9 Things The Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes

[Conan71]

REPORT: In 12 Years, Income For Richest 400 Americans Quadruples, Tax Rate Nearly Halved

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/18/tax-disparity-chart/


I am not spouting class envyisms. I am pointing out the absurdity of continuing to divide the haves and have nots through a disproportionate unfair tax system and deprivation of social programs that funding, when omitted, pales compared to waste and abuse continuing to rise in the Military. It lays the groundwork for crime and hate and civil war.

I see a lot of my tax money going for invading foreign non-xtian non-white countries, oil rich however. I see a lot of my tax money going for weapons development.

I don't see a lot of my tax money going to benefit the society.

I don't like it. The GOPpers next target is SNAP and food stamps.

Want to see your allocations? http://www.whitehouse.gov/taxreceipt

That's why the socially-responsible give heavily to charity.  I would assume that includes you as well.

[Conan71]

It shouldn't be too difficult for the IRS to add a line on the tax forms:

Additional voluntary tax: ....................................._________

Agreed.

Post of the week.

[Teatownclown]

Taxes aren't bad if we are recieving something in return....monetarily or emotionally.

I just don't like the kind of taxes that worry my conscience and screw with my empathy.

Roll back the Bush years tax breaks.

[cannon_fodder]

Not to add substance to a FOTD debate...

But if you lower taxes and the result is more job growth - declare a victory.

If you lower taxes and the result is not as desired - declare you need more tax cuts.

I read a study recently that surprised me.  It went over all the data and theories and basically concluded that tax rates have very little to do with overal investment OR consumption.  If someone makes $1mil a year and Uncle Sam takes $170,000 this year (effective tax rate 17% on top 5% in 2010) or $260,000 (1992 effective rate) it isn't going to change their behavior significantly.  

It went over various reason and ideas what this seems to be the case, but it apperently boils down to:  if I can('t) do it with $830k I can probably (not) do it with $740k in after tax income (income tax).  Insert whatever number you want instead of $1mil in income, it generally held true.

Reduce spending significantly (1% is not significant, $150,000,000,000.00 sounds like a like, but in context it isnt) or raise taxes.  Those are the choices.  Very simple.  S&P threatened to cut the USA credit rating today (we are now rated AAA outlook negative) - a cut in rating would be DEVASTATING to our interest rate, the stock market, and confidence in the US economy for foreign investment.

I would be a HUGE fan of throwing out the tax code (mortgage deduction, child credit, farm subsidies and all) and starting over.  Some make economic sense, some don't.  I'd jump on board a VAT or consumption tax if done right (could be the most progressive tax).  Cut down on compliance costs, loopholes, special interest, administrative costs, and the huge pain in the donkey.

The short story:  our current bevhaior is not sustainable.  Change now or wait for a panic.  My money is we wait for a panic - no politician has any interest in long term solutions.

[Conan71]

Taxes aren't bad if we are recieving something in return....monetarily or emotionally.

I just don't like the kind of taxes that worry my conscience and screw with my empathy.

Roll back the Bush years tax breaks.

Why would I rely on the government for emotional support? 

That's not what our founding father's created it for.  That was reserved for the family and spiritual life.

[Conan71]

S&P threatened to cut the USA credit rating today (we are now rated AAA outlook negative) - a cut in rating would be DEVASTATING to our interest rate, the stock market, and confidence in the US economy for foreign investment.

I've said for at least two years this day was coming.  At this point, other analysts with other ratings firms are saying S & P's outlook is little more than "political" at this point.  However, if we don't craft a plan do manage our debt other than borrowing more money to service our existing debt, eventually our ratings will take a serious plunge and our borrowing costs will skyrocket leaving us in an even bigger mess.

Spending cuts across the board, no sacred cows and quit playing political shenanigans with the cuts.  I'd pay a higher tax rate within reason.  Come up with a percentage across the board if they won't abolish the tax code and go with a consumption-based tax.

As long as we are talking huge cuts in social programs and vastly raising taxes on the mega rich we will simply all keep talking past each other as time ticks away and we go further in debt.  Across the board tax increases and spending cuts removes the sacred cows and ideology.  We all need to roll up our sleeves and contribute.  That means giving a little more and expecting a little less.  It doesn't have to be drastic for anyone or any department (well okay, I'd go for spending a lot less for being the world's top cop and foreign aide to countries which hate us).  The part which pisses me off is the politicians don't seem to realize this.  It's all about trying to take something from the other side while giving up nothing on their own.

[Teatownclown]

meh. AAA+ to AA+ BFD.

So, our military defense doesn't make you feel secure? That's emotional. Just checking to see if you have any or if the feelings you have rise only in hot tubs and bars. 

[Teatownclown]

But if you lower taxes and the result is more job growth - declare a victory.

That was not the result.....no victory. 

[nathanm]

It's conveniently ignored that Clinton managed to keep tax rates low as well, though not as low as Bush II.  I don't think the 2 or 3% represents a significant amount when it comes to incentive to invest, but the difference between 17% and 40% or whatever means a whole lot more is left to the discretion of the person to invest and create growth.

Personally, I'm advocating a return to Clinton-era tax rates (pre-capital gains reduction, preferably), so I'm not ignoring anything, thanks.

You guys keep ignoring the whole premise that in lieu of the government creating jobs either via borrowing money or raising taxes, jobs ARE created by people who have money to invest.  The more money they can invest, the more jobs they can help create.

Accepting your premise that lower taxes didn't create a lot of new jobs during the Bush Admin is correct, please explain how the mechanism works where the government takes more wealth and more good-paying private sector jobs are created?

Please explain the mechanism by which tax cuts increase employment. Given that the Republicans have been cutting tax rates drastically since 1980 to historically low levels, it should be easy.

Also, since the private sector refuses to engage in basic research, the government has to fund it. In the past, you had companies like Dupont and Bell Labs doing completely new science. Today, it's all in universities and government labs. Once the government funded pure science gets to the point where practical applications are not far away, private industry takes off with it. Odd, that.

I just think it's funny that the people who complain the loudest about the budget seem to be the ones who refuse to even entertain the idea of tax increases to close the gap. Never you mind that if we had the Clinton tax rates back and dropped the Iraq war, we would have an easily manageable budget deficit. The level of irresponsibility involved in starting a war, cutting taxes, increasing spending on Medicare dramatically and then cutting taxes again continues to anger me when the people primarily responsible for the problem are the ones treated by the media as the ones with the serious plan and the deficit credibility. It's utter bullshit.

Say what you will about the Republicans, but they are the less fiscally responsible of the two parties, by a long shot.

And they're at it again with their double standards, what with claiming Social Security is insolvent despite having $2.5 trillion in treasuries, while at the same time claiming those treasuries count when it comes to the debt limit. Either they're there or they're not, guys. We didn't issue Schroedinger's bonds, guys.

Also, Conan, it's funny how this S&P warning automatically means we need to do what you want to do, rather than the equally OK solution of raising taxes. No, gotta do what the Republicans want, because they're the only ones who are serious about the budget.

Nobody other than the lunatic fringe wants to dramatically raise taxes on the rich. Yet it's considered canon in the Republican Party right now that social programs must be cut savagely. And you wonder why it is I've been so angry at Republicans over the past month or two..

[Cats Cats Cats]

The super rich have a very nice tax code for them (as long as they make their money on capital gains).  The poor can get back more than they pay in.  Its the middle $65k to $250k that are getting screwed.  That top 400 is nice to look at but an extra 5% isn't going to make a dent in anything.

[Conan71]

Please explain the mechanism by which tax cuts increase employment. Given that the Republicans have been cutting tax rates drastically since 1980 to historically low levels, it should be easy.

Answering my question with a question is no answer.  Apparently you can't explain how that works.

Anyone else care to explain how private investors and businesses can create more jobs when more of their discretionary wealth is taken by the government?

I'm not commenting on the merits one way or the other, someone simply explain how an investor can put money into the economy in the form of new jobs or capital expenditures which creates (or saves) other jobs if the government takes more of what they are earning?

[guido911]

Why would I rely on the government for emotional support? 

That's not what our founding father's created it for.  That was reserved for the family and spiritual life.

But that is what our tax code is all about--emotion. Those screaming "tax the rich" are not thinking about raising revenue. No, they are thinking that those who are "rich" did so by gaming the system. They don't think how the "rich" gives the lower and middle class their jobs, health benefits, paid vacations, etc. What would this country look like if the "rich" collectively said: "Up yours, I'm retiring and closing up shop"? Let the lower class innovate, invest, create and see how this country would look. I have read the posts of those few that comprise the "soak the rich" crowd in this forum, and I foresee a smilestorm in that scenario.

This is all about petty jealousy/envy and vengeance.

[guido911]

Answering my question with a question is no answer.  Apparently you can't explain how that works.

Anyone else care to explain how private investors and businesses can create more jobs when more of their discretionary wealth is taken by the government?

I'm not commenting on the merits one way or the other, someone simply explain how an investor can put money into the economy in the form of new jobs or capital expenditures which creates (or saves) other jobs if the government takes more of what they are earning?

I haven't read all the posts in this thread so I do not know what your definition of "discretionary wealth" means and who defines it? The government? The "soak the rich" folks? Or the people who actually have worked to earn enough for part of their wealth to be called "discretionary"?

[Conan71]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread so I do not know what your definition of "discretionary wealth" means and who defines it? The government? The "soak the rich" folks? Or the people who actually have worked to earn enough for part of their wealth to be called "discretionary"?

I'm trying to differentiate between what happens when people decide what to do with money they could invest rather than the government deciding what to do with it.  Perhaps not the right term to use, simply trying to make the point it's up to the individual where they spend or invest it.  Doesn't matter what I call it really, the wealth-envy crowd thinks its horrible someone could possibly be in a position to create jobs with that money instead of being noble and handing it over to the government.

[Teatownclown]

I'm not commenting on the merits one way or the other, someone simply explain how an investor the government can put money into the economy in the form of new jobs or capital expenditures which creates (or saves) other jobs if the government the investor takes more of what they are earning?

Fixed it.