Do You Support a Tax Hike For The Wealthiest Americans?
- Thread starter Straight Shooter
- Start date
Yes, But at the end of the day everything is directly or indirectly in control of wealthy people. Take example of 2008-9 when the tax payer's money was given as bailout to the falling auto empire and eventually went to the pockets of CEOs.
Tax raise should be accompanied with transparency in spending taxpayers money.
Tax raise should be accompanied with transparency in spending taxpayers money.
Says the goober with no facts or figures of proof.
There should be tax increases for the wealthiest Americans however there should be a cutoff point somewhere above $250,000, I would say $500,000 or even $1 million
bobjustbob
Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
Raising taxes on the wealthy will solve nothing. Tax reform will. You don't have to make $250k a year in order to find loopholes. Create a business and charge whatever you want to it. Use the leased car for grocery shopping and vacations. Deduct partial rent and mortagage for office and warehouse space. Include part of your utilities and all of your phone and internet expenses. Buy and sell socks at a flea market to show you are conducting some sort of business. Need to look like you are breaking even? Buy a roll of ribbon and say you sold designer socks for $20 a pair. Tons of people do similar shit with other kinds of businesses.
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
Would you support tax hikes if there was a higher cutoff point? Instead of raising taxes on people who make over $250,000, the tax hikes would start with those who make over $500,000 or $1 million
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
No, like we said, it will not help. There's no reason to do it.
They have to cut spending.
You keep saying that but do you have any data to back that statement up, a graph or chart or something? Also, spending cuts are going to be part of any deal that gets passed. The president has said all along that we must follow a balanced approach meaning some spending cuts and some revenue increases.
bobjustbob
Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
I've still got to say no. What happens is that the same ways to hide and shift money is still available. Believe me when I say that if serious tax reform starts to make a push, the rich will be crying their eyes out. They will have no defense because if I can't have that tax break or loophole, so can't you. The current personal and corporate tax rates can stay low and fair.
Sam Fisher
Banned
This statement is so narrow and goofy as to be comedy. Obama would like the middle class to not go extinct, he would like nobody to be without medical care, and he would like America to remain the place where anybody can get ahead. Your puppet masters would like the middle class to shrink away into their pockets. They would like the poor to quit being poor. They would like nobody to have a chance except the chosen few who are born with the means.
Poor scared little man the world will change if you like it or not pull your head out and try not to get in the way.
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics........
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
I don't think raising taxes on the top 2% is a bad idea. It isn't the answer, but it could be part of a comprehensive answer.
In concept, I like the idea of closing loopholes as well.
Mix that with cuts in military spending and entitlements, then we're on our way, I suspect.
What are the odds of a compromise like that though?
In concept, I like the idea of closing loopholes as well.
Mix that with cuts in military spending and entitlements, then we're on our way, I suspect.
What are the odds of a compromise like that though?
Taxing the wealthy 2% only created about $80 billion in revenue. Which only runs the Government for about 8 to 9 days.
Baby steps its how you get things done in this country its not going to happen all at once.
Sam Fisher
Banned
This guy is usually very level headed. Somethings I agree with him, somethings I don't. I think he has it pegged correctly on this one.
John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough. Really.
Progressives say, if you’re so worried about the deficit, raise taxes! There are lots of rich people around, squandering money. On my show, David Callahan of the group Demos put it this way: “Wealthy Americans who have done so well in the past decade should help get us out.”
But it’s a fantasy to imagine that raising taxes on the rich will solve our deficit problem. If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit. Our national debt would continue to explode.
It’s the spending, stupid.
Also, even if you could balance the budget by taxing the rich, it wouldn’t be right. Progressives say it’s wrong for the rich to be “given” more money. The New York Times ran a cartoon that showed Uncle Sam handing money to a fat cat. But that has it backward. Money earned belongs to those who earn it, not to government. Lower taxes are not a handout.
Progressives want to take more money from some—by force—and spend much of it on programs that have repeatedly failed. It sounds less noble when plainly stated.
That’s the moral side of the matter. There’s a practical side, too. Taxes discourage wealth creation.
My $616 billion assumption above is absurd. Rich people wouldn’t work if government takes all their earnings.
Progressives claim an increase in tax rates won’t stop producers from producing. But they presumably understand that people don’t work for free. When the top marginal rate was 90 percent, actor Ronald Reagan worked just half the year. As soon as he made enough money such that every additional dollar was taxed at 90 percent, he stopped working and went off to ride horses. Reagan later said that woke him up to the damage that high taxes impose.
Maryland created a special “tax on the rich” that legislators said would bring in $106 million. Instead, the state lost $257 million. Some of Maryland’s rich just left the state. When New York state hiked its income tax on millionaires, billionaire Tom Golisano moved to Florida, which has no personal income tax. “[M]y personal income tax last year would’ve been $13,800 a day,” he told us. “Would you like to write a check for $13,800 a day to a state government, as opposed to moving to another state?”
Even Donald Trump, who gets so much wrong, gets this one right. He says of rich people, “They’re international people. Whether they live here or live in a place like Switzerland doesn’t really matter to them.”
We see the folly of trying to raise revenue with high taxes by looking at tax receipts over time. Before 1963, when Reagan rode his horse, every single dollar after $400,000 (in today’s dollars) was taxed at more than 90 percent. And government revenues equaled about 18 percent of gross domestic product. Then the top rate was lowered to 70 percent, then to 50 percent, and then to as low as 30 percent, before it was raised back to 40 percent in the 1990s. Despite those sharp changes, the chart below shows that tax revenue seldom exceeded 20 percent or fell below 17 percent of GDP.
People adjust their activities to the tax burden.
Also, higher taxes give rich people and politicians more reasons to collude. The rich make contributions to political campaigns, and politicians pay the rich back by giving them tax loopholes.
The loopholes complicate the tax code and create work for tax specialists like my accountant Bob. I pay Bob because I can’t begin to figure out my taxes. I don’t want to give money to Bob. But our loophole-ridden tax system is now so complex that today most Americans pay someone like Bob.
That’s a big loss to America. All that money and creative energy we spend trying to figure out taxes might have gone to build homes, make music, cure cancer, or . . . who knows what.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danbigm...ax-the-rich-the-rich-dont-have-enough-really/
The above guest post is by John Stossel, who will host a panel at The Bush Institute’s Tax Summit To Encourage Growth, co-sponsored by Forbes, in New York City On April 10. Stossel also hosts a weekly Fox Business Network show, Stossel, and a documentary series on Fox News. He is a nineteen-time Emmy winner, a five-time honoree for excellence in consumer reporting by the National Press Club, and a New York Times bestselling author. His new book, No They Can’t: Why Government Fails – But Individuals Succeed hits bookstores April 10.
John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough. Really.
Progressives say, if you’re so worried about the deficit, raise taxes! There are lots of rich people around, squandering money. On my show, David Callahan of the group Demos put it this way: “Wealthy Americans who have done so well in the past decade should help get us out.”
But it’s a fantasy to imagine that raising taxes on the rich will solve our deficit problem. If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit. Our national debt would continue to explode.
It’s the spending, stupid.
Also, even if you could balance the budget by taxing the rich, it wouldn’t be right. Progressives say it’s wrong for the rich to be “given” more money. The New York Times ran a cartoon that showed Uncle Sam handing money to a fat cat. But that has it backward. Money earned belongs to those who earn it, not to government. Lower taxes are not a handout.
Progressives want to take more money from some—by force—and spend much of it on programs that have repeatedly failed. It sounds less noble when plainly stated.
That’s the moral side of the matter. There’s a practical side, too. Taxes discourage wealth creation.
My $616 billion assumption above is absurd. Rich people wouldn’t work if government takes all their earnings.
Progressives claim an increase in tax rates won’t stop producers from producing. But they presumably understand that people don’t work for free. When the top marginal rate was 90 percent, actor Ronald Reagan worked just half the year. As soon as he made enough money such that every additional dollar was taxed at 90 percent, he stopped working and went off to ride horses. Reagan later said that woke him up to the damage that high taxes impose.
Maryland created a special “tax on the rich” that legislators said would bring in $106 million. Instead, the state lost $257 million. Some of Maryland’s rich just left the state. When New York state hiked its income tax on millionaires, billionaire Tom Golisano moved to Florida, which has no personal income tax. “[M]y personal income tax last year would’ve been $13,800 a day,” he told us. “Would you like to write a check for $13,800 a day to a state government, as opposed to moving to another state?”
Even Donald Trump, who gets so much wrong, gets this one right. He says of rich people, “They’re international people. Whether they live here or live in a place like Switzerland doesn’t really matter to them.”
We see the folly of trying to raise revenue with high taxes by looking at tax receipts over time. Before 1963, when Reagan rode his horse, every single dollar after $400,000 (in today’s dollars) was taxed at more than 90 percent. And government revenues equaled about 18 percent of gross domestic product. Then the top rate was lowered to 70 percent, then to 50 percent, and then to as low as 30 percent, before it was raised back to 40 percent in the 1990s. Despite those sharp changes, the chart below shows that tax revenue seldom exceeded 20 percent or fell below 17 percent of GDP.
People adjust their activities to the tax burden.
Also, higher taxes give rich people and politicians more reasons to collude. The rich make contributions to political campaigns, and politicians pay the rich back by giving them tax loopholes.
The loopholes complicate the tax code and create work for tax specialists like my accountant Bob. I pay Bob because I can’t begin to figure out my taxes. I don’t want to give money to Bob. But our loophole-ridden tax system is now so complex that today most Americans pay someone like Bob.
That’s a big loss to America. All that money and creative energy we spend trying to figure out taxes might have gone to build homes, make music, cure cancer, or . . . who knows what.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danbigm...ax-the-rich-the-rich-dont-have-enough-really/
The above guest post is by John Stossel, who will host a panel at The Bush Institute’s Tax Summit To Encourage Growth, co-sponsored by Forbes, in New York City On April 10. Stossel also hosts a weekly Fox Business Network show, Stossel, and a documentary series on Fox News. He is a nineteen-time Emmy winner, a five-time honoree for excellence in consumer reporting by the National Press Club, and a New York Times bestselling author. His new book, No They Can’t: Why Government Fails – But Individuals Succeed hits bookstores April 10.
