Posted on 08/01/2011 6:46:11 PM PDT by yetidog
Forgive me for asking…but what is so wrong about raising taxes to some negotiated extent on the most wealthy taxpayers in the US? While I know this question violates conservative orthodoxy, there are a lot of folks in the US who make a lot of money…some of it easily earned (inherited), some of it by talent (professional athletes), some of it by luck (actors and lottery winners) and some of it by a lot of hard work and perseverance. Now I agree that $250,000 is not the place to start, but maybe 5 million (or some other negotiable figure and percentage) is. And I know that revenue gained from “raising taxes on the rich” is a mere drop in the bucket, but an negotiated agreement to do so would destroy a persistent liberal argument that makes a lot of sense to many voters in the country. Not every rich person is the key to unemployment nor or they particularly deserving of protection because they are among the 5% or so that pay 80% of the taxes. This is not a matter of class envy nor income distribution, rather it addresses about the only rational argument that liberals still have in the ongoing fiscal policy debate.
How do you maintain the life style of someone who has his taxes raised? He asks for more money. Matt Damon asks for an extra million dollars per picture. The studio just raise the ticket price. How does a NBA star get his Lamborgine? All taxes end with the consumer. It just makes everything we produce and consume more expensive.
No job should be more than $250,000 taxed at 50%, sliding 2% for each $2000 to $50,000. I would be able to afford to go to a NFL game now and then.
"NO ONE is worth a million or two a year. If they're making that much money, it because of a distortion in the system."
Put simply, people are paid based on their ability to generate income for their businesses or the employers. Pro sports players generate huge earnings for their teams. Ever go to an MLB or NFL game and see people wearing jerseys and shirts with players' names on them? People are buying more than a shirt - they're buying the name of a person, a specific person who is generating a great deal of money for his employer.
The free market is the best arbiter for what people earn, not you, me, or a numbnut in D.C. or elsewhere.
Liberals would suck us all dry as a bone if they could get away with it. They are addicted to taxing and spending and can never get enough of it.
Clearly you haven't gone out for a drive across America.
The United States is vastly underpopulated - and has been, for most of its history.
“...post that resulted in about 75% personal attacks...”
Hey buddy... when a fella sits in the front pew, farts a gale of Schlitz and onion rings and then leaves... fingers are going to point.
I don’t find the trickery humorous OR productive.
The others can speak for themselves, but I don’t need to be fooled into defending self-evident truths. Especially those also codified by our founding documents and by the Creator recognized therein.
“Thou shalt NOT steal... ah... unless fifty percent plus you see something enviable on thy neighbor’s side of the fence.” (nope, still don’t sound right)
I applaud your general desire to emphasize the flaw of progressive taxation. However, if such dishonest tactic were the norm here, I’d leave. This place is annoying enough with all the bashing of fine conservative candidates.
If you can’t help yourself, perhaps your next street theater could include a lesson on how Americans have mistakenly come to believe that democracy is what we stand for rather than freedom. When in reality the Constitution is there to protect us FROM democracy.
What Jefferson would likely have considered a modern tyranny of the majority, many today have come to regard as healthy compromises of minority rights for majority comforts.
Speak for yourself.
To whom does the money belong? And how much of someone else’s money do you think you have a right to take just because you think they have more than they should? What you are promoting is nothing more than institutionalized coveting. I seem to remember a commandment that condemns that.
You showed your socialism when you said you didn’t give a fig that 5% pays 80%. Not only is that completely moronic, you clearly have no clue of the statistic you are citing.
I can guarantee, now before you try and look it up to reply, that you don’t know at what taxable income level the top 1%, 5% or 10% is.
And it’s the top 10% pay about 78% of all federal income taxes. You couldn’t even research it enough to know that but you sure were quick to flout it.
It’s the spending stupid.
Yeah, that’s called SLAVERY!
Notice how left wing libs and Democrats have historically just LOVED slavery?
Thank you for the second coming Jesus! Or is it Hitler?
I can’t tell since you think you can impose your retarded beliefs on your fellow free citizens.
Just try and take my hard earned money. It’s none of your damn business.
God knows you aren’t worth $2 a year.
One problem is that everytime the govt sets out to tax the “rich”, it end up hitting the middle class. Look at the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was put into effect some 20 years ago to tax a few millionaires who did not pay taxes. It was not indexed for inflation and now it applies to millions of taxpayers. Obama’s definition of rich at 250k could be equivalent to the minimum wage in 20 years if no indexing. Middle income taxpayers get screwed everytime the govt targets the “rich.”
I just don’t get where these people truly believe they have a Right to your property?
I think that’s income, not wealth.
Which gets back to my original comment.
I just scratch my head and wonder what in the world some folks are doing at FR. Their views seem antithetical to conservatism.
Well, at least they’re here where they can learn the truth rather than at some other site where they’re just going to get leftist propaganda.
Thanks for speaking with the voice of reason.
What tax rate would you suggest for people with $5Mil +?
Lots of libertarians are drawn to FreeRepublic as a result of our oft-stated desire to defend liberty and against the authoritarianism that comes with Big Government. For some it appears to be their only intersection with conservatism.
They are lying to you to make a point. Or so it seems to me.
Read post #106. And tell me where this fella stands.
I read 106 as meaning he only pretended to approve of soaking the rich in the article simply to be an "intentionally provocative post" which he'd hope would have "the benefit of emphasizing taxation inequities and the need for revenue reform along with a big reduction in governmental spending."
If so, then he might simply be one of us... who happens to have no respect for us.
Either way, my assessment (#124) of his behavior stands.
1. It doesn't tax existing wealth, only new wealth. That's why Bill Gates supports this tax.
2. Most of the superrich - the Soros types, put a lot of their money into 501c(3) operations. Those are written off their taxes, while they get a "relatively" small salary so they don't pay anything.
3. A lot of the so called "rich" are small business owners who may have $1 million plus in assets needed for the business, but can't use that money for himself. Or $1million gross with 800,000 in expenses.
no, I think the colors are right: Red China, Red Communists.
The red state/blue state was a classic disinformation twist from the 1980 presidential election night coverage IIRC (progressive media didn’t want people to think that democrat-leaning states were “red”, i.e. socialist)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.