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

[MrX8503]

Our current deficit is at 1.2 Trillion, but that is inflated by short term non-discretionary spending. Things like unemployment and welfare went up in cost, and revenue went down. Unless this is a new economic reality, a large part of the deficit will disappear when the economy normalizes. The Military is costing us almost 1 Trillion dollars a year.

I don't know how much of the deficit will disappear when the economy picks back up, but I don't think it would be unreasonable to expect that will be less than 500 Billion a year for the remaining deficit. If we cut our Military budget in half, so that we only spend 3 times as much as the 2nd place country it would cover almost the entire deficit.

And, just to be clear, I think our deficit after economic recovery is less than I estimated, and I believe our military needs to be cut more than I suggested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deficits_vs._Debt_Increases_-_2009.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

Cutting our military spending in half is pretty extreme. What I'm trying to get at is that our deficit would still be quite large even if we cut spending and raised taxes.

I think you might well be retarded. See a doctor.

Insult me if it makes you feel better, but what you suggested/made up is not trickle down theory. Sorry.

 

[her209]

Too bad they didn't include the average income (adjusted of course).

 

[Craig234]

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

You make a baseless statement of opinion completely opposite of what any facts say, and you want a scientific response to disprove your baseless opinion?

OK. Almost all rich people hate almost all poor people.

Now, rebut that without any opinion, only facts.

You're clueless, and there aren't a lot more ways to say so.

The 'jealousy' BS is a propaganda sound bite you are parroting.

How, exactly, should that be rebutted that you are saying something false about other people's positions you have claimed with absolutely zero to back it up?

I could spend the time to list a lot of the actual reasons people oppose an excessive concentration of wealth, which has been explained many times.

But you are pretty clearly immune to the truth and it'd be a waste of time.

So, I just let you know you are getting it wrong, which is like leading the horse to water, and you can drink or not. The fact you jump to conclusions bodes poorly.

It's interesting how difficult it is to help those who are vulnerable to propaganda so easily, understand how they're being manipulated.

Hint: the rich people like to keep as much of their money - and other people's money, where theirs comes from - as possible. A billionare is typically thrilled to get another million dollars, by cutting his taxes that million and raising the taxes of less wealthy people by that million. He understands that he lives in a democracy, where the masses, sadly, each get the same one vote he does - and we can't have him not having a lot more power than that, can we? But we can pay for a massive propaganda industry to sell people on lies such as "the rich wanting more of your money isn't greed, and those who say it is, are jealous', to try to fool people - and they do fool people like you.

Facts such as the economic harms that come from the excess concentration of wealth, the creation of bubbles it causes, the human issues with more egalitarianism, the reduction in opportunity for the majority when a few have too much, and other things than 'jealousy', are lost on you.

 

[daishi5]

Cutting our military spending in half is pretty extreme. What I'm trying to get at is that our deficit would still be quite large even if we cut spending and raised taxes.

Military expenditures per country, we are the only country in the 12 digit area, and we are halfway to 13 digits. Think about that, no other country in the world is spending 100 Billion dollars, and we are spending somewhere around 6-9 hundred Billion dollars.

And, this number leaves out almost 30% of the our total expenditures because many of our military costs are hidden in other budgets. Cutting it in half puts us at 3 times the spending of the next highest country with two of our biggest allies sitting in 3rd and 4th place. Our defense budget is an amazing waste of money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

I understand that we can't just cut all that spending at one time, but there is no reason to spend more money then the next 15 countries on the list combined. Especially since a good majority of the rest of those countries on that list are our allies.

 

[fskimospy]

Here's another good graph.

Amazing. Increasing taxes won't increase revenue either.

For an interesting critique of Boberfett's wonderful chart:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/78256-lying-with-charts-wsj-edition

 

[fskimospy]

Too bad they didn't include the average income (adjusted of course).

It would show very significant median income gains from 1930-1970 or so (when the marginal tax rates for the top were still very high), and then stagnation from there on out, despite a precipitous drop in top marginal rates.

 

[EagleKeeper]

There's that nasty word again. Equality. I HATE equality. I don't want someone who put in less effort as me getting the same reward as me.

It isn't about equality of outcomes, but equality of opportunity.

If person A starts at 20,000 miles behind person B, it doesn't really matter how fast they run because they will never come close. Once a person realizes that, there is no motivation to even bother trying.

If they are going to follow the same path.

Nothing prevents Person B from taking another path.
That path may allow one to equalize or exceed Person A.
It all depends on the path and how concerted Person B is in choosing the laternate path.

 

[DougK62]

It makes me absolutely drop my jaw to hear that some people find it so acceptable to tax the shit out of the rich.

Do YOU want to be treated fairly by the government? Because taxing people different based on their income is absolutely unfair.

 

[BoberFett]

Insult me if it makes you feel better, but what you suggested/made up is not trickle down theory. Sorry.

Sure it is, you're just too blinded by partisan politics to see it. Republicans believe in trickle down from corporations, Democrats believe in trickle down from government.

 

[Anteaus]

Military expenditures per country, we are the only country in the 12 digit area, and we are halfway to 13 digits. Think about that, no other country in the world is spending 100 Billion dollars, and we are spending somewhere around 6-9 hundred Billion dollars.

And, this number leaves out almost 30% of the our total expenditures because many of our military costs are hidden in other budgets. Cutting it in half puts us at 3 times the spending of the next highest country with two of our biggest allies sitting in 3rd and 4th place. Our defense budget is an amazing waste of money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

I understand that we can't just cut all that spending at one time, but there is no reason to spend more money then the next 15 countries on the list combined. Especially since a good majority of the rest of those countries on that list are our allies.

I agree with with this. We could easily cut a large portion of our military budget and still be viable. We spend billions in force projection facilitated with various carrier groups and as well as bases throughout the world. I believe in a strong military, but that strength can be refocused. The world is changing. What good is having a sledgehammer if you're not allowed to use it?

 

[BoberFett]

For an interesting critique of Boberfett's wonderful chart:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/78256-lying-with-charts-wsj-edition

It is an interesting critique but it doesn't change facts. You can't tax and spend our way to prosperity. Government spending has to decrease.

 

[fskimospy]

If they are going to follow the same path.

Nothing prevents Person B from taking another path.
That path may allow one to equalize or exceed Person A.
It all depends on the path and how concerted Person B is in choosing the laternate path.

This is why all the people mired in crushing poverty in Africa should just choose a different path. A course correction and a little elbow grease will shape them right up!

 

[Anteaus]

This is why all the people mired in crushing poverty in Africa should just choose a different path. A course correction and a little elbow grease will shape them right up!

Africans aren't part of US social policy. It think his point was that in this country even poor people have oportunities that can help them get out of that situation and try to do something well for themselves. Obviously reality means some people just never get a chance, but for many there are various programs to pay for college or other types of higher education that aren't availiable for people with a more stable financial disposition.

In africa, the oppression is a bit more complex than money. Its hard to pull yourself up when your own countrymen are dealing in mass amounts of corruption and/or genecide not to mention a debilitating health situation with aids and starvation. No, I don't think we should compare the poor in the US to the poor in Africa. They are worlds apart.

 

[soulcougher73]

Sure it is, you're just too blinded by partisan politics to see it. Republicans believe in trickle down from corporations, Democrats believe in trickle down from government.

I believe in trickle up. What does that make me?

 

[BoberFett]

I believe in trickle up. What does that make me?

A monkey?

 

[fskimospy]

Africans aren't part of US social policy. It think his point was that in this country even poor people have oportunities that can help them get out of that situation and try to do something well for themselves. Obviously reality means some people just never get a chance, but for many there are various programs to pay for college or other types of higher education that aren't availiable for people with a more stable financial disposition.

In africa, the oppression is a bit more complex than money. Its hard to pull yourself up when your own countrymen are dealing in mass amounts of corruption and/or genecide not to mention a debilitating health situation with aids and starvation. No, I don't think we should compare the poor in the US to the poor in Africa. They are worlds apart.

So we can all agree that circumstances matter, but the argument is that in America we're well enough along that they don't? That assertion really isn't supported by the facts. Social mobility is lower in the United States than it is in quite a number of countries similar to ours.

For an interesting read on this: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/about/news/IntergenerationalMobility.pdf

Specifically it appears that lower income of a child's parents directly affects his chances for becoming upwardly mobile, likely through still meager educational opportunities:

http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/16_02_02.pdf

 

[potluv]

It makes me absolutely drop my jaw to hear that some people find it so acceptable to tax the shit out of the rich.

Do YOU want to be treated fairly by the government? Because taxing people different based on their income is absolutely unfair.

You're a fucking moron then, I'm sorry but if you think that taxing the middle and lower income brackets more of their annual incomes then the top 10%, then cry its unfair to tax the rich just shows how out of touch republicans and the top 10% are.

Look, if you're in the top 10% and you've been prosperous in the USA, with all the tax breaks and loopholes that the rich get away with in this country, then its time to pay up imho, I'm tired of this shit, tired that we are reduced down to living in poverty spec dwellings, poverty spec processed food, while its the lower 99% that creates the wealth for the top 1%, how is that fair that we live like shit while they live like gods? The standard of living for middle class Americans has been deteriorating for decades, while other developed industrialized nations see higher quality of living standards across the board for their citizens, even higher quality than the American middle class, while it's only the rich in America who seem to consistently see annual improvements to their quality of life.

 

[Throckmorton]

For an interesting critique of Boberfett's wonderful chart:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/78256-lying-with-charts-wsj-edition

When he said he was going to show the graph of individual tax revenue, which is what would be affected by the the rate on the top bracket, I thought it was going to decline. But it stayed the same.

 

[DougK62]

You're a fucking moron then, I'm sorry but if you think that taxing the middle and lower income brackets more of their annual incomes then the top 10%, then cry its unfair to tax the rich just shows how out of touch republicans and the top 10% are.

Look, if you're in the top 10% and you've been prosperous in the USA, with all the tax breaks and loopholes that the rich get away with in this country, then its time to pay up imho, I'm tired of this shit, tired that we are reduced down to living in poverty spec dwellings, poverty spec processed food, while its the lower 99% that creates the wealth for the top 1%, how is that fair that we live like shit while they live like gods? The standard of living for middle class Americans has been deteriorating for decades, while other developed industrialized nations see higher quality of living standards across the board for their citizens, even higher quality than the American middle class, while it's only the rich in America who seem to consistently see annual improvements to their quality of life.

I'm far from the top 10%. I would consider myself squarely middle-class. No where did I say or even imply that "taxing the middle and lower income brackets more of their annual incomes" is the way to go. Maybe you need some remedial work in critical reading. If anything, I implied that I favor a flat tax.

Don't you see anything wrong in taxing the crap out of the very people who provide jobs for the economy? If you're tired of "liv(ing) like shit while they live like gods" then maybe you could get off of your duff and try to do something to better your situation instead of whining about it. I've done it, many people have, and so have the rich people that you have so much disdain for.

 

[Anteaus]

You're a fucking moron then, I'm sorry but if you think that taxing the middle and lower income brackets more of their annual incomes then the top 10%, then cry its unfair to tax the rich just shows how out of touch republicans and the top 10% are.

Look, if you're in the top 10% and you've been prosperous in the USA, with all the tax breaks and loopholes that the rich get away with in this country, then its time to pay up imho, I'm tired of this shit, tired that we are reduced down to living in poverty spec dwellings, poverty spec processed food, while its the lower 99% that creates the wealth for the top 1%, how is that fair that we live like shit while they live like gods? The standard of living for middle class Americans has been deteriorating for decades, while other developed industrialized nations see higher quality of living standards across the board for their citizens, even higher quality than the American middle class, while it's only the rich in America who seem to consistently see annual improvements to their quality of life.

No one says its unfair to tax the rich. The problem where to draw the line. Your not exactly breaking any new ground by saying that rich people have a higher standard of living than the middle class. I completely agree with you about closing loopholes, but saying FU to the people who have money when you're their patron makes you kind of feable. This is capitalism. You have personally handed your money over to many of the "rich". They aren't the villian.

There are points you make that are right on, but don't blame the wealthy for the horrible transgressions of the government in regard to fiscal policy. This topic wouldn't even be an issue if it wasn't for a deficit that has been cultivated and nutured for the past century.

 

[potluv]

I'm far from the top 10%. I would consider myself squarely middle-class. No where did I say or even imply that "taxing the middle and lower income brackets more of their annual incomes" is the way to go. Maybe you need some remedial work in critical reading. If anything, I implied that I favor a flat tax.

Don't you see anything wrong in taxing the crap out of the very people who provide jobs for the economy? If you're tired of "liv(ing) like shit while they live like gods" then maybe you could get off of your duff and try to do something to better your situation instead of whining about it. I've done it, many people have, and so have the rich people that you have so much disdain for.

A flat tax would be unfair too, no? And the difference between people who provide jobs now, compared to their predecessors who created jobs in this country, is the rich now don't really want to provide us with any meaningful jobs, why should they when they can offshore their operations to a country like China and pay their workers a fraction of what they pay us on average. The main difference between the rich back in the day in the USA, and the rich now in the USA, is that their predecessors were philanthropists, and cared enough about this country to try to make it what it is today, or what it should be today, once the greatest country in the world. The rich now could give a shit about their country, just how much wealth they can keep milking from everyone, they aren't the noble people their predecessors were.

 

[Craig234]

Africans aren't part of US social policy. It think his point was that in this country even poor people have oportunities that can help them get out of that situation and try to do something well for themselves. Obviously reality means some people just never get a chance, but for many there are various programs to pay for college or other types of higher education that aren't availiable for people with a more stable financial disposition.

In africa, the oppression is a bit more complex than money. Its hard to pull yourself up when your own countrymen are dealing in mass amounts of corruption and/or genecide not to mention a debilitating health situation with aids and starvation. No, I don't think we should compare the poor in the US to the poor in Africa. They are worlds apart.

One problem here is the right treating some partial opportunity so that some percent of people do better, as if it were a complete 'solution', end of story, no problem left.

 

[potluv]

If you're tired of "liv(ing) like shit while they live like gods" then maybe you could get off of your duff and try to do something to better your situation instead of whining about it. I've done it, many people have, and so have the rich people that you have so much disdain for.

Wheres my social mobility to get off my duff and try to do something better about my situation? I'm not exactly in bad shape, I scrape by as a self employed residential draftsman, but what about the rest of people my age that live in a city like I do? Where the only places hiring are Wal-Mart and the Army, not everyone has the luxury of living in a major city in America, even though people in flyover country outnumber people in the major cities, the social mobility is just not sufficient for those in flyover country.

 

[Anteaus]

One problem here is the right treating some partial opportunity so that some percent of people do better, as if it were a complete 'solution', end of story, no problem left.

I agree with you. I'm an independent, so I don't want you to think I lean either way. My opinion is that, while I think both sides have good intentions, they are both ultimately trying to find a solution that maintains much of the status quo as possible, since there are still elections to win. The types of discussions we are having should be taking place in DC, but instead partisan politics will prevail.

Thousands of years of recorded human history has shown that there are certain problems that simply don't have a clean answer, because at the core we are animalistic beings with simple drives. There will always be poor and always be rich. There will always be suffering. People act like if they throw more money at it will help. Education spending is at record highs, yet with no tangiable results. People are still poor, even tho we are throwing the majority of our budget at it. California is broke. New York City is headed that way.

Additional taxation will do nothing but pay some of the interest on our loans. Swinging back to the main topic started many many many posts ago, why is taxing the rich so taboo by the non-rich? In the short term its because they know what its like to pay more taxes, and they don't wish that on anyone, even the rich. In the long term, they understand that its an act of desperation and a attempt by the government to shift blame, saying its the fault of the wealthy we are broke as a country. It's a game of misdirection.

 

[potluv]

In the long term, they understand that its an act of desperation and a attempt by the government to shift blame, saying its the fault of the wealthy we are broke as a country. It's a game of misdirection.

But isn't that the truth?? That the top 1% of Americans are ultimately the blame for the USA being broke, why should they care how much debt the USA has when they OWN that debt.