Should taxes be raised on the rich?

Should the rich pay more tax?

  • Total voters
    12
christiefan915 said:
So not linking a site is now equivalent to plagiarism?

Guess that makes everybody who posts here dishonest from time to time.
Click to expand...
Not every copyright violation is plagiarism. It only is if they attempt to make it seem as if they wrote what they didn't link. (I'm only quoting you here so people know why I'm talking about plagiarism, not to say you were 'wrong' or anything).
 
Should the rich pay more tax?
Only if we want to save this country from years of destructive conservative governance.
 
christiefan915 said:
Why should poor people pay no taxes?

Why should lower-middle class people pay taxes when poor people don't?

Why should upper-middle class people pay more taxes than lower-middle class people or poor people?

Why should rich people pay more taxes than the upper-middle class, the lower-middle class, or poor people?
Click to expand...

They shouldn't. Everyone should pay and everyone should pay equally.
 
Just checking my facts.

If a prosperous person wants to pay less of their income to the government, it's selfish and greedy.

If a less prosperous person wants to pay less of their income to the government, it's NOT selfish and greedy.

Is that about it?
 
Voltaire said:
I voted 'Yes, because they can afford it.' However, I do not favor raising taxes on those that the Democrats typically categorize as "rich," e.g. small business owners who make $250,000 per year, as doing so would kill jobs. I'd say around 50% on income exceeding $20 million would be reasonable. And I'd only support this if there is a dramatic reduction in Federal spending.
Click to expand...

Could you explain how that would kill jobs?

My reasoning is people who provide jobs do so with the belief/understanding they will make more money. As co-owner of a small business the money I make has no relationship to whether or not I provide a job. I will only provide a job if I believe the employee will make money for me.

In other words neither I nor any small business person is a charity. I will only hire an additional employee if I believe that employee will bring me more money. Therefore, it follows if I have to pay more taxes I will desire more money which will encourage me to hire more employees.

Full disclosure: I am retired but my wife, being 9 years younger and having an entrepreneurial spirit,, decided to quit quit her job and run a business so "I'm along for the ride".
 
signalmankenneth said:
Should taxes be raised on the rich? F*ckin-ay!

Courtesy of Robert Reich
02/16/2011

My proposal to raise the marginal tax to 70 percent on incomes over $15 million, to 60 percent on incomes between $5 million and $15 million, and to 50 percent on incomes between $500,000 and $5 million, has generated considerable debate. Some progressives think it’s pie-in-the-sky. Here, for example, is Andrew Leonard, a staff writer for Salon:

A 70 percent tax bracket for the richest Americans is pure fantasy – even suggesting it represents such a fundamental disconnect with the world as it exists today that it is hard to see why it should be taken seriously. I would be deeply worried about the sanity of a Democratic president who proposed such a thing.

Fantasy? I don’t know Mr. Leonard’s age but perhaps he could be forgiven for not recalling that between the late 1940s and 1980 America’s highest marginal rate averaged above 70 percent. Under Republican President Dwight Eisenhower it was 91 percent. Not until the 1980s did Ronald Reagan slash it to 28 percent. (Many considered Reagan’s own proposal a “fantasy” before it was enacted.)

Incidentally, during these years the nation’s pre-tax income was far less concentrated at the top than it is now. In the mid-1970s, for example, the top 1 percent got around 9 percent of total income. By 2007, they got 23.5 percent. So if anything, the argument for a higher marginal tax should be even more realistic now than it was during the days when it was taken for granted.

A disconnect with the world as it exists today? That’s exactly the point of proposing it. For years progressives have whined that Democratic presidents (Clinton, followed by Obama) compromise with Republicans while Republican presidents (Reagan through W) stand their ground – with the result that the center of political debate has moved steadily rightward. That’s the reason the world exists the way it does today. Isn’t it about time progressives had the courage of our conviction and got behind what we believe in, in the hope of moving the debate back to where it was?...............
Click to expand...



christiefan915 said:
So not linking a site is now equivalent to plagiarism?

Guess that makes everybody who posts here dishonest from time to time.
Click to expand...


Everyone can see Ken attributes the column to Robert Reich right there at the start of his post...but to dishonest douchebags like Yurt and DY that doesn't matter.
 
Booyah! said:
Just checking my facts.

If a prosperous person wants to pay less of their income to the government, it's selfish and greedy.

If a less prosperous person wants to pay less of their income to the government, it's NOT selfish and greedy.

Is that about it?
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Good question.

Personally, I have little sympathy for anyone who avoids taxes. It's cheating society. Perhaps a dinner analogy would be appropriate.

There's dinner where one will enjoy an apéritif. Then a small, green salad. Then, perhaps, a lobster bisque. Then a palate cleanser. Then a main course. Then another palate cleanser. Then dessert. Then a digestive.

Then there's the Kraft macaroni and cheese dinner.

Both can be considered "dinner". Should the request by the individual in the latter circumstance, complaining of hunger a few hours later, be given equal weight to the individual who had the full course meal?

Are both greedy? Glutenous? Or does one have a legitimate complaint?
 
signalmankenneth said:
Should taxes be raised on the rich? F*ckin-ay!

Courtesy of Robert Reich
02/16/2011

My proposal to raise the marginal tax to 70 percent on incomes over $15 million, to 60 percent on incomes between $5 million and $15 million, and to 50 percent on incomes between $500,000 and $5 million, has generated considerable debate. Some progressives think it’s pie-in-the-sky. Here, for example, is Andrew Leonard, a staff writer for Salon:

A 70 percent tax bracket for the richest Americans is pure fantasy – even suggesting it represents such a fundamental disconnect with the world as it exists today that it is hard to see why it should be taken seriously. I would be deeply worried about the sanity of a Democratic president who proposed such a thing.

Fantasy? I don’t know Mr. Leonard’s age but perhaps he could be forgiven for not recalling that between the late 1940s and 1980 America’s highest marginal rate averaged above 70 percent. Under Republican President Dwight Eisenhower it was 91 percent. Not until the 1980s did Ronald Reagan slash it to 28 percent. (Many considered Reagan’s own proposal a “fantasy” before it was enacted.)

Incidentally, during these years the nation’s pre-tax income was far less concentrated at the top than it is now. In the mid-1970s, for example, the top 1 percent got around 9 percent of total income. By 2007, they got 23.5 percent. So if anything, the argument for a higher marginal tax should be even more realistic now than it was during the days when it was taken for granted.

A disconnect with the world as it exists today? That’s exactly the point of proposing it. For years progressives have whined that Democratic presidents (Clinton, followed by Obama) compromise with Republicans while Republican presidents (Reagan through W) stand their ground – with the result that the center of political debate has moved steadily rightward. That’s the reason the world exists the way it does today. Isn’t it about time progressives had the courage of our conviction and got behind what we believe in, in the hope of moving the debate back to where it was?

Would a Democratic president be insane to propose such a thing? Not at all. In fact, polls show an increasing portion of the electorate angry with an insider “establishment” – on Wall Street, in corporate suites, and in Washington – that’s been feathering its nest at the public’s expense. The Tea Party is but one manifestation of a widening perception that the game is rigged in favor of the rich and powerful.

More importantly, it will soon become evident to most Americans that the only way to reduce the budget deficit, preserve programs deemed essential by the middle class, and not raise taxes on the middle, is to tax the top.

In fact, a Democratic president should propose a major permanent tax reduction on the middle class and working class. I suspect most of the public would find this attractive. But here again, the only way to accomplish this without busting the bank is to raise taxes on the rich.

Republicans have done a masterful job over the last thirty years convincing the public that any tax increase on the top is equivalent to a tax increase on everyone — selling the snake oil of “trickle down economics” and the patent lie that most middle-class people will eventually become millionaires. A Democratic president would do well to rebut these falsehoods by proposing a truly progressive tax.

Will the rich avoid it? Other critics of my proposal say there’s no way to have a truly progressive tax because the rich will always find ways to avoid it by means of clever accountants and tax attorneys. But this argument proves too much. Regardless of where the highest marginal tax rate is set, the rich will always manage to reduce what they owe. During the 1950s, when it was 91 percent, they exploited loopholes and deductions that as a practical matter reduced the effective top rate 50 to 60 percent. Yet that’s still substantial by today’s standards. The lesson is government should aim high, expecting that well-paid accountants will reduce whatever the rich owe.

Besides, the argument that the nation shouldn’t impose an obligation on the rich because they can wiggle out of it is an odd one. Taken to its logical extreme it would suggest we allow them to do whatever antisocial act they wish – grand larceny, homicide, or plunder – because they can always manage to avoid responsibility for it.

Some critics worry that if the marginal tax is raised too high, the very rich will simply take their money to a more hospitable jurisdiction. That’s surely possible. Some already do. But paying taxes is a central obligation of citizenship. Those who take their money abroad in an effort to avoid paying American taxes should lose their American citizenship.

Finally, there are some who say my proposal doesn’t stand a chance because the rich have too much political power. It’s true that as income and wealth have moved to the top, political clout has risen to the top as well.

But to succumb to cynicism about the possibility of progressive change because of the power of those at the top is to give up the battle before it’s even started. Haven’t we had enough of that?
Click to expand...



Damn Yankee said:
Link, Dik.
Click to expand...


As Ken wrote:

Courtesy of Robert Reich
02/16/2011
 
ZappasGuitar said:
You charged him with plagiarism even though he PLAINLY ATTRIBUTED the comments to Reich, proving that it didn't matter to you that he'd provided attribution.
Click to expand...

Actually, you've just proven your accusation false. When Ken plagiarized, I called him on it (as you documented). When he didn't, I didn't (as you failed to disprove). I challenge you to prove otherwise, Dik. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top