Thread: Tax the Rich

Originally Posted by Crotalus

What isn't fair about everyone paying the same percentage? Why is it fair to take more private property from someone else? Where this this mindset get started. Why does the government have the right to take private property from anyone?

The government has the right to raise taxes. That's a non starter unless you think that the alternative of complete anarchy (lack of govt) is somehow better.

Now in your case it is easy: take the US federal budget and calculate the percentage point where x percent of all income results in that budget. take that amount from everybody. Now you have a large amount of people who fall below the threshold where they can actually pay bills. the only option is to spend less, or take more from the rich.

Oh, and plenty of people in the US cannot pay their bills. Not because they are lazy / big spenders, but because they a) don't have a job, or b) had some kind of misfortune (like a medical emergency) which takes away all their money in one swoop. Don't talk like poverty is voluntary or doesn't exist structurally.

I am sure that the poor gal working at Wally World and raising two kids is entitled to tax deductions that she cannot possibly use. Everyone is entitled to access all of the tax deduction available but in practical fact a lot of those deductions are of little use to lower income earners. Higher income earners can access all those same deductions and in practical fact have the means at there disposal to make full use of them. If you tighten or eliminate those deductions that are all but inaccessible to lower income earners you just might increase the tax revenue stream without changing the base tax rates. Nothing changes for lower income earners and those that can afford it will feel a little more pain. Well, that is a good theory but somebody will have to take care of all those smart lawyers too.

Bob

Originally Posted by Bruno

Oh, and plenty of people in the US cannot pay their bills. Not because they are lazy / big spenders, but because they a) don't have a job, or b) had some kind of misfortune (like a medical emergency) which takes away all their money in one swoop. Don't talk like poverty is voluntary or doesn't exist structurally.

What!? Like I care about all those lazy SOB's -> They did it to themselves! -> Kill em all off!

It pays to remember also that the very rich avoid taxes altogether, or most of it. They have an account / lawyer who knows the loopholes, and who has the knowledge and skills to exploit them.

This is one of the reasons why Romney refused point blank to give insight into his tax situation. Because he knew that even though his stance cost him votes, opening those documents would cost him tenfold. After all, it is hard to get credit with the working people on the subject of taxes if you manage to cunningly evade them yourself.

Originally Posted by Bruno

It pays to remember also that the very rich avoid taxes altogether, or most of it. They have an account / lawyer who knows the loopholes, and who has the knowledge and skills to exploit them.

This is one of the reasons why Romney refused point blank to give insight into his tax situation. Because he knew that even though his stance cost him votes, opening those documents would cost him tenfold. After all, it is hard to get credit with the working people on the subject of taxes if you manage to cunningly evade them yourself.

That's the whole base thing again LOL .

As you can tell - I kind of get excited about this whole tax thing lol so I'll just say this:

A loophole is an untended consequence of a tax provision that's... uh, usually poorly drafted. It's hardly a loophole when it does what it's supposed to do.

Draft better laws, or draw another draft to address said loopholes I say - when loopholes aren't corrected... you could argue, they are seemingly, a result someone wants lol!!

You really have to wonder if those tax deductions are not deliberately/cunningly drafted in such a manner as to allow you to skilfully drive an aircraft carrier through them. The alternative is to believe the government and the people in it are just too dumb/poorly educated to draft a more water tight piece of tax legislation. As much as I would like to believe that later, I just don't think that is true.

Bob

Originally Posted by earcutter

What!? Like I care about all those lazy SOB's -> They did it to themselves! -> Kill em all off!

This is the kind of talk that serves the purpose of fueling class warfare no matter how much humor was intended. In these tax negotiations what all of us should be asking of both sides is simple - does your plan deliver a balanced budget? Mr. Obama, do you plan to tax the rich to the point of balancing this years budget? Mr. Boehner, do you plan to cut spending to balance this years budget? I think you'll find neither side is doing enough to accomplish this goal. The Tea Party is often mislabeled as being "extreme" in its conservatism. One of their core beliefs is that we should have a Constitutional amendment that requires a balanced budget. Isn't that radical? Isn't that extreme? It leaves open the possibility that either side can tax the hell out of the rich for social programs or cut everything and bring tax rates to zero. The public can decide every two years what they prefer. But in the end, a balanced budget must be accomplished. As long as we continue to have these discussions on the back of US credit, we will be forever distracted by this three card monty that is being played or distracted by the class warfare used to prey on our emotions. When we get to the point of this level of fiscal responsibility, I believe the rest will sort itself out. But until we commit to a fully balanced budget, the shell game will continue.

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

This is the kind of talk that serves the purpose of fueling class warfare no matter how much humor was intended.

Sorry - seriously, you are right.

I've not had the kind of problems earcutter's seen.
However, my sister is a social street worker in Antwerp. She's told me enough that I realized that poverty is rarely by choice. Sometimes caused by a bad decision, but things like that have a way of causing a cascade of bad turns. And once people are in that place, it is virtually impossible to get back on your feet without help.

On top of their personal woes, those people are also lost to the economy, whereas with a social safety net (and with some means to protect them from tax hikes) they are still productive citizens.

Originally Posted by Bruno

It pays to remember also that the very rich avoid taxes altogether, or most of it. They have an account / lawyer who knows the loopholes, and who has the knowledge and skills to exploit them.

Exactly. There are several high-end CEOs who opt to take a $1/yr. salary. They make their income off stock options which is motivation to keep the company in the right direction, and they're not subject to payroll tax. Yes they still pay tax on the stocks and options, but I believe it's much less than what the expected payroll tax would be at their level.

Warren Buffett, who is top-5 in net worth worldwide and a noted philanthropist, has been open about his opinion that he wants to pay more in taxes. We even introduced the "Buffett Rule" tax plan, which later became a proposed bill that would have affected people with an annual gross income of $1M or more. It was filibustered in the Senate.