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

[LegendKiller]

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.

The unemployment isn't caused by lower economic growth. The unemployment is caused by people simply not wanting to work. Having worked for a German bank, traveled there several times, and know many Germans, it's psychological than practical unemployment.

It's the same "system" that is OK with 2 months of vacation time, 9 months of maternity leave, somewhat lower salaries, and better employment terms.

They enjoy their lives a bit more over there and have accepted a little less "growth" and "wealth" for the sake of a better life. Is that what applies for everybody? Nope, but that's OK to them.

 

[Jhhnn]

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.


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.

Nice bit of whitewashing obfuscation.

first off, unemployment rate measurements aren't the same in Germany as the US. Their social safety net system also makes unemployment less of a problem for their people.

You also ignore, quite willfully, changes in the distribution of income for the US when looking at govt revenue as a % of GDP. Income share among the top 1% has more than doubled over the last 30 years, while their effective federal tax rates have fallen by a third.

If we'd maintained pre-Reagan tax rates, it seems unlikely that govt debt would have become the issue it is today, even with increased govt spending.

What Righties refuse to recognize is that taxes are sacrifice in the interest of the welfare of the nation as a whole. For working and middle class people, total taxation (state, federal, local, everything) adds up to meaningful and significant sacrifice. It affects our lifestyles in way both positive and negative. For people with extremely large incomes, current total tax rates basically have no effect on their lifestyles whatsoever. On paper, it's a lot of money, but doesn't really matter much in terms of how they live. Yet the benefit they derive from the opportunities of a stable society is obviously much greater than that of the rest of the nation.

 

[LegendKiller]

Nice bit of whitewashing obfuscation.

first off, unemployment rate measurements aren't the same in Germany as the US. Their social safety net system also makes unemployment less of a problem for their people.

You also ignore, quite willfully, changes in the distribution of income for the US when looking at govt revenue as a % of GDP. Income share among the top 1% has more than doubled over the last 30 years, while their effective federal tax rates have fallen by a third.

If we'd maintained pre-Reagan tax rates, it seems unlikely that govt debt would have become the issue it is today, even with increased govt spending.

What Righties refuse to recognize is that taxes are sacrifice in the interest of the welfare of the nation as a whole. For working and middle class people, total taxation (state, federal, local, everything) adds up to meaningful and significant sacrifice. It affects our lifestyles in way both positive and negative. For people with extremely large incomes, current total tax rates basically have no effect on their lifestyles whatsoever. On paper, it's a lot of money, but doesn't really matter much in terms of how they live. Yet the benefit they derive from the opportunities of a stable society is obviously much greater than that of the rest of the nation.

Great way of putting it.

It's interesting for people to bitch so much about people making 250k getting taxed a bit more, yet they don't realize that that small amount doesn't really matter much to them. After a while that incremental amount isn't a huge amount of money to them.

I live in CT and make a decent amount of money. The COL is high here but it doesn't prevent me from being able to contribute the federal max to my 401k, getting my full 50% match plus a 7% profit sharing. That alone is a huge benefit, something that somebody who makes less than me wouldn't be able to afford.

After a while even a marginally higher wage outstrips COL since housing doesn't ramp up as much unless you're going for a huge house. From a good perspective it isn't linear, unless you're going to eat filet mingon every day. From a vehicle perspective, I guess it could be a difference, but I really have no interest in owning a BMW or Mercedes.

I think that people just don't realize how well even upper middle class people live and how much foreign goods they consume. Yet they'll support them to their death.

For what?

 

[Hacp]

Great way of putting it.

It's interesting for people to bitch so much about people making 250k getting taxed a bit more, yet they don't realize that that small amount doesn't really matter much to them. After a while that incremental amount isn't a huge amount of money to them.

I live in CT and make a decent amount of money. The COL is high here but it doesn't prevent me from being able to contribute the federal max to my 401k, getting my full 50% match plus a 7% profit sharing. That alone is a huge benefit, something that somebody who makes less than me wouldn't be able to afford.

After a while even a marginally higher wage outstrips COL since housing doesn't ramp up as much unless you're going for a huge house. From a good perspective it isn't linear, unless you're going to eat filet mingon every day. From a vehicle perspective, I guess it could be a difference, but I really have no interest in owning a BMW or Mercedes.

I think that people just don't realize how well even upper middle class people live and how much foreign goods they consume. Yet they'll support them to their death.

For what?

If that's the case, then I can just grab 20 bucks from the pockets of people who make 250k and they won't complain. Nice. I heard there were 8 million millionaires in the US. I'll just take 20 bucks from each of them and I'll be a millionaire myself!

 

[CallMeJoe]

If that's the case, then I can just grab 20 bucks from the pockets of people who make 250k and they won't complain. Nice. I heard there were 8 million millionaires in the US. I'll just take 20 bucks from each of them and I'll be a millionaire myself!

If you can get them all to visit your folks' basement...

 

[biostud]

If that's the case, then I can just grab 20 bucks from the pockets of people who make 250k and they won't complain. Nice. I heard there were 8 million millionaires in the US. I'll just take 20 bucks from each of them and I'll be a millionaire myself!

The whole point of using tax, is to improve the society, by investing in things that doesn't directly creates profit, but which in the long run will make the citizens to create even more profit, and create a society where the people have the best opportunity to maximize wealth, not to take for yourself.

 

[SamurAchzar]

The whole point of using tax, is to improve the society, by investing in things that doesn't directly creates profit, but which in the long run will make the citizens to create even more profit, and create a society where the people have the best opportunity to maximize wealth, not to take for yourself.

Infrastructure and services, right? I agree with you on this, the question is what happens when the tax is used as a corrective measure to shift money from one pocket to the other, instead of making investments for the greater good (such as building roads).

 

[LegendKiller]

The whole point of using tax, is to improve the society, by investing in things that doesn't directly creates profit, but which in the long run will make the citizens to create even more profit, and create a society where the people have the best opportunity to maximize wealth, not to take for yourself.

Unfortunately people like him use this type of strawman to duhvert your mind to thinking it is outright stealing and/or giving money to people who don't "deserve it". They ignore the societal benefits for *ALL* including the person paying the tax. As I said before, they forget that when tax rates were far higher is when we built some of the greatest pieces of infrastructure this country still has, all of which directly contributed to us being able to amass the current wealth we have. Without paying back into that system it will not continue. Sure, individual wealth will amass but society will not continue to advance and improve.

The very thing they rail against is exactly what they will create.

 

[Hacp]

Unfortunately people like him use this type of strawman to duhvert your mind to thinking it is outright stealing and/or giving money to people who don't "deserve it". They ignore the societal benefits for *ALL* including the person paying the tax. As I said before, they forget that when tax rates were far higher is when we built some of the greatest pieces of infrastructure this country still has, all of which directly contributed to us being able to amass the current wealth we have. Without paying back into that system it will not continue. Sure, individual wealth will amass but society will not continue to advance and improve.

The very thing they rail against is exactly what they will create.

Societal benefits. Yea, food stamps, welfare, or overpriced Union pensions is societal benefits.

 

[LegendKiller]

Societal benefits. Yea, food stamps, welfare, or overpriced Union pensions is societal benefits.

There is some graft but not nearly as much as you make it out to be. I never said pension benefits were the greatest things on the social side and they should certainly be reduced.

However, throwing the baby out with the bathwater is what extremists do.

 

[ProfJohn]

Legend, you are still ignoring the fact that higher tax margins did not mean higher tax revenue.

When the rate was 90% no one paid that rate.

The argument shouldn't be about marginal tax rates, but about effective tax rates.

 

[LegendKiller]

Legend, you are still ignoring the fact that higher tax margins did not mean higher tax revenue.

When the rate was 90% no one paid that rate.

The argument shouldn't be about marginal tax rates, but about effective tax rates.

Yes, and in 1950, when few people paid those tax rates, the wealth disparity was far lower. CEOs weren't making thousands of times what their workers were making. There's a reason for that.

*ALL* of the benefit from the lowered taxes have gone to the upper class and investing class.

I wonder how much the average TeaBagger or righty makes, especially one here, for as vociferous as they are, they likely have no real knowledge, broad scope, or even experience making the money for which they so strenuously defend.

 

[biostud]

The questions are:

Which areas should the state provide, and how much money should be spend on each area.

When that has been decided, the state would have to set the taxes accordingly.

When expenses and revenues don't match up you'll either have to cut expenses or increase revenues.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

CEOs weren't making thousands of times what their workers were making.

How may CEO's make thousands of times what their worker make?

I know the CEO of the company where I work makes 5 times my salary. The company is ranked in the top 1,000 companies in the US.

 

[LegendKiller]

How may CEO's make thousands of times what their worker make?

I know the CEO of the company where I work makes 5 times my salary. The company is ranked in the top 1,000 companies in the US.

Are you kidding me?

I mean, really, are you serious?

I am sure you're serious because you must live in a fucking box, that or the imaginary world the right has created.

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621/

 

[Engineer]

How may CEO's make thousands of times what their worker make?

I know the CEO of the company where I work makes 5 times my salary. The company is ranked in the top 1,000 companies in the US.

Not sure about thousands of times. Looks like 275 times or so (yahoo searching around) for the top 500 companies around 2007. IIRC, it reached an all time high this year though but, like so many things, I could be wrong (maybe that was the gap between the total rich and total poor....one of those two but I don't remember).

By the way, are you looking at salary alone or salary + stock options too? Either your CEO is underpaid for his top 1000 position or you are making a lot of money yourself.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Are you kidding me?

I mean, really, are you serious?

I am sure you're serious because you must live in a fucking box, that or the imaginary world the right has created.

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621/

Thank for proving that your statement was pure bullshit. Not to mention the chart was based on averages. So people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet skew the numbers.

 

[LegendKiller]

Not sure about thousands of times. Looks like 275 times or so (yahoo searching around) for the top 500 companies around 2007. IIRC, it reached an all time high this year though but, like so many things, I could be wrong (maybe that was the gap between the total rich and total poor....one of those two but I don't remember).

By the way, are you looking at salary alone or salary + stock options too? Either your CEO is underpaid for his top 1000 position or you are making a lot of money yourself.

I have seen a thousand times before for a couple CEOs, once you include entire comp. That's, of course, the extreme. But that 275 is an *average*.

 

[LegendKiller]

Thank for proving that your statement was pure bullshit. Not to mention the chart was based on averages. So people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet skew the numbers.

Warren Buffet only makes $100,000 or so. His entire worth wasn't in comp, it was in accrued capital gains from when he bought Berkshire Hathaway for about $10/share. He never sold his shares, thus as his company bought more companies through insurance float and cash, his worth increased. I doubt that's included.

Gates was effectively the same way. Jobs makes some pittance salary but his stock options, for stock he does not currently own, is included in comp.

Even if it were included, both company's appreciation has slowed significantly recently, thus their "compensation" isn't going up much while the average remains elevated.

Why?

Because, on average, CEO pay hasn't declined.


Too bad your knowledge and logic is pure bullshit. If you had any reading comprehension you would have saw this...

CEO pay is realized direct compensation defined as the sum of salary, bonus, value of restricted stock at grant, and other long-term incentive award payments from a Mercer

Buffet and Gates ownership of BRK and MSFT are largely in common stock not from current grant but historical holdings.

 

[Throckmorton]

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.

I don't know if you're aware of this but the unemployment rate is 10%. That means at least 10% of people are unemployed and therefore poor.

Just like 10% are unemployed, some other percentage HAS to work in low wage jobs. You can move out of that category, but that means someone else takes your place.

It's not possible for everybody to be rich or even middle class, or even for everybody to have a job. That's just the way a capitalist economy is. If you think otherwise, you're living in a fantasy meritocracy communist utopia.

 

[hal2kilo]

If you can get them all to visit your folks' basement...

For someone who has never paid rent, he sure has alot to say.

 

[hal2kilo]

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.

Yea, that farm subsidy racket pays off great!

 

[LegendKiller]

For someone who has never paid rent, he sure has alot to say.

Same with the vast majority of people who never have nor ever will make enough money to be effected by a tax increase at 250k+. Same with dittoheads like Londo above. Morons can't even do their own research to figure out that they don't really know much at all.

Not much to say, eh Londo?

Typical brain-dead righty trash.

 

[Zebo]

Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) would be a Flaming Liberal today

Some facts you know during America's Epoch, what many "conservatives" consider the greatest of times. (1953-1961)

-The wealthiest Americans were taxed an average of 50% under Eisenhower and he did not change it even with both houses because balance was important not bankrupting the country. To leave Children something better not worse than you found it. Today they are taxed 17%.


- The highest tax bracket on earned income today is 35%. During Ike's administration, the highest tax bracket was 92% over $400,000.

- Today the middle class, who are dependent on earned income aka 35%, effectively pay taxes at a higher rate than do the wealthy who derive most of their gains from what's called Capital Gains which is taxed at 15% It's good to be rich! Ike, applied 91% to capital gains too!

- Ike liked unions, Start medicare with Kerr-Mills, hated the MIC and unilateralism and he was one tough hombre, as tough as they come.

 

[Zebo]

I've given up on convincing to right we need to invest in people to not have collective intelligence, infrastructure and order of haiti, we'll be there soon. Why you think I attend tacital classes and stay in shape running every day?

Good on you jhhnnn LK and others but I'd prepare.