Tax the rich?

[Tim]

Take a moment to watch this and share your thoughts on it.

[video=youtube_share;bBx2Y5HhplI]http://youtu.be/bBx2Y5HhplI[/video]

 

[AUFred]

Interesting points he makes. I don't believe we can tax ourselves into prosperity by re-distributing wealth. I have an issue with what defines rich. Someone who make $50 million dollars for acting in one film yeah that sounds rich. Someone who lives in a two family income and barely breaks 6 figures doesn't seem rich. A lot of people in the sports and entertainment business make unreal amounts of money I do not for a moment believe they are job creators (using his term). I do believe many people look at where they are as to when they break the next threshold in taxation. I know I have lost money by getting a raise.

 

[Tim]

Interesting points he makes. I don't believe we can tax ourselves into prosperity by re-distributing wealth. I have an issue with what defines rich. Someone who make $50 million dollars for acting in one film yeah that sounds rich. Someone who lives in a two family income and barely breaks 6 figures doesn't seem rich. A lot of people in the sports and entertainment business make unreal amounts of money I do not for a moment believe they are job creators (using his term). I do believe many people look at where they are as to when they break the next threshold in taxation. I know I have lost money by getting a raise.

It has absolutely nothing to do with redistributing wealth.

His point is a very sound one, grow the middle class. Meaning the healthier the middle class is and the more money they have to spend will result in better business and more people working.

You are right that you can't tax your way into prosperity. But if you increased the taxes on capital gains and used the money to grow the middle class, the middle class would have rising incomes which would lead to more taxes being collected.

He pointed out the fact that if the middle class saw the same growth that the upper class did in the last 30 years, instead of making $50k per year on average, they would be making $94k per year. Just look at that major increase in tax base.....

 

[Kakapo Dundee]

Taxation should be raised on spending, not on income. That way, all of the proceeds of crime, the black market labour, the illegal immigrants and the rich tourists all pay their share.

 

[AUFred]

It has absolutely nothing to do with redistributing wealth.

His point is a very sound one, grow the middle class. Meaning the healthier the middle class is and the more money they have to spend will result in better business and more people working.

You are right that you can't tax your way into prosperity. But if you increased the taxes on capital gains and used the money to grow the middle class, the middle class would have rising incomes which would lead to more taxes being collected.

He pointed out the fact that if the middle class saw the same growth that the upper class did in the last 30 years, instead of making $50k per year on average, they would be making $94k per year. Just look at that major increase in tax base.....

Reads like re-distributing wealth to me. Lower the tax rate on the middle class I can go along with but again where is the middle class defined? I wish dollar amounts were the rule instead of ambiguous terminology.

 

[Johnfromokc]

Taxation should be raised on spending, not on income. That way, all of the proceeds of crime, the black market labour, the illegal immigrants and the rich tourists all pay their share.

A valid point concerning black market income. On the other hand, how much do the wealthy spend on goods and services as a percentage of their income? A sales tax, it seems to me, would place more of a burden on the poor and middle class than it would on the wealthy. The wealthy are only going to buy so many cars, yachts, aircraft and other consumer goods - the rest they hoard and hide from taxation. We need to raise capital gains rates as well as rates on incomes over $500,000 (Just to put a dollar figure on it) if we want to require the super wealthy to contribute in proportion to their income. It is a free countries infrastructure that paves the way to wealth - there is absolutely no reason for so many of our roads, bridges, water and sewer systems to be in such poor condition while wealthy families like the Waltons hoard billions.

 

[Leananshee]

So why not just have a flat tax and eliminate loopholes?

 

[Johnfromokc]

So why not just have a flat tax and eliminate loopholes?

A flat tax still harms the poor and middle class and allows the wealthy to hoard more and avoid paying for the infrastructure they used to get wealthy. A progressive income tax and capital gains tax is the only workable and ultimately fair system.

 

[Johnfromokc]

Another picture that speaks a thousand words.

 

[Accountable]

It has absolutely nothing to do with redistributing wealth.

His point is a very sound one, grow the middle class. Meaning the healthier the middle class is and the more money they have to spend will result in better business and more people working.

You are right that you can't tax your way into prosperity. But if you increased the taxes on capital gains and used the money to grow the middle class, the middle class would have rising incomes which would lead to more taxes being collected.

He pointed out the fact that if the middle class saw the same growth that the upper class did in the last 30 years, instead of making $50k per year on average, they would be making $94k per year. Just look at that major increase in tax base.....

I think it odd that money coming in one way is income, but money coming in another way is simply a "capital gain." If all income were counted the same, whether it be from selling labor or from selling property. There are already exemptions set up so that the lowest income levels don't have federal taxes levied on them. The additional revenue should justify lowering the rate, but I wouldn't expect that of Washington.


eta: I posted this before watching the vid. I'll watch it tomorrow.

 

[All Else Failed]

Taxation should be raised on spending, not on income. That way, all of the proceeds of crime, the black market labour, the illegal immigrants and the rich tourists all pay their share.

dear god we agree on something

 

[Accountable]

The vid seems to imply that taxes are for investment. I disagree. The gov't shouldn't be trying to manipulate the economy. It shouldn't be involved in any real way beyond keeping honest people honest and putting crooked businessmen in jail.

 

[Tim]

The vid seems to imply that taxes are for investment. I disagree. The gov't shouldn't be trying to manipulate the economy. It shouldn't be involved in any real way beyond keeping honest people honest and putting crooked businessmen in jail.

But it's those investments that made the US the greatest country in the world. The amount of innovation directly attributed to government funded projects is staggering. Having a discussion on whether the government should or shouldn't be funding such is a topic unto itself, but one cannot disagree that we as a nation are much better off with the investments that were made.

 

[Francis]

Taxation should be raised on spending, not on income. That way, all of the proceeds of crime, the black market labour, the illegal immigrants and the rich tourists all pay their share.

While this in theory should work it doesn't..

We have a high consumption tax here and it drove business away. It did not lower income tax and almost killed our tourism. And every time they play with the tax it cost million for store and companies to adjust to these tax rates.

Because the underworld and illegal immigrants can pass product continuously between themselves, keeping out of the taxation system, it has failed and only cost the standard tax payer more money.

As well Tourists typically will find their way to "Duty and Tax Free" destinations as they search for places to visit.

While taxation is not a great subject it's one that requires a fine balance.. The rich and upper middle class want to see taxes gone. The poor and middle class poor want taxes increased to subsidize programs that they feel are put on their taxation backs or must pay for an cannot afford. We all know taxes will never go away completely.

What needs to be done is more of the acceptable taxation on items that have always been taboo. The government is not in the business of religion and needs to start acting like it by leaving moral decisions for those to make at home and start to balance their budgets.

Legalization and Taxation on recreational drugs that should be controlled and taken off the streets and put into the equivalent of liquor stores. Prostitution should be made legal with heavy controls and taxed as such.

Will this take drugs and prostitution off the streets, NO.. But it will start to give the government some long overdue income from it.

 

[Alien Allen]

Investment is the code word the liberals use for taxes

Sometimes I think the govt invests for us about the same as Bernie Madoff did for his clients

I am not against taxes and I don't know anybody that is. So to say the republicans and the rich want no taxes is just bullshit rhetoric.

We need an honest debate in this country as to what we expect govt to do.

It does not mean we have to go back to what was done 100 years ago but it also does not mean we have to expect govt to do what it currently does.

Govt is out of control and we have as a result been saddled with an entitlement society for too many. Added in is the corruption in govt and lack of oversight on itself and it is a mess that I do not see a resolution to other than to have a revolution.

 

[Francis]

Investment is the code word the liberals use for taxes

Hey Allen... When Reagan says "Invest in tomorrow", he was a Liberal ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4biIqXNFC1s

Sorry the sarcastic side of me couldn't resist.. :24:

 

[Tim]

Hey Allen... When Reagan says "Invest in tomorrow", he was a Liberal ?

Sorry the sarcastic side of me couldn't resist.. :24:

Reagan would not be accepted by the republican party if he were alive today. They would say he isn't conservative enough and is more of a liberal.


But that doesn't mean that they can't remember him they wish to and spank their monkey's to someone that never existed

 

[Francis]

Reagan would not be accepted by the republican party if he were alive today. They would say he isn't conservative enough and is more of a liberal.


But that doesn't mean that they can't remember him they wish to and spank their monkey's to someone that never existed

I agree..

We see much of the same here.. Polarizing politics to the maximum to the point that dirty tricks are now fair game to the point of being back in the dark ages..

Churches when I was a kid used to preach the Sky is Blue ( as in Conservative Blue ) and Hell is Red ( as in Liberal Red ) so pick you vote carefully was the Sunday morning sermon during an election.

Sad to think we are back to those days and far worse off today in fear tactics..

God forbid you be an undecided voter and if you speak or tend to lien one way well.. You are made to fear the side others hate until you decide to either be the friend or foe.. No middle ground for you..

 

[Accountable]

But it's those investments that made the US the greatest country in the world. The amount of innovation directly attributed to government funded projects is staggering. Having a discussion on whether the government should or shouldn't be funding such is a topic unto itself, but one cannot disagree that we as a nation are much better off with the investments that were made.

It made the US the richest country in the world. "Greatest" means very, very different things to different people. We used to be the freest. We've given up a tremendous amount of liberty to be the richest.

Have taxpayer-funded projects advanced society technologically? Absolutely indisputable.
Would such advancements never have been made without funds removed from the private sector? We will never know.
Will such advancements never happen in the future without government guidance? Preposterous, imo, but I only possess one vote.

 

[Accountable]

Reagan would not be accepted by the republican party if he were alive today. They would say he isn't conservative enough and is more of a liberal.

:nod: