Why Are We Afraid to Tax the Super-Rich?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

The super-rich already pay a higher percentage of their income to the tax man than the rest of us.
They are already paying more than "their fair share".

no, they don't. and no, they aren't
(next)

Prove it.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The super-rich already pay a higher percentage of their income to the tax man than the rest of us.
They are already paying more than "their fair share".

no, they don't. and no, they aren't
(next)

Prove it.

it's not possible to 'prove' it. i can provide some evidence and you can refute and provide your own evidence. i've gone first - now you

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[turtlespeed 226]

Here is an allegory that might make you rethink your "beliefs"

Ten men go out for beer. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. He said, "Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80."

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men -- the paying customers?

How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay!

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four

continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He

pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!"shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2 ? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.

They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up any more. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[dreamdancer 0]

that's a very long copy and paste
(have you heard, for instance, that cuba still prospers. or that some countries have national health services for rich and poor alike)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Could those 400 special people be able to get by on just $100 million a year? I think they might.

There is a BIG problem with that logic. If tax rates/laws were changed so that a person earning a billion a year was taxed at 90%, leaving just 100 mil, then the next year that same person would change their actions so that there just wouldn't be as much income to tax at 90%, so the tax revenue generated just wouldn't be there the second time around. Not only that, but all the economic activity generated by that super rich person's billion dollar salary would no longer be there. If you want less of something, then increase the taxes on that activity. If all you care for is to generate tax revenue for one year and to punish the rich, then your plan would be great. Besides that, it is not effective and would ruin the economy.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

Could those 400 special people be able to get by on just $100 million a year? I think they might.

There is a BIG problem with that logic. If tax rates/laws were changed so that a person earning a billion a year was taxed at 90%, leaving just 100 mil, then the next year that same person would change their actions so that there just wouldn't be as much income to tax at 90%, so the tax revenue generated just wouldn't be there the second time around. Not only that, but all the economic activity generated by that super rich person's billion dollar salary would no longer be there. If you want less of something, then increase the taxes on that activity. If all you care for is to generate tax revenue for one year and to punish the rich, then your plan would be great. Besides that, it is not effective and would ruin the economy.

all those smart students would have extra money in their pockets to spend (rather than paying off debt). this money will stimulate the economy from the ground up rather than relying on the non existent 'trickle down' from the super rich (who mysteriously manage to get richer and richer and richer until...)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

that's a very long copy and paste
(have you heard, for instance, that cuba still prospers. or that some countries have national health services for rich and poor alike)

Cuba still prospers? Perhaps you're willing to believe whatever Michael Moore tells you.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

that's a very long copy and paste
(have you heard, for instance, that cuba still prospers. or that some countries have national health services for rich and poor alike)

Cuba still prospers?

yep, cuba still prospers. the life expectancy of its citizens is only slightly less than a us citizen - not bad for a little place

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I believe that we are afraid to tax the super rich, who are already in the highest tax bracket, because they control (influence) big business. As a business owner, my goal is to make a profit with the least expense. That said, taxing the super rich even more would cause a back lash of more companies moving overseas (where they are taxed less, and pay less for labor).

They the super rich see this as government building the economy on their backs. Similar to when your area wants to raise your local or state taxes, to supplement government spending.

You've just described fascism; corporations writing the laws for the country - I couldn't agree more. Healthcare fro profit; only in America

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

The super-rich already pay a higher percentage of their income to the tax man than the rest of us.

And they are still making a disproportionate amount more, the wealth spread is growing exponentially and as the rich use money as score, millions go w/o HC in one of the richest countries in the world and you rubber stamp that.

Quote

They are already paying more than "their fair share".

That's subjective and with the gov the most indebted ever by any country as a gross number, millions w/o HC and the income spread widening, it's hard for you to make that argument.

Quote

It is their money, not ours.

It's the government's money.

Quote

The same as your income is your money, not our money.

Oh, then how do we pay for roads, military and other things?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Why do all Liberals think the super rich just got that way over night, withotu paying their fair share?

Not just liberals, a very few conservatives are smart enough to realize that many rich got that was thru inheritance, theivery or any of several ways other than work.

Quote

JEALOUSY Plan and simple...They pay Taxes, yet they do higher people to minimise those taxes to what the only legally owe...I see no problem with that!

There inlies the problem; too many loopholes that bring the real tax % from 35% tops as it is now to way

Quote

Trust me, I am FAR from rich, but my eye sight is obviously much clearer than yours!

I'm guessing your collegiate resume looks like a blank plain, white piece of paper.

Quote

Work your ass off, and Join the super rich, there is plenty of room left at the top!

That's a utopian dream, let's hear the Michale Jordan story one more time. And we'll pretend it's representative of reality.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Because contrary to the dems in power now and their Marxist-fascist-liberal ideas, socialism doesn't work.

If you had a clue what fascist meant, you'd be embarassed. Fascist embraces corporations and hates organized labor - get a clue.

And MArxist, somewhat true. Oh, BTW, his gravestone reads: WORKERS OF ALL LANDS UNITE.

Work your ass off, and Join the super rich, there is plenty of room left at the top!

Fascism rejects that concept - learn slowly so as to not look foolish.


As for socialism doesn't work that is rejected everytime you see this:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

You really have no idea, do you?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

They create jobs in this country...never worked for super-poor folks.

And even after tax increases, they would still continue to. If they want to ship more jobs out, put import tarriffs inplace.

Also, the gov employs a lot of people too.

[nanook 1]

So, are you going to enlighten us with all these secrets you are withholding on how the real world works, or are you going to keep us in the dark so you can feel "powerful"for belonging in your club of superknowledge.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[Lucky... 0]

You've just described EIC.

Quote

In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Oh, say Europe where their massive wealth would be taxed at a higher rate?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Could those 400 special people be able to get by on just $100 million a year? I think they might.

There is a BIG problem with that logic. If tax rates/laws were changed so that a person earning a billion a year was taxed at 90%, leaving just 100 mil, then the next year that same person would change their actions so that there just wouldn't be as much income to tax at 90%, so the tax revenue generated just wouldn't be there the second time around. Not only that, but all the economic activity generated by that super rich person's billion dollar salary would no longer be there. If you want less of something, then increase the taxes on that activity. If all you care for is to generate tax revenue for one year and to punish the rich, then your plan would be great. Besides that, it is not effective and would ruin the economy.

Gee, it worked during and after WWII where the top brkts were 94% atthe peak of WWII and still 91% during the Eisenhower years where the debt actually fell a couple years. Those were crazy industrial years too, huge standard of living, etc. Looks like your argument just took a shit via real illustration.

[sundevil777 102]

If people were willing hard without caring about their compensation, like ants or bees, then marxism would work. But people do care, and because of that it doesn't work. People didn't pay those tax rates you cited because of complicated laws that effectively reduced the rates.

So, you define prospering in Cuba by the fact they have a decent life expectancy? Is that really all by which you measure prosperity?

I understand, some believe that a perfect world can be achieved by an all controlling central government, and that the countries that have failed at it so far just didn't do it the right way. That's right, it wasn't a failure of marxism, just a failure of implementing marxism correctly. Thenew progressive elites in the US will do it properly though, ya right!

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Gee, it worked during and after WWII where the top brkts were 94% atthe peak of WWII and still 91% during the Eisenhower years where the debt actually fell a couple years. Those were crazy industrial years too, huge standard of living, etc. Looks like your argument just took a shit via real illustration.

Those high rates weren't actually paid by the rich, I think you already realize that though. Taxation is more fair and more effective when it is flatter across incomes (less progressive), with fewer loopholes.

Now you're measuring std of living by something other than life expectancy - what gives? Is Cuba prosperous as you define it now?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[rhys 0]

Quote

The super-rich already pay a higher percentage of their income to the tax man than the rest of us.
They are already paying more than "their fair share". It is their money, not ours....

Bullshit, Blackwater, Halliburton and all those super rich government contractors are using your tax money.

You can bet your bottom dollar they have some sort of tax dodge because they are overseas... and as long as they get away with that, they will continue to destroy foreign countries in order to rebuild them at a masssive profit and to the detrement of the USA.

Open your fucking eyes!

You need to look into those sort of complanies, thier policies, how they came to be the contractors, who controls them, who benifits from them, and what it was the caused them to be there.

AMERICA IS TOO SCARED TO QUESTION THOSE THAT MAKE THE POLICIES!

lookup the meaning of patriotism, it does not mean you wave a flag and follow your every order...

Your country is being raped, and you all just sit there and pretent you are still a super power, you are not you are all super broke.

No matter how you didile your books you are broke, no matter how the federal reserve manages to escape audit, you are broke, and no matter how big and fat and how many guns or bombs you have, you are broke.

sort your shit out before you bring the whole world down with ya...


...or is thart the long term plan?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rushmc 23]

The data for calendar year 2003 released in October 2005 by the Internal Revenue Service. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of wage earners rose to 34.27% from 33.71% in 2002. Their income share (not just wages) rose from 16.12% to 16.77%. However, their average tax rate actually dropped from 27.25% down to 24.31%

Well?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[airdvr 210]

It's a vast right-wing conspiracy

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[rushmc 23]

The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%) The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%). The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%). The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%). The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%). The bottom 50%? They pay 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%). The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%!

Not high enough for you?

(2003 data)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[riddler 0]

Given that money is what drives and controls everything in this country. Well, who owns most of the money?

The funny thing is that they have the rest of us believing that we live in a democracy, and that our voice counts for something.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[ZigZagMarquis 9]

Fascism is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives; values; and systems such as the political system and the economy. Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum, although some scholars claim that fascism has been influenced by both the left and the right.

Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong. Fascists identify violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality. Fascists claim that culture is created by collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus rejects individualism. In viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, fascists claim that pluralism is a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety. Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state. Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement. Fascism rejects and resists autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups who are not considered part of the fascists' nation and who refuse to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated. Fascists consider attempts to create such autonomy as an affront and threat to the nation.

Fascism presents itself as being an economically trans-class movement that promotes ending economic class conflict to secure national solidarity. Fascism accuses liberalism as a bourgeois movement and Marxism as a proletarian movement for both having created anarchy through support of democracy, freemasonry, materialism, plutocracy, positivism, and rationalism. Fascism believes that economic classes are not capable of properly running a nation, and believes that a merit-based aristocracy of experienced military persons must rule through regimenting a nation's forces of production and securing the nation's independence. Fascists oppose class conflict, blame capitalism and liberal democracies for its creation, and accuse communists of exploiting the concept. Fascism supports a "Third Way" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of laissez-faire capitalism and the severe control of state socialism.

-----------

Marxism is a particular political philosophy, economic and sociological worldview based upon a materialist interpretation of history, a Marxist analysis of capitalism, a theory of social change, and an atheist view of human liberation derived from the work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The three primary aspects of Marxism are:

1. The Dialectical and Materialist concept of history — Humankind's history is fundamentally that of the struggle between social classes. The productive capacity of society is the foundation of society, and as this capacity increases over time the social relations of production, class relations, evolve through this struggle of the classes and pass through definite stages (primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism). The legal, political, ideological and other aspects (e.g. art) of society are derived from these production relations as is the consciousness of the individuals of which the society is composed.

2. The critique of capitalism — In capitalist society, an economic minority (the bourgeoisie) dominate and exploit the working class (proletariat) majority. Marx uncovered the inner workings of capitalist exploitation, the specific way in which unpaid labor (surplus value) is extracted from the working class (the labor theory of value), extending and critiquing the work of earlier political economists on value. Although the production process is socialized, ownership remains in the hand of the bourgeoisie. This forms the fundamental contradiction of capitalist society. Without the elimination of the fetter of the private ownership of the means of production, human society is unable to achieve further development.

3. Advocacy of proletarian revolution — In order to overcome the fetters of private property the working class must seize political power internationally through a social revolution and expropriate the capitalist classes around the world and place the productive capacities of society into collective ownership. Upon this, material foundation classes would be abolished and the material basis for all forms of inequality between humankind would dissolve.


------

Take time to see the tenants of each. Do some of both sound like the direction the current U.S. administration is trying to take the U.S. in? This is why I used the term "Marxist-fascist-liberal ideas" to describe the current bent of the Democratic Party in the U.S., that I do not agree with. Obviously a description taken in the purest definition of each, easy to pick apart, but I can think of no other words for it. Care to enlighten me?

On a related note possibly you'd like to read Liberal Fascism, by: Jonah Goldberg?




Do you fear (or disagree with) the concept of individual freedoms (God given rights) being the best basis for a nation?

Or is it the bitch of reality that as a free individual you're responsible for yourself (or at least your supposed to be), success of failure, that you fear so much?

Either way, belittling me because you feel I'm ignorant is an interesting tactic. Care to explain the value of it? Or is this just more of the same from you... its easy to pop-off on an Internet posting board because you don't really have to face the person your putting down?


Possibly I'd have been better off simply stating I loath fascist, Marxist, Socialist ideals or any mix-there of and am a proponent of individual freedoms and the concept of a Republic as outlined by the founding fathers in the U.S. Constitution.


As for my displeasure with the direction the current U.S. administration seems to be taking my country and my displeasure with hearing speak seemingly related to "this is a good thing"... like lets tax the rich a whole lot... the following says it best, I think:

Democracies always self-destruct when the non-productive majority realizes that it can vote itself handouts from the productive minority by electing the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury. To maintain their power, these candidates must adopt an ever-increasing tax and spend policy to satisfy the ever-increasing desires of the majority. As taxes increase, incentive to produce decreases, causing many of the once productive to drop out and join the non-productive. When there are no longer enough producers to fund the legitimate functions of government and the socialist programs, the democracy will collapse, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.

[loumeinhart 0]

Quote

if we decide to tax them - then the money is ours and not theirs

Who is "them" ? Is it an annual income level or is it more?