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

[MagickMan]

The top 1% are almost all business owners, and taxing them would give them less capital to expand their businesses or start new businesses. Hence, leaving them unable to hire additional employees to work in these new/expanded businesses.

Rich people dont just sit on their money. They invest it to try and make more. These business investments provide jobs to Americans.

Winner

 

[MrX8503]

Winner

The trickle down concept was first implemented by Reagan and it doesn't create jobs.

 

[ebaycj]

But there are a few, some examples exist on this forum, that believe that you should not be able to improve yourself and should give unto others that do not want to work as hard as you.

This is the biggest load of shit ever.

 

[ebaycj]

I just think its unfair to unilaterally declare someone more liable for the expenses of the country than someone else. If Bill Gates ...

Bill Gates owns an amount of assets that is significantly larger than the assets of the average US Citizen.

Assets that are defended from domestic theft by the force of law in the United States (same goes for all of us). Assets that are defended from international theft by the United States military.

Should he not pay more to protect more ?

That's how insurance works. And what he's getting is basically "insurance", that his assets (that he earned through his labor) will remain under his control (as they rightfully should).

 

[SparkyJJO]

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?

That's sad. You just spout "you're wrong" and throw some totally unrelated crap in there that makes no sense at all, without any sort of explanation why you think I'm wrong. Good job

Bill Gates owns an amount of assets that is significantly larger than the assets of the average US Citizen.

Assets that are defended from domestic theft by the force of law in the United States (same goes for all of us). Assets that are defended from international theft by the United States military.

Should he not pay more to protect more ?

That's how insurance works. And what he's getting is basically "insurance", that his assets (that he earned through his labor) will remain under his control (as they rightfully should).

He DOES pay more. He makes more, and thus he gets taxed more. Nothing new here, so what's your point?


But really, we need to get rid of the graduated tax bracket system crap we have and go to a flat tax rate. Simpler, fair, balanced, no-nonsense. Let's take an example. I like using the 10% figure as it is an easy number to work with. Obviously not the real tax rate but good for this kind of thing. Let's say John Doe makes $50k a year, and pays 10% tax rate. That's $5000 paid in taxes. Now let's say Bill Gates makes $5M, and pays the same 10% tax rate. That is $500,000 that he's paying in taxes. So at the same tax rate he's still paying 100x as much in taxes as John Doe is. Which makes perfect sense, he makes 100x as much.

In addition to a flat tax rate, close a bunch of the loopholes that people use to work or avoid the system.

And if anyone says "oh we can't afford to do that" well then we're milking people of their money too much to pay for pet programs and projects. Trim the budget where it needs to be trimmed and get it under control.

 

[Athena]

The top 1% are almost all business owners, and taxing them would give them less capital to expand their businesses or start new businesses. Hence, leaving them unable to hire additional employees to work in these new/expanded businesses.

Why was that not a problem when the top rate in the US was 91% (Eisenhower) or 70% (Reagan).

The tax rates in the US are the lowest they have ever been and wages have been stagnant for decades.

 

[umbrella39]

I will offer a different perspective.

The money that we allow the richer people to keep will most likely be invested, offering employment to many other regular joes who can then be taxed on said employment. This will lead to a net + in tax income vs. just taxing the shit out of the rich dude and having the regular Joe's remain unemployed or underemployed.

Come on man, really? It would be nice if it really happened but it's mostly a pipe dream. People are not under/unemployed right now because the rich dude is having the shit taxed out of him.

 

[Athena]

Lower tax rates promotes investment in the USA. This is why it would be beneficial to make the Bush tax cuts premanent instead of just making them temporary again. This gives the impression to investors of a more stable environment to operate a business in.

Do people who repeat this ever look at the correlation between the national debt and these tax cuts? It's fatuous to talk about "fiscal displine" when advocating extending the tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts didn't create jobs, what they did was create the illusion of prosperity by increasing wealth in the finance sector -- which led to stagnating real wages for 80% of the population and unprecedented income inequality.

 

[ModestGamer]

raise tax rates and add decutions. Start taxing sitting money to over certain amounts. add decutions for on shore investment onlys or even purchases.

Basically the rich need to be forced to spend that wealth they have been hogging up back into the economy.

 

[fskimospy]

The top 1% are almost all business owners, and taxing them would give them less capital to expand their businesses or start new businesses. Hence, leaving them unable to hire additional employees to work in these new/expanded businesses.

Rich people dont just sit on their money. They invest it to try and make more. These business investments provide jobs to Americans.

By taxing them, you reduce they money they have to invest, resulting in a hiring drop which therefore increases unemployment. Or at the very least, does nothing to reduce it.


Example:

Business man X wants to hire average Joe's A B and C to open up a new store. Business man X no longer has the money to open up his new store since the government increased his taxes, leaving him with less capital to invest. That taxed money goes into the financial black hole known as the Federal Government, leaving average Joe A B and C unemployed and dependent on the Federal Government for food stamps, unemployment benefits, and housing assistance.

Not only are reinvestments not taxable, but there is no correlation between top marginal tax rates and rates of GDP growth.

Zero.

Zip.

None.

 

[ModestGamer]

raise tax rates and add decutions. Start taxing sitting money to over certain amounts. add decutions for on shore investment only or even purchases of goods.

Basically the rich need to be forced to spend that wealth they have been hogging up back into the economy.

The way the system is rigged right now it has become a wealth concerntrator where we do 99% or they work and they 98% of the money.

absolutely fucking rediculous. BTW the wealthy "not those with high incomes" are the ones sitting on all the dollars and anyone who cannot admit this, is a dellusional idiot.

 

[BoberFett]

The trickle down concept was first implemented by Reagan and it doesn't create jobs.

Then why do Democrats continue to support the idea? We send the money to the IRS, who gives it to congress, who then gives it to massive corporations and hopes that it trickles down.

The only difference between Republican trickle down and Democrat trickle down is that in the Democrat version, the government gets their grubby mitts on it and extracts a bunch first.

 

[Zebo]

People still believe in trickle down? You can bet to lose, ever heard of short sell? you can bet against Americans which I am and Wall street has for 30 years.

Smart money is they won't protect their long term interests bet accordingly.

 

[IBMer]

But really, we need to get rid of the graduated tax bracket system crap we have and go to a flat tax rate. Simpler, fair, balanced, no-nonsense. Let's take an example. I like using the 10% figure as it is an easy number to work with. Obviously not the real tax rate but good for this kind of thing. Let's say John Doe makes $50k a year, and pays 10% tax rate. That's $5000 paid in taxes. Now let's say Bill Gates makes $5M, and pays the same 10% tax rate. That is $500,000 that he's paying in taxes. So at the same tax rate he's still paying 100x as much in taxes as John Doe is. Which makes perfect sense, he makes 100x as much.

Lets go for a real flat tax. How about 20 percent of the income that isn't used in cost of living?

 

[biostud]

The top 1% are almost all business owners, and taxing them would give them less capital to expand their businesses or start new businesses. Hence, leaving them unable to hire additional employees to work in these new/expanded businesses.

Rich people dont just sit on their money. They invest it to try and make more. These business investments provide jobs to Americans.

Problems.:
What happens when they don't invest?
What happens when they invest in complicated loan derivates?
What happens when they invest outside US?

When the government invest it can focus on US investments, and investments that improve the society and creates most new jobs in US.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Yup - agreed.

I bet that most of that 1% do not pay personal income tax through payrolls.
Wages is probably the smallest source of income for them.
They are likely more concerned with Capital Gain taxes.

That's it, but the understanding of most tax increase advocates is too shallow to get this fact.

When you raise taxes, you're hurting the upper-middle class. You could argue that a person taking home $1m/year in salary is no "middle class", but they're much closer to the average person than they are to Buffet. Basically, you screw over anyone working for a living making from 250k and into few millions.
These people are either small business owners or have free trades (lawyers/doctors/finances etc).

Above the point, the money is made by equity. When you look at the compensation of top level CEOs, the vast majority of it is in stock and stock option, and the IRS tax rates brought here don't apply in these cases. Look at top CEO compensation and you'd see they're taking home $300k-$800k in salary and the rest in stock options. Steve Jobs is the best example, taking $1 in salary but tens of millions in options and equity.

Look above the CEOs into the large shareholders and you'll see they make most their money from the equity they own - either dividends or the stock rising. This is capital taxes, not income taxes.

Even if you raised INCOME tax to 80% tomorrow, the two latter groups would hardly feel it. You'd only hurt those who've done good for themselves and still work hard every day to afford a nice life.
You just can't tax the really high earners, not without screwing the economy completely and greatly diminishing the attractiveness of US as a place to do business in.

And I'll end this post with a famous quote:

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Think about that the next time you suggest to make rules specifically targeting a small portion of the population, just because you know you'll never be a part of.

 

[Monster_Munch]

And I'll end this post with a famous quote:

Think about that the next time you suggest to make rules specifically targeting a small portion of the population, just because you know you'll never be a part of.

That quote is about the importance of protecting the most vulnerable in society even if you're not one of them yourself. I hardly think you can equate that to taxing the richest and most powerful people in the world.

 

[SamurAchzar]

That quote is about the importance of protecting the most vulnerable in society even if you're not one of them yourself. I hardly think you can equate that to taxing the richest and most powerful people in the world.

That's incorrect, the quote wasn't directed at weak groups (such as physically or mentally disabled), but at groups which the regime targeted and the general population didn't care enough about.
In fact, the Jews in Germany were prosperous and held senior positions, hardly bottom class material. It's the regime that directed the anger of the mob towards these groups.

Hating the rich and successful while catering to the masses is a very appealing political platform. Unlike other countries, that doesn't work in the US. I still don't fully understand why, but can't say I'm not proud of the US public because of this.

 

[biostud]

...the taxation of the rich is hardly done because of envy, but rather a redistribution of wealth for the greater good.

 

[SamurAchzar]

...the taxation of the rich is hardly done because of envy, but rather a redistribution of wealth for the greater good.

Yes but in a country such as the US, personal freedom is a sacred value, above the greater good. The more a society imposes on the individual in the name of "the greater good", the more oppressive it is.

With most of the world Western state being somewhat socialistic, those who want to work hard and succeed should cherish the relative freedom granted by the US. It's good to have a nation like that.

 

[werepossum]

Not only are reinvestments not taxable, but there is no correlation between top marginal tax rates and rates of GDP growth.

Zero.

Zip.

None.

You have absolutely no understanding of how business operates. If a business shows 10% profit for a year, it rarely runs out and invests that 10%. What if next year is bad? At the very least, investing each year's profits prevents any possibility of investments larger than one year's profits.

Instead, a business will invest some small portion of its profits and bank the rest, which means it pays income tax on the banked portion. Assuming that profit continues, at some point that business will make major investments to become more competitive, more productive, more profitable. Major investments take many years' profits, usually with some borrowed money as well.

The more of a business' profit that government takes, the more time is required to accumulate enough capital to make a major investment. (In today's market, often 50% or more of a capital investment must be cash on hand before a business will fund it.) The more likely it is that a business will not be able to afford that major investment at all. And the more likely that the jobs represented by that investment, in direct hires as well as goods and services purchased, will be delayed or never happen at all. There are no free rides; money taken by government is not available to fund private sector job growth.

 

[Anteaus]

I think this is an interesting subject, but its not a black and white issue though some would make it that. For example, I believe in a flat percentage tax for everyone. If everyone would pay 20%(complete arbitrary for arguement purposes), then at the end of the day we would have a certain about of funds. People who make less would pay less and people who make more would pay more. 20% of 1M is alot more than 20% of 50K. Now, this has nothing do do with whether I believe in redistribution or not. I absolutely believe that it is good to send money where its needed, even if that means taking from one persons pocket to another, but I don't believe that we should force one person to pay out a higher premium simply because of circumstance.

I think the largest issue is that money tends to be ubiquitous. Most people don't see the numbers and in general could care less where they originate. It's very easy to be complacent at the expense of someone else when you never have to look them in the eye. I bet that if the government offered everyone here a $1000 check, the vast majority of you would take it excitedly and begin planning on how to spend it. However, if the goverment offered you the check under the premise that you have to go knock of the door of the unwilling donor and demand that they write you a check by legal mandate, I absolutely bet your tune would change. Some of you would still be willing to stick it to him, but I think pride and a sense of forboding would make many of you rethink it.

A larger issue is that its more than money. Obviously the government can't do everything it wants with the money it extracts from the public, so we have a deficit. Its not enough to take money from its citizens. They venture out and use our credit to borrow large sums of money to do their deeds. It's not working and the deficit is proof.

Now obviously, it would be inhumane to tax the poor, but then again that is what the poverty level is about. People below that line shouldn't have to pay taxes, their lives are hard enough. But why can't we have a progressive tax increase above that over a span of say 20K up to a flat percentage and after that all pay the same percentage. Note I say percentage, not amount. Therefore, on a dollar per dollar bases, the wealthy are still paying much more than the lower income people. After that, you total of the money, hand it to the government and say, "there you go, make your budget." Its not a complex issue.

But alas this is too easy. Guilt radiates throughout the public. It's hard for the goverment to go to someone and say that the government needs to give them less because the budget is screwed. Thats political suicide. So in the mean time, amid deficits (built up by BOTH parties over many, many years) Congress will continue to make excuses about how the budget is a complex thing and its too hard to balance. If our fiscal policy was lean and tuned, todays economic woes wouldn't be happening, regardless of who, why, or what. Instead, we are paying the price of a oversized heart.

In general i'm tired of the whole, "you want things to be equal at the expense of the lower and middle classes." Thats the point. It's not equal. We spend more money on the lower and middle classes than any other facet of the country. And there is nothing wrong with that. But we can't afford it, and we can't go around acting like if we screwed over a particular group of people a little more then everything will be peachy. The money simple isn't there to do everything. Its time to take a huge step back and take a big look.

 

[BudAshes]

Cause as mosh said in another post, the stupid tax. Stupid people think they will win the lottery, but really they will just be poor forever.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

why is eliminating welfare, cutting social security benefits and lowering taxes considered taboo?

 

[IBMer]

I think this is an interesting subject, but its not a black and white issue though some would make it that. For example, I believe in a flat percentage tax for everyone. If everyone would pay 20%(complete arbitrary for arguement purposes), then at the end of the day we would have a certain about of funds. People who make less would pay less and people who make more would pay more. 20% of 1M is alot more than 20% of 50K.

I think this is whats wrong about the Flat tax ideas. It just looks at the money blankly. The problem is as you go closer and closer to poverty, more of a persons income is used for nothing more than "living" so a flat tax is not fair in that sense. 20 percent of 1 million isn't taking any port of the taxes from "living", its taking it from discretionary income. 20 percent of 22k is taking away from someone ability to feed themselves or their family.