The Angry Rich

[LunarRay]

Their bill is being sent to the rich. Increasing taxes on the rich is simply adding to this burden, in every way taking money directly from the rich and giving it to the poor. This is now the largest portion of the federal budget.

What ought to be the rationalization for the taxation percentage? Should it be based on the relative benefit derived from citizenship? Should there be a poverty limit below which Taxation 'forgiven' is shared in some manner by the folks above that level?

My feeling is: The more Income one has the more they enjoy life, liberty and the rest of it.... That ought to be the basis on which Income is taxed. The percentage then ought to be equal to what it costs to provide for the needs of the people... all the people... IF that scenario has negative economic issues then we look to the debt financing of economic needs until and in the amounts necessary to get us back to where the revenue is equal to the expense... balanced budgets don't occur with 10% unemployed... And the needs of the population vary by individual. It also seems to me that the wealthy gain their wealth via the efforts of the less wealthy.... IOW, General Electric sells stuff (among other activities) that is purchased by most of the population... I don't mind their owners getting richer and buying their yachts but they should pay a bit more (percentage wise) to enjoy the Rivera, No?

 

[woolfe9999]

Their bill is being sent to the rich. Increasing taxes on the rich is simply adding to this burden, in every way taking money directly from the rich and giving it to the poor. This is now the largest portion of the federal budget.

What specifically is now "the largest portion of the federal budget?" SS and Medicare are funded through payroll taxes, which everyone pays. And everyone receives the benefits out the other end, rich and poor. Those are the second and third largest portions of our budget. The largest is defense spending. Query how that helps the poor unless its the fact that it gives some of them jobs. But whose interests are our military abroad aimed at protecting? So far as actual "welfare" programs for the poor, it's not really that much. I'm not saying there is zero wealth redistribution going on. I just think you are exagerrating.

- wolf

 

[Darwin333]

Look, you troll. According to you, taxes should be zero. Because even a single penny paid in taxes is the "government taking my money."

Let's see if you can get the following through your concrete skull:

From our current state of taxation and benefits, who should be contributing more to reduce the deficit, the rich or everybody else? The rich want the bottom 95% to give money back, in the form of reduced benefits. That's what's meant by "cutting government spending" - cut programs that primarily benefit the middle and lower classes.

Of course, the rich want to KEEP all their own benefits, and even increase them, in the form of still more beneficial tax treatment. Us plain folk think the rich should bear a disproportionate burden in reducing the deficit. But trolls like you think that means "government taking my money."

You're a fool.

Wait, this is about reducing the deficit? Really?

I know they love to throw around the $700B figure because that sounds like a good chunk of our current $1.3T deficit but I hate to break it to ya, that is simply intentional misdirection. You see, the $1.3T deficit is for THIS year and this year alone. The $700B figure is what the CBO figures the tax hike will raise over the next TEN years. So lets do some math shall we?

$700B over 10 years = $70B a year

$1,300,000,000,000
- $70,000,000,000
---------------------------
$1,230,000,000,000 in deficit spending THIS year if we had already increased the taxes on those rich bastards.

I am in no way arguing that taxes should not be raised. As a matter of fact, I think taxes must be raised AND spending must be lowered but this entire argument is so full of shit that its downright embarrassing that it is taking place. $70B doesn't solve a damned thing, it doesn't come close to solving a damned thing, it doesn't even cover a few weeks worth of our deficit. Of course you can argue that increasing taxes by a single dollar will decrease the deficit but lets try to put things in context here.

Taken by itself, this tax increase will do virtually nothing to reduce our deficit. It is akin to your boss giving you a $.15/hour raise, sure its a raise but is that $6 a week or so really going to have an impact on your household budget? Hell no it isn't and neither will this. You could quadruple the tax increase and we still haven't made any significant progress.

But hey, it gets us arguing amongst ourselves and not paying attention to the bigger picture, so it is actually serving its intended purpose. Before the Reps get all high and mighty about "cutting spending", it was the Republicans who passed the biggest increase in entitlement spending (as in permanent spending increase) in recent history, Medicare part D. Like I said, nothing but misdirection and most of us are falling for it.

 

[Darwin333]

What specifically is now "the largest portion of the federal budget?" SS and Medicare are funded through payroll taxes, which everyone pays. And everyone receives the benefits out the other end, rich and poor. Those are the second and third largest portions of our budget. The largest is defense spending. Query how that helps the poor unless its the fact that it gives some of them jobs. But whose interests are our military abroad aimed at protecting? So far as actual "welfare" programs for the poor, it's not really that much. I'm not saying there is zero wealth redistribution going on. I just think you are exagerrating.

- wolf

60% of the Federal budget is in non-discretionary entitlement spending and at least this year Social Security was the single largest portion of the federal budget but DOD wasn't far behind.

BTW, that 60% number is roughly what we collected in revenue this year too. You could literally get rid of ALL DOD spending, close all of our bases, mothball every last piece of .mil hardware, layoff ALL of our troops, etc... and we would still be pretty deep in the hole.

 

[woolfe9999]

60% of the Federal budget is in non-discretionary entitlement spending and at least this year Social Security was the single largest portion of the federal budget but DOD wasn't far behind.

BTW, that 60% number is roughly what we collected in revenue this year too. You could literally get rid of ALL DOD spending, close all of our bases, mothball every last piece of .mil hardware, layoff ALL of our troops, etc... and we would still be pretty deep in the hole.

His comment was about transferring money from rich to poor being the largest part of our budget. I don't understand how SS and Medicare count as that. Medicaid? Sure. AFDC? Sure. But not SS and medicare. You can call them "entitlements" and I won't quibble with the word, but it's a very different thing where working people pay into a fund of some sort and take it out when they retire versus the governement taking tax dollars from the rich and handing to poor people as welfare checks or food stamps. The first is an immense portion of our budget. The second, not so much.

Oh, you might want to check if that DoD budget included supplemental appropriations. Most pie charts show SS ahead of defense, but aren't taking into account supplementals which were considered off budget until Obama reformed it just this year IIRC.

- wolf

 

[GuitarDaddy]

What ought to be the rationalization for the taxation percentage? Should it be based on the relative benefit derived from citizenship? Should there be a poverty limit below which Taxation 'forgiven' is shared in some manner by the folks above that level?

My feeling is: The more Income one has the more they enjoy life, liberty and the rest of it.... That ought to be the basis on which Income is taxed. The percentage then ought to be equal to what it costs to provide for the needs of the people... all the people... IF that scenario has negative economic issues then we look to the debt financing of economic needs until and in the amounts necessary to get us back to where the revenue is equal to the expense... balanced budgets don't occur with 10% unemployed... And the needs of the population vary by individual. It also seems to me that the wealthy gain their wealth via the efforts of the less wealthy.... IOW, General Electric sells stuff (among other activities) that is purchased by most of the population... I don't mind their owners getting richer and buying their yachts but they should pay a bit more (percentage wise) to enjoy the Rivera, No?

:thumbsup: Nice post!

Only makes sense that those recieving the most benifiet from society pay the highest percentage of income in taxes. And history proves it out very well, as we experienced our fastest and largest periods of expansion in this country in the 1950's - 1970's when the marginal tax rates were the highest. That type of tax structure premotes expansion and employement and discourages syphoning off profits by a handful at the top. During this time period the average Forbes 100 CEO made 40-60 times the average workers wage, now 30yrs later that ratio is approaching 1000 x avg wage. Are todays CEO's really worth 20x more than their couterparts from 30yrs ago?

The damage done to the working class by the policies and tax cuts for the wealthy that began under Reagan in the 80's and continued until current time can't be reversed. But the policies can be reversed which would give the working class at least a fighting chance to rebuild the economy.

 

[thegimp03]

:thumbsup: Nice post!

Only makes sense that those recieving the most benifiet from society pay the highest percentage of income in taxes. And history proves it out very well, as we experienced our fastest and largest periods of expansion in this country in the 1950's - 1970's when the marginal tax rates were the highest. That type of tax structure premotes expansion and employement and discourages syphoning off profits by a handful at the top. During this time period the average Forbes 100 CEO made 40-60 times the average workers wage, now 30yrs later that ratio is approaching 1000 x avg wage. Are todays CEO's really worth 20x more than their couterparts from 30yrs ago?

The damage done to the working class by the policies and tax cuts for the wealthy that began under Reagan in the 80's and continued until current time can't be reversed. But the policies can be reversed which would give the working class at least a fighting chance to rebuild the economy.

Raise taxes to improve the economy? Common sense fail.

 

[dainthomas]

Raise taxes to improve the economy? Common sense fail.

Taxes are low now and the economy sucks.

Real world fail.

 

[Darwin333]

His comment was about transferring money from rich to poor being the largest part of our budget. I don't understand how SS and Medicare count as that. Medicaid? Sure. AFDC? Sure. But not SS and medicare. You can call them "entitlements" and I won't quibble with the word, but it's a very different thing where working people pay into a fund of some sort and take it out when they retire versus the governement taking tax dollars from the rich and handing to poor people as welfare checks or food stamps. The first is an immense portion of our budget. The second, not so much.

You can call it Captain Crunch spending for all I care, it doesn't change the cold hard numbers. The fact is that our revenue this year covered ONLY the spending you talk about above, no DOD, no EPA, no DOE, no education, notta, zip, zilch... That was my point.

Oh, you might want to check if that DoD budget included supplemental appropriations. Most pie charts show SS ahead of defense, but aren't taking into account supplementals which were considered off budget until Obama reformed it just this year IIRC.

- wolf

Doesn't matter who is right, as I said, you can slash every last dime of it and we are still deep in the hole. If we don't address the first part of your post nothing else really matters. Do your own math, cut DOD spending by 10% or 15% or 20% and how is that deficit looking? Pretty fucked up thats how it is looking.

 

[glenn1]

That is outrageous. That one income is enough to pay for 20,000 good white collar jobs or 40,000 blue collar jobs. It is no wonder we have so much unemployment.

LOL, what wonderful business acumen you have. Instead of the hedge fund investors hiring a manager for $2B who makes them many billions more than that in profit, let's hire some 40,000 random people instead who don't even have no fvcking clue what a hedge fund is. I can see it now, "Hey honey, why did you get the expensive surgeon to do the lung transplant, when his one income could have paid for twenty six welders instead?"

 

[Darwin333]

:thumbsup: Nice post!

Only makes sense that those recieving the most benifiet from society pay the highest percentage of income in taxes. And history proves it out very well, as we experienced our fastest and largest periods of expansion in this country in the 1950's - 1970's when the marginal tax rates were the highest. That type of tax structure premotes expansion and employement and discourages syphoning off profits by a handful at the top. During this time period the average Forbes 100 CEO made 40-60 times the average workers wage, now 30yrs later that ratio is approaching 1000 x avg wage. Are todays CEO's really worth 20x more than their couterparts from 30yrs ago?

The damage done to the working class by the policies and tax cuts for the wealthy that began under Reagan in the 80's and continued until current time can't be reversed. But the policies can be reversed which would give the working class at least a fighting chance to rebuild the economy.

A fighting chance competing against cheap ass Chinese labor and cheap ass imported labor? Seriously?

 

[thegimp03]

Taxes are low now and the economy sucks.

Real world fail.

Yep and I hear there's going to be a House cleaning in a little more than a month. Better put it on your calendar!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Paul Krugman advocating taxing the "rich" (a deliberately vague terms) to give to the incompetent to use as a carrot and stick to keep politicians in power.

Maybe he ought not to worry about the rich or anyone else until the scoundrels he wishes to empower even more are held to a standard of modest competence and honesty the average citizen is supposed to meet.

 

[glenn1]

I'll just leave this here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/247428/nation-peasants-victor-davis-hanson

 

[Zebo]

I'll just leave this here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/247428/nation-peasants-victor-davis-hanson

Same ole bromides. Why would you invest in a new business when none has money to spend or is deleveraging like now (paying down debt). You don't. You put it under the mattress, bonds, bet to lose (short sell), overseas and anything else but invest in new factory, stores, building etc. Demand drives the economy not supply. And that's always been histories corundum..what to do when a few have all the marbles. Revolutions were common on the past but sane people have a mixed economy as to not have bloody revolutions. This includes progressive taxation, some social welfare, govt back loans, some unionization to attempt to get money back into peoples hands.

 

[Zebo]

What do you call it taking land from rich Indians and giving it, free, to impoverished peasants of Europe? Over 20% of land owned in USA was acquired that way. Me thinks founders were socialists. I know white pridists think them white folks just did it all on their own, man on an isle or some shit when it was in fact empowerment combined w/ hard work and a little more hard work from slaves that did it... Well we can't take land anymore not considered right so have to find other means of empowerment. The rich do not want you empowered, they fear competition, don't like it at all, that's why they send their children to Andover and want your kids in public or no school is better. Thats why they bribe congress for sweetheart loans and have no liking for SBA or small start-ups in insurance and banking. You have to force it just like anything else in life go get it.

 

[CycloWizard]

What ought to be the rationalization for the taxation percentage? Should it be based on the relative benefit derived from citizenship? Should there be a poverty limit below which Taxation 'forgiven' is shared in some manner by the folks above that level?

My feeling is: The more Income one has the more they enjoy life, liberty and the rest of it.... That ought to be the basis on which Income is taxed. The percentage then ought to be equal to what it costs to provide for the needs of the people... all the people... IF that scenario has negative economic issues then we look to the debt financing of economic needs until and in the amounts necessary to get us back to where the revenue is equal to the expense... balanced budgets don't occur with 10% unemployed... And the needs of the population vary by individual. It also seems to me that the wealthy gain their wealth via the efforts of the less wealthy.... IOW, General Electric sells stuff (among other activities) that is purchased by most of the population... I don't mind their owners getting richer and buying their yachts but they should pay a bit more (percentage wise) to enjoy the Rivera, No?

Your justification seems to be that the rich should pay simply because they can. I'm not really inclined to agree with that.

I'm not sure which taxation scheme is best. According to the Holmes quotation thrown in to the OP's article, it seems that a citizenship tax is in order, else one cannot truly be a part of "civilized society." If you want to live in the US, then you have to pay at least, say, $100 a year. If Krugman was being honest in how this should be interpreted by any rational person, this is what it should mean. I know some people who are not at all well off who feel this is the way it should be - everyone has to pay something. I might support this if it were the only taxes charged, and it looks like this would raise about $32 billion per year given the current population (assuming there was no age cutoff).

The simplest one that seems to be justifiable would be a simple proportional tax with a threshold such that no income below that threshold would be taxed. This would let low-income people keep their money while the government takes a flat percentage for all income over that. I think the threshold should hold for all types of taxes, including SS/Medicaid/et cetera.

However, perhaps the best model would be a fee-for-service model in which you pay based on your actual usage of government services. Again, a threshold could be used below which you won't pay for these things. People making above the threshold would pay marginally more than the services they use actually cost to pay for those who can't. This method would at least offer an easy test of whether it really is the utilization of services that enables the rich to become rich and would charge them accordingly. I think this model is a lot easier to justify than a progressive tax scheme as a result.

 

[CycloWizard]

What specifically is now "the largest portion of the federal budget?" SS and Medicare are funded through payroll taxes, which everyone pays. And everyone receives the benefits out the other end, rich and poor. Those are the second and third largest portions of our budget. The largest is defense spending. Query how that helps the poor unless its the fact that it gives some of them jobs. But whose interests are our military abroad aimed at protecting? So far as actual "welfare" programs for the poor, it's not really that much. I'm not saying there is zero wealth redistribution going on. I just think you are exagerrating.

- wolf

I've been paying both of those since I was 14 and will most likely never see any of it out the other end. Simply because it's not rich-to-poor doesn't mean they're not redistributive measures. The distribution in this case is simply from my generation to yours.

 

[Baasha]

I guess some of you need to brush up on your elementary math skills.

Let's take the following example:

Individual "A" earns $100,000 per year pre-taxation.

Individual "B" earns $5,000,000 per year pre-taxation.

Let us ignore state tax at this point and just look at federal tax.

If the federal tax rate is 25% (flat-rate):

Individual "A" will have to pay $25,000 in taxes for said year.

Individual "B" will have to pay $1,250,000 in taxes for said year.

As we can see, individual "B" pays 50 times the amount that individual "A" pays in taxes! Does individual "B" get any special benefits? Like a special # to call for emergencies where the chief of police or the fire chief or senator will come rushing to his aid? No!

Public services are NOT commensurate to the taxes that individuals pay. The millionaires do not get a special "highway" to drive on because they pay more. They have to sit in traffic with the other folks.

The funny thing is, this is the fact for the SAME TAX RATE! Reality is not even that! The millionaire has to pay MORE taxes, at least, if it is designated as income, than those who earn less and consequently pay less in taxes. That is why people create loopholes such as capital gains taxes in order to avoid paying exorbitant amounts in taxes.

Even if you take the 15% for the capital gains tax, a guy making $10MM a year will have to pay $1.5MM in taxes. The guy making $100k a year, even if he pays 33% in taxes, pays only $33k in taxes!! How the heck is that "fair"?

I think to make this equitable in society, those who start businesses should be given the greatest tax breaks since they stimulate the economy by hiring people (creating jobs), creating products/services that produce vibrant system of cash flow. Stagnation is what causes trouble (aka hoarding).

Those morons who are born to billionaires and just sit on their asses (aka inheritance) should be taxed to the till; 90% or more. They have not "earned" it and they do not stimulate the economy. Of course, if they take over the 'family' business, then it is different. However, there are many millionaires/billionaires who just inherit their ancestors wealth and sit on it paying very low taxes and thereby causing a lot of mental and economic anguish for the society at large.

The current tax law is inane, idiotic, and frankly good at creating a deep schism in the mental fabric of the nation. The GINNI (disparity between rich and poor) index for the US is shamefully high for a so-called "developed" nation. To improve it, the economic system should be pro-business but supportive of all classes. It is clear that the politicians are puppets of corporations and their interests. Anyone who denies this is an idiot.

 

[1prophet]

If they did offshore, what difference would it make?

You fail to understand the purpose America was built on was a completely free country. Even if that freedom meant self destruction.

I'll take freedom and all the negatives and positives that comes with it. I don't want people playing with the social and economy "knobs" trying to create some Utopia.

Except they don't self destruct anymore, their buddies on the board or some government bailout saves their ass, and in turn they reciprocate and help their friends out while the rest of us end up holding the bag.

 

[Darwin333]

Your justification seems to be that the rich should pay simply because they can. I'm not really inclined to agree with that.

I'm not sure which taxation scheme is best. According to the Holmes quotation thrown in to the OP's article, it seems that a citizenship tax is in order, else one cannot truly be a part of "civilized society." If you want to live in the US, then you have to pay at least, say, $100 a year. If Krugman was being honest in how this should be interpreted by any rational person, this is what it should mean. I know some people who are not at all well off who feel this is the way it should be - everyone has to pay something. I might support this if it were the only taxes charged, and it looks like this would raise about $32 billion per year given the current population (assuming there was no age cutoff).

The simplest one that seems to be justifiable would be a simple proportional tax with a threshold such that no income below that threshold would be taxed. This would let low-income people keep their money while the government takes a flat percentage for all income over that. I think the threshold should hold for all types of taxes, including SS/Medicaid/et cetera.

However, perhaps the best model would be a fee-for-service model in which you pay based on your actual usage of government services. Again, a threshold could be used below which you won't pay for these things. People making above the threshold would pay marginally more than the services they use actually cost to pay for those who can't. This method would at least offer an easy test of whether it really is the utilization of services that enables the rich to become rich and would charge them accordingly. I think this model is a lot easier to justify than a progressive tax scheme as a result.

How much value, in terms of dollars, is it worth to you to keep hungry and extremely desperate people from killing you, your wife, and your kids just for something to eat?

Some things simply can't be broken down in terms of value per person. Having fat poor people is one of them, hungry poor people tend to fuck a lot of shit up. Think about what YOU would do to feed your starving child if you had no other choice, personally I would do absolutely whatever it takes. I will not watch my child starve if there is another way, even if that "way" is taking food off of your plate....by whatever means necessary.

We need a lot of our social programs but a lot of them have gotten way out of control. Taxes must remain progressive but at the same time we need to reduce spending on entitlement programs where it is not necessary. A lot of people receiving Social Security do not actually NEED it. Sorry folks, it wasn't a retirement plan it was a tax. You aren't "owed" shit once the .gov takes your money. Health care is the same thing, you aren't "owed" a free trip to the ER because you have a runny nose. Unless we address those very real issues, we are fucked regardless of what tax scheme you come up with. The bottom line is we don't generate enough revenue to cover costs. Unless your way increases revenue by a very large amount then we haven't really gotten anywhere.

By very large I mean 30-40% or so. As in a fuckton, a shitload, a whole fucking lot, more than we got, more than we can get, that kinda increase. Otherwise, we have to increase revenue AND decrease spending and I simply don't believe that will happen. So fuck it, till the wheels come off!

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Here's a pragmatic thought: perhaps class warfare is besides the fucking point right now and shouldn't matter worth a damn. In case people haven't been paying attention, we have NO CHOICE right now but to raise *everybodies* taxes.

Ding, ding, we have a winner. Coupled with spending cuts, of course.

 

[CycloWizard]

How much value, in terms of dollars, is it worth to you to keep hungry and extremely desperate people from killing you, your wife, and your kids just for something to eat?

Some things simply can't be broken down in terms of value per person. Having fat poor people is one of them, hungry poor people tend to fuck a lot of shit up. Think about what YOU would do to feed your starving child if you had no other choice, personally I would do absolutely whatever it takes. I will not watch my child starve if there is another way, even if that "way" is taking food off of your plate....by whatever means necessary.

We need a lot of our social programs but a lot of them have gotten way out of control. Taxes must remain progressive but at the same time we need to reduce spending on entitlement programs where it is not necessary. A lot of people receiving Social Security do not actually NEED it. Sorry folks, it wasn't a retirement plan it was a tax. You aren't "owed" shit once the .gov takes your money. Health care is the same thing, you aren't "owed" a free trip to the ER because you have a runny nose. Unless we address those very real issues, we are fucked regardless of what tax scheme you come up with. The bottom line is we don't generate enough revenue to cover costs. Unless your way increases revenue by a very large amount then we haven't really gotten anywhere.

By very large I mean 30-40% or so. As in a fuckton, a shitload, a whole fucking lot, more than we got, more than we can get, that kinda increase. Otherwise, we have to increase revenue AND decrease spending and I simply don't believe that will happen. So fuck it, till the wheels come off!

What is it with illiterate people and my posts? Your post has nothing to do with anything I said. Learn how to read, and then get back to me. I can only hope this was a case of quoting the wrong post, but at this point, I doubt it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

What ought to be the rationalization for the taxation percentage? Should it be based on the relative benefit derived from citizenship? Should there be a poverty limit below which Taxation 'forgiven' is shared in some manner by the folks above that level?

My feeling is: The more Income one has the more they enjoy life, liberty and the rest of it.... That ought to be the basis on which Income is taxed. The percentage then ought to be equal to what it costs to provide for the needs of the people... all the people... IF that scenario has negative economic issues then we look to the debt financing of economic needs until and in the amounts necessary to get us back to where the revenue is equal to the expense... balanced budgets don't occur with 10% unemployed... And the needs of the population vary by individual. It also seems to me that the wealthy gain their wealth via the efforts of the less wealthy.... IOW, General Electric sells stuff (among other activities) that is purchased by most of the population... I don't mind their owners getting richer and buying their yachts but they should pay a bit more (percentage wise) to enjoy the Rivera, No?

Taxing labor is not what ought to happen. One's income does not determine how much they enjoy life, liberty and the rest of it.

 

[JMapleton]

Except they don't self destruct anymore, their buddies on the board or some government bailout saves their ass, and in turn they reciprocate and help their friends out while the rest of us end up holding the bag.

True, but that cannot happen indefinitely. The US will have a hard landing when our dollar collapses because of the way we're diluting it because of people bailing one another out to leave for future generations to fix/pay for the problem.

(excuse the kookie conspiracy-like presentation, but they interview credible people)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n3g5lUgkWk