Why is taxing the rich considered so taboo by the non-rich?

[Craig234]

You make a good point except for two points.

First and unfortunate, the vast majority of the deficit problem our country faces are programs like Medicare and Social Security. That isn't the fault of the wealthy or libertarians. Unfortunately, in order to fix it, the lower and middle class with have to bear the burden...there is no other way. There are no amount of taxes you can raise that will bring us in the black.

There's some truth to that - not as much as you think, but some.

A question, though, is are these cuts made as we move to a plutocracy - or do we make them as part of returning to a more balanced society?

I can support some of the cuts - when made in the right overall plan, but not when made simply as a step towards preserving the staggering concentration of wealth, as part of moving to a return to the days of a few who are obscenely wealth while impoverishing most.

Right now, we do not have the political orientation to make these cuts the right way.

Remember the radical right has a plan - recognizing they can't get people to vote to cut their own benefits easily, they have the 'strangle' strategy to have spending and deficits get so out of control as to force massive cutbacks that ultimately work out to the benefit of the ultra wealthy, just as the great depression made many of the most rich people far richer, able to buy up resources very cheaply.

Second,

"OK, let's say we cut Medicare and Social Security and the military by 25%, against the will of 90% of Americans."

This is a misnomer because it implies defiance. We live in a republic. There is no legal mandate that congress has to regard the "will of the people" in any way. I would prefer none of these programs be cut, but at the end of the day something must be done or the entire nation will be jeopardized by a crushing deficit that has been hounding us for decades. Its like trying to pay a maxed out credit card with recurring overdraft charges, yet the CC company keeps letting us run up more bills. Gotta stop spending money before you can even begin to pay down the debt.

The thing you seem to be missing is that it's a political problem that the best spending of the government is the first to be cut, and the rich are the most protected.

We do have major fiscal issues - but we need to solve them not by cutting the wrong things, but the right things.

Otherwise, you are just further entrenching a huge gap in wealth and power. With this election we took a huge step the wrong direction.

Did you catch Rand Paul's victory speech explaining that everyone has to do what's best for the rich, because everyone is dependent on them?

 

[dainthomas]

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that some of us believe in equality under the law.

You're right, I do believe in equality. I believe that some billionaire who makes his entire income off capital gains needs to pay the same tax rate as me.

 

[Anteaus]

Actually it's quite possible 'ol Bill pays a lower effective tax rate than someone making 50k a year.

Our country is not failing from trying to redistribute the wealth. Some of the largest periods of growth our country has ever seen occurred during eras where the top marginal tax rate was approaching 90%. The countries with the highest standard of living in the world (and GDP growth rates very comparable to most nations) have intensely progressive taxation. Germany, who is currently beating the pants off of most western countries has a taxation policy that you would view as downright communist. Your idea that redistributive taxation is causing our country to 'fall apart' is directly contradicted by both history and contemporary reality.

In addition, these countries have a FAR lower level of income inequality than the United States does, showing that you can in fact prevent the formation of an aristocracy in a modern society (at least to a significant extent).

I was wrong to imply that redistributive taxation is whats causing the problems. I don't have anything against it. I meant that our countries current implimentation of it is fiscally obsurd. Based on how its setup now, we aren't just redistributing the wealth of our rich patrons...we are also distributing the wealth of all the nations who lend us money. Its disproportional. Thats why I made the comment earlier that If our budget was in the black and to do it meant high taxation on the wealthy, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But it our case, we are having to borrow money to make it work which is bad on so many levels.

 

[MrX8503]

You'd be batshit insane to think it wouldn't be sustainable without an income tax, since A) that's how it was originally, B) it was only said to be a temporary measure when started, and C) as has been show dropping the IRS would push back federal cash collection only a decade.

Actually no, I'm not insane. So your bright idea is to propose "no income tax"? Good luck with that.

 

[BoberFett]

You're right, I do believe in equality. I believe that some billionaire who makes his entire income off capital gains needs to pay the same tax rate as me.

I agree. The same rate. No more no less. Sounds good.

 

[Throckmorton]

And the typical liberal response -- spend, spend, spend! Let's just tax people more and NEVER examine our spending!

Except in this case, Democrats have no room to talk -- Obama is now "open" to extending the Bush tax cuts to ALL brackets. Seriously?

A dollar is a dollar. I'd prefer we get the tax cut dollars than the rich because we will spend and benefit the most.

And you've just hit on the whole problem, except I don't think you realize it. Americans want it all but don't want to pay for it. Something has to give. You can't keep taxes low while providing more and more services.

I do realize it, which is why I included my made up 90% stat.

I say "Allow the Bush tax cuts to expire AND cut spending."

In our current situation, we have to do both -- raise taxes AND cut spending. There is no way around it. We shouldn't be discussing tax cuts OR discussing even more government spending.

Speak for yourself, if I lose my part of the BTCs, I'll be paying my bills with credit.

Then again, the mayor elect of Maui campaigned on cutting jobs (apparently furloughs aren't enough) and giving tax breaks to the hotel industry. Cutting my job sounds well and good for "saving money", and tax breaks sound really nice and happy. Except it means the saved money goes off the island and back to the mainland, instead of us county workers paying our rent, buying groceries, etc.

 

[Fern]

If you're in the top 1% of earners and pay anywhere close to the top income tax bracket, you need to fire your tax accountant ASAP.

Ask Warren Buffet.

Not really true.

Buffet and other fund managers have their income taxed as if it were LT cap gains. As a tax professional I find it an unsupportable (no basis in theory etc), and horrible, tax rule. I am angry it was implemented and angry it has not been removed.

Fern

 

[Throckmorton]

Not really true.

Buffet and other fund managers have their income taxed as if it were LT cap gains. As a tax professional I find it an unsupportable (no basis in theory etc), and horrible, tax rule. I am angry it was implemented and angry it has not been removed.

Fern

Yeah that's what he said

 

[Hacp]

You're right, I do believe in equality. I believe that some billionaire who makes his entire income off capital gains needs to pay the same tax rate as me.

So lower all taxes to 15%? There's something I can agree with.

 

[Fern]

Yeah that's what he said

Not all 1 percenters are fund managers, but all fund managers are 1 percenters.

Fern

 

[qliveur]

Why do I oppose a higher tax rate for the rich even though I'm poor?

Because it's discrimination, that's why. Wash away the classic (and cliche) Marxist "class struggle" sugar coating and that's precisely what you're left with.

 

[werepossum]

I agree. The same rate. No more no less. Sounds good.

I'm increasingly in agreement with that. While I am sensitive to the need to promote investment and wealth creation, there isn't much justification for treating short term stock flips as other than income.

Not really true.

Buffet and other fund managers have their income taxed as if it were LT cap gains. As a tax professional I find it an unsupportable (no basis in theory etc), and horrible, tax rule. I am angry it was implemented and angry it has not been removed.

Fern

I agree completely. Fund managers take no more risk than do any wage slave, for intensely more reward. Their fees should be treated like wage income. Similarly, anyone doing the John Edwards thing, incorporating a business and paying himself the lion's share of the profits as capital gains, should be taxed as income. And any executives cashing in stock options, which usually don't require them to risk any wealth for even a few minutes, should have those gains taxed as wage income.

Perhaps rather than trying to separate actual investment capital being risked from such things, we should just tax all capital gains as wage income and work on keeping the overall tax rates low enough to encourage investment. I find myself increasingly drawn to such simplicity, especially if it is combined with a flat tax. Make a dollar, pay 15% (or 20%, or 25%, as needed) of it in tax, perhaps with a flat exemption up to the poverty rate for your household.

 

[Craig234]

Why do I oppose a higher tax rate for the rich even though I'm poor?

Because it's discrimination, that's why. Wash away the classic (and cliche) Marxist "class struggle" sugar coating and that's precisely what you're left with.

I'll just cut and paste.

One of the problems with your position is that you don't understand than your simple notion of what's 'fair' results in a disastrous, extreme concentration of wealth.

Too bad you didn't get anything from the previous posts.

 

[Craig234]

Not really true.

Buffet and other fund managers have their income taxed as if it were LT cap gains. As a tax professional I find it an unsupportable (no basis in theory etc), and horrible, tax rule. I am angry it was implemented and angry it has not been removed.

Fern

Thanks for your 'support' while you continue to oppose the politicians who are for what you say you are for.

 

[spidey07]

Thanks for your 'support' while you continue to oppose the politicians who are for what you say you are for.

I'm pretty sure that fund manager provision was put in by democrats.

 

[simpletron]

The CBO document is about income tax, but not the SS or Medicare, or the state and local taxes.

From the CBO document - total federal effective tax rate (total federal taxes
divided by comprehensive household income)

It includes all federal taxes aka income, payroll, corporate, and excise taxes. While you are right, it doesn't include any state or local taxes, I only compared it to the federal taxes of your chart. Real federal tax data is more progessive than the baised model in your chart. This also raises doubt about the accurary of the state/local taxes given that the federal rate, the share of income(it's is slightly less concentrated) are both wrong and the model was pulished before any of the actual data was available.

 

[qliveur]

One of the problems with your position is that you don't understand than your simple notion of what's 'fair' results in a disastrous, extreme concentration of wealth.

Well, the problem with your position is that you're rationalizing discrimination. History has repeatedly shown that the results are far more "disastrous" when justice is marginalized for the common good, for the poor, for the children, for the spotted owl, or for [INSERT PORK-BARREL PROJECT OF THE HOUR HERE].

Sorry if that notion is too "simple" for you.

Too bad you didn't get anything from the previous posts.

I doubt that I missed much.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm increasingly in agreement with that. While I am sensitive to the need to promote investment and wealth creation, there isn't much justification for treating short term stock flips as other than income.



I agree completely. Fund managers take no more risk than do any wage slave, for intensely more reward. Their fees should be treated like wage income. Similarly, anyone doing the John Edwards thing, incorporating a business and paying himself the lion's share of the profits as capital gains, should be taxed as income. And any executives cashing in stock options, which usually don't require them to risk any wealth for even a few minutes, should have those gains taxed as wage income.

Perhaps rather than trying to separate actual investment capital being risked from such things, we should just tax all capital gains as wage income and work on keeping the overall tax rates low enough to encourage investment. I find myself increasingly drawn to such simplicity, especially if it is combined with a flat tax. Make a dollar, pay 15% (or 20%, or 25%, as needed) of it in tax, perhaps with a flat exemption up to the poverty rate for your household.

Welcome to the club. 🙂

 

[SparkyJJO]

Boils down to this:

Those who want to tax richer people, just because they have more, are simply envious. Cut all the dressings and stuff away and that's what it boils down to.

It is a destructive mode of thinking. Instead of someone looking at someone else's higher wealth, and perhaps aspiring to work his way up there and be like that, they want to tear the others down. It's downright stupid.

Anyone notice however that the politicians who play and thrive on class warfare are usually pretty well off? It's a strange irony.

Oh, and the whole "fair" thing - life isn't fair, get used to it. Some people will always have more than others, it's just how it is.

And in case I need to remind anyone, I'm not anywhere close to the upper class, so don't try to tell me I'm just trying to justify my own wealth or anything. I'm hardly a wealthy person.

 

[Craig234]

Boils down to this:

Those who want to tax richer people, just because they have more, are simply envious. Cut all the dressings and stuff away and that's what it boils down to.

You are just completely wrong, suffering from a bad ideology.

It's sad to see. It's like watching some blacks oppose the civil rights movement.

'You're just jealous of the whites.'

Wrong. Are Warren Buffet and Bill Gates just jealous of the rich?

 

[Throckmorton]

Why do I oppose a higher tax rate for the rich even though I'm poor?

Because it's discrimination, that's why. Wash away the classic (and cliche) Marxist "class struggle" sugar coating and that's precisely what you're left with.

So you want a flat tax where you pay 30% total taxes?

 

[piasabird]

I could support a tax rate of 15% in the form of a flat tax with no exemptions for anyone.

 

[Craig234]

I could support a tax rate of 15% in the form of a flat tax with no exemptions for anyone.

You could support yet another scheme that has a huge shift of taxes off the rich. Yay.

 

[Throckmorton]

I could support a tax rate of 15% in the form of a flat tax with no exemptions for anyone.

Apples to apples. Don't throw out an arbitrary percentage that sounds good. The actual flat tax rate would be about 20%. Almost a 1/3 increase for people in my tax bracket. Of course it would be a lot worse an increase if our tax brackets were truly progressive.

 

[Throckmorton]

Why don't we have more brackets? Over $250k is wealthy, but that's not an abnormal salary for a doctor or something. $500k I'd call really rich, and obviously over $1 mil is in a whole different league. How about we keep the Bush tax cuts, but modify $250k plus brackets. $250-500k add 2%. $500k-$1mil add 5%. $1 mil-$5mil add 10%. $5mil+ add 15%.