Tax the Rich?

[neguy11]

I think "tax the rich" refers to capital gains. Many people would like the capital gains to be taxed at the existing marginal rates.

[Scanner]

It is baffling how the poor have been tricked into lobbying for the rich. Some of it is cultural.

Let's face it - there is a cultural difference between MidWest Red States and Blue State Urban NYC. So, anything those "Yankess" would propose would have to obviously bad for us.

Add to the puzzlement, Red States draw a higher %age of government aid (from Federal) than Blue States.

My state, NJ, pays the most in taxes and gets the least back from government. If it's anyone who should be protesting entitlements, it's us!

I have a novel solution - YOu don't want government handouts? Don't take them. That's what Chris Christie did when Obama handed him stimulus money with too many caveats attached to it. The Red States/Tea Party keep protesting entitlements and gov't handouts, yet, they keep taking them when offered.

[feh]

I have to disagree. The system may be set up in such a way that causes revenue shortage due to low tax rates, but spending should reflect revenue. If this were taken out of the context of government and applied to an individual, then it would be like saying that I am in debt not because I spend to much. I am in debt because I don't earn enough. The advice that we see time and time again on this board if to live within your means. I also believe government should spend within its means.

Macroeconomics vs microeconomics. Two very different things.

[bjl584]

Macroeconomics vs microeconomics. Two very different things.

It doesn't have to be complicated and bogged down with technical analysis. If you take in X, then you spend (enter number here that is smaller than X.) Micro or Macro, that formula will work. We just need policy and polititians with the (explitive) to make it happen.

[feh]

It doesn't have to be complicated and bogged down with technical analysis. If you take in X, then you spend (enter number here that is smaller than X.) Micro or Macro, that formula will work. We just need policy and polititians with the (explitive) to make it happen.

We'll have to agree to disagree - I'm not going to try to convince you.

Macroeconomics is complicated. Citizens believing strawmen arguments under the auspices of simplifying concepts is one of the reasons people are so misinformed.

[bjl584]

We'll have to agree to disagree - I'm not going to try to convince you.

Macroeconomics is complicated. Citizens believing strawmen arguments under the auspices of simplifying concepts is one of the reasons people are so misinformed.

Fair enough. I agree to disagree with you.

[Mjenn]

I don't think it is unreasonable to bring taxation levels back to where they were not so long ago, and by that i mean increase taxes on the wealthy.

But if we are having a political discussion, I think what will sink things is fighing two never ending wars. That is a huge amount of money coming from American pockets going elsewhere.

I live in a Scandinavia and we just entered the top income bracket for taxation (if you knew how much that was you would laugh,it's not a lot of money). That means we pay 33 percent on most of our income and 55 percent on anything above the cap. We also pay a 25 percent vat.

Do I mind? Not really. It pays for my masters degree, my maternity leave, my children's day care, my husbands paternity leave, etc.

I guess I have learned that taxes aren't necessarily a bad thing, but having lived in new jersey before, I would resent paying that much in tax there.

[maat55]

The bottom line is that too many people are relying on government promises and safety nets. Just as bad is that they would rather destroy future generations prosperity and freedom to make sure they get theirs.

Taxing the rich is nothing more than a temporary diversion from reality. Ron Paul is the only one with a solid proposal for reducing the deficits.

[dczech09]

People bring up the argument that the business owners paying 15% on their capital gains should have the rate increased to marginal income rates. What these people fail to realize is that these business owners are already paying taxes on money that has already been taxed. It's called "double taxation" and is one of the downsides of operating a corporation.

Lets say I own XYZ, Inc. The company produces an income and after a 39% marginal corporate tax rate, there is a net income of $1,000,000. Lets say I pay myself $500,000 of that money and put the rest in retained earnings. I then pay 15% on the $500,000.

If we increased the rates to marginal income rates, it would result in a deeper double taxation which would in effect lower the incentive to perform as a corporation. Now, I know this would be a good thing for you corporate hating hippies out there, but trust me, its bad on a macro level.

As far as the fair share goes: what about the 46% who pay nothing in federal income taxes? Those same people are also the ones who use government programs the most.

We cannot look to the rich to solve our problems. What do you think will happen once the rich are taxed more? The governemnt will spend more, run into trouble again, and seek to increase taxes again. How do I know? Because it has been done already.

We need to look at the government as a business that we invest in. Obviously the business is failing, bleeding money, and is on a crash course for bankruptcy. Yet the executives refuse to cut spending and are instead looking for more investors. I do not see this as a viable investment, so I will not want to give them another dime until they shape up!

If we as households need to live within our means, then so should the government. And don't give me this crap that the government is different from other entities because they can print money. If that were true, then why haven't then done it? Oh wait a minute! They have... and it failed.

[autoxer]

Do you think it fair that a worker pay 35% of his income while a business owner has that distributed in dividends and pays 15%?

Why does it make sense to tax "unearned income" lower (investments) but productivity/earned income higher?

Shouldn't we endeavor as a nation to encourage productivity, rather than passive-sit-around-on-your-butt income?

Productivity is good, but pushing more burden onto the business owners won't be good for our unemployment rate. The business owners support lots of families by offering them employment. They don't just have extra money floating around that can be collected in taxes, it will affect their bottom line, their ability to do business and support their employees.

In my opinion it is a spending problem, but I don't have a solution for it.

[Scanner]

Productivity is good, but pushing more burden onto the business owners won't be good for our unemployment rate. The business owners support lots of families by offering them employment. They don't just have extra money floating around that can be collected in taxes, it will affect their bottom line, their ability to do business and support their employees.


I am not picking on you, autoxer, honestly, I am not but this is a sentiment I see in a lot of the politics today that I find puzzling.

It's as if anyone employed by a corporation is lucky to have a job and therefore, any and all policy should be drafted around the fact they are so generous with giving out jobs.

I thought the way it worked was you exchanged labor for money (and benefits)?

Shouldn't both parties feel "lucky" for the existence of each otehr and the contributions to each other?

I mean, let's think about it in my own little microcosm.

What happens if Hospital Administration doesn't come in for 3 months? The CEO doesn't come in?

I'd say, well, things may break down 6-12 months. Decisions don't get made, disipline isn't happening. . .the corporation could devolve sooner.

What happens if doctors, nurses, and techs don't come in? I'd say the hospital shuts down almost immediately. Yeah, perhaps they could be all replaced within a months time. . .but so could the CEO really.

There's a lot of people out there with MBA's too who could step up.

I guess I just don't get the "Keep your mouth shut; you're lucky to have a job" sentiment that floats about.

I'm sure some slaves said, "I feel lucky. My master is light on the whip."

[autoxer]

Productivity is good, but pushing more burden onto the business owners won't be good for our unemployment rate. The business owners support lots of families by offering them employment. They don't just have extra money floating around that can be collected in taxes, it will affect their bottom line, their ability to do business and support their employees.


I am not picking on you, autoxer, honestly, I am not but this is a sentiment I see in a lot of the politics today that I find puzzling.

It's as if anyone employed by a corporation is lucky to have a job and therefore, any and all policy should be drafted around the fact they are so generous with giving out jobs.

I thought the way it worked was you exchanged labor for money (and benefits)?

Shouldn't both parties feel "lucky" for the existence of each otehr and the contributions to each other?

I wasn't implying that it isn't a two way street. I know that a business can't survive without all of the people. But any legislature that punishes business just drives jobs out of this country. I think that creating incentives for new businesses will create jobs and therefore create more tax for the government. More people earning income, more people spending money and more tax being collected. Increasing tax on a business handicaps their ability to invest and expand which slows down the whole economic cycle.

I know there are many different perspectives, but to be clear on my perspective, I am a small business owner and it is far from the 'passive-sit-around-on-your-butt income' that you think it is.

[kenp11]

Tax the Rich

Taxing the rich has been tried before. The same speeches were given back in 1930-1939.
Rememebr INCOME TAX was ONLY FOR THE RICH back in 1930's. That was a government scam to creat einflation and make everyone pay!. Don;t forget 1939 Germany. Not only did they tax the rich they confiscated their goods and even their hair and put them in concentration camps.

Coveting and envying the rich never works if you believe in common sens or teh Bible. The parable of the talents is a good indication that when you give the poor money you bree more poor peopls. Just look at Cuba!

[Scanner]

Kenp:

Envy may indeed be a "Deadly Sin."

However, so are "Greed" and "Gluttony."

When a Bank Of America executive does a poor job, and as parting gift he gets 11 million dollars, that, by definition is "gluttony."

Tax rates on the rich approached 90% under Dwight Eisenhower and our country was growing like mad.

There is no positive or negative correlation to economic growth and taxation. None.

The strongest correlation is energy prices. Economic growth and energy prices nearly always move in reverse tandem.

[rj.phila]

Kenp:

Envy may indeed be a "Deadly Sin."

However, so are "Greed" and "Gluttony."

When a Bank Of America executive does a poor job, and as parting gift he gets 11 million dollars, that, by definition is "gluttony."

Tax rates on the rich approached 90% under Dwight Eisenhower and our country was growing like mad.

There is no positive or negative correlation to economic growth and taxation. None.

The strongest correlation is energy prices. Economic growth and energy prices nearly always move in reverse tandem.

+1, what he said