Eat the Rich -- Why taxing the "rich" more isn't the answer

[JMS]

Here is what it boils down to. Do you want to live in a world class country? A country which can compete with anybody in the world and has a respected place in the world? If you do then you must be willing to support the government with reasonable taxes based upon the historic tax levels of our country as we achieved and maintained that respected position in the world.

If you don't want to live in a first world country... if you don't care about the constitution, long term viability of the country; then you advocate for what we have today. What Bush left us with. What Bush told us would help the deficit, increase the revenue of the federal government and spawn more economic growth..... THE SAME POLICY HERBERT HOOVER CHAMPIONED..

[Tweedr01]

A few points to nobody in particular, except for Zoony.

1. As proposed by Forbes, I believe the Flat Tax is accompanied by a zero tax bracket for the first $20k - ish.

2. High personal income and corporate taxes contributes to companies 1) sending jobs overseas, 2) moving jobs to other states and 3) seeking out loopholes.

3. Loopholes are entirely too prevalent in the corporate world, but they're not limited to that world. There are numerous tax shelters that allow particularly industrious individuals to lower their effective tax rate.

4. All of these loopholes are a result of a system where changing the tax code is done dozens of times/year (more, actually). This system has resulted in incredible amounts of tax law, incredible inefficiencies/overhead in accounting for and paying taxes, and incredible amounts of lobbying.

5. Even if the math of a consumption or flat tax works out (and I think it could), the only way it'll ever happen is if we change our system of government. That means we need to remove the incentive to constantly provide tax breaks. Which leads to:

6. Term limits for all of Congress, zero private dollars allowed in campaign financing (more federal/state funding for that) and very stricht post-office restrictions on the newly retired members of the house and senate, so any quid pro quo would at a minimum be delayed for several years.

7. If Jesus were alive today, he'd probably wonder why the poor don't pay any taxes but get huge benefits from the rich.

Rather than blame Democrats and Republicans, look for someone...anyone...offering a real solution.

agree

So basically you're advocating a 99.9% flat tax?

that's what i was thinking!

[Destino]

7. If Jesus were alive today, he'd probably wonder why the poor don't pay any taxes but get huge benefits from the rich.

You've straight up lost your mind with that comment! :ols:

They do pay taxes just not INCOME taxes. They pay property, sales, medicare, and social security. They also largely provide the labor that allows others via business to create wealth. If you think Jesus would arrive in a nation where 400 people have as much wealth as half of all Americans and wonder why the poor received benefits... well maybe you have a different bible than I do.

[Koolblue13]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/general-electrics-aggressive-tax-strategy,19902/

Americans were outraged when it came to light recently that multinational corporation General Electric paid no taxes for 2010. Here are some of the ways GE avoided the tax man:

* Saved all receipts from aggressive lobbying efforts

* Purchased TurboTax Corporate Max Edition

* Wrote off bankruptcy of sister company Abstract Electric

* Brought a few hundred million good things to life; claimed them as dependents

* Somehow managed to locate a loophole in the transparent, ironclad U.S. tax code

* Claimed entire NBC prime-time lineup as a loss

* Claimed cash as a spouse, earned marriage tax credit

* God hates us

I just found this funny and slightly on topic. Maybe it'll bring some humor to a thread getting a little aggressive.

[Tweedr01]

you've straight up lost your mind with that comment! :ols:

They do pay taxes just not income taxes. They pay property, sales, medicare, and social security. They also largely provide the labor that allows others via business to create wealth. If you think jesus would arrive in a nation where 400 people have as much wealth as half of all americans and wonder why the poor received benefits... well maybe you have a different bible than i do.

you have a bible?!?!!?!?!

[drtdrums]

Just a note on Jesus...I can't find anything scriptural where he was politically active or involved in any way. He never voiced an opinion other than, "Render unto Caesar...". I honestly don't think that any political position, right or left, can be defended as Christ-like because he was totally apolitical. Helping the poor was a mission given to individuals. There are certainly issues I think he'd have a lot to say about, but his stance wouldn't be political -- it would be personal.

[Bliz]

do you even know what "regressive tax" means? Everyone paying the same percentage of their income is the DEFINITION of a flat tax. A regressive tax is one where, say, everyone pays the same amount of money regardless of how much they make, thus the poor pay a higher percentage of their income.

I misspoke (or mistyped) I didn't mean that it is a regressive tax, but a regressive approach to taxation

A regressive income tax is one where the tax rate decreases as the income rate increases. Opposite of a progressive income tax, which is what we have

My point was that, as a consequence of the decreasing marginal utility, the true impact of a flat tax is highly regressive because it imposes a disproportionately harsh burden on the poor that becomes less and less harsh as the rate of income increases.

[Destino]

Just a note on Jesus...I can't find anything scriptural where he was politically active or involved in any way. He never voiced an opinion other than, "Render unto Caesar...". I honestly don't think that any political position, right or left, can be defended as Christ-like because he was totally apolitical. Helping the poor was a mission given to individuals. There are certainly issues I think he'd have a lot to say about, but his stance wouldn't be political -- it would be personal.

Legalism at it's finest. If you support a political movement that hurts or helps people it has nothing to do with God because he didn't talk about politics.

Frankly I wouldn't rest my hopes on that being the case when it comes time to be judged.

[Koolblue13]

It's awesome that God has made an appearance in a taxes thread. Oh, you crazy tailgate.

[Wrong Direction]

You've straight up lost your mind with that comment! :ols:

They do pay taxes just not INCOME taxes. They pay property, sales, medicare, and social security. They also largely provide the labor that allows others via business to create wealth. If you think Jesus would arrive in a nation where 400 people have as much wealth as half of all Americans and wonder why the poor received benefits... well maybe you have a different bible than I do.

Actually, it was sheepishly clever. Taxes are as simple as everything the government does (e.g., incredibly complex). However, if we're not in debt because of payments to the poor, why are we in debt?

The answer might show you the way to a balanced budget.

Our system of government writes checks for the wants of their constituencies, not for their needs. We want the baddest military, but do we really need to maintain all of the bases and old weapons systems? We want first dollar coverage for healthcare, but don't we only need insurance for the really expensive stuff? We want laborers building roads to be paid well, but do we need to pay 30-50% higher union rates for every federal government-financed road job? We want to incent corporations to create jobs, innovate and keep people employed in the country, but do they really need huge write-offs specifically for their company type?

Our politicians are too intrusive. That's the definition of big government. I'm beginning to support the idea of block granting the entire federal government with very simple mission language, and let them handle it as necessary.

[December90]

I would love to see a flat percentage of taxes that is even for everybody, with no deductions. Maybe unless you've donated to charities.

As far as corporate taxes, I'd either like a system that gives them no taxes or a deduction based on domestic employment and production.

This is why you cannot get rid of deductions. They are all "special interests" that cannot be touched by some group or another. Also, if you eliminate all of the deductions and make it a clean pure flat tax, think of all the unemployed accountants and the harm that alone would do to the economy...

---------- Post added April-6th-2011 at 03:47 PM ----------

lol, whatever man. we need to stop cutting taxes for the wealthy, end of story

Translation,

The Government need to confiscate more from the wealthy because they hoarding too much of what they have earned for themselves. Then the Government needs to give that money to the poor people because they don't have enough.

Is that right Sir Robin of Locksley?

[JMS]

A few points to nobody in particular, except for Zoony.

1. As proposed by Forbes, I believe the Flat Tax is accompanied by a zero tax bracket for the first $20k - ish.

If you say so.

2. High personal income and corporate taxes contributes to companies 1) sending jobs overseas, 2) moving jobs to other states and 3) seeking out loopholes.

:doh: That's not true.... Dude our personal income tax is at historically low levels and outsourcing under GW Bush when the income dropped was greater than under Bill Clinton or the preceding four or five presidents when income taxes were greater.

Income tax has nothing to do with either.. As for corporate taxes you are on acid. Most US corporations don't pay any taxes. Can't get much lower than 0. And they've still be outsourcing

Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/12/us-usa-taxes-corporations-idUSN1249465620080812

I actually think it's an inverse effect. When you drop the revenues of the governemnt, government services drop, the nations infrastructure and education drops,, and that's why outsourcing was at it's peak when income taxes and corporate taxes were at their lowest levels in several generations. I don't think that's the only reason, but I do think that's a significant reason. I think another significant reason for outsourcing was an easing of federal policies against it. Prevelent under the GOP Bush Jr. administration

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/12/us-usa-taxes-corporations-idUSN1249465620080812

These are the kinds of popular truisms which the GOP is selling which their followers buy hook line and sinker which make no sense if you look at the data.

3. Loopholes are entirely too prevalent in the corporate world, but they're not limited to that world. There are numerous tax shelters that allow particularly industrious individuals to lower their effective tax rate.

OK.

4. All of these loopholes are a result of a system where changing the tax code is done dozens of times/year (more, actually). This system has resulted in incredible amounts of tax law, incredible inefficiencies/overhead in accounting for and paying taxes, and incredible amounts of lobbying.

Actually they are a left over from a time when personal income taxes were much much higher and loopholes became a way of life for the wealthy. Now it's more of a discipline.

[Skinz4Life12]

Translation,

The Government need to confiscate more from the wealthy because they hoarding too much of what they have earned for themselves. Then the Government needs to give that money to the poor people because they don't have enough.

Is that right Sir Robin of Locksley?

Thats right

For some reason, I'm really curious as to how much you make

[drtdrums]

Legalism at it's finest. If you support a political movement that hurts or helps people it has nothing to do with God because he didn't talk about politics.

Frankly I wouldn't rest my hopes on that being the case when it comes time to be judged.

I'd certainly be willing to explore this issue with you in another thread. All I asserted was that Christ was not political and did not use politics as a vehicle, at least based on what we know of him. With respect, I don't follow your conclusion of legalism. My opinion (and since this is only conjecture, take it as nothing more than a hypothetical) is that Christ would be telling D's and R's to give til it hurt. I don't think he'd be trying to get people to use politics as a vehicle of monetary distribution.

Also, so that I don't misunderstand your stance, would you explicitly state whether or not you believe it is the goal of the R's to hurt the poor and unfortunate? It seems that's what you're implying, but implications can be easily misread in this medium.

[zoony]

Thats right

For some reason, I'm really curious as to how much you make

I make a pretty decent salary. Not anything crazy, but I think pretty good.

And honestly, I SHOULD be paying more taxes. I use a lot more resources. I'm at the airport a few times a month. I drive quite a bit. My environmental footprint is much larger than someone going back and forth to their day job, and my use of this country's infrastructure is exponentially higher than say, my wife, who makes $40k as a teacher.

I've also probably hired 25+ people over the past few years who were a product of public schools and universities. They help me to make more money, ultimately.

....

[sacase]

Here is what it boils down to. Do you want to live in a world class country? A country which can compete with anybody in the world and has a respected place in the world? If you do then you must be willing to support the government with reasonable taxes based upon the historic tax levels of our country as we achieved and maintained that respected position in the world.

If you don't want to live in a first world country... if you don't care about the constitution, long term viability of the country; then you advocate for what we have today. What Bush left us with. What Bush told us would help the deficit, increase the revenue of the federal government and spawn more economic growth..... THE SAME POLICY HERBERT HOOVER CHAMPIONED..

Well to be fair, Obama and the Dems had plenty of oppertunity to correct that, which they obviously didn't. Bus has been gone going on three years now.

Fact of the matter ramains, we have gotten to greedy and government has gotten to big. We need to make cuts in everything, social programs and military alike. Time to start seperating the needs from the wants. Make your budget for essential government functions, then start adding in social programs that you want to fund, raise or lower percentages as needed to fit other programs in.

Taxes...simplify the tax code, reduce loopholes, make it flatter. I am sorry, people should not be rewarded for having kids. They chose to have a kid and add that expense, why should someone who makes the same income as me pay less in taxes because of a lifestyle choice? Kids are expensive? Don't tell me that you didn't know that before you got/got someone pregnant. That is an expense you chose to have.

[JMS]

Well to be fair, Obama and the Dems had plenty of oppertunity to correct that, which they obviously didn't. Bus has been gone going on three years now.

No No they really didn't. Only an idiot of mamoth proportions would try to raise taxes in the worst economic slow down since the great depresion. Obama and the Dems have always stated a willingness even an obligation to do better on reducing the deficite, but first things are first. First think is to get the economy on more stable footing. Work to reduce the nearly double digit unemployment...

Fact of the matter ramains, we have gotten to greedy and government has gotten to big. We need to make cuts in everything, social programs and military alike. Time to start seperating the needs from the wants. Make your budget for essential government functions, then start adding in social programs that you want to fund, raise or lower percentages as needed to fit other programs in.

Well the facts are the defense budget is the only budget which has grown entirely out of whack, not the social programs. The facts are you could cut all the social programs from the governemnts budget and not balance the budget....

Also history shows us that our problem isn't the country is broke or the government is greedy. History shows us that what's really going on is the revenues for the government have been slashed while the cost of the government has increased. The thing that facilitated the crisis was the slashing. And that's the largest issue moving forward.

[AzSkinsFan63]

If you hate the rich when their rich...you're really going to hate them when their less rich...

[Gator Bait]

Also history shows us that our problem isn't the country is broke or the government is greedy. History shows us that what's really going on is the revenues for the government have been slashed while the cost of the government has increased. The thing that facilitated the crisis was the slashing. And that's the largest issue moving forward.

JMS you have never worked for the government have you? I have. I've probably seen over a billion dollars of waste and I've only worked for two agencies....we definitely need to do TONS of slashing.

The only thing I agree with you on is defense spending is out of control. how many agencies do we have with the word "intelligence" in them? Do we really need all this redundancy....I doubt it.

Our problem is definitely the government though; they are sooo inefficient and wasteful it is absolutely ridiculous...pisses me off just thinking about it. Last thing we should be doing is giving them more money to screw around with. We need smaller government, less spending, kill 50% of these agencies and the spending....contract the needed jobs to the private sector.

Anyone who has actually worked for or with the government knows that the contractors actually get held accountable for the job they do (for the most part) and work much harder and more efficient than government workers. This isn't a dig at all government workers, but lets be real...we've got 80 year old government employees that don't do a damn thing but come into work and drink coffee all day.....we have government employees who go into work and sit on extremeskins all day and don't do ****.....we have government employees that do about 5 hours of work in a 40 hour work week....and then we have congress......

[cedk]

History disagrees with you. A federal income tax of 35% is lower than any other time in your lifetime, your parents lifetime, and for most of your grandparents lifetime. So unless the United States became a super power under a "greedy" tax structure; you are not being reality based in your assertion.

My only assertion was that governments should not be greedy or take advantage of any minority even if that minority happens to be rich or they were taken advantage of in our past history

Let's not be greedy or take advantage of any minorities!!!!.....

[DRSmith]

Originally Posted by DRSmith:

"Funny how America was a much stronger nation after the depression with regulation and higher taxes, imagine if after 9/11 along the war taxes had gone up and when Bush said he wanted to invade Iraq he had said and taxes with have to go up.

What if everytime the corpotations decided they wanted to ship jobs over seas they would see their taxes go up to cover the cost to tax payers their move was going to cost. "

While i tend to agree most often with many of the posters who think our tax structure needs to be reevaluated (including the closing of loopholes and increased taxes), i tend to find the argument about how well the US did post depression/post-WWII a bit misleading. I think our country would be pretty strong today as well if we could instantly shut down the majority of the means of production in most of western Europe, Japan and be the (essentially) the lone country still capable of manufacturing. I think we forget too ofte the destruction of European/Eastern plants, roads, railroads and populations that led to some of our large gains in the post depression/post-WWII eras.

Those countries unlike the US post WWII spent money investing their countries they rebuilt their countries, America who did not face the same destruction and could have been even further ahead but decided to fight the cold war and the result was costly.

The problems really came when the government decided to increase spending abroad but did not raise the taxes needed.

I always find it funny when people get upset about domestic spending which keeps money in the economy and helps people to feel better.

---------- Post added April-6th-2011 at 05:56 PM ----------

why?

Because if you benefit more from something than others you should pay more since you benefit more

For example if the government sets up a trade agreement that nets me hundreds of millions I benefit more than the people making 15 an haour working for me

If the government is providing healthcare for my employess because I pay them so little they qualify for aid it benefits my business and allows me to pay myself more

If I am getting government contracts as they privatize that make me richer I am benefitting mroe

I need to army to defend my interests more as I have more to lose

[alexey]

Our problem is definitely the government though; they are sooo inefficient and wasteful it is absolutely ridiculous...pisses me off just thinking about it. Last thing we should be doing is giving them more money to screw around with. We need smaller government, less spending, kill 50% of these agencies and the spending....contract the needed jobs to the private sector.

Anyone who has actually worked for or with the government knows that the contractors actually get held accountable for the job they do (for the most part) and work much harder and more efficient than government workers. This isn't a dig at all government workers, but lets be real...we've got 80 year old government employees that don't do a damn thing but come into work and drink coffee all day.....we have government employees who go into work and sit on extremeskins all day and don't do ****.....we have government employees that do about 5 hours of work in a 40 hour work week....and then we have congress......

Contractors only work well in cases where the government procures the right thing from the right people and provide competent oversight while the work is being done. Good luck getting smart people into government jobs with those salary freezes and all.

I appreciate the "squeeze" mentality... I think that it is important for government entities to feel the budgetary pressure. It's just that I am tired of ****ing political ideological bull****.

Obama promised us to go line-by-line and all. Whatever happened to that idea? Allowing the GOP to control this issue and the message is a total ****up. Yeah why don't we take that 15% of the total budget (discretionary non-defense spending) and start cutting stuff like education, energy and health research, infrastructure investments. Great idea.

Better yet, let's eliminate the mortgage deduction, effectively raising real estate prices and hiking taxes on middle class US home owners. Another great idea.

Obama's handling of the finaicial crisis leads me to believe that he is just another ****ing politician with many rich friends in high places. The money will keep playing politics, the rich will keep getting richer, and everybody else will keep getting ****ed.

[Thiebear]

[Partial QUOTE=DRSmith;8230862]

Because if you benefit more from something than others you should pay more since you benefit more

So a person that is totally dependent on food/water/electricity/busing/hud housing should owe more than I?

I would disagree: I never go anywher and buy Americanish items but I should still pay more.

The flat tax with no loopholes would be nice.

[zoony]

So a person that is totally dependent on food/water/electricity/busing/hud housing should owe more than I?

I would disagree: .

You're going to ignore the middle class. I can see why.

[Destino]

that wouldn't be a disaster...that would be ideal. Government shouldn't be reacting to economic problems...just snow balls them. Let the damn market fix itself. I've had it with bail outs and government intervention (we've seen how well those bail outs worked!)

The bail outs worked pretty damn well actually. People arguing for a do nothing government are suicidal and that kind of economic policy couldn't be more ridiculous if you proposed it wearing a clown suit. Just because some people decided to rewrite history and erase the lessons learned from the great depression doesn't mean you have to put your faith on blind luck. Logically, historically, and factually the do nothing approach fails on all counts.

Also perhaps you should consider the global human cost of "let it fix itself" because short term spending interests isn't the only thing that matters.

---------- Post added April-7th-2011 at 12:01 AM ----------

The Government need to confiscate more from the wealthy because they hoarding too much of what they have earned for themselves. Then the Government needs to give that money to the poor people because they don't have enough.

Is that right Sir Robin of Locksley?

Would you say the US economy did better from1932 to 1986 or from1987 to 2011?

The first to dates are when the tax rate at the top was 50% or higher. The second is when Reagan's supply side garbage finally got enough of a foothold to reduce taxes to levels unseen since 1916. We've been experiencing the joy of supply side economics ever since.

Remind me what year did Reagan take office?