How Much Revenue will Government Gain from Tax the Rich?

[KissMy]

How Much Revenue will Government Gain from Tax the Rich?

How much additional revenue will the government collect from increasing taxes on those making over $1 million a year? On those making $250k a year?

Be sure to factor in some Laffer curve bias.

Will this additional revenue cover the government spending gap?

Can we give the rich incentives to pay higher taxes?

Come on Democrats, Make your best case!

 

[william the wie]

Hardly any. A progressive VAT tax would work, especially if applied to bank interest and fees, to get the country back on a solid footing but soaking the rich, dream on.

 

[FireFly]

It is interesting how not one of the tax the rich democrats has a clue, yet they point fingers as they suck the country dry.

 

[saved]

No amount of additional taxes or cuts in spending can fix the debt as we have crossed over the line.
With a 14 trillion dollar debt growing at the rate of over 4 billion a day and currently borrowing 40% of every dollar spent it is too late.
The current 38 billion that the GOP got cut from the budget was a joke. 38 billion is only 9.5 days of savings when there is a 4 billion a day increase in debt.
If we could cut the annual budget by 1 trillion a year we would still be adding to the debt and it is impossible to cut one trillion from annual spending. Get ready for this nation to default and become like a third world country as we lose our freedoms and rights and the military takes over to police the people who are living on the streets all because of irresponsible and corrupt politicians.

 

[edthecynic]

The truly wealthy never have any taxable income, so no tax increase will hit them. They have their wealth hidden in phony "charities" that they control. The only way to get them to pay their fair share of taxes is to end all charity deductions, and tax all "charities."

For example: The DuPonts had their house declared a historical site and then set up a "charity" to maintain the historical site. They packed the board with family members and required that the head of the board must be an immediate family member. They then donated the historical site to the foundation and specified that the head of the foundation lives in the house. They now get a tax deduction for the value of the house they live in and a tax deduction for their electricity, heat, etc. When the head of the foundation dies, the next family member becomes the head and lives in the house without paying a penny in inheritance taxes.

August 7, 2007
CALLER: And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but the way our tax system works and the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income, and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.

RUSH: It does, exactly, and here's the dirty little secret if you ever to pull it off. It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income. I'm out of time. I'll explain that. There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income. Earned income is what the income tax rate is on. That's how "the rich" do it. They don't have "earned" income.
END TRANSCRIPT

The Truth About Taxes
August 6, 2007
RUSH: I've told you before: the income tax is designed to keep people like his [Buffett's] secretary from becoming wealthy! There is no "wealth" tax. So this is a big misnomer. ...
But there's no tax on wealth. There is a tax on income, and the tax on income is designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there.

I'm talking about genuine wealth, not the way Democrats define "rich."

 

[FireFly]

Socialist Schakowsky Introduces Bill to Tax Millionaires and Billionaires

The most popular way to reduce the deficit, according to 81% of Americans? Put a surtax on federal income taxes for those who make more than $1 million per year.-- NBC/Wall St. Journal Poll, March 2, 2011

The Fairness in Taxation Act asks enacts new tax brackets for income starting at $1 million and ends with a $1 billion bracket. The new brackets would be:

•$1-10 million: 45%
•$10-20 million: 46%
•$20-100 million: 47%
•$100 million to $1 billion: 48%
•$1 billion and over: 49%
The bill would also tax capital gains and dividend income as ordinary income for those taxpayers with income over $1 million. If enacted in 2011, the Fairness in Taxation Act would raise more than $78 billion.

Lets see if I got this right. We are spending $1,345 Billion more than we take in each year, and the big soak the rich tax bill from a major socialist congresswomen may raise $78 Billion a year. Where the hell are we suppoed to get the other $1,267 Billion from???

STOP THE ******* SPENDING!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Truthseeker420]

How Much Revenue will Government Gain from Tax the Rich?

How much additional revenue will the government collect from increasing taxes on those making over $1 million a year? On those making $250k a year?

Be sure to factor in some Laffer curve bias.

Will this additional revenue cover the government spending gap?

Can we give the rich incentives to pay higher taxes?

Come on Democrats, Make your best case!

It is wrong to view it as how much can we make or incintives. How about everyone pay their fair share. IMO everyone should pay the same % of what they make.

 

[rdean]

How Much Revenue will Government Gain from Tax the Rich?

How much additional revenue will the government collect from increasing taxes on those making over $1 million a year? On those making $250k a year?

Be sure to factor in some Laffer curve bias.

Will this additional revenue cover the government spending gap?

Can we give the rich incentives to pay higher taxes?

Come on Democrats, Make your best case!

Considering the Bush 2.4 trillion dollar tax cut that was passed through the same reconciliation that Republicans hate did nothing to help the country and more than 52% went to the top 1% and all of those that were millionaires and billionaires only saw their fortunes swell, I would say we could start there. That would bring back over a trillion dollars from people who never needed it in the first place.

 

[Sallow]

Lots.

One of the biggest follies in American history was the Bush tax cuts. Followed interesting enough by the Bush Wars.

 

[Sallow]

No amount of additional taxes or cuts in spending can fix the debt as we have crossed over the line.
With a 14 trillion dollar debt growing at the rate of over 4 billion a day and currently borrowing 40% of every dollar spent it is too late.
The current 38 billion that the GOP got cut from the budget was a joke. 38 billion is only 9.5 days of savings when there is a 4 billion a day increase in debt.
If we could cut the annual budget by 1 trillion a year we would still be adding to the debt and it is impossible to cut one trillion from annual spending. Get ready for this nation to default and become like a third world country as we lose our freedoms and rights and the military takes over to police the people who are living on the streets all because of irresponsible and corrupt politicians.

This has no basis in simple math.

 

[editec]

The solution isn't to TAX the rich.

The real solution is to refute the debts.

The nature of compounding interest makes that refutation of debt inevitable from time to time.

Generally that refutation of the debt happens when the organization (be it state or the monarch) either dismisses their debts or collapses and cannot pay them.

This is going to happen worldwide, sooner or later.

ACtually I susect sooner.

Spain and Portegal, and perhaps even this nation seem ripe for collapse.

 

[code1211]

How Much Revenue will Government Gain from Tax the Rich?

How much additional revenue will the government collect from increasing taxes on those making over $1 million a year? On those making $250k a year?

Be sure to factor in some Laffer curve bias.

Will this additional revenue cover the government spending gap?

Can we give the rich incentives to pay higher taxes?

Come on Democrats, Make your best case!

Considering the Bush 2.4 trillion dollar tax cut that was passed through the same reconciliation that Republicans hate did nothing to help the country and more than 52% went to the top 1% and all of those that were millionaires and billionaires only saw their fortunes swell, I would say we could start there. That would bring back over a trillion dollars from people who never needed it in the first place.

Link?

 

[code1211]

Lots.

One of the biggest follies in American history was the Bush tax cuts. Followed interesting enough by the Bush Wars.

Without the Bush Wars, the Bush tax cuts would not have been so bad.

They cost less than the Obama Failed Stimulus and produced results that were promised. The Obama stimulus had the opposite effect of what was promised.

If the deficit reduction established under Bush had continued until today, without the effect of the Obama Failed Stimulus, we'd be in surplus today.

As a failed economic plan, the Bush Tax Cuts are dwarfed by the Obama Failed Stimulus.

 

[edthecynic]

Lots.

One of the biggest follies in American history was the Bush tax cuts. Followed interesting enough by the Bush Wars.

Without the Bush Wars, the Bush tax cuts would not have been so bad.

They cost less than the Obama Failed Stimulus and produced results that were promised. The Obama stimulus had the opposite effect of what was promised.

If the deficit reduction established under Bush had continued until today, without the effect of the Obama Failed Stimulus, we'd be in surplus today.

As a failed economic plan, the Bush Tax Cuts are dwarfed by the Obama Failed Stimulus.

 

[FireFly]

The truly wealthy never have any taxable income, so no tax increase will hit them. They have their wealth hidden in phony "charities" that they control. The only way to get them to pay their fair share of taxes is to end all charity deductions, and tax all "charities."

For example: The DuPonts had their house declared a historical site and then set up a "charity" to maintain the historical site. They packed the board with family members and required that the head of the board must be an immediate family member. They then donated the historical site to the foundation and specified that the head of the foundation lives in the house. They now get a tax deduction for the value of the house they live in and a tax deduction for their electricity, heat, etc. When the head of the foundation dies, the next family member becomes the head and lives in the house without paying a penny in inheritance taxes.

August 7, 2007
CALLER: And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but the way our tax system works and the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income, and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.

RUSH: It does, exactly, and here's the dirty little secret if you ever to pull it off. It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income. I'm out of time. I'll explain that. There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income. Earned income is what the income tax rate is on. That's how "the rich" do it. They don't have "earned" income.
END TRANSCRIPT

The Truth About Taxes
August 6, 2007
RUSH: I've told you before: the income tax is designed to keep people like his [Buffett's] secretary from becoming wealthy! There is no "wealth" tax. So this is a big misnomer. ...
But there's no tax on wealth. There is a tax on income, and the tax on income is designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there.

I'm talking about genuine wealth, not the way Democrats define "rich."

You got a lot of things right with this post. The wealthy have always been able to hire the best tax attornys to keep them from paying taxes. This is why raising taxes on the rich results in them circomventing the system. Daddy Bush 1 helped bring these tax free charities to the middle class with his "Thousand Points of Light" This was to help people fund tax free private education for their children with private charities. It has morfed into all kinds of crazy tax shelters. Most of this money is held in huge tax stock funds. Taxes on dividends was also reduced to spur more of this activity to fund private education, charities, fuel stock markets, economy & investment. The result is tax shelters allow the high income earners to pay smaller percent of their income as taxes than the low income earners.

Enron tought people how to use offshoreing & dummy foreign corporations to tax wash enormus sums of money. How do we keep the clever people from avoiding taxes while the IRS beats up on the lower & middle class?

 

[Trajan]

Socialist Schakowsky Introduces Bill to Tax Millionaires and Billionaires

The most popular way to reduce the deficit, according to 81% of Americans? Put a surtax on federal income taxes for those who make more than $1 million per year.-- NBC/Wall St. Journal Poll, March 2, 2011

The Fairness in Taxation Act asks enacts new tax brackets for income starting at $1 million and ends with a $1 billion bracket. The new brackets would be:

•$1-10 million: 45%
•$10-20 million: 46%
•$20-100 million: 47%
•$100 million to $1 billion: 48%
•$1 billion and over: 49%
The bill would also tax capital gains and dividend income as ordinary income for those taxpayers with income over $1 million. If enacted in 2011, the Fairness in Taxation Act would raise more than $78 billion.

Lets see if I got this right. We are spending $1,345 Billion more than we take in each year, and the big soak the rich tax bill from a major socialist congresswomen may raise $78 Billion a year. Where the hell are we suppoed to get the other $1,267 Billion from???

STOP THE ******* SPENDING!!!!!!!!!!!!

and even if you pushed that up to 70% across the board lets say she gets 150 billion, hell, 200 billion........and? Now what.


you broaden the tax base, Ryan is on the right track, they have to do more on that but he has the right idea, you will never get more than the (average) 18.0% of the gdp, so you need to grow the pie, that is the gdp and the tax yield in DOLLARS grows not by % really.

 

[Wiseacre]

From Heritage.com, talking about Obama's desire to extend the Bush 2003 tax cuts except for the top 2 levels of earners. It was written back in October 2010, and illustrates the tax increases would result in about $700 billion in more revenue over 10 years, but cost us in other ways. I suspect the claims of lost jobs and lower wages might be overstated (it's a conservative website), but I do think those things and the economy as a whole is adversely affected especially at a time like this when it isn't as robust as we'd like. I would also say that often the amount of increased revenues from a tax hike is overstated cuz rich guys find ways not to pay more taxes if you give 'em reasons to try.


" Obama’s current tax hike plan would raise the top two income tax rates from 33 and 35 percent to 36 and 39.6 percent, respectively. This tax hike will take effect on January 1, 2011, if he has his way and will slow the already badly struggling economy. This will keep unemployed Americans out of work longer and suppress the wages of those fortunate enough to retain their jobs. In fact, the higher tax rates Obama calls for will destroy an average of 800,000 jobs per year by the end of the decade and lower incomes by $720 billion [2] over that same period.

Over the next 10 years, the Obama tax hikes will take almost $700 billion from taxpayers. That is only 8 percent of the nearly $9 trillion President Obama’s budget adds in debt over that same period. Low tax revenues are not the cause of the debt explosion; spending is. The Obama budget raises spending to almost 25 percent of GDP—well above its historical average of 20 percent. Tax revenue will soon exceed its historical average of 18 percent of GDP. "

 

[FireFly]

Considering the Bush 2.4 trillion dollar tax cut that was passed through the same reconciliation that Republicans hate did nothing to help the country and more than 52% went to the top 1% and all of those that were millionaires and billionaires only saw their fortunes swell, I would say we could start there. That would bring back over a trillion dollars from people who never needed it in the first place.

Let's just assume for the moment that your pie in the sky BS numbers are correct $2.4 Trillion divided by Bush's 8 years = $300 Billion a year. The FY 2009 deficit = $1.413 Trillion so where do you get the additional $1.113 Trillion a year if you took away all the Bush tax cuts?

Again I say: STOP THE ******* SPENDING!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[editec]

Here's a thought...tax all revenue exactly the same way.

 

[asterism]

Here's a thought...tax all revenue exactly the same way.

Tax all revenue? So if a business has $1 Million in revenue but $950,000 in costs you suggest that the tax be levied on $1 Million? I think you mean tax all income the same way. In that case...

How much money will that raise for the federal government? Remember that some of the money currently taxed at 15% is profit long term capital gains that currently makes a 5% ROI before tax and 4.25% after tax. If all income is taxed as income at the current 35%, then that means the after tax return would diminish to 3.25%.

Low margin businesses just wouldn't be worth the risk and that's a lot of restaurants, gas stations, and owner-operator mom & pop stores that would close. How would that affect government revenue?