Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Often on this forum there are calls to markedly increase income taxes on the rich. If we take that interest to the extreme and tax the rich (those making more than $250,000 per year) 100% of thier income (slavery), that would yield 1.3 trillion in federal revenue. Obviously, in the absence of marked spending cuts, that would not be enough revenue to be able to cut our deficits. I am wondering when the citizens of the US will wake up to the fact that milking the rich will never solve thier problems and that spending cuts is the only way to get back on the road of financial stability.
Often on this forum there are calls to markedly increase income taxes on the rich. If we take that interest to the extreme and tax the rich (those making more than $250,000 per year) 100% of thier income (slavery), that would yield 1.3 trillion in federal revenue. Obviously, in the absence of marked spending cuts, that would not be enough revenue to be able to cut our deficits. I am wondering when the citizens of the US will wake up to the fact that milking the rich will never solve thier problems and that spending cuts is the only way to get back on the road of financial stability.
Between 2000 and 2006, the taxes paid by the top 1% of filers (by AGI) increased from $366.9 billion to $408.4 billion, a difference of a little less than $41.5 billion and an increase of 11.3%. Meanwhile, their reported AGI increased over that same time period from $1,336.8 billion to $1,791.9 billion. That's a jump of $455.1 billion, or 34.0%. To save everybody some math, that $41.5 billion in additional taxes being taken out of $455.1 in additional income works out to an average tax rate of 9.1 cents on the dollar when the going rate for the top 1% in 2000 was 25.0 cents on the dollar. That's simply welfare for the fabulously wealthy, and that's what Bush was all about.
We've had enough years now of every battle in this class-warfare saga going to the already fabulously wealthy. They've had their run. Time to start thinkling about the other 99% of the people a little more often. Nobody proposes taxing the wealthy at a 100% average rate nor at anything even close to a 100% marginal rate. The rich were not after all being forced out of their mansions or unable to make their country club dues payments in the latter years of the Clinton administration. They were in fact living high on the hog that whole time. They'll do just fine with rates returned to those of the late 1990's. Many won't even notice the difference at all. But the Treasury will...
The Progressive communists who post on this forum will never wake up. Class warfare is their cry. It doesn't have to be logical.
Class warfare against Class envy? The top 1% is saying relatively little, they know the inequity and doubt that it will change much, certainly not enough to impact them very much.
Often on this forum there are calls to markedly increase income taxes on the rich. If we take that interest to the extreme and tax the rich (those making more than $250,000 per year) 100% of thier income (slavery), that would yield 1.3 trillion in federal revenue. Obviously, in the absence of marked spending cuts, that would not be enough revenue to be able to cut our deficits. I am wondering when the citizens of the US will wake up to the fact that milking the rich will never solve thier problems and that spending cuts is the only way to get back on the road of financial stability.
We've had enough years now of every battle in this class-warfare saga going to the already fabulously wealthy. They've had their run. Time to start thinkling about the other 99% of the people a little more often. Nobody proposes taxing the wealthy at a 100% average rate nor at anything even close to a 100% marginal rate. The rich were not after all being forced out of their mansions or unable to make their country club dues payments in the latter years of the Clinton administration. They were in fact living high on the hog that whole time. They'll do just fine with rates returned to those of the late 1990's. Many won't even notice the difference at all. But the Treasury will...
I disagree; even during the late 90s the top marginal rate was ridiculously low compared to decades prior. The 1993 tax hikes set the top rate at 39.6%, the Bush tax cuts only brought it down to 38.6% then 35% respectively.
No one's advocating a 100% tax. Way to create a non-issue out of a hyperbole.
----
The real issue is about the fact that there really is no possible way for a person to do work within a lifetime that is worth billions of dollars, yet there are multi-billionaires. There are plenty of people (teachers, non-profit organizers, engineers/writers/artists et al. who work for other people, etc.) who provide just as much (I'd say a lot more) benefits to society over their lifetimes as multi-billionaire CEOs yet are in a much lower tax bracket.
I don't see how those top wealthiest people can be worth so much more than the rest.
The Wealth Distribution
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2009). Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
No one is innocent with regard to tax advantages and, at the same time, everyone is a victim of tax injustice. That is the nature of an ultra-complicated tax code; a result of paying off debts to special interests.
Why not everyone pay their fair share of taxes? Eliminate deductions, credits, loopholes, write-offs, shelters, whatever they're named and just pay what you actually owe. Then, maybe, tax payers would be more concerned about how much they pay rather than how much they can write-off.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
