If we taxed the rich more, how would it affect job creation?

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

teclis1023

Golden Member
Jan 19, 2007
1,452
0
71
Originally posted by: Craig234
I have to at least give you credit that you are honest in exposing your utter lack of any clue about the liberal position.

Liberals don't 'like paying taxes' compared to magically having the society without them, but they might 'happily pay them' in terms of understanding why they're needed.

Imagine if you were talking with someone you have hired to do something you need - a plumber, a doctor - and you constantly tell them how you don't like paying them.

Well, of course you don't, but why do you keep complaining to them about it? There's no point - you either decide you should hire them and pay, or you don't hire them and pay.

Are you expecting them not to charge you?

You seem to be expecitng some magic way for society to work without taxes.

I think maybe it's just how people are clueless abut what makes a society function, and why some taxes and even wasteful spending are part of the system. No one's foudn a better way - show me any nation in the world, and I'll show you imperfections in the society in taxing and spending. So why are you constantly complaining not about the legitimate issues that deserve attention to be corrected when they happen, but about paying seeming any taxes, always wanting to pay 'less' no matter how low they are?

Liberals have a pretty simply approach - pay what makes sense, and consider whether it makes sense. Not just 'strip it to the stinking bone becuase we HATE HATE GOVERNMENT'.

Republicans spend too much, in giveaways to big business of tax dollars - not to mention policies that let big business cost too much to society in other ways as well (e.g., lax pollutions laws that make the taxpayers clean up the mess). Libertarians spend too little, unwittingly wanting to turn the US into the desert of Arizona or a Mad Max society, just oblivious to the needs of a modern society, often ideologically dominated. Who's Goldilocks in the middle? Democrats. No one's perfect, but there they are.

Yes, they've often spent big - but we've gotten a lot in return for it. People with medical care, a lower poverty rate, better education as much as it needs to improve - show me a societal compliaint, and I'mlikely to be able to show you where the Democrats have not gotten the spending they'd like to fix the problem and/or where Republicans have made it worse, from education to crime to business opportunities.

We've been arguing all night, but this is a very well thought out post. But there's a big difference in saying "We all need to work together, as a country, and pay our respective dues" and saying "Let's tax the rich 75%!!!!!"

But all in all, I agree with this.

 

JKing106

Platinum Member
Mar 19, 2009
2,193
0
0
Originally posted by: soulcougher73
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: soulcougher73
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: soulcougher73
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Why do you want government to raise taxes? On anybody?

Is it just that you don't think it's right someone makes more money than you do?

I think what the OP was trying to get at was not an increase in tax on everyone. Just the ultra-rich. The middle-class and under would get lower taxes, therefor having more spending power to buy more crap from these ultra-rich. Its not like a tax increase on the rich will really make a difference in their lives. Oh Nos! Mr. Gates only has $20 BILLION now instead of $50 BILLION. What will he do? How can he survive?

The point is the ultra-rich have more money then they know what to do with and should be ashamed for not wanting to give more back to better the country that afforded them such luxuries.

Are we talking about the same Bill Gates who founded Microsoft? The one who gives more than any other single person on the planet? The one who for the last 10 years have donated 50-60% of his annual salary to charity? The one who was quoted as saying "I think all billionaires should give away the vast majority of their fortunes" and he himself is doing so? You mean THAT Bill Gates?

:confused:

Yup the same one who still has more money then he knows what to do with. Guess he isnt giving enough. Plus i was just using his name as an example anyways. Insert any multi-millionaires name there and it applies. Grow up and stop with the lame rebuttals and talk about the topic at hand.

So tell us what you think is fair then. Cap wealth? At what level? Cap earning? At what level? Obviously you would support capping wealth, since so many who give so much still have too much...you want to take more from them. So what are your caps?

I have not seriously sat down and ran any kind of numbers. I personally think the 75% (per the OP) is quite high. Maybe 50-60% would suffice off the top of my head. I agree with the OP that if the middle class and below had less taxes and more money to spend that it would create jobs to keep up with the new demand from the cosumers since they are buying more goods and services.

I guess i just dont understand the insane drive some people have to be ultra-rich. And by that i mean you have more money then you could ever fathom spending and couldnt even spend fast enough to get rid of it. It just reminds me of the whole "e-penis" thing except with money. I would love to be rich where i could afford anything i could ever want without thinking about it. But any more then that seems a waste to me. I would rather give all that extra back to the county/people that made me rich in the first place and to help create a better society.

Why do you hate America? Why do you love Commusocialfascism? Traitor!

/sarcasm off

You're making the mistake of thinking that some of these goobers here have consciences. Get ready to be trolled.
 

JKing106

Platinum Member
Mar 19, 2009
2,193
0
0
"Somebody making a $100K buys a $500k house? WTH, were you a mortgage loan officier back in the day? You can't buy a $500K on a $100K (before taxes) salary, much less all that other stuff too."

That was hyperbole, Fern. It's obvious. It doesn't detract from the argument that people spend well above their means, and were actively encouraged to do so for the last 20 years.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: JKing106
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: soulcougher73
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Why do you want government to raise taxes? On anybody?

Is it just that you don't think it's right someone makes more money than you do?

I think what the OP was trying to get at was not an increase in tax on everyone. Just the ultra-rich. The middle-class and under would get lower taxes, therefor having more spending power to buy more crap from these ultra-rich. Its not like a tax increase on the rich will really make a difference in their lives. Oh Nos! Mr. Gates only has $20 BILLION now instead of $50 BILLION. What will he do? How can he survive?

The point is the ultra-rich have more money then they know what to do with and should be ashamed for not wanting to give more back to better the country that afforded them such luxuries.

Are we talking about the same Bill Gates who founded Microsoft? The one who gives more than any other single person on the planet? The one who for the last 10 years have donated 50-60% of his annual salary to charity? The one who was quoted as saying "I think all billionaires should give away the vast majority of their fortunes" and he himself is doing so? You mean THAT Bill Gates?

:confused:

Bill Gates doesn't have an altruistic bone in his body. His "Foundation" is an investment firm, hiding behind a charity front:

"The foundation invests the assets that it has not yet distributed, with the exclusive goal of maximizing the return on investment. As a result, its investments include companies that have been criticized for worsening poverty in the same developing countries where the Foundation is attempting to relieve poverty. These include companies that pollute heavily and pharmaceutical companies that do not sell into the developing world.[46] In response to press criticism, the foundation announced in 2007 a review of its investments to assess social responsibility.[47] It subsequently cancelled the review and stood by its policy of investing for maximum return, while using voting rights to influence company practices."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...linda_Gates_Foundation

While it does do "charitable" work, it's about the same thing Gates has always been about: profit.

Also, you say Bill gives away 50-60% of his salary away a year? Bill's salary is $1 million per year. His personal wealth is $56 billion. Boy, he's really generous, isn't he?

Bill Gates never gave one dime to charity before Microsoft's antitrust lawsuit. He's only doing this because he doesn't want to die being known as the greediest man who ever lived. He didn't come up with the idea of "giving away his billions" before he died. Andrew Carnegie did, and he walked the walk. We'll see if Bill does.

Oh, and one more thing. Bill's father, and Warren Buffington, both support the estate tax, or "death tax." Bill better get to spending all that money before "the gubment steals his money!"

Links? I think youre talking out your ass.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: soulcougher73
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: soulcougher73
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: soulcougher73
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Why do you want government to raise taxes? On anybody?

Is it just that you don't think it's right someone makes more money than you do?

I think what the OP was trying to get at was not an increase in tax on everyone. Just the ultra-rich. The middle-class and under would get lower taxes, therefor having more spending power to buy more crap from these ultra-rich. Its not like a tax increase on the rich will really make a difference in their lives. Oh Nos! Mr. Gates only has $20 BILLION now instead of $50 BILLION. What will he do? How can he survive?

The point is the ultra-rich have more money then they know what to do with and should be ashamed for not wanting to give more back to better the country that afforded them such luxuries.

Are we talking about the same Bill Gates who founded Microsoft? The one who gives more than any other single person on the planet? The one who for the last 10 years have donated 50-60% of his annual salary to charity? The one who was quoted as saying "I think all billionaires should give away the vast majority of their fortunes" and he himself is doing so? You mean THAT Bill Gates?

:confused:

Yup the same one who still has more money then he knows what to do with. Guess he isnt giving enough. Plus i was just using his name as an example anyways. Insert any multi-millionaires name there and it applies. Grow up and stop with the lame rebuttals and talk about the topic at hand.

So tell us what you think is fair then. Cap wealth? At what level? Cap earning? At what level? Obviously you would support capping wealth, since so many who give so much still have too much...you want to take more from them. So what are your caps?

I have not seriously sat down and ran any kind of numbers. I personally think the 75% (per the OP) is quite high. Maybe 50-60% would suffice off the top of my head. I agree with the OP that if the middle class and below had less taxes and more money to spend that it would create jobs to keep up with the new demand from the cosumers since they are buying more goods and services.

I guess i just dont understand the insane drive some people have to be ultra-rich. And by that i mean you have more money then you could ever fathom spending and couldnt even spend fast enough to get rid of it. It just reminds me of the whole "e-penis" thing except with money. I would love to be rich where i could afford anything i could ever want without thinking about it. But any more then that seems a waste to me. I would rather give all that extra back to the county/people that made me rich in the first place and to help create a better society.

For the record, when you say "middle class and below"...you realize that most middle class pay less than 15% in federal tax, and the majority of those under middle class pay....nothing. Is that unfair? I personally dont have a problem with my federal taxes. Its the others that I hate, but we seem to be talking about federal.

If 10-15% is too high, in your opinion, whats fair? 3%?
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: JKing106
You're making the mistake of thinking that some of these goobers here have consciences. Get ready to be trolled.

:roll:

Nice emotional argument. It's clearly the only one you have.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Originally posted by: Matthiasa
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: Matthiasa
snip

You might want to take a closer look at Tech's and my post. He claimed successful software companies can "ONLY" be started in America. Evidently reading comprehension isn't your thing.

The largest ones have been created here, you know the ones that make hte majority of the income on that list, which is contrary to what you claimed. So maybe analysis isn't your thing?
I commented on the size of them, and said nothing about techs bs about intelligence and Americans will to purchase crap, so it is just that bs.

So I *was* right, reading comprehension is not your thing. The sole reason for my original post was to call out "techs bs" as you put it. If you're trying to put words in my mouth you'll have to do a much better job than that. Wow.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: JKing106
"Somebody making a $100K buys a $500k house? WTH, were you a mortgage loan officier back in the day? You can't buy a $500K on a $100K (before taxes) salary, much less all that other stuff too."

That was hyperbole, Fern. It's obvious. It doesn't detract from the argument that people spend well above their means, and were actively encouraged to do so for the last 20 years.

Ah yes. Spending above their means. Something the poor and middle class never do ;)
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Originally posted by: JKing106
"Somebody making a $100K buys a $500k house? WTH, were you a mortgage loan officier back in the day? You can't buy a $500K on a $100K (before taxes) salary, much less all that other stuff too."

That was hyperbole, Fern. It's obvious. It doesn't detract from the argument that people spend well above their means, and were actively encouraged to do so for the last 20 years.

So your "cure" to people's spending well above their means is to reduce their income? Lefty logic wins the day again.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: teclis1023
We've been arguing all night, but this is a very well thought out post. But there's a big difference in saying "We all need to work together, as a country, and pay our respective dues" and saying "Let's tax the rich 75%!!!!!"

But all in all, I agree with this.

Thanks; and I'm not on the 'let's tax the rich just to screw them' side, and don't know any liberals who are, though I'm sure some are. Jealousy does exist, just about a tiny sliver of the rate at which the right claims. The thing with 'work together, as a country, and pay our respective dues' is that the wealthy can afford massive forces who fight to minimize 'their dues', and there's really very little representation of the general public. It sounds like we largely are in agreement on the right policy.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: JKing106
Originally posted by: aeternitas
I would have to agree 100k is pretty much a fortune to the vast majority of people in the USA.. not to mention the people on Earth. Unless you are stupid and get yourself into huge debt because you buy over your means. Didnt a bunch of people do that and now banks are pissed off?
$100k per year. It astounds me that anyone can think that's a small sum of money. Maybe to a trust fund baby, or a socipathic social climber.
15% of American households have an income of more than $100,000 link

That is about 14 million households with that level of income.

The median income of someone with a BA is $66,997 (and that is over a 7 year period) so two people with degrees who get married will almost certainly have a household income of over $100,000.

BTW the median income of someone with a professional degree is over $100,000.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: JKing106
I don't have any problem with anyone "striving" to make more money. I wonder why "more money" equals success or happiness in their minds, but have it. I have a problem with people who have the money to buy all the aforementioned "bullshit" a thousand times over, but still want to bitch about giving any of that money to the society that allowed them to get that fucking rich. I'm talking about hundreds of millions and billions, not $250k, $500k, or even $1 million per year. MULTI-MILLIONAIRES AND BILLLIONAIRES WHO CAN EASILY AFFORD IT, WTIH NO IMPACT TO THEIR LIFESTYLES. People who are actively trying to get even more of their tax share shifted to people just like you, and you're kissing their asses. "I'm being robbed!" Well, fucking move. You'll find the taxes much higher in other industrialized countries. Good luck with that. Why am I having to explain this to you? It's common sense. Again, stop watching fucking "Cribs." It's a fairy tale.
That is the second time you have made that claim.

Have any evidence to back it up???

Recent history shows that the rich pay a greater and greater share of income taxes every year.

I'll post this again since you ignored it last time.
40% of Americans pay NO income tax at all!!! Nothing!! Nada! Zip! Zero!
And many of those people actually get checks from the government.

In 2003 the bottom of half of income earners paid 3.46% of all federal income taxes.

The top 1% paid 34.27% of federal income taxes.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: JKing106
Oh, and one more thing. Bill's father, and Warren Buffington, both support the estate tax, or "death tax." Bill better get to spending all that money before "the gubment steals his money!"
If Bill wants to give all his money to the government then all he has to do is put it in his will that all his wealth be given to the government.

Oh.... funny how you bring up Buffet who plans is to give almost all of his money to the Gates charity. Apparently he decided that Bill would be able to do better things with that money than the government.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
The thing with 'work together, as a country, and pay our respective dues' is that the wealthy can afford massive forces who fight to minimize 'their dues', and there's really very little representation of the general public.

Finally. Admission that democracy doesn't work and the only cure for bad government is small government. I thought you'd never get there.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: JKing106
Oh, and one more thing. Bill's father, and Warren Buffington, both support the estate tax, or "death tax." Bill better get to spending all that money before "the gubment steals his money!"
If Bill wants to give all his money to the government then all he has to do is put it in his will that all his wealth be given to the government.

Oh.... funny how you bring up Buffet who plans is to give almost all of his money to the Gates charity. Apparently he decided that Bill would be able to do better things with that money than the government.
Though Buffet has also said he -- and other very wealthy Americans -- pay too little in taxes, and that it is wrong that his effective tax rate is lower than his secretary's. Gates has made similar comments about paying too little in taxes.

I wonder what they understand that so many of the wannabe-rich here don't. Perhaps they recognize Uncle Sam's spending is proportionately far, far more beneficial to the wealthy than it is to your average American working Joe.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
No one is stopping Warren and Bill from sending a check to the government to make up the difference between what they pay and what they think they should pay.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
BTW I do agree with Warren and Bill on the concept that people who make millions of dollars in capital gains are taxed at too low a level. But taxing capital gains is a complex issue that has large ramifications.

Perhaps we should add a surtax to certain types of capital gains, such as stocks, but not to physical assets such as houses and farms etc.

So if you make a million a year via stock sales then you should pay taxes on that as if it was regular income, but if you sell your house and make a million profit you should only pay capital gains taxes on that sale.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Question: Do you think it is a good use of 108 billion dollars to open a line of credit to the IMF?
http://www.reuters.com/article.../idUSTRE55E6YN20090615

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW I do agree with Warren and Bill on the concept that people who make millions of dollars in capital gains are taxed at too low a level. But taxing capital gains is a complex issue that has large ramifications.

Perhaps we should add a surtax to certain types of capital gains, such as stocks, but not to physical assets such as houses and farms etc.

So if you make a million a year via stock sales then you should pay taxes on that as if it was regular income, but if you sell your house and make a million profit you should only pay capital gains taxes on that sale.


Increasing capital gain tax is probably the worst thing the government could do. Both Clinton and Bush "got it".

When you raise capital gain taxes you stunt investment. Without investment there isn't capital for small business. Without small business there are no jobs. There are many other reasons that you don't want to raise capital gains tax but this is the most clear cut.
 

teclis1023

Golden Member
Jan 19, 2007
1,452
0
71
Originally posted by: Craig234
Thanks; and I'm not on the 'let's tax the rich just to screw them' side, and don't know any liberals who are, though I'm sure some are. Jealousy does exist, just about a tiny sliver of the rate at which the right claims. The thing with 'work together, as a country, and pay our respective dues' is that the wealthy can afford massive forces who fight to minimize 'their dues', and there's really very little representation of the general public. It sounds like we largely are in agreement on the right policy.

Well, it strikes me that Techs is probably one of those guys, lol.

Though I'll be honest, I'm not quite clever enough to figure out whether he's just faking it for argument's sake or not.

As for the wealthy, it's definitely true that they can afford more...I think that's probably the dictionary definition of being wealthy. Like I've said in other posts, I support a strong social program in the USA, as I've seen it work in great success living in both Denmark and France. But we need a strong social program that requires every citizen to work for it. I'm all for a "New New Deal" but we've really got to adapt it to the modern age!
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Originally posted by: teclis1023
Originally posted by: Craig234
Thanks; and I'm not on the 'let's tax the rich just to screw them' side, and don't know any liberals who are, though I'm sure some are. Jealousy does exist, just about a tiny sliver of the rate at which the right claims. The thing with 'work together, as a country, and pay our respective dues' is that the wealthy can afford massive forces who fight to minimize 'their dues', and there's really very little representation of the general public. It sounds like we largely are in agreement on the right policy.

Well, it strikes me that Techs is probably one of those guys, lol.

Though I'll be honest, I'm not quite clever enough to figure out whether he's just faking it for argument's sake or not.

As for the wealthy, it's definitely true that they can afford more...I think that's probably the dictionary definition of being wealthy. Like I've said in other posts, I support a strong social program in the USA, as I've seen it work in great success living in both Denmark and France. But we need a strong social program that requires every citizen to work for it. I'm all for a "New New Deal" but we've really got to adapt it to the modern age!

But this isn't France or Denmark, this is the USA.
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
142
106
Nobody deserves to be taxed at 75% except the French and that's voluntary. Flat tax is the most fair. If EVERYONE is taxed at 75%, then fine. Nobody should be penalized for their success. Would a higher tax on the rich equate to more job creation? No, it would equate to more pork barrel spending because the total amount would not be significant enough (vice everyone paying more) to create new programs.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
This whole argument is not at all about how much the "wealthy" should pay. It is solely about income redistribution. Period.

The leftists here can pretty up their language and couch their arguments in how there for everyone "paying their fair share". But when it really comes down to it is that unsuccessful people are jealous of those who are successful. And given the opportunity, those who are failures will attempt to "equalize" the playing field to their advantage via taxation to punish those who are better or smarter than themselves.
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Originally posted by: techs
So basically I think the evidence is clear. Increasing taxes on the rich will create more jobs.

Thanks, all for your help.

/thread

Yes, the evidence is clear.

You are a troll.

LoL

I detect no sarcasm in the first statement... that is to bad...
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Originally posted by: teclis1023
Originally posted by: Craig234
Thanks; and I'm not on the 'let's tax the rich just to screw them' side, and don't know any liberals who are, though I'm sure some are. Jealousy does exist, just about a tiny sliver of the rate at which the right claims. The thing with 'work together, as a country, and pay our respective dues' is that the wealthy can afford massive forces who fight to minimize 'their dues', and there's really very little representation of the general public. It sounds like we largely are in agreement on the right policy.

Well, it strikes me that Techs is probably one of those guys, lol.

Though I'll be honest, I'm not quite clever enough to figure out whether he's just faking it for argument's sake or not.

As for the wealthy, it's definitely true that they can afford more...I think that's probably the dictionary definition of being wealthy. Like I've said in other posts, I support a strong social program in the USA, as I've seen it work in great success living in both Denmark and France. But we need a strong social program that requires every citizen to work for it. I'm all for a "New New Deal" but we've really got to adapt it to the modern age!

but if the 1950's were the time American income rose the fastest in real terms, and Ameican wealth grew the fastest, and we taxed the wealthiest at 90 percent...
then you are idiots and need to check your facts before contradicting me.