Raising Taxes On The Rich Would Reduce Income Inequality

Thing1 said:
I'd be all for that, and for anything that makes it easy on small business owners & startups.

I just don't see that as a solution. It may have some marginal effect and slow the trend somewhat, but the disparity will keep growing regardless.
Click to expand...


Of course, there're always the tax option.
 
Superfreak said:
Not in our current tax code system. It will have minimum effect. 70k pages of tax deductions and loopholes worked into the system. You want to truly be progressive, then you eliminate the corporate tax code (as it is highly regressive), then tax all income sources for individuals at set rates (ie... my flat tax with high standard deduction example). No more special breaks for cap gains and some dividends.
Click to expand...

This is why I call the code a thing of beauty, I can not have to claim 3x the median income!
Tax breaks are incentives
Energy production is vital
So we subsidize it.
 
Teflon Don said:
If Bill Gates makes another $20 billion, do you lose money? If so, how?
Click to expand...

If Bill Gates earned $20 billion it is dividends from his holdings, which are taxes at a different rate than salaries. They are taxed as capital gains.

I read somewhere that Warren Buffet collects a salary of about $1 million from Berkshire. The rest of his income is dividends.

Back to dividends: For a coporation to pay a shareholder a $1 dividend, the corporation has to clear a little over $1.50 profit. The $1.50 is then taxed down to $1.00, which is issued to the shareholder, to be taxed again. Liberals like a 35% capital gains figure.... which would mean what?

Basically it would mean that roughly 85 cents of every $1.50 corporate profit would go to the government. That's more than 50%.
 
maineman said:
If government can then provide services that formerly were paid for by person B, then his disposable income DOES increase.
Click to expand...

You might want to go check your math. Nothing in your original calculation states this will happen.

This is a bogus assertion predicated by your use of the word "if".

Let's look at the reality. The bottom 10% actually gets money back. So raising taxes on someone else does not increase their income.

Now what you are really talking about but won't be honest about is transferring (stealing) wealth from one group and giving it to another. Of course as long as it isn't yours you are good with it
 
Teflon Don said:
You might want to go check your math. Nothing in your original calculation states this will happen.

This is a bogus assertion predicated by your use of the word "if".

Let's look at the reality. The bottom 10% actually gets money back. So raising taxes on someone else does not increase their income.

Now what you are really talking about but won't be honest about is transferring (stealing) wealth from one group and giving it to another. Of course as long as it isn't yours you are good with it
Click to expand...

the same party that wants to increase the marginal tax rate on the wealthy also wants to see the government take a more activist role in social service delivery. If there is the political will to raise the marginal tax rate on those at the top of the ladder, there will be the political will to increase services to the folks on the bottom of the ladder as well.

And I am near the top income tax bracket and have been for quite some time... and that has NEVER stopped me from supporting increasing the marginal tax rate. I think that everyone making more that $250K/year can and ought to pay more in taxes.
 
maineman said:
no. it is basic arithmetic. If Person A has income of $1000 and Person B has income of $100, there is a pre-tax income differential between them of $900.

If Person A has his income taxed at 75% and person B has his income taxed at 20%, the post-tax income differential is only $170.

Raising the top end marginal tax rate WILL change (reduce) the income differential between those in that top tax bracket and those not in it.
Click to expand...
The INCOME is not changed. At all. And if you believe for a second that wealthy people would ever pay more (much less 75%) you are ignoring history.
 
maineman said:
the same party that wants to increase the marginal tax rate on the wealthy also wants to see the government take a more activist role in social service delivery. If there is the political will to raise the marginal tax rate on those at the top of the ladder, there will be the political will to increase services to the folks on the bottom of the ladder as well.

And I am near the top income tax bracket and have been for quite some time... and that has NEVER stopped me from supporting increasing the marginal tax rate. I think that everyone making more that $250K/year can and ought to pay more in taxes.
Click to expand...

Stop it. You are posting silliness now.

Using your example neither persons income changes one iota. You are merely setting up the government as the body to determine how much of your property you can keep. That is nothing more than theft

And please stop with the "I am rich and I support high taxes" garbage. You don't mean it. You take every deduction you can in an effort to limit your tax liability.
 
Ok, if we reduce certain regulations, we increase competition because it allows small business to enter the market. Large corporations have the ability to offset any regulation thrown at them, since they have the disposable income. This would increase the employment rate as well, and the companies that are now competing would have to pay more to snag better talent away from competition. Right now, large corporations have so much power, they actually push regulations through politicians to stifle competition. Large corporations are actually fighting against a free market for this reason. If we tax them higher, there are many things that can happen for them to offset it, but that money just goes to the government, not your pockets. What would you do if you had less disposable income but were forced to satisfy investors with a healthy profit? They would have to reduce costs somehow. Then the money the government makes helps them enforce harsher regulations in favor of large corporations that buy out the politicians. The large corporation would be just fine with higher taxes, they would just need to adjust their budgets, maybe cut out some jobs and perks like healthcare. Investors would still be happy, but it could hurt the middle and lower class.
 
Teflon Don said:
Stop it. You are posting silliness now.

Using your example neither persons income changes one iota. You are merely setting up the government as the body to determine how much of your property you can keep. That is nothing more than theft

And please stop with the "I am rich and I support high taxes" garbage. You don't mean it. You take every deduction you can in an effort to limit your tax liability.
Click to expand...

using my example, the post tax take home income of Person A and Person B change significantly. Sorry. Did you get past grade school arithmetic?

And I DO take every deduction, but I continue to support democratic candidates who I KNOW will raise my marginal tax rates if elected... because I AM willing to pay more taxes if the government requires that of me.
 
maineman said:
using my example, the post tax take home income of Person A and Person B change significantly. Sorry. Did you get past grade school arithmetic?

And I DO take every deduction, but I continue to support democratic candidates who I KNOW will raise my marginal tax rates if elected... because I AM willing to pay more taxes if the government requires that of me.
Click to expand...
there is no such thing as post tax income that does not involve income tax fraud. The TAX is baded on INCOME.There is no further INCOME. Of course lefties are always ones to fiddle with definitions so as to suit their wants. Sadly for you words have meanings and those dont change to meet your whims.
 
maineman said:
using my example, the post tax take home income of Person A and Person B change significantly. Sorry. Did you get past grade school arithmetic?

And I DO take every deduction, but I continue to support democratic candidates who I KNOW will raise my marginal tax rates if elected... because I AM willing to pay more taxes if the government requires that of me.
Click to expand...


Why do you take deductions?
 
Thing1 said:
Did anyone see "Elysium"? Great flick - and very plausible. It's not hard to envision a future where a very small % of people basically have everything, while the rest really struggle to get by and get basics like medical care & food.

It's where the trend is headed, pretty much unabated. It's a tough one, because taxing more heavily at the upper income levels just seems punitive.

There's a solution out there somewhere, but no one has thought of it yet.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I almost got kicked out of Elysium for laughing. Turns out it wasn't a comedy after all.
 
Teflon Don said:
Why do you take deductions?
Click to expand...

silly fucking question!



"Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as
possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the
treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.
Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister
in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone
does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any
public duty to pay more than the law demands."

Judge Learned Hand
 
Celticguy said:
there is no such thing as post tax income that does not involve income tax fraud. The TAX is baded on INCOME.There is no further INCOME. Of course lefties are always ones to fiddle with definitions so as to suit their wants. Sadly for you words have meanings and those dont change to meet your whims.
Click to expand...

what do YOU call the result of Gross Income minus taxes?
 
maineman said:
what do YOU call the result of Gross Income minus taxes?
Click to expand...

Stupid pills kicking in again....??? Most folks call it 'take home pay'.....what do you call it ?

Gross income is 'gross income'....your total earnings....rich or poor, taxes are irrelevant....no ones gross income changes because of taxes....
 
maineman said:
silly fucking question!



"Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as
possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the
treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.
Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister
in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone
does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any
public duty to pay more than the law demands."

Judge Learned Hand
Click to expand...

Then you should have no problem with the rich and corporations. Case closed. I win.

Thank you for your concession.
 
maineman said:
using my example, the post tax take home income of Person A and Person B change significantly. Sorry. Did you get past grade school arithmetic?

And I DO take every deduction, but I continue to support democratic candidates who I KNOW will raise my marginal tax rates if elected... because I AM willing to pay more taxes if the government requires that of me.
Click to expand...
Oh, but of COURSE the(democrat)government is going to require you to pay more taxes!! According to them, the ONLY solution to ANY problem is to throw money at it. By the way, did you ever stop to think that there is nothing preventing you from sending your excess income to Uncle Sugar over and above what you pay in taxes? Anytime the spirit moves you, just write a check to "THE U.S. TREASURY". They'll cash it and you won't even get a thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top