Why are the rich so opposed to paying taxes?

The trouble is, there are also a few of them who made such terrifying and catastrophic decisions with their and other people’s money that they damn near destroyed the universe, and the evil Federal government had to bail them out to the tune of several hundred billion dollars. Those people, in particular, can pay a little more tax.

As for the the rest of the top income bracket? How about a test? Remember how we laughed when John McCain couldn’t remember how many houses he owned? Well, how about we give the rich a little survey? Anyone who can’t name their own net worth to within five million dollars if their life depends on it, can afford to pay a little more tax.

Actually, the tax share burden is a rather deceiving figure since it convolves two things: the tax rates and the income share (which you do point out has been increasing). If you look closely, I think you’ll see that the main reason why the rich have had “a larger and larger share of the tax burden” is because they have a larger and larger share of the income.

Oy…Such problems, I only wish I could have! :wink:

We have higher corporate tax rates than most of Europe. Corporate tax isn’t a very good way to get revenue, in any case. Corporations are far more flexible than people are with their income.

People use their income to fund their lives. A corporation is different, its life is about creating value for others (investors.) No one is taxed on gross earnings, be they humans or corporations. That is why your Adjusted Gross Income when you file taxes is always going to be lower than your gross pay, the government isn’t going to make you pay taxes on your gross because they know you’re paying money out in payroll taxes for one, as well as perhaps retirement, health care, mortgage payments, and various other things governments are willing to let us deduct.

So if you take all the money corporations earn and then deduct all the money they had to spend to earn it, you have their taxable earnings. This is what is taxed by corporate income taxes. Here is where corporations are totally different from human beings.

Some corporations are very interested in generating a large amount of operating profit and paying hefty dividends to shareholders. These corporations will pay a lot of corporate income taxes. Other corporations are interested in extreme growth and do not care about paying dividends. Shareholders will buy stock in these companies because their value is increasing as the company’s operations expand, so even though they do not get dividend checks they realize a gain on their investment. These companies will not pay very high corporate income taxes because any money they have after operations will be used for capital expenditures, hiring new people and etc, all of those things are going to reduce the final taxable income of the corporation dramatically.

Interestingly, those things: capital expenditures and hiring new people, is by many people’s account a better use of a corporation’s money than paying dividends to shareholders. So many people who argue for high corporate income taxes aren’t arguing for it because they think corporations should pay more to the Federal government in absolute numbers, but because they believe higher corporate income tax rates will stimulate greater job growth and overall output of firms.

What would happen if you dramatically raised corporate income taxes is you would just cause corporations to decide they wanted to make more capital investments and hire more people. Unfortunately though that’s not always a good thing. Not every corporation is in the market position to justify that sort of thing, and in fact that sort of thing could cause organizational bloat and leave them running in the red down the road. Additionally, some corporations will find various ways to just pay top executives more and more fat bonuses and stock options instead of hiring more people, it’s debatable whether or not we want to promote that sort of thing (bloated executive compensation is neither great for the economy or the shareholder, and I say that as a very right-wing person.)

Whatever you may believe about corporate income taxes the one thing that is essentially true without a doubt is they aren’t a good way to fix deficit problems. High rates may be a good way to stimulate capital investment but they aren’t going to help the deficit because unlike people corporations can easily and without using “loopholes” or “illegitimate actions” lower their pre-tax earnings by simply spending those earnings on growing the business. If you tried to structure so that corporations could not do that, then you may get more money out of them but it might be worse for the economy overall because corporations would not be as interested in expanding.

That parenthetical statement always irks me a bit: The whole point of taxes is that it is a collective thing. Warren Buffet knows that even with his income level, the extra bit he could contribute in taxes wouldn’t do much to close the deficit. However, if the taxes are raised on all the Warren Buffets (e.g., like the top 1%) then you are talking some real money.

So, no, if Buffet believes that people like him should pay more in taxes, the right way to go about it is to campaign for raising taxes on the wealthy, not to just unilaterally pay more in taxes himself. (I suppose there is some benefit of trying to set a good example…but that only is actually effective if enough people follow your example, and I sorta doubt that would work here.)

I don’t know why it annoys you. Yes, we are talking real money. However, if Warren really thinks he’s paying too little then it would be fairly simple for him to pay more. However, the actual point is that he is making a decision for others that collectively they are all paying too little. That’s nice that Warren feels that way about others money, but really, if he feels strongly about it he could simply decide to pay more and the IRS is not going to refuse him.

That’s the thing about most of these discussions…folks are deciding what they feel OTHERS should pay. And, interestingly enough, Warren doesn’t pay more because he (rightfully) thinks it wouldn’t be very fair for him to pay ‘some real money’ while others aren’t doing the same…which is the argument that many ‘rich’ people I know give for why they think it unfair that they should shoulder the burden for paying for our collective problems. Despite popular belief on this board, we all (all the folks who pay taxes) got a tax cut from Bush et al. We all, collectively and in our massive wisdom voted for our various elected officials who ran up the tab, even if our favorite officials didn’t get elected…we abide by the majority vote. Yet no one is talking about getting rid of ALL of the Bush Tax Cuts™…instead it’s selective and, IMHO, arbitrary where we are going to cancel them, which means that only some are going to pay more to alleviate our collective problems.

THAT annoys me. So, we can both be annoyed I suppose. :wink:

No…if Warren believes, as he’s stated, that he pays too little, then the right way to go about fixing this problem is for him to pay what he believes he should be. IOW, he should talk with his own money (especially since he has so much of it), not with other peoples money.

IMHO, the right thing to do is to get rid of ALL of the Bush tax cuts, and perhaps even to raise everyone’s taxes a bit more AND to make substantial cuts in the government…basically what Obama wants except not selective on which Bush Tax Cuts™ to get rid of, and instead get rid of them all. After all, we have all been assured over and over again that only ‘the rich’ got any benefit from said cuts. And besides, we are all in this mess together, and really we should all contribute to fixing the problems. If that means we all need to take our medicine and make compromises, well…then perhaps in the future we won’t make similar mistakes, or if we do we will understand better the price we all have to pay when they are made.

-XT

Warren does not believe he pays to little. He believes his class pays too little. He said it is a class war and his class is winning.
I am sure even you could figure out his taxes being increased would not make up for all the tax breaks the rich have gotten. I think you could, I may be wrong. It is a silly argument.

I’m sure even you could figure out the key point here…Warren Buffet was NOT ELECTED TO ANYTHING AND IS SIMPLY A PRIVATE CITIZEN SHOOTING OFF HIS MOUTH. If he feels he is paying too little, then as a private citizen he is welcome to pay more. As a private citizen, he is free to lobby elected officials to try and get changes made that he agrees with. He has more power in that regard than either you or me, so he’s free to use it. ETA: He’s even free to run for elected office if he so chooses to get these vital changes he feels are necessary implemented. Again, he’s got a better chance of doing that then either you or I do, so it must be his CHOICE not to do any of that.

Other than that his opinions don’t really mean shit in the end…they are simply his opinions. If he wants to follow up on them then it’s his money.

I THINK you can get that, but, you know, I may be wrong…

-XT

For all any of us know, he is doing that. Why assume that he isn’t? But that is besides the point. Regardless if he’s donating extra cash to the government or if he’s spending it all on hookers, his opinion is as valid as any other in this discussion.

xtisme, without being snarky, I think you’re a good example of someone who’s father makes $500k a year (which is wealthy to at least 98% of all Americans and 99% of the world’s population), you had a huge advantage getting to adulthood, and don’t feel like you owe any additional payback to the country and society that allowed for such an advantage. I’ve got a different take but then again I grew up without your advantages although still getting to a high enought tax bracket that Obama’s proposed changes would result in me paying more tax. YMMV.

So, if I find a rich guy who disagrees with Warren and thinks he or she is paying too much, it has the same weight, right? Well then, all is good. His opinion about whether his class and he himself is not paying enough is on par with someone saying they are paying too much.

My opinion is that Warren needs to make a huge endowment to the XT fund so I can retire to a lifestyle I want to grow accustomed too. My opinion is as valid as any other in this discussion…more so, in fact, since Warren has sadly not chosen to join the debate here on the SD, or if he has he is hiding himself well. Gonzo? Is that you Warren? Come out from hiding you little minx…

:stuck_out_tongue:

-XT

(no snark mode is on)

No…I didn’t have a huge advantage getting to adulthood, unless you count my Hispanic blood which did get me some grants to go to college. Trust me…you wouldn’t want my ‘advantages’ unless you like living your early life in a barrio in South Tucson, playing with gangs and getting into lots of trouble and being extremely poor AND not speaking the language or speaking it funny until I was older. My father became relatively rich late in life (in the last 20 years, when I was in my 30’s already) though unbelievably hard work and sacrifice (sacrifices such as we, his children and any semblance of normal family life, which is a killer especially to Hispanics). And he’s paid not just in those sacrifices but in plenty of taxes as well.

He’s also given back a lot to the community, and basically he feels much as Bill Gates does…that us chillins can figure it out for ourselves and the bulk of his money will be going to various charities and such that he believes in (lots of them are church related, which burns my personal biscuit, and some are actually related to the Navy, which I don’t mind as much… but I won’t get into details).

For my part, I’m well under Obama et al’s arbitrary limits for taking away the Bush tax cuts on ‘the rich’, so it’s really not in my personal best interest to want the Bush Tax Cuts revoked for everyone…except that I think it’s the right thing to do and something necessary for the country.

(snark mode back on)

-XT

The reason why people pay attention to Buffet’s opinion is because even though he belongs to the very group who would be “victimized” by a tax hike, he’s for it. That says something. Whenever someone speaks out against something that supposedly is in their self interest, people will listen to them.

In contrast, the opinion of some rich guy whining about paying more in taxes, even though his country is drowning in debt, even though lives may literally be on the line, will merit as much attention as a professional criminal claiming to be innocent. Or rather, a bear shitting in the woods. It just not unexpected, and therefore, not worth listening too.

I think the reason why people pay attention to Warren is that A) he is saying what they want to hear, and B) that a lot of people are torn between their disgust at ‘the rich’ and their admiration of anyone famous and C) because he’s been successful, and people automatically want to believe that someone successful knows what they are talking about in all things.

Mostly I think that A is in play on this board…he is saying what many 'dopers want to hear and so that makes him a favorite person to cite and point to as an obvious authority that somehow discounts a contrary opinion. I personally have nothing against Warren, and I find his assertions interesting…but, after all, he isn’t an elected official and in the end his opinions are just that. Opinions. I take them with the same grains of salt that I’d take any famous persons opinions, which is to say that I’ll listen and then make up my own mind about the subject.

-XT

I stand corrected, thanks.

Maybe whatshername Ask the Child of Wealth would be a better example. :slight_smile:

Scare quotes have nothing to do with scaring people.

My wallet doesn’t really care where the money goes.

Think about when you were just starting out. Was an inflation adjust dollar then more or less valuable than it is today?

Doesn’t address my point. If you want everyone to pay taxes, make sure the ones that work make enough money so they can pay taxes while still having enough for rent and food. If you don’t want this to happen, I’m not very sympathetic to your oh so great pain at the unfairness of not screwing the poor quite enough.

You shouldn’t make these decisions in a vacuum of facts. The actual facts are these: Over the last ~30 years, the wealthiest few percent have seen incredible after-tax income games whereas the median family has seen only small gains and I believe the lowest quintile has seen essentially nothing at all. Unless you believe that our society had way too little inequality to start with, this is not a good situation; it means most of the additional wealth is going to a select few.

If we had anything approaching equally-shared economic progress then we could have equally-shared sacrifice (although it is rather debatable that taking, say, an additional 5% of income from someone making $20000 per year and someone making $2 million per year really represents equally-shared sacrifice). But, we don’t.

I actually have a suggested slogan for the Republicans: “Vote Republican…because inequality isn’t increasing fast enough!”

The *real *question answers itself: “Why are people who are opposed to paying taxes so rich?”

I don’t know that it necessarily has to be a rise in the tax rate. A simlistic answer is that for a corporation Taxable Income = Revenue - (COGS+payroll). A lot of what a corporation expenses out simply should not be tax deductable IMO such as private jets or naming rights to a stadium. I know the argument is that they are using those expenses to generate more money but to me there is a difference in expenses directly related to creating the goods and ancillary expenses.

Furthermore, there seems to be an inequity between what corporations can expense in the name of their profit and what I can. I am a math teacher currently working on an Ed.D. Please tell me what value that Ed.D. will have outside of my professional duties i.e. my job. However, I cannot expense it out as a work expense since apparently it is not directly related to my job whereas buying markers is. However, if I worked for a private school and THEY paid for my Ed.D., they could expense it out and in addition I would probably end up OWING taxes on the value of the education.

The cite showing the share of Federal taxes includes investment gains, dividends etc.

There is a common statement on these boards that investment returns are somehow not income. From a federal tax point of view, it is income and people pay income tax on it. The difference is merely that the income tax on some types of investment income (long-term capital gains, qualified dividends) is calculated at different rates, whereas others (short-term capital gains, interest) are calculated at earned income rates.

Fair point, but he’s NOT the only person saying these things. There do happen to be economists who say the same thing. He just happens to be the person with the highest profile to say it. It’s carries little to no impact to say that “Professor Joe Q Falsename”, a faculty member at Fake State University, thinks the same thing, even if he’s a well respected (if not widely known) economist in the field.

It seems like you’re taking the opposite tack. Attacking his qualifications and attacking the fact that he hasn’t run for office. Well, political office isn’t for everybody and just “having lots of money and being smart about economics” isn’t necessarily a good reason to (as he himself seems to be aware). Plenty of those advisors, cabinet members, staffers are experts and uniquely qualified in their fields but choose NOT to run for elected office. That does not devalue their expertise.

As for not encouraging action, he does. What do you think these public statements are? Do you not think he’s given advice to politicians and been actively courted for such? How many times has it been reported that politicians have actively sought his advice? It’s not exactly his fault if very few people listen or remember.