Raising Taxes On The Rich Would Reduce Income Inequality

[Dantès]

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%.

Soooo! Maybe the government could use some of that money to give us high speed internet service that is 13 times better than what 99 percent of the country has like South Korea has and companies like Comcast could actually be put out of business for providing the worst service imaginable and still charging a huge price because they are the only source.

 

[Dantès]

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.

The regulations that came out of the progressive era in the early 20th century, 1900-1916 were pushed by big business to stifle competition. So when was this golden age?

 

[maineman]

Stop lying

stop questioning my integrity without cause.

 

[Granule]

I acknowledge that we need more government revenue in addition to spending restraint. I hardly "worship" taxes, however. I have but one triune God that I worship.

You acknowledge that you parrot words of the DNC. The truth is, you have no idea what you're talking about, but you do think it will be cool to have a female for president. Hillary is white, but I think you can live with that.

 

[maineman]

I parrot no one. You say that I don't know what I am talking about, but all you can really do is the insult game. I have no preference for presidential gender... but I certainly have a preference for their party affiliation, as do you. I'd welcome the opportunity to discuss political issues with you on some plane that was not exclusively inhabited with trash talking, but somehow, I doubt that you are interested in, or even capable of such a discourse.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

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.

I would suggest you instead support a raise to the capital gains and dividend income taxation. The 'wealthy' in this country derive far more of their income from investments, yet the investment income is subject to different structures than earned income.

 

[Teflon Don]

stop questioning my integrity without cause.

You have no integrity to question. You are a coward.

Any moron can sit behind a computer calling for the government to confiscate their property knowing they will be exempt. That does not connote integrity

The whole "I am always asking for my taxes to be raised" meme is so laughable I can't believe anyone is trying to peddle it

If you truly wanted more of your money to go to the government you could. But you don't. Why do you have to wait to be forced? What kind of leadership is that? No wonder you never rose above Semen deck mopper in the Navy. Now go clean the scuttlebutt recruit. Report back to me when you grow a set. Dismissed

 

[maineman]

You have no integrity to question. You are a coward.

Any moron can sit behind a computer calling for the government to confiscate their property knowing they will be exempt. That does not connote integrity

The whole "I am always asking for my taxes to be raised" meme is so laughable I can't believe anyone is trying to peddle it

If you truly wanted more of your money to go to the government you could. But you don't. Why do you have to wait to be forced? What kind of leadership is that? No wonder you never rose above Semen deck mopper in the Navy. Now go clean the scuttlebutt recruit. Report back to me when you grow a set. Dismissed

did you happen to NOT read the quote from Learned Hand?

and how am I exempt from an increase in the marginal tax rate?

 

[The Dude]

I would suggest you instead support a raise to the capital gains and dividend income taxation. The 'wealthy' in this country derive far more of their income from investments, yet the investment income is subject to different structures than earned income.

You should be tarred and feathered

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I refer you to post #55.

The diffference between you and me - beyond my obvious advantage in education and intelligence - is that I continue to contribute to candidates whom I KNOW will vote to raise my taxes... and, again unlike you, I will gladly pay every additional penny my tax accountant tells me I need to pay if and when my party ever gets the necessary votes in Congress to raise the marginal tax rate.

I think the point is this... if you think you should be paying more in taxes, why not go ahead and pay more? Why do you need to instead spend money on candidates waiting on them to FORCE you to pay more? You are free to pay more NOW.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You should be tarred and feathered

Keep in mind that a good portion of my income is also from divs and cap gains. All income should be taxed at the same rate(s). Also keep in mind that I support the end to corporate taxation as it is highly regressive.

 

[maineman]

I think the point is this... if you think you should be paying more in taxes, why not go ahead and pay more? Why do you need to instead spend money on candidates waiting on them to FORCE you to pay more? You are free to pay more NOW.

I again refer you to Learned Hand... I agree with him completely on this issue.

I DO want to see marginal tax rates increased, but my contributions to the democratic party are because I support their entire platform, not just their stance on taxation. I want the democratic party to prevail in elections, because I want their platform to prevail.

And I find lots of ways outside of my tax dollars to promote the causes that I care for.... I tithe and my wife and I have established a charitable trust that is solely aimed at fighting hunger in Maine.

If democrats prevail, and marginal tax rates go up, I will gladly pay more to the government in hopes that it will be used to advance the platform of the party that raised the taxes in the first place.

 

[The Dude]

Like I said cherished code isn't changing.
Especially the beloved treating of investment income.

 

[Granule]

Fox News has ruined your brain kiddo. You should take a few nights and learn what the Left stands for. Repeating what Fox News says it is makes you look uneducated as HELL. Watch some Jon Stewart and some Steven Colbert. You will learn AND be entertained. They get their news from the only reputable news source left, PBS.

You are such a tool. PBS is smothered in liberal sauce, and you're asking me to get my information from talking heads on entertainment TV. All I'm looking for is a simple acknowledgement. Can't you people put the lies away for even two minutes?

 

[Bonestorm]

Keep in mind that a good portion of my income is also from divs and cap gains. All income should be taxed at the same rate(s). Also keep in mind that I support the end to corporate taxation as it is highly regressive.

But it isn't highly regressive. We've gone over this. The incidence of corporate taxation isn't really all that clear cut. I'm not really a huge fan of the corporate income tax for this reason, but there's no way in hell to get rid of it for something more progressive that is revenue neutral in the current political environment and if you stop taxing corporation you've just created yet another loophole for rich people to avoid taxation altogether.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I again refer you to Learned Hand... I agree with him completely on this issue.

I DO want to see marginal tax rates increased, but my contributions to the democratic party are because I support their entire platform, not just their stance on taxation. I want the democratic party to prevail in elections, because I want their platform to prevail.

And I find lots of ways outside of my tax dollars to promote the causes that I care for.... I tithe and my wife and I have established a charitable trust that is solely aimed at fighting hunger in Maine.

If democrats prevail, and marginal tax rates go up, I will gladly pay more to the government in hopes that it will be used to advance the platform of the party that raised the taxes in the first place.

So... you think you should pay more, but you want to wait until the government FORCES you to pay more. Ok... that is the typical position of a Dem.

Again, you should be trying to get them to raise the taxation on cap gains. Marginal rates are not going to have a substantial effect on the wealthy given all the loopholes and tax breaks (like the one they get on cap gains taxation)

 

[maineman]

So... you think you should pay more, but you want to wait until the government FORCES you to pay more. Ok... that is the typical position of a Dem.

Again, you should be trying to get them to raise the taxation on cap gains. Marginal rates are not going to have a substantial effect on the wealthy given all the loopholes and tax breaks (like the one they get on cap gains taxation)

Again... I think that not only myself, but all others in my income bracket, should pay more. Paying more myself would be a meaningless symbolic gesture. AND... I spend a bit more in charitable endeavors in the meantime. And AGAIN... the day I need you to direct my efforts in terms of my communications with congress, I'll be sure and let you know. OK?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

But it isn't highly regressive. We've gone over this. The incidence of corporate taxation isn't really all that clear cut. I'm not really a huge fan of the corporate income tax for this reason, but there's no way in hell to get rid of it for something more progressive that is revenue neutral in the current political environment and if you stop taxing corporation you've just created yet another loophole for rich people to avoid taxation altogether.

Again, it is indeed highly regressive.

There are four potential groups that will actually pay the tax...

1) Executives/board of directors
2) Stockholders
3) Other employees
4) Consumers

Group #1 decides how that tax is going to be paid. We have seen what has happened to exec pay. We know their goal is to maximize profit for shareholders. So tell me Dung... who do you think they will try to make pay the tax?

They are going to target #3's and 4's as much as possible.

you are an idiot... eliminating the corporate taxation does not provide any loopholes for the wealthy. Especially if you raise taxation on cap gains as I suggested.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Again... I think that not only myself, but all others in my income bracket, should pay more. Paying more myself would be a meaningless symbolic gesture. AND... I spend a bit more in charitable endeavors in the meantime. And AGAIN... the day I need you to direct my efforts in terms of my communications with congress, I'll be sure and let you know. OK?

LOL... so again, you only want to do it if everyone else is forced to do it at the same time. funny how you think you need the government to decide how to handle your decisions for you.

 

[Bonestorm]

Again, it is indeed highly regressive.

There are four potential groups that will actually pay the tax...

1) Executives/board of directors
2) Stockholders
3) Other employees
4) Consumers

Group #1 decides how that tax is going to be paid. We have seen what has happened to exec pay. We know their goal is to maximize profit for shareholders. So tell me Dung... who do you think they will try to make pay the tax?

They are going to target #3's and 4's as much as possible.

Oh, I guess this is the part where you -- in your infinite wisdom -- single handedly resolve a long-unsettled debate among econmists who have actually researched the question many many times. OK.

you are an idiot... eliminating the corporate taxation does not provide any loopholes for the wealthy. Especially if you raise taxation on cap gains as I suggested.

AND PONIES FOR EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!