Tax the rich, eh?

[Anonymous]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=286217

If congress imposed a 100% tax on everyone making over $250k, confiscated all of last year's profits by the Fortune 500 companies, and took all assets of America's 400 billionaires...we could fund our gov't for 8 months. Maybe its time to look at the real culprit here: the government and its spending problem.

[1713888366]

1713888366

[1713888366]

1713888366

[1713888366]

1713888366

[1713888366]

1713888366

[joulesbeef]

we are discussing spending cuts but that and your article is zero reason to not roll back the tax cuts that have helped explode our deficit as bush's Treasury sect Paul O;Neil warned would happen, right before he was forced out for saying that.

[Anonymous]

we are discussing spending cuts but that and your article is zero reason to not roll back the tax cuts that have helped explode our deficit as bush's Treasury sect Paul O;Neil warned would happen, right before he was forced out for saying that.

Haha, I like how you say it exploded the deficit like it was somehow the government's money to begin with. You're funny.

The fact is the government is an inefficient and wasteful monster. There is no rational reason to justify throwing more money into the flames. Additional taxes build nothing. Most departments are ineffective and if they do anything right, it's serving cunning corporations.

Putting band-aids on the symptoms of a greater problem is inane. The main issue is spending and the government at large.

[The Script]

we are discussing spending cuts but that and your article is zero reason to not roll back the tax cuts that have helped explode our deficit as bush's Treasury sect Paul O;Neil warned would happen, right before he was forced out for saying that.

Haha, I like how you say it exploded the deficit like it was somehow the government's money to begin with. You're funny.

The fact is the government is an inefficient and wasteful monster. There is no rational reason to justify throwing more money into the flames. Additional taxes build nothing. Most departments are ineffective and if they do anything right, it's serving cunning corporations.

Putting band-aids on the symptoms of a greater problem is inane. The main issue is spending and the government at large.

Agree.

[bitfreak!]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=286217

If congress imposed a 100% tax on everyone making over $250k, confiscated all of last year's profits by the Fortune 500 companies, and took all assets of America's 400 billionaires...we could fund our gov't for 8 months.

WOW...WTF do they use all that cash on?!? Does it go back to helping society? It seems like the only thing they achieve is greater and greater debt.

[Sultan]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=286217

If congress imposed a 100% tax on everyone making over $250k, confiscated all of last year's profits by the Fortune 500 companies, and took all assets of America's 400 billionaires...we could fund our gov't for 8 months.

WOW...WTF do they use all that cash on?!? Does it go back to helping society? It seems like the only thing they achieve is greater and greater debt.

It is spent on paying off loans so that more loans to the government can be made - basically what you just said!

[compro01]

WOW...WTF do they use all that cash on?!?

more military than the next ten countries combined and an ineffective system of corporate welfare cleverly disguised as a healthcare system.

[pekv2]

Why not tax the rich? They don't have enough? Just tax the little guy to high hell that is struggling already? Sounds like you are a rich man or with good money. To add to it, govt needs to impose legalization on Marijuana and tax it just like alcohol.

I'm just saying.

[Rassah]

Um, military, police, fire, legal system, fda, transportation, keeping old people off the streets, and all that debt that people voted FOR before they decided, "Nuh-uh! Not MY debt, it's the governments!" Seriously, why is it that when people vote for politicians and decisions that, say, get us stuck in a decade-long war, it's all good, but as soon as those same people are asked to pay for the money borrowed to support that war, it's all, "don't look at me! It's not MY debt."

[JBDive]

I am not opposed to a tiered tax system, tax the rich more than the poor, simply because of the huge tax loopholes our system has created of which the wealthy and large corporations take or get the advantage. If we are not going to a flat tax across the board the only way to even start to get the playing field even is a tiered tax system however the tax brackets need to be moved, $250k is not rich.

Multi-billion dollar corporations in this country are not paying any corporate income tax due to tax loopholes and credits. Granted yes those companies do pay other taxes however if you look at a company like GE which makes billions off the Federal and even local Gov'ts yet paid no corporate income tax last year it's clear they are not owning up to paying their fair share which in turn creates this country in which they are able to make those profits. Others like Microsoft, Intel and Google have moved vast amounts of money and corporate assets to other countries to avoid US taxes yet without the US those companies wouldn't exist. One of my pet peeves are actors who make millions offshore through various channels and they keep that money offshore buying up mansions on Lake Como, Italy or private islands in the Caribbean yet without the US and it's laws those actors wouldn't be crap.

So either we tier the system or we start from scratch and flat rate everyone based on their total revenue, US generated or not, the latter being my preference. If you want to claim US citizenship or be defended by US laws then pay up Google, Microsoft, Intel, GE, Exxon, Depp, DiCaprio, Onassis, Clooney and others.

[Rassah]

Multi-billion dollar corporations in this country are not paying any corporate income tax due to tax loopholes and credits. Granted yes those companies do pay other taxes however if you look at a company like GE which makes billions off the Federal and even local Gov'ts yet paid no corporate income tax last year it's clear they are not owning up to paying their fair share which in turn creates this country in which they are able to make those profits.
Others like Microsoft, Intel and Google have moved vast amounts of money and corporate assets to other countries to avoid US taxes yet without the US those companies wouldn't exist.

Although I'm all for a tiered tax system, the things you pointed out warrant some explanation.
GE didn't pay any corporate taxes because they, and many other corps, are still recouping the losses they had in 2008. Negative profits (or profit losses) are allowed to be carried forward and deducted for a few years. Likely GE still had plenty to carry forward. It just means that, although they may have made a huge profit over the last year, they made pretty much nothing over the last 3 years.
As for why those tech companies moved overseas, it probably has almost nothing to do with taxes, and everything to do with being able to find a pool of highly skilled employees willing to work for much less money. Believe it or not, there are actual real problems with being able to find people skilled and educated enough in this country to do some of the things those companies need done

[TheGer]

Seriously dude it's a historical fact that reducing Taxes increases Tax Receipts.  This is why the Globalists rate Tax Cuts.  It stimulate the economy and they don't like that.

we are discussing spending cuts but that and your article is zero reason to not roll back the tax cuts that have helped explode our deficit as bush's Treasury sect Paul O;Neil warned would happen, right before he was forced out for saying that.

[lemonginger]

Seriously dude it's a historical fact that reducing Taxes increases Tax Receipts.  This is why the Globalists rate Tax Cuts.  

could have fooled me

[JBDive]

Multi-billion dollar corporations in this country are not paying any corporate income tax due to tax loopholes and credits. Granted yes those companies do pay other taxes however if you look at a company like GE which makes billions off the Federal and even local Gov'ts yet paid no corporate income tax last year it's clear they are not owning up to paying their fair share which in turn creates this country in which they are able to make those profits.
Others like Microsoft, Intel and Google have moved vast amounts of money and corporate assets to other countries to avoid US taxes yet without the US those companies wouldn't exist.

Although I'm all for a tiered tax system, the things you pointed out warrant some explanation.
GE didn't pay any corporate taxes because they, and many other corps, are still recouping the losses they had in 2008. Negative profits (or profit losses) are allowed to be carried forward and deducted for a few years. Likely GE still had plenty to carry forward. It just means that, although they may have made a huge profit over the last year, they made pretty much nothing over the last 3 years.
As for why those tech companies moved overseas, it probably has almost nothing to do with taxes, and everything to do with being able to find a pool of highly skilled employees willing to work for much less money. Believe it or not, there are actual real problems with being able to find people skilled and educated enough in this country to do some of the things those companies need done

Wrong on why Corporations like Google are in Ireland.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/ireland-business-blog-with-lisa-ocarroll/2011/mar/24/google-ireland-tax-reasons-bermuda

I am aware of how to carry forward a loss and I am also aware of how easy it is as a company to show no profit.

[Rassah]

Seriously dude it's a historical fact that reducing Taxes increases Tax Receipts.  This is why the Globalists rate Tax Cuts.  It stimulate the economy and they don't like that.

we are discussing spending cuts but that and your article is zero reason to not roll back the tax cuts that have helped explode our deficit as bush's Treasury sect Paul O;Neil warned would happen, right before he was forced out for saying that.

That's as valid as "It's a historical fact that increasing prices will raise profits." We also obviously know that 0% tax rate does not result in infinity% tax receipts.
There's an upside down hyperbola function with pretty much everything financial/economic. You just have to find the peak.

[TheGer]

My god that is an idiotic thing to say because you're trying to argue with me by making my point for me.

"That's as valid as "It's a historical fact that increasing prices will raise profits."" Noting the Sarcasm in this statement please read the following.

increasing prices will raise profits - no they decrease profits
decreasing prices will raise profits - yes more people buy when it's cheaper

increasing taxes will raise tax revenue - no they decrease revenue
decreasing taxes will raise tax revenue - yes more people buy when it's cheaper to live

That being said please educate yourself to the following.


The tax cuts of the 1920s:

Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.


The Kennedy tax cuts:

President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.


The Reagan tax cuts"

President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.

Seriously dude it's a historical fact that reducing Taxes increases Tax Receipts.  This is why the Globalists rate Tax Cuts.  It stimulate the economy and they don't like that.

we are discussing spending cuts but that and your article is zero reason to not roll back the tax cuts that have helped explode our deficit as bush's Treasury sect Paul O;Neil warned would happen, right before he was forced out for saying that.

That's as valid as "It's a historical fact that increasing prices will raise profits." We also obviously know that 0% tax rate does not result in infinity% tax receipts.
There's an upside down hyperbola function with pretty much everything financial/economic. You just have to find the peak.

[Rassah]

My god that is an idiotic thing to say because you're trying to argue with me by making my point for me.

"That's as valid as "It's a historical fact that increasing prices will raise profits."" Noting the Sarcasm in this statement please read the following.

increasing prices will raise profits - no they decrease profits
decreasing prices will raise profits - yes more people buy when it's cheaper

increasing taxes will raise tax revenue - no they decrease revenue
decreasing taxes will raise tax revenue - yes more people buy when it's cheaper to live

You're right, not a very good example. From my business education standpoint, you increase prices, you lose profits from competition. You decrease prices, you lose profits due to high variable costs not being covered. "decreasing prices will raise profits - yes more people buy when it's cheaper" only works if you're actually covering your costs, and the number of buyers (tax payers) isn't infinite. Both tax rates and product prices have diminishing returns, and both have peaks. We may be over the peak with too high of a tax rate, but we may also be on the other side of the peak with taxes being too low. That really depends on whom you ask (I have no opinion because I don't believe I am fully informed, but then neither are most of our politicians). Just automatic "lower taxes = higher tax revenues" is total BS.

Regarding your examples, the tax rate was easily too high when Reagan came to power, and it's good that he realized that, but don't forget that he also ended up raising taxes later when he realized the revenues were too low. Clinton raised taxes in the 90's, and we ended up increasing revenues and getting rid of the deficit. Bush lowered taxes (though also increased spending), and we have a HUGE debt. It really isn't as simple as you make it out to be.

Out of curiosity, though, why do you believe that the reduction of tax rates in your examples resulted in the "rich" paying a higher share of tax revenues? Did the rich skimp out on paying taxes before? What about a decreasing tax rate drives up these tax revenues?

[TheGer]

I don't have to believe.  The numbers are historical and  sourceable online.

"why do you believe that the reduction of tax rates in your examples resulted in the "rich" paying a higher share of tax revenues?"

[lemonginger]

I don't have to believe.  The numbers are historical and  sourceable online.

"why do you believe that the reduction of tax rates in your examples resulted in the "rich" paying a higher share of tax revenues?"

I posted the graph. Even if you believe in the Laffer curve, it is a curve, not a straight line. There are plenty of contrary examples to any example you could give. As mentioned the Clinton/Bush years are quite indicative of a contrary position.

[Rassah]

I don't have to believe.  The numbers are historical and  sourceable online.

"why do you believe that the reduction of tax rates in your examples resulted in the "rich" paying a higher share of tax revenues?"

By "believe" I meant as in, how do you understand this system works? What is your "informed opinion" of it? Since if all you have is historical examples, without understanding the cause-effect, then you really do only have "belief," instead of actual understanding of how the system works.