In the near future, the bush tax cuts will expire and another debt ceiling debate will begin. With that being said, I just do not see the top 1%, or even the .01%, escaping higher taxes. Though, is there any way America can coax the rich into willfully paying higher taxes?
What if we could offer minute public benefits to those that have to pay higher taxes? For instance, take this short list:
-
What if the 1%ers became eligible to park in handicap parking spaces for 2 years.
-
Or, the .01%ers got expedited passport service for free
-
Even better, what if the taxed, rich population received a fast pass lane at the DMV
I must admit that this post is essentially a paraphrase of a WSJ opinion piece months ago, yet the fundamental idea has stuck with me for some time now. Since the 1% only represent ~3,000,000 people nationwide, would anyone even notice a couple occupied handicapped spots every once in a while? Maybe some people might notice that a handful of Bentley drivers have suddenly become disabled; otherwise I highly doubt the concession would cause that big of a scene.
Maybe it is time for legislators to get creative in Washington in order to tax the wealthy. Honestly, I think we can all stomach to trade a fast pass lane at the DMV for the holistic benefit of receiving more tax revenue.
Does anyone have any better concessions for the rich in return for higher taxes?
and raging tax debate in 3, 2, 1...
Come to grips with taxing the rich? You mean making them support even more of the country?
Americans love making other people pay for their shit. Same thing with this bullshit tax the rich argument (as if the wealthiest Americans don't already pay the majority of taxes). We will continue to milk people simply because "they won't miss it". This sort of criminal mentality breeds an entitlement mindset which is counter to the competitive nature of the world.
P
not in fiance my pay is 10k in taxes FML
By net worth and Income I fall with in the top 1%. I would be willing to pay more in income taxes, capitol gains taxes, business taxes in exchange for lower tax rates in other areas, specificly the estate taxes. The problem I have with the current tax structure is that I pay a large amount of taxes in various fourms. So much that I pay a larger percentage of my income in taxes then most if not all of you do. So the whole "1% doesn't pay a fair share" is just laughable.
This is comming from a guy who has large holdings of tax deductable assets and lives in a no income tax state.
Or, after they pay their taxes we could just...
Not send them to prison?
Same concession everyone else gets for paying their government mandated dues.
you seriously think any of those would happen? people would flip out even more about 1% getting special treatment, did you actually think this through?
I'm going to assume you read this WSJ piece by Scott Adams, which lays out basically exactly the same concepts but goes even a little farther on the brainstorming. Actually really good food for thought: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487032932045761061641234243…
[quote=CaptK]I'm going to assume you read this WSJ piece by Scott Adams, which lays out basically exactly the same concepts but goes even a little farther on the brainstorming. Actually really good food for thought: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487032932045761061641234243…] VERY interesting, thank you.
"Eventually this country will have to come to terms with taxing the rich."
-This statement is a joke, no?
"Does anyone have any better concessions for the rich in return for higher taxes?"
Go live in China or N.Korea you communists
How much could we save if we outsourced our prisons to China or India? $30k/prisoner?
Hahahaha, god I don't miss the US. What an idiot.
See, I would consider happily paying more taxes if it would only go to reducing debt and we had a law which forbade Congress from adding to the debt. Once we are near debt free the tax increase would be eliminated and call it a day.
But this will never happen. People will talk about the rich not paying "enough" or their "fair share" without every saying definitively how much a fair share really is. Increased taxes will go into the general fund and get pissed away on government bloat or entitlement programs which only garner votes for one side or another.
Why is the answer more taxes or cut programs that help people? How about we find waste and make the government more efficient? How about we pare back enlarged government agencies? You telling me there is no fat to cut? Get fucking real.
Until then I won't support any increase in government theft.
Interesting idea. I was thinking similar only with regards to using bus/taxi lanes on roads, or being allowed to travel on toll roads for free at certain points...would probably cause outrage though as it would be seen as a handout to those who are rich
Nothing will induce the 1% to voluntarily pay more in taxes unless the benefits provided are worth more than the increase in taxes they will see. The 1% didn't get to being the 1% by accepting stupid deals.
I would be willing to bet over 50% of the 1% got money inherited or got to where they are in life through last names.
Tax the fuckers.
Looking through the Forbes 400 I see a lot of self made men
Feel free to comment on this thought with statistics, but I was under the impression that the spending issue is much more pertinent than the taxation issue. I know we need to retool our balance sheets, but it is spending that has got out of control, NOT under-taxation. I would much rather prefer a lower taxation rate that aligns with lower spending than raising taxes to meet current expenditures, which are unacceptably high.
It seems we keep raising expenditures and trying to play a catch up game with government revenues. Risky game to play and it also had a negative effect on the economy (crowding out etc..)
Sometimes it seems this taxation issue is a smokescreen to distract us from a more important issue.
This is 100% accurate.
How about a flat tax proposed by one of my liberal friends?
2% of your net worth every year.
That will stand less chance of passing then a income based flat tax.
If you think that ~ 50% of the people who do not pay under the current system is alot wait until something like that is suggested and something closer to 60% dont pay anything.
I have an idea: pay for your own shit. You want world-class healthcare like the 1% can afford? Work your ass off so you can afford it.
Please, give me your email. I want to send this comment to you when you get laid off.
One idea...
Allow people, when paying their taxes, to choose between different categories of where they would like to allocate each dollar of tax paid. Similar to university donations, give people a feeling that they are investing in something, rather than dropping money into a black box.
ie education, defense, infrastructure, health care....
This is the winning idea.
I just want a hot sex slave plz
Democrats = Increase Spending Republicans = Decrease Taxes
Two means to obtain the same goal. Both approaches are nothing more than theories. Sometimes one works better than the other, and vice versa. Really a waste of time to discuss the effectiveness of either. Sure you can cherry pick and list the pros while ignoring the cons to support your side, but the end result is no policy change... its out of your control.
Macroeconomics makes me sick. Do people really think that anyone can model such a complex system as the US economy with a simple Keynesian, classical, neoclassical, monetarist, whatever, graph. Utopian economics at its best I guess. And this coming from an economics undergrad.
Ron Paul 2012.
DRX & blackfinancier: The idea is good, but why would you actually believe that the money will be spent the right way? If they got us in this mess in the first place, then there are no garanties that they will spend the dollars according to the category. Remedying the symptoms, dos not cure the disease.
None of these concessions would cost the tax payers any additional money:
1) Priority access granted at the DMV 2) Are allowed to purchase homes to $2 million with an FHA loan product and no mortgage insurance; 10% down required if loan amount exceeds conforming limits* 3) Granted access to HOV lanes 4) Granted priority access through airport security 5) Granted priority access through customs 6) Given universal toll road pass 7) Are not required to pay parking meters 8) Granted universal public transportation pass 9) FDIC insurance of deposits to $1 million**
*FHA loan insurance is financed through borrower paid mortgage insurance premiums **FDIC insurance is financed via insurance paid by banks
Top 1% of wage earners begins at $350,000. If I earned $350,000 I would probably be willing to pay a 3.5% surcharge on the entire amount of my income to gain access to these goodies, especially if I lived in a large city, like NYC or DC. Doubt I'd pay the surcharge if I lived in Kansas City. As has been stated, the rich can have anything they want except that thing which they want the most--time. Giving the rich time would be a great incentive to encourage payment of a 3.5% surcharge. Would probably raise $15 to $30 billion in federal revenue, which would, frankly, accomplish absolutely nothing in terms of balancing the budget.
A flat tax will never pass as liberals will complain that the rich should pay more because they can afford it. Which totally goes against the capitalist system that has made America so great.
Neither will benefits for those in the higher tax bracket. Liberals will once again complain that the wealthy are receiving too much. Never mind you what they actually DID to gain this wealth.
The only conceivable solution at this time is a compromise to raise taxes on the rich and decrease spending in the same bill. While this solution may not be tried and true to what capitalism stands for, it is a compromise. At a time when our government is struggling to pay its bills, Americans should be willing to compromise. If that means compromising the idea of capitalism temporarily, that is a sacrifice we must all make.
In the long run however, it should be made clear that raising taxes on the rich is neither beneficial nor politically correct. Of course we can address these issues when the country actually has the political/economic stability to do so.
Many respectable publications like 'The Economist' have already come to this conclusion and I tend to agree. It is the only way at the present moment.
Tax revenue is not the problem. Idiots with the wallet are the problem.
I second that.
I believe the budgetary process is the first thing that should be overhauled. Start with zero based budgeting.
It's funny people complain about taxes back home. At least you get a vote and some benefits. All U.S. nationals living overseas gets hosed every year. Nothing like paying income tax in your resident country and paying U.S. tax as well. The only thing we get is grief for having an inordinate amount of idiots in the country.
As for the OP, I say a free trip to Detriot and a t-shirt similar to Bruce Willis's placard in Die Hard 3.
No compromise. Just win. If the liberal Democrats win then they can do what they want with taxes/spending, which has historically gotten them thrown out of office. If Republicans win then slash spending. No compromise needed.
We talk about free shit to give the rich in order to compensate them for the increased taxes, but we fail to see what the Democrats have been doing for years. Tax the rich to control the poor. You give the proletariat some entitlements, you tell him that you punish the rich for them and they line up and eat it like good cannon fodder.
Just like national healthcare. The fools cheer for it and all it means is mediocre care for them and top care for the rich. Same thing with welfare. Keep them on the government dole and keep them placated.
What better gift for paying taxes then an army of obedient slaves?
Yeah right. The idiots in the Occupy movement would still bitch that the 1%ers are getting all these benefits that the 99%ers are not and that it isn't fair.
Not to take the unpopular viewpoint here, but a lot of these comments about raising taxes on the rich being 'anti-capitalist' or 'anti-American' are a bit misguided, in my opinion. There are a few factors to consider:
a) many of the ultra rich actually pay LESS tax (as a percentage of income) than middle class Americans, due to a series of loopholes afforded by their ability to hire accountants able to game the system. I don't think CEOs receiving a 200 thousand dollar salary with 80 million dollars in stock compensation should pay 15% tax while a worker earning 100 thousand a year is paying 25%. Nor should a rich kid whose sole source of income is capital gains on an inherited 500 million dollar stock portfolio.
b) the reality is that many ultra rich people came into their fortunes not by their own doings, but by inheritance. What this means is one successful person can create generations of descendants who do not have to work, ever. This situation actually goes against meritocracy and 'equality of opportunity'. Assuming that rich = successful is a dangerous reasoning.
c) the truth is, as much as we all like to believe otherwise, our economy is not a complete meritocracy. An entrepreneur nowadays faces huge barriers to entry, and likely needs a network in order to raise capital. People are all given different opportunities based on their upbringing, location, primary education, etc. The pure theory of capitalism requires a perfectly meritocratic system, which simply doesn't exist.
Don't get me wrong- I am not a proponent of arbitrary tax raising by any means, in fact, I would probably say my views lean toward libertarian. Just saying that the idea of a progressive tax system is not necessarily an unfair idea. The keys here being a) the differential is fair and b) the money goes to a cause the taxpayer believes in.
The tyranny of the majority IS tyrannical. Without a recovery as a distraction, either Republicans will try to prevent tax increases on the rich with futility, or the Democrats will just do it. Republicans made a mistake by taking such a absolute stance. They should have created two more income tax brackets and taxed them at high rates. Then, Democrats and their constituents would shut-up, and the rich would only have to forego the small amount they actually pay as a result for the serenity.
Disagree. There isn't an instant in modern political history--since the Great Depression--where raising taxes on anyone, rich or otherwise, has been a winning political issue. Not in the 1980s. Not in the 1990s. Not in the 2000s. Mondale was annihilated in 1984. The Democrats were annihilated in 1994. The Democrats were again annihilated in 2010. The idea that the Republicans have made a tactical mistake on taxes is a breathtaking misreading of history. Americans fundamentally believe in meritocracy and have not historically backed arbitrary and punitive taxing of certain so-called classes. Not in the last 2 generations at least and as of 13 months ago that hasn't changed.
I agree that that is what Americans believe, but there are a lot of special interests and groups that are not a part of this tradition. Plus, the focus on inequality recently has shown itself to resonate much more than the message of the Tea Party (although, as yet, the TP was more influential, but that is probably only a result of there being more time for its message to take effect).
Not that I agree raising taxes and appeasing these groups is ideal (I support Ron Paul), but the reality is that politics is not dominated by Ron Paul-types, but by careerists demagogues.
And also, it isn't being, and won't be, presented merely as raising taxes; but as raising taxes to aid the middle-class/99%.
Just noticed something: the public buzzword of "compromise" has yielded to the word "concession".
interesting
That is because it does.
I'm so fucking tired of hearing "we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem". It is the most overused talking point on the right and it is so fucking overly simplistic I find it nauseating. The fact of the matter is, we have both a revenue and spending problem. See below:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infographics/us-national-debt
$6.6T of the debt was caused by the Bush tax cuts + reduced tax receipts during the recession. Another $250B comes from the middle class tax cut that was part of the stimulus bill (wait, that thing had tax cuts!?!?!?). That's almost $7T out of $14T in debt (at the time the graphic was published). Unfortunately, it's difficult to measure the cost of the payroll tax cuts, but that makes up a portion of the "additional debt" at the bottom. So the true amount related to reduced government revenues is even higher.
If I give you 100k to live on for a year and you spend 120k, you have a spending problem. The amount the government takes in is of no concern to them, they should be able to make due with what they have. However that isn't the case. You create the problem by spending too much, you adjust your spending to meet your revenues. People do it every day, why can't the government do it?
We spend $80 Billion on the Dept of Education per year. You kill that albatross and you save nearly $1 Trillion over 10 years. One agency, one cut, 1T.
You cut the DoD budget by 80billion and you save nearly another trillion.
You increase the retirement age, make SSI only for the poor or destitute and it magically becomes solvent.
You roll up the Dept. of Energy with the DOD and bam, you just saved another chunk of change.
This is all without even trying to make the government more efficient.
We have a spending problem, coupled right now with a TEMPORARY income problem. Once we start paring back the government and their spending we will be fine. The economy will rebound, receipts will increase and spending will continue to be lower which will only increase the speed in which we pay down our debt.
Why the fuck is your name M Friedman???? He would pwn your post if he were alive today.
Agreed. The user name in no way fits the post.
Duff, what you said makes no sense. Dude, if you have $100 to your name and you spend $120, you have a spending problem. It's as simple as that. The government has no clue how to live within it's means.
No it's more like, we are going to spend $100 each of the next 3 years (called a budget). Year 1-3 = recession. Year 2-3 = tax cut Year 3 = recession is still happening, another tax cut
Your tax receipts- Year 1 = 80, Year 2 = 70, Year 3 = 60 Debt after Year 3 = 90
^This is way closer to reality than your personal finance analogy, Dude.
That's is partially right, the reality is closer to this.
Hey we don't need a budget because we can just do what ever the hell we want. Hey we are in a recession les add another few trillion a year in entitlements.
That is the spending reality. The government should be able to live with in it's means just like everyone else
I will say this, I don't necessarily support a completely balanced budget. I think running a deficit in certain times is fine. The problem is Congress is rewarded by over spending. You either take away their ability to over spend, change their incentives or deal with debt.
You also have to deal with the mindset of entitlements. People will always be for spending as long as they can pass the bill off to someone else.
Duff, you could not be more transparently incorrect in your assessment if you tried.
Fiscal 2008 federal budget: $2.982 trillion.
Fiscal 2011 federal budget: $3.6 trillion.
This is a 21% increase in spending. Revenue problem or spending problem?
http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/
Lets take all the wealth of the 400 richest people. Not factor in any costs of liquidating that wealth or the fact that they will have no wealth after and most likely won't be paying income tax after either. Don't factor all the countless negatives and other effects of doing this.
Lets take all their money. All of them combined will not even put a dent in our national debt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
It won't even bridge the gap between receipts and spending for one year.
Someone please tell me how a tiny increase in taxing the rich without substantial cuts in spending will do a damn thing.
Milton Friedman would be mortified you posted this in his likeness...
Tax the rich, I don't buy that OH IT WILL STOP THEM FROM SPENDING.
Get real, time for the rich folks to pay the piper.
I am honestly thinking of moving to New Zealand. The POTUS is a buffoon who thinks he is a technocrat. His competition is a bunch of anarchists. We need people who will cut spending, print money, raise taxes, and figure out our energy problems. We're not getting that.
Billionaires need to stop representing the top 1%. The general public is totally ignorant on this issue. And the Liberals like it this way.
I'm not a billionaire, yet.
You are basically moving to monarchy or Saudi Arabia system. Where those who are more wealthy or willing to give more to the state to take care of others are given special concessions rest of the population does not. I hope none of you are regan republicans.
What if America goes to war tomorrow? Will you allow the rich to buy their way out of the draft? What about Jury duty or other civic responsibilities should someone rich be able to get out of all that as well?
You don't think that the rich get out of jury duty now? What civil responsibilities do the rich have to do now? Sure as hell don't get same time for the same crime. Pull your head out of your ass and see the world for what it really is.
Exactly, I didn't see too many rich kids in my Marine Corps platoon.
And what does being a Regan repub have to do with anything? Regan raised taxes and increased spending, something most people fail to remember, so I don't see the connection.
Reagan definitely didn't raise taxes. Reagan's tax cuts are among the largest in history, along with JFK's and George W. Bush's.
Regan raised taxes in 1982.
Get your facts right.
The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, also known as TEFRA, was a United States federal law that rescinded some of the effects of the Kemp-Roth Act passed the year before. As a result of ongoing recession, a short-term fall in tax revenue generated concern over the budget deficit. TEFRA was created in order to reduce the budget gap by generating revenue through closure of tax loopholes and introduction of tougher enforcement of tax rules, as opposed to changing marginal income tax rates. TEFRA was introduced November 13, 1981 and was sponsored by Representative Pete Stark of California. After much deliberation the final version was signed by President Ronald Reagan on September 3, 1982.
Wait. So Reagan signed the Kemp-Roth Act, thereby cutting taxes and a year later he signed a bill which eliminated SOME loopholes and THAT is considered a tax increase.
I think you might be stretching the truth a little. If anything, Reagan tweaked the tax cut he originally signed to make it more effective.
Reagan tax increases would have been equivalent to $300B/year today. Not enormous but pretty substantial (still a net tax decrease, though far less than people like to imagine).
Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-22/democrats-recall-reagan-s-tax-…
Comparing Reagan, who increased taxes on gasoline and cigarettes, to Obama who is using taxes as a class warfare tool is insulting to a great President.
The economy is too weak to deal with an INCOME tax increase. Increasing taxes on cigarettes and gasoline is not an income issue. Also, gas taxes go to the highway trust fund and not the general account. At least an increase in gas taxes go to something tangible and specific.
Republicans should be against any income tax increase. Also, Reagan was a great President, but he wasn't God. Just because he does something doesn't mean Republicans have to absolutely follow.
stopped reading at "class warfare". seriously, stop it with that shit.
Stop with what, saying exactly what it is?
Increasing taxes on millionaires will not fix the budget, reduce the deficit or do anything beneficial. What it will do is clearly illustrate how Obama supports "the common man" and punishes the rich, who are being blamed for everything. This is basic class warfare.
You can stop reading things whenever you want, but what Obama is doing is plain and simple class warfare. Rather smart political move on his point since he needs to reassure his base and is playing off popular sentiment.
you sound like a fucking drone
You simply do not understand the situation then. Please tell me how increasing taxes by a small amount of people will balance the budget, provide enough revenue to do anything meaningful or even attempt to bridge the funding gap in one year?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget
The Obama administration's original budget request contained $2.627 trillion in revenues and $3.729 trillion in outlays for 2012.1 The April 2011 Republican plan contained $2.533 trillion in revenues and $3.529 trillion in outlays.[28]
There is a $1 trillion dollar gap right there.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/
If you took all of their wealth, you wouldn't have $1 trillion dollars.
Now, please tell me how blaming the rich, talking about a token tax on millionaire or continually saying "they aren't paying their fair share" is anything other than putting one class against another.
ironic?
Ok, a 10 second google search shows that Reagan sharply cut taxes in 1981 and over the course of the next 7 years increased taxes to offset about half the cuts. So Reagan instituted the largest tax cut in the history of the nation in 1981 and then cut it in half over the next 7 years, still effectively sharply reducing the tax rates.
TheMaseo, what you're saying is INCREDIBLY disingenuous--you're either flat out lying or you're just plain ignornant of the facts.
Wow, yes cut taxes in 1981 at the height of a recession (unemployment at approx. 10%). Found out it (his tax policy) wasn't working and subsequently reversed course in 1982. Subsequently, the hole left in the budget by Reagan forced Bush I to increase taxes, something Bill Clinton benefited from.
While you are your right that in aggregate Reagan pushed for lower taxes, you or anyone else cannot dispute he raised taxes. If you make that claim then Obama's "closing of loopholes" is not raising taxes either (something I could care less about).
As for being disingenuous, a liar, or ignorant... Hahaha, you can't argue against facts. Nob.
I am a fucking drone, but you cannot address any point I make, argue it in any fashion or provide anything to refute it. You at least attempted to do so, finally, in the atheists debate. Please build on that instead of reverting back to the Duff Toast state that I abhorred.
"Class warfare" is simply an inflammatory talking point and isn't based in reality. Was it class warfare on the middle and lower class when Bush passed the original tax cuts? Was it class warfare when the banks were bailed out? No. No one was screaming class warfare. It was all about the greater good of the economy. As soon as the suggestion arises that maybe we should go back to the rates paid before Bush's disastrous presidency, the right yells "class warfare". I have no problems with you taking issue with the current tax code. Using this BS "class warfare" accusation makes you sound like a right wing talking head.
Also, you are still wrong on the milk toast/milquetoast thing.
I posted a great discussion on the whole milk toast, milquetoast thing, which actually shows that my usage was correct, but whatever.
Your arguments are bland, like MILK Toast, a bland food. Milquetoast is a fucking character, named after the bland food. Blows my mind how you cannot see the connection.
Moving on.
Bush cutting taxes on tax payers is not class warfare. He was reducing income tax on people who pay the majority of the taxes. By you labeling it a "tax cut for the rich" you are implying that the poor keep paying while the rich get off free and clear.
The truth is much different. The poor pay nothing and the well off pay slightly less. That is being honest and truthful. You are engaging in class warfare.
If Obama wanted to raise taxes across the board, he would NOT be engaging in class warfare. He would be trying to honestly bridge the gap in a way Democrats tend to be for, by increasing government revenues.
Instead he talks about small increases on a group of people he clearly and repeatedly calls out as paying less than the poor (not true) and not paying their fair share (without ever quantifying what fair means or is). This is class warfare.
Obama wants people to know he represents the "common man" and wants to punish the rich who took advantage of people.
If I didn't enjoy educating you so much I would simply ignore you. For someone with such strong opinions you have so little understanding to back it up. Duff Toast
So, with the Bush tax cuts, did the middle and lower class get cuts? Who has a higher rate?
class warfare/
I'm pretty sure class warfare implies providing a disproportionate benefit to one socioeconomic class at the expense of others. I don't find it difficult to argue that huge tax cuts for the rich, that directly increased the deficit, didn't harm the middle and lower class (additionally the lowest tax brackets received absolutely no benefit). Why did the upper brackets get tax cuts and the lower brackets didn't? CLASS WARFARE! THAT'S WHY!
"I'm pretty sure class warfare implies providing a disproportionate benefit to one socioeconomic class at the expense of others."
You mean like 50% of the country not paying into a system that benefits them? Something like that?
Duff Toast -
Can you tell me how you can cut taxes below zero for someone? I really want to know since you keep advocating for less taxation for lower income people, yet fail to realize that pay a net ZERO in Federal taxes.
You didn't even remotely address the hypocritical nature with which you use the term class warfare.
Also, I never said taxes should be cut on the lower class, although this idea isn't unheard of (having a negative income tax rate at certain levels, I forget the name of it though). You are putting words in my mouth.
Edit: Just to clarify, I think taxes should be raised on everyone.
Edit 2: Just saw your post from earlier, where you try to address your hypocritical nature of "class warfare" (and fail). Will address later.
Obama repeatedly says the rich don't pay their fair share. Obama repeatedly pushed for an ineffective and only token tax increase on millionaires
How is this not using class as a way to gain support from one economic group?
Bush didn't say he was cutting taxes to fuck the poor, which would be pandering to the rich, another form of class warfare. He simply cut taxes and the people who pay taxes benefited from this.
You see Duff Toast, in the USA, we don't tax the lower 50% of earners. Not all of them are poor and starving, but we are nice and fair and decent people and allow them to benefit from being an American, while paying ZERO to the Federal government.
So a tax cut will never benefit them since they don't pay taxes. This is very simple to understand. So when Bush cut taxes, it did benefit the rich, but also the middle class and everyone who actually pays taxes. So to say that it was a tax cut for the rich is untruthful and dishonest. It was a tax cut that benefits everyone who PAYS tax.
I hope you can understand that. And you might want a negative income tax, but it really isn't a tax. It is redistribution of income and a direct handout. You cannot tax zero. You can give people money, but taxation is the taking of a percent of something.
As for your confusion on the Milk Toast issue, that is ok. I've been using the word for ages and know what it means. If you do a quick google search, much like I am sure you did, it would come up with this Milquetoast character. Unfortunately you need to do a little more homework to come up with the correct answer.
The link I provided ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/milk+toast ) is from Random House which you can buy here http://www.randomhouse.com/book/138400/random-house-websters-unabridged….
Milk Toast is an adjective to describe someone that is ineffectual, such as yourself. Hence, my usage was correct. This is what I have been trying to politely tell you since the beginning, but you do not listen. Such a shame since I think you have a lot of potential once you get past this insolent little stage you are in.
Buck up pal, it will get better for you. I haven't give up on you yet.
I just laughed out loud at Duff Toast.
Yeah, I've been doing that shit for a while haha
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/milk+toast
milk-toast [milk-tohst] Show IPA
adjective 1. easily dominated; extremely mild; ineffectual; namby-pamby; wishy-washy. noun 2. milquetoast. Origin: 1815–25
Since I am using it in a descriptive way, the proper usage should be MILK TOAST.
Oh wow! I can copy and paste definitions too!
American Heritage Dictionary: milk toast
n. Toast, usually buttered, served in warm milk, often with sugar or seasonings.
milquetoast
[MILK-tohst]
ANT Toast! ANT Toast! ANT Toast!
I also went to your American Heritage Dictionary site and found their content to be lacking. I think you will find the link I have provided to be more illustrative of the various usages and etymology.
"You see Duff Toast, in the USA, we don't tax the lower 50% of earners."
This isn't true, unless you are talking solely about federal income tax.
Also, what you are essentially arguing is a flat tax on everyone? Let's just get rid of progressive tax rates entirely? That seems logical.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/12/timothy-…
^The fact of the matter is, "class warfare", as you seem to define it (solely centered on federal tax rates), has been going on for a while now. And the highest income earners are winning! Tax rates on the wealthy have been going down. The tax burden on the middle and lower classes has been increasing. Congrats wealthy people. You are finally sticking it to everyone! Now my question is, why the fuck are you complaining about class warfare if the wealthy are the ones who have won?
One quick question. You obviously seem to hate the fact that the rich have won, why are you or want to be in banking?
That entire post was being facetious. My beef is with the use of the term "class warfare"- not with rich people.
I don't know Duff Toast, I have continually made it clear that I am talking about Federal tax. I always qualify my statement by saying that.
Additionally, I am not saying one is better, but I AM saying one is more complete and provides the different usages.
Also, tax rates on the wealthy have not been coming down. Wealthy is a subjective term, not an objective.
The correct way to phrase it would be "Tax rates on tax payers have been steadily declining over the years. Those in the higher tax brackets, who have historically paid the majority of taxes to the Federal government, have benefited from this"
See, just the facts, no inflammatory statements. You're welcome.
Fuck it. I'm going full Krugman on your ass:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/opinion/krugman-the-social-contract.h…
If you ignore the last 5-6 paragraphs, I think he is pretty eloquently stating the point I was making.
Looks like we have an Obama voters. Takes issue with the truth haha.
Lots of value added with this comment.
"^The fact of the matter is, "class warfare", as you seem to define it (solely centered on federal tax rates), has been going on for a while now. And the highest income earners are winning! Tax rates on the wealthy have been going down. The tax burden on the middle and lower classes has been increasing. Congrats wealthy people. You are finally sticking it to everyone! Now my question is, why the fuck are you complaining about class warfare if the wealthy are the ones who have won?"
How have taxes been going up on lower class when they don't pay taxes? Obviously federal I'm referring to.
I'm talking about tax burden, meaning the percent of income going towards taxes. In the case of those in the lowest tax brackets, this would be a smaller refund.
Agree with you on letting the tax cuts expire for everyone & simpler tax code.
Duff, I am in agreement that we need to let the tax cuts expire. After that, do away with ALL loopholes, lower tax rates, and add in 2 more brackets.
I am totally astounded that there are so many people objecting to ANT who would even consider IB.
I give a fuck if they close loopholes.
Yeah, well I want them to stop taxing overseas residents... seems the only way that's going to stop is if I get a new passport.
Try as I may, I simply cannot see how an increase in taxes on the "rich" does anything to correct the current fiscal issues. Is it a tax rooted in principles? No one can even agree who the rich are? Is it $250k+? Is it $1MM. Is it net or gross? What about small business S-corps who file as a flow through to personal filing.
Until, there is a foundation for debate I don't see the realistic outcome of anything other than continuous well rehearsed talking points and propaganda...
Everyone seems to take this argument into the extremes..
I think the concerns are more about a rising tax burden on the MIDDLE class. A lot of people are bringing up taxes to the upper and lower classes, but in reality, both have been falling over time. The middle class has been the one paying for it.
Regardless of your political views on the issue, I don't know how someone can argue that raising taxes on the rich will do nothing. It's simple math: the top 1% has 40% of the wealth in the country, the bottom 80% has about 15%. Increase taxes 10% on the top 1% of households and you would increase total tax revenue by 4%. That is no trivial number. You would have to impose more than twice that amount on the bottom 80% of the population to get a similar gain. Which would you say is an easier sell?
This link has a few interesting charts: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/04/where-do-your-tax-d…
Take a look particularly at the convergence of the burden on the top 1% and the top 0.1%. Essentially the tax code stops being progressive at high income levels. If our debate were: should the tax rate on the top 1% be the same as the top 0.1%, would anyone's opinion differ?
Do the top 1% consume 40% of the total services provided by tax dollars?
A ballance has to be struck between amount of tax dollars generated per income group and amount of services consumed. Its not fair to tell the top one percent who currently pay around 40% that they must pay for 40% of the bill when they consume at most 1% of the services. http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-content… Also this artice brings up an very interesting point that I previously had not known, according to the Treasury Department that prior to the Bush tax cuts the top 1% paid 31% of the taxes and as of when this article was written the top 1% was paying 37%. The same held true for the precentages the top 10% paid.
Is it a consumption relative to tax argument, or that one should/should not help their fellow citizen?
By help I do not imply the government is the most efficient means of delivery, its just a point.
By equating the equitable tax burden to the amount of services the social class uses, you inherently miss the point of taxation in the first place. Many services- social security, medicare, unemployment benefits, airports in rural areas, public education- are not put in place with any intention of directly benefiting the upper class. The class does, however, benefit from a better educated and healthier population/workforce, a better infrastructure, and a generally stronger nation. If you based tax on usage, it would cease to be a public service.. what you are basically proposing is eliminating all government.
TheMaseo, you're an absolute moron. A breathtaking moron. It is an INCONTROVERTABLE and VERIFIDABLE FACT that Ronald Reagan lowered taxes IN AGGREGATE. That's not even in dispute. You've been proven wrong.
I think the fact you can't even write my name correctly speaks volumes.
I simply don't understand this tax rates are low thing. We have a top Fed tax rate at over 1/3rd of income. Yes, it is progressive, but when you figure in all the other taxes, fees, surcharges, etc, you are giving nearly half your income to the government.
How the fuck is that a fair trade off. Especially since we have a government that wastes money all over the place, has countless, un-needed employees and continually expands and interferes in the lives of its citizens. All this and then asks for more of our hard earned money.
Oh, by the way, less and less people contribute while we ask those who do pay to continually pay more for everyone else.
I'm not advocating for higher taxes, but it's all relative. And the US certainly isn't an outlier with its personal income taxes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world
@heister both Finland and Switzerland have higher personal income taxes than the US.
Error tempore autem asperiores. Ut accusantium dolore corporis vel.
Molestiae sed ut est illo id est vel non. Numquam atque exercitationem omnis voluptatibus nobis. Et eveniet aliquam neque. Dolorem qui fugit laudantium laborum voluptatem fugiat.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Doloribus omnis aut est ut qui. Aperiam alias delectus et quis.
Voluptas perspiciatis doloribus quaerat. Tempora maiores animi cumque atque. Placeat et et cumque vero eligendi veniam. Est voluptatem nesciunt cupiditate qui qui facilis.
Sed consectetur quia dolores laudantium qui consequatur accusamus. Voluptatem tempore quisquam voluptas laborum ea quasi deserunt. Sequi repudiandae porro necessitatibus consequatur. Qui non eos et perspiciatis.
Quia aut id non aliquam quis. Qui exercitationem necessitatibus doloribus ipsam itaque dolor delectus.
Ipsa sed non culpa provident beatae nihil. Aliquid aut autem dignissimos rerum ipsum eligendi assumenda. At consequatur ipsum aut quis laborum veniam soluta.
Fuga quidem et sunt voluptate voluptatem. Magnam dolores iste placeat debitis aut dolore placeat reiciendis.
Similique minus voluptatem doloribus fuga itaque. Similique eum in rerum iusto. Sit sed ipsa dolorem et eveniet voluptatem.
Quo occaecati consectetur in quam voluptates dolorum. Dolores quia rerum est ut est est.
Voluptas ullam omnis voluptate consequatur voluptatem voluptas dolor. Est aut non omnis qui dolores a ullam quia.
Ad nihil ad impedit soluta. Qui enim corporis voluptas recusandae assumenda deserunt qui dolore. Quae quia est officiis id laborum reiciendis.
Doloremque aut laborum vitae doloribus. Molestiae quae quam quam deserunt placeat blanditiis dolores. Quo eum dicta et recusandae nesciunt deleniti odio. Veniam tempore itaque omnis itaque quis aut culpa expedita.
Modi perferendis adipisci ut fugit velit unde. Nam voluptatem corrupti nostrum est molestias. Accusantium vitae odit repellendus magnam. Sunt harum nobis quod ea. Aut placeat hic repellat consequatur.
Fuga perspiciatis reiciendis molestias cumque consequatur soluta. Odio possimus et harum officia. Perferendis ut magni asperiores dolorum atque eveniet totam rem.