Government taxes on the rich? There is a better way...

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
click

So I was reading the thread above about obama demanding tax rises for the rich and I have to say that it is a terrible idea. First I would like to point out that it will only hurt the economy more. We have enough inflation as it is and before long only the upper class will be able to live as first world citizens.

I was thinking that a better alternative would be to not give those taxes to the government and instead distribute them to the employees of these companies. Not the CEO's or the rest of the big wigs but to the employed persons that make the company's gears go round. Not only would this be a better wealth distribution method but it would bring growth within the company. Or just put it in employee piggy banks as savings for retirement.

Any tax consumed by the government will be squandered. The Business owners (IMO) would probably be happier to give those "extras" back to the company rather than let Obama CO take them to fill their own greedy pockets




posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by lobotomizemecapin
 


I don't say to tax their income more than anyone else s income is taxed. But they certainly should not be taxed any less. Job creators my bottom. That is the solution because right now with incentives and loopholes and adjustments to the tax laws they are not paying the same high percentage of income tax poorer people are paying right now - even though they are the ones who can most afford to pay the higher rate of taxation.

They are the ones whom austerity measures will not affect if applied. The poor should not be asked to give up the very social programs that keep them alive so the wealthy can be even wealthier.
edit on 11-11-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Austerity is as failed an idea as quantitative easing, and is proffered by the same groups of people, for the same exact reasons. It is a distraction, which allows the powers to reap even greater profit, while sucking the life out of everyone else (including their biggest supporters -- the wealthy, aspirational, productive "rich").



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
There is this dilemma faced by employers.

If your employees are well paid,a lot of them don't stay around long.

The secret is to keep them squeaking by,just barely able to pay their bills,add on all kinds of mandatory insurance and such.

Keep them tired and afraid of losing everything,when really,they have nothing at all anyway.

It's called slavery,make them believe they are free,when they can't leave without losing everything.

Everything is nothing,Slavery is Freedom,War is Peace.

Somebody saw this all a long time ago,it was considered fiction then.

See it yet?.

Maybe I'm just imagining things,it must be a conspiracy theory.

Maybe not....



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by MyHappyDogShiner
 


You are only looking at part of the picture. In a world where a greater percentage of us had some employment, versus a world where fewer people are working twice as many hours, more people have money to spend, increasing profits for people who provide products and services in the marketplace.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by 0zzymand0s
 

Fewer people working more hours has more to do with technology than anything else.

Technology and labor are in conflict,and always have been.

The management of human resources is old technology.

New technology is mechanization,where few people would even have to work,and those that do,do so because they want to,not because they are trapped in a system of debt and fear losing what little they have.

Yeah,there certainly is more to it,but,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,who has the time?.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Well, first of all, we have to look behind the rhetoric. The "rich" they talk about is anyone who makes over 250K a year (for now--under the Clinton administration, that yardstick kept dropping lower and lower as they tried to justify expanding taxes). That is not wealthy. That is you higher wage earners: doctors, lawyers, many high ranking government employees, MBA's, entertainers, journalists, small business owners, and even some of the skilled trades. Calling them "rich" is just a means to appeal to the lowest common denominators.

When it comes to the higher wage earners, they already pay more than their fair share:



Wealthy Americans earn about 50 percent of all income but pay nearly 70 percent of the federal tax burden, according to the latest analysis Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office — though the agency said the very richest have seen their share of taxes fall the last few years.

CBO looked at 2007 through 2009 and found the bottom 20 percent of American earners paid just three-tenths of a percent of the total tax burden, while the richest 20 percent paid 67.9 percent of taxes.

The top 1 percent, who President Obama has made a target during the presidential campaign, earns 13.4 percent of all pre-tax income, but paid 22.3 percent of taxes in 2009, CBO said. But that share was down 4.4 percentage points from 2007, CBO said in a finding likely to bolster Mr. Obama’s calls for them to pay more by letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire.

The big losers over the last few years were the rest of the well-off, especially those in the top fifth, who saw their tax burdens go up.



Read more: CBO: The wealthy pay 70 percent of taxes - Washington Times www.washingtontimes.com...
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


THe fact of the matter is, with our progressive tax system, the higher income earners pay much more than anyone else already, both in marginal rates and in actual dollars put into the system.

Most people do not realize that income and dividends are taxed differently and this is where some of the confusion and falsehoods about the wealthy paying a lower rate than the poor. It's nonsense and it's comparing apples to kumquats. The highest dividend rate is kept low to encourage investment. If it was not, those with money would sit on it and not send it out to invest in stocks, businesses, start-ups, and so forth. They would keep the money in savings or government bonds or in a can in the back yard rather than keep it circulating in the economy. A low dividend tax rate is a good thing: it improves the economy by keeping capital out there working.

Now, it may be easy for the class warriors to push for a raise in the dividend tax, but that would harm the middle class. Have a retirement account? 401K? Sell your house at a profit instead of a loss? Gain 3% on your savings account? All that is considered dividends for taxation purposes and all would be harmed by increasing the dividend tax rate.

A better answer would be to completely trash our 20k page tax code. Stop using taxes as a tool for social engineering, do away with all loopholes and deductions, and have a low flat tax rate that EVERYBODY pays regardless.

Either that, or do away with income tax alltogether and go with a national sales tax. I like this idea better as you can adjust your tax burdon by how muxh you consume. LIfe frugally and don't buy a new car this year? You pay less in tax. Buy a yacht and a second home? Then you pay more tax.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
I'll tell you what I'm tired of:

~Politicians taking our hard-earned money, screwing up the economy, robbing from Peter to pay Paul, raiding our SS trust to fund whatever it is they fund, wasting our tax dollars on frivolous things like lavish parties for the GSA, then turning around and asking us for yet more of our hard-earned dollar.

~If my tax dollars actually went toward a better educational system, serious job-training programs, and programs that actually teach a man to fish rather than just constantly handing him a fish, I would be happy. (Did you know there are millions of jobs out there, but the populace doesn't have the education to fill them?)


It is not that wealthy individuals are selfish and don't want to fork over money to help the needy. Hell...just look at their voluntary charitable contributions! But, why throw it away. Why be FORCED to throw it away!

It's time we hold our politicians on both sides accountable. STOP WASTING OUR MONEY AND GIVING IT AWAY ON USELESS PROGRAMS THAT DON'T WORK-----HAVE NEVER WORKED----and WON'T WORK IN THE FUTURE.

They can't even account for most of it!!!!!!! Yes. I'm mad.

I think the American voters said: We'll give this president another shot at it. We really would like for him to have a chance to go down in history with a favorable standing; after all, electing him was an historical event. However, we do not want him to have full control of the purse strings, because he has shown us that he is a spendaholic. You cannot just spend and tax and spend and tax and spend and tax to reward your cronies and base. He must learn to lead.....for real. Therefore, we kept our House of Representatives intact to keep him from getting out of control.
edit on 11-11-2012 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-11-2012 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-11-2012 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 




But they certainly should not be taxed any less. Job creators my bottom. That is the solution because right now with incentives and loopholes and adjustments to the tax laws they are not paying the same high percentage of income tax poorer people are paying right now - even though they are the ones who can most afford to pay the higher rate of taxation.

But you don't take into consideration that they are paying more in taxes than you earn in a year.
Yet they drive onthe same crappy roads over the same dangerious bridges. They stand in the same lines for auto plates each year.
They don't qualify for free medicaid.
They don't qualify for free college.
They don't qualify for free food stamps.
They don't qualify for free heat allowance.
They don't qualify for that free cell phone deal.

Still with all that they are willing to put their money into the stock market and take a risk on those new startup companies that create those new jobs.
Remember Apple in the 90's? Look at the jobs they have created.
Google Microsoft and so on. Banks won't lend to these garage start ups. It takes those rich people risking their spare money that allows new companies to add employees.

Ever heard of Groupon? Those rich people lost a ton of money on it this year. But they don't get a tax deduction for it.

And yet you want them to pay more for something they will never get any benifit for?
Sounds like communisim to me.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc


Either that, or do away with income tax alltogether and go with a national sales tax. I like this idea better as you can adjust your tax burdon by how muxh you consume. LIfe frugally and don't buy a new car this year? You pay less in tax. Buy a yacht and a second home? Then you pay more tax.


I've always likes that idea as well.

Eliminate the federal tax up until a certain income.

Increase the sales tax so that the government makes about as much money as it does now,
but people are happier because they can get more stuff even though they are paying the same amount in taxes. Also, tax money sitting in the bank doing nothing so that it's beneficial for everyone to put money into the system more so than it is to just sit there doing nothing (after a certain amount on savings/checking is reached).

Moving more "product," whatever it may be, is what creates jobs. Making a CEO more money is not what creates jobs; it just gives them more money. You need to increase the buying power of the little guy.

If I make 20 cars a year and sell 10, then I'm going to make 10 next year even if you lower taxes and/or increase my profits. I'm not gonna say, "well I'm making more money, maybe I should just make more cars and throw them away." That's not gonna happen. You're gonna fire people, make less cars, and turn an even greater profit. Or am I way off base here?



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mayson

Originally posted by NavyDoc


Either that, or do away with income tax alltogether and go with a national sales tax. I like this idea better as you can adjust your tax burdon by how muxh you consume. LIfe frugally and don't buy a new car this year? You pay less in tax. Buy a yacht and a second home? Then you pay more tax.


I've always likes that idea as well.

Eliminate the federal tax up until a certain income.

Increase the sales tax so that the government makes about as much money as it does now,
but people are happier because they can get more stuff even though they are paying the same amount in taxes. Also, tax money sitting in the bank doing nothing so that it's beneficial for everyone to put money into the system more so than it is to just sit there doing nothing (after a certain amount on savings/checking is reached).

Moving more "product," whatever it may be, is what creates jobs. Making a CEO more money is not what creates jobs; it just gives them more money. You need to increase the buying power of the little guy.

If I make 20 cars a year and sell 10, then I'm going to make 10 next year even if you lower taxes and/or increase my profits. I'm not gonna say, "well I'm making more money, maybe I should just make more cars and throw them away." That's not gonna happen. You're gonna fire people, make less cars, and turn an even greater profit. Or am I way off base here?



No, I think you are right on. (Star for you.) THose who produce goods and services are going to produce the goods and services that the market will bear. If you can only sell ten cars in a given market, you should only make ten cars. This was a problem with the command economy of the Soviet Union. A tractor factory was given an arbitrarily assigned number of tractors to produce, wether that number was what was needed or not. They failed and this is why the free market is the most efficient way to produce goods and services.

If you tax income or dividends more, you stifle the economy because, instead of using that money to re-invest in the economy and keep it circulating, people will try to protect it. Do away with that threat, and there will be more money out there, doing more for more people.

I'm a big fan of a national sales tax instead of income and capital gains taxes because I see it as one of hte fairest ways to gain revenue for the government and will not stifle growth--as long as the taxes are not too huge. 5-10% would work. 50% would reduce spending too much and would have an inverse effect.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
If most of your income is from dividends, you should be taxed at a higher percent.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Echo007
If most of your income is from dividends, you should be taxed at a higher percent.


So retirees who live entirely from their investments, 401K, and other retirement accounts should be taxed at a higher amount? Why?



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
When did allowing previous easements of tax burden become the same thing as "raising taxes"???

The Bush era tax cuts were tax cuts. A means of letting the wealthy enjoy the prosperity that America was having at the time. Letting these bonuses expire because the economy is no longer good is NOT a tax increase.

Many workers these days work on "incentive based pay". If you have a killer month at work and get a huge bonus and then have a slow month the following month - thus making less in incentives... Have you received a pay decrease? Of course not.

Same concept here. The rich just don't want to fess up to it - and, sadly, they have the ability to use every pundit on the planet to spin the truth and promulgate the "tax increase" myth.

~Heff



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

When did allowing previous easements of tax burden become the same thing as "raising taxes"???

The Bush era tax cuts were tax cuts. A means of letting the wealthy enjoy the prosperity that America was having at the time. Letting these bonuses expire because the economy is no longer good is NOT a tax increase.

Many workers these days work on "incentive based pay". If you have a killer month at work and get a huge bonus and then have a slow month the following month - thus making less in incentives... Have you received a pay decrease? Of course not.

Same concept here. The rich just don't want to fess up to it - and, sadly, they have the ability to use every pundit on the planet to spin the truth and promulgate the "tax increase" myth.

~Heff


SInce the Bush tax cuts have been around for over ten years, wouldn't they really be considered the going rate, rather than a tax cut?

Of course it is an increase. It is an increase in a rate that has been with us a long time. Notice that the administration renewed them in 2010 so that they would expire after the election? Kind of shows that they did not want the negative fallout until after they were kept in office.

And it is a myth that it affects the "rich." It affects the higher wage earners, the small business owners, and the skilled trades as well. This "rich" rhetoric is just smoke and mirrors to make increased taxation more palatable to the masses. You have to find someone to blame and someone to scapegoat to push certain agendas.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
look up what ben stein said about prosperity and taxes

you know, the conservative economist guy who was in FBDO



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by newcovenant
 




But they certainly should not be taxed any less. Job creators my bottom. That is the solution because right now with incentives and loopholes and adjustments to the tax laws they are not paying the same high percentage of income tax poorer people are paying right now - even though they are the ones who can most afford to pay the higher rate of taxation.

But you don't take into consideration that they are paying more in taxes than you earn in a year.
Yet they drive onthe same crappy roads over the same dangerious bridges. They stand in the same lines for auto plates each year.
They don't qualify for free medicaid.
They don't qualify for free college.
They don't qualify for free food stamps.
They don't qualify for free heat allowance.
They don't qualify for that free cell phone deal.

Still with all that they are willing to put their money into the stock market and take a risk on those new startup companies that create those new jobs.
Remember Apple in the 90's? Look at the jobs they have created.
Google Microsoft and so on. Banks won't lend to these garage start ups. It takes those rich people risking their spare money that allows new companies to add employees.

Ever heard of Groupon? Those rich people lost a ton of money on it this year. But they don't get a tax deduction for it.

And yet you want them to pay more for something they will never get any benifit for?
Sounds like communisim to me.




Such a lie....they do not drive, they fly and are chauffeured to the airports which is why infrastructure like roads and bridges mean nothing to them. If they are building anything it will be a Marina for their yacht, an new airport or road to the airport from their new home or a football stadium.

As far as paying more taxes than I pay in a year? Another lie - Not by percentage of income they don't and that is what matters. The percentage of your income that you return as tax so the government can run. So we can fund our military and take care of our old folks and children.

If you are successful it is partly because you live in a country where you can be and you should support the system that supports you.

You can't have the tax breaks of a country like China and expect not to live in a place like China.

This is America. Pay for it.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 





SInce the Bush tax cuts have been around for over ten years, wouldn't they really be considered the going rate, rather than a tax cut?



Maybe because he peddled them as a temporary measure to use up the surplus we had in the economy then and now we don't and we want it back. This economy belongs to all of us.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by NavyDoc
 





SInce the Bush tax cuts have been around for over ten years, wouldn't they really be considered the going rate, rather than a tax cut?



Maybe because he peddled them as a temporary measure to use up the surplus we had in the economy then and now we don't and we want it back. This economy belongs to all of us.


No, the economy belongs to those who contribute to it.
edit on 11-11-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by NavyDoc
 





SInce the Bush tax cuts have been around for over ten years, wouldn't they really be considered the going rate, rather than a tax cut?



Maybe because he peddled them as a temporary measure to use up the surplus we had in the economy then and now we don't and we want it back. This economy belongs to all of us.


No, the economy belongs to those who contribute to it.
edit on 11-11-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



#1. You are talking about NOT contributing to it.

#2. And when we buy anything we pay sales tax and contribute to it.

When we pay our local taxes and all Federal taxes we are paying for it.
Many instances where we all contribute to this economy and own it.
We all depend on it.





new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join