How much would you raise taxes on the rich if you had the power to do so?

[ScienceRocks]

How much would you raise taxes on the rich if you had the power to do so?

I wouldn't raise it a cent as it doesn't do shit. The rich will do one of two things, 1# Send their businesses over sea's or 2# Pass it onto the consumer!

 

[The Rabbi]

Cuba has the lowest income inequality in the world. The Left wants to emulate that economy. It's also very green, with people recycling cars from the 1950s.

 

[Freewill]

I think it needs raised for a few reasons. Obama and company has spread such division in the country and such class warfare to the point that something needs done. Of course that falls into exactly what they want done but none the less the howling dogs won't be quiet until more is taken from the economy.

Since the GDP is not growing we need to generate income somewhere and I am tired of Obama being unpatriotic and using the Chinese Credit card. Elections have consequences and the consequence of the last two is that we have a humongous debt to pay off and a huge mess to clean up. I for one don't want to leave it for my grandchildren, so we must suffer now.

Of course most economic studies I have read say that raising taxes will result in fewer private sector jobs. I feel for those people. What may result is even more then the 47 percent not making enough to pay federal income tax.

So let us go over the cliff and roll EVERYTHING back to the Clinton years. No one on the left should have a ***** because as we know it was great during the Clinton years. And it should placate the howling dogs of the liberal left, but somehow I doubt it.

 

[The Rabbi]

France raises taxes to 70%. We'll see how well that works. There is no satisfying the left short of total confiscation and firing squads. They're looking at Zimbabwe for ideas.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

If we want to provide more revenue for the federal govt. to waste, it should be on everyones shoulders, not just "the rich". I'd let the "fiscal cliff" materialize.

 

[konradv]

It's not really about how much, but rather to show we're serious about attacking the deficit. If we look serious, people feel better. When people feel better, they spend more. When people spend more, more jobs are created to meet demand. When more people have jobs, there's even more money to spend and more taxes to collect to close the deficit. Why do you guys have to be taught the same basic economic lessons over and over again? C'mon, it's ECON 101!

 

[JoeB131]

Cuba has the lowest income inequality in the world. The Left wants to emulate that economy. It's also very green, with people recycling cars from the 1950s.

Yes, we've been beating up on a smaller, weaker country for 50 years, and they refuse to give us the satisfaction of bending over.

There used to be a strategic argument for it, but now it's just pure spite. They told us to get bent, how dare they?

 

[JoeB131]

If we want to provide more revenue for the federal govt. to waste, it should be on everyones shoulders, not just "the rich". I'd let the "fiscal cliff" materialize.

Of course you would. You are angry at your fellow Americans for not listening to you.

 

[konradv]

If we want to provide more revenue for the federal govt. to waste, it should be on everyones shoulders, not just "the rich". I'd let the "fiscal cliff" materialize.

Seems like you've given up. Why should we care what you think or is this the Leninist ploy of not wanting things to get incrementally better, because you're in it for the revolution?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It's not really about how much, but rather to show we're serious about attacking the deficit. If we look serious, people feel better. When people feel better, they spend more. When people spend more, more jobs are created to meet demand. When more people have jobs, there's even more money to spend and more taxes to collect to close the deficit. Why do you guys have to be taught the same basic economic lessons over and over again? C'mon, it's ECON 101!

 

[konradv]

It's not really about how much, but rather to show we're serious about attacking the deficit. If we look serious, people feel better. When people feel better, they spend more. When people spend more, more jobs are created to meet demand. When more people have jobs, there's even more money to spend and more taxes to collect to close the deficit. Why do you guys have to be taught the same basic economic lessons over and over again? C'mon, it's ECON 101!

Guess I was right. Lenin mocked the incrementalists too.

 

[Billo_Really]

How much would you raise taxes on the rich if you had the power to do so?

I wouldn't raise it a cent as it doesn't do shit. The rich will do one of two things, 1# Send their businesses over sea's or 2# Pass it onto the consumer!

Well, I certainly don't want to pay more in taxes, just so these people can get a discount. **** that and **** them! Corporate welfare is a major problem in this country. Re-distribution of wealth, is going on. But it's going up, not down.

As for raising taxes, that's easy. Add a full 10% to capital gains and dividends taxes. They only pay 15% now. By adding the 10, they pay 25%, just like me. I don't want anyone paying less taxes than me.

 

[LeftofLeft]

It's not really about how much, but rather to show we're serious about attacking the deficit. If we look serious, people feel better. When people feel better, they spend more. When people spend more, more jobs are created to meet demand. When more people have jobs, there's even more money to spend and more taxes to collect to close the deficit. Why do you guys have to be taught the same basic economic lessons over and over again? C'mon, it's ECON 101!

Econ 101? Being an Economics major, I must have missed the class that showed the model and empirical data detailing a correlation between people willing to spend more since the "rich" (high annual income earners, not necessarily, the wealthy) are now paying their "fair share". Economically speaking, you believe that this is a top priority to show we're serious about attacking the deficit vs. putting a dent in annual Federal outlays or increasing people's personal income (Federal spending is outpacing people's income)? If we tax 100% of the income of everyone making more than $1million, you only cover 2 months of Federal outlays. That means that we now need to cover 80 percent of the Federal outlays, just over $1 Trillion.

Basic Economic Lesson: Reducing spending and increasing personal income growth are higher priorities. Taxing the high income earners is merely a symbolic gesture rooted in class warfare that will only make some people feel good about themselves.....we will still be dealing with $ trillion dollar deficits.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It's not really about how much, but rather to show we're serious about attacking the deficit. If we look serious, people feel better. When people feel better, they spend more. When people spend more, more jobs are created to meet demand. When more people have jobs, there's even more money to spend and more taxes to collect to close the deficit. Why do you guys have to be taught the same basic economic lessons over and over again? C'mon, it's ECON 101!

Guess I was right. Lenin mocked the incrementalists too.

Your lack of economic understanding would make Paul Krugman proud.

 

[Claudette]

It's not really about how much, but rather to show we're serious about attacking the deficit. If we look serious, people feel better. When people feel better, they spend more. When people spend more, more jobs are created to meet demand. When more people have jobs, there's even more money to spend and more taxes to collect to close the deficit. Why do you guys have to be taught the same basic economic lessons over and over again? C'mon, it's ECON 101!

Econ 101? Being an Economics major, I must have missed the class that showed the model and empirical data detailing a correlation between people willing to spend more since the "rich" (high annual income earners, not necessarily, the wealthy) are now paying their "fair share". Economically speaking, you believe that this is a top priority to show we're serious about attacking the deficit vs. putting a dent in annual Federal outlays or increasing people's personal income (Federal spending is outpacing people's income)? If we tax 100% of the income of everyone making more than $1million, you only cover 2 months of Federal outlays. That means that we now need to cover 80 percent of the Federal outlays, just over $1 Trillion.

Basic Economic Lesson: Reducing spending and increasing personal income growth are higher priorities. Taxing the high income earners is merely a symbolic gesture rooted in class warfare that will only make some people feel good about themselves.....we will still be dealing with $ trillion dollar deficits.

Bingo and a great post.

 

[The Rabbi]

How much would you raise taxes on the rich if you had the power to do so?

I wouldn't raise it a cent as it doesn't do shit. The rich will do one of two things, 1# Send their businesses over sea's or 2# Pass it onto the consumer!

Well, I certainly don't want to pay more in taxes, just so these people can get a discount. **** that and **** them! Corporate welfare is a major problem in this country. Re-distribution of wealth, is going on. But it's going up, not down.

As for raising taxes, that's easy. Add a full 10% to capital gains and dividends taxes. They only pay 15% now. By adding the 10, they pay 25%, just like me. I don't want anyone paying less taxes than me.

You understand when you do that you collect less in revenue, not more, right? Even Obama understands that.

 

[Dreamy]

It's not really about how much, but rather to show we're serious about attacking the deficit. If we look serious, people feel better. When people feel better, they spend more. When people spend more, more jobs are created to meet demand. When more people have jobs, there's even more money to spend and more taxes to collect to close the deficit. Why do you guys have to be taught the same basic economic lessons over and over again? C'mon, it's ECON 101!

Econ 101? Being an Economics major, I must have missed the class that showed the model and empirical data detailing a correlation between people willing to spend more since the "rich" (high annual income earners, not necessarily, the wealthy) are now paying their "fair share". Economically speaking, you believe that this is a top priority to show we're serious about attacking the deficit vs. putting a dent in annual Federal outlays or increasing people's personal income (Federal spending is outpacing people's income)? If we tax 100% of the income of everyone making more than $1million, you only cover 2 months of Federal outlays. That means that we now need to cover 80 percent of the Federal outlays, just over $1 Trillion.

Basic Economic Lesson: Reducing spending and increasing personal income growth are higher priorities. Taxing the high income earners is merely a symbolic gesture rooted in class warfare that will only make some people feel good about themselves.....we will still be dealing with $ trillion dollar deficits.

Putting Some Facts in the Tax-the-Rich Debate - Washington Wire - WSJ

Adjusted gross income % income paid as fed taxes

$1 to under $10,000 -13.6

$10,000 to under $20,000 -11.5

$20,000 to under $30,000 -3.7

$30,000 to under $50,000 3.1

$50,000 to under $100,000 7.5

$100,000 to under $200,000 12

$200,000 to under $500,000 19.6

$500,000 to under $1,000,000 24

$1,500,000 to under $2,000,000 25.1

So tax filers,married and single, who earn $200,000 pay about 20 percent of their income in federal taxes.

However those earning less than 30k have a negative payout. That means that, no only do that pay 0 percent of their income out, they get part of their income paid to them. They actually make a profit on the tax code.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Personally, I hope the fiscal cliff materializes... it will force the lefties to really show their hand, disaster will ensue and people will wake the **** up to the utter cluelessness of these asshats.

 

[editec]

How much would you raise taxes on the rich if you had the power to do so?

I woud not change the taxes ON THE RICH one iota.

What I WOULD do is change the tax structure that EVERYBODY is subject to.


For instance, I would tax all income at the same progressive rates.

That would mean that every person is subject the same rate of taxes depending on how much money they make.


PERFECTLY fair..

example.


Person one pays 25% taxes on the first $100K and 30% for ever dollar above that. The man who makes 100K pays $25K in taxes..

The person who makes twice as much pays EXACTLY the same amount of taxes on the first 100K and $30K on the next 100K.

But that's not the same rate you say?

Oh it is. Both people are levied taxes based on the EXACT law in EXACTLY the same way.

Now that's a kind of FAIR TAX.

But hell if could be fair too if the FIRST 100K was taxed at 25% and the second w3as taxed at 10%, too.

The same logic applies in that case.

Bioth are subject to the EXACT same rates of taxes.

But in the second case the $100K guy just cannot take advantage of the lower rate on tha second 100K.


Basically I am giving you a very simple version of the system we ALREADY have EXCEPT for the fact that not every dollar of income is taxed at EXACTLY the same rate.

Capital gains being taxed at a lower rate than income from labor.


THAT is the single change we could make to

1 simplify our tax codes and

2. Stop beating up people who WORK for money, rather than having their money work for them.

Simple, eh?