Mark Cuban on why the rich need to pay higher taxes

[Muse]

We spend nearly 4 trillion a year and take in nearly 1.5 trillion less than that. Raising the taxes on him and every other billionaire will do nothing to solve that.

Are you an idiot? Money does not grow on trees.

 

[Muse]

I didn't read the whole post but did he say that HE would voluntarily start paying higher taxes?

I did read the whole thing. I will not answer your question. Read it!

 

[Muse]

Why is Mark Cuban waiting on the federal government to do something? And as others have said... the problem is spending. The government is not our economy. A dollar sent to the government is one less dollar in the economy.

The federal government has everything to do with where we are and where we are going. It is the centralized ("federal") system of regulation, control, oversight, management, planning. Mark's point more than anything was that those in government and their main advisors don't get it, don't understand the basic dynamics of the problem. They are focused on taxation and its effects and have little to no insight into the real problems and dynamics of what can generate a real recovery in this country.

 

[Muse]

The owner of the NBA World Champions 2011?

:awe:

Who also happens to have been a self made billionaire.

 

[Muse]

I'm not aware of any republican pushing for tax cuts just for the rich. They might push for tax cuts for everyone, but not singling out one group or another. The democrats are saying to specifically single out "the rich" and increase their taxes. That sounds like class warfare to me.

Do you have an example of a republican pushing tax cuts just for the rich?

Do you believe in graduated income taxes? Just what degree of graduation do you approve of before it crosses the line into warfare?

 

[rchiu]

Good to see some thoughts from someone with real world business experience like Mark Cuban.

Look like all the liberals focused on his point on rich paying high taxes, but missed out on a few very important pre-requisites.

1) allocation of taxes on projects with good return on investments.
2) reduction in bureaucracy on filing taxes.

If Obama didn't spend our hard earn tax money on his pet green energy projects and programs catering to democratic constituent like more social benefit, more social nets that fails to generate any positive returns and often create disincentive for people to go out and work and be productive, I am sure there would have been stronger support for more taxes.

 

[Double Trouble]

Do you believe in graduated income taxes? Just what degree of graduation do you approve of before it crosses the line into warfare?

Yes, I believe in graduated income taxes, and that's how tax brackets are already set up. When you demonize one class and single them out for different treatment, I'd call that class warfare. Saying "we're going to raise everyone's taxes" is different than saying to one group "we're going to increase just your taxes because you're not paying your fair share".

The threat doesn't need to get derailed into what is class warfare or not though. Some of Cuban's points are (IMO) valid and make sense.

Personally I'd like to see additional tax brackets. Someone making $200k per year is certainly well off, but is still in a completely different stratosphere than someone making $2 million per, who is in a completely different ballpark than someone making $200 million etc. It still won't make a dent in the deficit though, but that's a whole other discussion.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, I believe in graduated income taxes, and that's how tax brackets are already set up. When you demonize one class and single them out for different treatment, I'd call that class warfare. Saying "we're going to raise everyone's taxes" is different than saying to one group "we're going to increase just your taxes because you're not paying your fair share".

The threat doesn't need to get derailed into what is class warfare or not though. Some of Cuban's points are (IMO) valid and make sense.

Personally I'd like to see additional tax brackets. Someone making $200k per year is certainly well off, but is still in a completely different stratosphere than someone making $2 million per, who is in a completely different ballpark than someone making $200 million etc. It still won't make a dent in the deficit though, but that's a whole other discussion.

But clearly if you were to set up graduated income taxes, at one point you must have singled out specific income brackets. There's no way to have ever created them to begin with without engaging in 'class warfare'.

It's just a term used to try and shut down debate.

 

[Double Trouble]

But clearly if you were to set up graduated income taxes, at one point you must have singled out specific income brackets. There's no way to have ever created them to begin with without engaging in 'class warfare'.

Hmmm.. good point. I suppose it's easier to sell when setting up a system that treats multiple groups differently (each bracket), rather than singling out one single group. Also, demonizing one class ("they're not paying their fair share!") furthers the notion of class warfare. Saying, "we're in trouble as a country, we're asking those at the top to shoulder an even bigger burden than they already do" is a very different tone than "they're not paying their fair share!", which is in essence saying that "the rich" are ripping off everyone in every other class.

It's a red herring though, class warfare or not. It's not going to do anything meaningful toward covering the deficit, unless you truly jack up the upper rates by a large amount, which will never fly anyway.

 

[biostud]

Didn't the economy work before the Bush tax cuts?

Then it's probably going to work as well if you remove the tax cuts.

 

[dank69]

Hmmm.. good point. I suppose it's easier to sell when setting up a system that treats multiple groups differently (each bracket), rather than singling out one single group. Also, demonizing one class ("they're not paying their fair share!") furthers the notion of class warfare. Saying, "we're in trouble as a country, we're asking those at the top to shoulder an even bigger burden than they already do" is a very different tone than "they're not paying their fair share!", which is in essence saying that "the rich" are ripping off everyone in every other class.

It's a red herring though, class warfare or not. It's not going to do anything meaningful toward covering the deficit, unless you truly jack up the upper rates by a large amount, which will never fly anyway.

When someone uses the 'fair share' argument (which I do not like, btw), typically they are not referring to increasing taxes on a certain income bracket, they are referring to eliminating tax loopholes that allow billionaires to pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than their secretary. I do not believe that someone could make a valid argument that the above situation is fair.

 

[Ausm]

Didn't the economy work before the Bush tax cuts?

Then it's probably going to work as well if you remove the tax cuts.

Republican's and their sheep suffer from CRS aka Can't remember shit so that's why they are all freaking out :whiste:

 

[momeNt]

Republican's and their sheep suffer from CRS aka Can't remember shit so that's why they are all freaking out :whiste:

Pretty sure when the Federal Reserve made the economy they did not include restore points! Bill Gates invented those.

 

[Muse]

Personally I'd like to see additional tax brackets. Someone making $200k per year is certainly well off, but is still in a completely different stratosphere than someone making $2 million per, who is in a completely different ballpark than someone making $200 million etc. It still won't make a dent in the deficit though, but that's a whole other discussion.

It won't kill the deficit but it will dent it, in fact it will take off its left arm, a leg too if it's severe enough. :twisted: Your comments are self contradictory. You say you don't want to see other than across the board tax increases, then you want a different bracket structure.

But clearly if you were to set up graduated income taxes, at one point you must have singled out specific income brackets. There's no way to have ever created them to begin with without engaging in 'class warfare'.

It's just a term used to try and shut down debate.

Indeed! Mitch McConnell is really good at delivering that kind of rhetoric.

 

[soulcougher73]

Um, hello! The rich are the job creators! We gave them their tax cuts so they could create more jobs. Where are the jobs?

China, India etc. Basically anywhere not US.

 

[soulcougher73]

I didn't read the whole post but did he say that HE would voluntarily start paying higher taxes?

No such thing as voluntarily paying higher taxes. He is promoting them yes. He can write a check as well but that is not taxes. That is a donation/charity. He is not advocating that because he knows that shit dont work at a federal level.

 

[soulcougher73]

Good to see some thoughts from someone with real world business experience like Mark Cuban.

Look like all the liberals focused on his point on rich paying high taxes, but missed out on a few very important pre-requisites.

1) allocation of taxes on projects with good return on investments.
2) reduction in bureaucracy on filing taxes.

If Obama didn't spend our hard earn tax money on his pet green energy projects and programs catering to democratic constituent like more social benefit, more social nets that fails to generate any positive returns and often create disincentive for people to go out and work and be productive, I am sure there would have been stronger support for more taxes.

Actually you missed the point. Those were not pre-requisites before he thinks we should tax the rich more. He just talked about them. He even mentioned that if the governement is going to waste money they should wastes the rich peoples money instead of the people who could actually use the money to get by.