Millionaires want to be taxed

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
The overwhelmingly vast majority of US Earners are not millionaires... ergo, any taxation revenue garnered from the millionaire is pittance compared to the revenue from the rest of the earning citizenry...
What makes sense is to insure there are a plethora or earning capacity amongst the entire population... Jobs!
Institute a program to provide massive earning capacity to the US Earner and all the issues will be solved in the US... The rest of the world will be a bit ticked off since such a program will not be in their best interests but it will sort our issues out... I personally don't much care if folks don't have a high standard of living in India when we've folks here starving.

Seems to me it is an issue where we need considering our citizens first and let the world deal with their citizens as they may...

Actually, millionaires (and billionaries) pay a substantial share of the total income tax collected. But as a percentage of the total income they earn, they're paying much, much less than they did decades ago, when our country experienced its greatest growth, contrary to what right-wing ideologues would have us believe.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
So, all the hard work I put in to earn money to make sure my kids inherit the wealth I create should instead go to ..... the government so it can hand it out to losers who do nothing to earn it? Brilliant.

If you make enough for the $250K+ income tax or the inheritance tax to cost you much, we could talk about you paying your fair share.

But before that, the odds are very high you don't. So let's confirm you are in those groups, before discussing how 'you' lose all the money you say you do to the taxes?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Actually, millionaires (and billionaries) pay a substantial share of the total income tax collected. But as a percentage of the total income they earn, they're paying much, much less than they did decades ago, when our country experienced its greatest growth, contrary to what right-wing ideologues would have us believe.

If you get all the income and wealth, you don't mind agreeing to pay a very high share of taxes.

Their income and wealth has far outstripped any taxes they pay.

That's part of the game - income for them, in part charged on a massive debt owed by all, with the eventual cuts to address the debt first going to everyone but the rich.

The top 1% has increased its share of income from 8% to triple that amount, taking 80% of all new income in the US the last 30 years. Their taxes went up much less than that.

The various things are netting out to a massive shift of wealth to the top.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
That's a fundamentally flawed argument. Until the rules change, I play by the current ones just like everyone else. That doesn't mean I'm not going to advocate changing them.

So, the rules you say you follow is, advocate what you want the rules to be for everyone, but until they change, follow the rules as they are even if you'd change them.

The funny thing is, you only follow the rule you say when it benefits you - you break it when it doesn't. You wrote:

Stupid hypocrites are free to donate as much money as they like to the government.

So, if millionares altruistically recognize that people in their class including themselves are undertaxed for what's right - your position is, 'shut up and pay more yourself now without a change to the tax rates, but do not advocate changing the tax rates for anyone else.' And you call them hypocrites.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
American People in 1939: "Ah crap this Hitler guy is going out of control, he needs to be stopped!"

Patriotic guy: "Great! I'd love to help!"

American People in 1939: "Great! So you will personally go today all by yourself with a rifle and invade Europe?"

Patriotic guy: "No, I'll wait until we can act collectively as a society, because individual action on a problem of this scale would be mind bogglingly stupid. Not only would it have a high cost for me, but it would yield next to no benefit to society. I'll wait until we coordinate through government action on this one."

American People in 1939: "That makes perfect sense, because what was just suggested was an incredibly dumb and dishonest debating point made by people who should know better."

Analogy fail. Equating paying what you believe to be your "fair share" to picking up a rifle and single-handedly invading another country (ie, suicide) is idiotic. Even if you wanted to pick up a rifle in 1939 and go invade, you would 1) not be allowed to, 2) not be able to, and 3) be picked up and put in jail or killed.

If you feel you need to pay more in taxes to do your "fair share", you are free to do so, with no negative consequences. Any time you want, you can send that money in to the treasury. Another thing you could do -- if you were actually honest -- is you could put the money in a trust so that when the taxes you want to see were levied, you could retro-actively pay your "fair share".

These people that are supposedly pushing for the higher taxes are also the ones who would be the first to look for loopholes to escape paying those taxes, while the rest of us without fancy lawyers and accountants would be paying the taxes. Hypocrites.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
If you make enough for the $250K+ income tax or the inheritance tax to cost you much, we could talk about you paying your fair share.

But before that, the odds are very high you don't. So let's confirm you are in those groups, before discussing how 'you' lose all the money you say you do to the taxes?

Retarded argument. I'm not black either, but that doesn't mean I'm OK with discrimination against blacks. Just because I'm not in a certain income group doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on laws targeting that group.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
So, if millionares altruistically recognize that people in their class including themselves are undertaxed for what's right - your position is, 'shut up and pay more yourself now without a change to the tax rates, but do not advocate changing the tax rates for anyone else.'

I didn't say they had to shut up and pay more, those are your words. I'm saying they can put their money where their mouth is. Once they do, then perhaps I'll listen. Until then, I'll consider them a bunch of whiny blowhard liberals who think the government needs even more money to waste.
 

Michael

Elite member
Nov 19, 1999
5,435
234
106
I have no issue being taxed. I consume services and I don't find it a stretch to say that there are others that make less that need the same services and can't fully pay for them. The country I live in affords my the opportunity to make money, so I should support it.

However, there is a limit to what taxes should be. I'm not too far away from being able to not work and just live on my savings. The country shouldn't just spend and spend on anything the masses ant, it should limit spending to essentials and in investing for the future. It isn't paying taxes I object to, it is the stupid things my taxes are spent on.

Michael
 

SparkyJJO

Lifer
May 16, 2002
13,357
7
81
You know, I sit back sometimes and wonder how the heck did this country get into such a ridiculous mess. How stupid can this nation be?

Then I read threads like this, see how some of you people "think" (if you can call it that), and I stop wondering.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
I have no issue being taxed. I consume services and I don't find it a stretch to say that there are others that make less that need the same services and can't fully pay for them. The country I live in affords my the opportunity to make money, so I should support it.

However, there is a limit to what taxes should be. I'm not too far away from being able to not work and just live on my savings. The country shouldn't just spend and spend on anything the masses ant, it should limit spending to essentials and in investing for the future. It isn't paying taxes I object to, it is the stupid things my taxes are spent on.

Michael

Agreed. Same here. Yes, I pay a lot in taxes (I think too much already), but if that's really what's needed then I'll pay it. I am, however, not willing to pay up even more money to hand to a wasteful government until they get their shit together and figure out how to cut spending to responsible levels. Then come to me and ask for more.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Retarded argument.

When you begin your post this obnoxiously and idiotically, you will not be read in this thread further.

I'm not black either, but that doesn't mean I'm OK with discrimination against blacks. Just because I'm not in a certain income group doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on laws targeting that group.

The issue isn't you defending people in that class even though you're not in it.

Your argument was filled with YOUR children and YOU paying the price, when YOUR children and YOU would BENEFIT from the opposite of what you advocate.

There's a larger problem here of not rich people who are carefully propagandized to support the wealthy's interest with a variety of lies.

But this was just pointing out the probability that like someone with Stockholm Syndrome you were posting that YOU are one of the $5 million estate people.

I was asking just in case you actually were in that class and your post was accurate, and clearly my suspicions were right. Now, we could talk further, but we will not.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Agreed. Same here. Yes, I pay a lot in taxes (I think too much already), but if that's really what's needed then I'll pay it. I am, however, not willing to pay up even more money to hand to a wasteful government until they get their shit together and figure out how to cut spending to responsible levels. Then come to me and ask for more.
How do you know that the current expenditure levels aren't responsible?
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Advocating a change of the rules while continuing to follow the existing rules is in no way hypocritical. Advocating, for example, that Social Security be changed such that COL increases are based on a different inflation metric in order to solve the broad SS solvency problem doesn't mean you're a hypocrite if you continue to accept your full SS check computed based on the current metric until the rules actually change.

Hypocrisy means advocating that OTHERS behave a certain way while you continue to behave the old way.

umm our senate and house have golden parachute health plans and a ton of perks no one else gets.

However, until someone is willing to bite the bullet themselves most of the time nothing changes.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
umm our senate and house have golden parachute health plans and a ton of perks no one else gets.

However, until someone is willing to bite the bullet themselves most of the time nothing changes.

The compensation and perks of the elected officials really doesn't matter compared to the huge policies they decide over trillions of dollars of interested parties.

Worry less about the drops in the bucket they're paid and more about who they have to serve to get elected - and also the corruption of post-office lobbying incentives.

Worrying about their salary is a simplistic and misguided topic. We could get rid of all their compensation - and guarantee we paid a million times the amount saved as only people who had other ways to make up for it took office, and were really corrupt against the public interest. People in Congress are not 'getting rich' being there - while they're there, at least. But they can easily manipulate people who worry about that.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
I am not really worried about it. In the end I cannot change it due to no one else willing to step up.

However, you have to understand the reason they get those perks is deciding over that trillions of dollars for interested parties and extending favors.

You are right...their compensation, much like the President's is probably their least concern...

I am just along for the ride.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
How do you know that the current expenditure levels aren't responsible?

Because it is spending a huge amount more than it brings in, meaning the national debt climbs at a rate that makes the eventual interest payments on the debt unsustainable. Therefore the level of expenditure is neither sustainable or responsible.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
When you begin your post this obnoxiously and idiotically, you will not be read in this thread further.

I wish, but unfortunately for all of us you still do read :(

The issue isn't you defending people in that class even though you're not in it.

Your argument was filled with YOUR children and YOU paying the price, when YOUR children and YOU would BENEFIT from the opposite of what you advocate.

I know the concept of a hypothetical person is much too complicated (apparently). Whether I'm in the group being targeted is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

There's a larger problem here of not rich people who are carefully propagandized to support the wealthy's interest with a variety of lies.

But this was just pointing out the probability that like someone with Stockholm Syndrome you were posting that YOU are one of the $5 million estate people.
Or, <gasp> I don't believe in class warfare and I don't think the fact that I am or am not in a group makes a difference in whether a position is justified.

Now, we could talk further, but we will not.
Thanks! ;)
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Lol they already made theirs now they want to fuck us up and comers with no wealth. Fuck that let's have a wealth tax. If you're a millionaire and are a registered democrat you pay a percentage of your wealth in taxes.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
most people put themselves in a higher class than they really are.

People were asked how much wealth the bottom 40% of Americans should have, in their ideal society. They said 20-25%.

They were asked how much they think they actually have, they said IIRC 10-15%.

The amount they have: 0.3% (0.1% for bottom 20%, 0.2% for 20-40%).

Economists were asked how much they thought the bottom 40% have; they were off by a factor of 7, answering 2%.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
I am not really worried about it. In the end I cannot change it due to no one else willing to step up.

However, you have to understand the reason they get those perks is deciding over that trillions of dollars for interested parties and extending favors.

You are right...their compensation, much like the President's is probably their least concern...

I am just along for the ride.

Ya, their perks are not linked to their serving the wealthy - the perks are relatively modest and they get them regardless how they vote.

It's the campaign contributions, and the lucrative lobbying and 'consulting' openings when they leave office, that are the reward for supporting wealthy interests.

I'd like to see a law banning elected officials and staffers from that sort of work, I think, though it'd have to be carefully written.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Ya, their perks are not linked to their serving the wealthy - the perks are relatively modest and they get them regardless how they vote.

It's the campaign contributions, and the lucrative lobbying and 'consulting' openings when they leave office, that are the reward for supporting wealthy interests.

I'd like to see a law banning elected officials and staffers from that sort of work, I think, though it'd have to be carefully written.

As you know the Senate is filled with folks to whom a million $ is 'chump change'... They serve a greater philosophical need... Their belief!
Many in the House are similarly stead and they too try to alter society toward their belief... A few, I suppose, are 'in the family' of Political Life... But, they all have something to bring to the table or they'd not be electable... They have local names and the like. Each of them serve and leave when they have to but their future is only marginally enhanced by their service.
I think my favorite Congress person is Gene Taylor of Mississippi's 4th... I think if everyone was like him from a POV of the constituent we'd be all better off... sadly he's gone or will be...
I feel better about a Rockefeller in the Senate than a nobody seeking fortune at my expense...
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
As you know the Senate is filled with folks to whom a million $ is 'chump change'... They serve a greater philosophical need... Their belief!
Many in the House are similarly stead and they too try to alter society toward their belief... A few, I suppose, are 'in the family' of Political Life... But, they all have something to bring to the table or they'd not be electable... They have local names and the like. Each of them serve and leave when they have to but their future is only marginally enhanced by their service.
I think my favorite Congress person is Gene Taylor of Mississippi's 4th... I think if everyone was like him from a POV of the constituent we'd be all better off... sadly he's gone or will be...
I feel better about a Rockefeller in the Senate than a nobody seeking fortune at my expense...

Yes, but their millions don't come from what they make in the Senate.

Some of the poorest, as you seem to suggest, are some of those most like to serve powerful interests.

There's no simple measure for what someone is going to do; a Kennedy might be a real public servant while someone similarly situation might be very different.

But we do know that allowing money to play a big role in elections worsens odds.