Dems want tax on "rich": Whoever they are

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Ragnar, Oct 9, 2011.

  1. Ragnar
    Offline

    Ragnar <--- Pic is not me

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2010
    Messages:
    3,271
    Thanks Received:
    800
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    Cincinnati, OH
    Ratings:
    +843
    So. Who can they successfully demonize/villianise in 2012? Don't ask the Democrats because they have no idea.

    Democrats aim to tax the rich &#8211; but who are they? - latimes.com

    ...

    What they are really after is successful meme, rather than sound tax policy or responsible spending. This brings up the usual nagging question about the Democrat Party. When will they come up with a new idea? It's been decades.

    :lol:
     
  2. ladyliberal
    Offline

    ladyliberal Progressive Princess

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,253
    Thanks Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +291
    I sort of agree with you. What I disagree with is the suggestion that this is somehow unusual. As one of the administration's top economists acknowledged in the article,

    "There is economic literature on optimal taxation, but that ain't what motivates these decisions," said Jared Bernstein, an economist and former economic advisor to Vice President Joe Biden.

    In short, the laws passed by Congress are indeed political. That isn't an inherent quality either of the current Congress or of the Democratic party, though. Despite the fact that there tends to be more consensus on economic issues in the Republican party than in the Democratic party, the Republican policies are still see some disagreement, and of course they are politically motivated.

    Much of the current disagreement stems from issues other than ideology. For Senators like Schumer who represent constituencies with a high cost of living, keeping the bar at which new taxes would kick in high is a parochial concern. For other Senators, their goal is to craft legislation that can pass, regardless of what tax policy their personal ideology points them towards.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Inthemiddle
    Offline

    Inthemiddle BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,354
    Thanks Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +674
    Makes me think that perhaps income taxes shouldn't be bracketed strictly by income, but with a computational offset for cost of living. How could we do that?
     
  4. Ragnar
    Offline

    Ragnar <--- Pic is not me

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2010
    Messages:
    3,271
    Thanks Received:
    800
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    Cincinnati, OH
    Ratings:
    +843
    With a flat tax.

    But then what use is demagoguery? :razz:

    The problem with a cost of living computation is that cost of living is so strongly determined by government policy itself. Various State taxes, various State minimum wage laws, regulations of various industry which differs from region to region etc etc.
     
  5. Money
    Offline

    Money Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    91
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +14
    Don't touch nuthin'.

    Progressive tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  6. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,619
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,214
    It isn't unusual that a president with failing ratings is now campaigning against "The Rich"? When was the last time you remember that happening? Bush? No. Clinton? No. Bush? No. Reagan? No. Carter? No.
    Nope, I cannot remember a single time that a president ran against "The Rich".
    Maybe FDR.
     
  7. ladyliberal
    Offline

    ladyliberal Progressive Princess

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,253
    Thanks Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +291
    An income tax already takes cost of living into account indirectly. Areas with high costs of living pay higher salaries for the same work due to supply and demand (someone working a fast food job in a posh New York neighborhood makes much more than someone doing the same job in a rural community). Thus, cost of living influences income, and so income taxes take cost of living into account indirectly.

    If we want to go beyond this (which I think we would, in an ideal world) I think the best way is through deductions. One could identify certain expenses that were associated with "living" (food, shelter, health care) and make them tax-deductible. However, if we are primarily concerned with variations in cost of living over very small geographic areas, then such deductions/credits are perhaps best managed through municipalities rather than the federal tax system.
     
  8. Money
    Offline

    Money Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    91
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +14
    I don't know what a computational offset is, but progressive tax is based on the balance of after-tax earnings and the cost of living/poverty line as determining factors affecting your rate. As you deduct more kids, the cost of living is adjusted accordingly.
     
  9. Sherry
    Offline

    Sherry You're not the boss of me Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    21,493
    Thanks Received:
    8,795
    Trophy Points:
    960
    Location:
    some beach
    Ratings:
    +11,082
    They'll define the rich as anyone who gets the entitlement and class envy crowd all riled up.
     
  10. LoneLaugher
    Offline

    LoneLaugher Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    45,639
    Thanks Received:
    6,454
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Inside Mac's Head
    Ratings:
    +18,439
    And THAT would be because not since FDR have we had an economy with so much of the wealth concentrated at the top. You are catching on. Scary.
     

Share This Page