Taxes on the Rich !~

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

Wow, this was definitely one of the most interesting reads ever. (I do love this board)

I’m a progressive tax person. First thing I’d like to see are the exceptions eliminated. :crying: This is necessary if taxation is to be fair.

Under $25,000: No tax

25,001-50,000: 10%

50,001-80,000: 12%

80,001-150,000: 15%

150,001-250,000: 17%

250,001-500,000: 20%

500,001-750,000: 25%

750,001-1,000,000: 30%

1,000,001-5,000,000: 35%

5,000,001-10,000,000: 40%

>10,000,001: 45%

Capital gains would be taxed as income as would inheritance, with a delayed payment allowed for real property.

Obviously, I know nothing about economics, but I do like to think I know a little bit about what is “right”.

I am kind of surprised at myself. I used to be a flat taxer, and a low taxer. I like to think I have grown up a lot since then (you know, 6 yrs ago when I started posted here ;) )

Also, while I have been able to drag myself from a welfare family to solid middle class, I do know how hard it was and that very few can actually achieve this without some sort of assistance.

I had bought into the “American Dream” hook, line and sinker. I thought if I (and a few others I knew) could do this, then anyone could. I thought I needed that big house in the ‘burbs (ftr, it is only 1800sq ft, 1/3 acre, so not obscenely big—at least it wasn’t when I still had 3 kids)

I now waffle a bit on it. Some days I am more than willing to let go, debts and all, other days I can’t even imagine not having my gardens or woods. Obviously, I am not a full socialist yet ;) as I still think I worked hard for what I have and no one should take it from me (minus taxes of course).

One question: is my idea of a progressive tax what others are thinking of, or am I way off base on what I think it is?

[Jaime L]

Preach it, brother!!!

Yet, they live in a 3,000 square foot house! From an income of (generously) $55,000 a year, they pay a $200,000 mortgage, because they essentially thought is was their "right" (they "deserved to") live in a big house when they got married. They have 2 cars. They want a big screen TV. They have an i-pod $300-thingy, and an i-phone!

...and they see it all as "stuff they deserve to have".

Does an entitlement mindset exist among the population? Certainly. But it's mostly irrelevant to a discussion on the merits of a progressive taxation system. We don't have a progressive taxation system because we're "entitled" to it. We have one for the same reason every advanced nation on earth has one: it's the best compromise between Capitalist ideals and Democratic ones. The question isn't whether Progressive Taxation makes sense (you can't fund a government by raising taxes on those who have no money), really the debate is how Progressive should it be to maximize the efficiency of both the government and the economy.

But if rich people don't like it, they always have the option to avoid becoming rich. It's a small price to pay for all the benefits our society provides them.

[TheLoneliestMonk]

I'd rather see an equation than brackets. Hopefully that would prevent, for example, someone making 25,000 having more take hope pay than someone making 26,000.

[Swordfish]

Does an entitlement mindset exist among the population? Certainly. But it's mostly irrelevant to a discussion on the merits of a progressive taxation system. We don't have a progressive taxation system because we're "entitled" to it. We have one for the same reason every advanced nation on earth has one: it's the best compromise between Capitalist ideals and Democratic ones. The question isn't whether Progressive Taxation makes sense (you can't fund a government by raising taxes on those who have no money), really the debate is how Progressive should it be to maximize the efficiency of both the government and the economy.

But if rich people don't like it, they always have the option to avoid becoming rich. It's a small price to pay for all the benefits our society provides them.

This is the rub though.

First, it depends, of course, on how you define rich. And i think you know how those wealth distribution graphs look. So there are a LOT of different flavors of 'rich'.

And poor people don't like paying taxes either, so it's hardly something exclusive to the rich.

The majority of 'rich' people understand that progressive taxes are necessary, and pay them without much beyond the normal grousing, in addition to funding almost all non profits through private donation.

[Lord Mord]

Lady Chataya,

Yet, they live in a 3,000 square foot house! From an income of (generously) $55,000 a year, they pay a $200,000 mortgage, because they essentially thought is was their "right" (they "deserved to") live in a big house when they got married. They have 2 cars. They want a big screen TV. They have an i-pod $300-thingy, and an i-phone!

...and they see it all as "stuff they deserve to have".

Okay. So your SIL and her hubby are enfants terrible. Agreed.

The thing is, I know I lost the thread here somewhere, because the place this took me to doesn't sound like you at all. Yet, what I'm left with is thinking:

This is somehow a justification for not doing our best, in concert, to see that no one has to starve? You realize that a lot of people aren't pining for 3,000 square feet and a Jacuzzi? A lot of folks would just be happy to, you know, be consistently clean and out of the cold.

Aside from making the mistake of not realizing you would never take the thread to such a place in the first place, where did I go wrong? What did I miss?

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

I'd rather see an equation than brackets. Hopefully that would prevent, for example, someone making 25,000 having more take hope pay than someone making 26,000.

But that is what a progressive tax would look like?

How would an equation work?

I can remember a friend telling me (when I was in HS---82 or 83) that her mother got a pay raise that sent her into a higher bracket and now she brought home less.

Or, we could just tax everything over $200,000, so that no one ends up with more than $200,000 take home pay per year. :P

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I just don't get this attitude. You've got so much wealth, but you're ready to let people die in the streets? Because it's their own fault they're poor, presumably? Or because it's just nature's way?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaannd...Westeros-Godwinned. 6 pages is about right.

[Swordfish]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaannd...Westeros-Godwinned. 6 pages is about right.

Ha. Yep.

[Shryke]

You live in Canada, so you may not know this, but the average American house has mushroomed - DOUBLED - since 1950.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5525283

The average American house size has more than doubled since the 1950s; it now stands at 2,349 square feet. Whether it's a McMansion in a wealthy neighborhood, or a bigger, cheaper house in the exurbs, the move toward ever large homes has been accelerating for years.

Consider: Back in the 1950s and '60s, people thought it was normal for a family to have one bathroom, or for two or three growing boys to share a bedroom.

And who owns these giant houses?

Most of the new, larger housing market goes to older people because they go to people buying their second/etc home. Older people have climbed the Property Ladder up to larger houses that, back in the 50s for instance, didn't even exist.

Anything I've seen shows that the American "Starter Home" or whatever you wanna call it is not that much bigger then it used to be. Certainly not in functionality (ie - number of rooms) The only thing that's changed is that the formerly young middle class types have moved up into larger homes.

You've got to control for age in these things.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

Not every tangential thread drift is 100% relevant, Jaime ;)

The entitlement mentality of the lower middle class as embodied by SIL and her husband can send me frothing - I'm sure we all know people like this.

Not the least bit surprising, I find I agree with most things you have posted in this thread.

Funny, I never thought of myself as one of those intitled (like your SIL) and while I may not have been as bad as many of them, I still was one of them (still am, but at least I am aware of it).

[Shryke]

The entitlement mentality of the lower middle class as embodied by SIL and her husband can send me frothing - I'm sure we all know people like this.

Well yes, they are the anecdote you bring up every time this stuff comes up so you can justify your views on the social safety net and such things.

Where would these threads be without them!

[Insert Edit]

Yet, they live in a 3,000 square foot house! From an income of (generously) $55,000 a year, they pay a $200,000 mortgage, because they essentially thought is was their "right"

Good golly, I wish I could get a $200,000 mortgage. I pay over $1100 a month in rent and utilities for a basement suite, I drive a Versa, and haven't bought new clothes in... I don't remember when.

I had my first vacation in ten years last Christmas.

Where can I get me some of this middle class entitlement?

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

And who owns these giant houses?

Most of the new, larger housing market goes to older people because they go to people buying their second/etc home. Older people have climbed the Property Ladder up to larger houses that, back in the 50s for instance, didn't even exist.

Anything I've seen shows that the American "Starter Home" or whatever you wanna call it is not that much bigger then it used to be. Certainly not in functionality (ie - number of rooms) The only thing that's changed is that the formerly young middle class types have moved up into larger homes.

You've got to control for age in these things.

Can you show me stats on this?

[TheLoneliestMonk]

I doubt it would be too hard to come up with an equation for a curve up from a fraction of a percent for someone making 1,000 up to... say 45% for 10,000,000.

You're right that what you have is how a progressive tax normally works as far as I know.

[Shryke]

Shryke - Where would these threads be without you and your harping on health care, and assuming that all the poor are going to end up dead in the gutter?

I didn't harp on health care, I merely brought it up because, of course, it is one of the largest rising costs to the average middle class american right now.

Now, you can refuse to admit this or not like me mentioning it, but it's happening so, you know, deal.

And, again, if you don't provide a social safety net, people will hit rock bottom and, more of less, die in the gutter. Unless you have some stunning insight as to why this won't happen?

[Jaime L]

The majority of 'rich' people understand that progressive taxes are necessary, and pay them without much beyond the normal grousing, in addition to funding almost all non profits through private donation.

Most do get it. But for those grousing that progressive rates are too unfair to the rich, they should consider that income disparity in this country has grown exponentially this decade. As progressive as our tax rates are, they have done nothing to stem the ability of the top 1% to run laps around the other 99% in terms of income. The ability of income to pereptuate itself at that level of wealth far exceeds anything the government could do to take it away from them. I have no sympathy for the sentiment that we're "squeezing the rich" in any way, shape or form.

Also, tangentially related to your second point, the rich get a deduction for all their private funding and charitable contributions so really even there, at their most altruistic, the government's still kicking in 35%.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

I agree with the statement, "a minimum standard of living shouldn't be guaranteed." Damn, I'm harsh :smoking:

I also agree somewhat, to a certain extent, with Galactacus' statement that "taxes should be higher on the rich". A progressive tax system is a good thing. I think you'll find that the disagreement comes in the details, like what marginal rates should be applied at which income brackets. It's a little like saying "taxes should be somewhere between 0 - 100%". You'll find broad agreement ;) The exact number (25%? 30%? 60%?) is up for argument.

I didn't harp on health care, I merely brought it up because, of course, it is one of the largest rising costs to the average middle class american right now.

Now, you can refuse to admit this or not like me mentioning it, but it's happening so, you know, deal.

And, again, if you don't provide a social safety net, people will hit rock bottom and, more of less, die in the gutter. Unless you have some stunning insight as to why this won't happen?

What I don't understand is that Chats IS in favor of a progessive tax, so why are you directing this to her?

(yes, I have read her other statements) Unemployment is not welfare; Free education is not welfare; free health care is not welfare either.

The "people dying in the streets" argument is just a distraction, and has no validity. We have shelters, social services, and yes even welfare to help these people out.

[Lord Mord]

TM,

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaannd...Westeros-Godwinned. 6 pages is about right.

I admit it's a Goodwin, and it is unfortunate that it's always phrased that way. Still, I think the point has some validity, inasmuch as: what is the alternative, when there isn't work for you?

I mean to say, that the conservative position tends to be one of ignorance: oh, I'm sure somebody will do something. Just like a lot of liberals say, "oh, well, the money will come from somewhere."

If government isn't doing at least a part of that something, which is what the conservatives tend to hate, then what reason is there to believe that anyone will do anything? Our one major opportunity to really come into concert as a nation and say, "Yes, we as the People of the United States of America believe it's wrong to let people in the streets starve," and we give it a miss. Can't be bothered.

What reason is there to believe we're going to bother so very much more in the private sector?

[The_BlauerDragon]

One question: is my idea of a progressive tax what others are thinking of, or am I way off base on what I think it is?

I think that you have an accurate description of it, my only question is do you fully understand the effects and consequences of it? If not, don't worry... I'm not sure that I do either. I am sure that when the taxes on the rich get too high, they stop paying them (either by relocating, or by hiding their assets). Those who have true wealth, have a multitude of tools, tricks, and loopholes at their beck and call (let’s not forget that the people who wrote the tax laws were either quite wealthy themselves, or whored out to the gills to groups of very wealthy individuals – or both) They can avoid taxation quite easily if they desire. I am also fairly certain that the taxes are about to go through the roof for all of us (rich and poor alike).

There is only one thing that really confuses the "you know what" out of me about the whole argument for increasing taxation on the rich. It seems that we can all agree that the American Middle Class is essential to the health and success of America and that we need to increase the size and health of the middle class. It also seems that everyone's answer is to attack the upper middle class and the wealthy. Why focus on dragging the wealthy down to the middle? Wouldn't it be better for everyone if we instead were to try and pull the poor up to the middle? We don’t want to end up with a very small (and super elite) upper class, a tiny (and hard pressed) middle class, and a massive (extremely poor) lower class, do we? When I look at the direction we’re heading, that’s what I see. Unless I am misreading the writing on the wall, it spells out a future with an insurmountable gap between each class and a breakdown that is maybe 10% ultra-rich, 5% struggling middle, and 85% ultra-poor (kind of like China is, from my understanding).

[Swordfish]

Most do get it. But for those grousing that progressive rates are too unfair to the rich, they should consider that income disparity in this country has grown exponentially this decade. As progressive as our tax rates are, they have done nothing to stem the ability of the top 1% to run laps around the other 99% in terms of income. The ability of income to pereptuate itself at that level of wealth far exceeds anything the government could do to take it away from them. I have no sympathy for the sentiment that we're "squeezing the rich" in any way, shape or form.

Right. i mostly agree. however, the 'squeezing the rich' argument is not generally being made in defense of that top fraction of a percentage. It generally, from my experience, comes up in cases where you are basically talking about a lot more people that that top 1%, because those are the people who generally feel the brunt of these initiatives.

Also, tangentially related to your second point, the rich get a deduction for all their private funding and charitable contributions so really even there, at their most altruistic, the government's still kicking in 35%.

Sure. Nevertheless, if the government had to fund the entire 100%, we'd be fucked. i am tempted to go into another tangent about how this type of more localized donation is significantly more effective than federal spending on local programs, but i fear the thread spiral that would result.....