According to the CBO...

Discussion in 'Economy' started by hjmick, Jul 10, 2012.

  1. hjmick
    Offline

    hjmick Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    16,167
    Thanks Received:
    4,676
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    Ratings:
    +7,106
    CBO: The rich pay an outsized share of taxes - Washington Times



    So let's punish them some more...




    Let the bashing begin...
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2012
  2. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    This is due to our current tax system.

    We need a pure flat tax with no deductions.

    you make 1,000 you pay 10%
    you make 1,000,000 you pay 10%

    or whatever the flat rate works out to be.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,329
    Thanks Received:
    12,694
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,774
    Maybe it's because the earning power of the middle and lower groups has declined or disappeared due to the recession.
     
  4. Widdekind
    Offline

    Widdekind Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    813
    Thanks Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +35
    inexpertly, the OP discusses only half the story, taxes paid. High-income earners pay more taxes. But, meanwhile, low-income earners receive more tax-transfers, i.e. welfare. The US tax code is a "Robin Hood" system, that takes taxes from high-income earners; and gives welfare to low-income earners. Overlooking the 2008 recession, total net taxes, for the entire US public, have hovered around zero since the 1970s. Oversimplifying, all the taxes paid by people, are re-routed, and given back to other people. So, if high-income earners are paying more; then low-income earners are receiving more (so that, summed over everybody, the net losses cancel out the net gains)
     
  5. daveman
    Offline

    daveman Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    51,299
    Thanks Received:
    5,692
    Trophy Points:
    1,775
    Location:
    On the way to the Dark Tower.
    Ratings:
    +5,758
    Face it, lefties -- you just don't have any idea what you're saying when you want to take money from the rich to pay for your leftist Utopia.

    Eat the Rich
    This year, Congress will spend $3.7 trillion dollars. That turns out to be about $10 billion per day. Can we prey upon the rich to cough up the money? According to IRS statistics, roughly 2 percent of U.S. households have an income of $250,000 and above. By the way, $250,000 per year hardly qualifies one as being rich. It's not even yacht and Learjet money. All told, households earning $250,000 and above account for 25 percent, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income. If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there's a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.

    How about corporate profits to fill the gap? Fortune 500 companies earn nearly $400 billion in profits. Since leftists think profits are little less than theft and greed, Congress might confiscate these ill-gotten gains so that they can be returned to their rightful owners. Taking corporate profits would keep the government running for another 40 days, but that along with confiscating all income above $250,000 would only get us to the end of June. Congress must search elsewhere.

    According to Forbes 400, America has 400 billionaires with a combined net worth of $1.3 trillion. Congress could confiscate their stocks and bonds, and force them to sell their businesses, yachts, airplanes, mansions and jewelry. The problem is that after fleecing the rich of their income and net worth, and the Fortune 500 corporations of their profits, it would only get us to mid-August. The fact of the matter is there are not enough rich people to come anywhere close to satisfying Congress' voracious spending appetite. They're going to have to go after the non-rich.​

    Anyone who screeches "Make the rich pay their fair share!" may as well be saying, "I'm an idiot easily swayed by the rhetoric of envy!"
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 4
  6. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,194

    Could not agree more. I would however make the income under the poverty rate exempt.
     
  7. Trajan
    Offline

    Trajan conscientia mille testes

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    29,048
    Thanks Received:
    4,751
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Bay Area Soviet
    Ratings:
    +4,756
    no not quite;

    under 100k 12% over 100k to 500k 18%, over that, 23%.
     
  8. Widdekind
    Offline

    Widdekind Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    813
    Thanks Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +35
    why tax incomes at all? A tax is a penalty -- why penalize hard work & earning money ? A general sales tax of 10% could generate $3T / year in revenue (10% of official "Gross Output"); would bother no person or business with the hassle of doing taxes; and would only penalize spending, not working, earning, & saving. A flat-rate 10% sales tax could fund government at current levels; simplify everybody's lives; and represent a pro-work, pro-earning, pro-saving, anti-spending "societal outlook".
     
  9. Rshermr
    Offline

    Rshermr VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    5,804
    Thanks Received:
    287
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Location:
    LaConner, WA
    Ratings:
    +855
    You are simplifying a very complex subject. Study the concept of progressive taxes, and see if you agree or not.
    for instance, when we had a high marginal upper tax rates, companies tended to reinvest taxable income back into the company to decrease taxes they were paying. One of the reasons the 50s and 60s had such high income growth. Today, you get mergers and acquisitions, buying back corporate stock, etc. all of which have less impact on productivity, more impact on stockholder wealth.
     
  10. Widdekind
    Offline

    Widdekind Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    813
    Thanks Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +35
    exactly

    for the US, a 10% flat-rate tax, on final goods & services (GDP, cars & haircuts); and on intermediate goods & services (raw materials, parts & labor); would generate nearly $4T / year

    simple & effective (tautology)
     

Share This Page