Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from schadenfreude99. Show schadenfreude99's posts

    Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/12/01/can_republicans_talk_part_ii_108105.html


    People with high incomes tend to be one step ahead of politicians.  Been happenning for a long time. 

    Summed up quite well in this analysis by Dr. Thomas Sowell.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue

    In Response to Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue:
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/12/01/can_republicans_talk_part_ii_108105.html People with high incomes tend to be one step ahead of politicians.  Been happenning for a long time.  Summed up quite well in this analysis by Dr. Thomas Sowell.
    Posted by schadenfreude99


    One step ahead?  Well, more like working with them to have the tax loopholes and tax-free investment structures put in place.  It's all for show.  Politicians know perfectly well that raising income taxes on just the rich will push them to havens and tax-free investments; an awful lot would have to be tweaked simultaneously to actually fix the problem.  As the author recognizes. 

    It's not so much that the rich are one step ahead, but that money is power, and they own the politicians.

    They also own the public.  All these supposed grass-roots "take back America" movements are bankrolled by rich people and associated moneyed interests.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue

    In Response to Re: Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue:
    In Response to Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue : One step ahead?  Well, more like working with them to have the tax loopholes and tax-free investment structures put in place.  It's all for show.  Politicians know perfectly well that raising income taxes on just the rich will push them to havens and tax-free investments; an awful lot would have to be tweaked simultaneously to actually fix the problem.  As the author recognizes.  It's not so much that the rich are one step ahead, but that money is power, and they own the politicians. They also own the public.  All these supposed grass-roots "take back America" movements are bankrolled by rich people and associated moneyed interests.
    Posted by WhatIsItNow



    "...to actually fix the problem"

    I'm not quite sure ofthe problem you are trying to fix.  I am certain ofthe problem those with moneyare trying to fix:  holding on to their own private property, in this case, money.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue


    I'm not quite sure ofthe problem you are trying to fix.  I am certain ofthe problem those with moneyare trying to fix:  holding on to their own private property, in this case, money.
    Posted by skeeter20


    People holding on to their private property; what a warm platitude.

    The problem being that we only make a show of having an equitable tax system. 

    I know I know.  "Equitable" is for wussy little liberals.  Real men embrace unfairness.  Yadda yadda.

    The problem is a smokescreen show of taxing the ultra-rich while allowing them to simply dodge the tax with tax havens, tax loopsholes, and tax-free investments.  Any rich person with half a brain knows to hire experts in setting up tax-avoidance systems.




    I'd like to know what a CEO taking home a $200 million bonus in 2010 does that a CEO paid 1/100th or 1/1000th of the amount in 1950 didn't do that's so great.  We certainly don't seem to be doing better economically.  But the nobles have got the peasants rooting for them, one way or another.  
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue

    In Response to Re: Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue:
    Who was the last president to target tax increases (or lack of decreases) exclusively on the rich? Hint:  First and last name begins with "H". Ya sure ya wanna go there?
    Posted by GreginMeffa


    Where do I argue for tax increases only on the rich?   

    What I argue is necessary is simulatenously tax increases for everyone and meaningful spending cuts....if we're serious about reducing the deficit.  Well "increase" in the technical sense.  I want the Bush cuts to expire, with the effect that rates go back to where they were a decade ago.

     Focus just on spending, and I guaruntee you that you'll end up with a lot of hot air and fresh set of bums to throw out in two years...  to be replaced by equally ineffective and insincere bums.

    I agree with a tiered incom tax structure.

    What I disagree with is the show of having the highest tax brackets for the rich, but simulataneously allowing a myriad of tax-free havens, investiments, trusts, etc.    That system, the author effectively argues, is why it doesn't work simply say "we should let the tax cuts for the rich expire, but extend the ones on the middle class". 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue

    So, the GOP wants $700B in tax cuts for the "rich",

    ...and to make sure they get it, they're holding hostage $18B in unemployment benefits for the neediest (i.e., "not rich", for those playing at home) Americans...during the holiday season when "needy" turns to "desperate" awfully quick....

    How effing-christian of them....
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from schadenfreude99. Show schadenfreude99's posts

    Re: Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue

    In Response to Re: Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue:
    So, the GOP wants $700B in tax cuts for the "rich", ...and to make sure they get it, they're holding hostage $18B in unemployment benefits for the neediest (i.e., "not rich", for those playing at home) Americans...during the holiday season when "needy" turns to "desperate" awfully quick.... How effing-christian of them....
    Posted by MattyScornD


    The point of this thread is that tax cuts for the "rich" means more tax revenues for the Treasury.  Republicans realize this. 

    Our Democrat leadership does not, becasue they are too busy collecting political points by spreading the lie that Republicans only care about the "rich".
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue

    "Present!"
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue

    In Response to Re: Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue:
    In Response to Re: Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue : The point of this thread is that tax cuts for the "rich" means more tax revenues for the Treasury.  Republicans realize this.  Our Democrat leadership does not, becasue they are too busy collecting political points by spreading the lie that Republicans only care about the "rich".
    Posted by schadenfreude99



    And yet, the article you linked to supports my argument:   That only makes sense where we provie the rich with tax shelters.

    There are all sorts of tax loopholes, tax havens, tax-free investments sit around; that's where the rich run when they make less from their now-higher-taxed investments than the lower-income but tax-free investments.

    You say government would increase its revenue if we cut taxes on the rich; but it would increase its revenue even more if we let taxes on the rich go back to the 90s' levels AND close their tax-free shelters.  They would have no where to run.


    And again; what is it that modern CEOs do that is so much more important than  CEOs in the last several decades to justify their 100x income?  Nothing.   There have been any number of articles on the increasing disparties between CEO pay, midlevel pay, and bottom level pay.    To the tune of 100x, yes. 

    Well, you would expect that if our economic system is functioning according to theory, these modern CEOs, with bonuses larger than a pincedom, would actually be producing WAY more than the past ones.   But they aren't. 

    Our economic growth is actually far weaker now.  That isn't to say that high executive pay reduces GDP, but it does say that executives aren't truly earning their now ghastly bonuses.
     

    What could explain it?  I dunno.  Here's one guess.

    They've effectively hijacked the capitalist system, at least insofar as it depends on publicly owned corporations.  If executives also all sit on other companies' boards, approving massive bonuses that are completely out of whack with what they've done, then they themselves will end up with their own massive bonuses.  If they simultaneously pump that money back into their own ownership of other companies and participation in funds investing in them, the shareholders won't be voting them out - they are the shareholders.

     It's effectively a massive, invisible cartel.  The system works to funnel money to them at expense of the country, only if they all play along.  They like money, so....    they do. 

    of course, what can be done about it?  We can't simply nationalize the corporations.  Or we can, but that would actually be socialism and/or communism depending on how we go about it.    And that has never worked terribly well.


    We literally have a new aristoricacy forming.
     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue

    In Response to Re: Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue:
    Fair Tax / flat Tax  everyone would pay tax on this years income, no loop holes.   Why can't that be, lord almighty, why can't that be.   Because the "BORG" could not control us. 
    Posted by howiewho


    Flat tax is incredibly regressive as its impact is much greater on the poor than on the rich.  Think about it 10% on 30K vs. 10% on 300K: who feels the pinch more in living their life?
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue

    Wow, Dr. Thomas Sowell wrote the article.  And because he's a Dr. then he must be correct.

    Same nonsense Ronald Reagan threw at everyone.  By the way, Reagan passed the largest peace time tax increase in history.

    Simple - the wealthy had a higher tax bracket under Clinton than Bush and there was no deficit under Clinton.  Bush dramatically lowers their taxes and we have a deficit equal to the tax cut on the rich.

    How can anyone argument against that fact?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue

    In Response to Re: Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue:
    Wow, Dr. Thomas Sowell wrote the article.  And because he's a Dr. then he must be correct. Same nonsense Ronald Reagan threw at everyone.  By the way, Reagan passed the largest peace time tax increase in history. Simple - the wealthy had a higher tax bracket under Clinton than Bush and there was no deficit under Clinton.  Bush dramatically lowers their taxes and we have a deficit equal to the tax cut on the rich. How can anyone argument against that fact?
    Posted by DirtyWaterLover


    Easy:   Obama got elected, so it's all his fault.
     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue


    It is none of your business unless you are an owner of the company. 
    Posted by Newtster


    Sure it is.  It harms me.  It harms you.  If the income and bonuses do not reflect actual worth produced, and this happens across the board, then they are sucking wealth out of society to everyone's detriment. 


    ____

    Well, you would expect that if our economic system is functioning according to theory, these modern CEOs, with bonuses larger than a pincedom, would actually be producing WAY more than the past ones.   But they aren't. 

    Our economic growth is actually far weaker now.  That isn't to say that high executive pay reduces GDP, but it does say that executives aren't truly earning their now ghastly bonuses.

    What could explain it?  I dunno.  Here's one guess.

    They've effectively hijacked the capitalist system, at least insofar as it depends on publicly owned corporations.  If executives also all sit on other companies' boards, approving massive bonuses that are completely out of whack with what they've done, then they themselves will end up with their own massive bonuses.  If they simultaneously pump that money back into their own ownership of other companies and participation in funds investing in them, the shareholders won't be voting them out - they are the shareholders.

     It's effectively a massive, invisible cartel.  The system works to funnel money to them at expense of the country, only if they all play along.  They like money, so....    they do. 

    of course, what can be done about it?  We can't simply nationalize the corporations.  Or we can, but that would actually be socialism and/or communism depending on how we go about it.    And that has never worked terribly well.

    We literally have a new aristoricacy forming.  
     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue

    In Response to Re: Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue:
    In Response to Re: Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue : First of all DWL, there was never any surplus under Clinton. Even after you account for the fact that the government stole the Social Security surplus and spent it in the general fund, I believe there might have been only one or two years of a fake surplus under Clinton. Secondly, the personal income tax is not the only revenue stream for the federal government. The deficit itself is related to both revenues and outlays. So to make a judgement that a change in the deficit is due strictly to the rate of taxation on personal income is far from a complete analysis. You just can't make that conclusion. One thing you also have to consider is that while government has little control over what people and companies do to generate taxable income, fees , etc., they have complete control over what they spend. If they really want to balance the budget the way to do it is to match expenses to revenues - something like what most states have to do. This problem of government finance is only going to be solved with another, bigger crisis that makes all of the differences we have now seem small.
    Posted by Newtster


    The premise of the thread is that lower taxes on the wealthy translate into increased tax revenue.  There is no proof of that.  None.  Zip.  Nada.

    Clinton's budgets were artificially balanced because of inclusion of the Social Security trust fund.  Fine.  But the same accounting principles were being applied under Bush.  So my point about the impact of Bush's tax cut for the wealthy still holds.  They increased the deficit.  Bush, with his republican house and senate, could have made budget cuts to offset the impact of the tax cuts, but they didn't.  In fact, he did the exact opposite - passing the prescription drug benefit.
     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ltown1. Show Ltown1's posts

    Re: Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue

    Scare tactics are all the GOP has left.  

    Their economics have completely submarined out country and now they still try to push their agenda.  They can't use logic, or history.  They can't run on their record or their performance.  

    They use fear. 

    "Job Killing tax increase"     What jobs? 

    "higher taxes equals less revenue"    Next they'll tell us the sky is going to fall.


    And please, you post this stuff like it means anything.  He starts with a speach made in 1924.  Those economic theories are the ones that led to the GREAT DEPRESSION.  

    Well done Dr. Sowell.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelldog1. Show kelldog1's posts

    Re: Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue

    In Response to Re: Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue:
    In Response to Re: Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue : Flat tax is incredibly regressive as its impact is much greater on the poor than on the rich.  Think about it 10% on 30K vs. 10% on 300K: who feels the pinch more in living their life?
    Posted by Reubenhop

    =============================================================

     The answer is a graduated flat tax
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelldog1. Show kelldog1's posts

    Re: Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue




      ...Also would strongly advocate for a 1% national sales tax on everything..with proceeds going exclusively to deficit reduction

    That said first things first, before we implement tax reform and deficit reduction to get this economy off of life support and thriving....we need to create demand.The Government is the spender of last resort  capable of creating such demand!

    You can't fuel a longterm sustainable economic expansion based on ephemera IE
    intangibles such as Real Estate bubbles, asset class bubbles ie stocks, commodities (gold) etc, The reality is that you have  create something tangible!
    Something that people want and need.  This creates demand which in turn creates jobs

    If you believe tax cuts for the very wealthy and austerity programs will turn economy around....you're delusional.....

    Hey I have an idea lets start another World War....World War III 

    A World War would be extremely beneficial. It would jumpstart  the global economy, it would dramatically reduce the global population and allow us to return to much simpler times...(think agrarian)...something conservatives yearn for.
    Whose with me?

     Actually North Korea with the help of China might just ignite this tinderbox

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fafhrd. Show Fafhrd's posts

    Re: Raise Taxes on the "Rich" = Less Gov't Revenue

    You can count on Sowell to refer back to the 1920's to make a point about taxing the rich.  He pretty much went beyond the pale with his column here, about the media seeming like a Fifth Column:

    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell012505.asp

    "Whether Barack Obama is simply incompetent as president or has some hidden agenda to undermine this country, at home and abroad, he has nearly everything he needs to ruin America, including a fool for a vice president"

    Hidden agenda to undermine the country?  You actually feel bad for the guy with how far he's fallen.  It's like he's trying too hard to kiss up to his target audience.

    Another Sowell gem:

    "Senator John McCain has been criticized in this column many times. But, when all is said and done, Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America. "

    Not renewing tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% will increase tax revenue.  The laffer curve is absurd.  Ask Stockman, Reagan's budget director about trickle-down economics.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tevt8_91_8w&feature=player_embedded
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share