Let's Tax The Rich!!!

[Independent]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem Is each vote weighted by the amount the voter pays in FIT?

Sorry, still [officially] one person one vote. I think money counts a lot in our politics in terms of advertising to potential voters, so the high income people would have extra clout in this system just like they do today.

So, what do you think?

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Independent Sorry, still [officially] one person one vote. I think money counts a lot in our politics in terms of advertising to potential voters, so the high income people would have extra clout in this system just like they do today. So, what do you think?

In that case, no. I'll pass, thanks. Voters who don't pay FIT already have enough motivation to vote for the candidate who offers the most "money for nothing." Making the spoils system even more explicit would only hasten the decline. In three years we'd have 10 FBI agents, one diesel submarine, and 85% of federal funds going to HHS and the EITC.

[Midpack]

Good info, I did not have as much detail as you did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Independent 14.1% Individual Income Tax +6.0% Social Insurance Tax +4.9% Corporate Income Tax * +0.5% Excise Taxes ------ 25.5% Total Federal Taxes You apparently found some people who think we could cover 100% of the deficit with taxes on the rich, I know I'm not one of them. If the OP was only addressed to a few posters, it might have helped to name them.

There are several people here who have repeatedly suggested taxing the rich is the solution, without considering the $, with no specifics and without offering any other answers. I can only assume they think that's all it will take - that's absurb when you look at the numbers. I was hoping they might look at the relative numbers and realize how absurd their positions are.

It's one thing to challenge each others posts in a civilized manner, but IMO it's not our place to call each other out on this forum by starting another thread and naming people. I wanted to see if any of them would put their money where their mouths are, none did (so maybe they did look at the numbers and realize they had no retort).

FWIW, I believe we are going to have to cut spending pretty dramatically and we're all going to have to pay more in taxes if we want to eliminate deficits even at full employment. I'm OK with a progressive tax structure, but I think we're all going to have to pony up...

[GregLee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack There are several people here who have repeatedly suggested taxing the rich is the solution, without considering the $, with no specifics and without offering any other answers.

I think taxing the rich is a fine idea. We need tax monies, the rich have got money, so let's take some. Why pretend it is so complicated? Do I have to prove that increasing taxes on the rich will solve all our problems? Of course it won't. If I can't show how to solve all our problems, does that mean taxing the rich won't help solve any problems? A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GregLee I think taxing the rich is a fine idea. We need tax monies, the rich have got money, so let's take some. Why pretend it is so complicated? Do I have to prove that increasing taxes on the rich will solve all our problems? Of course it won't. If I can't show how to solve all our problems, does that mean taxing the rich won't help solve any problems? A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

I think we're waiting for you to offer up your FIRE portfolio to the gov't to be used for the common good. In doing so, you'd show you're not a hypocrit but rather a say-do guy who puts his money where his mouth is.

And BTW, we are taxing the rich with a progressive tax schedule now as far as incomes go. We still have work to do in terms of taxing wealth such as financial holdings and real estate progressively.

It's not always easy to spot the wealthy. With deceiving, LBYM lifestyles, many ER'd folks pass themselves off as everyday middle class people while holding FIRE portfolios of a half mil, a mil or even more. Sometimes much more. I've heard some of them drive around in motorhomes!

Obviously folks who are able to live without working by collecting SS, pensions and/or living off investment income are to be eyed suspiciously. Increasing their taxes won't solve all our problems, but it'll help. If they don't like it, they can go back to work. How should we get started?

Any suggestions?

[Westernskies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GregLee I think taxing the rich is a fine idea. We need tax monies, the rich have got money, so let's take some. Why pretend it is so complicated? Do I have to prove that increasing taxes on the rich will solve all our problems? Of course it won't. If I can't show how to solve all our problems, does that mean taxing the rich won't help solve any problems? A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

“What people forget is a journey to nowhere starts with a single step, too.”

[GregLee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet How should we get started? Any suggestions?

Yes, let's tax the rich. (Note: I am not rich.)

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GregLee Yes, let's tax the rich. (Note: I am not rich.)

What a surprise.........

I wouldn't have thought for even a moment that if the solution involved you contributing something yourself, you'd suggest it. It's the way most folks are.........

[Retch The Grate]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westernskies Spending cuts aren't what got us into this mess, folks with a bias for "tax and spend " are what did. The flaw in your logic is that you expect that we can keep doing the same thing and expect different results.

I know, it pisses me off to no end what Reagan and Bush (the younger) in particular did to our economy.

[M Paquette]

The problem with taxing the rich is that the rich aren't the ones making all the demands on government. The poor receive a disproportionate benefit from government programs relative to the rich. This means that any scheme which taxes the rich, yet benefits the poor, is a form of wealth redistribution, which any right-thinking person will explain is wrong, drains productive capital, and smacks of socialism.

In order to avoid the evils of wealth redistribution, therefor, we should levy the bulk of taxes on those who most benefit from government services. The highest taxes should naturally fall on those persons relying entirely on government services, with heavy taxes on persons collecting welfare or Social Security Disability payments. Persons collecting unemployment should also be taxed at a high level, both to recover government expenditures and as an incentive to find gainful employment. Similarly high taxes should be placed on persons receiving Medicaid payments.

Orphans and children receiving government benefits are particularly vexing, as they have never paid into the government tax system, yet are collecting benefits. Indentured servitude in a workhouse might pose one possible solution, with the workhouses taking on tasks that would otherwise be shipped overseas, draining our economy. Indeed, seeing the little tykes all happily and productively assembling iPhones makes one optimistic that a future supply of labor for our domestic industries is assured.

It seems only fair.

SOUIEEE!

[sheehs1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GregLee I think taxing the rich is a fine idea. We need tax monies, the rich have got money, so let's take some. Why pretend it is so complicated? Do I have to prove that increasing taxes on the rich will solve all our problems? Of course it won't. If I can't show how to solve all our problems, does that mean taxing the rich won't help solve any problems? A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Time = Money = Tax Revenues.

ummm. I still like my idea that some segments of those that don't pay tax should give back some of their Time (= money= tax revenues) via community service hours. After all...don't they too need to contribute to society?

If the rich have to give their money on the basis of contributing to society......isn't it only fair the rest give some of their time (since they don't have the money?).

Oh...that's right ...I forgot. It's only fair to tax the rich...and forget about the other members of our society.

I'm not talking about those that are "in jail", physically or mentally handicapped...etc.

[Westernskies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Retch The Grate I know, it pisses me off to no end what Reagan and Bush (the younger) in particular did to our economy.

You might want to bone up on your facts there, Retch.

[explanade]

Weren't the marginal rates higher in the 90s, when the economy was faring much better than the '80s or this past decade (the aughts or whever people called them)?

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M Paquette The problem with taxing the rich is that the rich aren't the ones making all the demands on government.

Another big problem with taxing the rich is that, being rich, they can afford accountants and lawyers which really drives up the effort needed to take their loot. And sometimes they just up and leave! And, if we're lucky enough to steal all their stuff--then they have the nerve to stop being rich! We'll just have to work our way down the totem pole, grinding off the top. Unfortunately, the top is where the folks live who best know how to make and do stuff. Still, it's a small price to pay to give everyone something shiny.

[photoguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheehs1 I do not object to paying taxes while living. I object to the "death tax".

I thought about your comment some more, and I realized that I'm the *exact* opposite. I totally dislike paying taxes while living but don't care at all about a death tax.

I would certainly trade 10-20% lower taxes now for 100% of my estate to be confiscated by the government.

[sheehs1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoguy I thought about your comment some more, and I realized that I'm the *exact* opposite. I totally dislike paying taxes while living but don't care at all about a death tax. I would certainly trade 10-20% lower taxes now for 100% of my estate to be confiscated by the government.

You know...I think you are right! You are definitely onto to something here!!

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by glippy Only letting the landed gentry vote... yeah, that's never lead to any problems.

Everything has problems; requiring a certain income isn't necessarily the worst of them. Can't happen though, poor people have the easiest votes to buy.

Ha

[clifp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GregLee Yes, let's tax the rich. (Note: I am not rich.)

I actually agree with Greg, but I'd extended it to lets tax the middle class cause the problem is there aren't enough rich people.

So for instance if we took every single dollar from Gates and Buffet's along with every dollar from the other 398 other billionaire on the Forbes 400 list we still haven't solved the 3 trillion+ hole from state and local pension funds and unfunded health care for public employee retirees.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp Quote: Originally Posted by GregLee Yes, let's tax the rich. (Note: I am not rich.) I actually agree with Greg, but I'd extended it to lets tax the middle class cause the problem is there aren't enough rich people. So for instance if we took every single dollar from Gates and Buffet's along with every dollar from the other 398 other billionaire on the Forbes 400 list we still haven't solved the 3 trillion+ hole from state and local pension funds and unfunded health care for public employee retirees.

Now don't go and change the definition of 'rich'. For most people it means those with more money than they have. With your definition, we may have to tax GregLee, and I don't think he's gonna like that!

-ERD50

[Independent]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem In that case, no. I'll pass, thanks. Voters who don't pay FIT already have enough motivation to vote for the candidate who offers the most "money for nothing." Making the spoils system even more explicit would only hasten the decline. In three years we'd have 10 FBI agents, one diesel submarine, and 85% of federal funds going to HHS and the EITC.

Well, the biggest block of people getting money from the federal government is probably SS beneficiaries. So, I suppose they could just keep voting themselves bigger and bigger benefits.

I'm actually more optimistic about voters than that. I think there are enough who want to do what's best for the country to tip the balance. Politicians often muddy the waters by claiming we can have it all, I'd hope that putting the choice into black and white would clarify things.