wealthy benefit most from tax subsidies

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-15-2008
wealthy benefit most from tax subsidies
137
Wed, 09-22-2010 - 9:25pm


(Reuters) - Billions of dollars in U.S. tax breaks to encourage home ownership, retirement savings, business start-ups and education mostly benefit top income earners and do little to help low- and middle-income people build wealth, a report released on Wednesday said.

full article:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68L3WP20100922

Pages

Avatar for jbgattuso
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-29-2003
Thu, 09-23-2010 - 1:41pm

Just for the record YOU threw the first personal jab so if you don't like it....don't do it!

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-30-2003
Thu, 09-23-2010 - 1:47pm

I didn't say anything about personal jabs. I merely suggested that it is possible to raise children and give them all possible opportunities with an income far below $250K.

Anne

I have no need for anger
With intimate strangers
And I got nothing to hide



- Amy Ray

I have no need for anger
With intimate strangers
And I got nothing to hide


- Amy Ray

Avatar for jbgattuso
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-29-2003
Thu, 09-23-2010 - 2:08pm

Look, we both know what transpired in our posts...I was having actually a nice exchange with Opal agreeing on what we actually agree on, raising kids is expensive.



The first post that you site was

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-30-2003
Thu, 09-23-2010 - 2:31pm

Yes, my responses were directed at you. You were the one claiming it was hard to raise kids on an income well above 250K. I was pointing out that it is very possible to do so with an income well below 250K.

Anne

I have no need for anger
With intimate strangers
And I got nothing to hide



- Amy Ray

I have no need for anger
With intimate strangers
And I got nothing to hide


- Amy Ray

Avatar for jbgattuso
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-29-2003
Thu, 09-23-2010 - 2:41pm

"Yes, my responses were directed at you. You were the one claiming it was hard to raise kids on an income well above 250K."



This is a different discussion as I said I have moved on from the other, but I am not sure where you ever got well above.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-30-2003
Thu, 09-23-2010 - 2:57pm
This is a different discussion as I said I have moved on from the other, but I am not sure where you ever got well above.





Sorry, my mistake. Just above then. I'm discussing how much money one needs to decently raise their kids. What are you discussing?





This is a different discussion as I said I have moved on from the other, but I am not sure where you ever got well above. I think you are relitivly new here (unless you are using a different screen name) my arguement is that at 250 or 300k a year these are the people that get pinched the most.





Depends what you mean by relatively new. Long enough to have followed the conversation. And my argument is that those of us who manage it on much less than 250K, would happily take the extra income and taxes that come with it, because even with the extra pinch we would still have quite a bit more money.





Beside your point I know.



Ok, though I'm not quite sure what you are referring to.





See you in another thread!





I look forward to it





Anne

I have no need for anger
With intimate strangers
And I got nothing to hide



- Amy Ray

I have no need for anger
With intimate strangers
And I got nothing to hide


- Amy Ray

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-21-2006
Thu, 09-23-2010 - 3:06pm

Perhaps the pie will get bigger if everyone has more equal portions , but that doesn't happen by taking pie from one person and giving that portion to another. I will admit I am not that great at geometry, but when you expand the pieces of pie by merely taking more of your pie and giving it "Sally", that does not increase the total size of the pie. Sally would need to increase her piece of the pie without taking pie from someone else in order for the size of the pie to get bigger.



shell



Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-30-2003
Thu, 09-23-2010 - 3:14pm

You can't expand the piece of pie by taking away from the smaller piece and giving it to the bigger piece, which is what has been happening for the last three decades either. Our analogy is falling apart, because it doesn't accommodate for growth at all. The fact remains, when there is less disparity there is more prosperity for everyone. We seen evidence of that presented on multiple times these last few days on the board.

Anne

I have no need for anger
With intimate strangers
And I got nothing to hide



- Amy Ray

I have no need for anger
With intimate strangers
And I got nothing to hide


- Amy Ray

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-21-2006
Thu, 09-23-2010 - 3:18pm

Here's an article out today that's interesting: By Victor Hanson



Traditional peasant societies believe in only a limited good. The more your neighbor earns, the less someone else gets. Profits are seen as a sort of theft. They must be either hidden or redistributed. Envy rather than admiration of success reigns.

In contrast, Western civilization began with a very different ancient Greek idea of an autonomous citizen, not an indentured serf or subsistence peasant. The small, independent landowner -- if left to his own talents and if his success was protected by, and from, government -- would create new sources of wealth for everyone. The resulting greater bounty for the poor soon trumped their old jealousy of the better off.

Citizens of ancient Greece and Italy soon proved more prosperous and free than either the tribal folk to the north and west, or the imperial subjects to the south and east. The success of later Western civilization in general, and America in particular, is testament to this legacy of the freedom of the individual in the widest political and economic sense

We seem to be forgetting that lately -- though Mao Zedong's redistributive failures in China, or present-day bankrupt Greece, should warn us about what happens when government tries to enforce an equality of result rather than of opportunity.

Even after the failure of statism at the end of the Cold War, the disasters of socialism in Venezuela and Cuba, and the recent financial meltdowns in the European Union, for some reason America is returning to a peasant mentality of a limited good that redistributes wealth rather than creates it. Candidate Obama's "spread the wealth" slip to Joe the Plumber simply was upgraded to President Obama's "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money."

The more his administration castigates insurers, businesses and doctors; raises taxes on the upper income brackets; and creates more regulations, the more those who create wealth are sitting out, neither hiring nor lending. The result is that traditional self-interested profit-makers are locking up trillions of dollars in unspent cash rather than using it to take risks and either lose money due to new red tape or see much of their profit largely confiscated through higher taxes.

No wonder that in such a climate of fear and suspicion, unemployment remains near 10 percent. Deficits chronically exceed $1 trillion per annum. And now the poverty rate has hit a historic high. We are all getting poorer in hopes that a few don't get richer.

The public is seldom told that 1 percent of taxpayers already pay 40 percent of the income taxes collected, while 40 percent of income earners are exempt from federal income tax -- or that present entitlements like Medicare and Social Security are financially unsustainable. Instead, they hear more often that those who managed to scheme to make above $250,000 per year have obligations to the rest of us to give back about 60 percent of what they earn in higher health care and income taxes -- together with payroll and rising state income taxes, and along with increased capital gains and inheritance taxes.

That limited-good mind-set expects that businesses will agree that they now make enough money and so have no need to pursue any more profits at the expense of others. Therefore, they will gladly still hire the unemployed and buy new equipment -- as they pay higher health care or income taxes to a government that knows far better how to redistribute their income to the more needy or deserving.

This peasant approach to commerce also assumes that businesses either cannot understand administration signals or can do nothing about them. So who cares that in the Chrysler bankruptcy settlement, quite arbitrarily the government put the unions in front of the legally entitled lenders?

Health insurers should not mind that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius just warned them to keep their profits down and their mouths shut -- or face exclusion from health care markets.

I suppose that no corporation should worry that the government arbitrarily announced -- without benefit a law or court ruling -- that it wanted BP to put up $20 billion in cleanup costs for the Gulf spill.

What optimistic Americans used to call a rising tide that lifts all boats is now once again derided as trickle-down economics. In other words, a newly peasant-minded America is willing to become collectively poorer so that some will not become wealthier.

The present economy suggests that it is surely getting its wish.



Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal.



Shell



ETA..reword awkward opeineg sentence



Photobucket





Edited 9/23/2010 3:24 pm ET by cshell_sonny
Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-30-2003
Thu, 09-23-2010 - 3:30pm

The author in his zeal to emphasize what percentage of taxes the top 1% pay, fails to cite what percentage of the wealth they have.

Anne

I have no need for anger
With intimate strangers
And I got nothing to hide



- Amy Ray

I have no need for anger
With intimate strangers
And I got nothing to hide


- Amy Ray

Pages