Q for Wed night's reading (3/9)

[Jay Levine]

Based on your introductory reading to libertarianism (pp. 58-62), I
pose this question: Do Wall St. executives really need all that
money? Surely, they could add to the overall happiness of America's
citizens if they just were forced to part with a steeper % of their
earnings...they wouldn't miss the money (it being a drop in the
proverbial bucket), and a school system like Haverhill could benefit
greatly. Is this OK to tax them a greater % of their wealth?
Incorporate one idea from the reading in your response.

[Nick Roy]

I personally think it seems kind of like Communism. Your taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor, and won't everyone eventually reach an equal value? 

[Jaclyn Solimine]

I think that even the richest person should be taxed the same percentage as eveyone else, not greater.In my opinion, they earned the money and should be able to do whatever they want with it.  Redistributive taxes sort of force them to give their money away, which violates their free will. I think a better solution would be to maybe put more pressure on them to donate part of their wealth to society, but they should always have a say in what they want to do with their money.

[Emily Lawler]

In my own opinion, i think that the rich should be charged with a higher percentage of taxes. Yes, they did earn the money, but who really does need 50 billion dollars? Some of it is donated to charity, Bill Gates for example, but the government taxes the lower class the same percentage when they still need all they can get. Asking a billionaire to give up a little more will hard impact him if it does at all, where compared to a person who makes 50,000 a year will feel the higher tax much more. The reading says that some people feel that the economic inequality is okay as long as the money was earned honestly and fair. What if it wasn't? I am not sayuing all money is made in a dishonest way, but like Mr. Harvey said, what if it were the bank executive who gave himself an eleven billion dollar bonus? I would not feel bad taxing him more than someone who works just as hard for less money.

[Emily Lawler]

*hardly

[Zachary Brown]

I think that the rich should be taxed more. They do not need billions of  dollars to survive. Friedrich A. Hayek said in the artical that greater economic equality would be destructive of free society. I firmly disagree with this. How would taxing the rich a bit more than the middle and lower class bring about destruction to society? I believe it would help out society as the richest 1% wouldn't own a third of our countries wealth and money would go back into the government to help pay off the massice debts we have.

[Phil]

I strongly agree with Dog. The rich do not need billions of dollars to survive. They deffinately do not need five expensive cars and million dollar houses all over the place, they have all this stuff for themselves so I think they can spare a little more money to help out the rest of the country. As dog said they own a third of the country's wealth and that's rediculous.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone

[George Bonner]

the wall street executives should be taxed higher than lets say, a
teacher. (sorry mr levine, but lets face it, your profession is on the
opposite end of the spectrum.) the economy is getting better but we
still are in a tremendous amount of debt. (over 14 trillion and
rising http://www.defeatthedebt.com/understanding-the-national-debt/how-much-do-we-owe/
) Now how are we going to pay back that debt? we could cut spending
and close corporate and government loopholes (which apparently no one
wants to do), we could cut benefits of public workers (which people in
wisconsin dont wanna do), or we could eliminate the bush tax cuts for
the richest 1% of americans who make.....get ready...as of february
2009 (a little dated, I know)... between one and 5.75 million per
year. not counting the "bonuses" they gave themselves. that makes the
average "wall street guy" earns about $11.88 per minute. the average.
they currently pay 15% income taxes. that is about $700000. still
leaving them with about two million left. the average teacher in MA
makes approx. 44K-60K per year. they also pay about 15%

i believe that the wealthiest 1% of americans shold be taxed 20%
rather than 15%
sources:
http://consumerist.com/2009/02/gee-how-much-does-a-bailed-out-executive-make-anyway.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://www.teacher-world.com/teacher-salary/massachusetts.html
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2009/05/this_just_in_wall_st_people_re.html

any questions?

ps: this made me laugh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR1Uk52v_CQ

[Stephanie Pelletier]

I don't believe that the wealthier Americans should be more heavily
taxed just based upon the fact that they earn what they earn. The
wealth gap causes greater competition and in my opinion an increased
work ethic and average rise in effort. This isn't at all fair, but
it's how life is sometimes. No one ever said life was fair, did they?
Everyone is going to get what they deserve, so if the rich people
really do in fact deserve the money, they should be able to keep it.
It is up to them to distribute their own wealth, not the government or
some other source just for equality purposes. We wouldn't be human if
we weren't different.

On Mar 9, 5:38 pm, George Bonner <georgecbon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> the wall street executives should be taxed higher than lets say, a
> teacher. (sorry mr levine, but lets face it, your profession is on the
> opposite end of the spectrum.) the economy is getting better but we
> still are in a tremendous amount of debt. (over 14 trillion and

> rising  http://www.defeatthedebt.com/understanding-the-national-debt/how-much...

> ) Now how are we going to pay back that debt? we could cut spending
> and close corporate and government loopholes (which apparently no one
> wants to do), we could cut benefits of public workers (which people in
> wisconsin dont wanna do), or we could eliminate the bush tax cuts for
> the richest 1% of americans who make.....get ready...as of february
> 2009 (a little dated, I know)... between one and 5.75 million per
> year. not counting the "bonuses" they gave themselves. that makes the
> average "wall street guy" earns about $11.88 per minute. the average.
> they currently pay 15% income taxes. that is about $700000. still
> leaving them with about two million left. the average teacher in MA
> makes approx. 44K-60K per year. they also pay about 15%
>
> i believe that the wealthiest 1% of americans shold be taxed 20%
> rather than 15%

> sources:http://consumerist.com/2009/02/gee-how-much-does-a-bailed-out-executi...http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.htmlhttp://www.teacher-world.com/teacher-salary/massachusetts.htmlhttp://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2009/05/this_just_in_wall_st_people_re...
>
> any questions?
>
> ps: this made me laugh.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR1Uk52v_CQ

[whitney milewski]

I do think that they should be more heavily taxed. The millions they're making (not to mention their bonuses they give themselves) aren't needed so much to survive as Dog mentioned. If there's people in the world managing without roofs over their heads, it seems sort of arrogant to say that one needs millions to survive. Owning a third of the country's wealth? That's a lot of money that could be going to other more vital places such as schools, like Haverhill High.

[Emily DelDotto]

I personally don't think wealthier Americans should be heavily taxed. I agree that the millions of dollars they're making isn't needed at all to survive, but if they earned the money they should be able to keep a portion of it. They should be able to do whatever they want from it and it's not up to the government. Even though the money could be going to more important places, I don't think they should be heavily taxed just because they're wealthy. 

[bridget stemmler]

I agree that "there is nothing unfair about economic inequality". Most of the people on this Forbes 400 list are on it because they worked for it, therefore they deserve the mass amounts of money they possess. Yes, they do have an extreme amount of wealth in comparison to the average America, but that in no way affects their right to have that money and spend it in whichever way they chose. The government does not have the right to increase the taxes on the wealthy, however much it may increase happiness from a utilitarian standpoint.

[Rhianna Waterman]

Okay, I agree with Nick. Doesn't redistribution of the wealth to others sound like communism? If one simply puts themselves in the shoes of a wealthy person, I'm pretty sure that individual wouldn't want to give their money to people who aren't as wealthy as them, they earned it didn't they? On page 59 it says "There is nothing unfair about economic inequality, provided it arises without force or fraud, through the choices people make in a market economy." The wealth gap between the rich and the poor keep competition flowing. Why take money away from someone who earns it; the rich should be taxed the same amount as every other individual. I mean if your referring to Paris Hilton, I would change my opinion.

[Michaela Pierro]

I don't think the wealthier Americans should be taxed more than anyone else. The wealthier Americans earned their money and should be able to spend it how they want to.

I think wealth redistribution is wrong because the billionaires in America are used to living a certain lifestyle, so they would have to change the way they live and be forced to give up a % of their money just because there are people who would also appreciate that wealth. If I was one of those billionaires on the Forbes 400 list, I would absolutely not want a % of the money I earned to be redistributed.

 

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Jay Levine <jaymle...@gmail.com> wrote:

[George Bonner]

Michaela- its not people that appreciate the wealth. Its people who
need the wealth.
Nick and Rhianna: it DOES sound like communism. (but it sounds more
like socialism.) its not equality of opportunity/equality of outcomes.
no ones abolishing private property. we are simply talking about
raising the tax rates from (bush tax cuts) 15% up to 20%. these funds
could be used to help rebuild HHS. sound better?
Bridget-yes they do have the right. the reason they havnt acted on it
is because our legislators are bribed (or lobbying as i hear people
call it nowadays) by the wealthiest 1 % to give them tax breaks. Are
there tactics working? yes. do "trickle down economics" (the claim
that these omega-rich 1% will use this newfound untaxed $$ for
creating new jobs) work? no.
Steph- life is unfair. but when someone has rigged the system, you
WANT it to be fair. VERY BADLY. yes we ARE different. but a little TOO
different if you ask me. look at the dollar figure. look at it again.
take a deep breath, look at it one more time...now tell me you
wouldn't want HHS to get a portion of that money.
Jackie, still having trouble processing what you mean by "pressure"
on them.

> > Incorporate one idea from the reading in your response.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Lucille Sirois]

I personally don't think that the wealthier Americans should be taxed
at a higher percentage than any other American. In my eyes. I can see
that the wealthier Americans can help our nation. By spending money,
they can help stir up the economy by purchasing products they might
not have if they were more heavily taxed. Also, I truly believe that
their money should be theirs. They worked for their money just like
regular Americans work to earn their paychecks. "Taking money wihtout
their consent, even for a good cause, is coercive. It violates their
liberty to do with their money whatever they please." A lot of people
might feel the same with me and agree with this quote. We wouldnt
want our money to be taken in such a manner like this. Because we
object to the redistribution on these grounds, we are considerd
libertarians becasue we object in the name of human freedom.

On Mar 9, 7:58 pm, Michaela Pierro <michaelaal...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Calé Frost]

Well there should be caps on their pay, at least. I don't know about
forcing them to give away their money, though. But I don't really know
what i

[George Bonner]

lucille, taxation has always been a part of American society. We
spilled a ton of tea in boston harbor not because we didnt want to be
taxed, but because we wanted representation and have a say in our
taxes. now my say is, as I said before, that no one needs that much
money. Its not even like the tax rate of 91% in the 1960s. (look it
up) its 5%.
that being said, If I was making millions of dollars per year, I would
not mind 20% of my income being taxed. BECAUSE I WOULD STILL HAVE
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
Lets take the Virgin guy, Richard Branson. If my memory serves me
right, I believe he has his own spaceship.* unemployment is at 9.5%**
and he has a spaceship. I dont think he is in violation of any "human
freedom violations"
point being that the principal isnt the point. there are always
exceptions and a simple concept shouldnt be blown out of proportions.
ther will never be a "Robin hood senario" where "it will hurt gates as
much as it helps the recipient" because we are not literally giving
money to people. (as far as i know. correct me if im wrong)

*http://www.zath.co.uk/virgin-galactic-to-offer-space-tourism-by-2012/
**http://www.google.com/publicdata?
ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=current
+us+unemployment+rates

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[George Bonner]

on that last link, copy the whole thing, rather than just clicking on
the blue lettering and it should work.

[Austin Ratkevicius]

I honestly believe that their is nothing wrong with fluxuations in tax percents based on overall wealth. I feel that the rich easily benefit more from our society and governmental structure more than the poorer. The rich easily benefit from the use of federal funds just like the poor. When the government plans a mass building project (let's go with the interstate system) the rich are instantly benefiting by having their companies contracted under the works project. On the other hand, the average citizen recieves no instant payout for the creation of this project. Everyone can use it, but only the rich stockholders in the corperation contracted by the government will recieve the added benefit. This seems to me a valid reason to justify higher tax rates on the wealthy.

[Adelise Roberts]

I believe that if the people are making that much money they should be taxed higher but if they are donating to things like charities they should be able to lower their taxes by doing things like that.  Even if you raise the taxes they are still going to have large amounts of money that could be spent on other things that are of importance in our world now such as finding a cure for cancer, or help fighting world hunger.