Mentioned, cited, and ignored frequently here at SDMB. Just “refer Honorable Doper to cites previously given, e.g. by Septimus.”
But also misleading/wrong. With the Evil Death Tax repealed, much long-term capital gains escape taxation. Since much of the wealth accretion by the super-rich takes this form, their tax rate is much lower than that of the middle class.
These are not the same thing. We don’t have a wealth tax in the USA (except for estate taxes, which kick in much higher).
Why would cuts to Social Security matter? It is funded by a payroll tax. It does not get government money. it can not contribute to the debt by its charter. If it falls short ,it has to cut payments. It can not hit the treasury to make up shortages. It is solvent for the next 30 years . How does slashing SS make any sense at all.
Oh wait, the Repubs call it an Entitlement Program. Buzz words kill. Truth does not matter any more.
Try the second link I provided, which talks about tax rates, and conveniently breaks them up into rates by income percentile. This is especially useful because just comparing top marginal tax rates can be misleading, as the brackets have shifted a bunch over the years.
I simply addressed the OP. The rich, like most other people, aren’t opposed to other people paying taxes. They are just opposed to paying taxes themselves. So they don’t see the dichotomy.
I don’t think those are the only choices either. I think what we need is to grow the economy, which means giving ‘the rich’ a choice between higher taxes or investment in domestic job growth. No amount of tax raising or spending cuts is going to fix this economy without domestic job growth.
I wonder if at least a few of them aren’t thinking, perhaps with some justification, “I can handle money a lot better than the government can. The government is wasteful, inefficient, and irresponsible with money. Why should I give more of my money to the government when I can put it to much better use than they can?”
Except that we’ll still be overwhelmed with debt and obliged to do major spending cuts even if taxes are jacked up massively on “the rich”.
So how many people are willing to see a general tax increase (i.e., rescinding all of Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich”) in order to make at least a modest dent in the deficit while funding health care, multiple wars, and everything else that is indispensable?
The polls seem to be all across the board. I’ve heard the 80% balanced approach figure. I think Rasmussen just came out with a poll stating that 55% disapprove of a tax increase, amoung others. They all seem to conflict with each other.
Myself, I realize that we can neither cut our way out of debt, nor tax our way out of debt, so it’ll have to be a balanced approach. Either step taken taken too far will wreck the economy.
Too much politics in Washington. I almost wish they’d hand the power to get it done over to some neutral party so we could actually have it done in all America’s best interest without individual constituencies coming into play.
the problem was never “why don’t we pay more taxes to fix it”. It has never mattered what the tax rate is from the perspective of Congress. It doesn’t matter which party is in office, they vote more expenditures than funds taken in. That is the problem.
Right now we are in a recession. Many people have been unemployed for years. It was caused by a housing bubble that was compounded by shoddy banking practices. All of this is compounded by a worldwide crisis of governments spending more than they take in.
If we increase taxes now it will hurt the economy and this is the wrong time to do that. If the economy slides further then less taxes will be generated and we would need to… raise taxes to compensate.
But to answer the actual question, Why are the rich so opposed to paying taxes?. They’re no different than anybody else except they’re already paying the lion’s share of it and have the ability to move their funds to where it’s appreciated. If you need that explained then write to John Kerry and ask him why he originally kept his yacht in a state that charged less taxes.
This is a point I hear somewhat frequently that makes no sense to me. Why shouldn’t they be expected to pay a disproportionate share of taxes when they have reaped a disproportionate amount of the benefits? Their prosperity is in large part tied to the fact that they live in a country that has: a stable government, a 1st world infrastructure, a well educated population, and is nearly invulnerable to attack from foreign powers.
Because there is a feeling among the rich (and somewhat though not completely justified) that increased taxes will result in increased spending AND that the increased spending will be in the parts of the budget that deal with wealth redistribution. What the rich hear when politicians talk about tax increases is, “Give us money so we can give it to poor people.” Who would volunteer for that considering those rich people that believe in humanics already give considerable money to charities.
My question is: would there be a difference in attitude from the rich if the money raised was legislated for a specific purpose such as retiring the debt or funding to privatize Social Security?
Because most rich people don’t feel like they’re rich.
Most people who have a decent, salaried job in the USA have nothing to complain about, from a material standpoint. Healthcare, housing, food, retirement, they’re all taken care of. Where this falls is up for debate, but even in one of the three highest cost of living areas in the USA I personally consume <15k, post tax. That’s as a single guy in his late 20s and doesn’t include the healthcare benefits I receive as part of my compensation package. So let’s generously say that a single person making 40k has reached saturation in consuming necessities.
At that point, why should they try to make more? It comes down to status, and status is inherently relative. You end up comparing yourself to your peer group. And the general tendency is for people to spend most of their time with people of similar means, with some outliers in either direction. You usually note the person making the most that you know, though, instead of taking a more objective viewpoint that you’re in a privileged class of the most privileged nation in the world in the most privileged era of history.
Wealth is distributed through according to a power law, too, which makes things even worse. Someone making 20k a year won’t know many people making 100k/year, while someone making 100k/year is likely to know many making 500k/year and a couple making a million annually. So by becoming richer and expanding your peer group, you psychologically feel even more squeezed. To keep up with everyone else, you’ve suddenly have to send your kid to the best private elementary school that costs 40k/year, take vacations in faraway lands, and get a nice five bedroom in the Upper East Side.
So, say you’re making 250k/year, and there’s a proposed hike in the income tax that would cost you an additional 20k. Although you’d expect it to hit everyone in your peer group equally, in practice the people making a million a year are likely to end up only having to pay an additional 40k instead of a commensurate 80k. You’re further and further away from reaching your (nearly unattainable) goal of status supremacy.
Unless you’re Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, and everyone already knows you’re definitely richer than them. Then taxes are hunky dory.
I think everyone objects to paying taxes. The only reason we hear more about how the rich object is because they have better media access.
“You ever try going mad without power? It’s boring, no-one listens to you.”
I’m a little amused by current claims that raising taxes during a recession is a bad idea. It occurs to me that the major reason Americans might have to raise taxes now is because they cut taxes a few years back when the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were ramping up. Seems to me that cutting taxes during a war is a worse idea than raising them during a recession.
Why are the rich opposed to paying taxes? Because they don’t like to give their money away. Why are the rich opposed to paying more taxes? Because they don’t see it as fair how 40 - 60% of Americans can get away with paying no Federal income tax while they, themselves, have to shoulder a higher tax burden simply because they’re “rich”.
Are those you’re feelings? Or are you repeating what other’s have said?
I don’t want to, again, go through ten pages of why this is misguided.
I’ve never made anywhere close to $500K, but when I did get bumped to a higher bracket during the bubble I didn’t mind at all. Plus the tax situation of someone making $500K will be much easier than Buffet’s, and I bet he could easily afford the help. (Which had better be profitable for him.)
Now the problem with business taxes seems to be loopholes and complexity, not top rates. I haven’t heard any proposals for raising these taxes. Simplifying them might move the burden from small business owners back to giant businesses, where it belongs… Anyone with enough Schedule C income to be in a top bracket probably needs to incorporate or something.
If this is how the rich actually feel, then the rich are seriously short-sighted. If the American economy suffers continued upheaval and possible defaults, the 40-60% might lose a job or possibly a house, but a rich person could lose (on paper, at least) a hundred million dollars in asset devaluation.
The way of doing this in the long term is to grow the economy. 9% unemployment means that lots of people are taking from the government and not contributing to the government. If you cut unemployment benefits, these people will reduce the sales tax they pay while reducing purchases, while causing companies with reduced sales to cut employment further.
The rich, with their relatively low taxes, are clearly not doing the investing the right claims they should be doing. That’s not because they are evil, but just because it makes no economic sense. Putting that money into infrastructure improvements, into keeping states from firing cops and teachers, into maybe hiring people for public works projects is more likely to improve the economy and make them more money in the long term than in bidding up the price of the new Internet stocks.
The near surplus we had was not from cutting spending, but from an economy where people like me were paying more in taxes than ever because we made money in the market, and from an economy where unemployment was very low.
Better use by whose definition? If I’m going to be selfish, a cut in taxes which lets me buy expensive champagne is better than using that money to pay for healthcare for a poor child. If you consider the entire country, that’s not so. We hear that this extra money is supposed to be invested to create jobs - but it is not happening.