Do You Think The Rich Should Be Taxed More?

[PoliTalker]

Hello Flash,

What percent of all federal income taxes do you think would be fair for the top 0.1% to pay? (You can set their tax rate based on that amount).

The reason for setting tax policy is not to 'be fair to the top 0.1%.'

The nation simply could not be as great as it is unless we tax the rich more.

I have calculated that it would be possible to begin paying down the debt if we took back the recent pentagon spending and set the top rate at 50%. I have shown my math here. I have yet to see anyone dispute it.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Hello Flash,



The reason for setting tax policy is not to 'be fair to the top 0.1%.'

The nation simply could not be as great as it is unless we tax the rich more.

I have calculated that it would be possible to begin paying down the debt if we took back the recent pentagon spending and set the top rate at 50%. I have shown my math here. I have yet to see anyone dispute it.

Here is what Donald Trump proposed back a few decades:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/09/trump.rich/index.html

 

[Flash]

Hello Flash,



The reason for setting tax policy is not to 'be fair to the top 0.1%.'

The nation simply could not be as great as it is unless we tax the rich more.

I have calculated that it would be possible to begin paying down the debt if we took back the recent pentagon spending and set the top rate at 50%. I have shown my math here. I have yet to see anyone dispute it.

We should be fair to every group including the top 0.1% (that pay 39% of all federal income tax). I don't think anybody should have to pay 40% or more in income taxes. There seems to be an anti-wealthy attitude by some affecting their views on taxation.

I read your calculations but I am still mulling it over (not sure I am grasping each step).

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Flash,

We should be fair to every group including the top 0.1% (that pay 39% of all federal income tax). I don't think anybody should have to pay 40% or more in income taxes. There seems to be an anti-wealthy attitude by some affecting their views on taxation.

No. It cannot be approached that way. 'Being fair' does smack right up against the idea of progressive taxation.

I read your calculations but I am still mulling it over (not sure I am grasping each step).

It's really quite simple. It considers the revenue vs the spending.

If the spending remains on the same trajectory, then it can be calculated how much more revenue would be required of each tax bracket in order to surpass the deficit. The example assumes that no more revenue is collected from any bracket except the top. Even with only changing the top bracket, it only has to go to 50% to generate enough revenue to eliminate the deficit.

The problem is the people who would have to vote for that answer to that very bracket.

This is the bracket which earns over $250K individual or $500K couple. Man, if you can't put together a nice life for that then you are doing something wrong.

It all boils down to this. There is an amount which we need to be taxing the rich at, which would cover the budget and balance it, eliminating the deficit. It is within reach, but we refuse to do that. We spin it 6 ways to Sunday, but the bottom line is we can afford to do this if we tax the rich more, they can afford it, it would not impact their lifestyle one bit, but we refuse to do it.

Hey, I heard a good one the other day:

"If you are making less than $100K and voting Republican you're a fool."

I think there's merit to that.

 

[Nordberg]

I suspect there will always be the rich. ALWAYS. Some people are simply more clever than others...and DESERVE to be richer. The person who invented the wheel; who first discovered the value of tamed fire; who devised the bow and arrow...deserved to be the richest people on Earth at their time.



You may well be correct, Flash. That same thing may have been true in late 18th century France...and early 20th century Russia...

...BUT sometimes the rich do not want to cooperate...and the bloody path, while less accomplishing, becomes the one preferred.

I want to see it be peaceful...and I want to see capitalism (albeit modified) be at the fore. I want that very much.

But I want to see the problem handled before it becomes critical. If it becomes critical first...blood will flow in ways that will make the "France and Russia" things look like playground games.

LAST THOUGHT: We may already be at critical mass. Americans are willing to see the danger of third world wages on employment and labor costs here...but seem unwilling to take into account that our technology will soon make "third world wages" seem prohibitively high.

When Teddy Roosevelt was starting the inheritance tax, he said nobody begrudges a man with a great idea from making a great fortune. It is the passing along great fortunes through time that are dangerous to the American system.

The fortunes passed along are different in kind than a fortune earned. Money = power. We are building a elite ownership, elite class that is grabbing more power from the people.

This is no accident.The wealthy are using their money and influence to create a ruling class. And Republicans are the mechanism for the creation of the plutocracy. And that is what Trump is doing every day that he is not golfing.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Nordberg,

When Teddy Roosevelt was starting the inheritance tax, he said nobody begrudges a man with a great idea from making a great fortune. It is the passing along great fortunes through time that are dangerous to the American system.

The fortunes passed along are different in kind than a fortune earned. Money = power. We are building a elite ownership, elite class that is grabbing more power from the people.

This is no accident.The wealthy are using their money and influence to create a ruling class. And Republicans are the mechanism for the creation of the plutocracy. And that is what Trump is doing every day that he is not golfing.

There is a certain amount of money which allows it's owner to be free of working. Once this amount of money is acquired through any means, the owner is freed from the constraints of having to work most of their hours just to pay for life. This amount of money is defined as the amount which generates enough interest for the owner to be able to afford everything needed by only spending the interest, and not spending down the principle. As long as the owner spends less than is received in interest, the principle continues to grow.

The figure naturally depends on the cost of the the lifestyle the owner chooses to live. An expensive lifestyle would require a greater principle than a modest one.

When an individual inherits a figure this large, working takes on a different meaning for them than it means to most people.

The rich, who are above this figure, look at life from a different perspective than most. Most people, if they reach this magic figure, only do so after working most of their life. Most people never actually do reach this figure, but if they manage to do it, they have already gained all the wisdom life is going to give them.

Heirs who inherit this figure at a young age have no such wisdom. But they have been bequeathed with tremendous power. That strikes me as a dangerous situation.

I would agree with Roosevelt.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Hello Nordberg,




There is a certain amount of money which allows it's owner to be free of working. Once this amount of money is acquired through any means, the owner is freed from the constraints of having to work most of their hours just to pay for life. This amount of money is defined as the amount which generates enough interest for the owner to be able to afford everything needed by only spending the interest, and not spending down the principle. As long as the owner spends less than is received in interest, the principle continues to grow.

The figure naturally depends on the cost of the the lifestyle the owner chooses to live. An expensive lifestyle would require a greater principle than a modest one.

When an individual inherits a figure this large, working takes on a different meaning for them than it means to most people.

The rich, who are above this figure, look at life from a different perspective than most. Most people, if they reach this magic figure, only do so after working most of their life. Most people never actually do reach this figure, but if they manage to do it, they have already gained all the wisdom life is going to give them.

Heirs who inherit this figure at a young age have no such wisdom. But they have been bequeathed with tremendous power. That strikes me as a dangerous situation.

I would agree with Roosevelt.

Everything you said, Poli...PLUS...

...we have entered a state of affairs here in America (perhaps in the entire world) where being #1 has become so important...it becomes an end unto itself.

When the object of the reach for #1...is to be the wealthiest person on the planet...or as high up on the list as possible...

...huge dangers erupt.

Means no longer becomes as important as ends.

And the problem seems to transcend the available economic systems...with people like Bill Gates in competition with Vladimir Putin.

The basic systems have to change...

...and the mind set has to change every bit as much.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Frank,

Very true.

Here's more:

Some are very responsible with big money and use it for good.

Others simply want it; but they don't have any idea what to do with it. They never thought that far. They just want it because they think it will make their life better. What this type often finds, and you can see this commonality in both Trump and Putin, is that it makes their life a living hell and happiness is the furthest thing from their lives.

Here is the truth. Happiness is only linked to the amount of money you have in one way. If you don't have enough to be able to enjoy your life because your whole life is dedicated to survival then more money will ease your stress and allow happiness to enter. Money doesn't buy happiness. What it buys can ease stress, yes, but having lots of money is very stressful as well, so beyond a certain amount, more money may actually contribute to more unhappiness.

Once one has achieved enough wealth to be lacking for needs, one is as happy as one is going to get. More wealth above that figure doesn't result in more happiness.

Happiness is up to the individual involved and how they perceive the world and interact with others.

Money could be used to further an education and become more understanding about the world, but few use an education for that. Mostly, higher education is used to gain qualifications to become richer.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Hello Frank,

Very true.

Here's more:

Some are very responsible with big money and use it for good.

Others simply want it; but they don't have any idea what to do with it. They never thought that far. They just want it because they think it will make their life better. What this type often finds, and you can see this commonality in both Trump and Putin, is that it makes their life a living hell and happiness is the furthest thing from their lives.

Here is the truth. Happiness is only linked to the amount of money you have in one way. If you don't have enough to be able to enjoy your life because your whole life is dedicated to survival then more money will ease your stress and allow happiness to enter. Money doesn't buy happiness. What it buys can ease stress, yes, but having lots of money is very stressful as well, so beyond a certain amount, more money may actually contribute to more unhappiness.

Once one has achieved enough wealth to be lacking for needs, one is as happy as one is going to get. More wealth above that figure doesn't result in more happiness.

Happiness is up to the individual involved and how they perceive the world and interact with others.

Money could be used to further an education and become more understanding about the world, but few use an education for that. Mostly, higher education is used to gain qualifications to become richer.

If only more people could grok that, Poli!

 

[Nordberg]

We should be fair to every group including the top 0.1% (that pay 39% of all federal income tax). I don't think anybody should have to pay 40% or more in income taxes. There seems to be an anti-wealthy attitude by some affecting their views on taxation.

I read your calculations but I am still mulling it over (not sure I am grasping each step).

The fact that the rich are paying nearly half the taxes collected, does not mean they are getting unfairly burdened. Their tax rates have been slashed over and over since Ikes time. That they are paying a big chunk tells you how much wealth they have piled up. It is only a clear depiction of the wealth gap.

 

[Flash]

The fact that the rich are paying nearly half the taxes collected, does not mean they are getting unfairly burdened. Their tax rates have been slashed over and over since Ikes time. That they are paying a big chunk tells you how much wealth they have piled up. It is only a clear depiction of the wealth gap.

Yes, that sounds fair to be. They make the most money and pay the most taxes. They are the only group that pays a larger percentage in taxes than their share of the income. Calling for higher taxes on one is what would be unfair. The marginal tax rates have been slashed since Ike but the effective tax rate is not very different. We don't need to raise anybody's taxes until we cut much of the waste from government programs--hundreds of millions in Social Security to deceased, $60 billion in Medicare waste and fraud, many millions in Pell Grants to students who never attend class or who are paid to sign up for the private for-profit colleges. Taxpayers should not have to pay for this.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Flash,

Yes, that sounds fair to be. They make the most money and pay the most taxes. They are the only group that pays a larger percentage in taxes than their share of the income. Calling for higher taxes on one is what would be unfair. The marginal tax rates have been slashed since Ike but the effective tax rate is not very different. We don't need to raise anybody's taxes until we cut much of the waste from government programs--hundreds of millions in Social Security to deceased, $60 billion in Medicare waste and fraud, many millions in Pell Grants to students who never attend class or who are paid to sign up for the private for-profit colleges. Taxpayers should not have to pay for this.

This type of fraud and waste does not add up to a great percentage of the federal budget. I agree these things should be eliminated, but that is not going to balance the budget. The only way to balance the budget without causing a tremendous negative impact on the economy is to tax the rich more. We did it before and the middle class was stronger then.

 

[Nordberg]

Yes, that sounds fair to be. They make the most money and pay the most taxes. They are the only group that pays a larger percentage in taxes than their share of the income. Calling for higher taxes on one is what would be unfair. The marginal tax rates have been slashed since Ike but the effective tax rate is not very different. We don't need to raise anybody's taxes until we cut much of the waste from government programs--hundreds of millions in Social Security to deceased, $60 billion in Medicare waste and fraud, many millions in Pell Grants to students who never attend class or who are paid to sign up for the private for-profit colleges. Taxpayers should not have to pay for this.

Many incredibly profitable corporations pay no taxes. Many rich people, like trump pay none. Trump bragged about it saying is showed how smart he is. He was running for president and was proud of not paying for the military or the infrastructure. That was OK for the rightys.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Hello Flash,



This type of fraud and waste does not add up to a great percentage of the federal budget. I agree these things should be eliminated, but that is not going to balance the budget. The only way to balance the budget without causing a tremendous negative impact on the economy is to tax the rich more. We did it before and the middle class was stronger then.

No matter how great a percentage it is...doing away with it is probably not a great idea anyway.

Most of the spending that CAN BE eliminated...is the kind of spending that would simply be taken out of the economy...and not replaced with private spending of a similar kind.

Tightening the belt is not the roadway to solving the problems we face.

 

[Flash]

Many incredibly profitable corporations pay no taxes. Many rich people, like trump pay none. Trump bragged about it saying is showed how smart he is. He was running for president and was proud of not paying for the military or the infrastructure. That was OK for the rightys.

The right and left support anything their candidate/side does. Usually a corporation pays no taxes when it makes no profit, but because some don't pay taxes is not justification to raise taxes on others; instead, it means the tax laws should be revised. While some rich people pay no taxes other rich people pay most of our taxes.

Effective Tax Rate: Income, Payroll, Corporate, Excise
Top 20%=22.4%
Bottom 20%=1.5%

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Frank,

No matter how great a percentage it is...doing away with it [gov spending] is probably not a great idea anyway.

Most of the spending that CAN BE eliminated...is the kind of spending that would simply be taken out of the economy...and not replaced with private spending of a similar kind.

Tightening the belt is not the roadway to solving the problems we face.

Agreed.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Flash,

The right and left support anything their candidate/side does. Usually a corporation pays no taxes when it makes no profit, but because some don't pay taxes is not justification to raise taxes on others; instead, it means the tax laws should be revised. While some rich people pay no taxes other rich people pay most of our taxes.

Effective Tax Rate: Income, Payroll, Corporate, Excise
Top 20%=22.4%
Bottom 20%=1.5%

If you are arguing against progressive taxation you'll have a tough sell. Even Republicans in Congress are not ready for a flat tax.

Since there is no way the poor can pay any more, the only way to achieve a flat tax would be to reduce everybody else's tax rate to match that of the poor. Everybody would like that, except it would quickly send the US debt into orbit, crash our credit rating, and cause worldwide market meltdowns since the dollar is the world standard.

I would not advise that.

But, just for academic sake, let's say that could be done and not cause an instant worldwide recession/depression. It would generate far too little revenue. Virtually everything the government does would have to be ended. No government assistance programs, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaide, none of that would exist. Our nation would be reduced to lots of dirty beggars on the streets.

Not a good idea. All those programs are what separates us from (in the President's terms,) "S-hole countries." Those things are part of what makes America great. Without them we can't be great.

Progressive taxation is the only way America can be great.

 

[Flash]

No matter how great a percentage it is...doing away with it is probably not a great idea anyway.

Most of the spending that CAN BE eliminated...is the kind of spending that would simply be taken out of the economy...and not replaced with private spending of a similar kind.

Tightening the belt is not the roadway to solving the problems we face.

Tightening the belt has been the traditional way to combat inflation during full employment and rising interest rates. You are saying it is better for a working class guy to work everyday to pay taxes for programs that are full of waste and fraud because that money is going into the economy. First, they had to borrow much of that money and pay interest on it. More money would go into the economy if that working class guy was relieved of those taxes and spent it directly in the economy.

 

[Nordberg]

The right and left support anything their candidate/side does. Usually a corporation pays no taxes when it makes no profit, but because some don't pay taxes is not justification to raise taxes on others; instead, it means the tax laws should be revised. While some rich people pay no taxes other rich people pay most of our taxes.

Effective Tax Rate: Income, Payroll, Corporate, Excise
Top 20%=22.4%
Bottom 20%=1.5%

Hillary released 30 years of taxes. Every Dem released theirs. Trump chastised Romney when he held back.. Then he released nothing and his followers were fine with that.

I pointed out that the corps were extremely profitable.https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...-profitable-companies-paid-no-taxes/81399094/

 

[Flash]

Hello Flash,



If you are arguing against progressive taxation you'll have a tough sell. Even Republicans in Congress are not ready for a flat tax.

Since there is no way the poor can pay any more, the only way to achieve a flat tax would be to reduce everybody else's tax rate to match that of the poor. Everybody would like that, except it would quickly send the US debt into orbit, crash our credit rating, and cause worldwide market meltdowns since the dollar is the world standard.

I would not advise that.

But, just for academic sake, let's say that could be done and not cause an instant worldwide recession/depression. It would generate far too little revenue. Virtually everything the government does would have to be ended. No government assistance programs, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaide, none of that would exist. Our nation would be reduced to lots of dirty beggars on the streets.

Not a good idea. All those programs are what separates us from (in the President's terms,) "S-hole countries." Those things are part of what makes America great. Without them we can't be great.

Progressive taxation is the only way America can be great.

I'm not arguing against progressive taxation. I'm saying it already is very progressive and is fair as it is without raising taxes on anybody.

Making everybody pay the same tax rate as the poor is not the only way to achieve a flat tax. Proposals introduced in the past have been, for example, a 17% tax on all income above $50,000. Those below that figure pay no federal income taxes. I think the 17% was to make it revenue neutral.

No government assistance programs would be ended by eliminating waste and fraud from those programs (and the military). And I'm not suggesting it would eliminate the deficit. If people must pay taxes it would be much more fair to have them pay only for programs that don't waste money and make others rich.

We had a chiropractor who sent a bus around poor neighborhoods to pick up children after school to bring to his office to play video games and eat hamburgers. While there, he gave them all back adjustments and charged Medicaid and was making millions. It was not clear he was actually breaking any law.