Why we should raise taxes on the rich

[SLD]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/opinion/rich-getting-richer-taxes.html?ref=opinion

A great article and one of the primary reasons why I vote straight Democratic - despite the party's flaws. Since the Reagan tax cuts of the 80's we've seen incomes for the wealthy soar while gains for others have been marginal at best - and even then often as a result of having to hold down several jobs at once or finding ways to work overtime without getting paid overtime. The high marginal tax rates stopped the excessive consumption that we see now in the uber wealthy. With high marginal tax rates, there was no incentive to cut workers salaries or hours since if you, as a CEO, took more income, then it would just go to taxes. That meant more money for the masses to spend on things. Whereas the rich don't really spend their money as much - their's only so much consumption one can do.

With so much money tied up in the super wealthy our economy stagnates.

I would however state that perhaps one policy does not fit all times. High marginal rates can stifle some entrepreneurial spirit. At times a lower marginal rate may be better.

SLD

 

[Derec]

Rich are already paying a great deal in taxes, compared to lower income brackets. And (as Romney infamously pointed out) 47% pay no federal income tax at all, in fact they have a negative federal income tax burden.

The negative thing applies to people with children (more children, more negative taxes), and in aggregate those making little tend to have a lot of children, hence the overall negative rate. If you are single with no kids, you are paying federal income taxes even if you make $15k or something. I would welcome a tax reform that greatly reduces tax benefits for careless breeding. I mean, it's not only parents that have high living expenses. If you think daycare is expensive, try hiring a decent hooker (I think I should be able to deduct those expenses).

 

[thebeave]

I've always wondered if people will "walk the walk" rather than just "talk the talk" if and when they find themselves suddenly getting a lot of money. For example, if you win the lottery, will you do as much as you can to minimize the taxes on your winnings (as smart, sensible people will do), or will you say, "Gosh, I really should pay my fair share of taxes on all this money. I'm going to write an extra big check to Uncle Sam right away!"

If you would try to minimize your taxes, then shouldn't you STFU about rich people not paying enough?

 

[coloradoatheist]

I've always wondered if people will "walk the walk" rather than just "talk the talk" if and when they find themselves suddenly getting a lot of money. For example, if you win the lottery, will you do as much as you can to minimize the taxes on your winnings (as smart, sensible people will do), or will you say, "Gosh, I really should pay my fair share of taxes on all this money. I'm going to write an extra big check to Uncle Sam right away!"

If you would try to minimize your taxes, then shouldn't you STFU about rich people not paying enough?

Good question.

One thing I found Warren Buffets a huge hypocrite for was that he said he was going to send his inheritance to the Gates Charity instead of letting government divvy it up.

 

[laughing dog]

Rich are already paying a great deal in taxes, compared to lower income brackets. And (as Romney infamously pointed out) 47% pay no federal income tax at all, in fact they have a negative federal income tax burden.

The negative thing applies to people with children (more children, more negative taxes), and in aggregate those making little tend to have a lot of children, hence the overall negative rate. If you are single with no kids, you are paying federal income taxes even if you make $15k or something. I would welcome a tax reform that greatly reduces tax benefits for careless breeding. I mean, it's not only parents that have high living expenses. If you think daycare is expensive, try hiring a decent hooker (I think I should be able to deduct those expenses).

Focusing on the federal income tax is a bit misleading since it ignores the effects of the FICA and Medicate taxes, and federal excise taxes on tax progressivity.

 

[fast]

I would welcome a tax reform that greatly reduces tax benefits for careless breeding.

That would result in intense accusations of racism (of the second kind). How would you combat that?

 

[whichphilosophy]

I would welcome a tax reform that greatly reduces tax benefits for careless breeding.

That would result in intense accusations of racism (of the second kind). How would you combat that?

Recently passed in UK Law, families for the 3rd and subsequent children born after 06 April 2017 will no longer receive child benefits from the State. Prior to that date, someone could have as many as they wanted and they received benefits. The UK is just too overcrowded and successive governments failed to build sufficient affordable housing.

Everyone is affected by this.

My estimate taking a Builder's Federation Report in 2015 (saying 1 million short) is UK is about 2 million affordable houses short. This is taking into account more people pack into one space than 20 years ago.

 

[laughing dog]

I would welcome a tax reform that greatly reduces tax benefits for careless breeding.

That would result in intense accusations of racism (of the second kind). How would you combat that?

If careless breeding could have been clearly identified, this particular point in this thread probably would not have started or continued.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One thing I found Warren Buffets a huge hypocrite for was that he said he was going to send his inheritance to the Gates Charity instead of letting government divvy it up.

What's the problem? He feels the Gates Foundation will do more good with it than the government would.

 

[coloradoatheist]

One thing I found Warren Buffets a huge hypocrite for was that he said he was going to send his inheritance to the Gates Charity instead of letting government divvy it up.

What's the problem? He feels the Gates Foundation will do more good with it than the government would.

He's the one being outspoken about the rich not being taxed enough. And here is a great example for him to put his money where his mouth is and say that the government taking money is better than Gates using it. Buffet also has the option of paying more on his taxes too.

 

[Jayjay]

America has one of the most, if not the most progressive taxation in the developed world. That's not to say that it couldn't be made even more progressive, but maybe that's not the root cause. Besides the super-rich will always find ways to avoid paying all their taxes anyway.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What's the problem? He feels the Gates Foundation will do more good with it than the government would.

He's the one being outspoken about the rich not being taxed enough. And here is a great example for him to put his money where his mouth is and say that the government taking money is better than Gates using it. Buffet also has the option of paying more on his taxes too.

It's not going to Gates, it's going to charity.

 

[coloradoatheist]

He's the one being outspoken about the rich not being taxed enough. And here is a great example for him to put his money where his mouth is and say that the government taking money is better than Gates using it. Buffet also has the option of paying more on his taxes too.

It's not going to Gates, it's going to charity.

Yes. But Buffets is complaining about how rich people aren't giving enough to government, and here he has an opportunity to put his money where his mouth is and what is he doing, the opposite. So even Buffet believes that a private organization can do better than government.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Buffett has a good PR sense. I wouldn't read much more than that into his pronouncements.

 

[funinspace]

Rich are already paying a great deal in taxes, compared to lower income brackets. And (as Romney infamously pointed out) 47% pay no federal income tax at all, in fact they have a negative federal income tax burden.

A more useful chart, as "income taxes" clearly fail to tell the whole story:


I had to reduce it a bit to fit, so it isn't as easy to read, but from the article:
http://www.pgpf.org/budget-basics/who-pays-taxes

 

[PyramidHead]

Great. Now, let's compare how much taxes they pay with how much wealth they control.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/opinion/rich-getting-richer-taxes.html?ref=opinion

A great article and one of the primary reasons why I vote straight Democratic - despite the party's flaws. Since the Reagan tax cuts of the 80's we've seen incomes for the wealthy soar while gains for others have been marginal at best - and even then often as a result of having to hold down several jobs at once or finding ways to work overtime without getting paid overtime. The high marginal tax rates stopped the excessive consumption that we see now in the uber wealthy. With high marginal tax rates, there was no incentive to cut workers salaries or hours since if you, as a CEO, took more income, then it would just go to taxes. That meant more money for the masses to spend on things. Whereas the rich don't really spend their money as much - their's only so much consumption one can do.

With so much money tied up in the super wealthy our economy stagnates.

I would however state that perhaps one policy does not fit all times. High marginal rates can stifle some entrepreneurial spirit. At times a lower marginal rate may be better.

SLD

You are advocating taxation as a public policy tool. Isn't taxation supposed to be about funding the government?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/opinion/rich-getting-richer-taxes.html?ref=opinion

A great article and one of the primary reasons why I vote straight Democratic - despite the party's flaws. Since the Reagan tax cuts of the 80's we've seen incomes for the wealthy soar while gains for others have been marginal at best - and even then often as a result of having to hold down several jobs at once or finding ways to work overtime without getting paid overtime. The high marginal tax rates stopped the excessive consumption that we see now in the uber wealthy. With high marginal tax rates, there was no incentive to cut workers salaries or hours since if you, as a CEO, took more income, then it would just go to taxes. That meant more money for the masses to spend on things. Whereas the rich don't really spend their money as much - their's only so much consumption one can do.

With so much money tied up in the super wealthy our economy stagnates.

I would however state that perhaps one policy does not fit all times. High marginal rates can stifle some entrepreneurial spirit. At times a lower marginal rate may be better.

SLD

You are advocating taxation as a public policy tool. Isn't taxation supposed to be about funding the government?

If only life were so simple.

I suppose if I have sufficient wealth that I don't have to ever worry about money, except for which luxuries to purchase, then yes, your observation is correct.

Taxation, however, should reflect wealth. If you have a lot, and the government you live under is protecting that wealth, then you owe it relative to that wealth.

 

[funinspace]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/opinion/rich-getting-richer-taxes.html?ref=opinion

A great article and one of the primary reasons why I vote straight Democratic - despite the party's flaws. Since the Reagan tax cuts of the 80's we've seen incomes for the wealthy soar while gains for others have been marginal at best - and even then often as a result of having to hold down several jobs at once or finding ways to work overtime without getting paid overtime. The high marginal tax rates stopped the excessive consumption that we see now in the uber wealthy. With high marginal tax rates, there was no incentive to cut workers salaries or hours since if you, as a CEO, took more income, then it would just go to taxes. That meant more money for the masses to spend on things. Whereas the rich don't really spend their money as much - their's only so much consumption one can do.

With so much money tied up in the super wealthy our economy stagnates.

I would however state that perhaps one policy does not fit all times. High marginal rates can stifle some entrepreneurial spirit. At times a lower marginal rate may be better.

SLD

You are advocating taxation as a public policy tool. Isn't taxation supposed to be about funding the government?

LOL..."supposed to be"...is that like "little did he know"? Is there a rule somewhere special stating that taxation is strictly about funding for the federales?