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

[NoCalMike]

I tend to come down on the liberal side when it comes to economics, but I am willing to also buy into a sort of compromised theory possibly that there isn't a single economic agenda, outline, plan, structure that is the best solution for every situation.

I think one of the main reasons there is such noise right now to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans is because for the last 30 years, the opposite has been taking place, give or take a year or two. In the last decade, when our government went to two long-term wars that quickly turned into occupations, the taxes of the wealthy were still cut. People haven't seen the sacrifices made on that end of the wage spectrum. Look at Paul Ryan's budget proposal. He wants to cut the top bracket down to 25%, and to justify it, he wants to cut funding who help aide the poorest of the poor. What is next, we stat designating roads in the poorer areas non-important so everyone in the suburbs can have a tax cut? Some policies are put in place for "the good of all" and that is the way it has been done in this country for a long time.

Even as a bleeding heart liberal, I can probably compromise and say there are some instances where raising taxes might not help, but I never seem to see a conservative ever suggest the opposite.

[Gator Bait]

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.

]

can't believe there are actually people out there who think the bail out worked. The bail out slowed things down, set a terrible standard (bail out companies raising bonuses and salaries of executives...what a joke), and helped crush the value of the dollar.

I'm not arguing dems vs. republicans.....because I think they are all crooked as **** and have been screwing us for the past 20 years....but your boy Obama and that democratic congress we just had was the icing on the cake.

Just wait till oil isn't traded in dollars any more and the international business currency switches to something else.....all that money the fed printed isn't going to look too good then....neither are the bail outs, all the spending and the economy is going to tank big time! We are already screwed, just a matter of when it happens.

I bet you support the fed printing all that money and devaluing the currency as well though don't you?

conservatives definitely have their flaws...but I can't get over the fiscal irresponsibility of democrats (and Bush) It is just like normal day life....if you don't have the money...don't ****in' spend it!

---------- Post added April-6th-2011 at 10:24 PM ----------

BTW, I'm not surprised you used a bar graph that goes to 2005; I mean you wouldn't want to show what your Boy Obama has done w/ his democratic congress:

---------- Post added April-6th-2011 at 10:30 PM ----------

please correct me if I'm wrong, but judging by this bar graph, it looks like the deficit has gone up as much in 2 years of the Obama administration as it did in 8 years of Bush....and Bush was a BIG spender! Now I know a lot of this has to be interest....we must be paying out the ass in interest....I don't have the figures and I'm a bit too tired to dig too deep into this.

Anyone have the actual spending figures Obama has been responsible for in his first 2 1/4 years in office compared to BIG SPENDING BUSH in his 8 years?

[FuriousD]

The top 1% of income in the country pay more than 33% of ALL the income taxes.

The top 5% of income in the country pay more than 50% of ALL the income taxes.

The top 10% of income in the country pay more than 66% of ALL the income taxes.

And yet somehow (for libs, (socialists)) it's still not enough! They are rich so they should pay more, right? So let's say you socialists get your wish; here's what happens next....

The uber-rich get up an move. Why? Because they can, so there goes that tax revenue.

Then, when the economy tanks (like it just did) and when America needs MORE tax revenue then ever..... guess what? It dries up because the the wealthy (those remaining) have far more money invested in the stock market than average Joe, and they just took a huge boot up the arse.

[Hubbs]

Gator, you do realize that tax receipts fell off the map right when Obama took office, right?

The top 1% of income in the country pay more than 33% of ALL the income taxes.

The top 5% of income in the country pay more than 50% of ALL the income taxes.

The top 10% of income in the country pay more than 66% of ALL the income taxes.

And yet somehow (for libs, (socialists)) it's still not enough! They are rich so they should pay more, right? So let's say you socialists get your wish; here's what happens next....

The uber-rich get up an move. Why? Because they can, so there goes that tax revenue.

Then, when the economy tanks (like it just did) and when America needs MORE tax revenue then ever..... guess what? It dries up because the the wealthy (those remaining) have far more money invested in the stock market than average Joe, and they just took a huge boot up the arse.

That's absolutely not why tax revenue dried up.

[Destino]

The bar graph gator posted just furthers my point. Democrats and republican are operating on supply side economics. We are living in a tax system that slashes revenue and seeks to further slash revenue as a solution to every crisis. The concept does not work and has never worked. Now you have morons proposing even lower taxes and flat taxes... Wtf do people think is going to happen? That suddenly the same dumbass plan that is ruining America will start working.

The only solution is to curb spending and destroy Reagans economic legacy.

[Nerm]

I am definitely for the idea of simplifying the tax code. There are a lot of obscure deductions that need to get tossed. However, I am concerned by some of the posters who say “no deductions period”. Does that mean that a self employed person cant deduct their expenses? I’m currently self employed, sort of. There are a lot of expenses that go with that.

I’ll throw out some hypothetical examples. I could accept a job paying 75k and have no personal expenses. Or, I could bring in 100k of income on my own. But, I would have to rent an office, pay people to do billing, pay all utilities, advertising, my own liability insurance, office products, etc. Should I not be able to deduct those expenses from my income? If that is the case, say goodbye to every small business that you drive by on your way to work tomorrow.

We need to reevaluate the deductions… in a big way. But, I think you have to let people deduct legitimate expenses so that their take home pay is reasonable.

[drtdrums]

Just a quick note here. The reason I posted this was that I saw potential in it for all sides to agree. All sides of the argument aside, the point I think everyone should walk away from the table with is that no amount of taxation on anyone is going to fix the mess we're in. It honestly doesn't matter how much we think one group should or shouldn't pay in taxes. The debate has surpassed that. There are two solutions: Keep going the way things are now, even raising taxes. We continue to borrow more and destabilize the currency more. What happens beyond the edge of that map, no one really knows for sure. But, "Here there be Dragons," seems like a safe bet.

Or we could make drastic cuts in government. In all areas. Even the programs we think are good. Even the programs we think are necessary. Government would have to shrink by at least half to get us back into a range where mere taxation could be the answer.

I know which option I'm in favor of (it's #2) but it's not going to happen. There is no way Americans and American politicians (who are, oddly enough, *less* smarmy than their European counterparts) will make the tough choices needed. I think we all love our country, no matter what side we're on, and I think we both have the general intent of making it a better place for as many people as we can (despite disagreeing deeply on how to get there). I guess my main point in this thread is that...well...guys, we're boned. It doesn't matter how much we take from the American public. Taxation cannot fix our problems. It doesn't matter if there's a D or an R behind the wheel.

The reason I vote for fiscal conservatives (even the ones that fail to be conservative enough) is because of my education. My parents were both government workers, so I hold no hatred toward the government. I currently consult in the pension administration business (public DB plans, mostly), and I see firsthand every day how impossible they are to fund any longer. The numbers do not add up, and I'm really kind of amazed that someone thought they would at one point. I also own my own business and have a variety of federal and state licenses in financial services and investment. I do not, however, qualify as what most would consider, "Rich", so please don't think I'm taking this position to save my own skin.

Would it make a meaningful difference to tax the rich even an insane amount? -- No. Not unless you think a spoonful in an ocean is meaningful. So why even use it as a bulletpoint?

[Destino]

DTR no cuts will work without completely dismantling the government if revenues continue to be slashes or even remain at these levels. The tax cut panacea strategy has failed and no solution that coninues it has a chance in hell of working.

You can keep telling yourself that it's all about spending but ask yourself what happened in the us since we stopped taxing "insane amounts". The debt exploded along with the wealth gap. Insane my ass...

[drtdrums]

DTR no cuts will work without completely dismantling the government if revenues continue to be slashes or even remain at these levels. The tax cut panacea strategy has failed and no solution that coninues it has a chance in hell of working.

You can keep telling yourself that it's all about spending but ask yourself what happened in the us since we stopped taxing "insane amounts". The debt exploded along with the wealth gap. Insane my ass...

To be clear, I don't believe we've ever taxed "insane" amounts.

[oisn1]

drtdrums, you seem to be ignoring the main fact that most liberals talk about; raising taxes and cutting spending. The graph posted in the last page shows the effect that taxation can have on the debt. Up until Reagan's supply side economics, taxation was able to keep spending neutral (or close to it). Thus the debt we attained was manageable and, some would argue, necessary. Why is it so hard to accept the fact that government spending can be cut, while taxes are increased on the wealthiest Americans?

Obama's stimulus spending package, whether you agree with it or not, is done and now spending must be cut to try and lower the deficit. Even democrats are working on compromises to try and do that. On the other hand, when even the smallest talk of increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans (who were hit least by the recession) is brought up, republicans scream about socialism, wealth distribution, and those lazy poors trying to steal money from real hardworking Americans. The situation is so surreal that Paul Ryan's budget extends tax cuts on the top %1 by cutting social services for our poorest citizens. Tell me that you see what is wrong with that picture? Taxation, in conjunction with spending cuts, can fix this problem. Taxation has allowed us to become a first-world country with a high standard of living. Republicans today act as if taxation is pushing us back into the stone age.

I wish this wasn't a partisan issue, but it is. While democrats are being forced to cut spending and compromise, republicans will not budge on taxes. Seriously, look at that graph again and rethink the effect that taxation can have.

---------- Post added April-7th-2011 at 01:42 AM ----------

To be clear, I don't believe we've ever taxed "insane" amounts.

In the 50s and 60 (the so-called golden years), the top tax bracket was over 90%. Up until the 1980, it was over 70%. I think most people (especially fiscal conservatives) would qualify that as extreme; maybe even call it socialism or something.

[sly]

I'm not going to pretend I can come in here and spout off tax codes and show pie charts, graphs, and economic numbers from the past 300 years. Numbers can very easily be manipulated to show off your point, no matter what political party you fall under... as each side has shown.

I just want to make a quick point that I feel our view on government needs to change before we can expect real progress to be made.

Governments throughout history have been and always will be inherently flawed, no matter how good the intentions. Do I want a big federal government machine that that forces me to constantly rely on them from the moment I'm born until the day I die? Not a chance. There's no definition of a perfect system, but to me less is more. Less government, less taxation, less regulation... more freedom.

[alexey]

[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

Governments throughout history have been and always will be inherently flawed, no matter how good the intentions. Do I want a big federal government machine that that forces me to constantly rely on them from the moment I'm born until the day I die? Not a chance. There's no definition of a perfect system, but to me less is more. Less government, less taxation, less regulation... more freedom.

Very few governments throughout history were by the people and for the people.

I want my government to protect and ensure safety of our food supply, to pass laws that include reasonable safety standards, to invest in varios forms of research, to make strategic investments in infrastructure, and so on.

That's what I want my government to do. What about you? Your statements are so general that they are essentially meaningless... "rely on them from the moment i am born to the moment I die"? What the heck does that mean?

I, for example, rely on my government ensure that the moment I die does not come prematurely because some corporation decided to try and make more money by using unsafe chemicals in products that I consume... but you are not taking about that kind of stuff, are you now?

So lets do us all a favour and stop talking in meaningless generalities. Yes we all kinda sorta know what you are talking about. Do you?

For me, freedom is knowing that I can go to the store, buy a product, consume it, and not die from it.

[Bliz]

There are two solutions: Keep going the way things are now, even raising taxes. We continue to borrow more and destabilize the currency more. What happens beyond the edge of that map, no one really knows for sure. But, "Here there be Dragons," seems like a safe bet.

Or we could make drastic cuts in government. In all areas. Even the programs we think are good. Even the programs we think are necessary. Government would have to shrink by at least half to get us back into a range where mere taxation could be the answer.

The responsible answer is: both.

Keep taxes where they are or higher, and cut spending. Just waiting for a politician with the guts to say it out loud. Maybe I'll see one before I die?

Probably not.

[Gator Bait]

The bar graph gator posted just furthers my point. Democrats and republican are operating on supply side economics. We are living in a tax system that slashes revenue and seeks to further slash revenue as a solution to every crisis. The concept does not work and has never worked. Now you have morons proposing even lower taxes and flat taxes... Wtf do people think is going to happen? That suddenly the same dumbass plan that is ruining America will start working.

The only solution is to curb spending and destroy Reagans economic legacy.

The bar graph shows that we are spending WAY more than we are bringing in. Some people, like you, believe that means we don't have enough coming in. People like me believe that we have too much going out. "Mandatory" spending needs to be drastically revamped...that is the majority of our problem.

You call people who advocate a flat tax a moron, we on the other hand, think people like you who are fine with the government's wasteful spending are morons.

[December90]

Thats right

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

Suffice it to say that< even by Obama's definition, I have a long way to go to qualify as "rich". It is however, something that I have as a goal and when I get there...

[Gator Bait]

I'm not going to pretend I can come in here and spout off tax codes and show pie charts, graphs, and economic numbers from the past 300 years. Numbers can very easily be manipulated to show off your point, no matter what political party you fall under... as each side has shown.

I just want to make a quick point that I feel our view on government needs to change before we can expect real progress to be made.

Governments throughout history have been and always will be inherently flawed, no matter how good the intentions. Do I want a big federal government machine that that forces me to constantly rely on them from the moment I'm born until the day I die? Not a chance. There's no definition of a perfect system, but to me less is more. Less government, less taxation, less regulation... more freedom.

best post in the entire thread, and you are definitely right about manipulating the numbers.

[Skinz4Life12]

Suffice it to say that< even by Obama's definition, I have a long way to go to qualify as "rich". It is however, something that I have as a goal and when I get there...

oh i pictured you as someone bringing in 7 figures

[December90]

The bar graph gator posted just furthers my point. Democrats and republican are operating on supply side economics. We are living in a tax system that slashes revenue and seeks to further slash revenue as a solution to every crisis. The concept does not work and has never worked. Now you have morons proposing even lower taxes and flat taxes... Wtf do people think is going to happen? That suddenly the same dumbass plan that is ruining America will start working.

The only solution is to curb spending and destroy Reagans economic legacy.

True or false:

After cutting the tax rates the Federal Government experience record revenue?

The problem was NOT that revenues went down (they actually went up). The problem was that the expenditures went up more.

Please bring back the "bad Reagan economic times" where the entirety of the Federal Government spent less per year than the current administration's annual deficit.

---------- Post added April-7th-2011 at 08:58 AM ----------

oh i pictured you as someone bringing in 7 figures

Someday, my friend, someday... just not yet:(

[Destino]

The bar graph shows that we are spending WAY more than we are bringing in. Some people, like you, believe that means we don't have enough coming in. People like me believe that we have too much going out. "Mandatory" spending needs to be drastically revamped...that is the majority of our problem.

Where have I said we should spend more? Perhaps you should pay attention. What I've said is the Two Santa political strategy couple with supply side economics has failed and has contributed in large part to the national debt crisis and the growing chasm that is the wealth gap (an issue you won't touch because the policies you support will explode it even further), On top of that I've said spending needs to be controlled big time. In fact it's not just about determining if a program can use more or less money, but it's time to look at the program design itself and see if there are inefficiencies in the design that need to be reworked before funding is even considered.

I think for example that the school systems are inefficient and poorly designed. They depend on the hiring of too many effective managers (teachers) for which there is no market supply. There is far too much management over those managers that make far too much money. The system is flawed and has proven, IMO, not to have maintained it's effectiveness as it scaled to our much larger current population.

I sure as hell don't want spending to increase.

You call people who advocate a flat tax a moron, we on the other hand, think people like you who are fine with the government's wasteful spending are morons.

The flat tax is nothing more than continuing on the wrong minded plan that began on the 80. What do you think the end game dropping the top tax rates lower and lower each year is Gator Bait? The flattening of the tax code is nothing new. It shifts the burden onto the middle class and has been the goal of supply side loons for decades. It will accelerate the wealth gap explosion and it ends the tax debate. By linking the tax rates of the rich to the poor they make certain they never risk a tax hike again.

[Tweedr01]

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

I'm starting to wonder if you think before you post. This "benefit" you talk about is available to anyone who wants to work hard enough to get it. It's not something reserved for someone, it is earned.

So because Johnny decided he wanted to screw off in high school and college, and now flips burgers for a living, he shouldn't have to pay his equal share in taxes? While George, who worked his butt off in high school, went to a good college, and put forth his money and put his own credit on the line to start up his own fast food chain that ended up succeeding, should have to pay a higher percentage in taxes than Johnny? How is that fair?

I realize that not everyone who makes less is a "Johnny" but they all have the opportunity to be a "George", that's why the US is such a great country. Refugees from all over the world relocate here every year because we are the only, maybe not the ONLY, but the spot known around the world that anyone can make it if they try hard enough or are creative enough.

BTW a lot of if's in your last statement, if my grandma had balls she'd be my ______?

And not sure what you are trying to say with the highlighted sentence

[Gator Bait]

Where have I said we should spend more? .

my mistake...I was making an assumption. I'm pretty sure I've seen you defend the government spending and have a problem with lowering taxes...so I assume you are all for spending.

growing chasm that is the wealth gap (an issue you won't touch because the policies you support will explode it even further),

There are two main reasons for the wealth gap (in my opinion)

1) Technology - technology makes it cheaper for businesses to operate, thus reducing the need for man power and lowering salaries. As people get smarter and more efficient....the rich get richer.

2) Tax Loophole - which is why i want a flat tax. Don't give anyone a chance to weasel their way out of paying taxes. You know the "Rich" don't actually pay 35% (or whatever the highest tax bracket is these days)

On top of that I've said spending needs to be controlled big time. In fact it's not just about determining if a program can use more or less money, but it's time to look at the program design itself and see if there are inefficiencies in the design that need to be reworked before funding is even considered.

I agree...first problem we can get rid of is "use it or lose it"

We can then get rid of about half the government agencies we have (of course we will have to slowly phase them out or our unemployment rate will hit 20% or worse.

I think for example that the school systems are inefficient and poorly designed.

agreed

There is far too much management over those managers that make far too much money.

you think the principles and presidents are making too much money? I'm not familiar with what they make...so i can't comment, but teachers seem to be underpaid. That is sad

The flat tax is nothing more than continuing on the wrong minded plan that began on the 80.

when did we have a flat tax? And how do you know it wouldn't work? I'm pretty sure it would cut a ton of waste just by greatly downsizing the IRS and our current tax process.

What do you think the end game dropping the top tax rates lower and lower each year is Gator Bait?

I never said to drop them each year. I want a reasonable flat tax rate that is the same for everyone and I'm not opposed to considering a certain level of income and below who will not pay the income tax.

The flattening of the tax code is nothing new. It shifts the burden onto the middle class and has been the goal of supply side loons for decades.

I believe it would actually spread the burden amongst all people fairly. Not to mention I'm also in favor of a national sales tax, which would tax the "rich" more (as you wish) when they buy their luxury items such as yachts and vacation homes.

It will accelerate the wealth gap explosion and it ends the tax debate. By linking the tax rates of the rich to the poor they make certain they never risk a tax hike again.

If you want a socialist society....why don't you move to Europe?

[Madison Redskin]

Can someone please explain to me the downside of taxing capital gains as ordinary income? I can't imagine that doing so would inhibit investing. What would people do with their money, hide it under their mattresses?

[Gator Bait]

Can someone please explain to me the downside of taxing capital gains as ordinary income? I can't imagine that doing so would inhibit investing. What would people do with their money, hide it under their mattresses?

I think capital gains should be taxed at a flat rate....the same flat rate that everyone should pay on their income.

[Destino]

Can someone please explain to me the downside of taxing capital gains as ordinary income? I can't imagine that doing so would inhibit investing. What would people do with their money, hide it under their mattresses?

Capital gains requires actual money to be placed at risk. Currently the real tax benefits are almost exclusively for long term capital gains which mean you held an investment for 12 months or longer which in an uncertain market can be tricky. The economy needs investment, and a lot of it, to work well. I wouldn't mess with capital gains taxes at this point, in fact I'd reduce taxes on short term capital gains to boost investment on shorter term projects. Why penalize a business that can turn their investor a 20% profit in 4 months? If they can do that and the investor is willing to pony up the cash why get in the way of that?

[DRSmith]

I'm starting to wonder if you think before you post. This "benefit" you talk about is available to anyone who wants to work hard enough to get it. It's not something reserved for someone, it is earned.

So because Johnny decided he wanted to screw off in high school and college, and now flips burgers for a living, he shouldn't have to pay his equal share in taxes? While George, who worked his butt off in high school, went to a good college, and put forth his money and put his own credit on the line to start up his own fast food chain that ended up succeeding, should have to pay a higher percentage in taxes than Johnny? How is that fair?

I realize that not everyone who makes less is a "Johnny" but they all have the opportunity to be a "George", that's why the US is such a great country. Refugees from all over the world relocate here every year because we are the only, maybe not the ONLY, but the spot known around the world that anyone can make it if they try hard enough or are creative enough.

BTW a lot of if's in your last statement, if my grandma had balls she'd be my ______?

And not sure what you are trying to say with the highlighted sentence

Here are two problems you assume that everyone who works minimum wage jobs is a screw up and everyone who is rich got there by hard work.

Johnny working in the fast food chain is probably making so little he qualifies for certain government programs so that fast chain owner is recieving government assistance to cover his employees ie healthcare or food stamps and any other bennies he qualifies for.

The fast food chain owner is also making profits from the lower commodiy pricing due to government sunsidies.

Now if the owner is paying his staff enough that they can afford food, shelter, clothing, healthcare and transportation and niether is benefitting from any from government programs than I could see a flat tax.

Now if my business expands because of the actions of the army be it new contracts to supply the army and or new contracts to develop what ever nation has been invaded then I am benefitting more from the government and the army. I should pay more. If I own the land I live on I also have more to lose if the country was to be invaded.