can say that about 90% of modern American businesses, without our (crumbling) infrastructure, without the Military (the Navy in particular), to keep the international trade lanes free from piracy, they simply would not exist, or would only be able to do so at far greater cost.
I don't know where you got your numbers, but the top 1/10th of 1% payed 17.1% of income taxes on 7.8% of income, averaging 4 million dollars, an effective tax rate of 24.3% - you think get no benefits from government expenditures?
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
First: Never said they get no benefits.
Second: Here is where I got my numbers.
The table:
[image]http://new-cdn.financialsamurai.com.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/toptaxes.jpg[/image]
"The Rich" tend to have larger houses, in nicer neighborhoods. They tend to drive nicer cars. They buy more overall. They buy more expensive "stuff." With all this, they pay more in taxes than the normal person, even though the rates are essentially the same.
Is a Hospital CEO worth millions? I have a hard time believing it, but his pay-setters apparently seem to think so. Does administrative cost factor into the cost of a procedure? Damn right it does. Does having an army of administrative staff add into the cost of each individual procedure? Damn right it does. Is an army of administrative staffers really necessary? To some degree, most likely. Remember, these companies aren't out to hire people. They are out to turn a profit. Hiring more than they need reduces their profits. Apparently, due to all the fuckups with insurance companies and compliance with regulations, an army is necessary. You think regulation compliance plays any part in insurance costs? Damn right it does.
Government over-regulates. I'll never say that zero regulations are necessary. Never have and never will. I do believe we've passed that point at which each regulation added negatively effects the desired end.
As far as the wacko meme that "we paid for the roads, bridges, and infrastructure, so you owe us jobs and higher wages" is so ludicrous because the very people they are bitching about are also ones that pay those same taxes for the infrastructure. The businesses (unless there are tax abatements [which are seldom unlimited in length]) pay taxes for the infrastructure, too. Add into it that the existence of the business was not guaranteed, so there was a risk taken and success to be rewarded (I am against bailouts, so I also believe that failures should not be rewarded, because you don't learn as much from them). Finally, without that business, the goods it makes available would not necessarily be available.
Everyone benefits from a growing economy. Some more. Some less. All benefit.
|
|
|
|
