Oh, I forgot: IBTZ
It's wrong because it won't work. You could take all their money and it won't work. That's the existential side of it. The moral side of it is why should they pay more? Because they can?
As an aside, what ever happened to equal protection under the law? How is a progressive tax not unconstitutional?
No revenues? You haven’t been following closely. The assumptions in this bill and by the CBO are that the Bush tax cuts expire Jan 1/13. There you go, a tax increase which you will be paying too.
The solution is to starve the beast, not to gorge it with dessert. Every last dollar of spending excess has to be wrung out of the economy before we consider revenue increases.The modus operandi of Dem Party when they take control is to unleash spending calculating that they will spend us into a hole.Step 2 is to then go back to the public and tell them we have a revenue problem and that we need to tax those who do not vote for them. Yielding to Democrat impulses to “tax the rich” implicitly suggests that the revenue problem is on an equal footing with the spending problem.They are not.
Even if the rich pay 99% of their income, it'll never be enough for the democrats//liberals/socialists/communists/Marxists.
When do the poor/disadvantaged/downtrodden have enough?
Where is it written that we have an obligation to provide anything beyond subsistence to those who will not make an effort to provide for themselves.
I'm sick and tired of having to pay taxes to provide gold plated benefits for those who won't lift a finger to help themselves.
/rant off
Top 1% paying 38% of the tax bill; top 5% with 59%; top 25% paying 87% ... while 47% of Americans pay nothing.
Come up with a plan to get the non-paying 47% in the game and get back to us.
I’m sorry but I can’t forgive you for asking. This is a fundamental moral issue. The “rich” own their wealth, and so long as they came by it honestly, no one has a claim on it. And if they came by it dishonestly, only the actual aggrieved have a claim, not “society”.
How does someone justify holding a gun to the head of “the rich”? If you hire the government to steal money from someone to give it to you, or to those you favor, because you envy them, you still have stolen the money.
The answer is:
Because it is their money, not yours, and you have no right to it. Neither for yourself or to “help” the people you designate as less fortunate.
Almost no wealth comes from fortune. It comes from work.
Forgetting the fact that further raising taxes on the “wealthiest” is simply government theft and institutionalized violation of “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods”, the simple fact is, it would not make a dent on the deficit for one year, let alone the national debt. If you were to subscribe to the irrationally inane notion that raising taxes on the “wealthiest” would not change their behavior regarding taxable income, then you might could argue that such a change in tax policy would increase tax revenues in the first year by perhaps a few hundred billion, well short of the TRILLION dollar deficit. But by the second year, when the “wealthiest” have had a chance to change their income situation, they would shelter their income and tax revenues will go down.
There have been articles on this subject posted that went into the simple and straightforward mathematics on the subject based on the data from the IRS.
That's why when he says "millionaires and billionaires" he does mean that $200K.
There's little use raising rates because they're not paying the full rate now. Obama himself pays, not the 35%, but 24-26%. Biden, also in the 35% bracket, pays even less than Obama just 22-23%.
Raising taxes on some businesses (not GE, of course) will make things even worse, continue to drive them overseas to avoid taxes.
The single best plan is to get people working again. That will lower spending (fewer on welfare programs) and increase tax receipts.
ObamaCare has businesses going out of business, it has 30-50% of small businesses looking to end their health coverage which will ensure even MORE spending by the Feds.
ObamaCare itself includes higher taxes and cut Medicare by $500 billion.
There is nothing in Obama's policies that will incentivize anyone to expand and hire. He has a war on private sector employers, in particular, those not union shops.
We must win in 2012.
Tax reform is necessary but Obama's idea of tax reform is the wrong prescription.
Seek not the fruits of another man’s labor. Instead, create through your own labor and you will then know the meaning of the injustice you once supported.
Any other questions?
The United States has the most progressive tax system in the world - that means that “upper income earners” pay more than their fair share already.
Half the people in the country pay no income tax at all.
Sure - Why not punish the successful even more in order to reward the unsuccessful?
After all, who needs personal gain as an incentive?
Oh - wait. That’s called human nature!
Just look at the mess you made with your socialist ideas.
Feel better now? Take that poster of Stalin off the wall in your living room.
Cause I KNOW you don’t have it in the garage!!!!
Progressive taxation is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
How much should the rich and responsible pay for those who have been irresponsible? How much should the rich pay for folks who will vote for the irresponsible?
And remember, that figure is proposed for couples filing jointly. But liberals (are you one, by any chance?) keep palming it off as if it were for individuals.
Anyway, 125K for individuals or 250K for couples is too low. That's barely getting by.
But income over a million or two a year should be taxed to ribbons. Let those people feed their feelings of inadequacy by doing good deeds for country and society, instead of by conspicuous consumption of overpriced status symbols.
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.
However, since America is overpopulated (thanks to democrats changing our immigration laws in 1964), only a few people can afford to live decently in today's overpopulated America.
Therefore, allowing a few people to make more than they're really worth, say two or three million a year, should be permitted to give the rest of us hope that maybe someday some of us might live well too. Otherwise all of us would be doomed from birth to live lives of constant struggle and misery.
But more than that is more money than anyone should have.
So tax the rich and use the money so gained to reduce taxes for the rest of us.
A couple of other info sources:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704608104575217870728420184.html
"What's the origin of this limit beyond which it is impossible to extract any more revenue from tax payers? The tax base is not something that the government can kick around at will. It represents a living economic system that makes its own collective choices. In a tax code of 70,000 pages there are innumerable ways for high-income earners to seek out and use ambiguities and loopholes. The more they are incentivized to make an effort to game the system, the less the federal government will get to collect. That would explain why, as Mr. Hauser has shown, conventional methods of forecasting tax receipts from increases in future tax rates are prone to over-predict revenue. "
Bill Whittle's "Eat the Rich" You Tube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ
Simply put - if you want less of something (economic growth), tax it. I don't care how rich you are, the government doesn't have the right to make you a slave.
This corrupt, intrusive, overbearing, tyrannical government is not entitled to another red cent from any source.
There is nothing in the US Constitution about wealth redistribution, promoting class envy or inculcating a sense of dependency among 50% of the population. Nor is there any authority for the federal government to establish bureaus and agencies to dictate every aspect of how we will be permitted to live. More money only means the government will get bigger, more intrusive and pursue more unconstitutional activities.
The "War On Poverty" is 45 years old, trillions have been spent, but we have more people officially in poverty every year. No matter how much money the government takes from others to finance wealth redistribution they will never solve the poverty issue. They only create generation after generation of people who don't, or won't, lift a finger to help themselves if they can hustle a free ride (free to them) from the government.
My family was of very modest means but I never heard a word spoken in envy of those who had more. We did give thanks for what we had. Perhaps that sense of appreciation and self reliance came from parents who lived through the First Great Depression and WWII.
The only thing I ever wanted from a person who earned more than I is the opportunity to learn how they did it.
As for people who are born into wealth, fell into a gold mine in their back yard or won a box of $1,000 bills - that is the luck of the draw. There is always someone bigger, faster, wealthier. Stay busy making the most of your own life and none of that matters in the long run.
The constitution guarantees equal opportunity. Our troubles began around the time leftists tried to force equality of outcome without concern for quality or quantity of the input.
Forgive me for asking…but what is so wrong about raising taxes to some negotiated extent on the most wealthy taxpayers in the US?
You are going to touch a nerve on this forum with that question. However, I think a frank and thoughtful discussion of your question is in order. (I like being different.)
First and foremost, the short-term problem isn't revenue, it's spending. Specifically, government spending way beyond the means of the government to bring in money. I still remember William G. Moore, the corporation turnaround expert, saying in an all-employee meeting "the key to business success is bringing in a dollar more than you spend." So increasing tax rates promotes more spending, not less, and so Congress and the President end up kicking the can down the road some more.
Now, if Obama wants more revenue, it's within his sole power -- no action by Congress needed -- to increase the government's income. All he has to do is make the country's business environment attractive for people -- that's rich, not-so-rich, and even bordering on poor -- to take a chance and start or grow a business. Google Steve Wynn for his take on the current business climate. See what the CEO of Home Depot had to say about trying to start that company now, instead of years ago. Gee, Obama could solve two problems with the same action, raise money AND lower unemployment, with the stroke of the pen and turning the bully pulpit inwards, toward the Executive branch. (I'm not holding my breath.)
How, you ask? Apply the 80/20 rule to all regulations: dump the regulations that have a small return, and keep the regulations that actually are a win to the population as a whole, everybody and not just a few. Fix the Executive Branch.
But let's talk about increasing taxes a moment. Several people have done the analysis that if confiscate all the income from the richest people, that doesn't even begin to cover the annual shortfall. And increasing taxes on the rich is the camel's nose into the tent -- politicians can't help but take matters to the extreme. That's how we got to where we are!
So you need to go after a wider base if you are going to do anything at all. How about the 50 percent that pay no federal taxes? How about GE, who paid no federal taxes?
So let me dream a little, and propose the second Alternative Minimum Tax. If, on an individual return, "calculated tax due" is $6 or less, or a negative number, plug $6 into the "total tax due" line on your 1040 or whatever. You're filing a return, so you earned $600 or more, and $6 is the price of a modest dinner for one night. For corporations, the equivalent AMT would be $0.06 per share of common stock per year.
And how about treating hand-outs from local, state, and Federal government to individuals the same way that dividends, retirement benefits, and other "unearned" income are treated: tax them. Set up the tax rates so that people who get food stamps, unemployment, and other unearned payments are taxed at a low rate, but are taxed. Google "social security as taxable income" as an example of how retired people can be nailed for taxes; why not the welfare class? That means the 2ndAMT lets everyone contribute to the kitty.
"But the poor can't afford it!" But the poor can budget just as well as the rich can. And the standard deductions should reflect the cost of being alive. How many "poor" people have expensive sneakers, big screen TVs, and other things that are hard to justify as "needs"?
(Then there is the guy today that proposed the "Democrat" tax, but I won't go there.)
President Obama talks about "fairness", yet he thinks it's fair for people to get a free ride while the rest of us work and grovel for income. To me, that disparity is not The American Way. The Boomers and Sooners didn't want handouts for no work: they went and homesteaded and improved virgin land, some purely by hand, and made something out of it. How about the 49ers digging for gold in California and silver in Nevada?
What to talk about unfair? Our college students bought the idea they could rise above the crowd through diligent study and sparks of inspiration, yet after going many thousands of dollars into debt getting an education, they can't find a job...because the employers are too spooked by the White House Blue-Pencil Corps to take any chances: the business environment is hostile indeed. I wonder how many businessmen and -women would view playing double-zero on a Nevada roulette wheel to represent better odds?
So when you ask "why not tax the rich" see the other options, and calculate how much more revenue would come in based on my proposals.
What is right about 47% of the working population in this country paying NO federal income tax, while using proportionately greater taxpayer-funded resources and services? When the deadbeats start paying the same rate as Bill Gates, then we can talk about raising taxes. As it stands now, until all citizens are treated equally, there is nothing fair or correct about taxing one entity at a greater rate than another.