It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Increasing Tax Rate on Rich Won't Raise Revenue

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
What do liberals do when they want people to quit smoking? They raise taxes on tobacco. Makes sense, because when you tax something you restrict the activity being taxed.

So using the same logic if you want to rich to pay less, you would raise tax rates.

I have yet been able to find a Liberal who can explain this hypocrisy. Can't have it both ways.

What a great way of putting it and so accurate too. If you find one that will actually take a moment to formulate an answer, I'd love to hear what they come up with to justify that example.

It reminds me of the George Carlin routine on how we just have to have a "War" on every problem and what that causes people to be called.......... Crime Fighters fight crime, for instance. Drug Fighters fight Drug Abuse...The war on Fraud has Fraud fighters going after the corruption (or acting like it anyway)....

That brings the question of the hour... What do Freedom Fighters fight? We sure are supporting a lot of them around the world.


(Raising taxes on the Rich will make Freedom fighters of us all......and I'm sure we'll win THAT particular fight, too.
)
edit on 3-5-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 3 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB328



Increasing tax rate on rich won't raise revenue


It will raise equality, which is just as important as raising revenue. America is becoming an aristorcracy which is not only unconstitutional, but immoral, the wealthy have too much money to corrupt society with.


Good point id also bet stalin would agree with you.Now for my next question who decides whats fair.Why is it fair for rich to pay taxes but others pay none? Why is it fair to take someone else s work because you feel they make to much money. Tax policy should never be based off fair because any time someone tries to make things fair there is all ways a loser. And is it fair for the government to create a loser? Who decides at what point to spread this fairness.And of course it removes all incentive to make money why bother if its going to someone else?? Doesnt sound very fair to me.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Shoot, I thought I'd get some kinda rise out of my last post!

About "fairness" in taxes...there is no such thing. Taxation itself is rather unfair if you ask me. Did anyone ever get the opportunity to vote on a "new" federal tax or federal tax rate? erm...no.

I "get" that taxes need to be paid but what it is used for needs to be cut drastically. Bridges, roads, infrastructure in general, national defense, social programs and scientific research grants to further the technology of humanity....and to me...that's about it.

About the lower income that doesn't pay taxes...they don't pay taxes because they can't....you tax them out of money, then they end up taking that money back in the form of social programs...this builds the bureaucracy to manage and allocate such programs so it ends up costing more than just letting the poor keep it. But...they do have to pay sales taxes...

Now that being said...there are some unfair loopholes in the tax code that does allow the "wealthier" certain advantages that a moderate to middle income person cannot take advantage of....maybe this could be looked at.

There are certain things in the corporate tax code I think is a little shady...and I take advantage of them myself...couple of examples...

I like to play golf. I can take a client to an expensive golf course, pay his $100.00 green fees, rent his cart, buy his lunch and dinner (his associates and myself included) and claim that as a business expense. Essentially, I get to claim entertainment and my "hobby" as a business expense....nice, eh?

If I want to hire a top shelf advertising agency and hire spokes-models and athletes for commercials...I can hose down big money and claim THAT as a business expense. Is this the kind of thing the average person can take advantage of...no, it's not.

I have a bit of a problem with allowing this. I think advertising expenses should not be a clean and cut write off. I think since you are "investing" in methods to increase sales and market share...you will get a return on that investment...the average citizens should not have to bear the burden of your gamble on investing in advertising...

Just think...GE (a multi-billion dollar mega-conglomerate) paid zero taxes....yes you heard that right...zero. They used all these loopholes and "expenses" to get away with paying nothing...that doesn't seem right to me.

I think if a company like GE wants to hire Michael Jordan as a spokesman at 10 million dollars an appearance...that is there choice and their investment...they shouldn't get a tax break for doing so.

Just my opinion though.
edit on 5/4/2012 by Damrod because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by CB328



Increasing tax rate on rich won't raise revenue


It will raise equality, which is just as important as raising revenue. America is becoming an aristorcracy which is not only unconstitutional, but immoral, the wealthy have too much money to corrupt society with.


It won't "raise equality" at all.
50% of the population pays NOTHING, how is that fair?
the top 10% of income earners pay 71% of all the national income tax. How is that fair?
The only thing it does, is make it harder for those "inbetweeners" trying to jump from whats left of the middle class to the upper end of the spectrum. How is that fair?

The people with money, think forbes list, big banker types, aren't paying much on INCOME tax, they pay for capital gains tax from investments of the money they already have and earned (which mind you, is effectively taxed at 1/2 rate)

We've become a society that instead of helping those in need, helps those who don't succeed. Free markets don't work unless you allow not only success, but failure too. Crony capitalism fails, every time.
Our middle class has disappeared, but instead of creating more wealth, these poor people are being dragged down by the same class warfare that they are supposed to be yelling and screaming in agreement with. People who are successful should not be punished for it, they need to be encouraged. The handout receivers benefit none when they never take the chance to live and learn.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by CB328



Increasing tax rate on rich won't raise revenue


It will raise equality, which is just as important as raising revenue. America is becoming an aristorcracy which is not only unconstitutional, but immoral, the wealthy have too much money to corrupt society with.


Quite "on the money"!

Pun intended.

Superwealth creates a system whose only goal is to perpetuate itself and people be damned.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Equality means equal doesn't it? So how about 15% across the board on everything? Sales, investments, income, etc? Raising the taxes on any one group is discriminatory, rich or no. Your solution is like raising taxes on food for fat people because they must eat more because they are fat. That kind of discriminatory single-mindedness is what ruined my familial homeland, Cuba. Ask a Cuban immigrant how well it went for them when they took down the rich.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by MetalandMayhem
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Equality means equal doesn't it? So how about 15% across the board on everything? Sales, investments, income, etc? Raising the taxes on any one group is discriminatory, rich or no. Your solution is like raising taxes on food for fat people because they must eat more


1 -- no, I think progressive tax has its purpose.

2 -- you got it right, I would love to tax fat people more because they heed to start thinking about their deadly addiction. I would apply same logic to tobacco and alcohol. Tax them out.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by MetalandMayhem
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Equality means equal doesn't it? So how about 15% across the board on everything? Sales, investments, income, etc? Raising the taxes on any one group is discriminatory, rich or no. Your solution is like raising taxes on food for fat people because they must eat more


1 -- no, I think progressive tax has its purpose.

2 -- you got it right, I would love to tax fat people more because they heed to start thinking about their deadly addiction. I would apply same logic to tobacco and alcohol. Tax them out.


Because it is your job to babysit people. Obviously you know better than them how they should live their lives. Hmmmmm this sounds familiar....



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
The only thing raising taxes does its take money out of the economy and middle class workers it is that simple not to mention the only thing raising taxes does is prop up already bad spending habits of the Government.

The Government's right to get money has become more important than the citizens right to.

So the op is right it will not raise revenue and that cash never goes to where they say it going to go and who it is going to benefit.

It benefits Government and there overhead.


Do you have any idea how many businesses - small, medium and large - provide products and services to the federal, state and local government. Starve the government of revenue and the private sector suffers immediately. The federal government, especially, contracts private sector companies to do everything that they do - including feed the troops. There's not much that discretionary tax money does for the federal government that doesn't involve contracts for private sector companies.

You obviously have never contracted with the government. That's where most of the "government waste" happens. So, what you're really doing, when you starve revenues, is shut down companies that survive on government contracts.


edit on 5/5/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
Do you have any idea how many businesses - small, medium and large - provide products and services to the federal, state and local government. Starve the government of revenue and the private sector suffers immediately.


Well said. True, the ignorami don't follow the facts.

I work for a Government facility, and it effectively provides the livelihoods for hundreds of thousand of people in the area.

And if one says it's "waste"... Shame on you. Your air defense and your civil defense depends on this, as does cure for coc aine addiction and bazillion other things. Taking much for granted, I suppose.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join