Should America Be An Aristocracy?

[Steely Dan]

Here's Warren Buffet's view on the question and an opposing view.

 

Buffets view on the subject

 

An interview with Buffet on the subject

 

A view opposing Buffet on the subject.

 

The biggest lie about the "Paris Hilton Tax" is that there is double taxing. Ralph Wilson bought the Bills for $25,000 and the team is now worth close to one billion. He has never been taxed on the sale of the team. It is not double taxing.

 

The progressive tax system is what has made it easier for bottom Americans to move to the top. It also keeps the country from becoming an Aristocracy by giving everyone a chance to succeed.

 

If the rich are truly about making it easier for the little guy to succeed then a progressive tax system is a must IMO. The rich already go to better schools, have greater contacts in the old boys network, can afford to shmooz clients on a much higher level and have greater political leverage. I know some will say that the rich have been hit the worst by the poor economy but I disagree based on the rise in everyday necessary items for families.

 

Aristocracy

 

Main Entry:

ar·is·toc·ra·cy Listen to the pronunciation of aristocracy

Pronunciation:

\ˌa-rə-ˈstä-krə-sē, ˌer-ə-\

Function:

noun

Inflected Form(s):

plural ar·is·toc·ra·cies

Etymology:

Middle French & Late Latin; Middle French aristocratie, from Late Latin aristocratia, from Greek aristokratia, from aristos best + -kratia -cracy

Date:

1561

 

1: government by the best individuals or by a small privileged class2 a: a government in which power is vested in a minority consisting of those believed to be best qualified b: a state with such a government3: a governing body or upper class usually made up of a hereditary nobility4: the aggregate of those believed to be superior

 

 

Meritocracy

 

Main Entry:

mer·i·toc·ra·cy Listen to the pronunciation of meritocracy

Pronunciation:

\ˌmer-ə-ˈtä-krə-sē\

Function:

noun

Inflected Form(s):

plural mer·i·toc·ra·cies

Etymology:

1merit + -o- + -cracy

Date:

1958

 

1 : a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement 2 : leadership selected on the basis of intellectual criteria

 

Discuss, I'm sure this will be a barn burner.

[outsidethebox]

Man, I never cared for Art that much. So I'll refrain from voting.

[bills_fan]

I don't think the question ever was "Should Warren Buffet pay more taxes?"

 

The question was in setting thresholds. Does $250k qualify as "rich?" Not in NYC it doesn't. It barely qualifies as upper middle class. But, in Bumblefukistan, USA, I'm sure $250k does make you very well off.

 

Point was always that Obama's threshold was far too low for what he was saying. Not too many would have balked if Obama said he wanted to raise the top rate on thoise making $1 million or more a year. EVen in 2008, tehre aren't that many people making that. Setting it far lower, at $250k, is what the whole Joe the Plumber phemonanon is about...guy works hard, just gets a piece of living better and now this guy wants to Spread the wealth...that makes people angry.

 

It has nothing to do wiith Aristocracy vs. Meritocracy. If it did, the level would be at $1 million or more.

[Steely Dan]

I don't think the question ever was "Should Warren Buffet pay more taxes?"

 

The question was in setting thresholds. Does $250k qualify as "rich?" Not in NYC it doesn't. It barely qualifies as upper middle class. But, in Bumblefukistan, USA, I'm sure $250k does make you very well off.

 

Point was always that Obama's threshold was far too low for what he was saying. Not too many would have balked if Obama said he wanted to raise the top rate on thoise making $1 million or more a year. EVen in 2008, tehre aren't that many people making that. Setting it far lower, at $250k, is what the whole Joe the Plumber phemonanon is about...guy works hard, just gets a piece of living better and now this guy wants to Spread the wealth...that makes people angry.

 

It has nothing to do wiith Aristocracy vs. Meritocracy. If it did, the level would be at $1 million or more.

 

This isn't about Obama's tax plan. It's about the "Paris Hilton tax" mostly. Also did you see in the article where Buffett pays LESS by percentage than his secretary?

[bills_fan]

This isn't about Obama's tax plan. It's about the "Paris Hilton tax" mostly. Also did you see in the article where Buffett pays LESS by percentage than his secretary?

 

 

You have two concepts here...the Estate Tax and capital gains tax. As to the capital gains tax.

 

Warren Buffet derives ALL of his income from capital gains (which are taxed at 15%). His secretary pays taxes at oridinary income levels (anywhere from 30-36%).

 

Now, of course, you need the capital to actually have enough money to live off the capital gains. For Buffet, not a problem. Most of the rest of us...not so easy.

 

Finally, look a little deeper. In order to acquire enough money to live off capital gains, you first had to earn it (in most instances). Therefore, you already had to pay the ordinary income tax on that money. What was left, you invested, presumably wisely, and now pay an additional 15% on it (which Obama plans to make 20-25%).

[StupidNation]

Democracy sure as hell doesn't work. Every 4 years they promise some more lies, give away power to people who aren't elected, and don't think of what is best for the people. Democracy was always considered the worst form of government by philosophers until the Enlightenment (which was really the intellectual Disfigurement). Democracy, even in ancient times, was considered easily influenced to make a mob mentality. This is evinced by the welfare crowd, and the war monger crowd. They will vote party lines every time.

 

We need a gov't that is full with medical doctors first and foremost, soldiers, businessmen, economic professors with a background of predicting the economy in 5 year segments with reviews of their predictions, and statemen who are not politically motivated through partisanship but have fought for liberty either as journalists and/or have a stellar record at the local level. If there are lawyers it should be capped at 10% of the politicians. If we had doctors we wouldn't have contingency attorneys who produce nothing and consume like parasites, and you wouldn't have insurance companies controlling the medical system. I have never seen, generally speaking, more lucid thinkers and honest assessments than through medical doctors. I also believe mandatory classes in minor and major logic are required before becoming a politician.

 

Sorry, 2 party B.S doesn't do anything except make fights and arguments and doesn't look for the good of the country. Many times the good of the country is beyond what the majority wants. Many in this country now want universal healthcare with a $10 trillion deficit, potential loss of complete faith in the dollar internationally, and an exploding deficit in the future. Real politicians who would look for the good of the country would immediately nix the idea until we have a real budget surplus and production in this country.

[Steely Dan]

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

 

~ Winston Churchill

[Chilly]

The country already pretty much is an aristocracy, due to the huge barriers to become an elected representative.

[Steely Dan]

The country already pretty much is an aristocracy, due to the huge barriers to become an elected representative.

 

Very true. The people who are against a progressive tax call those who support it communists and socialists and people who want to rob them because they are lazy or stupid or both.

 

If someone has every advantage it isn't really that much to ask them to scrape off some crumbs from the table. Egad! I must be a commie!

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

The country already pretty much is an aristocracy, due to the huge barriers to become an elected representative.

Actually, all you have to do is not blog, keep your mouth shut unlike us, and get involved with a local civic association and start raising money and then choose a political party to get involved in and help out a lot. Sooner or later you will probably be asked to run and not be considered a threat.

 

Not my cup of tea, can't keep my mouth shut and I often have Biden's hoof and mouth disease. Wouldn't work, that is the hard part.

[Steely Dan]

Actually, all you have to do is not blog, keep your mouth shut unlike us, and get involved with a local civic association and start raising money and then choose a political party to get involved in and help out a lot. Sooner or later you will probably be asked to run and not be considered a threat.

 

Not my cup of tea, can't keep my mouth shut and I often have Biden's hoof and mouth disease. Wouldn't work, that is the hard part.

 

The guy with the most money to start out will most likely get the nod.

[Chilly]

Actually, all you have to do is not blog, keep your mouth shut unlike us, and get involved with a local civic association and start raising money and then choose a political party to get involved in and help out a lot. Sooner or later you will probably be asked to run and not be considered a threat.

 

Not my cup of tea, can't keep my mouth shut and I often have Biden's hoof and mouth disease. Wouldn't work, that is the hard part.

 

Depends on the level you're going for, though. Most congressmen are at least somewhat connected before they enter into politics, much moreso than your average person.

[Typical TBD Guy]

Very true. The people who are against a progressive tax call those who support it communists and socialists and people who want to rob them because they are lazy or stupid or both.

 

If someone has every advantage it isn't really that much to ask them to scrape off some crumbs from the table. Egad! I must be a commie!

 

But that's not what you are doing. You are not asking through support from private charities; you are demanding through the barrel of big government's gun.

 

I don't think you are a commie, but I do think you are a quasi-socialist. Maybe not a Scandinavian socialist, but certainly a mainland Europe socialist. You also strike me as someone who has intellectual potential, yet chooses to remain ignorant on economics and political philosophy. At least look into Ron Paul's "The Revolution: A Manifesto." It's a 200 page book that's like a Cliff Notes version of libertarianism. A very easy read.

[The Big Cat]

But that's not what you are doing. You are not asking through support from private charities; you are demanding through the barrel of big government's gun.

 

I don't think you are a commie, but I do think you are a quasi-socialist. Maybe not a Scandinavian socialist, but certainly a mainland Europe socialist. You also strike me as someone who has intellectual potential, yet chooses to remain ignorant on economics and political philosophy. At least look into Ron Paul's "The Revolution: A Manifesto." It's a 200 page book that's like a Cliff Notes version of libertarianism. A very easy read.

 

Were you as vocal about said demands when they were being made on those who haven't yet or never had the opportunity to accumulate wealth in this country?

[Steely Dan]

But that's not what you are doing. You are not asking through support from private charities; you are demanding through the barrel of big government's gun.

 

I don't think you are a commie, but I do think you are a quasi-socialist. Maybe not a Scandinavian socialist, but certainly a mainland Europe socialist. You also strike me as someone who has intellectual potential, yet chooses to remain ignorant on economics and political philosophy. At least look into Ron Paul's "The Revolution: A Manifesto." It's a 200 page book that's like a Cliff Notes version of libertarianism. A very easy read.

 

What percentage do you think the richest people in our society should pay? If you believe in a flat tax then you believe in raising the taxes on the poor and middle class while giving the rich a tax break. Our country has always had a progressive tax since the income tax was instituted after the ratification of the 16th amendment and in my opinion it's what makes this country an upwardly mobile society. The vast majority of democratic societies have a progressive tax.

 

The problem is that the upper crust wants to make it near impossible for anyone to get ahead. They want an aristocracy. They want to keep all the power and all the advantages to themselves and have disdain for the lower classes. It's being done down the barrel of the governments gun as you believe because it has to be. Look at what happened when markets became deregulated. The market doesn't police itself. Most people are greedy and don't give a crap about anyone but themselves. They make a small donation to different charities and believe that makes them honorable philanthropists. If there was an overabundance of monies coming in to private charities I'd agree with you but there isn't. Even with government assistance there isn't enough. If the very rich want lower their taxes then adequately fund the necessary charities because they aren't adequately funded now and yet the rich in this society think they would be adequately funded if their taxes were lower. Horsehocky.

 

George Washington stepped down as President because he didn't want the position to become Kingly. Our society has grown into a society where the very rich claim to believe in the Horatio Alger ideal but they don't want anything to do with making it possible on a greater scale.

 

Yes, it seems unfair but it's what has made this country what it is. Washington didn't want to establish a ruling monarchy and yet that is what the country has only a monarchy by a few Kings. I believe there is a cost that must be assessed in a democratic society in order to keep the ability to rise from the bottom realistic. We still have an aristocracy but not a total one, yet. If those who want to establish a complete aristocracy have their way then it will be a totalitarian society. There are those who will argue that a totalitarian society can only be achieved through government action but I believe that a totalitarian society is also reached by an aristocratic society.

 

Totalitarianism

 

Main Entry:

to·tal·i·tar·i·an·ism Listen to the pronunciation of totalitarianism

Pronunciation:

\(ˌ)tō-ˌta-lə-ˈter-ē-ə-ˌni-zəm\

Function:

noun

Date:

1926

 

1 : centralized control by an autocratic authority 2 : the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority

 

The control of all the wealth in a society can become autocratic not through one person but a class of people. The ability to completely control the wealth of a society and therefore the political authority is tantamount to a totalitarian society only by many with the same goal.

 

If you want more money then work harder and that applies to the very rich too. There are political dynasties in our country and they are all backed by tremendous wealth. Money makes it possible to buy a lot of political power. To keep that in check a progressive tax has been instituted so that the little guy can maintain some political power. If the difference between the have and have nots becomes too great then revolution occurs. Fortunately our country is set up so those revolutions are political.

 

What a lot of people don't get is that it helps the very rich in the long run to make sure there is a well funded middle class. Companies make money through sales. Sales are made by people buying stuff. People buy stuff because they need it. I know this sounds basic but a lot of people don't get this. If you give $1,000 to a middle class or poor person they will use it toward a car, refrigerator, washer, dryer or a multitude of other things. This is a large mass of people consuming and that raises the stock price of the companies selling things. This helps everyone in the society because it raises the standard of living for the middle class and poor while also helping the large portfolios of the rich. When the economy needs a jump start the idea becomes giving more money to consumers. Duh!

 

You can cry all you want about it being unfair but it's the way things have been since the institution of the income tax in 1913. If you don't like it go somewhere they have a flat tax and live there.

[Typical TBD Guy]

Were you as vocal about said demands when they were being made on those who haven't yet or never had the opportunity to accumulate wealth in this country?

 

That's kind of a moot question since our country has never made income tax demands on those without wealth. I have, however, always been quite vocal about preserving and creating jobs for our nation's college graduates, the working class, and the poor.

[Typical TBD Guy]

What percentage do you think the richest people in our society should pay? If you believe in a flat tax then you believe in raising the taxes on the poor and middle class while giving the rich a tax break.

 

I'm against a federal income tax in principle, but if we must continue to have one, then I'd be content with a 0% tax rate for the poor that progresses to a cap rate of 15-20% for the very wealthy. I'd balance the budget under this tax plan, of course, by drastically reducing the size and scope of the federal government.

 

Our country has always had a progressive tax since the income tax was instituted after the ratification of the 16th amendment and in my opinion it's what makes this country an upwardly mobile society. The vast majority of democratic societies have a progressive tax.

 

So are you suggesting that the U.S. was never upwardly mobile until 1913? What about the Gilded Age?! I'd also suggest trying to tell all the doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs in this country with a straight face that their life success in any significant way could be attributed, directly or indirectly, to progressive income tax benefits (as opposed to having worked hard in school, worked hard at their job, managed their finances, and accepted general personal responsibility).

 

The problem is that the upper crust wants to make it near impossible for anyone to get ahead. They want an aristocracy. They want to keep all the power and all the advantages to themselves and have disdain for the lower classes.

 

Typical class warfare rhetoric mixed in with typical Steely Dan beliefs in conspiracy theories. The wealthy really aren't out to get you. If you're smart and hard working and fluent in PowerPoint, they may even pay you an annual salary to join them in their diabolical pursuits.

 

They make a small donation to different charities and believe that makes them honorable philanthropists. If there was an overabundance of monies coming in to private charities I'd agree with you but there isn't. Even with government assistance there isn't enough. If the very rich want lower their taxes then adequately fund the necessary charities because they aren't adequately funded now and yet the rich in this society think they would be adequately funded if their taxes were lower. Horsehocky.

 

You make it sound like private charity in America is irrelevant. I'm sorry, but that is blatantly false. Look up the stats, or just open your eyes. A classic example: New Orleans after Katrina.

 

If those who want to establish a complete aristocracy have their way then it will be a totalitarian society. There are those who will argue that a totalitarian society can only be achieved through government action but I believe that a totalitarian society is also reached by an aristocratic society.

 

But you can't have a totalitarian state without the law and order muscle of government. Aristocrats need to control government before they can control the citizens. Corporations need to manipulate government market intervention before they can manipulate their consumers. Also keep in mind that the corrupting influence of aristocratic money on government is directly proportional to government size. If the voting public stays politically informed on candidates and protests such things as corporate bailouts and pork barrel legislation, aristocratic political influence is rendered impotent.

 

If the difference between the have and have nots becomes too great then revolution occurs. Fortunately our country is set up so those revolutions are political.

 

Wrong. Revolutions don't result from large financial gaps between social classes if the percentage of people in the poorest social classes happen to be comparatively low, and/or if the poorest social classes are also able to maintain an acceptable standard of living.

 

What a lot of people don't get is that it helps the very rich in the long run to make sure there is a well funded middle class. Companies make money through sales. Sales are made by people buying stuff. People buy stuff because they need it. I know this sounds basic but a lot of people don't get this. If you give $1,000 to a middle class or poor person they will use it toward a car, refrigerator, washer, dryer or a multitude of other things. This is a large mass of people consuming and that raises the stock price of the companies selling things. This helps everyone in the society because it raises the standard of living for the middle class and poor while also helping the large portfolios of the rich. When the economy needs a jump start the idea becomes giving more money to consumers. Duh!

 

You are 100% correct when stating that the economy will grow if you give more money to poor/middle class consumers. But it grows even more if you give more money to the rich so they can invest in new business or research endeavors that create more jobs. So why not try to do both? Cut taxes on both groups, and cut frivolous government spending to make up for any lost revenue (assuming there is even any lost revenue, depending on the nation's current place on the Laffer curve).

[molson_golden2002]

That's kind of a moot question since our country has never made income tax demands on those without wealth. I have, however, always been quite vocal about preserving and creating jobs for our nation's college graduates, the working class, and the poor.

Then you should be for Progressive taxation, it does that

[Gavin in Va Beach]

I'd prefer a benevolent dictatorship

[stuckincincy]

Estate Tax: n., ghoulish. As in seeing a fatal car wreck and walking up and rifling the pockets of the dead.