Effects of taxing the top wage earners

[sealybobo]

One of Maryland's budget-balancing tactics - asking millionaires to pay more money to the state - appears to be backfiring as the number of the highest-earning taxpayers dwindles with the flagging economy.

A year ago, Maryland became one of the first states in the nation to create a higher tax bracket for millionaires as part of a broader package of maneuvers intended to help balance the state's finances and make the tax code more progressive.

But as the state comptroller's office sifts through this year's returns, it is finding that the number of Marylanders with more than $1 million in taxable income who filed by the end of April has fallen by one-third, to about 2,000. Taxes collected from those returns as of last month have declined by roughly $100 million.

Many taxpayers in that bracket likely filed an extension and won't complete their returns until October, but a trend is emerging that indicates a "substantial decline" in the number of residents and small businesses with that kind of income, Comptroller Peter Franchot wrote in a letter to Gov. Martin O'Malley and legislative leaders.

and more at Maryland plan to tax millionaires backfires -- baltimoresun.com


When are liberals going to learn, you can't pay for everything by taxing the top wage earners? You will inevitably dry up revenue if you tax too heavily.

You mean we don't already have a progressive tax that taxes the rich at a higher rate? Then what the fuck have you been complaining about?

Nobody said we can pay for everything by taxing the rich. Who said that? Don't put wrong words in our mouths.

Looks to me like we just have to wait until October to get the money.

And this story doesn't tell me that you can't get extra revenue by taxing the rich. What it tells me is that less people are rich.

This story tells us that less people are making $1 million a year in this shitty economy.

You need to admit that it was GOPanomics that fucked all those "small business". You can't send that many jobs out of the country and expect small business' who rely on those customers to still do well. This exact thing is happening in Michigan. Small business' are suffering because the Big 3 are leaving. If they are leaving to go down south, then it'll be a wash, and I'm ok with that. But they aren't going down south. They're going overseas.

Only a fool who doesn't own his own business thinks it is the taxes that fucked these people over. Or, a right wing business owner who's ignorant. Or, a liar.

None of my small business buddies think it was the taxes. The reason they get it is because it happened here on a grand scale.

 

[GHook93]

I love how people just neglect the fact that the internet has changed a lot of things! It has made the world smaller. Back in the 60s and 70s it was much more difficult and costly to create designs here and then send them overseas. Now it just a click of the button.The left will always ignore this when they scream about taxing the evil corporations and evil rich people more.

Start with this:
(1) Limiting and taking some power aways from the counter-productive unions. Unions have their place, but right now they are doing much more bad than good. They drive more labor and manufacturing overseas then anything. Just look at the UAW and you have the perfect corrupt and industry destructive Union!
(2) The Corporate Tax: We have the 2nd highest in the WORLD! The loop holes were closed. That would be a great move if the Corporate tax was also lowered. The high corporate tax drives corporations overseas. Just look at when a country lowes the Corporate tax what happens, corporations flock their. Aka Ireland and Dubai.
(3) Lower the Capital Gains Tax: The capital gains tax hits investment and well stiffles investment. Lower or elimate it and we are in business! More people would investment, people would see higher returns on their investments (meaning they would spend more) and people would have more money for retirement.

 

[sealybobo]

I love how people just neglect the fact that the internet has changed a lot of things! It has made the world smaller. Back in the 60s and 70s it was much more difficult and costly to create designs here and then send them overseas. Now it just a click of the button.The left will always ignore this when they scream about taxing the evil corporations and evil rich people more.

Start with this:
(1) Limiting and taking some power aways from the counter-productive unions. Unions have their place, but right now they are doing much more bad than good. They drive more labor and manufacturing overseas then anything. Just look at the UAW and you have the perfect corrupt and industry destructive Union!
(2) The Corporate Tax: We have the 2nd highest in the WORLD! The loop holes were closed. That would be a great move if the Corporate tax was also lowered. The high corporate tax drives corporations overseas. Just look at when a country lowes the Corporate tax what happens, corporations flock their. Aka Ireland and Dubai.
(3) Lower the Capital Gains Tax: The capital gains tax hits investment and well stiffles investment. Lower or elimate it and we are in business! More people would investment, people would see higher returns on their investments (meaning they would spend more) and people would have more money for retirement.

It doesn't matter if other countries are just a click away. Back in the day, it made financial sense to hire 3rd world slave labor. We just didn't do it. One reason was to protect American workers. Every other country protects their workers, regardless of the internet.

Back in the 70's, companies paid more taxes and we paid less. So it was ok for them to lobby for lower taxes but we can't complain now that they have gone to far? They aren't paying their fair share. Sorry if we complain. Why don't you?

Fuck your attack on unions. Unions make up a very small percentage of our work force. This is an assault on all of us. I'm not in a union, yet I see my pay has gone down.

Here is what they are actually saying when they attack unions. AMERICAN WORKERS make too much. We make more than the mexicans, chinese, indians, brazil, europeans, etc. And not just the union workers. ALL OF US! So what do you do for a living? Are you SURE an Indian or Chinese worker won't do it for less and better?

I tell my VP brother that all the time. I'm sure there is a man in India who can do your job, maybe better, and for less. But because he's a VP, he feels safe.

So stop bashing American workers when you're one yourself.

Corporate taxes 2nd highest in the world? Which country do you think should pay the most if not us, the greatest country in the world? So basically you are not just pitting the north (unions) vs the dirty south, you are pitting American labor against 3rd world countries.

We can't compete with that, nor should we have to. We need to protect the American way. That will call for some protectionism. Every other country does it. And I don't expect corporations to be happy about it. Of course they want to go where things are cheaper. That doesn't mean we should let them.

See, this is the problem. The politicians are working more for the corporations than they are us. That's wrong, whether you realize it or not.

Something has to be done. Your way is guaranteed doom for American workers.

I'm all for cutting out government waste so that all of us can pay less taxes. But cutting corporate taxes when our treasury is empty, is madness.

 

[sealybobo]

I love how people just neglect the fact that the internet has changed a lot of things! It has made the world smaller. Back in the 60s and 70s it was much more difficult and costly to create designs here and then send them overseas. Now it just a click of the button.The left will always ignore this when they scream about taxing the evil corporations and evil rich people more.

Start with this:
(1) Limiting and taking some power aways from the counter-productive unions. Unions have their place, but right now they are doing much more bad than good. They drive more labor and manufacturing overseas then anything. Just look at the UAW and you have the perfect corrupt and industry destructive Union!
(2) The Corporate Tax: We have the 2nd highest in the WORLD! The loop holes were closed. That would be a great move if the Corporate tax was also lowered. The high corporate tax drives corporations overseas. Just look at when a country lowes the Corporate tax what happens, corporations flock their. Aka Ireland and Dubai.
(3) Lower the Capital Gains Tax: The capital gains tax hits investment and well stiffles investment. Lower or elimate it and we are in business! More people would investment, people would see higher returns on their investments (meaning they would spend more) and people would have more money for retirement.

I love how people just neglect the fact that republicans/corporate lobbyists/nafta/free trade have changed a lot of things.

 

[Iriemon]

It's a miracle the nation survived the great exodus of the 1950s and 1960s, when top tax rates up to 91% caused all the rich folks to leave in droves.

There were a lot less people making 200K a year in earned income in the 50s and 60s than there are today.

and consider the fact that 200K in 1960 is equal to about 1.4 million today and tell me that raising taxes to 90% on people making more than 200K makes sense.

I certianly agree. Raise taxes on folks making more than a million.

 

[Iriemon]

I know at least two formerly uber-liberals scions who, when it was apparently that their parents were on their way out, moved to New Hampshire to avoid income taxes.

Now, ironically, they both bitch about how high the real estate taxes in New Hamspire are.

My heart so totally bleeds for them.

I don't think the point was to make anyone's 'heart bleed for them,' rather they have options and chose to exercise them. Now I wouldn't be surprised to find the Obama solution would be to remove state taxes, have the feds increase across the board and 'return' some to the states-making for no 'tax free' states. The rich will still have options to relocate elsewhere, not the rest of us though.

The idea of punitive taxes on certain groups just doesn't work. The idea that the government actually control its spending still hasn't occurred, but better had, in a hurry.

As a percentage of GDP, the Govt spent the same or more every single years in the 1980s. So why is a level of spending which is lower than the 80s such a problem now?

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's a miracle the nation survived the great exodus of the 1950s and 1960s, when top tax rates up to 91% caused all the rich folks to leave in droves.

There were a lot less people making 200K a year in earned income in the 50s and 60s than there are today.

and consider the fact that 200K in 1960 is equal to about 1.4 million today and tell me that raising taxes to 90% on people making more than 200K makes sense.

I certianly agree. Raise taxes on folks making more than a million.

Those with earned income of over 1.4 million are so few that taxing their last dollar of income over 1.4 million would yield insignificant revenue.

people making that much are not getting the bulk of their income from wages.

 

[Iriemon]

There were a lot less people making 200K a year in earned income in the 50s and 60s than there are today.

and consider the fact that 200K in 1960 is equal to about 1.4 million today and tell me that raising taxes to 90% on people making more than 200K makes sense.

I certianly agree. Raise taxes on folks making more than a million.

Those with earned income of over 1.4 million are so few that taxing their last dollar of income over 1.4 million would yield insignificant revenue.

people making that much are not getting the bulk of their income from wages.

According to CBO data from 2005, the richest 1% had an average income of $1.5m and earned 18% of all income. Seems signficant to me.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I certianly agree. Raise taxes on folks making more than a million.

Those with earned income of over 1.4 million are so few that taxing their last dollar of income over 1.4 million would yield insignificant revenue.

people making that much are not getting the bulk of their income from wages.

According to CBO data from 2005, the richest 1% had an average income of $1.5m and earned 18% of all income. Seems signficant to me.

Was it earned income or unearned income or capital gains? there are important differences.

the marginal tax rate of 90% only taxes that portion of income over the 1 .4 million not the entire 1.4 million

it is pretty simple to lessen earned income and increase unearned income so as to lower ones adjusted gross income to below the confiscatory 90% levels.

90% tax rates are completely unnecessary. There is more than enough collected by government already. We need spending cuts and lots of them.

What do you have against letting people keep more of the money they legally earn?

 

[WiseOldMan]

There should be a law that says rich people aren't allowed to whine about money.

 

[Iriemon]

Those with earned income of over 1.4 million are so few that taxing their last dollar of income over 1.4 million would yield insignificant revenue.

people making that much are not getting the bulk of their income from wages.

According to CBO data from 2005, the richest 1% had an average income of $1.5m and earned 18% of all income. Seems signficant to me.

Was it earned income or unearned income or capital gains? there are important differences.

the marginal tax rate of 90% only taxes that portion of income over the 1 .4 million not the entire 1.4 million

it is pretty simple to lessen earned income and increase unearned income so as to lower ones adjusted gross income to below the confiscatory 90% levels.

90% tax rates are completely unnecessary. There is more than enough collected by government already. We need spending cuts and lots of them.

I agree that 90% tax rates are unnecessary; disagree we are collecting enough; the Govt has been borrowing $1/2 trillion a year for the past 6 years.

What do you have against letting people keep more of the money they legally earn?

I don't think it is good for our country to incur trillions in debt as a general proposition.

 

[jreeves]

It's a miracle the nation survived the great exodus of the 1950s and 1960s, when top tax rates up to 91% caused all the rich folks to leave in droves.

Yes, what did the 91% tax rate do to revenues. Did the government take in absorbent amounts of tax revenue?

 

[jreeves]

I love how people just neglect the fact that the internet has changed a lot of things! It has made the world smaller. Back in the 60s and 70s it was much more difficult and costly to create designs here and then send them overseas. Now it just a click of the button.The left will always ignore this when they scream about taxing the evil corporations and evil rich people more.

Start with this:
(1) Limiting and taking some power aways from the counter-productive unions. Unions have their place, but right now they are doing much more bad than good. They drive more labor and manufacturing overseas then anything. Just look at the UAW and you have the perfect corrupt and industry destructive Union!
(2) The Corporate Tax: We have the 2nd highest in the WORLD! The loop holes were closed. That would be a great move if the Corporate tax was also lowered. The high corporate tax drives corporations overseas. Just look at when a country lowes the Corporate tax what happens, corporations flock their. Aka Ireland and Dubai.
(3) Lower the Capital Gains Tax: The capital gains tax hits investment and well stiffles investment. Lower or elimate it and we are in business! More people would investment, people would see higher returns on their investments (meaning they would spend more) and people would have more money for retirement.

I love how people just neglect the fact that republicans/corporate lobbyists/nafta/free trade have changed a lot of things.

LOL...your such a partisan hack
President Clinton Signing NAFTA
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Mr. Vice President,
President Bush, President Carter, President Ford, ladies and
gentlemen. I would like to acknowledge just a couple of other people
who are in the audience because I think they deserve to be seen by
America since you'll be seeing a lot more of them: my good friend,
Bill Daley, from Chicago; and former Congressman Bill Frenzel from
Minnesota, who have agreed to lead this fight for our administration
on a bipartisan basis. Would you please stand and be recognized.
(Applause.)


It's an honor for me today to be joined by my
predecessor, President Bush, who took the major steps in negotiating
this North American Free Trade Agreement; President Jimmy Carter,
whose vision of hemispherical development gives great energy to our
efforts and has been a consistent theme of his for many, many years
now; and President Ford who has argued as fiercely for expanded trade
and for this agreement as any American citizen and whose counsel I
continue to value.


These men, differing in party and outlook, join us today
because we all recognize the important stakes for our nation in this
issue. Yesterday we saw the sight of an old world dying, a new one
being born in hope and a spirit of peace. Peoples who for a decade
were caught in the cycle of war and frustration chose hope over fear
and took a great risk to make the future better.


Today we turn to face the challenge of our own
hemisphere, our own country, our own economic fortunes. In a few
moments, I will sign three agreements that will complete our
negotiations with Mexico and Canada to create a North American Free
Trade Agreement. In the coming months I will submit this pack to
Congress for approval. It will be a hard fight, and I expect to be
there with all of you every step of the way. (Applause.)


We will make our case as hard and as well as we can.
And, though the fight will be difficult, I deeply believe we will win.
And I'd like to tell you why. First of all, because NAFTA means jobs.
American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe
that, I wouldn't support this agreement.


As President, it is my duty to speak frankly to the
American people about the world in which we now live. Fifty years at
the end of World War II, an unchallenged America was protected by the
oceans and by our technological superiority; and, very frankly, by the
economic devastation of the people who could otherwise have been our
competitors. We chose, then, to try to help rebuild our former
enemies and to create a world of free trade supported by institutions
which would facilitate it.


As a result of that effort, global trade grew from $200
billion in 1950 to $800 billion in 1980. As a result, jobs were
created and opportunity thrived all across the world. But make no
mistake about it: Our decision at the end of World War II to create a
system of global, expanded, freer trade and the supporting
institutions played a major role in creating the prosperity of the
American middle class.

 

[jreeves]

According to CBO data from 2005, the richest 1% had an average income of $1.5m and earned 18% of all income. Seems signficant to me.

Was it earned income or unearned income or capital gains? there are important differences.

the marginal tax rate of 90% only taxes that portion of income over the 1 .4 million not the entire 1.4 million

it is pretty simple to lessen earned income and increase unearned income so as to lower ones adjusted gross income to below the confiscatory 90% levels.

90% tax rates are completely unnecessary. There is more than enough collected by government already. We need spending cuts and lots of them.

I agree that 90% tax rates are unnecessary; disagree we are collecting enough; the Govt has been borrowing $1/2 trillion a year for the past 6 years.

What do you have against letting people keep more of the money they legally earn?

I don't think it is good for our country to incur trillions in debt as a general proposition.

How about cutting a budget of 3.6 trillion dollars? Here's a start...

http://manyeyes.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/datasets/earmarks-in-2009-budget-bill/versions/1

 

[Zoomie1980]

It's a miracle the nation survived the great exodus of the 1950s and 1960s, when top tax rates up to 91% caused all the rich folks to leave in droves.

There were a lot less people making 200K a year in earned income in the 50s and 60s than there are today.

and consider the fact that 2y00K in 1960 is equal to about 1.4 million today and tell me that raising taxes to 90% on people making more than 200K makes sense.

The REAL tax rate was never anywhere near 90% in the 50's. I was in a 60%+ bracket in the 1980's before Reagan lowered the rates......but he closed all the loopholes, too! M "effective" tax rate actually went UP under Reagan.

 

[Skull Pilot]

According to CBO data from 2005, the richest 1% had an average income of $1.5m and earned 18% of all income. Seems signficant to me.

Was it earned income or unearned income or capital gains? there are important differences.

the marginal tax rate of 90% only taxes that portion of income over the 1 .4 million not the entire 1.4 million

it is pretty simple to lessen earned income and increase unearned income so as to lower ones adjusted gross income to below the confiscatory 90% levels.

90% tax rates are completely unnecessary. There is more than enough collected by government already. We need spending cuts and lots of them.

I agree that 90% tax rates are unnecessary; disagree we are collecting enough; the Govt has been borrowing $1/2 trillion a year for the past 6 years.

What do you have against letting people keep more of the money they legally earn?

I don't think it is good for our country to incur trillions in debt as a general proposition.

the trillions in debt is NOT the fault of the citizens so confiscating income to settle the debt is unjust.

the government is simply spending too much

 

[Iriemon]

Was it earned income or unearned income or capital gains? there are important differences.

the marginal tax rate of 90% only taxes that portion of income over the 1 .4 million not the entire 1.4 million

it is pretty simple to lessen earned income and increase unearned income so as to lower ones adjusted gross income to below the confiscatory 90% levels.

90% tax rates are completely unnecessary. There is more than enough collected by government already. We need spending cuts and lots of them.

I agree that 90% tax rates are unnecessary; disagree we are collecting enough; the Govt has been borrowing $1/2 trillion a year for the past 6 years.

What do you have against letting people keep more of the money they legally earn?

I don't think it is good for our country to incur trillions in debt as a general proposition.

the trillions in debt is NOT the fault of the citizens so confiscating income to settle the debt is unjust.

the government is simply spending too much

I agee, it's the fault of the panderers who ran government cutting taxes without cutting spending. Who elected them into office?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I agree that 90% tax rates are unnecessary; disagree we are collecting enough; the Govt has been borrowing $1/2 trillion a year for the past 6 years.



I don't think it is good for our country to incur trillions in debt as a general proposition.

the trillions in debt is NOT the fault of the citizens so confiscating income to settle the debt is unjust.

the government is simply spending too much

I agee, it's the fault of the panderers who ran government cutting taxes without cutting spending. Who elected them into office?

So then only those who voted democrat should be responsible for retiring Obama's trillion dollar deficits?

It was more than just the evil rich that voted for him.

 

[Iriemon]

the trillions in debt is NOT the fault of the citizens so confiscating income to settle the debt is unjust.

the government is simply spending too much

I agee, it's the fault of the panderers who ran government cutting taxes without cutting spending. Who elected them into office?

So then only those who voted democrat should be responsible for retiring Obama's trillion dollar deficits?

It was more than just the evil rich that voted for him.

No.

 

[jreeves]

I agree that 90% tax rates are unnecessary; disagree we are collecting enough; the Govt has been borrowing $1/2 trillion a year for the past 6 years.



I don't think it is good for our country to incur trillions in debt as a general proposition.

the trillions in debt is NOT the fault of the citizens so confiscating income to settle the debt is unjust.

the government is simply spending too much

I agee, it's the fault of the panderers who ran government cutting taxes without cutting spending. Who elected them into office?

It wasn't that Bush cut taxes and didn't cut spending. It was that Bush expanded spending exponentially. Now Obama is making him look like an ultra fiscal conservative. He is going to triple the Bush deficits in a very short period of time.