Why not tax the rich 100%?

[Cancel 2016.2]

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.

Yes ditzie, SOME do, which is why I included an example of that when I ran the numbers for the fair tax scenario. The point ditzie is that MOST of the wealthy DON'T. Those that DO, don't remain wealthy for long.

"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?

yes, the LOWEST income earner should be protected, which is why the Fair tax is better than the current system. But once you get beyond the POVERTY level.... the system is REGRESSIVE.

 

[Rationalist]

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!

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.

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

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

Yep, a 30% sales tax is EXACTLY what our economy needs.

 

[Rune]

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.

Well spoken Sir! Thankyou.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

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

What is absurd about pointing out the dynamics and principles you espouse, when you speak of taxing the wealthy? I have merely taken your principle to the next step, but suddenly, you realize the absurdity of your principle... that's good, that was my point!

Whether it's a slight increase or an 'absurd' increase, the behavioral results are the same. The more you tax a person on income they don't have to make, the less of it they are inclined to make. The more you confiscate of their earnings, the less inspired they are to earn. Wealthy people have something you proles don't seem to understand, WEALTH! This means, they don't HAVE to earn an income at all. They can stop working, they can manipulate their portfolios, and they can literally stop earning any income to speak of....and you can't tax them. This doesn't stop them from spending money, they have more money than they could ever spend... they are WEALTHY! You are literally trying to get money from the rich by taking a portion of something they don't need. How smart is that?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Let me share some more personal life experience with you, so maybe you can see where I am coming from on this... Let me tell you more about my friend who is wealthy. First of all, he is my running buddy from high school, we were best pals... after school, he went his way and I went mine, and he became uber-successful in the music publishing biz, and later, other various entrepreneurial interests. He is heavily involved with Willie Nelson's biodiesel initiative, and he owns a scrap-wood collection and recycling business. He is worth around $50 million or so... not positive on the exact amount, but that's a pretty close guess. His home is a former nun convent, and he has over 30 collector cars in his garage. He's living large. This is who I think of when I think of someone who is "rich."

Last year, because of the nosedive in the markets, because of the decline of business in general, he simply didn't make the kind of dough he has been making for the past several decades. His two businesses broke even, and his investments showed great losses for the year. Now, he is still worth a fortune, he still has plenty of money, and he still lives the life of champagne dreams and caviar. He didn't pay income tax this year, he didn't earn and income...or at least not one large enough to matter. I paid more Federal Income Tax than he did!

He was so elated that he didn't have some huge tax bill to have to pay, that he celebrated by purchasing twin white Jaguars (the car)... He bought TWO, because... when you buy a $100k car, you have to pay a $35,000 luxury tax... if you buy two, they waive the tax on the second one. Then he hosted an antique car show at his residence. He fell in love with a vintage Caddy from the 20s... it had very few miles on it... showroom new, it had been kept in a museum for 60 years. He just purchased that last week, not sure how much he paid, but it wasn't a cheap item. The point is, my friend has not changed his spending habits, or really, his investment and moneymaking habits. But then, his taxes haven't changed since Bush lowered them. You could have raised his taxes to 100% this year, and it wouldn't have mattered, he didn't earn much income. It's not always like this for the rich, some years are better than others. The lesson to be learned is, wealthy people don't have to earn incomes, and if they don't... you don't get ANY tax revenue from them, it doesn't matter how much wealth they have. You can make huge amounts of revenue from their consumption. You say Fair Tax is regressive, but I can show you it is quite progressive... crunch the numbers... what do you suppose my friend who paid $0 income tax, actually spent in the past year? What would 23% of that amount be? That's what you missed out on, while you were myopically focused on his "income" which he didn't earn, and didn't care that he didn't!

 

[apple0154]

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?

Who's talking about not keeping ANY? You sure can be a Ditz.

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.

And just what should that consumption amount be? Similar to welfare? Basic needs being a room in a dilapidated part of town and eating noodles seven days a week?

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.

That's not being done now. All money received is not taxed or taxed at a lower rate. Tax all money received as income regardless of where it comes from.

As for dependency financial help does not kick in until a person is destitute. It's too late after they've lost everything including their motivation. Healthy, happy people strive to improve their lives.

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.

Was that supposed to be a joke? Of course rich people will spend money even if they have a bad year. They still have money to spend and if the car was a good deal, why not purchase it? And when it comes to old cars, right on!

It looks like a very nice ride, indeed!

 

[apple0154]

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.

A person receives a pay check. Taxes are paid on it. He goes to the grocery store and gives money to the store owner. The store owner pays tax on that money that has already been taxed. What's the difference?

 

[apple0154]

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.

Sounds reasonable to me.

 

[apple0154]

Let me share some more personal life experience with you, so maybe you can see where I am coming from on this... Let me tell you more about my friend who is wealthy. First of all, he is my running buddy from high school, we were best pals... after school, he went his way and I went mine, and he became uber-successful in the music publishing biz, and later, other various entrepreneurial interests. He is heavily involved with Willie Nelson's biodiesel initiative, and he owns a scrap-wood collection and recycling business. He is worth around $50 million or so... not positive on the exact amount, but that's a pretty close guess. His home is a former nun convent, and he has over 30 collector cars in his garage. He's living large. This is who I think of when I think of someone who is "rich."

Last year, because of the nosedive in the markets, because of the decline of business in general, he simply didn't make the kind of dough he has been making for the past several decades. His two businesses broke even, and his investments showed great losses for the year. Now, he is still worth a fortune, he still has plenty of money, and he still lives the life of champagne dreams and caviar. He didn't pay income tax this year, he didn't earn and income...or at least not one large enough to matter. I paid more Federal Income Tax than he did!

He was so elated that he didn't have some huge tax bill to have to pay, that he celebrated by purchasing twin white Jaguars (the car)... He bought TWO, because... when you buy a $100k car, you have to pay a $35,000 luxury tax... if you buy two, they waive the tax on the second one. Then he hosted an antique car show at his residence. He fell in love with a vintage Caddy from the 20s... it had very few miles on it... showroom new, it had been kept in a museum for 60 years. He just purchased that last week, not sure how much he paid, but it wasn't a cheap item. The point is, my friend has not changed his spending habits, or really, his investment and moneymaking habits. But then, his taxes haven't changed since Bush lowered them. You could have raised his taxes to 100% this year, and it wouldn't have mattered, he didn't earn much income. It's not always like this for the rich, some years are better than others. The lesson to be learned is, wealthy people don't have to earn incomes, and if they don't... you don't get ANY tax revenue from them, it doesn't matter how much wealth they have. You can make huge amounts of revenue from their consumption. You say Fair Tax is regressive, but I can show you it is quite progressive... crunch the numbers... what do you suppose my friend who paid $0 income tax, actually spent in the past year? What would 23% of that amount be? That's what you missed out on, while you were myopically focused on his "income" which he didn't earn, and didn't care that he didn't!

Again, you miss the obvious point, Dixie. If all money was taxed as income all that money he currently has would have been taxed already. It wouldn't matter if he bought cars or saved it in a sock. The taxes would have already been paid on it.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Again, you miss the obvious point, Dixie. If all money was taxed as income all that money he currently has would have been taxed already. It wouldn't matter if he bought cars or saved it in a sock. The taxes would have already been paid on it.

Bottom line is, he paid $0 in federal income tax, and he would have paid considerably more than $0 in Fair Tax. You are taxing the INCOME of wealthy people, and wealthy people don't need an income because they are wealthy. Now we go back to the premise in the OP, why not tax them 100% on their income? They don't need the income because they are wealthy, so why don't we just take it all? I figured pinheads like you would be praising my brilliance at such a great idea.... but you're not... odd! Oh wait, maybe it has something to do with the fact that, even an idiot like you understands, the more you take of their income, the less incentive they have to bother with an income? Of course, spending money is a different story, rich people are going to spend money, it's kinda the whole point of being rich, isn't it?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

At today’s prices, gasoline would cost almost $1 per gallon more.



A $150,000 new home would run $195,000 – plus the 30 percent tax that the buyer would pay on the interest on the mortgage.



In short, the FairTax taxes everything that one buys...



The FairTax is revenue-neutral.



That means that for every tax dollar collected under the current system, the FairTax has to collect a dollar.



If the FairTax exactly equaled embedded taxes, then it could not possibly be revenue-neutral, since embedded taxes do not take into account personal income or estate taxes.



The FairTax rate would have to be high enough to replace embedded taxes plus income and estate taxes.


Strictly speaking, sales taxes are flat, since everyone pays the same rate. But because the poor tend to spend a high percentage of their income on basic consumer goods such as food and clothing, sales taxes do require the poor to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes.



http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Who's talking about not keeping ANY? You sure can be a Ditz.

Tell me something, when is the last time you heard a liberal say we are taxing enough? I firmly believe, we could raise their tax to 99% and there would still be pinheads arguing... well, you know, those rich people still get to keep 1% of what they make.... It's never enough, so why don't we just make it 100% of any income they earn?

And just what should that consumption amount be? Similar to welfare? Basic needs being a room in a dilapidated part of town and eating noodles seven days a week?

We've already gone over this. The HHS determines what the poverty level is, which is the minimum basic needs. The pre-bate is paid before any taxes would be realized, they have the money they would pay in taxes on basic needs. The only time a poor person would ever pay any tax, would be on things above and beyond their basic needs... luxuries... things they didn't have to have. What's unfair about taxing that?

That's not being done now. All money received is not taxed or taxed at a lower rate. Tax all money received as income regardless of where it comes from.

Income is taxed, dimwit! ANY income, from ANY source! Of course, there are loopholes, there are some types of income which are taxed more, some less, there are write-offs and deductions and credits... these things VANISH with a consumption tax.

As for dependency financial help does not kick in until a person is destitute. It's too late after they've lost everything including their motivation. Healthy, happy people strive to improve their lives.

Maybe we should give the rich people welfare now, before destitution sets in from taking all their income?

Was that supposed to be a joke? Of course rich people will spend money even if they have a bad year. They still have money to spend and if the car was a good deal, why not purchase it? And when it comes to old cars, right on!

It looks like a very nice ride, indeed!

No joke, I am totally serious. You idiots continue to try and raise money by taxing something rich people don't need... in fact, they need it less than the average person. The wealthy have no need to earn an income, because they are wealthy. The point I was trying to illustrate is, rich people still spend money, and they will spend money regardless of whether they earn a taxable income or not. So why wouldn't we tax their consumption instead, and let them keep all of their income?

 

[apple0154]

Bottom line is, he paid $0 in federal income tax, and he would have paid considerably more than $0 in Fair Tax. You are taxing the INCOME of wealthy people, and wealthy people don't need an income because they are wealthy. Now we go back to the premise in the OP, why not tax them 100% on their income? They don't need the income because they are wealthy, so why don't we just take it all? I figured pinheads like you would be praising my brilliance at such a great idea.... but you're not... odd! Oh wait, maybe it has something to do with the fact that, even an idiot like you understands, the more you take of their income, the less incentive they have to bother with an income? Of course, spending money is a different story, rich people are going to spend money, it's kinda the whole point of being rich, isn't it?

How many times do I have to say the same thing? Tax ALL income. In other words all the money a person receives regardless of how or from where it was received.

Wealthy people had to get the money from somewhere, otherwise, they wouldn't be wealthy so tax the money when they get it. Then it won't matter what they do with it.

The problem has to do with what is considered "income". Income should be considered any and all money a person receives as it's money coming in. Is that so difficult to understand?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

How many times do I have to say the same thing? Tax ALL income. In other words all the money a person receives regardless of how or from where it was received.

Wealthy people had to get the money from somewhere, otherwise, they wouldn't be wealthy so tax the money when they get it. Then it won't matter what they do with it.

The problem has to do with what is considered "income". Income should be considered any and all money a person receives as it's money coming in. Is that so difficult to understand?

And I agree with your idea... tax ALL of their income... 100%! Every penny they earn, tax it 100%! What are you failing to understand here, idiot? I am agreeing with your whole principle. Those greedy rich people don't deserve what they have, so take it all away from them, they don't need it, they are rich, so just take all of any income they make, and use it for whatever you please! If your premise is true, we'll pay off all debt in no time! I am all for that! Let's do it! 100% tax on the rich! Why are you attacking me?

 

[apple0154]

The point I was trying to illustrate is, rich people still spend money, and they will spend money regardless of whether they earn a taxable income or not. So why wouldn't we tax their consumption instead, and let them keep all of their income?

Why not consider all money received as taxable income and be done with it? That way the tax dollars will be available for immediate use and circulating through society.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Tell me something, when is the last time you heard a liberal say we are taxing enough? I firmly believe, we could raise their tax to 99% and there would still be pinheads arguing... well, you know, those rich people still get to keep 1% of what they make.... It's never enough, so why don't we just make it 100% of any income they earn?



We've already gone over this. The HHS determines what the poverty level is, which is the minimum basic needs. The pre-bate is paid before any taxes would be realized, they have the money they would pay in taxes on basic needs. The only time a poor person would ever pay any tax, would be on things above and beyond their basic needs... luxuries... things they didn't have to have. What's unfair about taxing that?



Income is taxed, dimwit! ANY income, from ANY source! Of course, there are loopholes, there are some types of income which are taxed more, some less, there are write-offs and deductions and credits... these things VANISH with a consumption tax.



Maybe we should give the rich people welfare now, before destitution sets in from taking all their income?



No joke, I am totally serious. You idiots continue to try and raise money by taxing something rich people don't need... in fact, they need it less than the average person. The wealthy have no need to earn an income, because they are wealthy. The point I was trying to illustrate is, rich people still spend money, and they will spend money regardless of whether they earn a taxable income or not. So why wouldn't we tax their consumption instead, and let them keep all of their income?

 

[apple0154]

And I agree with your idea... tax ALL of their income... 100%! Every penny they earn, tax it 100%! What are you failing to understand here, idiot? I am agreeing with your whole principle. Those greedy rich people don't deserve what they have, so take it all away from them, they don't need it, they are rich, so just take all of any income they make, and use it for whatever you please! If your premise is true, we'll pay off all debt in no time! I am all for that! Let's do it! 100% tax on the rich! Why are you attacking me?

I'm not suggesting taking all their money. I said tax it just like income is taxed. Investments, capital gains, inheritance, casino winnings....any and all money they receive. What could be easier?

 

[/MSG/]

A person receives a pay check. Taxes are paid on it. He goes to the grocery store and gives money to the store owner. The store owner pays tax on that money that has already been taxed. What's the difference?

The difference is that using a check to pay for something is consumption.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I'm not suggesting taking all their money. I said tax it just like income is taxed. Investments, capital gains, inheritance, casino winnings....any and all money they receive. What could be easier?

It would be easier and better just to take it all at once, wouldn't it? Let's just take 100% of everything a rich person makes... they don't need it and we can use it for better stuff than they would, right? And again, I agree with you, let's take 100% of 100% of what they earn, whether it be through gambling, risky investments, whatever... We just take it all at one time, and that's it... no more having to fight for it and struggle about it... we have taken all of the money every rich person makes. Are you not on board with that idea, apple?

 

[apple0154]

It would be easier and better just to take it all at once, wouldn't it? Let's just take 100% of everything a rich person makes... they don't need it and we can use it for better stuff than they would, right? And again, I agree with you, let's take 100% of 100% of what they earn, whether it be through gambling, risky investments, whatever... We just take it all at one time, and that's it... no more having to fight for it and struggle about it... we have taken all of the money every rich person makes. Are you not on board with that idea, apple?

I'm definitely not on board with it. I believe in being fair. Tax all money coming in: income.

We have income and out-going. By only taxing the out-going (consumption) the government only collects on the money that is spent in the country and many wealthy people spend money elsewhere.

There are a couple of things that could change the dynamics. For example, if the US obtained the majority of it's revenue from tourism or the majority of wealthy people lived in foreign countries but the reality is many wealthy people prefer to live in the US so the income they receive could be taxed.

But most important would be the idea all money is taxed regardless of how obtained and whether or not spent or saved. That tax money would be circulating through society.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I'm definitely not on board with it. I believe in being fair. Tax all money coming in: income.

We have income and out-going. By only taxing the out-going (consumption) the government only collects on the money that is spent in the country and many wealthy people spend money elsewhere.

There are a couple of things that could change the dynamics. For example, if the US obtained the majority of it's revenue from tourism or the majority of wealthy people lived in foreign countries but the reality is many wealthy people prefer to live in the US so the income they receive could be taxed.

But most important would be the idea all money is taxed regardless of how obtained and whether or not spent or saved. That tax money would be circulating through society.

I don't understand why you're not on board with my idea, you seem to understand the principle, you keep articulating it... but when it comes to carrying your principle to the next level, you suddenly don't believe it's fair? That makes no sense, how can it not be fair if your principle is correct? If rich people don't need their money, and we can find better things to spend it for than they could, why not just take it all? Why do you think that is unfair? Should rich people get to keep that money and spend it on yachts and fine wine? Wouldn't it be better if that money were helping the sick and poor? They don't really need that income, they will get by just fine, and we can find so many better uses for the money. I just don't understand why you aren't on board with this, do you think it's better for the rich people to keep and spend the money?

And I even agree that it should be ALL their income... I always assumed your INCOME tax covered all your INCOME earned, but you say there is all kinds of income that isn't taxed.... well, my idea covers that, we confiscate 100% of everything a rich person makes, so nothing escapes. Again, I don't understand why you're not on board, I thought that would make you happy as hell? No more write-offs or deductions, we just take 100% of everything the rich person earns, and no more worries! We don't even have to have future arguments that we didn't raise their tax rates enough, as I am sure we'd have otherwise. Why put ourselves through all of that, and having to re-write legislation in a few years, fight the political battles, etc... let's just get it over with now, and start taxing rich people 100% on everything they earn! Explain why you are not on board?