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.
Before I start explain why it is working, let me get it out of my chest: WHY IN THE WORLD BY HAVING 90% OF YOUR INCOME CONFISCATED BY THE GOVERNMENT EVEN MAKE SENSE!!!!!! YOU PUT UP 100% OF YOUR LABOR OR RISK AND YOU ONLY ALLOW TO KEEP 10%. THAT'S ONLY THE FEDERAL LEVEL. ADDING STATE, LOCAL, AND FICA TAXES, YOU KEEP ALMOST NOTHING.
In reality, most people would never pay 90 percent; they'd pay somewhere close to 35 or 40 percent once their accountants have taken a look at their receipts. But by starting at a higher bracket, the treasury insures that it extracts more from the individual taxpayer. And as the guy's article suggests, the historical record shows that taxing the richest of Americans is actually a pretty good thing.
Quote:
This is mentioned million of time, the problem that the country is facing is not revenue, it is spending.
It depends on how you look at it, but the problem is actually both spending and revenue. I would acknowledge that you *could* make the argument that spending has become burdensome over time. However, right now, the simple fact is that, during the 1990s, revenue was sufficient to fund the government. It was the post-9/11 spending and some inexplicably bad spending proposals to boot which bloated the budget -- and it was tax cuts for the rich that began creating record deficits even before the crisis. As a result of the financial crisis, revenue has gone way down. So the problem is both increased spending and insufficient revenue. I'm actually okay with spending cuts, but to propose immediate spending cuts and to keep the tax cuts for the billionaires club is just out of step with any bit of economic sense. It's purely serving a political agenda.
Quote:
The reason why it failed because it failed to address inflation. Most people don't even know what inflation is. Many still think inflation is increase in price cause greedy producers (our trusted leader told us so anyway). Inflation is an invisible tax. The reason why it is a tax is when money supply expands (inflate), the purchase power decease.
Now, here's the question: can you explain to me why that happens? Why does purchase power decrease when money supply expands? I already know the answer, but I'm waiting to see if you can explain it.
You are getting it a bit a$$ backwards. It's corporate money that enjoys the government involvment...to pass legislation that further enriches them. The control you speak of is in the hands of Corporate America and the Wall Street Banksters and I really don't think that is what was intended when this nation was established.
And your solution is not to fix that problem, but to simply tax the rich more, therefore allowing the government to grow more, therefore concentrating more power in an entity you just described as prone to corruption?
It has been shown time and time again that when tax rates are increased, revenue to the Federal government decreases (there is a curve that has been used which shows the effect of taxation on federal revenue, and the point at which increased taxation results in less revenue).
that's not what the laffer curve says.
it does NOT say that "when tax rates are increased, revenue decreases," or vice-versa.
it simply says that there is a point in the tax code where it is possible that increased rates lead to lower revenues, or vice-versa.
it's scary to me how many people misunderstand this small but important distinction. The whole idea is really only relevant when you have insanely high tax rates, like 80 or 90%.
Yeah, it makes great sense if you're a would be socialist.
Here's an excerpt from the about us page of your source;
Much as I'd like to have the same assets as the rich I'm by no means willing to further empower government in it's unending quest to seize power and redistribute earnings (while skimming a healthy portion off the top for it's own benefit). I'd be willing to bet the majority of US citizens would join me in rejecting your proposed socialist wonderland.
This article is an excellent and worthwhile read...
In simplest terms, the richest Americans have done by far the best over the last 30 years, they are more able to pay taxes today than they have been in many decades, and they are more able to pay than other Americans by a far wider margin. At a time of national economic crisis, especially, they can and should contribute far more in taxes.
Instead, a rather vicious cycle has been at work here for years. Reduced taxes on the rich leave them with more money to influence politicians and politics. Their influence wins them further tax reductions, which gives them still more money to put to political use. When the loss of tax revenue from the rich worsens already strained government budgets, the rich press politicians to cut public services and government jobs and not to even debate a return to the higher taxes the rich used to pay. So it goes from Washington to Wisconsin to New York City. Richard D. Wolff, "Why Taxing the Rich Makes Sense"
Taxing the rich does not just make sense...it makes PERFECT sense.
how about cut taxes for everyone, with cutting SPENDING
our budget is currently 3.8 trillion (and expected to rise)
3.8 trillion divided by the 115 million taxpayers is 33k each taxpayer....enough is enough
We know the fruitloops on the far left want to live in a socialist world where equal outcome is guaranteed..and where there is no personal responsiblity. "tax the rich, tax the rich...I can't define rich or fair share, but I have my hand out and want to tax those ahead of me"...quite disgusting.
1. What is rich? I work for a living and I am not rich, but in the top 2%..and already pay 60K in federal taxes a yr..what would I get in return for paying more money? Why do I have to pay for the 40% of people who pay no income taxes? Why, why, why? I worked 15 yrs to get where I am at.
2. Those who say society wants high earners to pay more taxes, give me an opinion poll where only those being stuck with the bill agree to this? If you ask a mooch if they want to pay their own way or if someone with more income should pay, what answer do you think you will get? Of course anyone would prefer their neighbor to pay for their steak dinner at a restaurant...geez..how stupid.
3. How am I stealing frorm the low earner? I certainly do not get a good ROI on my taxes, unless you count paying for others police, fire, military, education, etc. It seems like they are getting a great return on their $0 investment.
4. How hard of a concept is it, if you want services you should pay up...even if it is a nominal amount. I am not buying, low earners pay others taxes..yea, social security and medicare they get back....how much is that of tax that actually pays yearly govt bills....huum, a payroll tax of up 3-4K? Sales tax like the rest of us? Really, who cares how hard it is..if it is hard, work harder, get more education, network, or move to a new local to do better...
5. Why do people feel like they need to stick their noses in others affairs? Why would anyone care how much money I get to keep....I clap out loud when I see a success story, we should be congratulating one another if they work hard, are successful etc. instead of being envious and coveting their money.....give me a break, that is a loser mentality.
This article is an excellent and worthwhile read...
In simplest terms, the richest Americans have done by far the best over the last 30 years, they are more able to pay taxes today than they have been in many decades, and they are more able to pay than other Americans by a far wider margin. At a time of national economic crisis, especially, they can and should contribute far more in taxes.
Instead, a rather vicious cycle has been at work here for years. Reduced taxes on the rich leave them with more money to influence politicians and politics. Their influence wins them further tax reductions, which gives them still more money to put to political use. When the loss of tax revenue from the rich worsens already strained government budgets, the rich press politicians to cut public services and government jobs and not to even debate a return to the higher taxes the rich used to pay. So it goes from Washington to Wisconsin to New York City. Richard D. Wolff, "Why Taxing the Rich Makes Sense"
Taxing the rich does not just make sense...it makes PERFECT sense.
What a worthless article. It says nothing about the potential revenue that would be generated by "taxing the rich" to a greater extent, which should be the whole point.
Given that the OP is only concerned about class warfare, and not results, let us review why "taxing the rich" will do little, if anything, to help our debt crisis without cutting spending dramatically.
If we taxed every making over $250K per year at 100% rates (slavery, but this time no food or shelter), we would generate an addition $900 billion in revenue annually. With Obama's spending (which has not even included Obamacare at this point) we would still have a $700 billion deficit- far more than any deficit rung up by Bush, even without slaves.
A 15% VAT tax, for those who crave taxes, would create $1.3 trillion in additional revenues, virtually wiping out our annual deficits. That, coupled with spending cuts, 20% corporate and personal taxes, would go a long way to solve our problems. However, the president is not really concerned about solving anything and is more interested in simply expanding class warfare.
So we should tax everyone who holds shares in a corporation you deem to "rich"? Most people don't even know where their 401K money is invested. Wonder if they would agree to "sacrifice" for your utopia of shared wealth and redistribution of the evil corporate interests? Many may until they realize they are the very folks they despise.
Don't forget to include union pensions in that. CalPERS is the biggest US investor.
Do you lefties agree to strip union employees of their pensions?
And your solution is not to fix that problem, but to simply tax the rich more, therefore allowing the government to grow more, therefore concentrating more power in an entity you just described as prone to corruption?
As many of my previous posts on many threads have shown, I advocate for Campaign Finance Reform, but we seem to have many here that think things are just dandy when Corporate America is buying elections.
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.
