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.
Because someone making $40K per year shouldn't be paying proportionately more than someone making $40 million. The rich shouldn't be sucking off the sweat of the poor and middle class.
Except that a family making $40K per year probably is in the 50% that pays NO federal income tax thanks to deductions; while there are maybe 5 people in the nation who are WAGE EARNERS (the target of income tax) making $40 million a year.
The real question is why should two people who started out with nothing, but sacrificed and got advanced educations and worked 80 hours a week to rise to success in their fields, and earn around $250K but live in places with VERY high cost of living, should pay EVEN MORE THAN THE $60,000 or so that they currently send to Washington? Because when the actual "tax the rich" legislation gets passed, it will mean huge increases on anyone who already pays ANY income tax. If it were limited only to those families making over $250,000 the additional revenues would be nothing more than statistical noise.
Of course, would letting the Bush tax cuts fully expire solve our federal government's fiscal problems? Let's see; the additional tax revenues from MUCH higher rates on EVERY wage earner (including a jump from 10% to 15% for even the lowest earners) would amount to about $210 billion, assuming THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN BEHAVIOR TO AVOID THE EXTRA TAXATION (and there will be, but let's ignore that for now). The price tag on Obama’s tax proposal: $150 billion
So the government gets an additional $210 billion in 2013, while "The Obama administration's February 2012 budget request contained $2.902 trillion in receipts and $3.803 trillion in outlays, for a deficit of $901 billion."
Run those numbers: even with massive tax increases on EVERYONE, Washington will STILL SPEND $791 billion MORE THAN IT GETS IN TAXES! And here is the basic problem with trying to increase taxes to meet Washington's spending: politicians don't care how much they get in tax revenues, because they don't limit themselves to that. THEY HAVE NO LIMITS because they can simply print endless debt instruments, and the Fed pays for them with worthless printed dollars even when NOBODY WILL BUY THE DEBT.
So you CANNOT TAX YOUR WAY out of Washington's overspending: even if they confiscated every single earned dollar in the economy, as well as every investment dollar, they would still spend trillions more than that, every single year, because THEY CAN.
ETA: I gave a very specific example of the type of education I was talking about and you chose to ignore it. I am talking about getting an educated workforce in the vocational and technical fields. For far too long, we've lied to the younger generations telling them they HAD to have a four year degree to succeed. We need more people who know how to DO things.
We agree there. That isn't inconsistent with my statement. It was the liberals who dismantled the vocational track; it's racist.
Adams was presumably referring to primary school; Reagan was referring to funding specific college classes. That's a pretty difference.
No he wasn't. Did you not read the link I provided? He and Thomas Jefferson both were so committed to public higher education, that when a constitutional amendment failed to pass, Jefferson establishment of the University of Virginia (yes, the same UVA that still exists to this day).
Except that a family making $40K per year probably is in the 50% that pays NO federal income tax thanks to deductions; while there are maybe 5 people in the nation who are WAGE EARNERS (the target of income tax) making $40 million a year.
The real question is why should two people who started out with nothing, but sacrificed and got advanced educations and worked 80 hours a week to rise to success in their fields, and earn around $250K but live in places with VERY high cost of living, should pay EVEN MORE THAN THE $60,000 or so that they currently send to Washington? Because when the actual "tax the rich" legislation gets passed, it will mean huge increases on anyone who already pays ANY income tax. If it were limited only to those families making over $250,000 the additional revenues would be nothing more than statistical noise.
Of course, would letting the Bush tax cuts fully expire solve our federal government's fiscal problems? Let's see; the additional tax revenues from MUCH higher rates on EVERY wage earner (including a jump from 10% to 15% for even the lowest earners) would amount to about $210 billion, assuming THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN BEHAVIOR TO AVOID THE EXTRA TAXATION (and there will be, but let's ignore that for now). The price tag on Obama’s tax proposal: $150 billion
So the government gets an additional $210 billion in 2013, while "The Obama administration's February 2012 budget request contained $2.902 trillion in receipts and $3.803 trillion in outlays, for a deficit of $901 billion."
Run those numbers: even with massive tax increases on EVERYONE, Washington will STILL SPEND $791 billion MORE THAN IT GETS IN TAXES! And here is the basic problem with trying to increase taxes to meet Washington's spending: politicians don't care how much they get in tax revenues, because they don't limit themselves to that. THEY HAVE NO LIMITS because they can simply print endless debt instruments, and the Fed pays for them with worthless printed dollars even when NOBODY WILL BUY THE DEBT.
So you CANNOT TAX YOUR WAY out of Washington's overspending: even if they confiscated every single earned dollar in the economy, as well as every investment dollar, they would still spend trillions more than that, every single year, because THEY CAN.
Then it's a really good thing that President Obama isn't trying to "tax our way out" of our budget deficit. Too bad Republicans weren't willing to even go so far as to accept $10 in spending cuts if it meant $1 in increased revenues. Perhaps now that they have no leverage and John Boehner's told them to get in line, they'll stop obstructing the president's efforts to solve this problem.
Now, if the millionaires and billionaires would stop playing games and scheming to get out of paying their obligation to the government, we could pay down our entire debt in a single year.
I had a discussion with someone about this....charge everyone the same amount of tax, if a guy makes a million bucks and gets taxed a couple hundred grand, why should he have to pay 'a couple hundred grand' to support societies schools, roads, maintenance, etc when the person who makes 50 grand a year pays way less for the same privileges that the other guy paid an 'arm and a leg' for?
Then it's a really good thing that President Obama isn't trying to "tax our way out" of our budget deficit. Too bad Republicans weren't willing to even go so far as to accept $10 in spending cuts if it meant $1 in increased revenues. Perhaps now that they have no leverage and John Boehner's told them to get in line, they'll stop obstructing the president's efforts to solve this problem.
Now, if the millionaires and billionaires would stop playing games and scheming to get out of paying their obligation to the government, we could pay down our entire debt in a single year.
Correction: They can close the deficit in a year, but the debt is some 16 trillion dollars (we've had serious debt for 60 years and no one has cared before).
I had a discussion with someone about this....charge everyone the same amount of tax, if a guy makes a million bucks and gets taxed a couple hundred grand, why should he have to pay 'a couple hundred grand' to support societies schools, roads, maintenance, etc when the person who makes 50 grand a year pays way less for the same privileges that the other guy paid an 'arm and a leg' for?
Because government has tilted the economic playing field in his favor.
Consider a slumlord who makes a million bucks; he has tenants because government has rigged the rules to prevent his tenants from buying from a willing seller homes (say, hovels) they can afford (zoning and housing regs prohibit the sale of such hovels). If his tenants had the economic liberty to purchase hovels, the slumlord would be out of business.
So the sort of tax you propose morally requires a free market and economic liberty in real estate which would undermine the slumlord's advantage. But hardly anybody is willing to go there, so your tax would have a hard time flying.
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.
