Because then they won't have all of the money to control the masses with, that's why not!
They don't even know how much they need to tax the rich to make their utopia dreams come to fruition.
because everybody has to contribute their fair share. If Warren Buffett says he's paying a lower tax rate than his secretary. If the President does not want to show how much tax he pays you know for sure something is wrong.
Economic growth is the key.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/ari-fle … reform-too
Economic growth is not an excuse for Warren Buffetto pay less tax then his secretary.
Economic growth and taxation are two differtent subjects.
As I recall, Buffet said he paid at a lower rate than his secretary. That is not the same, by millions of dollars, as paying less tax.
true Wilderness, It was a lower tax rate. he will probably pay more tax as he has more money to spent. but you have to see thinks % wise.
I guess he means we should have a regressive tax rate.
Increase the rate on the poor and drive more of them into poverty. Decrease the rate on the rich so they can buy more $100 million yachts.
Sounds like we're creeping toward France, Russia and many other countries before their revolutions.
In the long run, excessive capitalism destroys itself.
OMG! "less tax than his secretary..."?
Really peterstreep? Have you checked out how much tax Buffet actually paid and how much his secretary actually paid? Not rates, but actual dollars to the treasury.
Would you like to correct that statement?
Regarding your Buffet point peterstree, does it matter that Buffet paid $21 million actual dollars to the treasury, and his secretary paid $1102 actual dollars to the treasury, (the numbers are fake but are representative of the actual contributions)? Is "tax rate" more important than the actual dollars?
Does the fact that Buffet paid almost 20.000 times the actual dollars his secretary paid matter? Or is it all about the "rate?"
it´s about rate. As it´s about value. Tax is used to build a country. If you earn let´s say $1.000 a month and you have to pay 10%, this $100 has a lot of value for the person giving it to the government.
If you earn $2 million a month 200.000 has not much value for the person giving it away. as he still has 1.8 million. So the millionaire is not giving much value or giving his fair share to build the country.
You have to look at % rate. a fixed tax rate for everybody is incredibly unfair and besides wouldn't bring in much money to build a country.
You're claiming that a $10 bill isn't worth $10 if it was in the hands of a billionaire before you got it.
This is patently wrong; the value of a $10 bill is $10 regardless of who owns it.
I don't think so wilderness. the value you give to things depends on the relation you have with it.
If a beggar gives away $10 he gives away everything he has, if a millionaire gives away the same $10 bill, he wouldn´t even notice.
If you buy a hamburger with your $10, you have a hamburger. It doesn't matter whether rich or poor, you have a hamburger, a hamburger that you didn't have before.
It's true the beggar can only get one while the millionaire could get 100,000 hamburgers, but the fact remains that both have a hamburger they didn't have before purchasing it. The value of the $10 bill was equal to a hamburger, whether rich or poor.
That better be one delicious hamburger!
Well, enjoy it while you can. If we don't fight hard and harder and hardest with all our might, the Left will have us paying $20.00 for a Jack In the Box burger.
Probably. We'll all have to carry a card, given after filing taxes, that specifies what we will pay for products and services and is dependent on how much we make. Earn over $50,000 last year and that hamburger costs $20. Don't work and it is free.
I disagree peterstreep, and it appears certain our perspectives are too different for either of us to make any headway on this issue.
This is what FOX does not want to air. The truth about Taxes.
Tucker Carlson Blows Up at Rutger Bregman in Unaired Fox News Interview.
So the rich want to control us with their money! Same as Trump as he tries to strong arm congress for as much money as he can get his grubby big hands on!
Border wall, my (big) foot!
They don't want to. They already do. Politicians are funded by the rich and the lobbyists. Most of the laws are made in support of these lobbyists.
Yes, The rich already control us through the utilization of lobbyists. How dare they have such freedom of speech while the rest of us are at their mercy with way less freedom of speech.
Nevertheless, I'll be voting for Trump the next election. Who is YOUR favorite so far?
You are always so informative and wise. Who will be out best pick next time? For the GOOD of the nation.
Thank you for your kind words, Kathryn. At this point, I am undecided. But I do know this: It won't be Mr. Trump or Bernie or any other radical Republican or radical Democrat. I'm pretty much a middle-of-the-roader.
I received a call from a survey company a couple of days ago. Seems like Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton is considering a run, (my state). I wouldn't vote for him either, and I told them so. He is a puppet of the Koch Brothers.
and Bernie: The middle class is disappearing and needs help. The top ten percent needs to be tapped into. But first, we have to stop the flow of money out of the country through the loop holes which allow money to be stored in the Cayman islands, etc.
You may try and steal from the rich folks if you wish, but it's lots easier to steal from the poor. They don't have the means to protect themselves nearly as well, making the job easier.
Plus, of course, if you ever DO get to the point that the rich find your thefts to be onerous and truly objectionable they will simply leave, taking their wealth from them.
The top ten percent need to contribute to the crumbling infrastructure, says Bernie, our (probable) future president.
They also need to contribute toward free colleges and universities in this 21st century!!!! What!? Are we still in the dark ages where people must pay for their own higher education?
Taxation pays for lower education, after all!~ why should the youth have to change their lifestyles at this point in time? Good Grief! The poor, (literally) youth!
The rich would leave the country if they don't want to be taxed to improve the infrastructure and provide free colleges and universities?
... and what would happen to the country if the rich did leave?
Probably better off without those S.O.B.s.
its, not stealing, its taxation, wilderness.
Taxation is LEGAL as far as taxing the wealthy ... duh!
Bernie admits a "small" increase in the payroll tax would have to occur in order to pay for family and medical leave.
So, thats a relief.
no, no... I mean: I am happy to pay that increase, no matter how big OR small it is, for the benefit of us ALL.
I'm not selfish and stingy
like the good-for-nothing greedy RICH!
Actually, the corruption is so great, that the rich can do whatever they think is fit and is in their best interest. And Bernie and anyone else who thinks they will be able to eliminate corruption is in for an impossible challenge.
What the US needs to do, is put a cap on how much CEOs earn. Make sure some of the money goes back into the company, their employees and their programs.
"What the US needs to do, is put a cap on how much CEOs earn. Make sure some of the money goes back into the company, their employees and their programs."
What about this (my) comment, MizB?
Is there any person running for president who could (dare) tackle this issue?
Thanks for asking, Kathryn. My answer is: I don't think so. I'm not an attorney, just a retired legal editor, but I checked with one of my attorney friends to make sure I was on the right page. I think such a law would be unconstitutional, no matter how much sense it may make to the general public. Corporations are privately owned. Even publicly traded companies on the stock market are composed of privately owned stocks. The government has the power to regulate policies concerning safety, pollution, taxation, and other things that concern public safety and interests, including minimum wages and the number of working hours for which an employee must be paid. However, because the corporations and the stock are privately owned, the government does not have the power to cap how much money the company or corporation can make, including the CEO or any of its employees. It has the power to tax the money they make, but not say how much money they can make.
I also think that by removing tax deductions, the Trump organization is encouraging wealthy corporations and their CEOs to hide more money in foreign bank accounts like Switzerland or the Cayman Islands. I realize that some corporations actually get around paying taxes at all, and that's probably why Trump refuses to release his tax information for the past years. It will be interesting to see how he fares under his own laws.
Trade unions could apply some pressure on them to do as you suggest, but the last time union pressure happened concerning money was when the corporations started moving overseas. I'm older than you, and I was alive and watched it happen, although I've heard some young flaming liberals and socialists say that wasn't a factor in their moving overseas. I truly believe it was. Corporate heads and even the general public were becoming outraged that uneducated or poorly educated washer crammers were making $26 dollars an hour (union wages) while college professors, most with Ph.Ds, were barely getting by. In 1986, I worked with one associate professor who took a night job at the newspaper because he couldn't support his five children and bun in the oven on the $17,000 a year he was being paid at the university.
So every way we turn in asking for fairness, there is a roadblock. Poorly paid people who want more for their labors are branded "socialists", while the rich get richer and send their wealth to the Cayman Islands, and the poor get poorer and the middle class is disappearing.
(Does this also explain why I call myself a middle-of-the roader, a fiscal conservative and social liberal?)
It was absolutely a factor in moving overseas. A bigger one was consumer greed (cheap products mean cheap labor - cheaper than can be had in the US), but it was a factor.
But it's always interesting to hear someone complain of "fairness"...and then declare that a committee buried in the halls of Congress is capable of setting wages that are "fair" but do not come even close to free market prices. There is only one "fair" price for labor; what two people (employer and employee) decide is acceptable to them and agree to. That is usually what the market is paying/accepting in general terms, but there are exceptions.
Wilderness, just wondering. Do you think there should be progressive tax rates? Should those with more money pay a higher percentage of their income? Or should we have a flat tax? Maybe exempt food from a flat tax, but tax everything else flat. Maybe a slightly higher tax on luxury items.
I've been thinking more positively about a flat tax lately, with the few minor caveats above. Most notably linked politically with... Republican Steve Forbes.
Must be the umpteenth time, but...no there should not be progressive tax rates. But if we want a country, there has to be.
While the idea of a flat tax is great, reality tells me that a great many could not pay their share of running the country. And a great many more would be severely hurt, financially crippled, by any declared rate that is sufficient to our needs. I do, however, think that we should eliminate the large majority of non-business related deductions and probably a lot of business deductions as well.
We can start with taxing capital gains the same as other income; I've never understood why risking money to earn money deserves a tax break, but risking health and life to earn money does not.
I did want to reply to Crankalicious' question, but you have covered it just as I would have.
But just to get my two cents in, this is the statement I most agree with: "... no there should not be progressive tax rates. But if we want a country, there has to be."
Why are the borders going to stay open, no matter what Trump wants ... and all the innocent Americans who are for border control?
For the benefit of the drug cartels, (who make billions selling illegal drugs,) who give kickbacks to various politicians in and out of the country.
Stop taking drugs, people!
No wonder they are driving the youth crazy in public schools across the nation via the Common Core curriculum.
Their only relief will be ... legal to illegal drugs.
Stop having kids people!
Something needs to change around here!
(But socialism isn't the answer, Bernie and Kamala.)
I've shared this story before, and here I go again, because it is a real-life situation that exemplifies how I feel about my own money relative to the world in which I live.
When I was young and single in my 20s, I shared a two-bedroom apartment with a roommate. She was probably the fourth or fifth roommate I'd had, and was, finally, a good fit. We had shared an apartment for almost two years, splitting rent and utilities 50/50, when I started thinking I would like to live in a nicer apartment in a better neighborhood closer to my work and hers. However, such a move would be unaffordable for my roommate, who made considerably less money than I did. I could have sought a different roommate who could afford the rent, but I was very happy with this one and knew how hard it was to find a good roommate. I didn't want to risk it. So, I proposed to her that we move, but that we split the rent and utilities in the same proportion as our incomes. So, for example, if I made $3,000/month and she made $1,500, I would pay 67% of the rent and utilities and she would pay 33%, This way, she could afford the rent, I would have the roommate I liked, and we would both be living in a nicer apartment in a better neighborhood. I was willing to pay a higher proportion of the expenses based on mine and her income, to achieve a higher standard of living.
This is how I view taxes. If we make more, we pay a higher proportion of the expenses, and we all benefit from a higher standard of living. To me, this seems like an obvious way to build a community that benefits everyone. If I were making, say, $100 million per year, it wouldn't bother me a bit to pay a 70% marginal tax rate. My wealth means a whole lot less if the community in which I live is run down, hungry, uneducated, unhealthy, you get the idea. Now, I suppose the wealthy can just continue to accumulate their billions and all end up in isolated, gated communities away from the riff-raff, but this will eventually be unsustainable. As the poor get poorer and the rich get richer, the masses will becomes restless and revolt.
Of course, this is a very simplistic description of a complex dynamic, but I believe it, at its basic core, to be the truth of what will happen if the income inequality gap continues to widen with no end in sight.
As you point out, you "bought" a nicer place AND a roommate you wanted to keep with your increased "taxes".
What do the rich get from providing support for the poor? A good feeling inside when they are forced to do so? Certainly not a better lifestyle (such as you had)...their lifestyle, except for the very top of the ladder, could be better with the money you would take from them.
You see an armed revolt against the rich if you don't take what they have, I see the rich leaving for greener pastures if you continue to take from them. A pretty big difference in viewpoint - do you simply refuse to acknowledge that they will protect themselves from your ravages on their wealth?
You're never going to get it, wilderness. Hungry people will do what it takes to survive. The rich, by giving up a little now, can buy a stable society within which to continue to make their fortunes. If we continue on the path we are going, the rich will not have a society in which to prosper.
Who won't get it? You continue to pretend that the rich will take no steps to protect themselves, while thousands of years of history tells us the opposite. Whether it's a hunk of meat from the last kill or a billion dollars, people don't like to have it taken away.
If we continue on the path we are going that unlimited pocketbook is going to slam shut and what then? None of us will have a society in which to prosper...except those with the resources to find a different one, one that doesn't simply take whatever it wishes.
If the rich shut down or leave, the middle classes will be taxed. When the middle classes run out of money, the poorer classes will be taxed. When the poorer classes run out of money ...
What will happen to the poorest classes, then?
Is it "morally right" to leave them in the lurch like that?
Same as the rest of the country; we descend into third world status, unable to provide food for our people let alone provide housing for them, provide health care for them, provide clothing for them, provide clean water for drinking for them or anything else.
Yes, society will collapse unless corrections are made. On that we agree, I think. We disagree on what corrections needs to be made. I contend that if we don't find a solution to the growing income equality gap, yes, the rich will continue to hoard their wealth and become more and more isolated until it all collapses. Either way you look at it, if we continue on the current path, or if we overtax them, that is what could happen.
Your drama over raising taxes on the ultra wealthy is just that, drama. The proposals on the table have been done before. There is nothing overly dramatic or unusual about them. We had a marginal tax rate of 90% at one time; the current proposals I'm hearing are 70% tops. The world didn't end before, and it won't end if taxes are raised back to a level they previously were.
Pick one PrettyPanther; the inequality of the wealth gap, or progressive taxation. Surely you aren't advocating using taxes as a way to solve the wealth inequality problem, and if not then they are two different topics. Yet you seem to be combining them in your thoughts.
A thought ... (I know, I should just let it go), You are here, so you are okay with HP's 60/40 split. Would you be just as okay with a 70/30 split? How about 80/20, would you have joined HP?
Sigh....I really don't want to get down in the weeds with this. I am not an economist, an expert, a financial whiz, none of that. No, I am not using taxes as a way to solve the income inequality problem. Why do people so quickly leap to the most extreme of assumptions? Do you think I'm that stupid or simple-minded?
The wealthy will always have an advantage in that they can unduly influence every financial, economic, legal, and political system to their liking. They've done a bang up job, for example, of making sure they are taxed very little on investment income.
As for your answer regarding HP, one would have to analyze for oneself how much effort for how much gain one wants to expend. Of course, there would be a limit. This is obvious, and it is insulting for you to ask such a silly question, honestly.
This is why I hate these discussions. The other side leaps to all these wild scenarios that are not even on the table to justify, once again, doing absolutely nothing to rein in the wealthy's undue influence over pretty much everything.
Slow down Sandy, you have misunderstood my comments.
First, my comments didn't ask, (or require), you to get down in the weeds with economics, expertise, or financial wizardry, I addressed your story with concepts and illustrative "symbolic" percentages, not exact numbers to be evaluated as true, or formulas to be plugged in.
Second, I didn't leap to extreme conclusions regarding the inequality of the wealth gap thought, I gave you the benefit of the doubt when I phrased it as "Surely you aren't..." I was merely pointing out that you were combining two different topics, and I was only addressing one. I can tell that I have upset you because you know I would never say or imply you were stupid or simple-minded. You should know that.
And lastly, the HP example was simply intended as a "closer-to-home" illustration of the concepts of my response to your story. I am sorry the way I put it made you feel insulted. That certainly wasn't my intention. Obviously, my first thought, (that I should just let it go ;-)) was the right one and I should have listened.
I really thought I was addressing your original comment in the same vein it was presented. It was not my intention to be contentious or challenging, (if you look back you will see that my first comment was to agree with your view on progressive taxation), I was simply using your story as a vehicle to discuss what I thought was the point of your story.
Don't hate these discussions, I value them, just chalk it up to male insensitivity and accept my apology for upsetting you.
Even though I was right and the misunderstanding was your fault!
(look at that, you even got me to break my rule about using emojis )
Yes, an excessive concentration of wealth and power can result in a small number of people who "can unduly influence every financial, economic, legal, and political system to their liking".
That's basic history.
"Either way you look at it, if we continue on the current path, or if we overtax them, that is what could happen. "
Good that you recognize that simple (bolded) fact. But when you then propose to go back to extreme tax rates - rates that no one paid anyway - under the theory that it worked before and will work again, the concept fails.
I keep seeing that - "Well we hit them for 90% before, we can do it again" - but the fact is that no, we didn't. A little research reveals that the rich are paying more, both in dollars and percentages, than they ever did. Even with the 90% top rate. Falling deductions and other changes have made a world of difference, a difference that those making the claim refuse to acknowledge, let alone take into account.
To your point, history is filled with examples of wealth inequality growing to the point where it damages a society and leads to civil unrest and even revolutions, i.e., China, Russia, France, etc.
You can't dump a lot of money and power into a smaller and smaller number of people without it creating massive social problems.
It's baffling how we keep having to learn that lesson over and over again.
I understand your thoughts behind the story PrettyPanther, but if a couple things were changed, would you still feel the same?
Let's start here:
"This is how I view taxes. If we make more, we pay a higher proportion of the expenses, and we all benefit from a higher standard of living. To me, this seems like an obvious way to build a community that benefits everyone."
I completely agree, and I think most rational people would also - even the ones that are vehemently opposed to going after the rich for more money.
I have used him before, and will again because he is an example you are familiar with; even Wilderness accepts the need for a progressive tax system in order to finance the cost of having a nation.
The problem is the degree of that progression. What if you had to pay 80% of the costs in order to move and keep that roommate? Would you still be okay with your deal?
What if, after your agreement with the roommate and move to the nicer apartment, the rent increased and a new building maintenance charge was added, and, your roommate could not afford to contribute anything to those increases. Are you still okay with your deal?
Just to be able to do some comparisons, let's say you had two roommates instead of one, and you made the same original deal with both.
After the move and the increases, one roommate loses their income, and the other roommate can't afford to pay any more than they already are. Now you have to pay 90% of the originally agreed costs, and all of the new added costs. Are you still happy with your deal?
That is what has happened to our country. Costs have gone up and contributing payers have gone down. I don't think any of us are arguing against the need for progressive tax rates - the richer you are the more you pay, but we are arguing about the degree of that progression of rates.
Do you think the examples I gave are not simplistically symbolic of our nation's circumstances?
And to put the cherry on top, what if your, (now), two roommates wanted to add an additional apartment building service - say a valet laundry service because they didn't have transportation to the laundromat, and, since on the lease they are equal tenants with you, they out-voted your costs objection and signed-up for the service - but you have to pay for it.
Are you still happy with the deal? If so, how many other "additional charges," beyond your original agreement, would it take before you became dissatisfied?
I think that is the circumstances of our objection to the "tax the rich" solution advocated by politicians and activists like AOC.
Good points, and the continual increase is indeed what we see. More and more services and products demanded, with no end in sight.
But you left out one primary concern; PP can leave, subjecting herself to just one year of increasing costs. But the taxpayer can't - he is stuck forever picking up more and more of the costs for others.
... many are already living accordingly: If they're poor, everything is free.
I guess, they like living five roommates to an apartment, eating at mom and dad's and collecting plastic and glass for cash.
Its called the Zen lifestyle?
I guess its fine, if all roommates meditate at the same time.
A successful democratic republic such as ours, depends on following the principles of fairness and honesty.
For instance, there are laws against Monopolies.
We have to follow and enforce the laws already on the books.
by ga anderson 6 years ago
*Thread credit should go to Credence2 for his Bernie Sanders enthusiasm - which prompted a look at his platformLooking at presidential candidate Bernie Sanders' website was a real eye-opener. Great sounding programs - paid for by the greedy rich, and the evil corporations of America.Many of...
by Kathryn L Hill 7 years ago
FYIQ. Why does this title look so scary? A. The word socialism is very scary to the average US citizen who values his democratic republic.Q. Who pays taxes? A. We The People do.Q. Who is taxed the most? A. The wealthy.Q. Why is President Obama allowing so many needy illegals to stay in the US? A....
by Andrew Spacey 4 years ago
In this 21st century have the privileged got too greedy?If as humans all we need is food&water, shelter, love, work and belief shouldn't we be cutting down on our material luxuries?Is corporate greed to blame for the current recession and financial anxiety?Are tax havens for the rich...
by Buildreps 5 years ago
How do you feel about Trump raising the defence budgets?Trump is intending to raise the defense budgets with about 10%. What has Trump to gain except increasing the globalist agenda, while saying he's against globalism. Doesn't that make Trump even more dangerous? I think Trump is the perfect...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 6 years ago
Why would presidential candidate Bernie Sanders make THE VERY WORST president if elected? This "person" is advocated free college tuition of all things? Are YOU kidding me?! Bernie Sanders NEVER offered nor proposed anything logical as to how to improve the American...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 10 years ago
America is a great nation. However, the unemployment situation is awry and it is not going change anytime soon as more and more jobs are being outsourced to oversea businesses. Our educational system is nothing to broadcast about, our children often do not have prerequisite...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|