The Rich and Taxes: A Debate

[thegreekdog]

A little more detail JB:

This is still an arbitrary decision about who is "rich".

Yes. Yes it is. That's my point.

WHY IS IT GOVT'S JOB TO DECIDE WHO IS RICH AND WHO ISN'T?

I'm certainly not saying it is. In fact, as was pointed out to me in a tax class, when the government cuts taxes, it's not really giving you something. It's returning something that it had taken from you. So, I agree with you. But, again, my point is that we should be doing something about the stuff we can do something about (i.e. who is rich and who isn't).

In sum, I agree with you. But the battle you want to fight is not winnable. The battle I want to fight could be winnable.

[Night Strike]

That was a really good beer analogy.

[Timminz]

A family that has two breadwinners working 50+ hours a week... who can afford their bills and some luxuries, but has very little savings or retirement is not "wealthy". The family described by me previously could still be living paycheck-to-paycheck... and could be in a situation where they both MUST work in order to pay the mortgage.

A couple that bought too much house, and that feels they can spend money on "luxuries", while failing to think about anything beyond the immediate-term, are just a couple of morons. They're making more than enough money to get by, yet they insist on living beyond their means. They get no sympathy from me, and I'm supposed to be one of the bleeding-hearts, here.

you are absolutely correct. Could I prod further into your accuracy and ask you how such people were able to get those loans in the first place? or have these kind of people always been able to get loans that easy? what's your take

The way I (in my layman's view) see it, there was a severe lack of useful oversight on the financial institutions, who saw a handful of ways to abuse the regulations that actually were there, with the end result being them bilking the whole system out of billions, upon billions of dollars.

surely they are a large part. I'm still with you so far, and I won't bring out the nobody put a gun to the home buyer's head (oops).

Guns, no, but there are plenty of ways to rip someone off without them knowing until it's too late. Do you blame the thousands of seniors who get scammed out of large sums of money by phone, every year?

Let me ask you this. Do you think the housing bust happened because, suddenly there were tons more people who were stupid enough to get scammed, or is it perhaps more likely that banks figured out new ways to rip off people (read: convince to sign up for loans that there's no way they could pay for, once the introductory offer period is up), that they were previously prevented (by proper regulation and oversight) from using?

[jimboston]

You missed my point jb.

Democrats (e.g. Senator Sanders) are arguing "hey, even rich people want to pay more taxes" and then they point to Bill Gates and Warren Buffet as examples of rich people. I'm saying, those aren't the only examples of what the government calls "rich." People making $250K are examples of what the government calls "rich." And those people do not want to pay more taxes.

Let's take your bar example - Patrons 8, 9, and 10 are all paying the same amount to the bar tender, except that 10 doesn't care because he makes so much money it doesn't matter to him. 9 makes good money, but he's a little concerned. And 8, well 8 barely makes more money than 7, so obviously it sucks for him.

No... I did not miss your point.

You missed mine.

If there is a "progressive" tax then someone (i.e. the Gov't) has to set income levels at which the rate increases. These incomes levels will always be arbitrary. What criteria can possibly be used to make them not arbitrary????

Someone (or some group of people) must sit down and decide for other people who is "rich" and who "isn't rich". They must sit down and use statistics to decide who "can afford to pay a little more" and "who can't afford another dollar" and "who is already paying too much and needs a break".

If Buffet and Gates wanna pay more... let them. There is no law stopping them from contributing more money to the Federal Gov't.

The fact that they want to pay more should not affect me. It should not affect someone making $30K a year... it shouldn't affect someone making $150K... or someone making $500K. It shouldn't impact a new "rich" person making $1million/year... nor should it affect someone who makes $25million per year. Buffet and Gates are in a bracket of their own... and if they want to pay more let them... but their desire to pay more should affect anyone but them.

[jimboston]

A little more detail JB:

This is still an arbitrary decision about who is "rich".

Yes. Yes it is. That's my point.

WHY IS IT GOVT'S JOB TO DECIDE WHO IS RICH AND WHO ISN'T?

I'm certainly not saying it is. In fact, as was pointed out to me in a tax class, when the government cuts taxes, it's not really giving you something. It's returning something that it had taken from you. So, I agree with you. But, again, my point is that we should be doing something about the stuff we can do something about (i.e. who is rich and who isn't).

In sum, I agree with you. But the battle you want to fight is not winnable. The battle I want to fight could be winnable.

No... you are fighting the wrong battle.

Once you accept the premise that Gov't has the right to decide who is 'rich' and who ain't... you lose. Period.

Once you accept that premise, then anyone who earns more than 60% of likely voters will be rich. Because elected officials will bow to the pressure of the majority.

This is why we have a federal income tax in the first place. People allowed the gov't to put one in place because they thought it would always be 5%... later always 13%. They conceded the first point... once that is done the war is lost.

... and so now 50% of my income goes to taxes. Thanks.

[thegreekdog]

Considering that the government has been taxing incomes since around 1910, I would say yours is the losing fight.

It's kind of like trying to regulate nuclear weapons vs. trying to eradicate war. The latter is a noble idea, but hardly realistic.

[rockfist]

A little more detail JB:

This is still an arbitrary decision about who is "rich".

Yes. Yes it is. That's my point.

WHY IS IT GOVT'S JOB TO DECIDE WHO IS RICH AND WHO ISN'T?

I'm certainly not saying it is. In fact, as was pointed out to me in a tax class, when the government cuts taxes, it's not really giving you something. It's returning something that it had taken from you. So, I agree with you. But, again, my point is that we should be doing something about the stuff we can do something about (i.e. who is rich and who isn't).

In sum, I agree with you. But the battle you want to fight is not winnable. The battle I want to fight could be winnable.

No... you are fighting the wrong battle.

Once you accept the premise that Gov't has the right to decide who is 'rich' and who ain't... you lose. Period.

Once you accept that premise, then anyone who earns more than 60% of likely voters will be rich. Because elected officials will bow to the pressure of the majority.

This is why we have a federal income tax in the first place. People allowed the gov't to put one in place because they thought it would always be 5%... later always 13%. They conceded the first point... once that is done the war is lost.

... and so now 50% of my income goes to taxes. Thanks.

He's spot on. You can concede one inch of ground to these statists or they will take everything from you.

[thegreekdog]

A little more detail JB:

This is still an arbitrary decision about who is "rich".

Yes. Yes it is. That's my point.

WHY IS IT GOVT'S JOB TO DECIDE WHO IS RICH AND WHO ISN'T?

I'm certainly not saying it is. In fact, as was pointed out to me in a tax class, when the government cuts taxes, it's not really giving you something. It's returning something that it had taken from you. So, I agree with you. But, again, my point is that we should be doing something about the stuff we can do something about (i.e. who is rich and who isn't).

In sum, I agree with you. But the battle you want to fight is not winnable. The battle I want to fight could be winnable.

No... you are fighting the wrong battle.

Once you accept the premise that Gov't has the right to decide who is 'rich' and who ain't... you lose. Period.

Once you accept that premise, then anyone who earns more than 60% of likely voters will be rich. Because elected officials will bow to the pressure of the majority.

This is why we have a federal income tax in the first place. People allowed the gov't to put one in place because they thought it would always be 5%... later always 13%. They conceded the first point... once that is done the war is lost.

... and so now 50% of my income goes to taxes. Thanks.

He's spot on. You can concede one inch of ground to these statists or they will take everything from you.

The point has been conceded. It's been conceded for 100 years.

[rockfist]

It wasn't JB, or me who conceded it. So as far as I am concerned it is not conceded.

No reason why it can't be revisited. If enough people object to it. Why not a constitutional amendment limiting state and federal income taxes to not more than 25% on a flat tax basis? If you say its impossible to do away with them...make it impossible for them to get too high.

[thegreekdog]

It wasn't JB, or me who conceded it. So as far as I am concerned it is not conceded.

No reason why it can't be revisited. If enough people object to it. Why not a constitutional amendment limiting state and federal income taxes to not more than 25% on a flat tax basis? If you say its impossible to do away with them...make it impossible for them to get too high.

Again, while this is a noble goal, there are certainly less incentives for the federal government to pass this (assuming, of course, that the Tea Party movement is a grass roots organization and not an organization sponsored by large conglomerates... I think it's the former) than to pass a law raising the "who is rich" category.

[Phatscotty]

A couple that bought too much house, and that feels they can spend money on "luxuries", while failing to think about anything beyond the immediate-term, are just a couple of morons. They're making more than enough money to get by, yet they insist on living beyond their means. They get no sympathy from me, and I'm supposed to be one of the bleeding-hearts, here.

you are absolutely correct. Could I prod further into your accuracy and ask you how such people were able to get those loans in the first place? or have these kind of people always been able to get loans that easy? what's your take

The way I (in my layman's view) see it, there was a severe lack of useful oversight on the financial institutions, who saw a handful of ways to abuse the regulations that actually were there, with the end result being them bilking the whole system out of billions, upon billions of dollars.

surely they are a large part. I'm still with you so far, and I won't bring out the nobody put a gun to the home buyer's head (oops).

Guns, no, but there are plenty of ways to rip someone off without them knowing until it's too late. Do you blame the thousands of seniors who get scammed out of large sums of money by phone, every year?

Let me ask you this. Do you think the housing bust happened because, suddenly there were tons more people who were stupid enough to get scammed, or is it perhaps more likely that banks figured out new ways to rip off people (read: convince to sign up for loans that there's no way they could pay for, once the introductory offer period is up), that they were previously prevented (by proper regulation and oversight) from using?

It's bigger than that. It's the financials (assured by gov't) + the consumers (assured by gov't) = gov't

However, the point I want to make here is, the financial institution did it because they had the assurances (insurance?) from the gov't that if it all went bad they would get bailed out in the end.

Again, I am with you there. I was the person on the other end of that phone call to sign into a adjustable rate. I always always always told the person to put their manager on the phone. Over and over again, they agreed, it was a bad deal, as I broke down the mortgage telemarketers pitch to the manager. Almost every time they admitted it, a few said "I have kids to feed" and others had ego's too big to even care about the long-run results, only about the immediate (sound familiar?)

Now, my point is not that just because I knew exactly what they were doing and exactly how it would end up, everyone else should have known too. Afterall, "everyone else" were the people actually signing their name on something that would be at least 400-500k (over the future of the loan ((median income prices, adjusted, regionally, san fran to iowa, 280k). Me, I have never owned real estate, but I am about to. At that time, the house had never been so expensive before in history. Red flag for me not to buy it, even though I was constantly bombarded with phone calls trying to sell me a mortgage on any house up to 300k. (buying a mortgage over the phone was the second red flag for me)

The thing is that those people told me to shut the f*ck up and that I was retarded and that since I did not own a home I didn't have a clue what I was talking about, and also that I was crazy, since, afterall, according to them, "It can't heppen here. It's different this time." Moreover, this was a super-charged dose of human error and herd mentality, aided by greed and generational/culturak "don't worry about tomorow-isms"

You see, I was only trying to help, and I know some people who treated me harshly in the past have seen it my way and thanked me for the tough love, while others actually blame ME for their house crashing in price. I can't begin to tell you how many real-estate owners bragged about how they earned every penny of their property increase 2004-2006, and how it was going to double by 2008. You see, they were the geniuses. It is hard for me to blame this all on the financials, given I have spent so much time "on the ground" in the battle-field of the economy.

Overall, my point here is that I did not get the heads up from the banks, or from the consumers, I got the heads up from Bill Clinton and Barney Frank and Chriss Dodd in 1999. Sure, it would take a few years to play out, but in the end, they own all the mortgages, and we just rent from the govt....the banks and the consumers simply followed the handouts......

It's the same case I make against gov't handouts in any other given issue.

[BigBallinStalin]

JIMBOSTON ANSWER:
1 - Wealth does not equate to income. The two words a NOT synonymous. Wealth is a possession or a "state of being". Income is a measure of what one EARNS from work, and/or what one "takes in" from other sources... depending how it is being used. The tax code has different rates based on the type of income.
2 - I would define wealth based on a person's or family's ability to lead a "carefree" life. A family that has two breadwinners working 50+ hours a week... who can afford their bills and some luxuries, but has very little savings or retirement is not "wealthy". The family described by me previously could still be living paycheck-to-paycheck... and could be in a situation where they both MUST work in order to pay the mortgage.

I have not and do not suggest that "wealth" in this manner should be the basis of the tax code. The whole term is misused by socialists on the left to work-up their base.

Fine maybe they are not "wealthy" they still earn more than 98% of Americans. There are plenty of people who work just as many hours and face the same problems related to work/a busy life and manage to make ends meet on much less money. If the family you described making 250k+ is having difficulty paying their bills then I would suggest they are generating too many bills and need to reconsider their expenses.

Why should a statistic like their earning more than 98% more than the rest justify taxing them more? Besides, the very few pay for most of the taxes already.

Regarding the underlined, you could say the same about the those who make $30,000 a year, who are struggling to "survive" in this country.

[BigBallinStalin]

I think people are ignoring the most important issue.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet want to pay more taxes; they don't need a tax break. Great! Good for them. Seriously. I happen to agree with them too. They don't really need a tax break. They make more in 5 minutes than I do in 5 years.

Guess who does need a tax break? The people not making $500K every time they take a breath. Seriously... who cares about $125K v. $150K? We need to talk about $150K vs. $50 million. Let's start with that and then start quibbling about the $125K v. $150K stuff.

So, instead of 250k, would you draw it at $500k? Or would you increase the taxes to 50% for people making over $1,000,000? Where do you draw the line?

Also, tax question: Are retained earnings tax-deductible? And to be more specific, say only I own this company, and my profit is $1,000,000. Am I taxed strictly on my income? Or if I dump $800,000 it back into the company, am I just taxed on the $200,000? (Hey, depends on how good my tax attorney is, right? *wink *wink *nudge *nudge know wot i mean? )

[Phatscotty]

JIMBOSTON ANSWER:
1 - Wealth does not equate to income. The two words a NOT synonymous. Wealth is a possession or a "state of being". Income is a measure of what one EARNS from work, and/or what one "takes in" from other sources... depending how it is being used. The tax code has different rates based on the type of income.
2 - I would define wealth based on a person's or family's ability to lead a "carefree" life. A family that has two breadwinners working 50+ hours a week... who can afford their bills and some luxuries, but has very little savings or retirement is not "wealthy". The family described by me previously could still be living paycheck-to-paycheck... and could be in a situation where they both MUST work in order to pay the mortgage.

I have not and do not suggest that "wealth" in this manner should be the basis of the tax code. The whole term is misused by socialists on the left to work-up their base.

Fine maybe they are not "wealthy" they still earn more than 98% of Americans. There are plenty of people who work just as many hours and face the same problems related to work/a busy life and manage to make ends meet on much less money. If the family you described making 250k+ is having difficulty paying their bills then I would suggest they are generating too many bills and need to reconsider their expenses.

Why should a statistic like their earning more than 98% more than the rest justify taxing them more? Besides, the very few pay for most of the taxes already.

Regarding the underlined, you could say the same about the those who make $30,000 a year, who are struggling to "survive" in this country.

just to play JFK, the 30,000/year is hardly paying their share, realistically, are they?

how about 50k? Not to derail, but on the topic at what point do you guys think, under the current system, is the amount of earned income at which the tax level will represent "your fair share"

I know it's a huge question, but, where abouts?

[BigBallinStalin]

]

just to play JFK, the 30,000/year is hardly paying their share, realistically, are they?

how about 50k? Not to derail, but on the topic at what point do you guys think, under the current system, is the amount of earned income at which the tax level will represent "your fair share"

I know it's a huge question, but, where abouts?

That's a great question, because those who are taxed higher amounts actually receive less proportionally compared to those who get unemployment checks, free education, food stamps, and further incentives to remain in a lower tax bracket.

It's interesting how such benefits actually subsidize poverty, and how the government isn't welcome to ideas that could change such a state of affairs through the privatization of many government-provided services.

[thegreekdog]

Maybe I should recategorize my point.

I think the federal government should make some decisions about what spending programs are necessary and then cut the ones that aren't. In fact, the president pledged to do this in a state of the union address. At that point, we should begin to cut taxes for everyone (rich, poor, etc.).

However, what Congress was, until recently, debating, was whether to extend tax cuts for everyone, including the rich. Democrats made the point that even the rich don't want the tax cuts extended. So, my beef is that the Democrats are lumping people making $250K in with people making $2 million and saying that because the latter don't want tax cuts, the former shouldn't get them either.

I'm not in any way suggesting that the current tax system is fair. What I am suggesting is that if one wants to make the point that the rich want to pay more tax cuts, I think one needs to redefine the term "rich" to exclude people who aren't, actually, rich.

[jimboston]

However, what Congress was, until recently, debating, was whether to extend tax cuts for everyone, including the rich. Democrats made the point that even the rich don't want the tax cuts extended. So, my beef is that the Democrats are lumping people making $250K in with people making $2 million and saying that because the latter don't want tax cuts, the former shouldn't get them either.

Actually they are lumping people who make $250K and people who make $2million into the same bucket as people who make $250million.

In this world you can (if you want) easily spend $2million a year, and not have a lot to show for it at the end of the day.

Someone who earns $250million a year for 20+ years can't possibly spend all that money unless they are collecting things like land, or businesses, or precious art... in which case this still have those assets at the end of the day.

My point... it's all relative. To someone making $30K/yr I appear "rich"... yet if I lose my job and my wife loses hers, we better find work soon or we would lose our house.

To me a family with income of $2million/yr seems "rich". Yes they have better cars than me, and nicer clothes, and a bigger/better house... but if that income dried up... if their business went bust. They wouldn't be "on the street"... but they would certainly have to 'adjust'.

The guy who earns $250million/yr... his 'adjustment' means he can only keep one yacht per coast, not 3... and he has to really think hard about it before investing in a sports franchise. Though when this guy compares himself to Bill Gates... he feels poor.

I'm not in any way suggesting that the current tax system is fair. What I am suggesting is that if one wants to make the point that the rich want to pay more tax cuts, I think one needs to redefine the term "rich" to exclude people who aren't, actually, rich.

OK... so define "rich".

That's the fuckin' problem... isn't it?

[spurgistan]

If you want more tax brackets at higher incomes, that would be something we definitely agree on. Also, if we could figure out how to get a wealth tax back, I'd like that a lot too (much more than the $250k thing, the Obama cave on the estate tax is what really irks me about that deal) Along with other things, I'm sure.

[Baron Von PWN]

Fine maybe they are not "wealthy" they still earn more than 98% of Americans. There are plenty of people who work just as many hours and face the same problems related to work/a busy life and manage to make ends meet on much less money. If the family you described making 250k+ is having difficulty paying their bills then I would suggest they are generating too many bills and need to reconsider their expenses.

My understanding was this thread was about taxes in general (is it right/justified to tax high income earners more)...

I think people who earn more should pay more. That would be accomplished by a Flat Tax.
(i.e. flat percentage).

Why should they pay a higher percentage on a higher income? That is a compound insult.
... and they will pay more under a Flat Tax.

Why should a person who earns $250K pay a higher percentage than a person earning $225K? The line where the percentage increases is always going to be arbitrary. The net result here is that after a taxes, a person earning $251K will take home less than a person earning $249K?
(Assuming $250 is where the percentage increases.)

How is that fair?

Yes, they would pay more under a flat tax I am not disputing that. The state provides certain mandatory services, these services must be paid by society in order for society to function properly. I think a just society should minimize the burdens to those who already struggling. Therefore the burden of the state(taxes) should primarily fall on those with higher more secure incomes. They should pay a higher rate because they can afford to pay a higher rate.

In the American case I would suggest the state continuing to add to its debt is worse for society than not extending a tax cut for the top 2% of society. The state needs to slay its deficit to do so it needs to both cut its budget and raise income. Reducing state income will be counter productive to the goal of slaying the deficit and reducing debt.

Specifically yes there should some way(and there probably is) of ensuring that those who enter a higher tax bracket make more than they did when they were in the lower tax bracket.

I don't know how the American tax system works.

'nuff said

This is a discussion about taxes in general. Not the specifics of the American system. 'nuff said

Idiot... did you even read what I wrote? Half of the expenses are related to the fact that both parents are working. Please read before commenting.

Excellent rebuttal there Jim . Why is it somehow more expensive for two people who earn a combined income of 250k to work, than two people who earn 50k to work? If it is so difficult/expensive for the couple earning 250k to even make it to work, how the hell does a couple earning 50k(the American median) do it?

Again you failed to read what I wrote. Next time I won't bother replying again... idiot!

I was not comparing the costs of a two-income $250K household to a two-income $50K household. I was comparing the costs of a two-income $250K household to a one-income $250K household. If you read what I wrote you would have understood that.

Why are you comparing apples to oranges? (two income house to 1 income house) maybe they should do away with joint filling of taxes and reflect the reduction in bureaucracy in lower tax rates. These are specifics of the American tax system and not related to the discussion of whether higher income earners should pay a higher rate or not.

Seeing as people earning much less (98%) somehow afford to work and live. I don't think it is the cost of working that is the problem here but expenses of the couple.

This 98% number is bogus. It includes non-tax-payers... people who earn so little that pay no income tax... and/or actually net a positive from the gov't in the form of housing, food stamps, social security, welfare, etc.

I think a better % would factor out those who pay nothing or net a positive from the gov't. They are NOT part of the tax paying public. If you factor that into the equation a $250K household is probably now around 65%... not 98%.

So people who don't pay taxes, aren't people to be counted? Is that what you are saying? someone making more than 250k a year is still making more money than them.

Why shouldn't the poor be included in this discussion? they obviously have an effect on taxes, besides you are proposing taxing them at 15% of their meager earnings.

well for one drastically cutting state revenues means you are drastically increasing the deficit. Rapid heavy cuts to government spending tend to have severe negative consequences its usually a better idea to that type of thing gradually. Government maintains the system which allows for the creation of wealth. Starving it is a bad idea.

You completely ignore the fact that cuts in tax rates can often increase state revenues by increasing wealth creation. I don't think my proposals... being so drastic... would have a net total increase in gov't revenues... but it would not be as drastic as you pretend.

You also completely ignore the idea of actually cutting state spending. It is possible to cut state spending to a point where there is no deficit.

The State maintains the system yes... but it does not create the system. I do not suggest we cut infrastructure... just waste and wealth redistribution.

I don't ingore the idea of cutting state spending. in fact I have stated repeatedly in this thread and in others that the defecit must be slain by a combination of increased revenue and decreased spending.

Yes tax cuts increase wealth generation, however it takes time for that to reflect itself in state revenue. If the state is facing financial problems it is better for both the state and society to maintain tax levels(if not raise them) in order to cut the deficit and state debt. Great cut those things, a progressive tax system is neither.

To me this seems backwards, you would be adding extra burdens to people who already struggle to survive, while at the same time removing services which help them to survive. You would also be removing burdens from people who are already thriving and are most able to shoulder them.

When did it become my job to work so that other people can live?

You know... honestly I am all for helping people who need it. However in my job and in my life I have seen the waste and fraud in gov't and in gov't subsidies. I can give personal real-life examples that I have seen first-hand. I have given these in the past here in CC. Yes I know most public housing is not a walk-in-the-park. That said... I have seen the abuse... and the lack of interest in the administration's part to crack down on the abuse. It is sickening.

I believe in tough-love. When the gov't keeps giving and giving and giving... people will keep taking and taking and taking. Years ago there was a stigma associated with receiving welfare. You had to wait in line... everyone knew... this stigma made you work hard to get off it as soon as possible. Now... you get a debit card in the mail that is automatically filled by the gov't every month. No line waiting, no stigma.

There was a stigma associated with abusing public help... if someone "beat" the system his/her neighbors would look down on that person. Now if a person finds a way to "beat" the system, people slap his back and congratulate him. There are websites that give ideas and tricks on how to get public assistance and set yourself up to get more... with all the tips and tricks to the "beat" the system spelling out in steps.

It's nutty.

It needs to end.

Tough Love... crack down... limit funding... etc.

[/quote]

I agree. Abuses of state benefits need to be reduced and tracked down, they are obviously a problem that must be solved. However the tax rates people pay are not relevant. The sate could provide 0 social programs and still have a progressive tax rate.

A progressive tax rate is about taking a smaller rate from those who earn less and a bigger rate from those who earn more. That's it.

P.S the way you responded made it difficult (in a format sense) to reply.

I was being lazy. Of course, I am not here to make your life easy... so GFY.

Maybe I should reply in Russian? can't read it? tough love!

This seems to be a good summary of your general attitude "this is good for me, everyone else can go to hell"

[Baron Von PWN]

JIMBOSTON ANSWER:
1 - Wealth does not equate to income. The two words a NOT synonymous. Wealth is a possession or a "state of being". Income is a measure of what one EARNS from work, and/or what one "takes in" from other sources... depending how it is being used. The tax code has different rates based on the type of income.
2 - I would define wealth based on a person's or family's ability to lead a "carefree" life. A family that has two breadwinners working 50+ hours a week... who can afford their bills and some luxuries, but has very little savings or retirement is not "wealthy". The family described by me previously could still be living paycheck-to-paycheck... and could be in a situation where they both MUST work in order to pay the mortgage.

I have not and do not suggest that "wealth" in this manner should be the basis of the tax code. The whole term is misused by socialists on the left to work-up their base.

Fine maybe they are not "wealthy" they still earn more than 98% of Americans. There are plenty of people who work just as many hours and face the same problems related to work/a busy life and manage to make ends meet on much less money. If the family you described making 250k+ is having difficulty paying their bills then I would suggest they are generating too many bills and need to reconsider their expenses.

Why should a statistic like their earning more than 98% more than the rest justify taxing them more? Besides, the very few pay for most of the taxes already.

Regarding the underlined, you could say the same about the those who make $30,000 a year, who are struggling to "survive" in this country.

The state is a burden which must be supported. Who is most capable of supporting that burden? The strongest (high income earners). I agree with others that that burden must be reduced, but it is still the strongest that should do most of the lifting.

You could yes.

[rockfist]

If you want more tax brackets at higher incomes, that would be something we definitely agree on. Also, if we could figure out how to get a wealth tax back, I'd like that a lot too (much more than the $250k thing, the Obama cave on the estate tax is what really irks me about that deal) Along with other things, I'm sure.

A wealth tax??? What are we Communists?

[Timminz]

If you want more tax brackets at higher incomes, that would be something we definitely agree on. Also, if we could figure out how to get a wealth tax back, I'd like that a lot too (much more than the $250k thing, the Obama cave on the estate tax is what really irks me about that deal) Along with other things, I'm sure.

A wealth tax??? What are we Communists?

Yup. Have been for almost a decade now. I'm surprised it took you so long to notice.

[spurgistan]

If you want more tax brackets at higher incomes, that would be something we definitely agree on. Also, if we could figure out how to get a wealth tax back, I'd like that a lot too (much more than the $250k thing, the Obama cave on the estate tax is what really irks me about that deal) Along with other things, I'm sure.

A wealth tax??? What are we Communists?

It should probably be less than 100%, but a wealth tax =~ a death tax before you die. Would be harder to avoid by employing thegreekdog.

[tzor]

If you want more tax brackets at higher incomes, that would be something we definitely agree on. Also, if we could figure out how to get a wealth tax back, I'd like that a lot too (much more than the $250k thing, the Obama cave on the estate tax is what really irks me about that deal) Along with other things, I'm sure.

If we assume the current progressive tax system, not only do we need more brackets, but these brackets need to always be adjusted according to either the cost of living or the increase in the overall poverty line. But I still have a fundamental problem with the whole point. I can see why we should tax the poor less (because in part when we tax those we give aid to we are self defeating) but why should the rich be taxed “relatively” more in the first place? Why do I (or anyone else) under whatever name they please (in this case the “government” … but we are the government so it’s still us) have the right to steal from anyone, for no matter what cause or sentiment? When does the ends justify the means?

The whole premise is at fault, those who make a lot of money (not to be confused with the rich; the real rich are known by their assets not their incomes; the real filthy rich don’t need to actually have an income) are no less deserving of the fruits of their labours than those who make only modest amounts. As much as we try to demonize them, as much as I screamed at him for the lack of production in the last season, Derek Jeter is neither evil, nor demonic, nor somehow worthy of being robbed by anyone, especially we the people of the United States (who, in order to form a more perfect union, established a constitution).

Having a rich tax makes no sense; it is a joke of sorts. It is a cruel notion from one people of power (politicians) to oppress another person of power (those with large assets who … don’t they fund politicians … but I digress). How can we say “you can earn this much but no higher?” Who the hell are we to justify the theft of anyone?

We are in the Christmas season, so we need to remember rich Scrooge. While he had to have his ass handed to him by three spirits, it was not the government who forced him to be generous. The government cannot force morality upon the people (remember prohibition) and nor can they force such generosity among the rich, for it only makes everyone else poorer.

[DangerBoy]

Having a rich tax makes no sense; it is a joke of sorts. It is a cruel notion from one people of power (politicians) to oppress another person of power (those with large assets who … don’t they fund politicians … but I digress). How can we say “you can earn this much but no higher?” Who the hell are we to justify the theft of anyone?

Still relevant