Yes they can afford it, very easily. They may not want to pay, because they like seeing how big those numbers in their financial statements can get, but paying (the sorts of amounts that are in question) will not have a significant negative (very likely no negative impact at all) impact on their lifestyle. That is what “rich” means, it means you have plenty of money.
On the other hand, even quite small increases in taxation on the poor will inevitably have very significant negative impact on their lifestyle. That is what “poor” means: every penny counts.
You criticize them for painting with a broad brush, then you go ahead and get out your ultra-wide roller…
It’s unarguable that some poverty is the result of bad luck (health crises, etc) and some is the result of bad choices (the aforementioned having kids way too early, dropping out of school, getting a job after HS so they can afford the payments on the camaro instead of investing in edumacation).
As for the tax debate - I’d argue that it’s fundamentally unhealthy when half the country isn’t paying any income taxes - it creates a group with an incentive to clamor for ever more federal spending. Which is what got us to where we are, fiscally. America didn’t become a great country through ever more handouts and federal interference. They became great through hard work, drive, entrepreneurial-ism, and risk-taking.
Frankly, the current progressive tax structure inhibits all those things.
Well, that’s what personal exemptions are for, right?
It depends on how you classify these things. You can classify them as Local, State and Federal items, but those are arbitrary distinctions. Ultimately, all of those functions are necessary for an operating government.
Paving a road. Governmental Function issued to local municipalities to ensure proper focus
Running a school. Governmental Function issued to local municipality. Funding shared with State
Operating a prison. Governmental Function issued to State or Federal depending on jurisdiction
Operating a standing military. Governmental Function issued to Federal
These are all important governmental functions, and they all have to be funded one way or another. At what level the function is assigned has to do with our governmental structure, and where the job can best be done.
Folks who contribute significant (to them) dollars towards maintaining a functioning government should not be called tax freeloaders.
Why the focus on the rich? I don’t have an inherent desire to keep 50% of households off the federal tax books, so why do I want to tax the rich? Looking at things from a post WW2 perspective, the rich (say top 2%):
have more income (as a % of total income) than ever
have more wealth (as a % of total wealth) than ever
are taxed a the lowest percentage of income ever
In the last 20 years, productivity gains have far outstripped gains in median family income, something that wasn’t true for 40 years post-war. Where did that money go, if not to the people who were becoming more productive workers?
Tax them more, because as the economic pie has grown, they’ve been taking a larger and larger share of the pie. They have a bigger percentage of the economy, they can afford to pay a bigger percentage. Frankly, nobody is even talking about going back to the dark ages of Reagan-era taxation, merely going to a tax level that’s near historical lows.
When did you choose to be born with the intelligence you have? I never chose to be born with my IQ, I never chose to be born into a family which could afford to send me to MIT, and I never chose to be born with a fanatical desire to do things. My daughter inherited that from me, and was doing it long before she was old enough to choose. Likewise those born with learning disabilities or in dire poverty and not lucky enough to have the spark to get them out if it.
As the joke goes, now we’re just negotiating the price. The distribution and amount of tax increases is something that should be based on economic models of the impact. And I definitely agree with you about loophole elimination, but we need to be careful of the consequences of eliminating breaks such as the mortgage deduction. The argument, and the point of this thread, is with the Republicans who signed that p-o-s Norquist’s pledge to not raise taxes at all, which includes closing loopholes, but feel it is unfair for the poor not to pay, and thus want to raise taxes on them.
It’s very simple. Decide what we need to spend money on, then decide the distribution of taxes to pay for it. My daughter is living off a grad school fellowship, and her husband is living off loans for law school. I’ve got plenty. It makes no sense at all to increase their taxes, which will hurt, to reduce my tax increase, which won’t. BTW, she is on the road to being a business school professor, who will make a fortune, so you can stuff your people in low brackets are lazy scum shtick. She will eventually pay plenty in taxes, and is eager for the chance to do so.
You think that all truckers could become doctors? Or all doctors could become truckers for that matter. I don’t know about the situation today, but truckers used to make good money. And society needs both. But, for whatever reason, society has decided to pay the doctor more. So, the doctor can afford to pay more in taxes with equal (or less) “pain.” Let’s just keep it in the doctor realm. The heart surgeon makes more than the GP. You want a world with all heart surgeons and no GPs? Income is not a metric of goodness.
The number was created to indicate that the people who are pushing this make it sound like those who don’t pay taxes are spongers and freeloaders. Given income distributions, 10% means that those below the poverty line are going to be expected to pay taxes, which makes no sense. (Income taxes - they already pay other taxes.) Look at their rhetoric with an open mind. Do you think an economic argument is being made, or a moral one. What I’ve heard, hear and elsewhere, is that those who don’t pay FIT have no skin in the game, and just want to soak the rich for their luxuries like refrigerators and food and stuff.
Thanks for making my point. I agree it is unhealthy that half the country pays no taxes - but not because their tax rate is so low, but because they don’t make enough to pay taxes. Your ilk wants to keep their wages down for the benefit of business profitability, but that isn’t good enough. You want to give them one more little punch to the balls by increasing their taxes also.
Did America become a great country by allowing moguls to make their employees work six days a week, hire children for their factories, and lock in the seamstresses? Or did America become a great country by saying every child has a right to an education, and every worker has the right to safety and decent pay and working conditions. Yeah, yeah, Teddy Roosevelt was a socialist.
If you think the progressive tax structure inhibits the desire to make more money, I can only conclude that you’ve never been out of the bottom tier. I know of no one who turned down a raise or a promotion because their incremental income might be taxed at a higher rate.
Say I’m at the top of a bracket, and am offered a raise of $20K a year. That bumps me from 30% to 35%, say. That means I make only $13,000 more rather than $14,000. Yup, your average person will give up $13,000 because of that. Sure they will.
Why do you people consider the well to do to be such morons? I think we’re way smart enough to take the money and not worry about the tax.
LOL, holy non-sequitors Batman… and your strawman creation in that post would be the envy of Marley, even.
Not sure what you even mean by this - you want to increase the pay of the bottom half? So do I. ‘My ilk’ wants to keep wages down? Not sure who my ilk is, unless you mean those who can think clearly, form coherent thoughts, have an open mind, don’t go all class-warfare-y on some random board, etc. For the record, I want the market to dictate how much they make. And I want their skills to be such that it justifies higher wages for them.
America became (is) great because of the reasons I discussed.
No reasonable person on Earth would suggest that increasing taxes doesn’t harm economic growth or job creation. The applicable question is, does it harm more or less vs the cost of continued borrowing from Team Wonton.
And it’s not a matter of ‘turning down a raise’, as you so amusingly put it. It’s a matter of, do I risk x amount of capital, energy, whatever, for y amount of payout, knowing that that payout would be reduced by z dollars in the form of tax bite.
I have no idea what you mean by this. Again, please define ‘my people’. In general, well-to-do people are smarter than poor people, no question about it, but I wouldn’t suggest any causation there - it’s probably the other way around, or a confounding factor.
This, this, a thousand times this. Hell, I’m strongly considering moving across the country for an after-cost-of-living increase of 5% to my salary–you think making that 4% because taxes are higher is really going to matter? It’s still MORE MONEY.
Interestingly enough, at the time of that speech, the top .01% of earners paid 70% of their income in taxes, and the top 1% paid an effective rate of 45%. Those rates are now down to the low 30’s.
It’s a real shame that they screwed up the tax rates so bad. The country could have made something of itself.
My statement is far more true and less broad then then either of of Chessic Sense’s
There are certainly poor people who deserve the lives they’ve made for themselves. And certainly people who have just suffered unfortunate incidences.
What I’m talking about is averages. The US has one of the lowest social mobility rates among first world nations. On average a person born into a poor family will most likely be poor their entire life. If you are born into a wealthy family you will most likely be wealthy your entire life. With the education and opportunity afforded to the rich and the poor, on average their own actions will not cause a poor person to become rich or a rich person to become poor.
Hard work and dedication alone does nothing for anybody unless they also have opportunity. The wealthy can afford to buy opportunity for their own almost guaranteeing success children with only limited work ethics and little dedication. Where as a poor person has no ability to buy opportunity so they are left with only the hope of finding it through steadfast work ethic and solid dedication.
If we are going to continue with a system that makes it enormously difficult for the poor to move up in social class I think it is only fair that it be equally difficult for the wealthy to maintain their social class. The easiest way to do that is to take money from them at a higher rate until our social mobility numbers are in line with other countries.
Are you the sole arbitrator of reasonable people? There are a number of respected and reasonable economists that would disagree with you. What is done with the tax dollars has a lot to do with whether it hurts or helps economic growth and job creation.
And no one who has all the brains, ambition, and skill in the world has ever been stymied due to bad luck. Never happened. Everyone ends up in exactly the right place in life, and no one ever gets an inheritance or promoted above their ability or left to languish below their ability.
Yup, a socialist-style government will do that for you (see: Europe). It will generally get you into a whole shitload of fiscal trouble, eventually (see: Europe).
But I think you’re trying to solve the wrong problem. The issue isn’t how ‘fair’ the end result is for Americans, economically. The problem is how to balance the budget, and give more Americans more of a stake in the fiscal health of the economy, which is mostly dictated by the tax structure.
Can any reasonable person here make an argument that having a permanent underclass beholden to Federal largess is inherently healthy for the economy? I admit it will create a permanent constituency for those politicians who want to count on their votes every 2 years (ie, Democrats). But it’s bad, and distorts the discussion about what’s best for the country.
And if you think there’s crying about it now ("Don’t end Medicare as we know it!!) then wait until things get so bad that real austerity measures get put into place. Riots and pandemonium.
I actually agree with this. The tax code should reflect this.
If you make over $x per year (say $500K) you pay 90% income tax. However, every job you create over what you created last year that pays over $y per year and provides benefits/your employee doesn’t have to be on welfare …you get to cut away part of that 90%.
This way you have to actually CREATE JOBS to get the lower tax…
I’m always amazed when Republicans spout the line about how half the country doesn’t pay any federal income tax. I’m amazed not because it’s untrue, but because it’s a scathing rebuttal of Republican ideals. Only half the country pays federal income tax because of the huge wealth disparity in this country. If you want those folks to pay more, then give them the opportunities to do well so they can afford it.
I was KIDDING! It’s sarcasm related to the fact that many people who make much money don’t actually create jobs or don’t create jobs for Americans…so the idea of not taxing the rich because they are ‘job creators’ is silly.
