BBRoundtable

wavemeister wrote:Whenever I read lines like these, I'm asking myself: "what are the employees doing - sitting on the chairs and enjoying cocktails all day long?".
Well, my back still hurts from yesterday, and believe me that it doesn't came from relaxing in a comfy chair sipping on a Vodka Lemon.

So is this the assumption that just because someone is making lots of money, he's not doing serious work, or a plea not to ignore the work that the lower-level employees are doing, too? Maybe the spoiled CEOs at the very top are screwing around all day playing golf and drinking cocktails (see: those shameless wankers at AIG ), but remember, I'm not talking about them. In the case of managers, I'm talking about the guys one or two steps below them who do all the REAL management, which involves trying to keep an entire department or company's worth of employees and resources organized and functional. The second one problem is fixed, another two pop up. That's the way being a non-top level manager is. No, it doesn't involve grueling physical punishment, but it's no less difficult. That's to say nothing of the advanced technicians who run back and forth all day trying to keep networks of servers from crashing, or the surgeons who spend hours on their feet with people's lives in their hands, etc. etc.

wavemeister wrote:There are major flaws in your point of views about taxes and working if I'm allowed to call it like this: taxes are no punishment. They are vital to keep a community running. I'm sure that the groups you've mentioned would be also unhappy if there were no services like the police or firefighters to protect their hard earned (and well deserved - there's no envy here) properties, no adequate kindergartens and schools to educate their children, no well built and maintained roads to take out their goods or just their luxury limousines for a vacation.
But although even the überrich are also profiting on such community services, they still wail about "unfair" taxation. They do also wail about poorly educated people unfit to work, bad roads, crime rates going up...I really don't know what's ailing these people.
I'm with you regarding that on all levels of gouvernment, there's a lot of wasting money which could've been better spent on things which do matter and are needed more. But people do have a tendency to lament about this - and vote the same wasters again and again...

No, taxes are not a punishment. However, what is the government's proper role here? To manage every other aspect of your life? I'd disagree. All I ever want out of my government as far as my own life specifically goes is to:

1) Maintain public safety and order - keep me from getting murdered, robbed, etc.
2) Maintain functional infrastructure - keep my roads, bridges, water lines, etc. working and in one piece
3) Maintain a safe living environment - keep the land, water and air above a minimum healthy living level
4) Protect my basic personal rights - keep me from being exploited, slandered, cheated out of my fairly earned money, etc.
5) Attempt to run at least a halfway decent public school system - give kids the basic skills to be capable adults, as well as give them a sense of what this country stands for and what was sacrificed to gain all that we have (history education in schools of all levels is SEVERELY lacking these days, unfortunately). I care enough about my country not to want it to be run by someone elected by ignorant idiots.

That's about it. Beyond the school system, I just want the government on all levels to serve as a moderator to keep things running fairly and smoothly, and otherwise leave me the hell alone. Yes, having a welfare system and other aid programs is important, but it's all secondary to me. Those functions can be (and often are) served by private groups, but the five things I listed above can't very easily be covered by anyone but the government. Now, if I could tell the government to only put the tax dollars that I PERSONALLY paid towards those five things, I'd more than happily pay them. Obviously, it doesn't work that way, so I'd rather keep more of my money to myself.

wavemeister wrote:The second flaw...what and/or who's being forcing them to work "ungodly long"? One might easy say "the competition", but if that's really the truth, they must die like flies since 24 hours wouldn't be enough then. Weren't they taught to use the "mini-max principle" (minimum input - maximum profit)? And I'm not speaking of people doing their business in crafts like plumbing, keysmiths and stuff.
All I know for example is that my bosses are doing overtimes only when it's absolutely necessary. And still, their business is quite successful. Another reason for their success is that they are paying only minimum wages (and then they wonder about the high turnover rate of the staff...), but that's another story.
What's baffling me more is that some of those "overclockers" do have enough time to spread their opinions about "too high taxes", "no welfare for no one (but us, of course)" and stuff in political forums all day (and night) long. Wow...also, I don't have the time to be online while doing my business, but maybe it has something to do with the limited availabilty of online access behind the machines.

None of these people are being forced to work extremely hard, insofar as they don't have to take a job that has ridiculously long hours. However, lots of people WANT to take those jobs and work extremely hard, either because that's their sense of professionalism, because they want to move up to an even higher level position later, because they really want the money, because they feel it's a worthy calling, or whatever. It's their prerogative to do so, even if they don't technically need to in order to eat every day. Me, I like free time more than money. Not everyone agrees, and that's not my place to judge. By that same token, it shouldn't be the government's place to judge, either. If they want to work really hard and get rich, the government shouldn't take a way higher percentage of their money solely because they can afford to pay it. That really is like having the government tell you not to work so hard. That makes LOADS of sense.

wavemeister wrote:And they still are well off, or did the taxation converted them into church mices?

There is a major difference, and it's easy math: Take 50% off an income of $100,000 p.a., and that person got still more (at basically same expenses) than the one being taxed with 10% off an income of $20,000 p.a. And both earned their incomes, in different ways.
This has nothing to do with the often spreaded "envy of the poor", but with the basic principle of "the strong supporting the weak" which had made most industrial cultures of today being that successful. Okay, we could go back to "survival of the strongest" like in the 19th and the beginnings of the 20th century, but would you really like to live in a place like that (if you could live/being still alive, that is)?

Again, just because someone CAN afford to pay a lot more in taxes doesn't mean they should be FORCED to do so. If they earned it, they should get to keep it, not have the government act as some sort of high and mighty judge that tells them what they can and can't keep of their own legitimately acquired assets. No, neither my grandpa nor my cousin Rick would be reduced to poverty as a result of really high taxes. What it would do, though, would be to discourage them from investing as much of their money, either in business or in charity. That should not be the function of government, to serve as a substitute for either of those things. I am not a fan of activist governments. Never have been. They tend to get their decisions wrong half the time, and $1000 in the hands of the right private charity will likely do more good than $10000 in the hands of most governments, anyway. As for the strong supporting the weak, that's one of the three basic tenets of my Jewish faith - charity. Those who have should ABSOLUTELY give to help those who are in need. It just shouldn't be dragged out of you by a central institution.

wavemeister wrote:Oh, before I forget: A shroud has no pockets. So I really do wonder why building up some ungodly wealth during lifetime.

A) Because it brings some people happiness, and the pursuit of happiness is listed right in the US Constitution as one of our founding principles.
B) Because money is capable of being used to serve the greater good, and some people use it quite effectively to that end.
C) Because money can help ensure that your next of kin will be able to live an even better life than you did. I'd be as poor as my great-grandpa Izzy was when he came here from Lithuania at the age of 18 if not for this fact.

Those all seem reasonable enough to me. I personally hate dealing with money, but I grudgingly accept the fact that it's both very powerful and absolutely necessary.

I see that we both are seeing the topic about taxing the richer folks from different angles, and I guess that we won't come together. Therefore, I'm ending this sideline of the general topic here - not that I've felt harmed or miffed, on the contrary - I have really enjoyed this discussion with you, Frong.

Yeah, but I'm still right.



One of the fundamental traits of civilized society that sets us apart from, say, wacknut fundamentalist Islam or whoever is that we're capable of agreeing to disagree. When religious loonies and people like that are confronted with something they don't agree with, their response is either to try and forcibly convert it to their point of view or to burn it. When sane, civilized people like us are confronted with something they don't agree with, they argue about it amicably over the internets.