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.
Anyways.... that's a silly side discussion. I don't see any justification for why the uber wealthy need to be taxed more in the OPs post.
Personally I don't believe in taxing. However, if I understand correctly, the OP makes a point that in the current economic reality, we can increase taxes on these folks to grow state and federal revenues. In any case, much of their wealth is wasted on nonsense.
On the other hand, we are in such deep ****, I don't believe that increasing their tax rate from 36% to 39% will change much in the overall scheme. It will neither create more jobs, nor scare everyone away from the US.
However, I am more intrigued with the theory of job creation. The accumulated wealth in the US, is unparalleled in history. Yet unemployment is what it is. How that coincides with job creating theory by the wealthy? If anything the opposite should be true.
Personally I don't believe in taxing. However, if I understand correctly, the OP makes a point that in the current economic reality, we can increase taxes on these folks to grow state and federal revenues. In any case, much of their wealth is wasted on nonsense.
On the other hand, we are in such deep ****, that I don't believe that increasing their tax rate from 36% to 39% will change much in the overall scheme.
I am more intrigued with the theory of job creation. The accumulated wealth in the US, is unparalleled in history. Yet unemployment is what it is. How that coincides with job creating theory by the wealthy? If anything the opposite would be true.
Why are we in deep doo doo other than we can't seem to produce enough fiat currency on a computer key board, and give it to producers while we have lots of people and capital just lying around?
Increasing taxes just collects computer digits. We have a fiat, electronic currency. While that may horrify Austrians, let me forestall them and say that what ever point they bring up, is another problem. We do not have a revenue problem. Da guberment at this moment doesn't need our fiat, computer generated money. At times, they need to slow our consumption and inflation which, if that is so horrible, why don't they raise interest rates and lower taxes? How about doing the opposite of what has not worked for 4 years and shifting money to someone else other than currency speculators in Wall Street? Da guberment can and always does print as much as it wants until the British monarchy finally cleans up this rebellious mess and labels George Washington, Jefferson and company traitors of the British Empire. In 1971 the US became its own creditor rather than who ever had gold.
The only thing increasing taxes would do is prevent rent seeking from the wealthy. Now as mystifying as this concept may be to some, if I wanted the same piece of art in an auction, would it benefit my finances to bid against someone who just got a tax cut? I think not. If I land on Boardwalk with 3 houses on it, he is going to put a hotel on it next time around.
It has nothing to do with revenue but everything to do with relative buying power. If they shut off and tax all the rent seeking, and leave enough money so people could buy it(Henry Ford, Pullman), then maybe, just possibly, it could be, a rich person might create wealth and jobs.
The main point is that da guberment has no need of revenue. It does not need to satisfy a creditor.It does not need to collect my pixels. When da guberment spends, then it is impacting resources.If da guberment decided to bid on that piece of art I wanted, I am screwed again.
I happen to enjoy things like the Interstate System, the benefits of the Air Traffic Control System, a national defense system, etc., I'm not so blind as you to not realize those things must be paid for somehow.
What I object to is paying more so the wealthy can pay less in order that they can knock down mansions to build ever bigger ones.
I'm sure that you're paying more than she.
Anyway, thank God for the uber wealthy.
Think of the jobs that are created by her decision to rebuild with HER money?
If you don't believe in taxing how does a government function? Police, fire, the military, the courts, the roads, the bridges?
Keep hearing this BS that taxing the rich any more won't fix the debt problem. Why are we investing on the 'war on drugs'? It hasn't fixed that problem.
Nobody expects that taxing the wealthy a little more is going to fix anything. What it does is pays their share of the burden. Someone less fortunate living pay check to pay check shouldn't be asked to solve the debt problem when the uber wealthy leisure class dodge their obligations to supporting this country.
Quote:
Despite skyrocketing incomes, the federal tax burden on the richest 400 has been slashed, thanks to a variety of loopholes, allowable deductions and other tools. The actual share of their income paid in taxes, according to the IRS, is 16.6 percent. Adding payroll taxes barely nudges that number.
Compare that to the vast majority of Americans, whose share of their income going to federal taxes increased from 13.1 percent in 1961 to 22.5 percent in 2007.
Personally I don't believe in taxing. However, if I understand correctly, the OP makes a point that in the current economic reality, we can increase taxes on these folks to grow state and federal revenues. In any case, much of their wealth is wasted on nonsense.
On the other hand, we are in such deep ****, I don't believe that increasing their tax rate from 36% to 39% will change much in the overall scheme. It will neither create more jobs, nor scare everyone away from the US.
However, I am more intrigued with the theory of job creation. The accumulated wealth in the US, is unparalleled in history. Yet unemployment is what it is. How that coincides with job creating theory by the wealthy? If anything the opposite should be true.
If you don't believe in taxing how does a government function? Police, fire, the military, the courts, the roads, the bridges?
Keep hearing this BS that taxing the rich any more won't fix the debt problem. Why are we investing on the 'war on drugs'? It hasn't fixed that problem.
Nobody expects that taxing the wealthy a little more is going to fix anything. What it does is pays their share of the burden. Someone less fortunate living pay check to pay check shouldn't be asked to solve the debt problem when the uber wealthy leisure class dodge their obligations to supporting this country.
The reason we have a debt problem is primarily due to entitlement programs. The cost of war is a red herring. It's the entitlements. Who benefits the most from them?
If you don't believe in taxing how does a government function? Police, fire, the military, the courts, the roads, the bridges?
Keep hearing this BS that taxing the rich any more won't fix the debt problem. Why are we investing on the 'war on drugs'? It hasn't fixed that problem.
Nobody expects that taxing the wealthy a little more is going to fix anything. What it does is pays their share of the burden. Someone less fortunate living pay check to pay check shouldn't be asked to solve the debt problem when the uber wealthy leisure class dodge their obligations to supporting this country.
Usury is a wonderful thing, for the uber wealthy. They "earn" a percentage of every dollar the working poor earn. How nice for them.
Yep. Its known as "rent". Neoclassical economics removed both finance and rent out of the equation. Pretty handy for the leisure class. According to Say's Law under Ricardian barter models money is not a factor. Once you add debtor ownership this situation changes dramatically. That is probably the most important concept Keynes brought to the 20th century. Keynesian economics is not simply an economic system of da gubernment waste as the typical windbag, fraudulent conservative thinks it is. They take one element that is abused. I don't like elements of it either but that is besides the point. These faux conservatives don't even know what it is. It was about the role of finance and some of their Austrian friends try to tell them that its important. While Austrians may be impractical idealists, at least they know what's going on. The Fed is not just a benevolent bureaucrat institution. I entertain both ideas. So I am either for Post Keynesian Treasury money as a regulated monopoly or Hayek free banking, or even both believe it or not. Why not try Post office vs UPS and Fed EX?
The other handy thing was marginal utility. While its useful to know it has been used to call bank robbery a service. If people pay more for it, then it is assumed you added value to it. Its junk.
So now all the surplus that was sucked in by land ownership that created the noble classes for thousands of years has moved to money lenders. Its finance that creates money out of nothing and by loaning it to real estate speculators, rent turns into interest. Your new lords are in Wall Street.
Keep hearing this BS that taxing the rich any more won't fix the debt problem. Why are we investing on the 'war on drugs'? It hasn't fixed that problem.
Right. And in another post I asked what is the real cost of the war on drugs and why we don't scrutinize that budget the way we do for every cent on other items, including the military. I would like conservatives (in particular) to face the astronomical amount the war on drugs cost us and see how that fits into their "small government" theory.
Quote:
Nobody expects that taxing the wealthy a little more is going to fix anything.
I disagree. Many in this country are certain that it will solve most, if not all our economic problems. But you and I know the truth.
Quote:
What it does is pays their share of the burden. Someone less fortunate living pay check to pay check shouldn't be asked to solve the debt problem when the uber wealthy leisure class dodge their obligations to supporting this country.
Unlike with facts, this one is a matter of opinion. Many high income individuals feel strongly that they already pay their fair share, when roughly 50% of their income go to taxes. They are sure that the top 1% pay a disproportional amount of the total tax revenue, while a large portion of the population (30-40%) pay zero dollars. Bottom line, their answer is that they already pay more than their fair share.
I support raising taxes only if there is no other way and only if it solves a practical problem. A last resort. Taxing should never be used as a tool for "educating" the public, making a political statement, punishing someone, or giving someone else satisfaction.
At the same time, the conservative dogma that opposes any tax, even if means a state or federal government collapse is absolutely crazy.
Last edited by oberon_1; 01-08-2012 at 06:27 PM..
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.
