Skip to comments.The rich don't pay, they leave (John Stossel & Taxes))
Posted on 09/29/2010 4:44:29 PM PDT by Sneakyuser
Columbia University Professor Marc Lamont Hill tells me, "Those who have more should pay more."
But is there a point where they stop producing wealth or leave altogether?
"The rich have always cried wolf like that," Hill says.
But the wolf is here. Maryland created a special tax on rich people that was supposed to bring in $106 million. Instead, the state lost $257 million"
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
And the question I never really hear asked of these idiots...
Today Glenn Beck was the best show I’ve ever seen. I must admit I don’t watch it that much. But obama’s daddy wrote an article saying the government has the right to tax the wealthy at 100% as long as the government provides them with the service they need.
Are people just too stupid to understand that when you don’t make money on your investments you stop investing?
Those with enough brains and energy will always find a way to pay less or to avoid paying more. Even the left-wing jackasses who have billions are very adept at avoiding taxes while urging others to pay more. Ask the Kennedys about the various family trusts and tax dodges (note: Old Joe made enough money for the slackers and morons that followed him to hire energy and brains).
Those who have more already do pay more, Professor Hill.
Believe it or not, but here in these great Unites States Congress passed just that measure in 1930s, raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 100%. Apparently on advice of Morgenthau, Roosevelt decreased it to... 90%.
It did not occur to our elected representatives that nobody would work passed the threshold if all his income is to be forfeited.
The commies don’t want you ask that question. They also don’t want to see that the top 5-10% of earners ALREADY pay about half the income taxes... and only earn about 30% of the income!
I guess they have never heard of tax-free municipals.........
Those that have more are paying more already,,, how bout everyone should pay something? Bout 50% are paying anything federally.
I don’t want taxes raised but the threat that the super wealthy “citizens of the world” will leave the US is no threat at all. Most of the super rich are traitorous progressive kooks who use their wealth as “charity” social and political wrecking balls on our country. Who cares if they chose to leave the US? We should put a special, extremely high tax on Hollywierd.
The FairTax is the solution - make the Poor (and Criminal and Undocumented) pay their fair share.
Also, tax consumption, not production.
Finally, the IRS and other intrusive government agencies will no longer have an excuse to keep your personal statistics on file...
"The rich have always cried wolf like that," Hill says.
That's not what he said. He said, "Thosewhohavemoreshouldpaymore." and "Therichhavealwayscriedwolflikethat."
From each according to their means, to each according to their needs.
“But obamas daddy wrote an article saying the government has the right to tax the wealthy at 100% as long as the government provides them with the service they need.”
Here’s one that makes you angry:
A letter printed in the USA Today the other day lamented the fact that the rich are ONLY taxed on the first $100,000 of their income for Social Security. He wants to tax them for their entire income, yet make a cap so they can only collect the maximum that is in place now (about $15,000 annually)!
The justification? The fact that the rich are paying the LOWEST taxe rates in the last 75 years (well yes if you include the 92% upper tax rate in the early 1960s)!
I don’t get into Left Vs. Right personal discussions but when I hear someone saying the rich are greedy and don’t pay their share I ask, “Is it greedy to make your own money legally and want to keep it or for someone to have it taken away from another without doing anything to earn it?” That is the definition of greed, in my opinion.
And it isn't even like there is a cut off point, people will invest less to the exact degree that government taxation makes the risk outweigh the benefit.
Risk two million dollars on an investment, and if you make a million, Uncle Sam gets over 50%? You take all the risk, and US takes over half the profit? Well how risky is the investment and how much is the return, and maybe now I should not invest.
“Columbia University Professor Marc Lamont Hill tells me, “Those who have more should pay more.”
“The rich have always cried wolf like that,” Hill says.
That’s not what he said. He said, “Thosewhohavemoreshouldpaymore.” and “Therichhavealwayscriedwolflikethat.”
LOL. Good one. Mark Lamont Hill, A.K.A. Motormouth, thinks that trick can work on his students but it doesn’t on the “educated.”
(He is funny on Red-Eye though and not afraid to come on and debate with O’Reilly, Coulter, etc. I’ll give him that.)
Yeah and once they leave, the vultures pick the bones of the next guys down until there is nothing left to pick....then chaos happens.
I have always wondered why taxing people for different amounts (rich-poor, etc.) was not in contrast to the principle of equal treatment under the law.
It is depressing to continue to read this stuff after more than 200 years of Americans providing the evidence that socialism and centralized government control is much less successful than simply letting individuals pursue their own desires.
If you want a quick, clear comment to those who think taxes should be raised on the “wealthy” snap back that no one is proposing to raise taxes on the “wealthy”. Socialists want to raise taxes on “earners”—higher earners maybe but earners and not the wealthy. Many people are wealthy but earn little (Warren Buffet is one). Income taxes are taken from people who EARN the money each year. If you worked and studied for decades before becoming a high earning citizen, you will be taxed just as though you had always made a large income. Some occupations, such as medicine or other educated occupations, require a lot of years of low or no pay to reach a decent, and uncertain, income. Where is the credit for that? If you inherited your wealth—you don’t have to pay. Income taxes are the burden of the worker.
And for that matter, what is wrong with a tax system that rewards hard study and work leading to a good occupation? How about a standard tax rate for everyone that gets REDUCED when you receive an education in the applied sciences or medicine? How about decreasing tax rates with each year of work? How about tax cuts for life accomplishments? What do you think would become of the economic state of a country that practices these principles? I would be interested to know what others think.
You are all missing the point. It is because no one is supposed to have more.
This is, of course, a major reason behind the push for world government. People will have nowhere to flee to.
No one besides Obama, Pelosi & government libs are supposed to be rich. Period. - Or as they apparently think, “all for me, but none for thee”. So, they want to tax the producers of wealth into oblivion and mouth slogans and platitudes. You know, like “hopey-changey”. That’ll do it.
The rich have more to lose than I do.
Most of my income goes to necessities. I have very little discretionary mad money, except what I add to my credit card balances.
The rich have more reason to keep the system going. If the Red Chinese came marching down Main Street and nobody has anything, well, join the club.
If they bash my head in with a shovel, well, I did not have anything much in the way of assets to parcel out anyway.
Remember that Ten Years After song, “I’d Love to Change the World”? The lyrics really were prescient of the modern leftist:
Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more
NOTE the lyics and the implication: tax until there aren’t any rich. Not until there aren’t any poor, or there aren’t any hungry. No, until there aren’t any rich. There’ll still be hungry and poor people, but at least there won’t be any rich.
Progressivism is about tearing down the successful, not building up the less successful.
Tax-free municipals are NOT tax-free. Instead of paying 5% and being taxed down to 3%-3.5%, they just pay 3%-3.5% tax-free. It makes the "rich" seem like they pay less in taxes than they actually pay.
Not really true. The rates were dropped dramatically, and the tax shelters that the people used to avoid the obscene rates were eliminated. In the end, people payed about the same percent of GDP, but because the incentive was to earn rather than hide income, the economy expanded greatly. Not the libtards want to go back to obscene rates, and provide tax dodges (green energy, social investments, etc.) to their friends and supporters.
Saw that. It was a good show today.
I wonder if these tax and spend libs will ever get a clue. The parasites always eat the host. The host dies. So, what are they gonna do when they have bled the haves, halfway halves, little bit haves, and the “I’m working my butt off so that I can be a have someday” completely dry?
Sometimes politicians, journalists and the liberal left exclaim;
“It’s just a tax cut for the rich!” and it is just
accepted to be fact.
But what does that really mean?
Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, I hope the
following will help. Please read it carefully.
Let’s put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for
all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite
happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m
going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.” Dinner for
the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so
the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free.
But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could
they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the
sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce
each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and! he proceeded to
work out the amounts each should pay.
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four
continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men
began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only
saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than me!”
“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he
get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison.
“We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine
sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,
they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money
between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how
our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the
most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them
for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start eating overseas where
the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
Yes, and that is why the final commandment is about not coveting. It seems to be the most socially acceptable sin.
They have been leaving NJ and NY City for a few years now.
I know many that have come the Colorado.
It takes a real Marxist idiot to think they have rich people by the short-n-curlies and can tax whatever they want out of them. On top of it all, the rich can donate to campaigns of people running against such Marxist idiots.
I LOVE the Fair Tax!!!
Just 100%? Can't they squeeze out more? Tax their heirs maybe? Hmm, isn't that better described as 'theft'? Provide them the service they need? What - put them up in public housing and 'provide' them public assistance? Basically take all they have and them provide them a small allowance to live on? I'm LOL at his logic. Except when I remember that there are those who read and agree with him. Mugabe's constituents know of this government 'right'.
So the high earners can spend all their money outside the country to avoid the 30% sales tax ?
The top 1% of earners spend $2T a year in the US today. The FairTax expects to collect over $400B a year on that spending. If just that 1% goes expat and spends their money outside the US instead, that $400B is going to cause a pretty big hole in the “revenue neutral” FairTax calcs, don’t you think ?
The FairTax is a pretty blatant attempt to shift the taxes — including shoring up SS/M —onto the high earner-spender, while untaxing the low earners even more than they are now.
“And for that matter, what is wrong with a tax system that rewards hard study and work leading to a good occupation? How about a standard tax rate for everyone that gets REDUCED when you receive an education in the applied sciences or medicine? How about decreasing tax rates with each year of work? How about tax cuts for life accomplishments? What do you think would become of the economic state of a country that practices these principles? I would be interested to know what others think.”
Wow. You really want government deciding what occupations and life accomplishments are deserving of tax breaks ?? You’d end up with government workers and union members and college professors being taxed at zero and the actual productive workers paying double.
[It makes the “rich” seem like they pay less in taxes than they actually pay. ]
Or, put another way, it makes municipal governments look like they cost less than they really do, because their interest rates on borrowing are lower than they otherwise would be.
During slavery the Southern plantation owners provided their slaves with a shack in which to live, ragged cloths and food. For this the slaves worked daylight to dusk.
Today the government provides many of it’s citizens with subsidized housing, a government check they can use to buy cloths and food stamps to buy food. The only difference is today the government doesn’t want them to work because they just might become too independent.
The ultimate know-nothing affirmative action “pundit”, Marc Lamont Hill, weighs in.
John is exactly correct, of course, but he gets timid with those last four words. Democrats don't "spend" their stolen loot "on others" - - use that stolen loot to buy votes. The rats put a lot of time and effort into maximizing their "bang for the buck" when it comes to buying votes. There is nothing willy-nilly about it. ...And certainly nothing charitable, lol.
You're right. I hadn't considered similarities to slavery right away. A modern day slavery. Coming to more of us soon.
The only difference is today the government doesnt want them to work because they just might become too independent.
Too independent. Ironic, isn't it, in our nation built on freedoms. Independent - and unwilling to keep from biting the hand that fed them. The trick will be transitioning more of those accustomed to working into a dependent, non-working, waiting for the check state of mind.
The end of all the hidden taxes on merchandise will offset the 23% (calculated the same way the Federales calculate income tax as a percentage of your earnings) sales tax, so there will be little or no increase in price.
And, with the end of corporate income tax and capital gains tax, the US will become THE place to invest and build. I suspect most of the money will stay home.
If you still think the money will run away from such a salubrious environment, we can always look at imposing excises and tariffs.
Columbia professor Marc Hill should lead the way.
Hey bud, send in 100% of your income.
How’s that going to work for you, ya doofus.
Some goofball thinktank did a study back in the 90’s.
They figured out just how much money the feds would take in if everyone was on a 100% tax rate.
Then they projected what that income would be going out for the next 10 years.
What they didn’t consider was that NO ONE would go to work in year number 2.
These idiots are educated WAY beyond their intelligence.
True as well.
It is actually a strange thing. One would think that the Federal government would want that money and power back.
Tax-free Municipal Model: Municipality issues $10,000,000 in tax-free bonds at 3%. Rich people buy them and receive $300,000/year in interest, tax-free. No payment to the Feds.
Non-tax-free Model: Municipality issues $10,000,000 in bonds at 5%. Rich people buy them and receive $500,000/year in interest, taxable. Rich people pay $200,000 of it to the Feds in income taxes (resulting in the same $300,000 they netted in the other model. Feds use the $200,000 they receive in taxes to reward the municipalities that support them. (Typical politics.)
Upside for the Fed Gov't - more control of the country. Downside for the Fed Gov't - Rich people seem to make more income and pay more taxes than under the current tax-free system.
More and more are becoming dependent on the government each and every day as the wealth is spread.
Like the 105% tariff China just placed on US poultry ? No, that just puts the government in the position of social engineering — deciding what imports should be taxed would be just as bad as letting them decide what income should be taxed, and what deductions should be allowed.
My bottom line is that the Federal Income Tax brings in revenues roughly equal to 10% of all personal income. If the government were NOT engineering the income tax code to exclude, exempt, deduct, and credit certain activities and sources of income, a simple 10% income tax would bring in the same revenue and eliminate any involvement with the IRS for 90% of the people. I’d replace the Corporate Income Tax and the FICA taxes with a 10% payroll tax paid by employers (subject to the same $110K cap) and a 5% NRST on all goods and services. These three taxes would raise $2.7T vs. the current revenues of $2.2T while preventing the government from social engineering.
I vote for cloning Mellon as Treasury Sec.
You know how subsidies work, right?
I’ve often wondered why some enterprising economics student would set up a game in which the poor would get taxed.
Imagine you set a minimum income threshold, say $15,000. Below that amount you’d be taxed at 50%. Above that amount you’d be taxed at a normal rate.
Would we cure poverty and end welfare abuse all in one stroke?
Why not implement an experiment at Columbia University?
Tax all professorial income that is over $70K at 100%.
That mini-lab of brilliant people will teach us a lot about how socialism works without putting the entire nation at risk.
The amount collected can be distributed evenly across all the TAs who do the real teaching anyway.
Leftists aren’t stupid. Taxing wealth generally leads to sudden death for them.