In favor of increasing taxes on the wealthy

[Ivan Seeking]

I only know of two arguments against raising taxes on the wealty. The first is that higher taxes will reduce growth and investment. To that I say that not all taxes are the same. Credits and deductions providing incentives for investment do not exclude taxation on wealth that goes to lifestyle. And the rich can certainly spare a few bucks.

But the argument I want to address here is the issue of fairness. Many people claim it is unfair that almost half of Americans pay no taxes!

Of course that is incorrect. What is correct is that they paid no Federal income tax.

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3622644...finance/t/half-us-pays-no-federal-income-tax/

To that I respond with this:

If people need any more concrete explanation of this, start with the staff of life, a loaf of bread. The simplest thing; the poorest man must have it. Well, there are 151 taxes now in the price of a loaf of bread–it accounts for more than half the cost of a loaf of bread. It begins with the first tax, on the farmer that raised the wheat. Any simpleton can understand that if that farmer cannot get enough money for his wheat, to pay the property tax on his farm, he can’t be a farmer. He loses his farm. And so it is with the fellow who pays a driver’s license and a gasoline tax to drive the truckload of wheat to the mill, the miller who has to pay everything from social security tax, business license, everything else. He has to make his living over and above those costs. So they all wind up in that loaf of bread. Now an egg isn’t far behind and nobody had to make that. There’s a hundred taxes in an egg by the time it gets to market and you know the chicken didn’t put them there!

http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan/4

The real question is, what pecentage of a person's income goes to all taxes paid, directly or indirectly? And this isn't just a number's game. In the case of the lower end of the income spectrum, the taxes paid may constitute a significant percentage of the minimum cost of survival, less living on the streets. When people are just barely getting by, those taxes are significant percentage of the cost of life [food, water, rent, power], not lifestyle.

We have to balance the budget. On that I think we all agree. The notion that this cost should all be carried by the poor and middle class is, in my view, morally and logically unacceptable, and unjustifiable.

 

[WhoWee]

This might be a good thread to shine a light on all of the hidden permits, fees, and taxes that we pay on utilities and fuel (for example). We should also note the cost of payroll matching taxes, workers comp and other costs incurred by business. This could be a very good discussion.

 

[Evo]

Already off topic, and off topic posts deleted. Let's keep this about *personal income tax" and not businesses. The topic is "In favor of increasing taxes on the wealthy", nothing about business.

 

[mege]

I only know of two arguments against raising taxes on the wealty. The first is that higher taxes will reduce growth and investment. To that I say that not all taxes are the same. Credits and deductions providing incentives for investment do not exclude taxation on wealth that goes to lifestyle. And the rich can certainly spare a few bucks.

But the argument I want to address here is the issue of fairness. Many people claim it is unfair that almost half of Americans pay no taxes!

Of course that is incorrect. What is correct is that they paid no Federal income tax.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3622644...finance/t/half-us-pays-no-federal-income-tax/

To that I respond with this:


http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan/4

The real question is, what pecentage of a person's income goes to all taxes paid, directly or indirectly? And this isn't just a number's game. In the case of the lower end of the income spectrum, the taxes paid may constitute a significant percentage of the minimum cost of survival, less living on the streets. When people are just barely getting by, those taxes are significant percentage of the cost of life [food, water, rent, power], not lifestyle.

We have to balance the budget. On that I think we all agree. The notion that this cost should all be carried by the poor and middle class is, in my view, morally and logically unacceptable, and unjustifiable.

So what you're saying is taxes on the big bad corporations are what make the poor even poorer?

Additionally - most 'neccessary' items are tax free. I know of very few states that tax foodstuffs.

And actually - paying taxes (of almost any sort) are deductable on your federal tax return - to, in theory, prevent double taxation. Just that the standard deduction is generally better for most people anyhow. Your car fees, your state taxes, your sales tax - all valid deductions currently. So I think the 'stacking taxes hurts the poor' argument for more progressive taxes really needs to be looked at more carefully with this in mind.

Lastly, what is an individuals total net investment to the government as you have different amounts of wealth? The 'payroll' taxes are something that everyone puts in, but expects to get the value out of them. Also, if you consider that there are far more programs that help the less wealthy - many times they're not paying anything to the government, and are getting something back. Child credits, eitc, etc all subsidize the less fortunate tot he point where they're total tax burden is negative - the government is paying out to them. That's even accounting for the double taxation via the standard deduction.

Warren Buffet Is Wrong in this matter

 

[Tosh5457]

Already off topic, and off topic posts deleted. Let's keep this about *personal income tax" and not businesses. The topic is "In favor of increasing taxes on the wealthy", nothing about business.

You could have deleted only the 2nd part of my post then... Now I just made another offtopic post because of that.

 

[Evo]

So what you're saying is taxes on the big bad corporations are what make the poor even poorer?

Additionally - most 'neccessary' items are tax free. I know of very few states that tax foodstuffs.

And actually - paying taxes (of almost any sort) are deductable on your federal tax return - to, in theory, prevent double taxation. Just that the standard deduction is generally better for most people anyhow. Your car fees, your state taxes, your sales tax - all valid deductions currently. So I think the 'stacking taxes hurts the poor' argument for more progressive taxes really needs to be looked at more carefully with this in mind.

Lastly, what is an individuals total net investment to the government as you have different amounts of wealth? The 'payroll' taxes are something that everyone puts in, but expects to get the value out of them. Also, if you consider that there are far more programs that help the less wealthy - many times they're not paying anything to the government, and are getting something back. Child credits, eitc, etc all subsidize the less fortunate tot he point where they're total tax burden is negative - the government is paying out to them. That's even accounting for the double taxation via the standard deduction.

Warren Buffet Is Wrong in this matter

Wow, I need to let you do my taxes. I pay through the nose. Yes, poor people and a lot of middle class people pay high taxes because they can't itemize. Obviously those that are wealthier have a lot of deductions that make it more lucrative to itemize than take the standard deduction.

 

[Evo]

You could have deleted only the 2nd part of my post then... Now I just made another offtopic post because of that.

First half? The entire post is about corporations.

PM me if you want a copy of it.

 

[russ_watters]

The notion that this cost should all be carried by the poor and middle class is, in my view, morally and logically unacceptable, and unjustifiable.

Saying that taxes should not be increased on the weathy is most certainly not equivalent to saying that all the cost of debt reduction should be borne by the poor and middle class. This is a strawman argument.

I am opposed to raising taxes on those who create jobs at a time when the thing most needed in the economy is jobs. That said, as the economy recovers, taxes on everyone will need to be raised.

And the rich can certainly spare a few bucks.

Who are the wealthy and how much do you think they can spare?

 

[RudedawgCDN]

Studies show that wealthy Americans have seen their purchasing power increase dramatically while lower wage and middle income earners have seen their purchasing power decline.

So in the face of facts, why would anyone have a problem with millionaires going back to what they were paying before the Bush cuts?

I would also argue that most small business owners are not millionaires. (A common Republican talking point).

I wish the US had a central political party - one based on reason and common sense. Not one that pits one economic class against another.

 

[WhoWee]

Studies show that wealthy Americans have seen their purchasing power increase dramatically while lower wage and middle income earners have seen their purchasing power decline.

So in the face of facts, why would anyone have a problem with millionaires going back to what they were paying before the Bush cuts?

I would also argue that most small business owners are not millionaires. (A common Republican talking point).

I wish the US had a central political party - one based on reason and common sense. Not one that pits one economic class against another.

Welcome to PF - please provide a source for your information.

 

[mege]

Wow, I need to let you do my taxes. I pay through the nose. Yes, poor people and a lot of middle class people pay high taxes because they can't itemize. Obviously those that are wealthier have a lot of deductions that make it more lucrative to itemize than take the standard deduction.

But remember what the function of the standard deduction actually is: to account for all of your double-taxation possibilities. So your deduction is already accounting for that 'lack of itemization' - and generally over estimates if you're reporting <$100k and didn't have a large purchase.

 

[WhoWee]

I only know of two arguments against raising taxes on the wealty. The first is that higher taxes will reduce growth and investment. To that I say that not all taxes are the same. Credits and deductions providing incentives for investment do not exclude taxation on wealth that goes to lifestyle. And the rich can certainly spare a few bucks.

But the argument I want to address here is the issue of fairness. Many people claim it is unfair that almost half of Americans pay no taxes!

Of course that is incorrect. What is correct is that they paid no Federal income tax.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3622644...finance/t/half-us-pays-no-federal-income-tax/

To that I respond with this:


http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan/4

The real question is, what pecentage of a person's income goes to all taxes paid, directly or indirectly? And this isn't just a number's game. In the case of the lower end of the income spectrum, the taxes paid may constitute a significant percentage of the minimum cost of survival, less living on the streets. When people are just barely getting by, those taxes are significant percentage of the cost of life [food, water, rent, power], not lifestyle.

We have to balance the budget. On that I think we all agree. The notion that this cost should all be carried by the poor and middle class is, in my view, morally and logically unacceptable, and unjustifiable.

I'm really not sure what part of this to respond to Ivan - care to clarify Russ's question and guide us a bit?

 

[mege]

Studies show that wealthy Americans have seen their purchasing power increase dramatically while lower wage and middle income earners have seen their purchasing power decline.

So in the face of facts, why would anyone have a problem with millionaires going back to what they were paying before the Bush cuts?

I would also argue that most small business owners are not millionaires. (A common Republican talking point).

I wish the US had a central political party - one based on reason and common sense. Not one that pits one economic class against another.

The alternate source of a change in buying power is: lack of consumers. Less rich people meaning less demand for high ticket items meaning lower prices = more buying power for those that still have their wealth. Even if the total number of rich people haven't decreased, their spending habbits have tightened for sure.

But I am interested where you're getting these 'facts' that we're supposed to face?

 

[WhoWee]

The real question is, what pecentage of a person's income goes to all taxes paid, directly or indirectly? And this isn't just a number's game. In the case of the lower end of the income spectrum, the taxes paid may constitute a significant percentage of the minimum cost of survival, less living on the streets. When people are just barely getting by, those taxes are significant percentage of the cost of life [food, water, rent, power], not lifestyle.

We have to balance the budget. On that I think we all agree. The notion that this cost should all be carried by the poor and middle class is, in my view, morally and logically unacceptable, and unjustifiable.

The EITC was designed to return the Social Security payroll deduction to lower wage earners - then the President cut the actual deduction (for the employee but not the employer) by about 12% and we have a making work pay credit (that I'll have to read up on before posting further). My point is this - to have an honest debate, we need to consider everything.

 

[Astronuc]

I've been hearing several economists and financial experts indicated that the debt must be reduced through reduced spending and revenue increases. The revenue increases would come from increased tax receipts, which could come from increase in tax rates or through increased employment. However, increased employment looks problematic in the near term.

John Mauldin: The U.S. Must Cut $10 Trillion in 10 Years, or Taxes Will Skyrocket
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/john-mauldin-u-must-cut-10-trillion-10-193254628.html

I would prefer to see those with substantial capital invest in new businesses.


I also heard tonight that the top 5% by wealth account for 30% of spending at present. Spending on high end, luxury items increased in July.

 

[Evo]

I also heard tonight that the top 5% by wealth account for 30% of spending at present. Spending on high end, luxury items increased in July.

That usually means very high end, non-american designer stuff. Isn't most of what the very rich buy outside of the US? How much is spent on American items?

I would prefer to see those with substantial capital invest in new businesses.

As long as those businesses don't outsource most of their jobs outside the country, or buy most of their goods from China. A lot of companies just exist as importers, and most of their workers aren't American. I worked with these companies when I worked with US Customs. I'm under non-disclosure, so no, I can't give any statistics.

One of my clients was one of the biggest "made in America" sports clothing companies. The workers were prison inmates. When you see the label "made in USA" it's actually made in US prisons. I've set up many of these prison worker networks for companies, they have certain restrictions in transmitting data that I handled. The owners are millionaires, one was my neighbor.

 

[russ_watters]

Welcome to PF - please provide a source for your information.

And explain the connection between the "facts" and the conclusions...

Also:

So in the face of facts, why would anyone have a problem with millionaires going back to what they were paying before the Bush cuts?

I would also argue that most small business owners are not millionaires.

This is why I asked for clarification on who the "wealthy" or "rich" are. And you added the term "millionaire". All of these terms are misleading, since it isn't wealth that is taxed, it is income. You can be a rich/wealthy millionaire with no income and therefore paying no taxes.

 

[Tosh5457]

First half? The entire post is about corporations.

The OP speaks about riches creating jobs, so I had to talk about corporations.

 

[WhoWee]

That usually means very high end, non-american designer stuff. Isn't most of what the very rich buy outside of the US? How much is spent on American items?

As long as those businesses don't outsource most of their jobs outside the country, or buy most of their goods from China. A lot of companies just exist as importers, and most of their workers aren't American. I worked with these companies when I worked with US Customs. I'm under non-disclosure, so no, I can't give any statistics.

One of my clients was one of the biggest "made in America" sports clothing companies. The workers were prison inmates. When you see the label "made in USA" it's actually made in US prisons. I've set up many of these prison worker networks for companies, they have certain restrictions in transmitting data that I handled. The owners are millionaires, one was my neighbor.

Let me guess - there were significant tax advantages for hiring the prison workers? The wage is (probably) state minimum and the start up subsidized by state/federal in some manner - maybe loan guarantees?

This is an example of both the power of tax incentives for investment and job creation and (perhaps) misplaced direction of those programs. I presume misplaced becase the job ends when the prisoner is released.

 

[Evo]

Let me guess - there were significant tax advantages for hiring the prison workers? The wage is (probably) state minimum and the start up subsidized by state/federal in some manner - maybe loan guarantees?

This is an example of both the power of tax incentives for investment and job creation and (perhaps) misplaced direction of those programs. I presume misplaced becase the job ends when the prisoner is released.

This has been going on in prisons for ages. It teaches the prisoner a "trade" that they can use on the outside in countires like china, since they're unlikely to find employment sewing clothes in the US. Prisoners have the option to work in the prison factories, you've probably seen this on tv.

The company can charge a premium price because they can put a "made in the USA" label on the garments.

Factories Behind Fences: Do Prison ‘Real Work’ Programs Work?

http://www.nij.gov/journals/257/real-work-programs.html

 

[Physics-Learner]

until people are smart enough to figure out that the goal of our political system is not the betterment of its people, said people will always bear the brunt of the problems.

reduction of govt on major scales is what is really needed. if we did this, taxation would solve itself.

as with any problem, the only way to fix it is at its source. i will cite my leaky boat example. no matter how many pails of water you throw out of the boat, the boat will continue to get wet until you fix the hole where the water is initially entering the boat.

 

[WhoWee]

This has been going on in prisons for ages. It teaches the prisoner a "trade" that they can use on the outside in countires like china, since they're unlikely to find employment sewing clothes in the US. Prisoners have the option to work in the prison factories, you've probably seen this on tv.

The company can charge a premium price because they can put a "made in the USA" label on the garments.

http://www.nij.gov/journals/257/real-work-programs.html

My assumption was that a minimum wage would be the norm - coupled with employment tax credits. I'm not familiar with these programs - but there are $Billions of unused tax credits available in the private sector to encourage companies to hire minorities, welfare recipients, convicts, and veterans. The greatest opportunity for credits are in (typically inner-city) Empowerment Zones.

 

[WhoWee]

until people are smart enough to figure out that the goal of our political system is not the betterment of its people, said people will always bear the brunt of the problems.

reduction of govt on major scales is what is really needed. if we did this, taxation would solve itself.

as with any problem, the only way to fix it is at its source. i will cite my leaky boat example. no matter how many pails of water you throw out of the boat, the boat will continue to get wet until you fix the hole where the water is initially entering the boat.

I'll assume your intent would be to save the boat - not let it sink and blame your partner.

 

[WhoWee]

I only know of two arguments against raising taxes on the wealty. The first is that higher taxes will reduce growth and investment. To that I say that not all taxes are the same. Credits and deductions providing incentives for investment do not exclude taxation on wealth that goes to lifestyle. And the rich can certainly spare a few bucks.

But the argument I want to address here is the issue of fairness. Many people claim it is unfair that almost half of Americans pay no taxes!

Of course that is incorrect. What is correct is that they paid no Federal income tax.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3622644...finance/t/half-us-pays-no-federal-income-tax/

To that I respond with this:

http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan/4

The real question is, what pecentage of a person's income goes to all taxes paid, directly or indirectly? And this isn't just a number's game. In the case of the lower end of the income spectrum, the taxes paid may constitute a significant percentage of the minimum cost of survival, less living on the streets. When people are just barely getting by, those taxes are significant percentage of the cost of life [food, water, rent, power], not lifestyle.

We have to balance the budget. On that I think we all agree. The notion that this cost should all be carried by the poor and middle class is, in my view, morally and logically unacceptable, and unjustifiable.

I just happened across this little analysis by Dave Ramsey - the guy who wants everyone to get out of debt.
""If the US Government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year, they spend $75,000 a year, & are $327,000 in credit card debt. They are currently proposing BIG spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year. These are the actual proportions of the federal budget & debt, reduced to a level that we can understand."
- Dave Ramsey "

If we convert the credit card debt to a mortgage (national debt is long term like a mortgage and at a lower rate than a credit card) for discussion and assume this was an actual family - what would their options be?

First, the gap between actual income and actual expenses would need to close. This would require either cutting unnecessary and wasteful expenses, increasing revenues, or a combination. The difference of $17,000 would represent 22.67% reduction of spending or require a 29.31% increase in revenue to close the gap - both are probably difficult.

Now, upon closer inspection, we determine that only 1 adult is employed and 1 teenager. All of the income is derived from the wife's job, the 16 year old son, and the husband's father subsidizes with his pension.

Does anyone have any ideas for these poor folks?

 

[Oltz]

Does anyone have any ideas for these poor folks?

Maybe stop giving 25,000 a year to charity?

Taxing the wealthy is like taking the money from the father so he can not buy a car that the teen can use to go to work.

Sure a car payment is another expense (like decreased revenue) but another income more then covers it.

Dont get me wrong we can let the tax cuts expire, But people need to remember they were scheduled to expire in 2010 and Obama and His party extended them for EVERYONE. They can no longer be called Bush's tax cuts as they were only ment to last a few years and we all knew that.

I am ok with letting them expire but they all need to go.

 

[WhoWee]

Maybe stop giving 25,000 a year to charity?

Taxing the wealthy is like taking the money from the father so he can not buy a car that the teen can use to go to work.

Sure a car payment is another expense (like decreased revenue) but another income more then covers it.

Dont get me wrong we can let the tax cuts expire, But people need to remember they were scheduled to expire in 2010 and Obama and His party extended them for EVERYONE. They can no longer be called Bush's tax cuts as they were only ment to last a few years and we all knew that.

I am ok with letting them expire but they all need to go.

I see your point, but there are lot's of hungry folks out there and the neighborhood block watch and police/fire/ambulance help keep them safe.

 

[WhoWee]

I have an idea - what if all of the able-bodied people in the house try to get jobs and help contribute? If they can each add to the total revenue it will help close the gap - then they won't have as much time to sit around and order pizza delivery - that will save as well. To make up the difference, I guess dad will have to pay more - unless a rich old uncle dies?

 

[Oltz]

Last I knew Police and Fire were funded by Local taxes and Ambulance service is normally run by a "private" Hospital. None of those are what I would call charity nor would I include them in this analogy for federal funding.

I was thinking more like Welfare real redistribution programs

Not Payrol deduction funded programs those "should" be solvent at least for now.

 

[WhoWee]

Last I knew Police and Fire were funded by Local taxes and Ambulance service is normally run by a "private" Hospital. None of those are what I would call charity nor would I include them in this analogy for federal funding.

I was thinking more like Welfare real redistribution programs

Not Payrol deduction funded programs those "should" be solvent at least for now.

(I was anticipating defense cuts)

 

[Evo]

and Ambulance service is normally run by a "private" Hospital.

Many ambulance companies are privately owned and not part of a hospital. Some are part of the fire department, it just depends.