If we weren't running such ridiculous debts in Washington, the country would've been in the black in less than 15 years. Then, everybody could've enjoy deep, permanent tax cuts. But oh well, guess they didn't want to wait.
Just like we were supposed to have that debt paid off by 2008?
The economy goes up and down and anything proposed for the future is the most optimistic guess they can come up with.
The original estimate was 12 or 13 years. I added a couple of years to play a bit of devil's advocate.
If all tax havens wre eliminated and the budget had to balance, what do you think would happen if everyone just paid 10%?? I wouldn't be surprised if what the actual amount of money the rich had to pay for taxes every year increased substanutally.
Think about it, no depreciation, no tax havens at all. I'm not positive of it, but it would be intersting to see some numbers.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
10% wouldn't even come close to providing the tax revenues to the government that it receives under the current plan. Estimates are that a flat tax, and a non-degressive one at that, would have to be somewhere between 17% and 21%. The poor today, and a lot of middle class, don't pay anywhere near that in taxes, so they'd be the ones screwed over, not the rich. Of course, there could be a degressive plan to give a 'get out of tax free' card for earnings up to a certain amount. But that kind fo screws the whole "flat tax" idea over and puts us back to a similar position to where we are now because it wouldn't be a fair levy.
You have to realize that for every 1% you increase taxes on the rich you remove billions and billions from the free markets and give it to the government to waste. The argument is, who is the better spender? People or the government. Considering that tje government operates at above 50% levels of waste, money gets into the markets much more quickly via people. This is also the reason why tax cuts work the way they do and also why trickle down economics HAS BEEN PROVEN TO WORK SINCE JFK STARTED IT.
I just threw 10% out there, I'm sure the actual rate would be higher. Of course, your not going to be able to tax people on welfare or with very low income. You just can't get blood out of a rock. There still should be a standard deduction for dependants, head of household, etc. However, even though it would hurt at first, people as a whole would pay much more attenion to how their money was spent and in the long run maybe everybody would be better off?? I don't make a lot of money and my state property tax (we have no income tax) costs me from 20% to over 30% of my profit every year. I also have to pay self employment tax of 15%, a state sales tax of 4%, and a city sales tax of 2% and I still end up paying 10% federal tax. The rich have it so tough, LOL. I'm just sick enough of listening to the rich complaining about how they are paying more then their fair share to consider a flat tax.
I'm not sure if I would like a flat tax, but I'd be willing to consider if I could see a detailed plan with accurate numbers. I guess i hear about many of the rich paying less of a percentage after they hide everything in their tax havens that I'm not convinced that if I were willing to pay more that it might not cost the rich more. Depreciation alone would make the coporations start paying much more then they are now.
Edit: I really don't have any idea of what I'm talking about (obviously), but the idea intrigues me.
Gotta love it. inwincur argues that taxing the wealthy won't solve anything, that it'll just take money out of circulation to be wasted by the govt. Which is complete balderdash, considering that the govt is borrowing $500B/yr from basically wealthy folks in the first place... so instead of taking it as taxes, we get to borrow it, and then pay interest - forever.
The whole problem is that the income tax structure is actually regressive at the very top. Sure, the top 1% pays higher taxes on average than the rest of us, but the top .1% pay a lower rate than those below them in that bracket, and the top .01% pay even less... basically, they're hiding in the top 1%. In 1970, the top .01% received 1% of all income, today they receive 5%, thanks to tax changes very favorable to that select few. They were, of course, extremely wealthy in 1970, anyway...
Like it or not, income redistribution is essential to egalitarian democracy, and to the very existence of the middle class as we know it. During the 50's and 60's, marginal tax rates were much, much higher than today, and we nonetheless experienced our greatest growth and general prosperity during that timeframe.
It's really an issue of economic self defense for the middle class. Unregulated capitalism leads inevitably to monopoly, and to the concentration of wealth and income into the hands of a very, very few, kinda like a third world economy. If that's what we truly want, then keep on voting for the illusions provided by the Right- they'll get us there, bet on it.
The whole problem is that the income tax structure is actually regressive at the very top. Sure, the top 1% pays higher taxes on average than the rest of us, but the top .1% pay a lower rate than those below them in that bracket, and the top .01% pay even less... basically, they're hiding in the top 1%. In 1970, the top .01% received 1% of all income, today they receive 5%, thanks to tax changes very favorable to that select few. They were, of course, extremely wealthy in 1970, anyway...
Like it or not, income redistribution is essential to egalitarian democracy, and to the very existence of the middle class as we know it. During the 50's and 60's, marginal tax rates were much, much higher than today, and we nonetheless experienced our greatest growth and general prosperity during that timeframe.
It's really an issue of economic self defense for the middle class. Unregulated capitalism leads inevitably to monopoly, and to the concentration of wealth and income into the hands of a very, very few, kinda like a third world economy. If that's what we truly want, then keep on voting for the illusions provided by the Right- they'll get us there, bet on it.
In a world where income is distributed in ways largely arbitrary, Genx87, it seems a little bit foolish to speak of "fairness".
Thats not to say that hard work and education shouldn't be rewarded, at all, just that such attributes will only carry a person just so far. After that, it's largely a matter of luck. Had Gary Kildall not been fishing when IBM called, Bill Gates would have been left out in the cold. Had GWB been born to West Texas Trailer Trash, he'd be the town drunk. Such examples could go on and on.
Why should people who are born right or just happen to be in the right place at the right time be treated "fairly" wrt taxation? Because they're lucky, and we value that attribute above all others? At about the 99.7 percentile of income, the curve goes near vertical. Are you contending that those above that mark are so much smarter and work so much harder than those below that they deserve incomes hundreds or thousands of times greater?
Thats not to say that hard work and education shouldn't be rewarded, at all, just that such attributes will only carry a person just so far. After that, it's largely a matter of luck. Had Gary Kildall not been fishing when IBM called, Bill Gates would have been left out in the cold. Had GWB been born to West Texas Trailer Trash, he'd be the town drunk. Such examples could go on and on.
Why should people who are born right or just happen to be in the right place at the right time be treated "fairly" wrt taxation? Because they're lucky, and we value that attribute above all others? At about the 99.7 percentile of income, the curve goes near vertical. Are you contending that those above that mark are so much smarter and work so much harder than those below that they deserve incomes hundreds or thousands of times greater?
First I believe that those that beneift the most from our system should pay more to support it. I support a progressive tax system like we currently have but to eliminate all deductions. Deductions are used for social change and it's an irresponsible use of the taxes.
Ok, back to my point. It's inappropriate to base your arguement of the "silver spoon" crowd in this country because they are FAR outnumbered by the people that have built their fortunes themselves. The vast majority of the wealthy in this country did NOT recieve that money from inheritence.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
The issue is, how much of the wealth that they received in compensation should they actually be entitled to.
Suppose I own a business and earn a profit of 15% of the sale cost of each widget produced. Now, because the nation's employment market is horrible, I can pay my workers poverty wages. In contrast, in a stronger economy I would have to pay my workers more money (giving them a larger fraction of the value of the wealth produced) and could only keep 10% of the sale cost as profit. So, do I really deserve that extra 5% as profit when it comes at the expense of the general populace?
Let's suppose that there are two lawyers. One graduated from an average law school and has average ability but used-car salesmanship ability. The other graduated from a top law school and is a hard worker but is a horrific interviewer. The average guy does well in his interview and gets hired over the smart guy. The smart guy would gladly do the same job for $40,000/year less than the $130,000/year the average guy is getting and he'd do a better job. However, because of his interviewing handicap, he can't find a job in his field and only earns $30,000/year. So, is the average guy really morally entitled to all of the salary he's being paid? Even in light of the fact that someone of greater ability would love to do his job for less? Could it be argued that but for the superficiality of the hiring process the average guy is severly overcompensated? What about the effects of luck and the avoidance of bad luck on one's financial success? Might it thus be justified to tax some of that high salary the average guy receives and redistribute some to the smart guy?
I agree wtih this poster's general sentiment and I generally oppose taxes, but at the same time, I question whether the nation has a true meritocracy and whether higher taxes might be justified to account for factors such as luck, the avoidance of bad luck, superficiality in the employment process, etc.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
It isn't that simple because the issue being dealt with is akin to an externality and also a tragedy of the commons.
In other words, people don't directly benefit (suffer) from their own moral (immoral) actions. Suppose that I were to pay 40% more for a made-in-America product. That's nice, but it doesn't directly help me keep my job, but it does cost me 40% more. Thus, it's a situation where you need the government to step in and regulate the commons so that on the average people receive a greater benefit from it.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
I'm going to argue it. Why do you necessarily think that the prices of goods and services would end up increasing? Isn't that dependent on the supply of the goods and services and also on the demand for them? Suppose I took $500 billion from the rich and gave it to the middle class (in the form of a $500 billion tax cut on the middle class). How exactly would that affect the supply-and-demand curves?
IF that tax hike was large enough, the wealthy would leave the country or somehow hide their money.
who said anything about S&D? We're talking about tax-rates..
that makes no sense whatsoever. You "take $500bil" from group A and then cut the taxes by "$500bil" for group B and you call that "giving" group B money??? wha? - Look folks, a "tax-cut" isn't giving people money, a tax-cut equates an increase in salary (a salary NOT paid by the Gov). The Gov isn't "giving" you squat, they're just not taking as much of your earnings as they were before the cut. Remember, THE MONEY WAS ALREADY EARNED BY YOU (US) WHEN THEY TOOK IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!
Nothing because the rich will find a way to get around it. These people arent stupid.
The best way to deal with this is to simplify the system and balance the budget. Chasing a few rich goons around will accomplish nothing.
Wow, I don't think my words have ever been more misconstrued...
I have no clue where you logic comes from or how it was an attack on my ststement. I would suggest you quite drinking before posting next time.
I simply stated that the private market is a better place for money than locked up in the government. Liquidity is important when it comes to taxes and market stimulation. To move money to the government effectively locks it away from the private market, thereby reducing investment and growth. Adding money to the private market fuels growth which in turn fuels demand - and yes, there are economic laws which actually support a supply side demand increase. Most of which apply to a situation where you can spur investment at the top.
It seems that you work with the assumption that when the rich get money, they stuff it into a mattress. Every dime that a person gets (rich or poor) either gets spent or saved. Intelligent people save their money through various vehicles - very few people save their money in a jar. Anytime that money is being saved - it is being invested in growth.
I wonder if the left just does not get the entire concept behind investment. It is almost as if there is an immature viewpoint on what a bank does with money. Trust me, their vaults are not full of cash - banks are investment vehicles. The $1000 you deposit into a CD for example could in theory become part of your new neighbors mortage - which he then pays back to cover you interest as well as the banks costs and risk. Government bonds and borrowing are no different - and you sure as hell do not have to be rich to invest in the government. It is just another vehicle. Buying a government bond is really no different than getting a corporate bond. It still returns more money to the capital markets at maturation.
Pretty simple concept, I have no clue why the left refuses to even attempt to understand the concept of free markets and investment.
However much somebody is willing to pay them.
Just because you dont think they are worth it doesnt mean somebody else doesnt.
If you think running a fortune 500 company is a breeze apply.
If you think gathering resources to run a business and make it successful is a breeze then do it.
Your always ranting about how unfair it is for the rich, and then you turn around and say that the rich will get around it?? Are they or aren't they paying their fair share?
I'm more then willing to pay my fair share if we can come up with a system that assures that everyone (who can afford it) pays their cut also. It can't be smake and mirrors either, they will have to balance the budget and eliminate all tax havens.
They are paying more than their "fair" share as evidenced by the top 5% paying 53% of the income taxes. The bottom 50% of this country almost pays no federal income taxes.
Chasing the rich around will only waste resources. The rich will simply find another loophole or leave the country. If they leave the country then so does their money and their ability to employ people.
Chasing the rich away isnt going to fix our problems.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter