Should the rich pay more taxes?

[Merryprankster]

I don't think it is fair, and the rich need some relife from thier excessive taxes...especially when they are often the ones who provide the JOBS that the midle income people use to pay *Thier* taxes in the first place.

1. Our tax burden in this country is not especially high. It could stand to be a good bit higher. Paying down some debt wouldn't hurt.

2. The laffer curve is wrong, and despite cries from the far right, a modest tax increase would do little to slow economic growth in this country.

3. How can you say it's fair or not? I don't know how much benefit the rich derive. I think the first way to start is to compare the aggregate income of the top 1% and the aggregate income of the median 1% to the federal budget or a representative sample of the public goods and services available. While somebody might not directly benefit (ie, they don't have kids and went to private school), they certainly indirectly benefit (educated workers and people are a defining trait of modern, successful economies and societies). The direct and indirect benefits would have a way of working themselves out in the aggregate data, so measuring each individual's benefits is not necessary.

If the rich derive a benefit that is LESS than their current tax contribution, then it would be FAIR to reduce their taxes. But if they derive a benefit that is GREATER than their current tax contribution, then it would be FAIR to raise their taxes.

[unkokusai]

The flat tax has an inherent appeal, but it wouldn't be fair if ....

Oh boy, when somebody starts throwing the word "fair" around you'd best hold on to your wallet, 'cause they're comin' for ya!

[unkokusai]

If the rich derive a benefit that is LESS than their current tax contribution, then it would be FAIR to reduce their taxes. But if they derive a benefit that is GREATER than their current tax contribution, then it would be FAIR to raise their taxes.

Gee, I wonder what conclusion vote-hungry lawmakers of a certain political stripe would come to?

[Merryprankster]

Gee, I wonder what conclusion vote-hungry lawmakers of a certain political stripe would come to?

So what? That's what politicians do! That's why we have what they refer to in parliamentary countries as an "opposition" party.

Oh boy, when somebody starts throwing the word "fair" around you'd best hold on to your wallet, 'cause they're comin' for ya!

I don't use fair as a synonym for just.

The purpose of taxes is not social justice. However, a tax system should be fair.

They are not the same thing.

[unkokusai]

Too funny! C'mon, you're not naive. Words like 'fair' are meaningless because it all works out to be someone's political agenda that 'creates' the definition.

There is no 'answer' to this kind of thing, and it will be argued over 'till the end of time, but I know what kind of country I prefer.

You are either moving in one direction or the other. Your direction in this case seems clear.

[Merryprankster]

I'm not being naive. I'm asking a question in a hypothetical world, where we could soberly and honestly analyze the data and see what the answer actually is, or some approximation of it.

I don't think for a minute that it wouldn't be pre-empted by politicians for their own purposes.

Incidentally, I call bull**** on you telling me what my direction is. Perhaps you missed my defense of market speculators and my distaste for Lou Dobbs...

However, since you seem interested, I'm a social liberal and a die-hard capitalist and fiscal conservative...not of the no taxes variety, but of the "let's be a little bit responsible about our debt" variety. Oh, and I also support having one of the strongest militaries in the world (albeit, my force structure would be very diferent." Oh, and I'm an internationalist in temperment with a partiality towards constructivism as an overarching international theory.

I'm one of those folks who likes to go where the data lead me. Sorry. Part of that process is trying to figure out approaches to find OUT what the data are saying.

And yes, I'm aware that no matter how much I try, my opinions will be at least somewhat subjective, since we all come with entering assumptions. I do try to understand all sides of something before I come to a decision. It usually ****es ideologues off.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

I also think speculators play a very useful role. First they create capital for use in other market sectors. Secondly, the sheer number of them means they serve as useful market regulators - they are the most responsive corrective mechanism in tha modern marketplace. While this leads to short term crisis, I think you'll find it mitigates larger scale disaster. Thinking that only people/corporations that produce things adds value is, I think, the sort of Dobbsian populism that is stuck in the 1950's.

Reply]
You are 100% correct!!

I will continue to remind myself of that as the value of my October Sugar Put option erodes.....

[Mr Punch]

punish those who move the economy and create jobs? great idea... ............................................Flat Tax

Yep, it is a great idea!

1) It's not punishment. Regardless of the moralistic argumment that many of them don't actually work very hard for their money, they already get 'just' reward in salary, wealth management schemes, and associated lifestyle.
2) So why should they get taxed higher? As Merry said, they use more of everything! Fairness doesn't come into it: it's logic.
3) Anyone whose heart bleeds for these parasites is simply hilarious... do you really think thye don't already as many ways to avoid taxes as they have dollar bills?! They all have accountants (or wealth/asset managers) who are employed specifically to ensure that they can keep as much of their wealth as possible, be it in bum meaningless 'forestry' schemes in Indonesia, yacht-building in the Seychelles, trust-funds for their parasite kids to go to Harvard, snort coke and become president or whatever... Joking, but barely!
4) Again as someone pointed out, the consumer keeps the economy afloat, and the workers keep it moving... when a big company goes, little ones spring up in its place keeping the economy healthier in many cases.

I don't buy the argument that CEO's need 300 times the workers wage to motivate them, when the CEO's in Japan have been kicking Yankee A$$ in a lot of fields for a very long time at a fraction of the wage.

I don't buy that argument either... but using Japanese CEOs as a paragon of virtue is not the answer. Sure their wages are much much lower, but everything is perks. They get company cars, company paid mansions, holiday homes, holidays, flights, hotels, dinner, lunch, happy soapland massages... do you think they get taxed on that?! It is the same even after the Bubble burst. When the Bubble went a few CEOs got the chop, but mostly it was mid managers who ended up sleeping under blue plastic tarps or leaving their shoes next to the Chuo line. Most of the CEOs are still unnaccountable, unless something gets real big publicity.

Merry, as for finding out whether they should pay higher taxes or not... that kind of study would be very very difficult. Personally, I'd want to hit them with life-cycle analysis of their products and CBA up the yazoo, so we could nail them for 'disbenefits' incurred on the health and social systems of Mexico for their factories, those incurred on China for their toxic waste disposal services, and on the world in general for environmental disbenefit... but then that may not be the fairest system either! - and I like Hugo Chavez

[unkokusai]

So what? .

So what? So just come out and admit that you are simply pushing your political views instead of trying to clothe them in a discussion of 'economics.'

[mantis108]

Sin taxes are different from what you were proposing and sales tax does indeed apply to clothing and such, gas etc. So I really don't think it's a good idea. Sure, you could sacrifice modern life to avoid it, but since quality of life is the issue, at the end of the day, it subverts the intent.

No, I am not proposing sin taxes. I am saying that people shouldn't be biatching about their poorness and being "working poor". I know because I am one of them but I don't complain. I work to become a small business owner and learn roll with the "system" instead of roll over by it. I am proposing flat taxes which is only possible if government watch their spending (ie legislated balanced budgets). As I said flat tax isn't government's choice of revenue because it largely prohibits what the government can "play" with. I honestly don't believe that the people should suffer before some fat belly politicians p!ss away tax payer's hard earn dollars.

Finally, there are lots of working poor, so that still makes no sense at all.

Financial health and physically health is the same condition IMHO and both can be worked to improve in most cases. No one is responsible for that expect you. If you are poor, you have better look at what in your lifestyle or your way of thinking is making you poor. It's like a martial artist complaining about his teacher didn't show him the winning techniques while he is being lethargic in thinking about it himself. I say to the working poor stop pointing fingers and take responsibility for your life.

Mantis108

[Merryprankster]

You need to pick your heroes better. Hugo Chavez is nothing more than a 3rd world Stalinist wanna-be who has consistently demonstrated his disdain for democratic ideals and freedom of speech. He has implemented policies that will be disasterous for Venezuelans.

Secondly, I don't know if the rich use more of everything or not, and I'm not sure the analysis would be all that hard. The problem that people have arises when they look at the specific data. You need to go to the aggregate for this - the lumps and bumps even out over the aggregate.

unkokusai, I refer you to my comment about ideologues. You've demonstrated that you're not interested in exploring the issue; you would only consider somebody right/smart, etc if they agree with you. Not the point of this.

I'm ignoring you for the rest of this thread. Take that however you want.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

1) It's not punishment. Regardless of the moralistic argumment that many of them don't actually work very hard for their money, they already get 'just' reward in salary, wealth management schemes, and associated lifestyle.

Reply]
No, they have all that because they are unfairly over taxed.

2) So why should they get taxed higher? As Merry said, they use more of everything! Fairness doesn't come into it: it's logic.

Reply]
Actually, the rich GIVE more to the economy than anyone else. They build businesses, and HIRE employees, and pay thier salaries. On Rich person with 10 Middle income emplyees payes out a cool MILLION every year in salaries, and match taxes. Now you expect them to pay exccessive taxes too? (Which are more than you MAKE all year)

Tell me this, why does the guy who builds the bussiness, and provides the jobs all the middle income block DEPEND on, have to pay more dollars in taxes every year than the blocks he's supporting?

If you make $50,000, and pay $12,000 in taxes every year, and you think that is alot, YOUR BOSS is paying $50,000 a year in cold hard cash to the US government.

Why should he have to pay $50,000 in cold hard cash, and you only have to pay $12,000? Especially when his business is the engine that runs this economy!?

I think if you are going to take shots at the rich, then you should offer to pay $50,000 in cold hard cash direct to the government yourself.


3) Anyone whose heart bleeds for these parasites is simply hilarious... do you really think thye don't already as many ways to avoid taxes as they have dollar bills?! They all have accountants (or wealth/asset managers) who are employed specifically to ensure that they can keep as much of their wealth as possible, be it in bum meaningless 'forestry' schemes in Indonesia, yacht-building in the Seychelles, trust-funds for their parasite kids to go to Harvard, snort coke and become president or whatever... Joking, but barely!

Reply]
Those accountants cost big bucks my freind. Each one draws a $100,000 a year + salary, and this is in addition to the rich guys haveing to fork out a cool $50,000 in raw bills to the tax man. You crab and coplain, but you really should be thanking the God's it's not YOU who has to come up with 50,000 to pay a tax bill...and you say the Rich should be charged more? They takle all the risks, go through all the head aches, deal with all the red tape, and pay more in taxes every year than most even MAKE in that time!!

4) Again as someone pointed out, the consumer keeps the economy afloat, and the workers keep it moving... when a big company goes, little ones spring up in its place keeping the economy healthier in many cases.

Reply]
If the Rich business owners didn't HIGHER those workers, they couldn't do squat. The workers don't keep the economy afloat, they suck off the tits of the Rich and laugh all the way to the bank because they are not stck forking out the big bills come tax time...which is 4 times a year for a buisiness owner...

[Merryprankster]

RD1A and his opponents:

You're arguing about where a cycle/symbiotic relationship begins.

I don't think that makes much sense - no part of the cycle prospers without the other.

Mutually co-dependent....

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Agreed, except ONE part pays more in Taxes than the other even makes, so i think the other should just shut up, or share the burden!

[B-Rad]

All I want is more than the minimal $0.21/year raise when the company I'm working for (Lowes) is making huge profits...