Tax the Rich?

Until you start taking about long term capital gains tax, and the payroll tax cap, then the argument is pointless. My cousin is wealthy. Not by inheritance, he made his money. Now owns several businesses, one of which is mostly just a passion of his, not a money maker.

Anyway, here's my point. He doesn't collect a paycheck, really. His income (a good chunk of it) comes from investments and dividends. Long-term capital gains for someone in the top tax bracket fall to around 20%. Plus, lets not forget payroll taxes are capped out too.

His effective tax rate came out to about 21%.
 
In recent decades the UK parliament has been arguing about taxing the rich.

This is from a 2017 opinion piece in the UK's Financial Times:


However we define the rich, we know one thing: they pay an awful lot of tax. The richest 1 per cent of income taxpayers pay over a quarter of all income tax; the top 10 per cent pay 60 per cent of the total.


What is NOW accepted political wisdom in the UK is that if you RAISE the tax percentage on 'the rich' the country actually gets LESS receipts in paid taxes. The 'rich' decide that it is better to pay creative accountants to reduce the tax liability than to pay the new, higher rate of tax.

IF the government LOWERS the tax rates on the rich - the rich pay MORE actual tax because it is no longer worth the effort to join tax avoidance schemes.
 
Personally, I'm not that agrieved by the fact that the 0.01% have so much and others don't. 'Equality' is pure utopia.
It's the power imbalance that concerns me.
Money gives them the potential ability to interfere with our lives via Politics, MassMedia and Economy.

And what motivates some of the millionaires or trillionaires to want to have even more money anyway, if not the Power Motive?
Given that they already have more than their descendants could spend in 10.000 livetimes.

You can't trust everybody not to abuse such enormous power.

You make a very good point, although I do not think it's universal. In some cases it is about power. Think of the Clintons and the way they have used the tens of millions in their foundation not for its stated purpose, but rather to line their own pockets and push Hillary's and Chelsea's careers.

In other cases, I think it's more about keeping score. I don't see Bill Gates as looking for personal power, but you know his ego is such that he revels in the wins he makes financially. It's a self-esteem thing, I think.


In recent decades the UK parliament has been arguing about taxing the rich.

This is from a 2017 opinion piece in the UK's Financial Times:


However we define the rich, we know one thing: they pay an awful lot of tax. The richest 1 per cent of income taxpayers pay over a quarter of all income tax; the top 10 per cent pay 60 per cent of the total.


What is NOW accepted political wisdom in the UK is that if you RAISE the tax percentage on 'the rich' the country actually gets LESS receipts in paid taxes. The 'rich' decide that it is better to pay creative accountants to reduce the tax liability than to pay the new, higher rate of tax.

IF the government LOWERS the tax rates on the rich - the rich pay MORE actual tax because it is no longer worth the effort to join tax avoidance schemes.

Interesting facts.
Or maybe they might decide to invest in or become residents of countries with lower taxes or better tax avoidance schemes? Which would be another lose for their country.

The experience in the USA has been that meaningful tax cuts lead to increased government revenues. This happened in both the 1960s and the 1980s after tax overhauls that significantly reduced the top marginal rates. With the wealthy having more to spend and invest, there is greater economic activity. Because almost all taxation in the USA, at the federal, state, and local levels, is triggered by some sort of financial transaction (paying a wage, making a purchase, transferring real estate, selling a capital asset, etc.), the more economic activity you have, the more revenue goes into governmental coffers. Thus, high taxes, which suppress economic activity, lead paradoxically to lower revenues, and vice versa.

Like the UK, in the USA the wealthy pay the vast majority of taxes. It varies from year to year, but the top 1% pay around 40% of the income taxes, and the top 50% (i.e., everyone above median income, so the "wealthy" half of the population) pay almost all federal income taxes. The other 50% pay essentially no income taxes or even, due to certain tax credits, receive more back in tax "refunds" than they actually paid in!

This last fact is one of the main arguments for proponents of a "flat tax." With 50% of the population not contributing to federal revenues, they have no "skin in the game" when it comes to federal spending, waste, or deficits. I'm not sure having them pay the tiny amount they would pay under most viable flat tax schemes would make much difference in that regard, but it certainly would be much fairer if more of the USA's working population paid into the federal treasury.

A flat tax remains progressive and fair. Think of a 20% flat tax with a $10,000.00 personal exemption. If a person is making $20,000.00 per year, he or she would pay $2,000.00 in tax. A person making $200,000.00 per year would pay $38,000.00 in tax. Thus the person making only ten times as much in income pays nineteen times as much as tax (this is because the more you make, the less tax savings you get from the exemption). That is very progressive and far more equitable than the current system.
 
You make a very good point, although I do not think it's universal. In some cases it is about power. Think of the Clintons and the way they have used the tens of millions in their foundation not for its stated purpose, but rather to line their own pockets and push Hillary's and Chelsea's careers.
Do you have evidence that any Clintons illegally withdrew money from the foundation for their personal use?
 


Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more?


- Alvin Lee, I'd Love to Change the World, (1971).


In other words:

The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.


I had a recent PM exchange here that I thought apropos to share in light of the current D.C. debate on tax reform. Because I have not consulted with my correspondent before sharing, I have redacted his name.



Comments?
No More Taxes ever, smaller government and the end of all social programs.

If the separation of church and state was used by the ACLU to get God out of our schools why is Muslim study's allowed , come on parents start suing the schools and kick old Moe-Ham and Ed outta your schools.
 
If the separation of church and state was used by the ACLU to get God out of our schools why is Muslim study's allowed , come on parents start suing the schools and kick old Moe-Ham and Ed outta your schools.

Area studies and religious ceremonies aren't the same thing. Typical that your kind wouldn't want people to study Muslim culture in order to understand it better. I think folks should be able to study the culture of Christian fundamentalism in school too, so they would better understand the threat and danger of that.

That said, name the public schools in the United States where you find Muslim religious ceremonies being enforced in the curriculum (which is the counterpart of what you obviously want enforced for Christianity in the public schools).
 
Area studies and religious ceremonies aren't the same thing. Typical that your kind wouldn't want people to study Muslim culture in order to understand it better. I think folks should be able to study the culture of Christian fundamentalism in school too, so they would better understand the threat and danger of that.

That said, name the public schools in the United States where you find Muslim religious ceremonies being enforced in the curriculum (which is the counterpart of what you obviously want enforced for Christianity in the public schools).

Here's an example: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/aug/29/school-to-provide32muslim-students32with-foot-bath/
 
Area studies and religious ceremonies aren't the same thing. Typical that your kind wouldn't want people to study Muslim culture in order to understand it better. I think folks should be able to study the culture of Christian fundamentalism in school too, so they would better understand the threat and danger of that.

That said, name the public schools in the United States where you find Muslim religious ceremonies being enforced in the curriculum (which is the counterpart of what you obviously want enforced for Christianity in the public schools).

Here's one: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/aug/29/school-to-provide32muslim-students32with-foot-bath/

There are quite a few links like this one. Muslims are not being forced to wash their feet, but public funds are being spent to facilitate this religious rite.
 
public funds are being spent to facilitate this religious rite.

SR will be along shortly to tell you why that's not only ok but PROGRESS!!!

And try to avoid addressing why it's only bad when public funds are spent to facilitate Christian shit but not others.
 
10 years ago Oxfam calculated that the richest 65 people in the world owned half the worlds assets - as much as the 3.6 billion poorest people. Recently recalculated they now say that the 9 richest people are equivalent to the 3.6 billion poorest.

The issue is, when is the revolution going to happen and will it be a revolt from the right or the left? The problem is the perception of injustice as much as the injustice itself.
 
10 years ago Oxfam calculated that the richest 65 people in the world owned half the worlds assets - as much as the 3.6 billion poorest people. Recently recalculated they now say that the 9 richest people are equivalent to the 3.6 billion poorest.

The issue is, when is the revolution going to happen and will it be a revolt from the right or the left? The problem is the perception of injustice as much as the injustice itself.

Is personal envy really enough to justify 'revolution'?
 
10 years ago Oxfam calculated that the richest 65 people in the world owned half the worlds assets - as much as the 3.6 billion poorest people. Recently recalculated they now say that the 9 richest people are equivalent to the 3.6 billion poorest.

The issue is, when is the revolution going to happen and will it be a revolt from the right or the left? The problem is the perception of injustice as much as the injustice itself.

So tell the 3.6 to get their asses in gear and either evolve or get educated and motivated.
 
I helped create the GOP tax myth. Trump is wrong: Tax cuts don’t equal growth.

Trump's Tax Plan Has Echoes Of The Kansas Tax Cut Experiment

Sorry, but this is not sound reasoning:



Why yes, the "very wealthy" are just DYING to "invest that capital." They lie awake at night, in their mansions, crying themselves to sleep. If ONLY I could get a HUGE tax cut, I'd build that coal mine tomorrow!

That is MYTHICAL trickle down economics.

The "very wealthy" are "very wealthy" right now. What's stopping them from re-investing now, today?



What is wealthy for the democrats these days? Anyone earning more than $30,000 a year?
 
Read up on the French Revolution and answer that.

Why do idiot Democrats always assume others have to 'read up on' whatever their next great topic du jour is? The mantra of the left to 'educate us' is comical, and they should really give it a rest. After all, the Democrats ARE the party of the lower class, lesser educated masses who want a revolution because they're too lethargic and underachieving to actually work for what they want, replacing envy for a work ethic.
 
[blah blah blah]
You asked if envy justified revolution. I pointed to an example. The poor rather envied the rich and disliked being robbed, raped, exploited, etc. They revolted because their strong work ethic was not rewarded. And now, people can work hard with little gain to show, while non-workers coast on their inheritances and dividends. Are workers justified to revolt?
 
You asked if envy justified revolution. I pointed to an example. The poor rather envied the rich and disliked being robbed, raped, exploited, etc. They revolted because their strong work ethic was not rewarded. And now, people can work hard with little gain to show, while non-workers coast on their inheritances and dividends. Are workers justified to revolt?

I would be willing to bet there are more people living on the dole than there are living off inheritances or dividends.
 
Every time I hear about "soaking the rich," I think about the fable of the goose that laid the golden eggs. :(
 
As much as I agree with many of your posts, your go to argument "You people are envious" for those who express concern about the bizarre ongoing proliferation on billionaires and trillionaires is starting to annoy me.

None of us are the type who would put rat poison in our neighbors' gardens, just because they have it better than us.

I'll have to disagree with you there. There have been riots in the name of 'the poor' taking on 'the rich', and millions of people have been affected by the looting, whether by death, personal injury or ongoing intimidation, the burning of businesses, and the envy that shows itself as economic bigotry against those who exert themselves and become successful. Putting rat poison in their gardens is just a matter of time. Could it be that putting poison I the Tylenol was actually a hate crime against the successful?
 
Do you have evidence that any Clintons illegally withdrew money from the foundation for their personal use?

In fact, yes, thanks to WikiLeaks:

NY Post: Chelsea Clinton used foundation to help pay for wedding. Following the release of Posesta's emails, several other media, both left and right leaning, reported this. The Clintons have simply refused to comment on the matter, or offer any explanation as to what else the emails might refer except what they plainly indicate.​

Wouldn't someone notice that the money went to Chelsea, and not charity? Well, according to the one Clinton Foundation IRS filing I found, of the $91.28 million spent by the Clinton Foundation, only $5.16 million went to charitable grants. Meanwhile, $34.84 million went to pay employees and, here's the kicker, the greater than $50,000,000 balance went to "other expenses." Of that amount, only $6.7 million could be characterized as "fundraising expenses."

In other words of the over $91 million the Foundation spent that year, less than $12 million went to the charitable functions of raising money for, and distributing money to, charitable causes. Of course, some fraction of the almost thrice that amount that it paid in salaries also supported that work, but I hope it didn't take the whole $35 million in salaries just to distribute about $5 million. What, pray tell, do you think was done with over $50 million in other expenses, if not fancy junkets, parties, and other neat stuff for the Clintons and their cronies? (You can discern some of this if you study the vague, general categories of where that money went as reported in the document.)

Was any of those tens of millions of Foundation dollars that served no charitable purpose used or distributed illegally? This document, naturally, would not show it. What it shows beyond a doubt, however, is that despite its supposed purpose, the primary function of the Foundation is not charity.

As far as whether "evidence that any Clintons [besides Chelsea for her wedding] illegally withdrew money from the foundation for their personal use," this is less direct, but also suspicious:


More disturbing than these examples is the pay-for-play component of the donations made to the Clinton foundation (or paid to Bill directly).


Regardless of your politics, if you have not figured out that the Clintons are just bad people, only interested in their own power, then you have not been paying attention.
 
Skipping a bunch of stuff ......

I'm not sure taxing the rich is teh answer. There are simply too many loophoes to begin with. The entire tax code as it relates to individuals shouldn't be more than a few dozen pages at the most. Corporate and business taxes another few dozen pages. Not the current well into the thousands of pages mess.


I'm more interested in fairness in wages and compensation. I don't believe a few people should be able to claim millions in bonuses and options for cutting costs by putting thousands out of work. I think executive pay should be based on worker pay somehow. Not sure how the formula should be set though. I believe all cuts in costs should come from the top down. No layoffs allowed until executive packages are cut significantly for example.


We recently had a situation where the electric utilities lost a few very large customers that went out of business. Instead of cutting costs and executive pay, they went to the PUc and sought a rate increase for everyone else to make up the difference. That hurt everyone including smaller businesses, seniors and low income -- those who were least able to take the hit.

There has to be some more accountability in areas like that.

College tuitions for example .... they hike rates for low income students to pay higher salaries to administration who already make more than many of the students ever will.

I personally don't believe ANY human is worth over a million dollars a year in pay and benefits, let alone several million.
 
Back
Top