10 reasons to raise taxes on the top 1%

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
Include the top 5% and watch the rate drastically be much higher, closer to 45% federal tax. You're taking the statistical outlier. Not to mention all that capital investment produces much more than a wage slave worker.

The real tax cuts need to occur for the top 5 and 10% as we're the ones that spend the most money and grow the economy.

There's more than one way to go about giving everyone a fair shake.

1. Protectionism - tarriff all imports.
2. Direct wealth redistribution - Universal health care, social security, other social welfare programs.
3. Taking away the ability to treat corporations as people.
4. Forcing executives to hold stock for 3 years before they can sell it. Salary cap executive positions and allow corps to pay whatever they like through stock ownership programs.

1) Impossible since this is a world economy and US relies on it in many more ways than just imports and exports

2) We already do that

3) It's inconsistent. On one hand, they have "rights", on the other, they spread all responsibility like a 5 year old and when the time comes to sue, no one can be held completely liable. The umbrella of the Corporation allows personal practice obscene risks, unethical practices, and complete BS to occur - all without the personal risks

4) More like 5 years, maybe 10.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
After reading this thread is there any doubt that Obama (And the left) want to push us into full fledged socialism? They won't be happy until the rich pay 95% in taxes and it gets distributed to 'those in need'.

That's not what 'full fledged socialism' is, you stupid boy.

Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.
 
Last edited:

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
There's so much bullshit in this thread that it blows my mind.



Craig has money envy. Poor little socialist
Not like the US has been losing money for the past few decades and desperately needs to raise taxes to pay back debts. No sir. Just keep growing the debt forever and never turn over a profit. It's the American way :rolleyes:


Raising taxes is the dumbest damn thing anyone could do. Part of the reason the economy sucks ass is too much spending and taxes are already too high.
Yes I'm sure the current recession has nothing to do with a housing bubble fueled by banks giving out loans to people who can't pay them back then selling the loans as junk bonds. It's all caused by high taxes :whiste:


Thank you Walton family for creating minimum wage job and destroying mom and pop businesses in America in the process. Thank you for not providing adequate healthcare and forcing states to give public healthcare to your employees because you need to cut costs to the extreme.
!?!?!?
Name 1 mom and pop store that pays a decent wage and has health benefits. Walmart destroyed thousands of minimum wage small business jobs and created thousands of minimum wage large business jobs. There's no difference for the employees, but the people shopping there pay less. I'm saying this as someone who has worked for lots of small businesses and has never had health/dental/vision benefits at any of those jobs. One was hard labor, one was as a chemist, one was moderate labor, one was fast food, etc.


Another thing that's bullshit is raising taxes just to fuck rich people. Taxes should only be used to raise money. That's it. It's not some kind of "fuck you" to people we don't like. Using the tax code as revenge is petty.
 

JockoJohnson

Golden Member
May 20, 2009
1,417
60
91
Reading too much Ayn Rand again, I see.

Americans have the lowest effective federal tax rates of any first world nation, and are now lower than any time since WW2.

And Calvin Coolidge... So, uhh, what happened right after he left office? I seem to recall something about a collapse of over leveraged banking and the stock market, 25% unemployment, minor details like that...

And the U.S. has some of the highest, if not the highest,corporate tax rates. I am all for raising federal tax rates on everyone (rich and poor) and lower the corporate tax rates. Hopefully this will slow the shipping of jobs overseas. And why should the super rich get taxed. When everybody feels the pain of taxes, they may wake up to the fact that there are too damn many government workers.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
And the U.S. has some of the highest, if not the highest,corporate tax rates. I am all for raising federal tax rates on everyone (rich and poor) and lower the corporate tax rates. Hopefully this will slow the shipping of jobs overseas. And why should the super rich get taxed. When everybody feels the pain of taxes, they may wake up to the fact that there are too damn many government workers.

Highest corporate tax RATE but 2nd lowest BURDEN (after deductions) of any industrialized country in the world (per CNBC).

Edit: Oops, I already posted this in the thread. Sorry!:oops:
 
Last edited:

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
It's a joke because it would never stop. After the top 1% get hit with the increased tax and the money gets spent they'd apply the same tax to the top 5%, then the top 10%, then the top 25%, then the top 50%. They can always outspend their revenue.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Highest corporate tax RATE but 2nd lowest BURDEN (after deductions) of any industrialized country in the world (per CNBC).

Edit: Oops, I already posted this in the thread. Sorry!:oops:

Don't be telling the truth. It's not like their opinions will change once they've seen it, because it's contrary to their most cherished beliefs. It's pavlovian, a conditioned avoidance/ denial response to stimulus.

Righties have perfectly good brains, but the ideas within prevent actual analysis of factual material. Their cognitive filters are so strong that contrary information simply can't penetrate.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Guys, as usual the truth is somewhere in the middle. We need to have an intelligent discussion about appropriate marginal rates. I've discussed this recently in another thread where I talked about the need for among other things: a lower corporate tax rate, additional marginal rates above the current $250k threshold, and a phase out of favorable 15% capital gains treatment if you make > $15 million /yr in investment income.

It's absolutely true that the top 400 families in this country pay an effective tax rate of only ~ 16.7% because 81% of their income comes from investments rather than their salaries. A lot is also in Munis which are tax free at the Federal level and at the state level too if it's a muni or muni fund in the state where the taxpayer resides. Keep in mind we are talking about annual income > $138 million to be in this bracket. These people need to have a phase out applied such that they pay closer to 30-35% all in.

Higher marginal rates will also discourage high CEO pay and outrageous pro-sports players contracts which are also a fvcking joke. No way a company is going to continue to pay $30 mil / yr to someone if that money is taxed at a 55% marginal rate over $5 million. Finally, let's stop with talk of abolishing the inheritance tax. It was created to prevent the formation of dynastic wealth...a good thing. Set the exclusion at a reasonable level ($3 mil ?) and move on.

I am an economic conservative but even I can see the imbalances that exist. So if there are any politicians out there reading this tonight...do you have the courage to take up this challenge? Do you have the balls to stop framing this into a constant black or white debate...i.e. confiscatory tax policy (Dems) vs tax cuts for all (Repubs).

Can we have a serious discussion on appropriate marginal rates (we need more at the truly high end) and closing corporate loopholes while lowering the U.S. corporate tax to spur business investment here? Stop the crap! Is there anyone among you left in Washington that cares enough to think critically about this issue??

Sorry... /end rant.

Wow, an actual discussion. I'd love to join in:

I concur that we need at least 2 more tax brackets, maybe 1 at $2M/year and another at $10M, maybe even a 3rd for the absurdly wealthy at $100M/year or so. While all rich, those three incomes enjoy a wildly different "class". The tax the rich, who we consider any family making over $250K exclusively, is the wrong tact in my opinion. It affects too many of our actual bosses, who they will get relatively little extra revenue from AND whose reduction of income just might affect you or I, while extracting revenue from the people they really want too (the wealthy).

IMO, we also need a vastly simplified tax code. Our current system is beyond absurd, I should not have to pay some asshole a decent chunk of money to figure out what I owe the .gov and hope like hell that he didn't fuck up. This would also allow us to target actual tax rates on each of the brackets. 5% means 5%, 10% means 10% and so on, you remove the all the deductions and other crap that allows people to avoid taxation legally. Of course that would need to be done in conjunction with significant rate decreases across the board. That is extremely unlikely though consider our politics. The tax code is purposely used for basically social engineering (enticing certain actions and vice versa), I doubt the .gov will want to give up that power.

At the same time we need to put a quick end to BOTH offshoring jobs and importing cheap labor. American workers simply can't compete with people making dollars a day and until we fix that problem we will continue to see jobs exported overseas. Its just good business to do so, we need to end that. I am sure someone smarter than me can come up with a relatively easy way to do this (wage tariff or something?) but it must be done. Same thing with importing cheap labor, I go to construction sites today which have hundreds of "middle class" jobs and even more lower middle class jobs and a very large percentage of the workers can't speak English. This is a rather new thing in this area but again, when business has incentive to do something it will, it really is that simple. The incentive is that the imported labor is much cheaper than traditional labor. When you can replace a guy making $25 an hour with one that makes $12 an hour and their production is anywhere close to equal, its a no brainer. Furthermore, a lot of companies are finding they MUST do this in order to compete with companies who already have. This isn't politically popular either (on either side) but you can't argue with the math. If we want wages to rise in this country it WILL NOT be done by importing cheaper labor. That has the exact opposite affect which compounds itself in times like these when you have very high unemployment and as a result a high supply of labor/low demand. BTW, this doesn't make me a racist, it simply means I can do basic arithmetic

As far as the tippity top, they should definitely be paying more in taxes. I personally don't think the .gov should ever be able to take more than 49% of a persons money. We should get to keep at least more of what we make than the government gets to take from us. This is relatively a non-issue since the tippity top isn't paying anywhere near that right now, regardless of what the actual rates are. Even doubling their taxes doesn't get them anywhere close but it does require the additional brackets so you don't pound the small business owner making a couple hundred K a year.

Next we need to stop propping up the housing market. I can make a very strong argument that the absolute largest reason the middle class has stagnated is primarily because of increases in housing and insurance. Housing must get to a point that the average family income can afford the average house. In 2007 the median house went for roughly $250K while the median family income was somewhere around $45K. The median house price needs to fall to somewhere around $150K (3 times earnings) to become truly affordable. We have developed the wrong mentality about houses in this country. They are a place to live and not an investment vehicle. We think we are all winning when our houses go up in value faster than wages but we aren't. We are really just giving the financial sector (and the tippity top eventually) a larger percentage of our incomes. I know this isn't a popular idea but again, the math doesn't lie.

I have quite a few more but its already getting to be a wall of text so I will stop at that for now.
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
JockoJohnson said:
View Post
And the U.S. has some of the highest, if not the highest,corporate tax rates. I am all for raising federal tax rates on everyone (rich and poor) and lower the corporate tax rates. Hopefully this will slow the shipping of jobs overseas. And why should the super rich get taxed. When everybody feels the pain of taxes, they may wake up to the fact that there are too damn many government workers.
Highest corporate tax RATE but 2nd lowest BURDEN (after deductions) of any industrialized country in the world (per CNBC).

Edit: Oops, I already posted this in the thread. Sorry!:oops:

You're both missing the real problem of tax burdens. In order to determine the total cost of a tax regime you need to look not only at the revenues collected, but also the expenditures made in order to ensure compliance. That means add up the corporate tax revenues, as well as the total costs of every corporate tax attorney and tax accountant in the country. THAT is the total burden of a given tax regime.

The thing about complicated tax codes riddled with deductions is that they are put there deliberately. I don't mean that each deduction has a deliberate purpose, but the overall effect - the glut of pages in the tax code - is itself deliberate. The most powerful lobbying force in the country is also one of the quietest: The American Bar Association. They have the luxury of pushing for massive subsidies for their profession (every page of law created is a subsidy to the legal profession) primarily through their massive over-representation in legislatures from the federal level right down to municipalities. The beauty of their scam is that it doesn't count as official lobbying for the most part because the lawyers in congress don't count as lobbyists.

Once you see this massive orchestrated lobbying effort for what it is you see the futility of begging legislators for simplified tax codes (and other laws. The only solution is to stop putting lawyers into elected offices. That, or at least elect lawyers who have disavowed themselves from the ABA and their grand plot to choke society with an excess of laws (yes they do exist, though they are few and far between).
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
You're both missing the real problem of tax burdens. In order to determine the total cost of a tax regime you need to look not only at the revenues collected, but also the expenditures made in order to ensure compliance. That means add up the corporate tax revenues, as well as the total costs of every corporate tax attorney and tax accountant in the country. THAT is the total burden of a given tax regime.

The thing about complicated tax codes riddled with deductions is that they are put there deliberately. I don't mean that each deduction has a deliberate purpose, but the overall effect - the glut of pages in the tax code - is itself deliberate. The most powerful lobbying force in the country is also one of the quietest: The American Bar Association. They have the luxury of pushing for massive subsidies for their profession (every page of law created is a subsidy to the legal profession) primarily through their massive over-representation in legislatures from the federal level right down to municipalities. The beauty of their scam is that it doesn't count as official lobbying for the most part because the lawyers in congress don't count as lobbyists.

Once you see this massive orchestrated lobbying effort for what it is you see the futility of begging legislators for simplified tax codes (and other laws. The only solution is to stop putting lawyers into elected offices. That, or at least elect lawyers who have disavowed themselves from the ABA and their grand plot to choke society with an excess of laws (yes they do exist, though they are few and far between).

Are you saying that other industrialized countries don't have extra costs associated with tax preparation and finding deductions and compliance? Not saying that our taxes are not over complicated but to say that we are paying much more than other countries in those categories without numbers to show this is....well.....
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
Are you saying that other industrialized countries don't have extra costs associated with tax preparation and finding deductions and compliance?
Are you saying I said that? :p

edit: And no, of course not. I'm saying that looking at just tax revenue is a poor way to evaluate the cost to business of a given tax regime.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Are you saying I said that? :p

No, but if you imply that the total cost involved in the US tax burden should include compliance costs, preparation costs, etc, you must also include such costs with other countries to have a total fair comparison.
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
No, but if you imply that the total cost involved in the US tax burden should include compliance costs, preparation costs, etc, you must also include such costs with other countries to have a total fair comparison.
Of course. Sadly that's a bit problematic as lawyers have a way of legislating rules that make the cost of their services confidential...

Now I don't think that the weight of the American legal profession is so huge that it radically changes the picture when comparing total costs of tax codes in various countries but I suspect it makes the USA less favorable than it might otherwise be when compared to some countries. (I'm sure some other countries actually have worse legal quandaries than us.) The comparative question isn't the one I find most compelling though. It's pretty clear that there are ways to reduce the thickness of the tax code a good bit without affecting revenues all that much. If it happens to be the case that even with all costs accounted for the USA is the best tax regime to do business in, is that a reason not to streamline the tax code if we could? Obviously not. So I don't much care about the question of how accurately these international comparisons can be made. The fact that a better American tax code would compare favorably against the current one is reason enough to care about compliance costs no matter what the international comparisons say.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Of course. Sadly that's a bit problematic as lawyers have a way of legislating rules that make the cost of their services confidential...

Now I don't think that the weight of the American legal profession is so huge that it radically changes the picture when comparing total costs of tax codes in various countries but I suspect it makes the USA less favorable than it might otherwise be when compared to some countries. (I'm sure some other countries actually have worse legal quandaries than us.) The comparative question isn't the one I find most compelling though. It's pretty clear that there are ways to reduce the thickness of the tax code a good bit without affecting revenues all that much. If it happens to be the case that even with all costs accounted for the USA is the best tax regime to do business in, is that a reason not to streamline the tax code if we could? Obviously not. So I don't much care about the question of how accurately these international comparisons can be made. The fact that a better American tax code would compare favorably against the current one is reason enough to care about compliance costs no matter what the international comparisons say.

I can agree to streamlined. But to that end, we can lower the tax rate to zero and get rid of all the paperwork and that still wouldn't overcome $0.08 per hour rates and near zero regulation countries like China. Too hard to compete with that regardless of tax rate (but that's another story for another thread).
 
Sep 29, 2004
18,656
67
91
The one intended consequence of the way things are going is that if the "republican way" wins out, all homes will eventually be owned by the rich and rented by the poor. Even middle class families.

Do you want that:?
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
I can agree to streamlined. But to that end, we can lower the tax rate to zero and get rid of all the paperwork and that still wouldn't overcome $0.08 per hour rates and near zero regulation countries like China. Too hard to compete with that regardless of tax rate (but that's another story for another thread).
Incomes are rising quite rapidly in China. But aside from that I'm not sure what you're getting at. I never meant to argue that corporate tax simplification is a panacea for all the economic woes the country faces. Only that it would be an unqualified boon to business and the economy in general - attorneys notwithstanding.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Incomes are rising quite rapidly in China. But aside from that I'm not sure what you're getting at. I never meant to argue that corporate tax simplification is a panacea for all the economic woes the country faces. Only that it would be an unqualified boon to business and the economy in general - attorneys notwithstanding.

That's why it was stated that it's another story for another thread (sorry, just a general rant that I can't seem to get over and bring up now and again! :oops: )

The one intended consequence of the way things are going is that if the "republican way" wins out, all homes will eventually be owned by the rich and rented by the poor. Even middle class families.

Do you want that:?

Trickle-up economics work no matter which party is in power. Concentration of wealth occurs with a D or an R in office. As long as the foundation is being ripped out starting with the lower classes (i.e. offshoring the good paying jobs that the lower and lower middle classes once occupied), the rest of the structure will fall, leaving only the rubble on the ground and those at the top who were able to afford the helicopters and fly above the carnage as it was in progress.
 
Last edited:

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,960
140
106
it takes time out of your life to earn money which becomes earned income. tax is in essence a loss of time out of your life. so when your earned income is robbed under the guise of tax you are being robbed of time from your life. So when you pay tax think of the time you spent out of your life it took to earn it. If you get a tax break your simply keeping the earned income you already have that took time out of your life to EARN. Nobody is giving you anything. YOU earned it. No matter what income level you are at.
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
Oh and the point #7 is stunningly OT:



This particular progressive looney doesnt understand the statement. He goes off on a rant totally unrelated to the fact that according to the same CBO and IRS the top 0.1% pay 17.5% of all taxes collected federally and the top1% pay 39%.

Unbelievable.

Wow, then unlike the rest of us peons they could actually afford to pay more without giving up their health care or cutting into what they put away for retirement. Perhaps they should just just pay all of it. I mean they are the ones benifiting the most from our system, aren't they? They might have to downsize their jets and yachts and sell a few of their houses but hey, times are tough all over.

LOL, I always get a chuckle out of these kind of arguments and I really try but I just can't find any sympathy for people who have million dollar art collections, $10,000 wrist watches, etc., etc.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
LOL, I always get a chuckle out of these kind of arguments and I really try but I just can't find any sympathy for people who have million dollar art collections, $10,000 wrist watches, etc., etc.

Same. That doesn't mean tax rich people just to be a douche, but they're probably the people to go after when there's a shortage of money. Old people want this thing called medicare that costs a crazy amount of money; I wonder who should be taxed to fund this thing.... :whiste:

I'm pretty happy with the way Canada is run. Lowest income people straight up pay no tax. They don't even need deductions, there's just a 0% tax rate on the first 10k earned. The highest tax rate (which is pretty damn high) starts at $127,021 which is actually quite low. Basically the lower and middle class float by with reasonable taxes and people in the top 5% get ass raped.

As for rich people "scamming" the system by investing, it's really not that bad. Stocks are taxed at a lower rate because we want people to invest. We want money in the stock market. It's good when companies have money to build factories or fund research. Investments in stocks are taxed lower than bonds because stocks actually have considerable risk to them. Working at a factory has no risk - you show up and you get paid. Dumping money into a stock has huge risk - the entire thing could go tits up and you lose it all. Bonds have almost no risk, and that's why they are taxed like regular income.
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,480
1
81
I'm pretty happy with the way Canada is run. Lowest income people straight up pay no tax. They don't even need deductions, there's just a 0% tax rate on the first 10k earned. The highest tax rate (which is pretty damn high) starts at $127,021 which is actually quite low. Basically the lower and middle class float by with reasonable taxes and people in the top 5% get ass raped.

Yeah, I think it might be a good idea to not tax the first 15k in the States. That would give the poorer people a bit more room, and the rule would apply to everyone so it would be fair. This is also how they do it in Trinidad and probably alot of other countries. It makes sense. However, I think tax rates should be the same across the board after the first 15k or so. Just cut out the tricks to keep the people straight with what they pay.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,205
10,865
136
As for rich people "scamming" the system by investing, it's really not that bad. Stocks are taxed at a lower rate because we want people to invest. We want money in the stock market. It's good when companies have money to build factories or fund research. Investments in stocks are taxed lower than bonds because stocks actually have considerable risk to them. Working at a factory has no risk - you show up and you get paid. Dumping money into a stock has huge risk - the entire thing could go tits up and you lose it all. Bonds have almost no risk, and that's why they are taxed like regular income.

It would be nice if that's what companies were doing with the money. Instead it goes to overpaid CEO's, CFO's and the top echelon of execs.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Working at a factory has no risk - you show up and you get paid.

Well, kinda. There's no financial risk, unless you count getting screwed out of your last paycheck when the ownership flips the operation over, leaves the workers and the creditors in the lurch. Or when all that stock you bought as part of the "voluntary" profit sharing plan turns to shit.

One of my coworkers was a mechanic for the pre bankruptcy united airlines. years later, he got a cheque for $287 dollars as settlement for over $30K worth of company stock he'd been forced to buy as part of the labor agreement... others have seen their company pensions mismanaged and taken over by the PBGC, which means you just got screwed...

And when you have to pay rent & utilities or a mortgage, risks associated with employment continuation are greater than just money...

Factory work is also more dangerous, in general, than office work, and many of the health and longevity risks are realized only later, as with radium workers of 100 years ago, asbestos and VOC's more recently... PCB's, vinyl chloride, the list goes on from there... New materials of unknown safety are constantly introduced into industrial processes...

At one point some years ago, certain rightwing voices justified pension funding requirement reductions as entirely reasonable because factory workers wouldn't live as long, so calculations could be less stringent... but the whole thing was perfectly safe, obviously...
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
It would be nice if that's what companies were doing with the money. Instead it goes to overpaid CEO's, CFO's and the top echelon of execs.
In a thread about tax rates, I don't really see a problem with this.

If the CEO is paid in the form of shares, then it's exactly what I said. The CEO is paying extremely low taxes on his money because it's not held in his hands. The company holds that money and uses it for stuff, so that's nice.

What you're saying is that the CEO gets a huge salary. That sucks for share holders, but it's great for the government. Money that he gets as straight salary or wage is taxed the same way you are taxed, so a good 40% chunk of that is taxed and goes toward medicare, paying for Iraq, paying interest on the debt, etc.

The crazy high taxes on income are the reason rich people are often paid in shares and the shares stay with the company. Guys like Bill Gates are "worth" a hundred billion dollars, but they don't actually have a hundred billion dollars. He might only have 10 million in his bank account, and the rest of his money is held by Microsoft. Obviously the government doesn't want guys like him to pull everything out of the market and cause a market crash, so the taxes strongly encourage him to keep his money in the form of stock. As long as Microsoft has his money, he'll only be taxed on the dividends and it's a low percentage. If he decides to sell his shares, he will pay capital gains on the entire thing, which would be enormous. If he only put $1000 into the company initially and it grew into 100 billion, he would need to pay tax on that entire 100 billion minus $1000. That would seriously suck for him, so he won't do that.

Simply put, it's in our best interest that rich people keep their money in the stock market. It's frustrating that they're avoiding taxes while their money is invested, but investments are really really important.
While it's pretty much non-negotiable that stocks should be taxed lower than income to encourage investment, the actual rate for capital gains is negotiable. Should it be 10%? 20%? 30%? I'm not sure. Whatever it is, it must be lower than income tax.