Can We Tax The Rich Enough To Get Out Of Debt?

[Navy1960]

This might seem a little simple but if you have less than the income you used to have, then you seek out what has priority and what does not. So what do you do, well you cancel that premium movie package, you cut back on the nights out, you perhaps drive a cheaper car, in the end with the income you have you live within your means. What you don't do, if you wish to survive and not end up on the streets, is say to yourself, is there a way to keep that Mercedes Benz and not pay for the house. Yes income is a huge factor in this, but if you never change your spending habits in the first place you will soon find yourself back where you started if your income goes back up. So perhaps in our current situation in Washington, the best approach is for everyone to realize that there is nothing wrong with cutting spending as well as raising income. On a personal level, I happen to believe that we can raise income in one of two ways, one is obvious, create more jobs, the other is limit the number of corporate and personal deductions where people actually pay taxes rather than pay people to do their taxes.

 

[Vanquish]

Creating jobs is easier said than done.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Seeing as the budget shortfall is 1.5 Trillion just this year alone, how much more should we tax the "evil rich" so that government can balance the books?
Can We Tax The Rich Enough To Get Out Of Debt? | Tarheel Red

First, the deficit is $1.5 trillion dollars. Can the folks who make more than $200,000 make that up? There are 4,359,936 filers who make that amount of money. Simple math says that if we take 1,500,000,000,000 and divide it by 4,359,936 we get $344,041.7. That means we would have to bill each of those people who earn more than $200,000 a year $344,042 a year. Just to break even.

If confiscating all of their money won't balance the books, then why do some say just raising their taxes would do it?

Beat that strawman! Let 'em have it!

How many times are the cons going to post different versions of the same thing that NO ONE is suggesting, advocating or fighting for?

not one person has said raising taxes will magically fix the debt...but it will help get us out of the hole faster.

Is anyone denying that?

 

[Zoom-boing]

How about we do BOTH?

Cut spending AND tax more. It's the only REAL solution when you finally get honest with yourself.
Just cutting back is going to get you X$. Cutting back AND raising taxes gets you X$ + maybe even X*2 or X*5.

I'm having to pay a lot of taxes this year and it sucks, but doing both is the only way our deficit AND our national debt will ever get corrected.

Why wont people accept doing BOTH as the solution??

I don't disagree with this but they have to cut spending first, imo. And not some 'billion dollar crap sandwich' cuts either. True cuts and yes it will hurt. BFH, the cookie jar is empty. Because if they raise taxes without drastically and substantially cutting spending first they will just take the money and run and continue on their spree.

 

[masquerade]

Ok I just am not getting why they don't cut spending. I mean REALLY cut spending. Both sides have their 'do not touch' lists. Ok. And? Why doesn't each side sit down and formulate a plan to cut say 1T from their 'do not touch' lists? Both sides, just do it. Why can't they act like adults and do the job that needs to be done instead of all the sniping and sniveling? And that goes for Barry as well. I've never seen a president behave less presidential. Everything is still Bush's fault is still the Republicans fault is still someone else's fault. When is he going to grow a pair and take fucking charge instead of campaigning and blaming? I know, I ask for a lot from a president. I am so sick of this shit. Maybe they do need to raise taxes. Ok. But NOTHING will get accomplished unless they drastically CUT THE SPENDING. What part of 'WE ARE BROKE' is beyond their grasp?

Thank you for saying much of what I've been thinking.

 

[masquerade]

How about we do BOTH?

Cut spending AND tax more. It's the only REAL solution when you finally get honest with yourself.
Just cutting back is going to get you X$. Cutting back AND raising taxes gets you X$ + maybe even X*2 or X*5.

I'm having to pay a lot of taxes this year and it sucks, but doing both is the only way our deficit AND our national debt will ever get corrected.

Why wont people accept doing BOTH as the solution??

I don't disagree with this but they have to cut spending first, imo. And not some 'billion dollar crap sandwich' cuts either. True cuts and yes it will hurt. BFH, the cookie jar is empty. Because if they raise taxes without drastically and substantially cutting spending first they will just take the money and run and continue on their spree.

Exactly!
Hanging out inside my head again Zoom? lol

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Seeing as the budget shortfall is 1.5 Trillion just this year alone, how much more should we tax the "evil rich" so that government can balance the books?
Can We Tax The Rich Enough To Get Out Of Debt? | Tarheel Red

First, the deficit is $1.5 trillion dollars. Can the folks who make more than $200,000 make that up? There are 4,359,936 filers who make that amount of money. Simple math says that if we take 1,500,000,000,000 and divide it by 4,359,936 we get $344,041.7. That means we would have to bill each of those people who earn more than $200,000 a year $344,042 a year. Just to break even.

If confiscating all of their money won't balance the books, then why do some say just raising their taxes would do it?

You've been had again.
The top 1% have over $20 trillion in wealth. Capital assets like stocks are not included in the figures CON$ use to calculate the money of the rich. Taxing that wealth at 7.5% will cover the deficit. Is a 7.5%wealth tax on the top 1% too much to ask for the country that protects their right to private ownership. Hell, a 10% wealth tax on the top 1% would not only eliminate the deficit, but also would eliminate the national debt in 30 years, that's more than either Obama's or Ryan's plan does.

Still, somebody's got to have the money to buy the capital assets so the evil rich can get cash for you to confiscate.

You're an idiot.

 

[Gadawg73]

Let's say the Congress passed a law tomorrow to tax the rich that 7.5% of their wealth that someone stated would settle the debt.
Is there a dumbass anywhere on earth, other than here, that believes that the US government would have any access of any kind to force those that have that wealth to locate any of that wealth, much less fork it over?
And if they could find it and they did confiscate some $$, what would the other folks do immediately?
LEAVE THE COUNTRY.
Taxes and confiscation NEVER SOLVE MONETARY PROBLEMS.
DUMBASS AMERICANS.

 

[DiamondDave]

Yet the liberal ilk do not wish to have equal treatment of a wealth or holdings tax on them or those they wish to utilize for power.... the ugly head of selective equal treatment rises again.... for it is the heart of liberalism or 'progressivism'

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's all keep repeating the question until they either answer it or stfu.

Who ever said what the OP is claiming?

Who is claiming that all we need to do is tax the Rich to balance the budget?

Who?

 

[MarcATL]

Let's say the Congress passed a law tomorrow to tax the rich that 7.5% of their wealth that someone stated would settle the debt.
Is there a dumbass anywhere on earth, other than here, that believes that the US government would have any access of any kind to force those that have that wealth to locate any of that wealth, much less fork it over?
And if they could find it and they did confiscate some $$, what would the other folks do immediately?
LEAVE THE COUNTRY.
Taxes and confiscation NEVER SOLVE MONETARY PROBLEMS.
DUMBASS AMERICANS.

It doesn't work that way clown.

They got their taxes MASSIVELY cut under Bush & Co. and they STILL took the jobs overseas.

Snap out of it!!

 

[Mad Scientist]

If more o' you Teabaggers (here) were of voting-age.....or, could show proof of a High School Diploma....you'd know that another round o' Clintonomics is the exact-cure, for another BUSH ECONOMIC-DEBACLE!!!!

I agree! Clintons budget was around 1.7 trillion dollars in 1998. Let's go back to that shall we?

 

[Bern80]

I just don't get it. Why do you liberal imbeciles argue so strongly to just give government more money. You got ed pissing and moaning about wealth not being taxed, Marc pissing and moaning Bush tax cuts.... what am I missing? Why do you insist that we tax more and more shit to give government more money? For what purpose? So you get them to wipe your ass too?

 

[asterism]

Seeing as the budget shortfall is 1.5 Trillion just this year alone, how much more should we tax the "evil rich" so that government can balance the books?
Can We Tax The Rich Enough To Get Out Of Debt? | Tarheel Red

First, the deficit is $1.5 trillion dollars. Can the folks who make more than $200,000 make that up? There are 4,359,936 filers who make that amount of money. Simple math says that if we take 1,500,000,000,000 and divide it by 4,359,936 we get $344,041.7. That means we would have to bill each of those people who earn more than $200,000 a year $344,042 a year. Just to break even.

If confiscating all of their money won't balance the books, then why do some say just raising their taxes would do it?

You've been had again.
The top 1% have over $20 trillion in wealth. Capital assets like stocks are not included in the figures CON$ use to calculate the money of the rich. Taxing that wealth at 7.5% will cover the deficit. Is a 7.5%wealth tax on the top 1% too much to ask for the country that protects their right to private ownership. Hell, a 10% wealth tax on the top 1% would not only eliminate the deficit, but also would eliminate the national debt in 30 years, that's more than either Obama's or Ryan's plan does.

I misposted, it's $20 TRILLION!!!

You understand the difference between wealth and income right? Raising income taxes will not come close to plugging the budget deficit for just one year.

Yes, wealth, like capital assets, remain untaxed accumulating value, like an unlimited IRA, until they are sold. And when they are sold they are taxed at a lower rate than wages. Lyin' Ryan wants to eliminate all capital gains taxes so wealth will not be taxed even after it's sold making it even better than an IRA.
I say, in a "Capitalistic" system we should tax that capital gain!!!

Say $1 Billion of this wealth is in a factory currently employing 2000 people and generating a $50 Billion per year profit. Where is the $75 Million yearly tax going to come from? What happens to the factory and the jobs? Who is going to buy the factory that loses money?

I think you haven't thought this one through (or you have and you advocate nationalizing these assets a la GM).

 

[Gadawg73]

Let's say the Congress passed a law tomorrow to tax the rich that 7.5% of their wealth that someone stated would settle the debt.
Is there a dumbass anywhere on earth, other than here, that believes that the US government would have any access of any kind to force those that have that wealth to locate any of that wealth, much less fork it over?
And if they could find it and they did confiscate some $$, what would the other folks do immediately?
LEAVE THE COUNTRY.
Taxes and confiscation NEVER SOLVE MONETARY PROBLEMS.
DUMBASS AMERICANS.

It doesn't work that way clown.

They got their taxes MASSIVELY cut under Bush & Co. and they STILL took the jobs overseas.

Snap out of it!!

Tell me how many jobs in my 3 corporations did I take overseas?
And how massive were my tax cuts when Bush was President?
What was the effective tax rate for small businesses when Bush was President and how much was that cut for me and the millions of other small businesses and sole proprietors?
And tell us what services our government gives to the 45% of Americans THAT PAY NO INCOME TAXES and why those people pay NO TAXES.
And tell us WHY any coropration would want to take jobs overseas. If not taxes and productivity what reason would any coropration have to take any job overseas?
And when a corporation makes more profit and pays less taxes what happens? Ever heard of dividends? Who collects dividends? Wealthy?
And if an employee has an interest in the company such as stock or profit sharing, which is common in many corporations, tell us how an employee makes MORE $$ from his profit sharing if that corporation pays more taxes. That would be rich hearing you attempting to explain that one.
Stick to your day job. You know nothing about economics.

 

[Vanquish]

Think of it like this...

The purpose of business is to make profit. (I'm not saying profit is bad. on the contrary, I love making profits)

To make a profit, one attempts to lower costs while maintaining (or increasing) prices.

Based on those two premises, what makes anyone think that if you give money back to companies (or the wealthy who own them) that the money will necessarily be re-invested?

Especially in today's economy...perceived as so critically bad...companies and people are going to hang on to their money...now more than ever.

This idea of the "benevolent rich" who are going to use tax cuts to hire more people is simply an assumption. In reality, the rich will do whatever makes the most profit. If it's profitable to hire more people...they will. If it's not...they wont. Furthermore, just because it could be profitable, that doesn't mean someone will decide to do it. Again, if saving seems more prudent than attempting a profit...they might just save.

Tax Cuts were part of the much-maligned stimulus...and you see where that got us.

I dont think profits are evil...I'm just realistic...people are going to hold onto their money unless they are really convinced there's profit in investing it.

 

[StevenC]

How about we do BOTH?

Cut spending AND tax more. It's the only REAL solution when you finally get honest with yourself.
Just cutting back is going to get you X$. Cutting back AND raising taxes gets you X$ + maybe even X*2 or X*5.

I'm having to pay a lot of taxes this year and it sucks, but doing both is the only way our deficit AND our national debt will ever get corrected.

Why wont people accept doing BOTH as the solution??

The Left has already collectively accepted this as THE solution.

Only the RIGHT is being STUBBORNLY partisan and ideological like the radicals that they are, threatening the stability of the country along the way.

More lies.
The left doesn't want any significant cuts. That is why so many of the progressive dems voted against the budget deal.
Paul Ryan put forth a plan that would expand the tax base while at the same time cutting all tax rates. Same as what Obama's own comission came up with, though Obama rejected their ideas. It eliminates the loopholes that the large corporations are using.
Until you do this raising rates on the rich will do nothing.

 

[asterism]

Think of it like this...

The purpose of business is to make profit. (I'm not saying profit is bad. on the contrary, I love making profits)

To make a profit, one attempts to lower costs while maintaining (or increasing) prices.

Based on those two premises, what makes anyone think that if you give money back to companies (or the wealthy who own them) that the money will necessarily be re-invested?

It's not a situation where the government will "give money back," it simply taxes less (or doesn't increase the existing tax). That said, making things more expensive to run a business does not encourage growth unless there is a larger opportunity.

Especially in today's economy...perceived as so critically bad...companies and people are going to hang on to their money...now more than ever.

This idea of the "benevolent rich" who are going to use tax cuts to hire more people is simply an assumption. In reality, the rich will do whatever makes the most profit. If it's profitable to hire more people...they will. If it's not...they wont. Furthermore, just because it could be profitable, that doesn't mean someone will decide to do it. Again, if saving seems more prudent than attempting a profit...they might just save.

True however a 10% reduction in the cost of doing business makes a lot of opportunities feasible.

Tax Cuts were part of the much-maligned stimulus...and you see where that got us.

How much of those "tax cuts" actually materialized? Nobody has an answer. A $3000 "tax break" to create a job that costs $65,000 isn't going to work and that's why so few firms (if any) used it. It was a bogus strategy anyway, used as a political bargaining chip. You'll find that the stimulus tax cuts were not available to business. There were some loopholes carved out that so far no business has reported using.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Information Center

I dont think profits are evil...I'm just realistic...people are going to hold onto their money unless they are really convinced there's profit in investing it.

Which is why raising taxes is a very bad idea. It's just going to make investors take less risk.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This has become the desperate fallacy settled on by the lackeys for the Rich,

that if they can't solve the entire problem then the Rich ought to be exempt from ANY sacrifice to solve the problem.

It's idiocy.

Defelction, and piss-poor at that.

The point is this simple truth:
Cuts in entitlement spending are necessary, if there is any hope in gaining control over the deficit.

But, as entitlements buy votes for liberals and Democrats, liberals and Democrats will never admit to this this truth, much less make any move to that end.

 

[Bern80]

Think of it like this...

The purpose of business is to make profit. (I'm not saying profit is bad. on the contrary, I love making profits)

To make a profit, one attempts to lower costs while maintaining (or increasing) prices.

Based on those two premises, what makes anyone think that if you give money back to companies (or the wealthy who own them) that the money will necessarily be re-invested?

Especially in today's economy...perceived as so critically bad...companies and people are going to hang on to their money...now more than ever.

This idea of the "benevolent rich" who are going to use tax cuts to hire more people is simply an assumption. In reality, the rich will do whatever makes the most profit. If it's profitable to hire more people...they will. If it's not...they wont. Furthermore, just because it could be profitable, that doesn't mean someone will decide to do it. Again, if saving seems more prudent than attempting a profit...they might just save.

Tax Cuts were part of the much-maligned stimulus...and you see where that got us.

I dont think profits are evil...I'm just realistic...people are going to hold onto their money unless they are really convinced there's profit in investing it.

You kind of answered your own question. What companies do with their profits depends on variables like the economy. If the forecast for the economy is bleak or uncertan than you're right, most companies aren't going to do a lot of re-investing. They're going to sit on the cash until the economic outlook is more favorable.

But to believe companies don't reinvest profits at all is a little ridiculous. Of course they do. They have to if they want to survive. They have to re-invest in improved technology. They have to invest in more employees if demand is high, etc.