Let's Tax The Rich!!!

[Westernskies]

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]

How should we get started?

Any suggestions?

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

 

[youbet]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[RetiredGypsy]

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.

There aren't enough people to tax period. There are however ever expanding lists of things needing government finance and ways to tax people, and efforts to try to get those same people to invest and donate less so more can be taxed. I find this particularly damming:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/budget/upload/Budget-final-020210.pdf

The tax treatment of itemized deductions reduces the after-tax cost of allowed expenditures. For example, a taxpayer in the 35 percent bracket who donates to a charity effectively pays only 65 cents for each dollar she gives because giving a dollar reduces her tax bill by 35 cents (35 per-cent of the deductible one-dollar donation). That lower after-tax price of giving provides the tax-payer with an incentive to give more to charitable causes than she would in the absence of the de-duction and consequent tax savings. The same outcome obtains for other itemizable spending; for example, people may buy more or better housing because the deductibility of mortgage interest and property taxes reduces their after-tax costs. Limiting the value of deductions to 28 percent would increase the after-tax cost of charitable giving and other itemizable expenses for high-income taxpayers and would therefore reduce the amount of those activities.

We're the government, and we're here to help. Because we have shown a documented history of doing that really really well, it is in your best interest to let us take care for you.

 

[chinaco]

It seems that, as I suspected, nobody can offer a rational, moral justification for an estate tax. The best anyone seems to be able to offer is, "they're dead so they won't miss it, and it's not fair that their hiers get to inherit money, because I don't have any rich relatives."

...

The estate tax, income tax, cap gains tax... all taxes are heavily debated and riddled with political hyperbole for but one reason; Some group of people hope to gain advantage by having the tax burden shifted to another group. Yes it is that simple!


Anyone can make an impassioned argument as to why taxes are unfair or an excessive burden and find some reason that makes it correct.

But (aside from curbing excess govt spending) the taxes have to be paid to run the republic and pay our legal debts.


The truly wealthy of this country avoided paying some of their tax burden during the last 30 years because of several income and cap gains tax cuts that favored them (note most people have their nest egg in a tax deferred retirement account with income tax due)... But the govt borrowed from the SS trust to continue spending (even though they cut the rich a very generous tax break). The tax bill is coming due. That money borrowed from our SS has to be paid back.

So the burden will be foisted on the current generation with higher income taxes... the previous generation of rich people (as they die) will have to pay their back taxes in the form of a higher estate tax. They got to enjoy it while they were alive! They have not been dealt an unfair hand.... the middle class is the group that is getting the shaft.

 

[GregLee]

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!

No, I do not have more money than I have, either.

 

[Westernskies]

No, I do not have more money than I have, either.

IRS: It doesn't matter how much you have; just send it in.

 

[Independent]

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.

If you took 100% from everyone in the top bracket it would hardly make a dent in the deficit.

Like I said, I'm not one of the people suggesting that we should close the whole deficit by taxing the rich. But when I look at the numbers, it doesn't seem so absurd to me.

In 2005, the top 1% averaged $1.07 million after all federal taxes.
Multiplying by 1.13 million families in the top 1%, I get $1.2 trillion in after federal tax income.
If that number grows as fast as the projected (nominal) GDP between 2005 and 2015, it will be $1.8 trillion.
The projected budget deficit for 2015 is $606 billion.

It looks like it would take about 1/3 of the after federal tax income to cover that deficit.

Again, I wouldn't recommend that. But I would say that we could cover about a third of the deficit by increasing the average FIT rate on the top 1% from 19% to about 27%. And, we could do that without increasing the 35% top marginal rate on labor. We would go back to days when dividends and capital gains are taxed at about the same rates as labor income.

 

[explanade]

Didn't they say if they pushed the marginal rates back up to 38% for incomes over $250k, over 10 years, the additional tax revenue would have closed most of the gap.

But that's before Obama agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts for another 2 years. Before the Bush tax cuts, the fiscal situation was much better, wasn't it?

 

[Midpack]

Didn't they say if they pushed the marginal rates back up to 38% for incomes over $250k, over 10 years, the additional tax revenue would have closed most of the gap.

But that's before Obama agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts for another 2 years. Before the Bush tax cuts, the fiscal situation was much better, wasn't it?

Not even close, that was the central point of this thread, aimed at those who offer nothing else as a solution. Whether we "tax the rich" more or not (call it top 20% or whatever), it's going to take much more than that with current revenues & spending. Of course I don't expect unemployment to remain at 9%+ forever, which will close the gap noticeably, but full employment (6%+) may still be a long way off...meanwhile the national debt grows by leaps and bounds.

 

[explanade]

Here is a source on the budgetary impact of keeping the tax rates of the Bush years:

Budgetary impact of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts
Main article: Bush tax cuts


Congressional Research Service-Impact of Extension of the Bush Tax Cuts
A variety of tax cuts were enacted under President Bush between 2001–2003 (commonly referred to as the "Bush tax cuts"), through the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA). Most of these tax cuts were scheduled to expire December 31, 2010. Since CBO projections are based on current law, the projections discussed above assume these tax cuts will expire, which may prove politically challenging.
In August 2010, CBO estimated that extending the tax cuts for the 2011-2020 time period would add $3.3 trillion to the national debt: $2.65 trillion in foregone tax revenue plus another $0.66 trillion for interest and debt service costs.[52]
The non-partisan Pew Charitable Trusts estimated in May 2010 that extending some or all of the Bush tax cuts would have the following impact under these scenarios:
Making the tax cuts permanent for all taxpayers, regardless of income, would increase the national debt $3.1 trillion over the next 10 years.
Limiting the extension to individuals making less than $200,000 and married couples earning less than $250,000 would increase the debt about $2.3 trillion in the next decade.
Extending the tax cuts for all taxpayers for only two years would cost $558 billion over the next 10 years.[53]
The non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) has reported the 10-year revenue loss from extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts beyond 2010 at $2.9 trillion, with an additional $606 billion in debt service costs (interest), for a combined total of $3.5 trillion. CRS cited CBO estimates that extending the cuts permanently, including the repeal of the estate tax, would add 2% of GDP to the annual deficit.[54]

United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki page has links to the original sources.

 

[haha]

Like I said, I'm not one of the people suggesting that we should close the whole deficit by taxing the rich. But when I look at the numbers, it doesn't seem so absurd to me.

In 2005, the top 1% averaged $1.07 million after all federal taxes.
Multiplying by 1.13 million families in the top 1%, I get $1.2 trillion in after federal tax income.
If that number grows as fast as the projected (nominal) GDP between 2005 and 2015, it will be $1.8 trillion.

If these people have the sense that I think they have they will not hang around to be milked. Singapore beckons, as do Switzerland and number of other places that have a lot over the US.

Ha

 

[explanade]

If these people have the sense that I think they have they will not hang around to be milked. Singapore beckons, as do Switzerland and number of other places that have a lot over the US.

Ha

I don't know about Singapore but would Switzerland have lower tax rates?

Cost of living is really high, even before the Swiss Franc hit historic highs against the dollar. I visited there 4 years ago and it was crazy expensive back then.

There are certainly enough tax havens, like Monaco, but you have to renounce your citizenship right? As long as you're US citizen, doesn't matter where you live. Even if you make most of your income overseas, after a certain amount, you still owe Uncle Sam.

Now, would wealthy Americans have same opportunities to generate income in these other countries (putting aside the cost of living in nice developed countries)? Monaco is a beautiful playground if you're rich, but unless you're selling yachts, there's not much infrastructure for many types of business. Won't be as easy to found a high-tech startup there, for instance.