They already pay 92% of the taxes. How much more do they need to pay? Taxing them just make them raise the prices and it filters to us anyway - waist of time.
Show me some real statistics, anyone can say "Well the rich pay 92% of taxes" but without saying which taxes that number means nothing. The poor pay a greater percentage of the social security tax, and a greater percentage of their income in general goes to taxes. The poor pay the majority of all taxes, the rich only pay the majority of sales taxes.
So lets hike the sales taxes through the roof and get rid of the social security and income taxes so the rich can actually pay 92% of all taxes.
What I still don't get is why folks are so hot on upping tax rate on the very folks that are capable of hiring employees? Isn't the whole point in getting a sagging economy turned around to get the unemployment numbers down? Last I checked, social programs don't hire people.
That's funny, your link seems to support his point, you just used a different definition of rich. It's nice that you consider only the top 1% of earners to be "rich" but you better talk to your political candidate of choice, because I bet you'll be shocked to find what he/she considers rich. It will likely be around $40k per year per household. Depending on who you ask though, they may tell you that you're rich if your family's joint income is more than $26,000 per year. When you say "tax the rich" you're p
My link supports what point? That the rich pay 92% of all taxes? I used the 1% level because that's who the story is about. I don't think you'll find many Deomcratic politcians who claim that $26k, or even $40k, is rich. Those are income levels squarely in the middle class.
As far as saying "tax the rich", you're right, I probably would fall into that group, as would all politicians, Democrat or Republican. So what? Does that mean I can't be pro-progressive tax, and anti-regressive.
Finally, you're right, income doesn't tell the whole story. It's a big country, with disparate cost of living levels. I'm having trouble thinking of a better way, though. Any ideas?
Subtract the average cost of living in your area from your base salary and use that figure to determine your base tax rate perhaps? You could make the regions large enough such that people wouldn't benefit from living in a wealthy neighborhood... The current compansation is to allow mortgage payments to be tax deductable, but t
Obviously you can be whatever you want. It's important to realize the consequences though. New jobs are created through investments. Rich people don't stuff their money under mattresses, they invest it
Yes but what if they dont invest it in the USA? You people never think of that.
Sure tax cuts can create jobs in India, but whats to make them invest in the USA?
I still don't get why rich people would invest their money in expanding businesses if no one can afford to buy anything. Which is better, giving the money to the rich for them to invest in products they think people will buy; or giving the money to people to spend, and thereby directly showing what products they are interested in buying? The dot com bubble was all about people investing in businesses that had no customers; did the Bush administration think this was a good thing?
So why would rich people stop hiring just because they have to pay taxes? So far, given the millions of jobs that have disappeared over the last few years, I'd say cutting taxes for the rich does not create jobs.
I find it very interesting that we're told we must all sacrifice and work extra hard in this tough economic environment. We don't need extra money, we're just happy to have a job. Yet this sort of thing doesn't work with the rich; they need cash for motivation.
Which is better, giving the money to the rich for them to invest in products they think people will buy; or giving the money to people to spend, and thereby directly showing what products they are interested in buying?
The fundamental problem with your theory here is the notion that a tax cut is "giving" people money. It's not; it's "not taking away". If you're cutting taxes, those that pay the most should be getting the biggest break. People who pay little or no taxes should, logically, get little or no b
Well, since the tax cut is financed by a deficit, it is giving money away; or more correctly, transferring money from future taxpayers to today's taxpayers, with a little extra interest paid to the rich (and foreigners) who are financing the cut.
As far as "reeking" of redistribution, what's wrong with that? Aren't we all part of a society? Aren't the strong supposed to help the weak? Shouldn't the lucky help the unlucky? Why shouldn't the rich help the poor?
Tax cuts aren't "financed" by *anything*. Government programs are financed by taxes and the sale of government bonds. The people benefiting from the government programs (or at least the ones approving the budgets) are the ones "transferring money from future taxpayers", not the current taxpayers. It's a little more than troubling to hear some insisting that the federal budget has a tax cut listed on the expenditures side of the federal ledger.
Well, since the tax cut is financed by a deficit, it is giving money away; or more correctly, transferring money from future taxpayers to today's taxpayers, with a little extra interest paid to the rich (and foreigners) who are financing the cut.
The deficit is financing government spending, not the tax cut. The notion that tax cuts are "paid for" by the government implies that it's the government's money, not the taxpayers. But anyway, the real issue here is tax revenues vs. gov't spending. If the gov't i
Historically the Rich don't help our the poor. The history of the world is one where gradually the wealth concentrates more and more until the entire wealth of a country is controlled by a handful of families. What follows is a bloody revalution where the rich are killed and the money is redistributed in one big shot and the cycle starts again.
Today we have learned from history. We have set up social structures whereby the natural tendency of money to concentrate is stemmed by r
As far as "reeking" of redistribution, what's wrong with that? Aren't we all part of a society? Aren't the strong supposed to help the weak? Shouldn't the lucky help the unlucky? Why shouldn't the rich help the poor?
First of all the "rich" do give to the "poor", otherwise the total charitable contributions in a given period would be zero. What else is a charity than the "haves" giving to the "have nots"?
But where in the government charter is it written that the weak are supposed to confiscate (by forc
Well, I think that you are only partly responsible for your success. Not all of your success is due to your own efforts; some part of everyone's success consists of luck, of genetics, of parents, of just being in the right place at the right time.
I think most rich people are luckier (to give a name to the collection of all unearned advantages) than most poor people. People ought to contribute to society based on how much of a sacrifice it is to them. I think that as a rough average, it is easier for ric
Well, I think that you are only partly responsible for your success. Not all of your success is due to your own efforts; some part of everyone's success consists of luck, of genetics, of parents, of just being in the right place at the right time.
Except you can't control that stuff, so why worry about it? I'm not a model, I'm not very athletic, so I didn't go into modeling or become an athlete. Surely Jennifer Lopez was blessed with some genetic features that I don't have, and she's used what she has t
What's so complicated about a progressive tax system? There are a lot of valid arguments against a progressive system, but complexity isn't one of them. Under a progressive system, you figure out what your taxable income is, then you apply different rules based on what income range you fall in. Sure it is easier to multiply by a constant factor, but I don't see how it is that much harder to do a table lookup to determine which of many factors to apply.
The complexity of the tax system is the loopholes add
Which is better, giving the money to the rich for them to invest in products they think people will buy; or giving the money to people to spend, and thereby directly showing what products they are interested in buying?
How about this: give it to them both! Phasing out the income tax will to amazing things to bring the government sprawl into check along with empowering people with an additional wad of cash to call their own.
There was a report a while back that said almost unanimously that people expecte
What I still don't get is why folks are so hot on upping tax rate on the very folks that are capable of hiring employees?
Because the hiring of employees has nothing to do with how much money you have, or even how much money you make. It has to do with what your business needs in order to grow or scale. MS has the money to hire 25,000+ programmers yet they are only hiring 5,000 this year. We could give MS a $1B tax break, a $10B tax break, or a $1B fine and niether would affect their hiring amount.
"Before the latest tax cut plan passed, White House economists had predicted it would add 1.4 million new jobs through 2004, on top of 4.1 million jobs that a growing economy would have generated anyway, a rate of 344,000 jobs created a month. By its own accounting, the Bush administration fell 437,000 jobs short of its own projections in August, a shortfall not lost on the president's critics." from Tax Cut Claims Gain Criticism As Employers Shed More Jobs
Mike Allen and Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staf
Even if you accept that figure, that meant we spent $350,000 to create EACH single new job.
On the other hand, you didn't mention what kind of tax cuts these were - if they affected mainly individuals, granted, it would provide them with more disposable income, but what they do with that income could range anywhere from immediately spending it, to paying off debt, to shoving it into a bank account or some kind of investment. Given this, if the U.S. government is granting tax breaks that benefit primarily i
You're entirely correct that tax cut to individual do not translate into job creation directly. In fact, most economists agree that tax cut to the wealthiest part of the population will not increase demand siginifantly as they are more apt to save/invest it rather than spend it immediately. No demand means no new investment/production and no new jobs.
If one studies the neoconservative discussions, one finds that the primary driver is to starve the goverment. Remember the attempt during Contract with Ame
I am not going to play armchair economist, I'm not nearly qualified enough to decide what is the most equitable tax system (and odds are, 99.9% of posters to this thread aren't either). We all want the same things: incentive to work, a healthy and growing middle class, and the wealthy unburdened by government handcuffs. We all want a fair system that encourages growth across all sectors.
If we're going to analyze the tax structure, let's read some REAL economists perspectives.
"What I still don't get is why folks are so hot on upping tax rate on the very folks that are capable of hiring employees? Isn't the whole point in getting a sagging economy turned around to get the unemployment numbers down? Last I checked, social programs don't hire people."
It is statement like this that I worry about the decline of quality education.
READ AND STUDY YOUR HISTORY!!!
Do you know how US got out that little event called "The Great Depression"? By spending billions of dollars in SOCIAL PRO
your statistics show only a portion of taxes being collected (income, not payroll and SS) and prey on a fundamental misunderstanding of mathematics. to put it simply, if a gorup of people is making most of the money they will be paying most of the taxes.
if the top ten percent is receiving 50 percent of GNP then they better be paying atLEAST fifty percent of the taxes. that qould then be FLAT tax. GET
> Last I checked, social programs don't hire people.
they used to, before that kind of thing became unfashionable in financial circles....which happened about the time that they decided that massive government projects were worth a lot of money that they'd rather have for themselves.
so, the kind of infrastructure projects that used to be directly government-run (like roads, highways, dams, etc) were "outsourced" to consulting firms. instead of having govt. employed engineers, project managers, overseer
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
What we need to combat this... (Score:2, Insightful)
A tax cut for the rich! That's a swell plan for redressing society's woes!
Re:What we need to combat this... (Score:1, Insightful)
which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax? (Score:2, Interesting)
Show me some real statistics, anyone can say "Well the rich pay 92% of taxes" but without saying which taxes that number means nothing. The poor pay a greater percentage of the social security tax, and a greater percentage of their income in general goes to taxes. The poor pay the majority of all taxes, the rich only pay the majority of sales taxes.
So lets hike the sales taxes through the roof and get rid of the social security and income taxes so the rich can actually pay 92% of all taxes.
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax? (Score:5, Informative)
I'll show you mine... now you can show us all yours. Just gots to love Google for hunting this stuff down.
Who pays the piper? [usnews.com]
Who pays income taxes? [ntu.org]
Income Tax: Who Pays? IRS Figures for 2000 [rushlimbaugh.com]
What I still don't get is why folks are so hot on upping tax rate on the very folks that are capable of hiring employees? Isn't the whole point in getting a sagging economy turned around to get the unemployment numbers down? Last I checked, social programs don't hire people.
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax? (Score:2)
Here's a news flash for you bud - personal income taxes make up only 48% [taxpolicycenter.org] of federal revenue.
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax? (Score:1)
The "rich" pay more than their "fair" share, and so does everyone else.
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax? (Score:2)
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax? (Score:2)
As far as saying "tax the rich", you're right, I probably would fall into that group, as would all politicians, Democrat or Republican. So what? Does that mean I can't be pro-progressive tax, and anti-regressive.
Finally, you're
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax? (Score:0)
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax? (Score:2)
Subtract the average cost of living in your area from your base salary and use that figure to determine your base tax rate perhaps? You could make the regions large enough such that people wouldn't benefit from living in a wealthy neighborhood... The current compansation is to allow mortgage payments to be tax deductable, but t
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax? (Score:0)
Obviously you can be whatever you want. It's important to realize the consequences though. New jobs are created through investments. Rich people don't stuff their money under mattresses, they invest it
Yes but what if they dont invest it in the USA? You people never think of that.
Sure tax cuts can create jobs in India, but whats to make them invest in the USA?
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax? (Score:5, Insightful)
So why would rich people stop hiring just because they have to pay taxes? So far, given the millions of jobs that have disappeared over the last few years, I'd say cutting taxes for the rich does not create jobs.
I find it very interesting that we're told we must all sacrifice and work extra hard in this tough economic environment. We don't need extra money, we're just happy to have a job. Yet this sort of thing doesn't work with the rich; they need cash for motivation.
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax? (Score:2)
The fundamental problem with your theory here is the notion that a tax cut is "giving" people money. It's not; it's "not taking away". If you're cutting taxes, those that pay the most should be getting the biggest break. People who pay little or no taxes should, logically, get little or no b
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax? (Score:2)
As far as "reeking" of redistribution, what's wrong with that? Aren't we all part of a society? Aren't the strong supposed to help the weak? Shouldn't the lucky help the unlucky? Why shouldn't the rich help the poor?
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax? (Score:1)
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax? (Score:2)
The deficit is financing government spending, not the tax cut. The notion that tax cuts are "paid for" by the government implies that it's the government's money, not the taxpayers. But anyway, the real issue here is tax revenues vs. gov't spending. If the gov't i
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax? (Score:2)
Historically the Rich don't help our the poor. The history of the world is one where gradually the wealth concentrates more and more until the entire wealth of a country is controlled by a handful of families. What follows is a bloody revalution where the rich are killed and the money is redistributed in one big shot and the cycle starts again.
Today we have learned from history. We have set up social structures whereby the natural tendency of money to concentrate is stemmed by r
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax? (Score:0)
both arguments are good.
but what about the middle class?
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax? (Score:2)
Unforseen consequence? No not really. The middle class is the class I am talking about.
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax? (Score:1)
First of all the "rich" do give to the "poor", otherwise the total charitable contributions in a given period would be zero. What else is a charity than the "haves" giving to the "have nots"?
But where in the government charter is it written that the weak are supposed to confiscate (by forc
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax? (Score:2)
I think most rich people are luckier (to give a name to the collection of all unearned advantages) than most poor people. People ought to contribute to society based on how much of a sacrifice it is to them. I think that as a rough average, it is easier for ric
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax? (Score:1)
Except you can't control that stuff, so why worry about it? I'm not a model, I'm not very athletic, so I didn't go into modeling or become an athlete. Surely Jennifer Lopez was blessed with some genetic features that I don't have, and she's used what she has t
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax? (Score:2)
The complexity of the tax system is the loopholes add
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax? (Score:2)
Which is better, giving the money to the rich for them to invest in products they think people will buy; or giving the money to people to spend, and thereby directly showing what products they are interested in buying?
How about this: give it to them both! Phasing out the income tax will to amazing things to bring the government sprawl into check along with empowering people with an additional wad of cash to call their own.
There was a report a while back that said almost unanimously that people expecte
Millions of jobs were created. (Score:0)
In India, China and other countries millions of new jobs were created over the past few years.
Also government has grown bigger, alot of government jobs were created as well.
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax? (Score:0)
I'd like to see your links include those taxes to show the true story of who's paying all the taxes.
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax? (Score:2)
Because the hiring of employees has nothing to do with how much money you have, or even how much money you make. It has to do with what your business needs in order to grow or scale. MS has the money to hire 25,000+ programmers yet they are only hiring 5,000 this year. We could give MS a $1B tax break, a $10B tax break, or a $1B fine and niether would affect their hiring amount.
Why w
$350,000 for 1 job. (Score:2)
from Tax Cut Claims Gain Criticism As Employers Shed More Jobs
Mike Allen and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staf
Re:$350,000 for 1 job. (Score:2)
On the other hand, you didn't mention what kind of tax cuts these were - if they affected mainly individuals, granted, it would provide them with more disposable income, but what they do with that income could range anywhere from immediately spending it, to paying off debt, to shoving it into a bank account or some kind of investment. Given this, if the U.S. government is granting tax breaks that benefit primarily i
Re:$350,000 for 1 job. (Score:2)
If one studies the neoconservative discussions, one finds that the primary driver is to starve the goverment. Remember the attempt during Contract with Ame
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax? (Score:1)
PEOPLE hire people!
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax? (Score:2)
Last I checked, social programs don't hire people
No, with a wave of a magic government wand they just autonomously implement themselves.
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax? (Score:1)
If we're going to analyze the tax structure, let's read some REAL economists perspectives.
Taking seriously a talk ra
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax? (Score:1)
High taxes create jobs too (Score:1, Troll)
The government hires employees at a faster rate than the corporate world, and the government hires Americans at a higher rate than big corporations.
You sack of shit. (Score:0)
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax? (Score:0)
of course you will say the same thing about my NY times link:
here [nytimes.com]
your statistics show only a portion of taxes being collected (income, not payroll and SS) and prey on a fundamental misunderstanding of mathematics. to put it simply, if a gorup of people is making most of the money they will be paying most of the taxes.
if the top ten percent is receiving 50 percent of GNP then they better be paying atLEAST fifty percent of the taxes. that qould then be FLAT tax. GET
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax? (Score:0)
they used to, before that kind of thing became unfashionable in financial circles....which happened about the time that they decided that massive government projects were worth a lot of money that they'd rather have for themselves.
so, the kind of infrastructure projects that used to be directly government-run (like roads, highways, dams, etc) were "outsourced" to consulting firms. instead of having govt. employed engineers, project managers, overseer