Brainfade Posted August 14, 2012 Posted August 14, 2012 Added a poll to keep the discussion on track! Let's start with a simple premise: The rich must bear a greater share of the tax burden than the poor. But, what is their fair share? Let's look at the following graphs: The top 20% made ~ 40% of the income (2009), but bore ~ 90% of the tax burden (2008/09). I realize that it is more complicated (wage income, cap gains, FICA and other payroll taxes, utility taxes etc. etc. are not included, but who has the time now?) The question is, from the data given, how much of the tax burden should the top 20% bear?
Clarke Posted August 14, 2012 Posted August 14, 2012 Let's start with a simple premise: The rich must bear a greater share of the tax burden than the poor. But, what is their fair share? Let's start with an even simpler premise: is it fair to pay an executive 100 times a worker ? Is the former hundred times smarter & hard working than the latter ? PS: good thread.
Brainfade Posted August 14, 2012 Author Posted August 14, 2012 Let's start with an even simpler premise: is it fair to pay an executive 100 times a worker ? Is the former hundred times smarter & hard working than the latter ? PS: good thread. That's beside the point, Clarke. And one for another thread. Let's extend your question: I presume that a majority of the posters here are in the IT industry and are making far more than I am as a college professor. I'll bet that I work just as hard as they do, and may even be as smart as some of them. I am certainly more experienced. So, should they make 2 - 3 times as much as I do? I think they should if that is what the market demands. They **directly** help generate jobs and wealth for others. They generate wealth for the people who have invested in their company. If that is what someone is willing to pay them, why not?
ravishingravi Posted August 14, 2012 Posted August 14, 2012 Let's go back to an even more basic assumption ? Should there at all be taxes ? Then we can break it down to should there be govt ?
Lurker Posted August 14, 2012 Posted August 14, 2012 Let's extend your question: I presume that a majority of the posters here are in the IT industry and are making far more than I am as a college professor. I'll bet that I work just as hard as they do, and may even be as smart as some of them. I am certainly more experienced. So, should they make 2 - 3 times as much as I do? I think they should if that is what the market demands. They **directly** help generate jobs and wealth for others. They generate wealth for the people who have invested in their company. If that is what someone is willing to pay them, why not? No. Thats where intellactualism died. Lets quit shielding folks who make money than they should, in the garbs of market paying what is right. I make more money than I should, and thats that. Simple.
Clarke Posted August 14, 2012 Posted August 14, 2012 That's beside the point' date=' Clarke. And one for another thread. [/quote'] I think it is very relevant. Both of us probably agree the state cannot mandate the pay scale for every possible position. But you as a highly educated professor have an important role to play in the society's present and future. If you are indeed talented, you should be allowed a grant to pay for important research that could help society in these times of drought. That grant money shouldn't be held liable to the wild swings of the market and the corporations going bust. So yeah, my fellow IT ICFers are willing pay a higher percentage of tax than you provided it helps control food prices in the future.
Brainfade Posted August 14, 2012 Author Posted August 14, 2012 Salary discussions are relevant, but not to my initial question - what is a fair share of the tax burden that the top 20% must bear? If you are indeed talented, What if I am not talented or motivated enough to write successful grants to keep my research going (and btw, it is eerie that you know of my interest in drought-tolerant plant research)? Or, what if I work at an undergraduate teaching-first institution where I am paid primarily to teach and not to do research? Should my college pony up more than Lurker's company pays him just because I went to school longer? My salary is based on how much I can negotiate with my college. If I don't like it, I can quit and there are a hundred others knocking on the door for my job. Supply-demand. Market forces at play. Forces me to stay on my toes and bust my butt and keep my nose clean. BTW, thanks for acknowledging the importance of agricultural research :-).
Clarke Posted August 14, 2012 Posted August 14, 2012 Salary discussions are relevant' date=' but not to my initial question - what is a fair share of the tax burden that the top 20% must bear? [/quote'] Since you started with the question of fairness wrt tax policy, i simply extended the analogy to the market. Is the free market that decides who makes $6 or $600 million a just & fair place in every aspect ? Before taxes comes pay, no ? If you're not talented, you should get this for grants => :finger: We've talked about organic foods and other things as well earlier, maybe its just that you deal with a lot of lefties but we haven't got many targets other than u Related to taxation ? If yes, please elaborate further like i did with your pay vs the experienced IT professional. Yep, i like my food.
Lurker Posted August 14, 2012 Posted August 14, 2012 Or' date=' what if I work at an undergraduate teaching-first institution where I am paid primarily to teach and not to do research? [b']Should my college pony up more than Lurker's company pays him just because I went to school longer? My salary is based on how much I can negotiate with my college. If I don't like it, I can quit and there are a hundred others knocking on the door for my job. Supply-demand. Market forces at play. Forces me to stay on my toes and bust my butt and keep my nose clean. They really should. Lurker couldnt wait to bail out of college after 4 years and is never going back again By the way CA, do you truly/sincerely beleive the market decides the salary? I do not. It comes down to who you are answerable to really. And if he is on your side. Thats not market, thats often just one (or few) people :winky:
punjabi_khota Posted August 14, 2012 Posted August 14, 2012 Being in research has several advantages: access to potentially millions of dollar of grant, almost complete autonomy in what you want to do, access to unlimited even more underpaid talented graduate students/postdocs , and summer offs. So the market is indeed deciding the salary to a big extent. I mean there are multiple hundred application for every faculty job, it must have its perks :secret: Hell, I work in an industrial research lab, and get paid similar to academia, while not getting many of that perks (e.g. no graduate students). :protest: The one perk I do have is that I don't have to teach.
punjabi_khota Posted August 14, 2012 Posted August 14, 2012 They really should. Lurker couldnt wait to bail out of college after 4 years and is never going back again By the way CA, do you truly/sincerely beleive the market decides the salary? I do not. It comes down to who you are answerable to really. And if he is on your side. Thats not market, thats often just one (or few) people :winky: You are talking micro level man (bonus shonus, etc, negotiating offers). On a big level, market decides everything. Just because you know someone or are a slick talker, doesn't mean your salary will be 2-3x of what everyone else is getting in the field. A top level fresh Math/CS PhD would command 150K+ in Silicon valley, maybe twice that much on wall-street, while only getting ~100K in academia. No amount of getting people on your side is going to change that reaility.
Lurker Posted August 14, 2012 Posted August 14, 2012 You are talking micro level man (bonus shonus, etc, negotiating offers). On a big level, market decides everything. Just because you know someone or are a slick talker, doesn't mean your salary will be 2-3x of what everyone else is getting in the field. A top level fresh Math/CS PhD would command 150K+ in Silicon valley, maybe twice that much on wall-street, while only getting ~100K in academia. No amount of getting people on your side is going to change that reaility. That micro level shall become the crux of discussion sooner than later. The discussion will evolve into salaries of CEOs, VPs, Golden Parachute etc. And frankly market plays little role there. Also, this whole conversation should really be less about salary and more on investors based income. No point pitting a 150K making chap with million dollar hedge fund guy. The former will pay some kind of taxes anyway, latter most likely none.
Clarke Posted August 14, 2012 Posted August 14, 2012 That micro level shall become the crux of discussion sooner than later. The discussion will evolve into salaries of CEOs, VPs, Golden Parachute etc. And frankly market plays little role there. Also, this whole conversation should really be less about salary and more on investors based income. No point pitting a 150K making chap with million dollar hedge fund guy. The former will pay some kind of taxes anyway, latter most likely none. You very well know the next argument: flat tax.
Brainfade Posted August 14, 2012 Author Posted August 14, 2012 Hell's going to freeze over, but I have to agree with p_k here. If it is not supply-demand that dictates what a burger-flipper makes vs. what an IT professional makes, then what is it? Even within my college, the business faculty make more than I do (maybe 1.75 x). Why? It certainly ain't coz they're smarter or work any harder. It's coz there ain't that many business PhD's. But there is a glut of biology PhDs, and many of them are talented. There's just not that many jobs out there. Every morning, I wake up with an attitude of gratitude for the lucky SOB that I am. Given all of that (and even conceding to Lurker that, at the micro-level, there are some undeserved salaries), should the punishment be that they pay a higher tax rate? If that is so, aren't you penalizing even the ones who deserve their salaries?
Brainfade Posted August 14, 2012 Author Posted August 14, 2012 You very well know the next argument: flat tax. Nope. I am past that. I see the need to protect the lowest 5 - 10% from any tax liability. Everyone else has to owe some percentage in taxes on gross earnings. I also see the need for a simplified tax code. No deductions, no exemptions, no marriage benefits, no marriage penalties, no FICA, no separate SS tax and Medicare tax. Everyone pays the percentage that is owed on their bracket and that's it.
Lurker Posted August 14, 2012 Posted August 14, 2012 Given all of that (and even conceding to Lurker that' date=' at the micro-level, there are some undeserved salaries), should the punishment be that they pay a higher tax rate? If that is so, aren't you penalizing even the ones who deserve their salaries?[/quote'] You may be coming at it from the wrong angle CA, I think. Regardles of whether you are a Collage Prof and make 75K, and I am an IT guy makes 150K, the issue is rarely me and you being taxed. No matter how much hoops you jump through, including 401K, Roth IRA, charities etc etc you will still be taxed, and so would I. There shouldnt be any conflict between me and you really. The issue is when an Investor spends 10 million and moves the money in such way he does not have to pay tax. Why would you defend that, or would you?
ravishingravi Posted August 15, 2012 Posted August 15, 2012 How are taxes by their very nature not socialist ? Individual clearly has no choice. It is his hard money that is taken way. So, how can a conservative call or reduction of taxes ? Should he ask for completely abandoning it !
triam Posted August 15, 2012 Posted August 15, 2012 CA, People get paid what they get paid based on a number of factors and one of them is luck. My education and my passion was in robotics, I was enrolled into phd in a decent univ for my robotics phd when due to some stuff ended up working in IT. Would I have made the same if i did my phd the kind of money I make in IT now, I highly doubt it. Do I think i deserve it? yes, bcos in the industry I am in this is normal pay. If we end up comparing across industries why stop there, why not compare our standard of living with someone in Somalia or Sudan and feel we dont deserve our lifestyles? There will alwyas be people who dont get their fair share, life is not fair. No problems there, But the fundamental difference between conservatives and libearls are these questions below What do you think Govt's role should be? Creating a decent safety net for unlucky people who dont get a break all through their life? Regulating markets, so some sob doesnt fleece the average joe his hard earned dollars? Provide avenues for people who fall down to climb back up? If you say this is not the governments job but the market will take care of it, tell me how?
Lurker Posted August 15, 2012 Posted August 15, 2012 Creating a decent safety net for unlucky people who dont get a break all through their life? This, I beleive, is at the core of the discussion. This subject has also been so politically screwed by both sides that there is no common ground I am afraid. Let us ask a simple question - The safety net of a country, does that include Illegal Immigrants? Well in US it does. In my home state, AZ, Hispanic immigrants have completed changed the demography a la Assam in India. And just like Indian political parties, Democrats have completely shied away from dealing with it head-on. The net result? Extreme right wingers, and Tea Party, are hugely popular now. And middle of the line moderates are joining them too. You can also extend this corrollary to UK(say) where Pakistani/BD immigrants have been running their families off dole, in the name of safety net. How do you deal with this without being completely honest? And this is one area where I personally think liberals are more at fault than conservatives Triam :winky:
triam Posted August 15, 2012 Posted August 15, 2012 This, I beleive, is at the core of the discussion. This subject has also been so politically screwed by both sides that there is no common ground I am afraid. Let us ask a simple question - The safety net of a country, does that include Illegal Immigrants? Well in US it does. In my home state, AZ, Hispanic immigrants have completed changed the demography a la Assam in India. And just like Indian political parties, Democrats have completely shied away from dealing with it head-on. The net result? Extreme right wingers, and Tea Party, are hugely popular now. And middle of the line moderates are joining them too. You can also extend this corrollary to UK(say) where Pakistani/BD immigrants have been running their families off dole, in the name of safety net. How do you deal with this without being completely honest? And this is one area where I personally think liberals are more at fault than conservatives Triam :winky: I dont even know if I am a conservative or liberal Lurker, either side is not appealing to me anymore. Used to align myself with a lot of fiscal conservative policies not the dingbat craziness that is common nowadays.
Recommended Posts