Jeffrey Scharf, Everybody's Business: Low property tax and high income tax a bad combination

Becky Johnson wrote:

BECKY: I am opposed to extremes in wealth and poverty. I think rich people should pay more taxes than poor people.

I cannot think of anyone in favor of extreme poverty. However, like you, extreme wealth does sometimes concern me. Extreme wealth sometimes involves corruption or at least unsavory business practices (Bernie Madoff, anybody?). Other times, it means great innovation and the betterment of society. But who determines which citizens are extremely wealthy, you know, citizens that OWE the rest of us? Is it AIG execs? How about Bill Gates? Or, Oprah Winfrey? By world standards, nearly all Americans, including those living below the poverty line, are extremely wealthy people.

Despite my concerns regarding extreme wealth, I do not support government confiscation or redistributing of that extreme wealth. Governments have proven no better and sometimes much, much worse at applying the moeny for the greater good. At least most uberrich realize that they can't take it with them and willingly set up charitable organizations (Rockeffeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, Carnegie Endowment, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation).

It is proper that the government prevents somebody from generating wealth by exploiting others. The government was certainly lax in their oversight duties with regards to the financial industry. Could it be the undue influence of political donations? Why is Goldman Sachs #4 in all-time political donors and why to just one party?
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php...

On the plus side, extreme wealth often provides an incentive for market forces to correct the situation. Wealth is a motivator and a creator. Yes, sometimes in capitalism, the creation is through creative destruction. But imagine if the government bailed out all those horse and buggy producers when the car came around?

But would Google exist without Microsoft's earlier efforts? On the negative side, the hope for extreme wealth sometimes leads to bad societal investments like the current mortgage disaster where a broad range of people attempted instant wealth without effort or benefiting society.

Becky Johnson wrote:

BECKY: I think MANY rich people got rich by exploiting both natural resources and human beings.

Yes, some. However, not the majority, and certainly not most currently living in California. Again, we have laws that limit HOW someone may acquire wealth (no Ponzi schemes unless you are government, no kidnapping, prostitution, fraud, embezzlement, etc.)

How many millionaires did Intel, eBay, and Google "exploit" to become successful? How many millionaires did they produce? How much have other Californian's enjoyed their success through our overly-oppressive Personal Income Tax system? These folks likely subsidized California government for both you and me. Aren't we all being bit exploitive by supporting an overspending government that derives tax revenues for a relative few?

Becky Johnson wrote:

BECKY: Many other rich people just inherited and haven't had to work a day in their lives.

Regarding "inherited wealth," again what claims should the government have on this wealth? The government has already taxed it at least once. There is scant evidence our current class of politicians will spend it any better than a spoiled heiress. Many politicians seemilingly just want to enrich themselves or at least guarantee life-long employment while claiming to look out for the little guy. At least the charitable foundations have a fairly good record of real accomplishments. Yes, some wealthy people burden society by producing arrogant, spoiled heirs with no work ethic--but then again, so does everybody else.

Becky Johnson wrote:

BECKY: I am opposed to extremes in wealth and poverty. I think rich people should pay more taxes than poor people.

I cannot think of anyone in favor of extreme poverty. However, like you, extreme wealth does sometimes concern me. Extreme wealth sometimes involves corruption or at least unsavory business practices (Bernie Madoff, anybody?). Other times, it means great innovation and the betterment of society. But who determines which citizens are extremely wealthy, you know, citizens that OWE the rest of us? Is it AIG execs? How about Bill Gates? Or, Oprah Winfrey? By world standards, nearly all Americans, including those living below the poverty line, are extremely wealthy people.

Despite my concerns regarding extreme wealth, I do not support government confiscation or redistributing of that extreme wealth. Governments have proven no better and sometimes much, much worse at applying the moeny for the greater good. At least most uberrich realize that they can't take it with them and willingly set up charitable organizations (Rockeffeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, Carnegie Endowment, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation).

It is proper that the government prevents somebody from generating wealth by exploiting others. The government was certainly lax in their oversight duties with regards to the financial industry. Could it be the undue influence of political donations? Why is Goldman Sachs #4 in all-time political donors and why to just one party?
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php...

On the plus side, extreme wealth often provides an incentive for market forces to correct the situation. Wealth is a motivator and a creator. Yes, sometimes in capitalism, the creation is through creative destruction. But imagine if the government bailed out all those horse and buggy producers when the car came around?

But would Google exist without Microsoft's earlier efforts? On the negative side, the hope for extreme wealth sometimes leads to bad societal investments like the current mortgage disaster where a broad range of people attempted instant wealth without effort or benefiting society.

Becky Johnson wrote:

BECKY: I think MANY rich people got rich by exploiting both natural resources and human beings.

Yes, some. However, not the majority, and certainly not most currently living in California. Again, we have laws that limit HOW someone may acquire wealth (no Ponzi schemes unless you are government, no kidnapping, prostitution, fraud, embezzlement, etc.)

How many millionaires did Intel, eBay, and Google "exploit" to become successful? How many millionaires did they produce? How much have other Californian's enjoyed their success through our overly-oppressive Personal Income Tax system? These folks likely subsidized California government for both you and me. Aren't we all being bit exploitive by supporting an overspending government that derives tax revenues for a relative few?

Becky Johnson wrote:

BECKY: Many other rich people just inherited and haven't had to work a day in their lives.

Regarding "inherited wealth," again what claims should the government have on this wealth? The government has already taxed it at least once. There is scant evidence our current class of politicians will spend it any better than a spoiled heiress. Many politicians seemingly just want to enrich themselves or at least guarantee life-long employment while claiming to look out for the little guy. At least the charitable foundations have a fairly good record of real accomplishments. Yes, some wealthy people burden society by producing arrogant, spoiled heirs with no work ethic--but then again, so does everybody else.

JJJ wrote:

<quoted text>
gosh, how DO those people get by on only $910,000/yr?!?
(yeah, yeah, I know, theres other taxes like federal income tax, etc etc).

I agree, some people just seem to squeak by. Then again, why should we (Californians in general) expect these people to pay significantly more for the same government "enoyed" by all? Do they really OWE the rest us for their success? Pre-Civil War society benefitted greatly from slave labor, but it didn't mean that slavery was a good idea.

At a minimum, the politicians should at least give up their "The rich don't pay their fairshare" bullshaloney.

And yes, I realize that somepeople are just lucky and don't really deserve it. I understand that. I mean, how else can you explain Keanue Reeves?

SOQUEL BY THE CREEK WRITES:"Despite my concerns regarding extreme wealth, I do not support government confiscation or redistributing of that extreme wealth."

BECKY: How about a heft inheritance tax then?

Becky Johnson wrote:

SOQUEL BY THE CREEK WRITES:"Despite my concerns regarding extreme wealth, I do not support government confiscation or redistributing of that extreme wealth."
BECKY: How about a heft inheritance tax then?

You mean like on Robert's fortune?

He could, you know, voluntarily give part of it up, yet doesn't. Why not? He could fund the sorts of homeless services that he wants the city to fund.

Heck, he could build his very own homeless campground with his money! Why doesn't he!?

It wouldn't have to be in Santa Cruz. He could do it elsewhere! I bet plenty of people would even be willing to provide free transportation to the Robert Kahn Norse Campground for anyone who wishes to live there (provided they don't return).

It's so crazy it might work!

Becky Johnson wrote:

BECKY: How about a heft inheritance tax then?

Like I said, I haven't seen much evidence that politicians can spend other people's money any better than a spoiled heir or heiress. Why not let the person that earned or created that wealth decide the best course of action? Afterall, he or she was smart enough to earn or create that wealth in the first place. Don't you think they'll be smart enough to dispose of it wisely after they die?

XANTHIPPE WRITES: "Heck, he could build his very own homeless campground with his money! Why doesn't he!?"

BECKY: I've addressed this before. Yes, Robert could buy a piece of land for a homeless campground. However, it is highly unlikely that he would be issued the use permits necessary to open. Do you know of a single City Council member who would lobby for such a campground?

Becky Johnson wrote:

XANTHIPPE WRITES: "Heck, he could build his very own homeless campground with his money! Why doesn't he!?"
BECKY: I've addressed this before. Yes, Robert could buy a piece of land for a homeless campground. However, it is highly unlikely that he would be issued the use permits necessary to open. Do you know of a single City Council member who would lobby for such a campground?

What about in Felton, where he lives? Who says it has to be in the city limits of Santa Cruz?

Craig wrote:

<quoted text>
What about in Felton, where he lives? Who says it has to be in the city limits of Santa Cruz?

But Craig, you forget that solutions are so much easier when you spend other people's money.:-)

Becky Johnson wrote:

XANTHIPPE WRITES: "Heck, he could build his very own homeless campground with his money! Why doesn't he!?"
BECKY: I've addressed this before. Yes, Robert could buy a piece of land for a homeless campground. However, it is highly unlikely that he would be issued the use permits necessary to open. Do you know of a single City Council member who would lobby for such a campground?

Why does it have to be IN the city of Santa Cruz?

Surely there's more undeveloped land outside the city than inside.

Soquel By the Creek-First of all thanks for the triple header answer on Sunday. I have read them, but obviously they need to be studied not just read. Also, would you mind if I "borrowed" some of these facts/thoughts if I happen to write a letter to the local paper? One more thing. If possible I would like to hear some simple solutions from you. If there are any. For instance;#1-all government budgets get cut 10%,#2-fill in the blank. Thanks.