I'm more concerned about the total economy than what Hillary or Trump did with their personal taxes. If you could get back 100% of the taxes you paid by taking legal deductions, would you do so?
Do You Think The Rich Should Be Taxed More?
- Thread starter PoliTalker
- Start date
I'm more concerned about the total economy than what Hillary or Trump did with their personal taxes. If you could get back 100% of the taxes you paid by taking legal deductions, would you do so?
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
You have not demonstrated that those programs are full of waste and fraud. Figures have been given in terms of dollars, not percentage of the entire program. I think you will find waste and fraud to actually be quite low. Which means it is inaccurate to say the programs are full of waste and fraud.
You have not demonstrated that those programs are full of waste and fraud. Figures have been given in terms of dollars, not percentage of the entire program. I think you will find waste and fraud to actually be quite low. Which means it is inaccurate to say the programs are full of waste and fraud.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
I'm sure a lot of people, particularly the rich, think it is fair now. Of course, after a while they will begin arguing for more tax cuts as they always do. but now they are saying the tax rate is ideal. And why wouldn't they? They are all enjoying more after-tax wealth.
I would say it is not fair at all. It is and never was intended to be fair to everybody. It should be what works to pay our bills. Nobody likes paying bills but we all have to do it. Our problem is we are not paying our bills. We are charging them to our children's future.
Does that make any sense?
We are charging our bills to our children's future. Our children must pay our bills or THEY will be screwed. We are selfishly spending what THEY have not even earned yet. And there is no reason that we have to do this. We do this as the richest among us rake in more wealth at a nearly unprecedented rate. There is almost a directly inverse ratio between the wealth if the richest Americans, and the debt of the nation. Both are growing at rates which mirror one another. On the plus side is the massive private wealth if the USA. On the negative side is the now out-of-control debt of the USA. We have no realistic plan to reduce the debt, much less even to slow down how fast it is growing. And we do this as the richest continue to rake in the cash during a strong economy.
Man, if you can't reduce the debt when things are going well, you're NEVER going to be able to do it during a recession.
No. This tax rate is not fair. It is not fair to our descendants.
That's not really a flat rate.
Agreed. But once again, since you agree the amount of waste and fraud does not equal the deficit, then you must also agree that the revenue is insufficient to pay the bills. We should not be borrowing for normal planned spending.
Very clever, but a one time thing. Such creative methods of gaming the system will always be erupting. It is the job of regulators and Congress to take action to deal with this type of predictable behavior and shut it down wherever it appears.
I'm sure a lot of people, particularly the rich, think it is fair now. Of course, after a while they will begin arguing for more tax cuts as they always do. but now they are saying the tax rate is ideal. And why wouldn't they? They are all enjoying more after-tax wealth.
I would say it is not fair at all. It is and never was intended to be fair to everybody. It should be what works to pay our bills. Nobody likes paying bills but we all have to do it. Our problem is we are not paying our bills. We are charging them to our children's future.
Does that make any sense?
We are charging our bills to our children's future. Our children must pay our bills or THEY will be screwed. We are selfishly spending what THEY have not even earned yet. And there is no reason that we have to do this. We do this as the richest among us rake in more wealth at a nearly unprecedented rate. There is almost a directly inverse ratio between the wealth if the richest Americans, and the debt of the nation. Both are growing at rates which mirror one another. On the plus side is the massive private wealth if the USA. On the negative side is the now out-of-control debt of the USA. We have no realistic plan to reduce the debt, much less even to slow down how fast it is growing. And we do this as the richest continue to rake in the cash during a strong economy.
Man, if you can't reduce the debt when things are going well, you're NEVER going to be able to do it during a recession.
No. This tax rate is not fair. It is not fair to our descendants.
That's not really a flat rate.
Agreed. But once again, since you agree the amount of waste and fraud does not equal the deficit, then you must also agree that the revenue is insufficient to pay the bills. We should not be borrowing for normal planned spending.
Very clever, but a one time thing. Such creative methods of gaming the system will always be erupting. It is the job of regulators and Congress to take action to deal with this type of predictable behavior and shut it down wherever it appears.
I'm not sure anybody knows although there are probably estimates. It is certainly hundreds of billions. The Inspector General identified $137 billion in improper payments (the largest amount to EITC). Other Inspector General reports find hundreds of millions in Afghanistan and Iraq reconstruction projects and other spending. Although it might not be a large percent of the budget, there is no reason to burden people with more taxes while hundreds of billions is wasted. Consolidating some programs would be more efficient with 130 programs for the disabled, 50 homeless assistance programs, 342 economic assistance programs, etc.
Reforming Medicare and Social Security spending could save hundreds of billions. 70% of Americans retire before their full retirement age (66) which costs the SS system many billions--end early retirement or raise the age from 62 to 65. There is no reason for people working full time making good money to collect their full SS benefit.
Last edited:
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
Actually, yes there is. The reason is reality. In the perfect world, there is no reason for fraud and waste, and the perfect government spends every single penny for wonderful things that we all like.
But we don't live in the perfect world, and it is unrealistic to expect our government to be perfect. The government employs millions of people, and the odds are that some of them are going to waste money and allow abuse. Some will even rip us off. We already do what we can to minimize this, but it is unrealistic to expect perfect results.
Yes, it would, but once again we don't get everything we want or would like. And we don't get to reinvent the government from the bottom up with every new administration. These programs came about at different times for different reasons. We can't just chuck them all and start over without leaving a lot of people hanging and laying off millions of government workers. It's wonderful that you can see how things should be but I think it is unrealistic to expect all that to suddenly change at the snap of a finger.
I disagree with that. Ever hear of age discrimination? It happens all the time. Somebody puts in decades of good work for an employer, rises to the top of their field, gets within striking distance of the retirement finish line and what happens? They get laid off. And the odds are they will not be able to find a comparable job with another employer at that point. We all know why they got laid off. The employer can replace them with a younger worker for far less cost.
That laid off old person needs more work to finish off their working career, but whatever they find is not going to pay as much as they previously got. If they have earned enough credits to qualify for Social Security and they elect to begin receiving benefits, their check is smaller than it would be if they wait until full retirement age. And their check never goes up after they do reach that age, or for the rest of their life. All they would get would be COLA adjustments from that point on. If they hold out, they get the larger check for the rest of their life. It's a big difference and every SS recipient has to decide for them self when to begin collecting benefits.
Also, if they are working and collecting at the same time, their social security benefit can be further reduced lower than it would be if they are not working.
And guess what else?
People have to pay income tax on their Social Security income. That's right. After paying in their whole life, there is no tax break for being retired. Retired people on a fixed income pay at the same rates as everybody else.
Actually, yes there is. The reason is reality. In the perfect world, there is no reason for fraud and waste, and the perfect government spends every single penny for wonderful things that we all like.
But we don't live in the perfect world, and it is unrealistic to expect our government to be perfect. The government employs millions of people, and the odds are that some of them are going to waste money and allow abuse. Some will even rip us off. We already do what we can to minimize this, but it is unrealistic to expect perfect results.
Yes, it would, but once again we don't get everything we want or would like. And we don't get to reinvent the government from the bottom up with every new administration. These programs came about at different times for different reasons. We can't just chuck them all and start over without leaving a lot of people hanging and laying off millions of government workers. It's wonderful that you can see how things should be but I think it is unrealistic to expect all that to suddenly change at the snap of a finger.
I disagree with that. Ever hear of age discrimination? It happens all the time. Somebody puts in decades of good work for an employer, rises to the top of their field, gets within striking distance of the retirement finish line and what happens? They get laid off. And the odds are they will not be able to find a comparable job with another employer at that point. We all know why they got laid off. The employer can replace them with a younger worker for far less cost.
That laid off old person needs more work to finish off their working career, but whatever they find is not going to pay as much as they previously got. If they have earned enough credits to qualify for Social Security and they elect to begin receiving benefits, their check is smaller than it would be if they wait until full retirement age. And their check never goes up after they do reach that age, or for the rest of their life. All they would get would be COLA adjustments from that point on. If they hold out, they get the larger check for the rest of their life. It's a big difference and every SS recipient has to decide for them self when to begin collecting benefits.
Also, if they are working and collecting at the same time, their social security benefit can be further reduced lower than it would be if they are not working.
And guess what else?
People have to pay income tax on their Social Security income. That's right. After paying in their whole life, there is no tax break for being retired. Retired people on a fixed income pay at the same rates as everybody else.
Government and employees cannot be perfect but program funding can be established using good practices so there is not an incentive for government agencies to spnd more money because it increases their budget.
You are right, we do not get everything we want or would like, and that includes increasing taxes. So, we neither get what we want.
Age discrimination is why we have civil rights laws. But for those who choose to retire early (70%) they are already accepting lower SS payments when they make that choice--so what you say would happen is already happening. That means age discrimination for those 62 is a moot question if they have already retired.
If you are full retirement age you can collect full SS benefits without it being further reduced. It used to be age 70 before you could collect full SS without a penalty. That was changed to full retirement age; an example of the increased number of benefits/beneficiaries Congress has passed over the years that has created financial problems for SS.
I am aware of the taxation of SS benefits. It was established at 50% under Reagan and increased to 85% under Clinton. Those higher taxes should make you happy.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
It is not a matter of what I want. Personally I would like to pay no taxes at all. I already know I can't have that. I am being unpleasantly responsible about this in advocating that we collect more revenue. If I don't advocate for that, who will? If we left matters up to your side, how would the debt ever be paid down?
It is a matter of doing the responsible thing for the country, and that means collecting enough taxes to pay for what we spend. There is simply no way around it. We need to collect more taxes and that needs to come from the rich. If you are defending low taxes for the rich I have to ask why? Are you rich and selfish?
Why do you not believe we should collect enough revenue to pay for what we spent? We've already spent what we've spent. Are you not responsible enough to pay for what you spend? You are an American, right? This is your country, right? Why do you think the math does not apply?
We who are paying taxes right now have this big debt because those who went before us shirked their duty and didn't pay for what they spent. We are doing the same exact thing, except to a greater extent and passing the bill along to the young. How do you justify that when the current economy allows us to do something about it? How do you justify that when we know that it cannot be done during a recession? We have it good now. Now is the time to pay down the debt. Why are we raiding the cookie jar now? Totally irresponsible.
It is not a matter of what I want. Personally I would like to pay no taxes at all. I already know I can't have that. I am being unpleasantly responsible about this in advocating that we collect more revenue. If I don't advocate for that, who will? If we left matters up to your side, how would the debt ever be paid down?
It is a matter of doing the responsible thing for the country, and that means collecting enough taxes to pay for what we spend. There is simply no way around it. We need to collect more taxes and that needs to come from the rich. If you are defending low taxes for the rich I have to ask why? Are you rich and selfish?
Why do you not believe we should collect enough revenue to pay for what we spent? We've already spent what we've spent. Are you not responsible enough to pay for what you spend? You are an American, right? This is your country, right? Why do you think the math does not apply?
We who are paying taxes right now have this big debt because those who went before us shirked their duty and didn't pay for what they spent. We are doing the same exact thing, except to a greater extent and passing the bill along to the young. How do you justify that when the current economy allows us to do something about it? How do you justify that when we know that it cannot be done during a recession? We have it good now. Now is the time to pay down the debt. Why are we raiding the cookie jar now? Totally irresponsible.
Mason Michaels
Verified User
Party line all the way!If only it worked like that!
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello and greetings iolo,
No, that is a bad idea because it removes the incentive to be any more creative than average. It would be an example of too much socialism.
Capitalism and socialism must be properly mixed for our best economic health.
The rich should be taxed more than everyone else, but not so much that they are no longer rich.
The rich are so rich, there is plenty of room to increase their taxes without causing them to be of average wealth.
No, that is a bad idea because it removes the incentive to be any more creative than average. It would be an example of too much socialism.
Capitalism and socialism must be properly mixed for our best economic health.
The rich should be taxed more than everyone else, but not so much that they are no longer rich.
The rich are so rich, there is plenty of room to increase their taxes without causing them to be of average wealth.
There are times I think the progressive tax...should not be based on income (as in "income tax") at all...but rather on accumulated wealth.
Not sure how that would work...or even if it would work.
But somehow, the method for the DISTRIBUTION of our immense wealth has got to be changed so that basic needs like food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education, transportation, communication...and a modicum of recreation...BE MET FOR EVERYONE.
After that...everyone can go after the excess wealth (OF WHICH THERE WILL BE PLENTY) the way people have always gone after it...by EARNING IT, stealing it, cheating others out of it, marrying into it...etc.
Not sure how that would work...or even if it would work.
But somehow, the method for the DISTRIBUTION of our immense wealth has got to be changed so that basic needs like food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education, transportation, communication...and a modicum of recreation...BE MET FOR EVERYONE.
After that...everyone can go after the excess wealth (OF WHICH THERE WILL BE PLENTY) the way people have always gone after it...by EARNING IT, stealing it, cheating others out of it, marrying into it...etc.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
The net value of accumulated wealth in the USA is 4 times the amount of the federal debt.
If we were to aggressively go after net wealth, the debt could be paid off right now.
All debts, public and private, could be paid off instantly.
There is that much wealth in the USA.
If we were to aggressively go after net wealth, the debt could be paid off right now.
All debts, public and private, could be paid off instantly.
There is that much wealth in the USA.
I am also concerned about the future. However, if we raised taxes every time government wanted more money it would never stop. We are in this situation because spending increased at a faster rate than revenue. We need to reduce spending and reform entitlements which are growing at a faster rate than revenue.
I would have been happy without the Bush tax cuts and did not think Obama should have extended them. I like it when most Americans pay some income taxes to contribute to our nation even if it is a small amount. But the Bush-Obama tax cuts virtually eliminated all income taxes for the bottom 40%. If people get back everything they paid in plus several thousand in EITC they don't care how much taxes are and are happy to have the rich pay for everything.
My solution is keep taxes at a higher rate for all plus cut spending, not just increase both spending and taxes. I think eliminating the deficit is unrealistic, paying down any debt impossible. Like the WWII debt, we just have to increase the GDP at a faster rate so the debt becomes relatively smaller.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
The government is always going to increasing spending. This is partly because the population increases, and also because people and new technology constantly create new problems which required spending to deal with.
Not true. It is two fold. Spending has increased as expected, but revenue has been proportionally cut as taxes have been cut. It's too easy to campaign on the ever popular cutting taxes platform, and voters are too gullible to resist. That is way to irresponsible a method to seat a Congress which will balance the budget.
No, we need to continue to take care of the needy. We need to tax the rich more to do that because the class war they wage produces more needy.
It is ridiculous to tax the people who are on government assistance which is being paid for by taxes. What do we do? Put a dollar in their hand but don't remove our grasp? Tell them you can look at it for a moment before we take it back? What is the point?
A better solution is to raise taxes drastically on the rich. Less economic impact, and it taxes those who benefit the most from the economy and crony capitalism.
That is a most realistic approach. It is healthy for the USA to carry some debt as long as the debt to GDP ratio is not too high (which it currently is.)
The government is always going to increasing spending. This is partly because the population increases, and also because people and new technology constantly create new problems which required spending to deal with.
Not true. It is two fold. Spending has increased as expected, but revenue has been proportionally cut as taxes have been cut. It's too easy to campaign on the ever popular cutting taxes platform, and voters are too gullible to resist. That is way to irresponsible a method to seat a Congress which will balance the budget.
No, we need to continue to take care of the needy. We need to tax the rich more to do that because the class war they wage produces more needy.
It is ridiculous to tax the people who are on government assistance which is being paid for by taxes. What do we do? Put a dollar in their hand but don't remove our grasp? Tell them you can look at it for a moment before we take it back? What is the point?
A better solution is to raise taxes drastically on the rich. Less economic impact, and it taxes those who benefit the most from the economy and crony capitalism.
That is a most realistic approach. It is healthy for the USA to carry some debt as long as the debt to GDP ratio is not too high (which it currently is.)
No, not those on assistance, but those working. A family can make up to $53,930 and get up to $6,318 in EITC and owe no federal taxes. That family can afford to pay $100 in income taxes; especially if they receive an additional $10,000-20,000 more in sources which do not count toward income for EITC--child support, SS, retirement income, alimony.
The problem that has to be solved...is NEVER going to be solved by an adjustment to tax policy.
We have to conceive of the problem NOT as "how do we pay for it"...but rather "how do we devise a means of distribution that works."
WE HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH TO INSURE THAT EVERYONE HAS SUFFICIENT.
If we give more and more work over to the machines (which are much more productive)...we will end up with enough to insure that everyone has PLENTY.
If we keep insisting that the problem is "how do we pay for it"...the problem becomes unsolvable.
We can't.
Not the way things are set up now.
The poor CANNOT pay more.
The rich ARE NOT GOING to pay more.
The middle class is soon going to become extinct.
The "guaranteed basic income" is a way of conceiving of "how do we distribute what we have more than enough of?"
And the great part of conceiving of it the new way is...the rich do not have to stop being rich. Everyone can have sufficient...everyone can have plenty...
...and the rich can still be rich.
Think about it.
We have to conceive of the problem NOT as "how do we pay for it"...but rather "how do we devise a means of distribution that works."
WE HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH TO INSURE THAT EVERYONE HAS SUFFICIENT.
If we give more and more work over to the machines (which are much more productive)...we will end up with enough to insure that everyone has PLENTY.
If we keep insisting that the problem is "how do we pay for it"...the problem becomes unsolvable.
We can't.
Not the way things are set up now.
The poor CANNOT pay more.
The rich ARE NOT GOING to pay more.
The middle class is soon going to become extinct.
The "guaranteed basic income" is a way of conceiving of "how do we distribute what we have more than enough of?"
And the great part of conceiving of it the new way is...the rich do not have to stop being rich. Everyone can have sufficient...everyone can have plenty...
...and the rich can still be rich.
Think about it.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
That family would be required to report all those other sources of income as taxable income and pay appropriate tax on them. Their tax is not figured only on work salary. Their gross income before taxes and deductions would include those additional sources of income.
Why not just reduce the EITC by the same amount? Because it is absurd to give them something and then demand it back.
And why should we expect this obviously struggling family to give up some of the government assistance we have already decided to provide to them? That's no way to be balancing the federal budget after we just cut taxes on some of the richest people in the country. The recent tax cut is expected to save the average top 0.1% income $193,000 per year. Saves the top 1% $51,000, and $7,600 for the top 20%.
And you would take from entire families trying to live a whole year on what some of the rich would save. Makes no sense. Sounds like cruel old scrooge.
That family would be required to report all those other sources of income as taxable income and pay appropriate tax on them. Their tax is not figured only on work salary. Their gross income before taxes and deductions would include those additional sources of income.
Why not just reduce the EITC by the same amount? Because it is absurd to give them something and then demand it back.
And why should we expect this obviously struggling family to give up some of the government assistance we have already decided to provide to them? That's no way to be balancing the federal budget after we just cut taxes on some of the richest people in the country. The recent tax cut is expected to save the average top 0.1% income $193,000 per year. Saves the top 1% $51,000, and $7,600 for the top 20%.
And you would take from entire families trying to live a whole year on what some of the rich would save. Makes no sense. Sounds like cruel old scrooge.
No, that is not earned income:
"No, for purposes of calculating the earned income credit, child support isn't considered earned income.
Examples of items that aren't earned income include interest and dividends, pensions and annuities, social security and railroad retirement benefits (including disability benefits), alimony and child support, welfare benefits, workers' compensation benefits, unemployment compensation (insurance), nontaxable foster care payments, and veterans' benefits, including VA rehabilitation payments. Don't include any of these items in your earned income." [irs]
That would be good, just reduce their EITC by $100-200. $53,930 is near median family income is not necessarily struggling; especially if you add child support and other benefits. The wealthy are already providing all their EITC money plus any other benefits and paying all the income taxes for the nation--I don't think they should have to provide everything. Raising their taxes only encourages more people to evade taxes, shelter income, or even move to other nations.
My stepdaughter is going to Mexico this week on her EITC. I see firsthand how people can be less than responsible.
It is the government's job to provide essential services---not redistribute income.
I don't think creative people do it for money and I'd sooner stay alive than keep capitalism, let alone destroy the human race for it, so I'm afraid we're on different wavelenghs here.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello iolo,
There is certainly merit to what you say. Musicians are very creative and very few of them are paid very well at all. Most of that creativity goes unrewarded in monetary terms.
But on the other hand a corporation (which is often little more than a capitalistic machine created out of humans for the purpose of generating profit) generally engages in creativity for the money. To that end, it hires humans and pays them in return for their creativity, specifically engineers. Although, in that capacity, engineers generally do not have a direct incentive to be more creative. It is possible they could experience advancement and monetary reward for their creativity, but typically the incentive is job and income retention. Their primary motivation is not being paid more if they try harder, it is fear of job loss and income loss if they don't.
And that's the way it is for most workers in capitalism. The primary motivation to do well at a job is not hopes of getting a raise. It is fear of being laid off during the next cut.
The profit motive generally only comes into play for executives, not rank and file workers.
There is certainly merit to what you say. Musicians are very creative and very few of them are paid very well at all. Most of that creativity goes unrewarded in monetary terms.
But on the other hand a corporation (which is often little more than a capitalistic machine created out of humans for the purpose of generating profit) generally engages in creativity for the money. To that end, it hires humans and pays them in return for their creativity, specifically engineers. Although, in that capacity, engineers generally do not have a direct incentive to be more creative. It is possible they could experience advancement and monetary reward for their creativity, but typically the incentive is job and income retention. Their primary motivation is not being paid more if they try harder, it is fear of job loss and income loss if they don't.
And that's the way it is for most workers in capitalism. The primary motivation to do well at a job is not hopes of getting a raise. It is fear of being laid off during the next cut.
The profit motive generally only comes into play for executives, not rank and file workers.