Why not tax the rich 100%?

[apple0154]

Same resulting principle applies, doesn't it? Why would it not? If taxing 100% would virtually stop any wealthy person from earning any wealth, it would stand to reason the same effect happens to a lesser degree at lower rates. The less a person can earn, the less inclined they are to work, wouldn't you agree? If I am going to take 60..70...80..90% of what you earn, how inclined are you to work? Any more or less than at 100%? There really isn't much difference in how excited you are about working, under those conditions. We can also reasonably assume, the less % of your wages are taken, the more excited you are to work, the more you don't really mind working... hey you get to keep more of your money! Who doesn't ultimately like that? ...no hands!

Dixie, Dixie, Dixie. What are we going to do with you?

The incentive to work depends on two things. Income from working and how difficult that work is.

For example, let's say someone owns a restaurant. They employ a chef and three servers. Their competitor closes, a new apartment complex is built close by and their business doubles so they hire another chef and three more servers. The effort of running that restaurant does not double. The owner still makes one call to the meat supplier, one call to the produce supplier, etc. The owner still writes out one check for the hydro bill, etc. While the effort involved does increase it does not double meaning the owner makes more than double the profit he made from having one chef and three servers but his effort did not double. If he moves into a higher tax bracket resulting in him paying more taxes he still makes more profit.

Maybe we should lower everyone's taxes to 0%***

***Do away with taxation on our income earning, and tax our consumption instead!!!!!!

Not a good idea because poor people spend a higher proportion of their income on consumption. A person earning $200/wk will probably spend every cent on consumption while one earning $1000/wk will probably be able to save a bit. The money taken out of circulation (not spent on consumption but saved) would not be taxed so the community would lose those tax dollars.

The solution lies in taxing all money received. Money coming in from any and all sources be it capital gains, investments, inheritances...you name it. That would be the equitable thing to do because most poor people only receive income from a wage-paying job.

Years ago, I sold two investment properties. I expected their value to increase like every other property usually does but I never expected developers to move into the area and start a rejuvenation. With a few years the price of one new three room apartment was equivalent to what I paid for a building that housed three, six room apartments. The value of the building increased three fold. I did absolutely nothing to warrant that increase.

Then a couple of my close friends said I must be really pissed at having to pay taxes on a portion of that capital gains.

"Why", I asked. "Why would paying taxes on money I received but never worked for bother me? Should I not be happy I received money that required I pay taxes on it?"

Would I be happier if I didn't receive that money in the first place? After all, I wouldn't have to pay taxes on it if I had not received it.

Lastly, taxing wealthy people is not punishing them. As part of a community they are expected to help. The tax pried from their greedy claws does not cause them hardship. Why are you so opposed to those who are capable of helping being expected to do so?

Is it a fear of having no money later in life? Not being able to afford a doctor? Going hungry? Or is it just greed?

Perhaps you can shed some light on that.

 

[Rune]

http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/20...ervice-economy-under-reagan-bush-clinton-bush

Sorry Joe... it just ain't so.... the above is one of the four links you posted yesterday.... the last sentence is what I was referring to.

Good to see that you read my links in entirety.
Now that you mention it, a 50% tax rate would probably be fine. It was much higher earlier and businessmen seemed willing to do business.

Edit, there is a BIG difference between 50% and 100%, which what you are inplying that I favor.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

If the IRS taxed income by 1% for each IQ point, Dick-see would pay less than anyone on this forum.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Good to see that you read my links in entirety.
Now that you mention it, a 50% tax rate would probably be fine. It was much higher earlier and businessmen seemed willing to do business.

Edit, there is a BIG difference between 50% and 100%, which what you are inplying that I favor.

First the top rate was 70% under Reagan, not 50%.

Second, I certainly did not mean to imply you meant to take it all the way to 100% as that is obviously taking the issue to the level of absurdity. I was simply trying to point out that just yesterday the article you posted and seemed to support suggested taking the top rate back to 70%.... which would be in line with ditzie's comments.... just not taken to the completely absurd level he did. Sorry if it seemed I implied otherwise, it was not my intent.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

ApplesauceBrains: The incentive to work depends on two things. Income from working and how difficult that work is.

Correct, and the less income you are allowed to keep, the less incentive you have to work, glad you see that point! If you can't keep any of the income you earn, it doesn't matter how easy the work is, does it?

Not a good idea because poor people spend a higher proportion of their income on consumption. A person earning $200/wk will probably spend every cent on consumption while one earning $1000/wk will probably be able to save a bit. The money taken out of circulation (not spent on consumption but saved) would not be taxed so the community would lose those tax dollars.

Right, but if you pre-bate everyopne a check for the amount of taxes they will pay on consumption of basic needs, why is it not fair? If you are poor and spend all your money on basic needs, you pay no consumption tax at all. If you are poor, and you live on a farm, where you can grow your own food and provide much of your own consumption through the fruits of your labor, you actually profit from this pre-bate.

The solution lies in taxing all money received. Money coming in from any and all sources be it capital gains, investments, inheritances...you name it. That would be the equitable thing to do because most poor people only receive income from a wage-paying job.

Not the solution, because that is what we are currently doing, and it doesn't seem to work. The thing this seems to be doing more than anything else, is fostering a system of dependency, and promoting class warfare.

Now, I have a very rich friend who lives in upstate New York. Last year, he paid NO federal income tax... you wanna know why? Because he lost money on his investments due to the economy, and both of his businesses barely broke even last year. He has three kids, and he joked to me, he actually qualified for EIC... he didn't take it, but he could have. Of course, while he didn't earn much income last year, one thing he did do, was spend some money. He bought a 1924 Cadillac with 2600 miles on it, been in a museum the past 60 years... sweet ride! He loves his old cars, and he kept adding to his collection. So rich people will still spend money and consume, even when they don't earn incomes.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

If the IRS taxed income by 1% for each IQ point, Dick-see would pay less than anyone on this forum.

just like a liberal to propose a tax system guaranteed to have someone besides themselves pay the bulk of the taxes.....

 

[/MSG/]

Dixie, Dixie, Dixie. What are we going to do with you?

The incentive to work depends on two things. Income from working and how difficult that work is.

For example, let's say someone owns a restaurant. They employ a chef and three servers. Their competitor closes, a new apartment complex is built close by and their business doubles so they hire another chef and three more servers. The effort of running that restaurant does not double. The owner still makes one call to the meat supplier, one call to the produce supplier, etc. The owner still writes out one check for the hydro bill, etc. While the effort involved does increase it does not double meaning the owner makes more than double the profit he made from having one chef and three servers but his effort did not double. If he moves into a higher tax bracket resulting in him paying more taxes he still makes more profit.



Not a good idea because poor people spend a higher proportion of their income on consumption. A person earning $200/wk will probably spend every cent on consumption while one earning $1000/wk will probably be able to save a bit. The money taken out of circulation (not spent on consumption but saved) would not be taxed so the community would lose those tax dollars.

The solution lies in taxing all money received. Money coming in from any and all sources be it capital gains, investments, inheritances...you name it. That would be the equitable thing to do because most poor people only receive income from a wage-paying job.

Years ago, I sold two investment properties. I expected their value to increase like every other property usually does but I never expected developers to move into the area and start a rejuvenation. With a few years the price of one new three room apartment was equivalent to what I paid for a building that housed three, six room apartments. The value of the building increased three fold. I did absolutely nothing to warrant that increase.

Then a couple of my close friends said I must be really pissed at having to pay taxes on a portion of that capital gains.

"Why", I asked. "Why would paying taxes on money I received but never worked for bother me? Should I not be happy I received money that required I pay taxes on it?"

Would I be happier if I didn't receive that money in the first place? After all, I wouldn't have to pay taxes on it if I had not received it.

Lastly, taxing wealthy people is not punishing them. As part of a community they are expected to help. The tax pried from their greedy claws does not cause them hardship. Why are you so opposed to those who are capable of helping being expected to do so?

Is it a fear of having no money later in life? Not being able to afford a doctor? Going hungry? Or is it just greed?

Perhaps you can shed some light on that.

A tax on inheritance is essentially a double tax. If your're taxing all forms income then the money that is inherited has already been taxed.

 

[/MSG/]

just like a liberal to propose a tax system guaranteed to have someone besides themselves pay the bulk of the taxes.....

Don't fed the troll.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Same resulting principle applies, doesn't it? Why would it not? If taxing 100% would virtually stop any wealthy person from earning any wealth, it would stand to reason the same effect happens to a lesser degree at lower rates. The less a person can earn, the less inclined they are to work, wouldn't you agree? If I am going to take 60..70...80..90% of what you earn, how inclined are you to work? Any more or less than at 100%? There really isn't much difference in how excited you are about working, under those conditions. We can also reasonably assume, the less % of your wages are taken, the more excited you are to work, the more you don't really mind working... hey you get to keep more of your money! Who doesn't ultimately like that? ...no hands!



Maybe we should lower everyone's taxes to 0%***

***Do away with taxation on our income earning, and tax our consumption instead!!!!!!

The 'Fair Tax' is not the best solution. It is highly regressive by nature as the lower one's income, the higher the percentage of that income is spent on consumption.

The Flat tax with a standard deduction is not only Fair, but also Progressive and simple with minimal room for Congress to make changes (they would only be able to change the rate and deduction amount.... no other loopholes or deductions allowed)

That is by far the best solution as it eliminates at least half of the reasons corps/pacs/unions bribe Congress.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Some of you may be sick of my posting this by now since I have done it many times over the years, but I have yet to find someone who can knock holes in this system.

Flat Tax with standard deduction
It is time for this country to become fiscally responsible. The national debt has increased every fiscal year since 1960. What has happened to the responsibility of the two parties? Both like to point the blame at the other, but in reality neither have been responsible fiscally. It is time for a change. Let’s begin with our tax code. It should be simple enough that the average person can understand it. It should not be filled with thousands of loopholes and deductions. Let us push for the flat tax with a standard deduction and nothing more.

Start with a standard deduction of $30k (adjusted for inflation annually) for each adult and then tax every dollar over that $30k at 20%. This is simple, easy to understand, fair and progressive. It protects the low-income individuals and couples from paying federal income taxes. It provides the middle-income families a lower effective tax rate than the wealthy. This plan would encompass ALL income, including earned income, capital gains and dividend income.

A person making $30k pays an effective rate of 0%.

A person making $50k pays an effective rate of 8%.

A person making $100k pays an effective rate of 14%.

A person making $200k pays en effective rate of 17%.

A person making $1mm pays an effective rate of 19.4%

Everyone has the same deduction and takes it. Which causes the effective tax rate to increase the more you make.

To reduce the national debt I would propose we add an additional temporary bracket to the flat tax. Every dollar over $1 million (again adjusted for inflation annually) would be taxed at 30% rather than 20%. The additional 10% would be mandated to pay down the debt.

It is our responsibility to pay our own way and not dump trillions of dollars of debt on future generations. We need to begin electing leaders that are fiscally responsible. The future of our nation depends upon it. We are our own worst enemy. It will be our ever-increasing debt that leads to our demise. We must act now.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The 'Fair Tax' is not the best solution. It is highly regressive by nature as the lower one's income, the higher the percentage of that income is spent on consumption.

The Flat tax with a standard deduction is not only Fair, but also Progressive and simple with minimal room for Congress to make changes (they would only be able to change the rate and deduction amount.... no other loopholes or deductions allowed)

That is by far the best solution as it eliminates at least half of the reasons corps/pacs/unions bribe Congress.

Again, the Fair Tax is NOT REGRESSIVE because it pre-bates for all the taxes paid on basic needs. Please explain how the hell that hurts the poor and helps the rich? It doesn't matter what percentage of income is spent, up to a certain point, that consumption is completely tax-free.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Some of you may be sick of my posting this by now since I have done it many times over the years, but I have yet to find someone who can knock holes in this system.

I can knock SEVERAL holes in your system right now.... HOLE #1... it doesn't eliminate the IRS. HOLE #2.... It doesn't eliminate loopholes and deductions. HOLE #3... It continues class warfare. HOLE #4... It discourages income earning. HOLE #5.... oh wait, that is your head... sorry!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Again, the Fair Tax is NOT REGRESSIVE because it pre-bates for all the taxes paid on basic needs. Please explain how the hell that hurts the poor and helps the rich? It doesn't matter what percentage of income is spent, up to a certain point, that consumption is completely tax-free.

AGAIN, the wealthy do not use as much of their income/dividends/cap gains for consumption. THAT is how it hurts the poor and moderate incomes. Is it a better system than our current one, I think so, but again, it is WIDE OPEN TO CORRUPTION.

1) WHAT is a 'basic need'? (this is one area where corps/unions/pacs will bribe Congress to include THEIR product/service as a 'basic need')
2) It DOES matter what percent of income is spent. Even with the pre-bate.

Say the prebate is $30k (to use the same number I used in my example for a standard deduction) and say the consumption tax is 20% (again, using the same rate I used in the flat tax)

Person A makes $30k and spends it all.....effective tax = zero
Person B makes $60k and spends it all.... effective tax = 10%
Person C makes $100k and spends $60k while investing the rest..... effective tax = 6%
Person D makes $1.5m and spends $700k while investing the rest..... effective tax = 8.9%
Person E makes $1.5m and spends it all.... effective tax = 19.6%

So it absolutely matters what percentage of income they spend.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I can knock SEVERAL holes in your system right now.... HOLE #1... it doesn't eliminate the IRS. HOLE #2.... It doesn't eliminate loopholes and deductions. HOLE #3... It continues class warfare. HOLE #4... It discourages income earning. HOLE #5.... oh wait, that is your head... sorry!

1) It drastically reduces the size of the IRS, the IRS is not a big problem if the tax code is simplified in such a manner.
2) It absolutely eliminates deductions and loopholes.... AS STATED IN THE EXAMPLE WHICH CLEARLY YOU DID NOT COMPREHEND. Standard deduction and NO OTHERS.
3) Bullshit, it taxes everyone at the SAME RATE. There is no class warfare. Unless you are referring to the 10% on income over $1m debt reduction plan. In which case.... that is a pretty weak argument
4) It does not discourage earning you idiot. The MAX rate is 30%. The CURRENT MAX RATE is 35%. You are a complete moron if you think someone earning over $1m isn't going to be willing to keep taking home 70% of their income.
5) just shows that you clearly have no legitimate points to make.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

AGAIN, the wealthy do not use as much of their income/dividends/cap gains for consumption. THAT is how it hurts the poor and moderate incomes. Is it a better system than our current one, I think so, but again, it is WIDE OPEN TO CORRUPTION.

Oh but the wealthy most certainly DO sometimes... I just gave an example of someone I personally know who is wealthy. He lost money last year on investments, and his two businesses barely broke even. His actual INCOME was less than mine, he paid $0 in income tax. BUT... he spent money like it was going out of style. You see, someone with millions of dollars in the bank, aren't going to eat mac-n-cheese for dinner because they didn't earn an income this week. We do that, we have no choice... if we don't have money, we can't spend money, and if we aren't making money, we don't have money to spend... but rich people always have money to spend, doesn't matter if they earned an income or not.

1) WHAT is a 'basic need'? (this is one area where corps/unions/pacs will bribe Congress to include THEIR product/service as a 'basic need')
2) It DOES matter what percent of income is spent. Even with the pre-bate.

"Basic needs" are determined by the HHS, it's called the "poverty level" ...the amount of money it takes to survive... to buy food, housing, clothing, and basic medical/health needs. We've been calculating this for years, is there something you don't comprehend about that? If the HHS says $24,000 is the poverty level, then 23% of $24k ($5,520) would be the amount of the pre-bate. In addition to this windfall, poor people earning low incomes would not be paying ANY FICA or Payroll taxes whatsoever. They get to keep all that money (which is currently being deducted), as well as getting a nice pre-bate check. The only time they would ever pay taxes, is on expenditures above and over the basic necessities of life... luxuries... things they didn't HAVE to have. Why is that unfair to them? How is that unfair to them?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

dixie your thread is a reductio ad absurdum....you're trying to compare a few percentage points of increased taxes with taxing everything they earn...it is absurd

 

[zappasguitar]

Stupid? What's stupid about it? Isn't that what you pinheads are always yammering... the rich don't deserve it and need to be taxed more? Corporations make huge profits and need to pay more tax? I've heard you people make this argument often, pinhead.... so why not raise it to 100%?

Tell ya what douchebag...you go find even ONE QUOTE from anyone who posts regularly on these boards saying this country needs to tax the rich at 100%...

You claim you've heard people "make this argument often"...well then finding some evidence to back up your idiotic allegation should be a piece of cake, eh??

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Tell ya what douchebag...you go find even ONE QUOTE from anyone who posts regularly on these boards saying this country needs to tax the rich at 100%...

You claim you've heard people "make this argument often"...well then finding some evidence to back up your idiotic allegation should be a piece of cake, eh??

another shining example of zappa's civility....why do you demand others be civil when you are incapable of being civil yourself?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

another shining example of zappa's civility....why do you demand others be civil when you are incapable of being civil yourself?

Poor lil' girlie groaner Yurt...compulsively opens the Yurt Locker again.

 

[Damocles]

dixie your thread is a reductio ad absurdum....you're trying to compare a few percentage points of increased taxes with taxing everything they earn...it is absurd

It is supposed to be absurd. At least I thought so, hence my previous and obviously sarcastic post.