Tax the Rich? Tax the Millionaires!

[kaz]

Sigh.

If you took every dime from everyone making over 250k/yr, you'd still have a $1000B deficit.

How do you suggest we take care of that?

Taxing the rich isn't about the deficit, it's about redistribution of wealth. It isn't an economic policy, it's a social one. So your observation while true is irrelevant.

 

[editec]

Oh those poor poor misunderstood billionaires.

I feel so sorry for the fact that they have to pay taxes.

Boo hoo hoo!

What clueless tools some of you are.

 

[jgarden]

Why should anyone pay more taxes than anyone else?? Whoever drempt up a percentage on profits as a tax base, or deductions, and the poor shouldn't haven't to pay taxes, really fucked America up. It is unconstitutional, as everyone should pay the same amount regardless of circumstances.

The 400 of us pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you're in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.

-Warren Buffett (speaking at a $4,600-a-seat political fundraiser in New York, as quoted in "Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary", Times Online, June 28, 2007)

If the "wealthy" WERE paying their share of taxes, the US wouldn't be so far in debt!

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett

 

[kaz]

Oh those poor poor misunderstood billionaires.

I feel so sorry for the fact that they have to pay taxes.

Boo hoo hoo!

What clueless tools some of you are.

Let me introduce you to MLK Junior, no man is free unless all men are free. We aren't defending billionaires, we object to you attacking them and blaming them for all our ills like Hitler treated the Jews. You didn't have to be a Jew in Germany to know that was wrong.

You are fortunate you are free to live your own life in this country. Now you need to learn to respect other people being able to live theirs.

 

[kaz]

Why should anyone pay more taxes than anyone else?? Whoever drempt up a percentage on profits as a tax base, or deductions, and the poor shouldn't haven't to pay taxes, really fucked America up. It is unconstitutional, as everyone should pay the same amount regardless of circumstances.

The 400 of us pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you're in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.

-Warren Buffett (speaking at a $4,600-a-seat political fundraiser in New York, as quoted in "Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary", Times Online, June 28, 2007)

If the "wealthy" WERE paying their share of taxes, the US wouldn't be so far in debt!

Define "fair share." Five percent of taxpayers paying 60% of taxes doesn't do it for you?

 

[BrianBursch]

Tax 33% per citizen, no loop holes, whether you are filthy rich, or just plain gutter trash poor.

 

[jgarden]

Why should anyone pay more taxes than anyone else?? Whoever drempt up a percentage on profits as a tax base, or deductions, and the poor shouldn't haven't to pay taxes, really fucked America up. It is unconstitutional, as everyone should pay the same amount regardless of circumstances.

The 400 of us pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you're in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.

-Warren Buffett (speaking at a $4,600-a-seat political fundraiser in New York, as quoted in "Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary", Times Online, June 28, 2007)

If the "wealthy" WERE paying their share of taxes, the US wouldn't be so far in debt!

Define "fair share." Five percent of taxpayers paying 60% of taxes doesn't do it for you?

As things stand now, something is seriously wrong in America, when secretaries and cleaning ladies pay a higher rate of tax than those who can afford to attend "a $4,600-a-seat political fundraiser in New York."

 

[georgephillip]

Nearly half of California’s income taxes before the recession came from the top 1% of earners: households that took in more than $490,000 a year. High earners, it turns out, have especially volatile incomes—their earnings fell by more than twice as much as the rest of the population’s during the recession. When they crashed, they took California’s finances down with them.

Mr. Williams, a former economic forecaster for the state, spent more than a decade warning state leaders about California’s over-dependence on the rich. “We created a revenue cliff,” he said. “We built a large part of our government on the state’s most unstable income group.”

New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Illinois—states that are the most heavily reliant on the taxes of the wealthy—are now among those with the biggest budget holes. A large population of rich residents was a blessing during the boom, showering states with billions in tax revenue. But it became a curse as their incomes collapsed with financial markets.

Arriving at a time of greatly increased public spending, this reversal highlights the dependence of the states on the outsize incomes of the wealthy. The result for state finances and budgets has been extreme volatility.

The price of taxing the rich « Hot Air Headlines

"California's dependence on income taxes has also grown because of its shifting economy. Income taxes now account for more than half of its general revenue, up from about a third in 1981. Because the state's sales and use tax applies mainly to goods, rather than faster-growing services, it has declined in importance. The state's corporate tax has also shrunk relative to income taxes because of tax credits and other changes."

It should be noted how the WSJ can spend hundreds of words expounding on state budget deficits without mentioning the State Bank of North Dakota.

In 1919 the workers of North Dakota became fed up with Wall Street and railroad robber barons. Their solution? Allow the State of North Dakota to begin doing business as the State Bank of North Dakota.

You might also notice how the WSJ doesn't mention the fact that North Dakota currently has no budget deficit and the state has more jobs than job seekers.

Republicans AND Democrats will not consider public banking alternatives because their first loyalty is to Wall Street and the richest 1% of voters who fund their campaigns.

If mortgages at 2% interest and credit cards capped at 6% interest sound like a better deal than what Republicans and Democrats and Wall Street have to offer, In Context TV Video on Public Banking–Featuring the Bank of North Dakota and the Public Banking Institute « WEB OF DEBT BLOG

 

[georgephillip]

Why should anyone pay more taxes than anyone else?? Whoever drempt up a percentage on profits as a tax base, or deductions, and the poor shouldn't haven't to pay taxes, really fucked America up. It is unconstitutional, as everyone should pay the same amount regardless of circumstances.

And the Founders never meant to directly tax income. It was commerce that was taxed to fund government.

The current tax code is nothing but a tool that government uses to buy votes, and the control behaviour. It's out of control.

Would you agree the current tax code is a tool used to socialize cost and privatize profit?

Would a 21st Century tax on commerce fall exclusively on corporations?

 

[georgephillip]

Tax 33% per citizen, no loop holes, whether you are filthy rich, or just plain gutter trash poor.

33% of income or consumption?

 

[boedicca]

Question: once you've gotten rid of all the millionaires, who are you going to tax?

 

[boedicca]

Tax 33% per citizen, no loop holes, whether you are filthy rich, or just plain gutter trash poor.

What an appalling idea. Why should government eat up that much of a person's productive life?

 

[georgephillip]

How much shorter and nastier would a person's physical life be without government?

 

[georgephillip]

Sigh.

If you took every dime from everyone making over 250k/yr, you'd still have a $1000B deficit.

How do you suggest we take care of that?

We could start taking care of that by taxing the richest 10,000 Americans at the same rate as their secretaries.

If it's true the richest 10,000 paid $112 billion in taxes calculated at 20% of their income, then taxing the 10,000 at a 35% could raise close to another $100 billion in revenue.

The first change to make is to separate those who earn $250,000 year from those making $250,000,000 a year by lowering taxes on the former and raising taxes on the latter.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sigh.

If you took every dime from everyone making over 250k/yr, you'd still have a $1000B deficit.

How do you suggest we take care of that?

Taxing the rich isn't about the deficit, it's about redistribution of wealth. It isn't an economic policy, it's a social one. So your observation while true is irrelevant.

In fact, my observation while true, necessarily leads to your conclusion.


Note the decided lack of response to my question.

 

[The Gadfly]

Sigh.

If you took every dime from everyone making over 250k/yr, you'd still have a $1000B deficit.

How do you suggest we take care of that?

We could start taking care of that by taxing the richest 10,000 Americans at the same rate as their secretaries.

If it's true the richest 10,000 paid $112 billion in taxes calculated at 20% of their income, then taxing the 10,000 at a 35% could raise another $ 1 billion in revenue.

The first change to make is to separate those who earn $250,000 year from those making $250,000,000 a year by lowering taxes on the former and raising taxes on the latter.

This is exactly where we get into a problem, that being, that when the income tax got started it was only supposed to apply to the veery wealthiest of the wealthy (and at a fairly low rate at that) However, history has shown that once you get that income tax camel's nose under the tent, it just keeps on reaching lower and lower down the income scale at higher and higher rates; The proponents of this latest idea admit they originally wanted to go after everyone making $250,000 and up; how long do you think any rational person believes, that once they got this, they wouldn't try to do that? I certainly don't; these people see taxation as a means of implementing a social policy of redistribution of income and wealth (why do they also love the "Death Tax"-because they hate the idea of anyone inheriting wealth, that's why!)

If you truly want something better, consider a value-added tax. Stop taxing wealth, and incomes, and tax consumption instead. The rich will still pay more of it (they have more to spend), but it gets rid of a lot of the cheating, inefficiency, and tax avoidance that is inherent in the present system, has a far lower cost of compliance and enforcement, and best of all, the people know what they are actually paying for government. It has the added benefit of taxing the "underground economy" those who deal only in cash, illegal income and so on, since when they spend the money they will automatically pay the tax. If the goal is truly funding the government, instead of social engineering, this would work better. Of course, liberals will never go for it; can't use that to appeal to the class resentment, jealousy and hate of their constituents, or try to play the role of Robin Hood.

 

[The T]

Tax 33% per citizen, no loop holes, whether you are filthy rich, or just plain gutter trash poor.

What an appalling idea. Why should government eat up that much of a person's productive life?

Because they can...and the leeches of society that have made poor life decisions DEMAND IT.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sigh.

If you took every dime from everyone making over 250k/yr, you'd still have a $1000B deficit.
How do you suggest we take care of that?

We could start taking care of that by taxing the richest 10,000 Americans at the same rate as their secretaries.

If it's true the richest 10,000 paid $112 billion in taxes calculated at 20% of their income, then taxing the 10,000 at a 35% could raise another $ 1 billion in revenue.

The first change to make is to separate those who earn $250,000 year from those making $250,000,000 a year by lowering taxes on the former and raising taxes on the latter.

You obviously did not read what I wrote.
Take ALL their income, and you still have a $1000B in deficit.
What then?

 

[georgephillip]

You are forgetting GE and other US corporations.

"US corporations, who are (according to to the Supreme Court) also citizens of this country, paid just $300Bn in taxes last year on $6 TRILLION in income (5%). That’s right, if US corporations simply paid the same amount of tax as Mr. Buffett – that would, by itself, be enough to wipe out our deficit.

 

[kaz]

"US corporations, who are (according to to the Supreme Court) also citizens of this country, paid just $300Bn in taxes last year on $6 TRILLION in income (5%). That’s right, if US corporations simply paid the same amount of tax as Mr. Buffett – that would, by itself, be enough to wipe out our deficit.

If they are citizens and therefore forced to pay taxes, they they shouldn't have to pay taxes since they have been disenfranchised. You can't have it both ways.