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

[Anteaus]

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.

Leading Foreign owners of US Treasury Securities (July 2010)Nation/Territorybillions of dollarspercentagePeople's Republic of China (mainland)846.720.8Japan821.020.2United Kingdom374.39.2Oil exporters1223.85.5Caribbean Banking Centers2150.73.7Brazil162.24.0Hong Kong (Special Administrative Region)135.23.3Russia130.93.2Republic of China (Taiwan)130.53.2Grand Total4065.8100
They own none of it. All the debt is owned by foreign factions.

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

Edit : Not entirely true, since citizens can by bonds, which equate to lending money. This is miniscule tho. Sorry about the formating mess up above.

 

[DougK62]

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.

I'm not saying that a flat tax is necessarily the way to go, but it's absolutely fair. Every dollar earned taxed the same way is the very definition of "fair" in regard to taxes, IMO.

The difference between America then and now is that now we don't have the cute little secluded economy we once had. We have a global economy that big companies can't ignore. It's just another something to adjust to - not blame.

In the past we had PLENTY of real assholes that just wanted to make a bunch of money any way possible. And now we have some incredibly awesome rich people that donate and help our country a TON. We had/have both good and bad - past and present. I think you have blinders on.

 

[DougK62]

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.

Are you actually being serious? So now you're blaming not living in a big city as the reason for not being rich? Really? You do realize that there are TONS of self-made rich people who don't live in big cities and never have, right? And you do realize that anyone can move to (or nearby) a big city, right?

I live in a small city. Always have and always will, but I've never once considered it a hinderance to "social mobility". Maybe your attitude is the problem.

 

[werepossum]

I'm not saying that a flat tax is necessarily the way to go, but it's absolutely fair. Every dollar earned taxed the same way is the very definition of "fair" in regard to taxes, IMO.

The difference between America then and now is that now we don't have the cute little secluded economy we once had. We have a global economy that big companies can't ignore. It's just another something to adjust to - not blame.

In the past we had PLENTY of real assholes that just wanted to make a bunch of money any way possible. And now we have some incredibly awesome rich people that donate and help our country a TON. We had/have both good and bad - past and present. I think you have blinders on.

A flat tax on every dollar earned (including capital gains) beyond the federal poverty level for your household size, with no deductions, seems to me to be a reasonably fair way to raise revenue. It would also show everyone the actual cost of government. If a state or city has a high cost of living, let that state and/or city kick in the extra money they think the poor should have. And it would free up a buttload of tax accountants, who tend to be bright and capable people, for more productive work.

I just don't see our political class ever giving up the privileges accorded them by our tax code - the ability to reward or punish via the tax code, the ability to set one group of Americans against another, these are very powerful tools from which I think those other very powerful tools will not easily be parted.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Something I just don't understand - why would the majority of people care if the taxes on say the top 1% richest people goes up?

A huge amount of Americas are sheeple-morons who have been conditioned to believe in free market dogmatism. I think this animated political cartoon illustrates the fairy tale that many Americans believe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8TcM54NwFo

 

[Jhhnn]

They own none of it. All the debt is owned by foreign factions.

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

Edit : Not entirely true, since citizens can by bonds, which equate to lending money. This is miniscule tho. Sorry about the formating mess up above.

Your interpretation of the numbers is incorrect. ~$3T is owed to the SS trusts, ~$4T is owed to foreign entities, and the rest of the ~$12T+ total debt is held by Americans.

 

[fskimospy]

Leading Foreign owners of US Treasury Securities (July 2010)Nation/Territorybillions of dollarspercentagePeople's Republic of China (mainland)846.720.8Japan821.020.2United Kingdom374.39.2Oil exporters1223.85.5Caribbean Banking Centers2150.73.7Brazil162.24.0Hong Kong (Special Administrative Region)135.23.3Russia130.93.2Republic of China (Taiwan)130.53.2Grand Total4065.8100
They own none of it. All the debt is owned by foreign factions.

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

Edit : Not entirely true, since citizens can by bonds, which equate to lending money. This is miniscule tho. Sorry about the formating mess up above.

All the debt is not owned by foreign factions, in fact the list you provided is less than 1/3rd of the governmental debt.

 

[qliveur]

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

Yes, though I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't need to be nearly that high if everyone did their part.

 

[daishi5]

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.

This needs to be pointed out more clearly. Individual tax revenue moves around as a % of GDP more closely to the general economic level than the tax level, in fact the highest marginal tax rate doesn't seem to greatly effect revenue. We also have several people here who have pointed out several times that the marginal tax levels have no effect on economic growth. So, we have marginal tax levels that don't affect tax income (as a % of GDP), and they also don't affect GDP growth.

 

[cKGunslinger]

This is a fact.

Also, anyone in the top 50% knows what it's like to be raped by those claiming poverty.

As it stands now, half the country is living off the other half.

Enough taxes, period. Anyone in the top 50% is paying 40-50% in combined total taxes.

Just as a data point, according to this chart, I'm in the top 25% of all incomes in the US.

My effective Federal Income Tax rates for the past 5 years have been:

2009: 6.25%
2008: 5.84%
2007: 5.19%
2006: 5.55%
2005: 5.79%

If this is what rape feels like, I guess I don't see what the big deal is..


Now obviously, I'm not for taxing the bejeebus out of everyone who makes more than me, but are the current tax rates really that unbearable? And don't people who make more have more loop-holes and effectively pay less than most middle-class?

How about we just close some loop-holes and keep taxes about where they are or so?

 

[EXman]

Question for conservatives: Do you realize that every dollar given as a tax cut to the rich means raising taxes a dollar on the rest of us?

That is not a fair statement.

Question For people who think we need to raise taxes to raise income to the treasury. How is that election hangover treating ya?

 

[EXman]

A huge amount of Americas are sheeple-morons who have been conditioned to believe in free market dogmatism. I think this animated political cartoon illustrates the fairy tale that many Americans believe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8TcM54NwFo

Can you show us Where Socialism is kicking ass and people are loving life in that country?

What does the U.S. government produce?

 

[Throckmorton]

Yes, though I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't need to be nearly that high if everyone did their part.

That's the average of what all taxpayers pay

 

[biostud]

Can you show us Where Socialism is kicking ass and people are loving life in that country?

http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/14/world-happiest-countries-lifestyle-realestate-gallup-table.html

 

[Craig234]

I'm not saying that a flat tax is necessarily the way to go, but it's absolutely fair. Every dollar earned taxed the same way is the very definition of "fair" in regard to taxes, IMO.

I disagree. Someone earning $10 million a year is deserving to earn more than someone making $40,000, almost always. But every dollar of the $9,960,000 isn't deserving of equal taxation to be 'fair'. The person making that much more is getting that much more benefit from society, and can far more afford to pay a larger share of taxes - the $8,000 taken out of each $40,000 he makes at 20% is a lot less of an impact than the $8,000 taken out of the $40,000 the worker makes. Not recognizing this leads to a plutocracy.

The difference between America then and now is that now we don't have the cute little secluded economy we once had. We have a global economy that big companies can't ignore. It's just another something to adjust to - not blame.

In the past we had PLENTY of real assholes that just wanted to make a bunch of money any way possible. And now we have some incredibly awesome rich people that donate and help our country a TON. We had/have both good and bad - past and present. I think you have blinders on.

I think that is a fair point - we have had a mix of SOB's and philanthropists long ago and now. And that's pretty irrelevant to the issue, which isn't judging the people.

 

[SamurAchzar]

http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/14/world-happiest-countries-lifestyle-realestate-gallup-table.html

That shows more of the public mentality than anything strictly economical. In other words, there are - probably - much more Dens immigrating to US than the other way around.

 

[SamurAchzar]

I disagree. Someone earning $10 million a year is deserving to earn more than someone making $40,000, almost always. But every dollar of the $9,960,000 isn't deserving of equal taxation to be 'fair'. The person making that much more is getting that much more benefit from society, and can far more afford to pay a larger share of taxes - the $8,000 taken out of each $40,000 he makes at 20% is a lot less of an impact than the $8,000 taken out of the $40,000 the worker makes. Not recognizing this leads to a plutocracy.

Too bad you see taxing as a punitive and correctional measure, as opposed to a government funding source.
Taxation shouldn't be used to target one group or another and certainly not for wealth redistribution.

As I said in my previous posts, the days you could shift wealth around by taxation are long gone, non of the heavy hitters have too much revenue which qualifies for normal income tax.
The very rich can relocate, move headquarters, use off-shore companies, etc. You can't do anything about it. You can only take from the doctors and lawyers who might have been successful enough to make few millions, and give to the poor.

 

[Engineer]

Just as a data point, according to this chart, I'm in the top 25% of all incomes in the US.

My effective Federal Income Tax rates for the past 5 years have been:

2009: 6.25%
2008: 5.84%
2007: 5.19%
2006: 5.55%
2005: 5.79%

If this is what rape feels like, I guess I don't see what the big deal is..


Now obviously, I'm not for taxing the bejeebus out of everyone who makes more than me, but are the current tax rates really that unbearable? And don't people who make more have more loop-holes and effectively pay less than most middle-class?

How about we just close some loop-holes and keep taxes about where they are or so?

Thank you for posting this. I've told co-workers for years that they have no idea what their "effective" rate is, especially when they start the "I would love a 20% flat tax...it's much less than what I'm paying now" bullshit. I actually sat a few of them down and calculated their federal tax effective rate (with and without SS/Medicare) and they just sat there with a blank look on their face when I told them that their rates were lower than 10% (before SS/Medicare) and below 17.5% with the other stuff thrown in.

Some argued that couldn't be right, lol, citing the tax rates without thinking about them being marginal and the idea that they have deductions to remove quite a bit of their income.

As for loopholes and paying less, I think that is he uber top .1% or so (most money via capital gains). I don't think the average upper class tax payer pays less than the average middle class tax payer.

 

[LegendKiller]

That shows more of the public mentality than anything strictly economical. In other words, there are - probably - much more Dens immigrating to US than the other way around.

Germany is doing pretty well economically right now and from what I understand are pretty happy with their country. I know of have known dozens of Germans and they seem pretty happy with their country and lives. The French are largely the same, despite the recent unrest over the retirement age. Most of the Benelux and Scandinavian countries are in the same position.

It's a different mentality over there. They want to be competitive but they also want to create a decent atmosphere to live. They absolutely work to live over there. Americans live to work.

What's amusing to me is that people sit around saying that this country will fall if we raise taxes on the rich yet all of the biggest strides in this country's infrastructure and development of technology came from a period when the top marginal tax brackets were far higher. The "good times" that people hanker for were all during high tax rates.

The real issue here is that people hate poor people now, we are drunk off our wealth and success and have become the bitter miser, much like Scrooge, who will not even share a reasonable amount of coal for a fire.

What's sad is that the people who would benefit the most from a more rational tax policy are those who rail against it the most. Why? Because, as I said above, they have become greedy and have forgotten that the *only* reason why have have been able to accumulate wealth because our forefathers paid those higher taxes.

 

[biostud]

That shows more of the public mentality than anything strictly economical. In other words, there are - probably - much more Dens immigrating to US than the other way around.

true, but the countries in top are not exactly poor.

 

[fskimospy]

That shows more of the public mentality than anything strictly economical. In other words, there are - probably - much more Dens immigrating to US than the other way around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

The Danes are also among the wealthiest people in the world, making around 20% more per capita (normalized) than people in the US. So not only are they happier, but they are wealthier. The same situation holds true for most of the countries on the 'happy list' that are ahead of the United States.

Nearly every single one of the countries ahead of us economically and most of those ahead of us in happiness are countries with a heavily progressive system of taxation with a strong social welfare state.

 

[ProfJohn]

Germany is doing pretty well economically right now

Germany just reported the lowest unemployment rate in 18 years.

And do you know what that low rate was? 7.5%!!!!

So for the past 18 year Germany has had an unemployment rate ABOVE 7.5%

During that same time the US unemployment rate has been below 7.5% with the exception of the 1992 recession in the current recession. So when we state 'doing pretty well' we should keep facts like that in mind.

all of the biggest strides in this country's infrastructure and development of technology came from a period when the top marginal tax brackets were far higher

From a historical perspective marginal tax rates are meaningless. When they were 90% NO ONE was paying 90%.

Look at the historical charts on page 32 of this link
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf
From 1944 through today the percentage of money raised by federal income taxes has stayed around 45%. Rates have gone up and down and tax laws have changed, but the amount of money raised has stay about the same.

Also, all these strides also came at a time when overall government spending was MUCH lower than it was today.

When the US interstate system was authorized in 1956 government spending was at 16% of GDP. For the last 20 years government spending has been around 20% of GDP.

That extra 4% is a huge additional chunk of our countries output being eaten up by the government.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Germany just reported the lowest unemployment rate in 18 years.
And do you know what that low rate was? 7.5%!!!!
So for the past 18 year Germany has had an unemployment rate ABOVE 7.5%

Twenty years ago, East Germany was reunified with West Germany.
If the United States were unified with Mexico, what would our new unemployment rate be, and how long would it take to return to levels below 7.5%?

 

[LegendKiller]

Twenty years ago, East Germany was reunified with West Germany.
If the United States were unified with Mexico, what would our new unemployment rate be, and how long would it take to return to levels below 7.5%?

AFAIK...
There has always been higher structural unemployment in Germany, it's been that way since the rebuilding and the miracle economy. Most of it because the social security system over there which allows for those unemployment levels.

Germans have accepted this as a fact of living a relatively less worrisome life.

 

[ProfJohn]

Twenty years ago, East Germany was reunified with West Germany.
If the United States were unified with Mexico, what would our new unemployment rate be, and how long would it take to return to levels below 7.5%?

Can't answer that question.

But Europe as a whole has a MUCH higher unemployment rate and has had those rates for decades.

It is part of their 'system.' In order to provide all those wonderful social benefits they need to have higher taxes and more government spending. That spending creates a strain on their economy and the result is less economic growth and more unemployment.