Why not tax the rich 100%?
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Hey.... I like it! And you all have already defined "the rich" as those who make over $200k, so if someone makes $200k per year, they would pay $250k in taxes! That's a great idea, Nigey! Surely we could pay down the debt and still afford cradle to grave entitlements for everyone, with all that money!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Wow, I guess ApplesauceBrain must have blown a fuse. I'm still wanting to hear his reasoning for not being on board with my plan, I thought for sure he would be excited about it!
apple0154
MEOW
Well, for one thing I like yachts. I recall one year being invited on a private yacht to watch this: http://www.insidevancouver.ca/2010/...oming-christmas-caroling-by-sea-in-vancouver/
Other than that I believe in being fair. Tax the money people receive then let them do whatever they wish with the rest. Buy a yacht. Hide it under the mattress. Blow it on wine, women and song.
The latter would be my preference but not being rich while being married puts the kibosh on that idea.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well, for one thing I like yachts. I recall one year being invited on a private yacht to watch this: http://www.insidevancouver.ca/2010/...oming-christmas-caroling-by-sea-in-vancouver/
Other than that I believe in being fair. Tax the money people receive then let them do whatever they wish with the rest. Buy a yacht. Hide it under the mattress. Blow it on wine, women and song.
The latter would be my preference but not being rich while being married puts the kibosh on that idea.
Being fair? Why isn't it fair to just take all of their money and spend it on helping others? They don't need incomes, they are wealthy enough not to miss it, and we can do so much better things with it than letting them keep it and buy a yacht. Is it fair for them to be buying yachts when there are poor people who that money could really benefit? Is it fair that some poor person is sick tonight, or some poor child is hungry, while some rich person cruises on their yacht? I'm sorry, but I am missing your point on fairness. I thought you believed it was fair to take the money from rich people who don't need it, and give it to poor people who do? Are you saying that sometimes that is not fair? If it's 'fair' to take 1/3 or 1/2 of their earnings, why is it 'unfair' to take 100%? You aren't answering the question, I challenged you to tell my why we shouldn't tax rich people at 100%, and all you can say is you believe in being fair.
Sure. Make sure they haven't any property to give to their kids. I mean, why should they be allowed to give their stuff to people they know! Greedy bastiges!
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Wealthy Americans typically pay around 25 - 30% in Federal income taxes. In most European countries, the wealthy pay around 40 - 50% and yet they continue earning income. That is because tax rates become counterproductive at somewhere between 50 - 60%. Some economists estimate it as high as 70%.
It's true that lowering taxes on the wealthy sometimes results in increased revenue. The JFK tax cuts are a good example of this. You cannot argue that the Bush tax cuts had the same result. We're talking about a President who inherited a $230 billion surplus, but in only one year, drove us back into deficit spending with his big government, "deficits don't matter" mentality.
Sorry to say it, but if Al Gore had become President we'd be in MUCH better financial condition.
Yep, a 30% sales tax is EXACTLY what our economy needs.
This is because there IS an efficient frontier with regards to taxation. The complexity of our system is why it is so hard to pinpoint. Which is yet another reason for us to simply the code. The Kennedy and Reagan cuts certainly helped drive revenue. The Bush cuts were a short term stimulus, but failed in the long term. Hence we are likely below the optimal taxation level at this time.
apple0154
MEOW
I did explain. I like yachts. And I'm a fair guy.
The problem is not all money received is taxed or is taxed at a lower rate and that's not fair.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I deleted most of the anecdotal crap..... but let me respond to the point you clearly do not comprehend. The wealthy pay taxes not only on earned income, but also on dividends and cap gains. As I stated before, the 'wealthy' that live like your friend are not going to remain wealthy for long. Your friend may have made a lot of money, but according to your story, he is an idiot.
Again, MOST wealthy individuals do not spend all of their income (earned, divs & cap gains). They reinvest it. Because of this, the Fair tax is REGRESSIVE.
As for your 'crunch the numbers' comment..... apparently you missed the part where I did just that to show you that the Fair Tax is regressive. Now, how about YOU crunch the numbers to 'prove your point'???
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
"Regressive" means to decrease proportionally. You are claiming the Fair Tax is regressive because rich people would be taxed less proportionally than others, because they reinvest their incomes. My argument is, you are not looking at the right thing, you are stuck on income earning, and not consumption. The Fair Tax is determined by consumption, and every rich person I know, or anyone knows, consumes. In fact, as a general rule, they consume more per capita than anyone else, simply because they can afford to. Because they are rich, they can consume extravagantly, even when they don't earn an income. What is the point of being rich, if you can't spend your wealth? It is counter-intuitive to think rich people won't spend their wealth, that has never happened in the history of rich people.
I proved the Fair Tax wouldn't be regressive with my example of a real-life friend who is rich. Because his investments tanked and the economy sucked, he ended up with low income for 2010, reported on his federal tax returns, subsequently, he paid no federal income tax this year. In the span of 6 months, he has spent well over $500k on frivolous indulgences (just that I know about), and no telling how much more, on what he considers 'the basic necessities'. So his Fair Tax bill would have been about $110k last year, instead of $0. Where is the regression? Do you know of any average shlep who paid $110k in tax last year? Did any of your mediocre friends spend $110k on frivolous junk last year, much less, pay that much in taxes? The argument that the Fair Tax is regressive, is ignorant. Wealthy people would pay considerably MORE tax on consumption than they currently pay on income, and MORE tax on consumption than the average Joe. That makes it PROGRESSIVE not REGRESSIVE!
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Seriously ditzie... you are almost as bad as desh. Try READING what I wrote. AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL INCOME (this is earned income/dividends/capital gains) the WEALTHY INVEST a greater proportion than the low and moderate income. I understand that the wealthy spend money dear little ditzie. The point you are not grasping is that they DONT on average spend all that they bring in.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Also Dearest lil Ditzie.... simply 'paying more' doesn't make a system Progressive.
If they make 1000 times more, of course they are going to pay more in terms of total dollars into the system, regardless of whether you use flat tax, fair tax or our current system.
To be PROGRESSIVE, the system must be in place where the EFFECTIVE TAX RATE goes up the more you make. You calculate the effective tax rate as a percentage of TOTAL INCOME.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Not many people do spend more than they bring in, but I would argue, it's much easier for a rich person to do that, than the average person. I just gave you a real-life example of someone who spent much more than they brought in last year. Now granted, they can't do that every year, or else, they would not continue to be rich. But my point was not that they do this all the time, just that they are more able to do this than the average person. That is true, like it or not.
Again, my point was not that rich people can continue to spend more than they make forever... some indeed could, they have that much wealth amassed, they literally couldn't spend enough to deplete their wealth, if they tried. They could stop earning another dime, and live comfortably for the remainder of their life, and pass the fortune on to their kids, who could live comfortably for the rest of their lives, and never earn another penny of income. Yes, there are people THAT wealthy! You are trying to tax something a rich person doesn't necessarily have to have, an income. You are completely ignoring the thing we KNOW rich people will do regardless of whether they earn a big income in a given year, SPEND MONEY!
My friend is the perfect example, he spent $235k on cars to celebrate not having to pay income tax this year! His spending habits did not change because he had no income to report, he is still mega-wealthy, and he still enjoys the finer things in life, none of that changes. It wouldn't have mattered if you raised his income tax to 40%, or 100%... he didn't earn an income, so he would still have paid NO TAX!
I made about $70k last year, and paid about $20k in income tax. That's $20k more than my friend who is much wealthier than I will ever dream of being. Would you call this 'regressive' or 'progressive'? Now, he completely outspent me last year, as I've pointed out... if we had the Fair Tax, his tax burden would have been more than what I earned in income for the year. Again... progressive or regressive?
I think too, there is a disconnect here, one you are failing to see and recognize. You somehow make a connection between wealthy people and those who earn high incomes. Not everyone who earns a high income is 'wealthy' and not everyone who is 'wealthy' earns a high income. It is two completely different things. Many people who are earning a 'high income' ($250k+) are not yet 'wealthy'... they are trying to become wealthy! Once they become wealthy, the won't need to earn that much income, they can live off their wealth. I think we have, what, 400 billionaires in America? Do you think they care if they make $200k this year or break even? Does it matter to them one whit? Does it change how they spend their wealth? As long as they can break even, they don't pay income tax, and they continue to keep 100% of their wealth...why are they concerned what you do with income tax rates? Liberals often trot this one out too... rich people WANT you to raise their income tax rate! Well, duh... why not? As the OP asks, why not raise it to 100%? They don't care, they don't need that money, and we have better things to spend it on. Trouble is, the one thing a rich person doesn't need, is to earn an income. Why would they need to? They are RICH! If they do, they do... and they'll pay whatever tax rate you have... if they don't, meh... no big deal, go buy two Jaguars and celebrate! Your problem is, you are looking at the wrong way to obtain the wealth of the wealthy... you believe you can tax the incomes they make, and most of them have already made all the incomes they will ever need to make, and don't care.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well then, the Fair Tax is neither Progressive or Regressive, by your definition. It doesn't tax income at all, it taxes consumption. Most morons agree, the more you make, the more you tend to spend (consume), therefore, you have been PWNED. Sorry.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I don't understand where you are coming up with these numbers. We aren't talking about a tax on income, we don't care how much income someone earns... it is CONSUMPTION we are looking at with the Fair Tax. Regardless of whether the rich person earned any income at all, they are going to spend money, we know that with certainty. If they spend a million dollars, $230k is going to be the amount of tax they paid. If they spend $10 million, their tax liability would be $2.3 million. It doesn't matter if they made any money at all, they will always buy stuff.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Yes, having the savings/investments allows them greater flexibility than someone living paycheck to paycheck to spend more in a given year than they make. This is completely IRRELEVANT to the topic. Because it is NOT something they can do every year as you stated and it is not something that the majority of the wealthy will do. The ones who live beyond the income/gains consistently do not remain wealthy for long.
Like I said, you are JUST LIKE DESH. CRUNCH THE NUMBERS RETARD. These hypotheticals are POINTLESS given the FACT that the MAJORITY DO NOT LIVE THIS WAY. Saying 'well gee golly, they COULD do it' is meaningless. What is relevant is DO THEY DO IT.
Again, your example is wrong in that their investments WILL be earning income. It WILL be invested whether they need the income or not. In case you haven't noticed, the wealthy do not tend to say 'hey, I have all that I need I am just going to stick the money in my mattress'. THEY INVEST IT MORON.
AGAIN YOU FUCKING RETARD.... TAKING ONE FRIEND FOR ONE YEAR MEANS NOTHING. EITHER ADDRESS THE NUMBERS I PRESENTED THAT SHOW IT TO BE REGRESSIVE OR SHUT THE FUCK UP. Rambling on about 'one guy you know, who didn't pay taxes one year' is IRRELEVANT.
The ONLY disconnect is between the synapses in your brain (what little there is). If you note dear ditzie, in my example (had you bothered to actually address that) I used $1.5mm for a high end example. I am also using what people will do ON AVERAGE, not saying that every single person who earns 'x' does 'y'
YES, they most certainly DO care you half wit.
I officially apologize to Desh for comparing Ditzie to her. Ditzie is far worse. He is so desperately clinging to his position that he comes up with the complete ignorance above.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
It's not irrelevant when we are discussing how to raise revenue to operate the government. The majority of the wealthy certainly COULD do this every year, in fact, ALL wealthy people COULD do this, and many DO! People hounded Ted Turner for years about the Braves suckability, and his response was... why do I want to have a WINNING baseball team? I can't write THAT off my taxes! Most UBER-wealthy people, are content to 'break even' each year. They don't WANT to earn more wealth, they have no need for it, they already have more than they can use. If they can make enough to support their lifestyle, and pay the bills, they are fine with that... lower taxation, and their fortunes remain untouched.
Another wealthy friend I have known in my personal life, is Alice Callaway. Wife of philanthropist Fuller Callaway and mother of the CEO for Callaway Golf and the Callaway Corvette. The family made it's fortune through the 30s, 40s, and into the 50s, with Callaway Mills, a textile giant of the time. Worth hundreds of millions... he passed away and left his fortune to Alice. She is an old widow woman living in a great big mansion, with no desire or interest in making money or doing anything other than enjoying the end of life while working in her garden. In her last few years, she literally gave away more money than anything she gained in interest and dividends. How many Alice Callaway's are out there, do you imagine? They are not going to generate much income, in fact, they may actually show loss of income, and pay no tax at all. And.... they don't care!
I have crunched the numbers, retard. This is not a hypothetical, the examples are given from real life. It doesn't matter that the MAJORITY do not live this way, there is nothing universally true across the board about the MAJORITY except one thing... rich people ALWAYS spend money.
I don't know, Alice probably had some money stuffed in her mattress. Individuals are all different, the point wasn't to say that this is how all rich people are, or how all rich people behave, it was to give a real life examples of what rich people do, and do consistently, whether they make money or not. You tend to look at this from the perspective of a poor person, or a middle class person, who relates to having and earning income to survive. We have to go to work at our sucky jobs, because we have a family to take care of, or we want to buy stuff.... When you become wealthy, the whole game changes. That's the part I think you don't really comprehend here. Rich people don't care how much you raise the tax on their incomes, they don't make enough income now for it to really matter to them. This is why I suggest we raise it to 100%, and I challenged you to tell me why we shouldn't.
But the numbers you presented were based on incomes, not consumption. I am talking about getting the revenues in a completely different way, which would completely change the dynamics of everything, and all the parameters surrounding your numbers which are based on income earning. What I propose, nullifies what you are arguing, so how can I do anything BUT ignore something that doesn't hold relevant to the discussion?
Rich people invest and reinvest, not to earn an income, but to protect their money earned from taxation. It's better to invest it than to pay the taxes on it. But if the dynamic is changed, and they don't have to pay income taxes on the money.... they will still invest, but they will be more inclined to invest in things that make money. The word for this is PROSPERITY. And while you may believe it would only benefit the wealthy, or it would be regressive, it would be quite the opposite. Remember, every working American is now paying FICA and payroll tax each week, taken out of their checks before they see the money. You would suddenly have all of these people getting a fairly hefty RAISE in pay, when those taxes go away. Now it might not mean a whole lot to a rich person, but $100-$200 more in your paycheck every week, that's a pretty nice situation for most Americans, wouldn't you agree? On top of that, you will get a check each month/year for the pre-bate. Ah, another couple thou' to replace the tax refund money we once used for vacations! What does all of this mean? Well, I think it would mean economic prosperity through the roof... like we've never seen before in America.
On average, we are a consumer-driven nation, we will SPEND trillions every year. Again, your numbers are all based on income and the assumption behaviors will forever remain unchanged if you no longer tax income. You aren't crunching numbers, more like broken glass. On average, there are trillions of dollars in transactions which are done by people who pay absolutely NO income tax, never have and never will. On average, there are trillions of dollars in transactions already being taxed by the states in the form of a sales tax, the system is already in place to do this. And finally, ON AVERAGE, the typical RICH person will outspend both the middle class and poor by much greater margins, regardless of the income they earn.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Did the luxury tax work?
In the early part of the 1990s, a 10% Luxury Tax was levied on fur, costly jewelries, airplane and car purchasing worth $30,000 and above.
This resulted in a sharp decrease in their purchases, causing problems to the producers of the goods and the retail traders dealing with them. At one point of time, the situation became so grave that Luxury Tax had to be annulled, and was replaced by the 1993 Revenue Reconciliation Act.
http://www.economywatch.com/tax/united-states/luxury.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/budget/budget_1-1.html
In the early part of the 1990s, a 10% Luxury Tax was levied on fur, costly jewelries, airplane and car purchasing worth $30,000 and above.
This resulted in a sharp decrease in their purchases, causing problems to the producers of the goods and the retail traders dealing with them. At one point of time, the situation became so grave that Luxury Tax had to be annulled, and was replaced by the 1993 Revenue Reconciliation Act.
http://www.economywatch.com/tax/united-states/luxury.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/budget/budget_1-1.html
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
You are truly retarded ditzie. That is NOT how you determine if the system is regressive or progressive. It shifts more of the burden onto the middle income class from the upper class you half wit. It is therefore REGRESSIVE.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
How does it shift more burden anywhere specific? We will all pay the same taxes through consumption. Poor and middle class people don't generally consume more than rich and wealthy people do.... do they? I would say, as a general rule, people with lots of money probably tend to spend more of it... wouldn't you think? So how is taxing consumption 'regressive' in your opinion? More importantly, do you have anything at all to base this idiotic opinion on? The ONLY contentious point I've seen made, is that rich people would tend to "invest" more of their earnings... but they "invest" because they want to avoid income taxes, which would no longer exist. They MAY invest, if the reward outweighs the risk, but so what? We don't care how much they invest or how much they earn, we only care about rich people spending their wealth... taxing consumption relies on something entirely different than class envy. Regardless of how much you despise rich people, there is one FACT you simply can't escape, they DO spend money, and they do this whether they earn incomes or whether you tax them 40% or 100%... that doesn't matter to them... they don't NEED an income anymore.... they are RICH, you see?