Why would this be unreasonable?

[Killswitch]

Taxes have to go down on the rich, because otherwise they won't work.

Taxes have to go up on the poor and middle class, because otherwise they won't work.

The rich play the game however the rules are set up at the moment. They do not stay on the sidelines for any reason. Ever. That old we'll take our money and go home threat is and always has been bullshit.


Tax breaks or incentives for the poor turn into spendable cash which drives the economy, creates jobs, and also raises state sales taxes and other taxes through that spending....

 

[JohnnySavage]

The rich play the game however the rules are set up at the moment. They do not stay on the sidelines for any reason. Ever. That old we'll take our money and go home threat is and always has been bullshit.


Tax breaks or incentives for the poor turn into spendable cash which drives the economy, creates jobs, and also raises state sales taxes and other taxes through that spending....

The rich set up the rules.

 

[Killswitch]

The rich set up the rules.

and dems whos gots, gets. I suspect it's always been this way.

 

[JohnnySavage]

and dems whos gots, gets. I suspect it's always been this way.

Feudalism ---> Capitalism ---> Feudalism.

It's the circle of life.

 

[CHNOPS]

The rich set up the rules.

and dems whos gots, gets. I suspect it's always been this way.

Feudalism ---> Capitalism ---> Feudalism.

It's the circle of life.

The squeaky wheel gets the most grease!

I just wanted to play the cliche game.

 

[JohnnySavage]

The squeaky wheel gets the most grease!

I just wanted to play the cliche game.

What goes around, comes around.

 

[hogjack]

What goes around, comes around.

That's Principle #4 of The Law of the Reach-Around.

 

[CHNOPS]

What goes around, comes around.

What goes around, comes around.

Hey, he was right!

 

[kbate]

Wealth taxes do not work because the capital will simply pick up and move to a country where there are no wealth taxes. Sweden just repealed their wealth tax because the best innovators and investors were picking up and moving to England. And if England pushes their wealth tax through, the Queen will move to Monaco and donate the palace (if not already done) to the National historic society. London is still France's "sixth largest city" and will remain so as France plans to double their wealth taxes.

In the U.S. the same would happen - capital would fly rather than be absorbed slowly by the government.

Wealth taxes demand fraud. Do you think I'm going to keep a painting that "Some Government Assessor" decides is worth $150,000,000 in the U.S. and pay $4.5 million every year just to decorate a wall? No, the painting will move to Germany or Italy, or be sold and the money will be invested in foreign stocks from a foreign account. Do you think the rich will build $7 million dollar homes and pay $200,000 in annual taxes, or do you think they might just travel a bit and be homeless?

Are you going to purchase $1 billion in treasuries earning 0.2% when the tax is 2.0% on the entire holding not counting the capital gains taxes on any interest you earn? Yeah, let's trade in debt because we've got too much money and want to lose 1.8% just for fun. (maybe someone will buy treasuries as a tax writeoff?) So much for government borrowing.


It is one of those taxes that sound ever so good. but in truth is so hard to administer that it fails to generate more than it destroys - every time.

 

[RobDownSouth]

It would be even more reasonable for the Federal government to shrink and be more efficient. Inefficiencies are the norm. Redundancies are common.

State governments - most, except for a few poorly run states - are getting more efficient as are counties, cities, and other entities. The "closer" a government is to the people, the more fiscally responsible it becomes because the citizens know the people running it. That goes for services, too. This is how government is supposed to operate. It does not exist for practitioners to build empires. It does exist to provide structure, safety, law, oversight, infrastructure, etc.

The Federal government is obese. More than "2% obese. Washington, D.C. is more distant - more removed from reality - than ever. The President absolutely lives large (as did his predecessors). Congress is no exception to that and neither is a very entrenched bureaucracy buoyed by thousands of lobbyists and law firms.

Citizens are no innocents, either, when it comes to a burden on the size of government. They want "theirs", too, and they rely on programs that - though many with decent intent - are simply unsustainable. And everyone knows it but won't say it for fear of losing precious seats.

Instead of asking how much more money can be taken from citizens a better question is why the Federal government cannot shrink and become more like state governments have been forced to do. There are states considering tax decreases and other measures to unburden the middle class. States [run by both Parties] have reassessed what they do and how they do it. So have cities and counties. Meanwhile, Washington, D.C. is in a building binge with far too many lifetime legislators in the Beltway salivating at more, more, more.

We have these things called elections in America.
Elections are a referendum on how well our politicians are doing.
We just had an election.
The choice was clear: you could vote for Romney and smaller government..
or you could vote for Obama and status quo.
President Obama won.
Elections have consequences, my friend.
You may not like the results, but the simple fact is that the majority of America has rejected your "shrink the government" platform.
It sucks to be you.