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

[Tweedr01]

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.

The problem with my argument is the same in yours, you assume that the small business owner (or business owner in general) is some tyrant who pays his overworked staff pennies on the dollar and didn't put one ounce of effort into starting up his business because he inherited everything, and that the employee is a hard worker who is down on his luck.

I'd place a bet that my assumption is closer to truth than yours.

Again, many if's and probably's in your statement. Let's work with what we know or can prove at least, not what we think might happen, slippery slopes and all.

[Isifhan]

Good article in vanity fair if anyone missed it: http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105

[DRSmith]

No I not state that I used the fast food food chain example you provided.

You seem to be assuming alot

And you also want to make this about a small private business owner and for the all the atheles actors corporate execs and trust fund babies out there.

Here is the other thing if I open a business like a fast food chain and pay myself a million dollars I am benefitting more from the current system if I am not only using government programs for my employees but that money that goes out in unemployment and welfare may be getting spent in my location as people go out to eat.

[The 12th Commandment]

The vast majority of people can't be rich, no matter how hard they work. How come the right doesn't realize that? There is only so much to go around and those that have it, have figured out how to increase it and that can only come from one place. Those on the rungs below them. Everyone else takes a step down so these 1%'ers (how's that for an analogy:silly:) can take another step up. If the market won't fix it (just like with corporations that become monopolies, sometimes) then the government is going to.

[DRSmith]

Time and again tax cuts for the wealthy and corporation here in North America have proven to be a failure, for the over all economy and for the nation debts.

Indivuals who are lower in income tend to spend the money which increases sales tax receipts fuels demand and means jobs.

Bloomberg showed the tax cuts for the rich got banked and did not help the economy.

Just released a report that the tax cuts to corporations in Canada did not lead to more hiring or reinvestment, it did mean 12 billion annually in lost revenue for the government.

[Madison Redskin]

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?

I see your point and I certainly understand that the economy runs on capital investments. That said, I still don't see how raising the capital gains rate would inhibit people from investing their money. What else would they do with their money, burn it? And that's what I'm really driving at, what is the actual harm in raising capital gains taxes?

And, if you want to talk about fairness, Warren Buffet pointed out that his effective tax rate is 17.7%, whereas his secretary's is 30%. Buffet also bet $1,000,000 that his rich buddies are paying a lower rate than their secretaries. No one took him up on his bet.

[The 12th Commandment]

I see your point and I certainly understand that the economy runs on capital investments. That said, I still don't see how raising the capital gains rate would inhibit people from investing their money. What else would they do with their money, burn it? And that's what I'm really driving at, what is the actual harm in raising capital gains taxes?

Off the top of my head, it lowers the effective yield (or whatever it's called) of the investment and may make other investments more attractive?

[Tweedr01]

No I not state that I used the fast food food chain example you provided.

You seem to be assuming alot

And you also want to make this about a small private business owner and for the all the atheles actors corporate execs and trust fund babies out there.

Here is the other thing if I open a business like a fast food chain and pay myself a million dollars I am benefitting more from the current system if I am not only using government programs for my employees but that money that goes out in unemployment and welfare may be getting spent in my location as people go out to eat.

I'm not assuming anymore than you are, just from an opposite point of view, is that alright with you?

I think you may watch too much tv, if you think the majority of "rich" folk are actors, athletes, corporate execs, and trust fund babies then you have already made my case from my previous post. At this point I'll entertain your idea, and counter with the fact that only one of these types of folks did not work to get where they are, can you point them out? It won't be the actors, because they only make as much as we allow them to by paying to watch what they act in. It won't be the athletes, if you are in a redskins message board complaining that athletes don't work hard enough for the money they make than I don't know what to tell you. It won't be the corporate execs because these guys go to school for years to learn how to run companies, they don't just hire homeless radio personalities off the street. What's left? Oh yeah, the 1% trust fund babies, yeah we should screw over the rest of the people who worked hard because of that minute 1%, sure.

To your last point, so? If the owner of a fast food chain is paying himself $1 million of his own profit, he has earned that correct? I'm not getting what you are saying, so because he earned that money, he shouldn't get the majority of it, and it's his fault the unemployed would rather pay for fast food from his store, than somewhere else? What part of this is the fault of the business owner?

[December90]

Just a minor nit-pick.

I hate the term "Government Revenue"

To me revenue is what you get when you sell something of value for money.

We should call it something more like "confiscated cash"

The did nothing to "earn" the revenue. the amount they take from you and me has nothing to do with what they provide for you and me.

[Madison Redskin]

Off the top of my head, it lowers the effective yield (or whatever it's called) of the investment and may make other investments more attractive?

What other kinds of investments?

[DRSmith]

Just a minor nit-pick.

I hate the term "Government Revenue"

To me revenue is what you get when you sell something of value for money.

We should call it something more like "confiscated cash"

The did nothing to "earn" the revenue. the amount they take from you and me has nothing to do with what they provide for you and me.

Except there are many services provided to the citizens, from protection to law enforcement, education health care and pensions, administration, you get many services for the taxes paid.

[Bliz]

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.

People who advocate flat taxes aren't morons. They're just not thinking critically about the disproportionate impact, and have been snowed by wealthy commentators who would benefit greatly by imposition of a flat tax. I'm still waiting for a counter-argument to the below that does not include the allegations "socialist" or "Robin Hood":

Disagree completely. It is the definition of an incredibly regressive tax that over-burdens the poorest among us, because there is a certain baseline of expenditures that everyone who wants to be sheltered, fed and clothed must spend.

It's called the decreasing marginal utility of the dollar. Whether or not $100 is a lot of money depends on how much you have. And with each additional dollar you add to your pot, the "value" of all of the preceding dollars decreases. The last $100 of income of a family living near poverty is considerably more valuable than the last $100 of income of a millionaire, so it is not at all "fair" and "equal" to tax that last $100 of income the same despite vast differences in the marginal value.

Try not to think about it in such absolutes. Consider instead that in order to be "fair" a tax system should impose approximately the same pain on everyone. Because of the decreasing marginal utility, doing that requires higher percentages from higher income levels.

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.

With respect to this point, why does it have to be a flat tax? Why not keep income brackets, again where everyone pays the same amount of taxes on the "first dollars" (e.g., first $50k of income gets taxed the same, regardless how much you make per year), and simplifying the tax code by getting rid of many deductions?

)

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)

...

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.

...

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

If you want a flat tax why don't YOU move to Europe?

There are only two types of countries that have adopted a flat tax. Former communist nations in Eastern and Central Europe, and very small countries like Montenegro and Iceland. No major industrial nation has made that choice.

A flat tax shifts tax obligations from the rich to the poor, and especially the middle class, and eliminates desirable tax incentives for retirement savings, home ownership, and charitable contributions that benefit our society in a myriad of ways. Flat tax is simple. That's about the only thing it has going for it. Fair? No way. You can meet the goals of simplifying the tax code, cutting down waste and downsizing the IRS without going off the cliff and embracing a flat tax.

[Destino]

Just a minor nit-pick.

I hate the term "Government Revenue"

To me revenue is what you get when you sell something of value for money.

We should call it something more like "confiscated cash"

The did nothing to "earn" the revenue. the amount they take from you and me has nothing to do with what they provide for you and me.

I hate the mindset you're bringing to the table. The government (the people) create the platform on which all businesses in the US operate. They provide the trade laws, infrastructure, contract enforcement, labor laws, etc etc that without which business simply can not thrive. And then you call their costs associated "confiscated cash"?! Sorry but that's garbage and frankly sounds immature and ungrateful. Take a trip to a failed government if you wanted to be reminded of the value of one that works.

[CurseReversed]

[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

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.

The problem with this logic and much of the other reasoning voiced by many such as JMS as you are refusing to identify and acknowledge the severity of the problems of our big government. Instead you argue about whether or not are current top tax rate is high enough relative to history. Instead you build the strawman of what we essentially need the government for and assume that justifies all of its domestic monstrosity. Just because we want our food healthy, our environment clean, and our people safe, does not mean that CIA, DEA, DIA, FDA, NSA, FEMA, Homeland security...etc.. etc... are good to go, and we just need to tax to fund them.

Taxes have nothing to do with it essentially, neither does deficit. Those are just by-products of big government. A big government is defined not by how much money it spends or how much it taxes but in how many parts of our lives it has entrenched itself with power. Again those are just the by-product of this growing power, and thats all it does is grow. Whatever economic growth was obtained over the past years with whatever tax rate, was done in spite of it, and not because of it. The thought should be not whether its possible to be successful as a country with high taxes, the thought should be to imagine what what the growth would have been without those tax rates.

Whatever programs you deem essential to american life most likely, at the least, need reform. Most need to be abolished and possibly reworked in a smaller form. There are no baby steps backwards from government, it will not voluntarily diminish itself for the good of the people. Every person getting a paycheck will fight you for it. Only the resolve of a nation, not to tax more, but to demand less of our government will save it from smothering us to death.

Whatever government does for us, it does in spite of the fact that it has an inverse relationship with success. The more it fails at a particular object the more money it gets, the more success it has, the less it gets. That is why you will never win any wars that the govt fights for you, because winning to the govt is in fact loosing. And that is why its various agencies hardly ever decrease in size but only increase.

This is not about dismantling the government, it is about returning to the principles of limited goverment and personal responsibility. Government will never be perfect nor will it ever be truely limited, but we have to be more vigilant over its size and scope and not respond to its growth with the apathy of just increasing funding because "hey the rich have money"

[boofMcboof]

Whatever economic growth was obtained over the past years with whatever tax rate, was done in spite of it, and not because of it. The thought should be not whether its possible to be successful as a country with high taxes, the thought should be to imagine what what the growth would have been without those tax rates.

I'd like to see what studies you've read that led to this conclusion.

[Madison Redskin]

Whatever programs you deem essential to american life most likely, at the least, need reform. Most need to be abolished and possibly reworked in a smaller form. There are no baby steps backwards from government, it will not voluntarily diminish itself for the good of the people. Every person getting a paycheck will fight you for it. Only the resolve of a nation, not to tax more, but to demand less of our government will save it from smothering us to death.

Whatever government does for us, it does in spite of the fact that it has an inverse relationship with success. The more it fails at a particular object the more money it gets, the more success it has, the less it gets. That is why you will never win any wars that the govt fights for you, because winning to the govt is in fact loosing. And that is why its various agencies hardly ever decrease in size but only increase.

This is not about dismantling the government, it is about returning to the principles of limited goverment and personal responsibility. Government will never be perfect nor will it ever be truely limited, but we have to be more vigilant over its size and scope and not respond to its growth with the apathy of just increasing funding because "hey the rich have money"

With all due respect, your post is filled with a lot of platitudes. It's almost like you copied and pasted a transcript of one of Palin's or Bachmann's speeches. What, specifically, would you like to see change?

[sly]

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 made a simplistic post about government philosophy because this is a thread specifically about taxation. My point was I believe governments are inherently flawed (which I thought was pretty clear, cause you know... that's exactly what I typed). I agree with Ron Paul when he says the purpose of government is to preserve liberty and the purpose of the Constitution is to restrain the government.

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

Is something safe only if the government tells me it is? Does everything in America need a "SAFE - GOVERNMENT APPROVED" stamp on it? When does the cycle end? Again... there is no PERFECT system, no matter how many laws we pass.

With all due respect, your post is filled with a lot of platitudes. It's almost like you copied and pasted a transcript of one of Palin's or Bachmann's speeches. What, specifically, would you like to see change?

At the risk of being viewed that way, and getting back on topic, I would like to specifically see the 16th amendment repealed thus getting rid of the income tax.

[oisn1]

The problem with this logic and much of the other reasoning voiced by many such as JMS as you are refusing to identify and acknowledge the severity of the problems of our big government. Instead you argue about whether or not are current top tax rate is high enough relative to history. Instead you build the strawman of what we essentially need the government for and assume that justifies all of its domestic monstrosity. Just because we want our food healthy, our environment clean, and our people safe, does not mean that CIA, DEA, DIA, FDA, NSA, FEMA, Homeland security...etc.. etc... are good to go, and we just need to tax to fund them.

Taxes have nothing to do with it essentially, neither does deficit. Those are just by-products of big government. A big government is defined not by how much money it spends or how much it taxes but in how many parts of our lives it has entrenched itself with power. Again those are just the by-product of this growing power, and thats all it does is grow. Whatever economic growth was obtained over the past years with whatever tax rate, was done in spite of it, and not because of it. The thought should be not whether its possible to be successful as a country with high taxes, the thought should be to imagine what what the growth would have been without those tax rates.

Whatever programs you deem essential to american life most likely, at the least, need reform. Most need to be abolished and possibly reworked in a smaller form. There are no baby steps backwards from government, it will not voluntarily diminish itself for the good of the people. Every person getting a paycheck will fight you for it. Only the resolve of a nation, not to tax more, but to demand less of our government will save it from smothering us to death.

Whatever government does for us, it does in spite of the fact that it has an inverse relationship with success. The more it fails at a particular object the more money it gets, the more success it has, the less it gets. That is why you will never win any wars that the govt fights for you, because winning to the govt is in fact loosing. And that is why its various agencies hardly ever decrease in size but only increase.

This is not about dismantling the government, it is about returning to the principles of limited goverment and personal responsibility. Government will never be perfect nor will it ever be truely limited, but we have to be more vigilant over its size and scope and not respond to its growth with the apathy of just increasing funding because "hey the rich have money"

No joke, you really don't understand the benefit that government provides for every American's life. If you want less government, go to Africa and enjoy "freedom." Government does good things for people, as seen by the fact that every modern and prosperous nation has a powerful federal government. Of course, there is waste in government and it is important to raise issues about the efficiency of certain programs. The question I wonder is before the government made it an issue to clean the environment, keep food healthy, and protect workers, how did the free market solve those issues? It did nothing and let businesses pollute, abuse workers, and release unsafe products. What I'm trying to get at is that a strong government is necessary for a modern, prosperous nation. We can disagree about the extent of its power, but listening to people tell us to just cut everything is foolish, and shows a complete misunderstanding of how government affects everyday life.

But again, I draw your attention to the fact that most "liberals" on this board agree that government can be restructured. But no "conservatives" have budged on taxes, even when posters have shown that higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans keep down the national debt and lead to prosperous conditions. The only conservative solution to taxes is to lower them, ignoring that lower taxes have lead to this economic problem in the first place. When you post in a thread, it is expected that you read the links. Go back and look at the graph that was posted about national debt. Compare when the national debt really started growing to this link http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213. You'll see that our country was prosperous and strong with high taxes on the top bracket, and was arguably, the least communist it has ever been (50s and 60s). I will repeat this again, government needs cuts, but why can't taxes be increased as well when it is shown that tax increases on the top 1% help and do not lead to the downfall of civilization?

[Madison Redskin]

At the risk of being viewed that way, and getting back on topic, I would like to specifically see the 16th amendment repealed thus getting rid of the income tax.

The federal government collected roughly $900,000,000,000 in income taxes in FY 2010. Given that it is having an enormously difficult time balancing the budget with income tax revenues, how do you propose that the federal government deal with nearly a trillion dollar decrease in revenue each year?

[sly]

The federal government collected roughly $900,000,000,000 in income taxes in FY 2010. Given that it is having an enormously difficult time balancing the budget with income tax revenues, how do you propose that the federal government deal with nearly a trillion dollar decrease in revenue each year?

Again, it goes back to government philosophy. When you have a huge out of control big federal government system that demands an insane amount of funding, you're stuck in an endless cycle of taxation and spending. How did the government fund itself before 1913?

[The 12th Commandment]

Again, it goes back to government philosophy. When you have a huge out of control big federal government system that demands an insane amount of funding, you're stuck in an endless cycle of taxation and spending. How did the government fund itself before 1913?

Taxes. Is this supposed to be a trick question? Property taxes is the answer, (the feds gave local government the rights) and it wasn't taxes on the poorest either.

[DRSmith]

Again, it goes back to government philosophy. When you have a huge out of control big federal government system that demands an insane amount of funding, you're stuck in an endless cycle of taxation and spending. How did the government fund itself before 1913?

Income tax

[Madison Redskin]

Again, it goes back to government philosophy. When you have a huge out of control big federal government system that demands an insane amount of funding, you're stuck in an endless cycle of taxation and spending. How did the government fund itself before 1913?

Answering my question with a question isn't really responsive. In any case, the government in 1913 didn't: maintain a complex network of roads, highways, airports, etc.; spend roughly $700,000,000,000 per year on defense; regulate nuclear facilities; regulate workplace safety; enforce our borders (if you think our border enforcement today is a joke, you need to hop in a time machine and see what it was like back in 1913); offer SS, Medicare, or Medicaid; and the list goes on.

I'm certainly willing to entertain arguments that specific government programs should be "trimmed" or eliminated. However, I'm not willing to entertain (or, at least, I won't take seriously) an argument that our government can easily, or should, eliminate programs and agencies that didn't exist in 1913.

[sly]

Taxes. Is this supposed to be a trick question? Property taxes is the answer, (the feds gave local government the rights) and it wasn't taxes on the poorest either.

No, certainly wasn't a trick question. I never said there weren't any taxes, just simply no income taxes.

Edit: federal income taxes

[DRSmith]

No, certainly wasn't a trick question. I never said there weren't any taxes, just simply no income taxes.

To raise revenue to fund the Civil War, Congress introduced the income tax through the Revenue Act of 1861.[7] It levied a flat tax of 3% on annual income above $800, which was equivalent to $19,490 in today's money.[8] This act was replaced the following year with the Revenue Act of 1862, which levied a graduated tax of 3–5% on income above $600 (worth $13,156 today[8]) and specified a termination of income taxation in 1866

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution