Millionaires want higher taxes to fix inequality

[EricK]

I'm not sure which country you guys who are saying "why don't the millionaires just pay the IRS more" are living in, but in the country I live in, when you pay more taxes than you owe, the IRS sends that money back to you. Not that I have had that particular experience in quite a few years.

You can make a gift to the US government: http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html

I imagine other countries might have something similar.

 

[ZiprHead]

Last I checked there is nothing that prevents people who want to pay more money to the government from doing so.

Ninja'd by ksen.

 

[KeepTalking]

I'm not sure which country you guys who are saying "why don't the millionaires just pay the IRS more" are living in, but in the country I live in, when you pay more taxes than you owe, the IRS sends that money back to you. Not that I have had that particular experience in quite a few years.

You can make a gift to the US government: http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html

I imagine other countries might have something similar.

Good to know.

I actually did a quick Google before I posted, but I guess since I used 'IRS' in the search all I got was results on what to do if you can't afford to pay your taxes.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

If you have a secret, let's hear it. Please inform us which countries have successfully adopted a revenue system based on voluntary donations from millionaires, as opposed to taxation of said millionaires. It doesn't even have to be in the last few years. Maybe I've been under a rock all my life, but I've never come across a single nation that has embraced your idea instead of mine.

Bonjour! This form of taxation paid for your revolution you ingrate! And our country did just fine afterwards."
/​

Louis XVI

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I'm not sure which country you guys who are saying "why don't the millionaires just pay the IRS more" are living in, but in the country I live in, when you pay more taxes than you owe, the IRS sends that money back to you. Not that I have had that particular experience in quite a few years.

Well then, they can damn well use that cheque from the IRS to go and buy some cement and start filling in a few potholes around the neighbourhood.

It was a tough winter for us all. Let's all take time to breathe.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Last I checked there is nothing that prevents people who want to pay more money to the government from doing so.

Thus letting the non-payers laugh all the way to the bank about how social responsibility is for losers.

Why the strings and conditions?

It seems to me if these 51% of the millionaires paid more to the government there'd be less inequality. Period.

You're right, so let's make it easier for them by instituting a system that deducts it directly from their income before they even see it. We could call it something like an... income... tax.

And then we could also apply it to the other 49%, so there would be EVEN LESS inequality! Now we're cooking! I like these little brainstorming sessions.

That approach requires laws be passed.

Mine allows these people to take actions solely within their own control to demonstrate their commitment to their stated beliefs.

Right. Which is why my approach is way more effective. Thanks!

That's not the issue though, is it?

Yes it is. Advocating "higher taxes on the wealthy" and making a unilateral donation are different issues.

As an analogy, a business owner who says "I believe the minimum wage isn't high enough and government should raise it" is far less believable than one who says "I believe the minimum wage is not high enough, government should raise it, and I am going to pay extra from now even if they don't raise it". Now at least the former businessman has a case not to unilaterally raise the minimum he pays to his employees - it would put his business at a competitive disadvantage.

Then it doesn't seem like a good analogy or anything that'd make a businessman seem more "believable"

But an individual who thinks he should pay higher taxes does not need to wait until government hears his pleas to raise taxes on people like him. He can pay the extra now, while continuing to campaign, at no extra cost (other than the higher taxes which, we assume, he is happy to pay).

Which is exactly what he's doing for all you know. Then you could discuss the merits of the actual proposal.

 

[PyramidHead]

Right. Which is why my approach is way more effective. Thanks!

That's not the issue though, is it?

I think it's precisely the issue. Questioning the motives of the people making the suggestion is a distraction from whether their suggestion has any merit.

As an analogy, a business owner who says "I believe the minimum wage isn't high enough and government should raise it" is far less believable than one who says "I believe the minimum wage is not high enough, government should raise it, and I am going to pay extra from now even if they don't raise it". Now at least the former businessman has a case not to unilaterally raise the minimum he pays to his employees - it would put his business at a competitive disadvantage. But an individual who thinks he should pay higher taxes does not need to wait until government hears his pleas to raise taxes on people like him. He can pay the extra now, while continuing to campaign, at no extra cost (other than the higher taxes which, we assume, he is happy to pay).

I care very little about the character of the millionaires in question. Whether they are "believable" doesn't help the economy one way or another. Maybe they are too lazy to write out checks to the government. Maybe they actually don't want their taxes raised, and are just saying otherwise to appear charitable. It doesn't matter: wealth inequality remains an issue either way. We can either wait for them to pony up their money voluntarily, which has never worked, or we can take their money (regardless of if they were being honest) and use it to help people who need it, which has generally been the strategy in most developed nations. At least it seems that way from under this rock I call 'reality.'

 

[dismal]

Yes it is. Advocating "higher taxes on the wealthy" and making a unilateral donation are different issues.

Yes, one can be done quickly and easily by any millionaire who thinks he should give up more of his money in the name of "inequality" and the other requires an act of congress that has a snowball's chance in hell.

 

[dismal]

Right. Which is why my approach is way more effective. Thanks!

That's not the issue though, is it?

I think it's precisely the issue. Questioning the motives of the people making the suggestion is a distraction from whether their suggestion has any merit.

Note that this thread is about millionaires wanting higher taxes. The author seems to have attached some special significance to what these millionaires think.

There are probably 10 dozen other threads here you can participate in if you want a "taxing the wealthy is super-awesome" thread.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Yes it is. Advocating "higher taxes on the wealthy" and making a unilateral donation are different issues.

Yes, one can be done quickly and easily by any millionaire who thinks he should give up more of his money in the name of "inequality" and the other requires an act of congress that has a snowball's chance in hell.

You do know that last year our state legislature raised taxes on the wealthy (in a move supported by the wealthy) and the economy grew so much so that we had to cut taxes for everybody this year because or deficit was an overwhelming surplus. (But the Tea Party still protested the evil tax cut as a ruse to implement socialism.)

In a related note, the wealthy did not flee the state as predicted. They continue to stuff our museums with priceless artwork and our cities with start up cash.

 

[PyramidHead]

Right. Which is why my approach is way more effective. Thanks!

That's not the issue though, is it?

I think it's precisely the issue. Questioning the motives of the people making the suggestion is a distraction from whether their suggestion has any merit.

Note that this thread is about millionaires wanting higher taxes. The author seems to have attached some special significance to what these millionaires think.

There are probably 10 dozen other threads here you can participate in if you want a "taxing the wealthy is super-awesome" thread.

If they were donating their money while simultaneously asking to be taxed more, it wouldn't change your opinion about whether millionaires in general should be taxed more, which is what they are actually suggesting. Therefore, it's a non-issue, a red herring, and your side loves to bring it up because it shifts the conversation away from the content of what is being suggested. You get to post in the thread all you like and never talk about wealth inequality and/or progressive taxation at all, which must be very enjoyable. Eventually, we have to actually talk about wealth inequality and/or progressive taxation, though. I think that's why the rich publicly asked for their taxes to be raised in order to combat wealth inequality, but I can't be certain.

 

[maxparrish]

n the heated debate over inequality, the wealthy are usually portrayed as the cause rather than the solution.

But CNBC's first-ever Millionaire Survey reveals that 51 percent of American millionaires believe inequality is a "major problem" for the U.S., and nearly two-thirds support higher taxes on the wealthy and a higher minimum wage as ways to narrow the wealth gap.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101634240

Impossible. After diligent reading of the posts at FRDB and now TFT, we all know that the rich are a greedy oligarchy that oppresses the masses, usually with their dutiful henchmen in the Republican party. How dare you accuse them of having conventional beliefs, just like the working class.

 

[ksen]

Hey max, thanks for conceding that wanting higher taxes to reduce inequality is a "conventional belief".

 

[doubtingt]

n the heated debate over inequality, the wealthy are usually portrayed as the cause rather than the solution.

But CNBC's first-ever Millionaire Survey reveals that 51 percent of American millionaires believe inequality is a "major problem" for the U.S., and nearly two-thirds support higher taxes on the wealthy and a higher minimum wage as ways to narrow the wealth gap.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101634240

Impossible. After diligent reading of the posts at FRDB and now TFT, we all know that the rich are a greedy oligarchy that oppresses the masses, usually with their dutiful henchmen in the Republican party. How dare you accuse them of having conventional beliefs, just like the working class.

They are a greedy oligarchy. It is in their selfish interests to recognize the basic economic and sociological facts that they don't realize that extreme wealth inequality is a cause of many social problems, instability, and a hindrance to economic growth. They agree with the general public only in that inequality is a problem and higher taxes on the wealthy can help, but they do not have conventional beliefs about the sources of wealth and inequality. As other details of the survey show, they do not believe that their growing wealth has anything to do with the growing inequality, but rather that those less well off are just not hard working enough, smart enough, and saving enough of their money. They take no responsibility for the inequalities and completely dismiss the role that luck has played in their wealth (which so laughably absurd and goes against so much clear evidence of the massive role of luck that it shows they really are not all that bright).