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.
If a 'rich' person claims to support raising taxes on themselves:
There could be a number of reasons why. . .
01 They might be part of a small percentage that did not make their money honestly, and their conscience is creeping up on them.
02 They have so much money that they are making money on (investments) that they calculated the amount they will have to pay in terms of a tax increase is only a fraction of the passive/investment income they already make on the money they have. So they would basically be paying more taxes, but on money that generates new money on its own without any real effort.
03 They are aware (right or wrong) of the potential chance that if the country goes bankrupt that it will negatively impact their existing business ventures and/or investments and they will wind up indirectly losing more money by the government lacking the revenue from their increased taxes then they would if they were required to pay more and the economic system continues functioning as it currently is.
04 They realize that there is a possibility that if the government is unable to continue taxing them (at at higher rates) and then redistributing the money to people that are not 'rich' then there is a percentage at the bottom of the economic pyramid that could revolt, riot or cause an amount of civil unrest that is equal to what would have to occurr for the existing economic structure to collapse - and by default, negatively impact the current wealth and investments of those that are 'rich'.
05 They have enough of an understanding of the current tax code to know that despite the increase in taxes on themselves that there are a myriad of ways that someone in their financial position can manipulate their tax obligations through deductions, credits and legal tax avoidance (not evasion) that are only available to those that have enough income and/or wealth to be considered 'rich'.
06 -10 are a little complex and dealing with the inter-relation of government created money (through the Federal Reserve printing of fiat money) and human psychology.
I can summarize a remaining point by identifying the fact that even if there were 'rich' people that supported raising taxes on themselves - the underlying reason if/or when that occurrs is primarly based on the fact that regardless of the level of taxation the 'rich' are required to pay to the government. That same government that collects the increased taxes from the rich will always indefinetely ensure through existing and future regulations, portions of the tax code that affect those that are 'rich' as well as those that are not, continued overspending, manipulation of fiat money (including interest rates and the creation of money out of thin air) and maintaining relatively rigid socio-economic segments within the overall pyramid:
Some of the 'rich' are intelligent enough to know that positions of the pieces on the chess board have an extremely unlikely chance of ever changing and they can and do often accept tax increases that impact only them as long as the rules of the game, the benefits of entrenched existing wealth and the tax laws overall continue to enable them to hold and maintain their positions regardless of whether or not there arbituary tax rate changes. And they are also smart enough to know that those in power (politicians) will never tax them too much and or allow those at the bottom of the pyramid to rise through the use of force and outright take the wealth of the rich - because it would result in chaos so pervasive that those in power (politicians) would lose their position as well as authority to tax to begin with. Ultimately anarchy. So the very convienent relationship that exists between those in political power and those that are 'rich' is a mutually co-dependent one that both seek to have continue exist and for numerous reasons.
06 -10 are a little complex and dealing with the inter-relation of government created money (through the Federal Reserve printing of fiat money) and human psychology.
I can summarize a remaining point by identifying the fact that even if there were 'rich' people that supported raising taxes on themselves - the underlying reason if/or when that occurrs is primarly based on the fact that regardless of the level of taxation the 'rich' are required to pay to the government. That same government that collects the increased taxes from the rich will always indefinetely ensure through existing and future regulations, portions of the tax code that affect those that are 'rich' as well as those that are not, continued overspending, manipulation of fiat money (including interest rates and the creation of money out of thin air) and maintaining relatively rigid socio-economic segments within the overall pyramid:
Some of the 'rich' are intelligent enough to know that positions of the pieces on the chess board have an extremely unlikely chance of ever changing and they can and do often accept tax increases that impact only them as long as the rules of the game, the benefits of entrenched existing wealth and the tax laws overall continue to enable them to hold and maintain their positions regardless of whether or not there arbituary tax rate changes. And they are also smart enough to know that those in power (politicians) will never tax them too much and or allow those at the bottom of the pyramid to rise through the use of force and outright take the wealth of the rich - because it would result in chaos so pervasive that those in power (politicians) would lose their position as well as authority to tax to begin with. Ultimately anarchy. So the very convienent relationship that exists between those in political power and those that are 'rich' is a mutually co-dependent one that both seek to have continue exist and for numerous reasons.
Very well put
It makes sense that those who are truely rich would want the middleclass to thrive and the poor to remain poor and uneducated about wealth accumilation so that they can keep spending and keep the wealthy wealthier. Ironically it is the brainwashed who are not wealthy are their most ardant defenders who will proably never achieve real wealth in their lifetimes
Where's the $1600 coming from? Somebody posted a NY Times link claiming $50.
Nope it is more than that. If it was just $50 I would agree with you wholeheartly, btw people earning over 5 mill a year would pay about 120,000 more a year and the rest goes down from there.
I think Democrats have been doing themselves a disservice by trying to garner support from Americans in general for raising taxes on the rich b/c that plays into the rhetoric of class warfare. What they should be doing is pointing out the rich believe that they should pay more taxes.
A couple of times a year since Obama took office a poll is done that highlights a majority of people making over $1M/year support raising taxes on themselves. When Obama first came into office, that # was barely over 50%. The latest one I could find has it close to 70%.
This is a message straight from the horse's mouth. And when you weigh it against the fact there are rich people that oppose paying any taxes on principle, not financials, that should have been the nail in the coffin on the tax debate.
Then you have Kerry, a Democrat and the richest Senator in the country, supporting higher taxes publicly while at the same time getting caught red handed dodging his own taxes.
And it's widely known that Buffet is in involved in legal action for avoiding millions upon millions in taxes even as he also publicly supports higher taxes.
So these are anecdotal, but so are the things the original post talks about. The actual facts are that when England did institute a "soak the 1%" policy, more than half of those millionaires disappeared. They year before the millionaire tax, 16000 millionaires filed taxes while the year after, just 6000.
It is a keystone of the liberal mindset that they want government to be good so they can be selfish. Anywhere you have tight knit charitable communities that take care of their own, you have a red county. When you have urban disconnected people you have a blue county. Just a glance at an election map makes that abundantly clear. When you have people who advocate for higher taxes to help the needy but they themselves do not donate their time or money to charity, you can bet they are counting on society as a whole to pick up the social tab and are not advocating for higher taxes out of the goodness of their heart because they are eager to pay more out of their own pockets.
Nope it is more than that. If it was just $50 I would agree with you wholeheartly, btw people earning over 5 mill a year would pay about 120,000 more a year and the rest goes down from there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint
The middle class hardly benefited from the Bush tax cuts. Here's how they affected families in different income brackets. Notice how someone making $50,000 saved $112 and someone making over a million a year saved $42,766.
If a 'rich' person claims to support raising taxes on themselves:
There could be a number of reasons why. . .
01 They might be part of a small percentage that did not make their money honestly, and their conscience is creeping up on them.
02 They have so much money that they are making money on (investments) that they calculated the amount they will have to pay in terms of a tax increase is only a fraction of the passive/investment income they already make on the money they have. So they would basically be paying more taxes, but on money that generates new money on its own without any real effort.
03 They are aware (right or wrong) of the potential chance that if the country goes bankrupt that it will negatively impact their existing business ventures and/or investments and they will wind up indirectly losing more money by the government lacking the revenue from their increased taxes then they would if they were required to pay more and the economic system continues functioning as it currently is.
04 They realize that there is a possibility that if the government is unable to continue taxing them (at at higher rates) and then redistributing the money to people that are not 'rich' then there is a percentage at the bottom of the economic pyramid that could revolt, riot or cause an amount of civil unrest that is equal to what would have to occurr for the existing economic structure to collapse - and by default, negatively impact the current wealth and investments of those that are 'rich'.
05 They have enough of an understanding of the current tax code to know that despite the increase in taxes on themselves that there are a myriad of ways that someone in their financial position can manipulate their tax obligations through deductions, credits and legal tax avoidance (not evasion) that are only available to those that have enough income and/or wealth to be considered 'rich'.
Another strong possibility is that they are hypocrites. George Soros knows that his opinion doesn't mean squat when it comes time for Congress to vote on the upcoming tax increases. But he does like to present himself as a good guy, so he makes a public statement to help his persona. Meanwhile, he uses every possible legal trick to pay the lowest tax rate possible.
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.
