Does Taxing the Wealthy Hurt the Lower Class ?

Page 5 of 7 [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

19 Jul 2012, 8:31 am

no its only an argument for a balance between the two, no private nor public ideology is good on its own and maintaining that fallacy doesnt really help anyone.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

19 Jul 2012, 11:39 am

CSBurks wrote:
Where the hell is the 'like' button?

On that note, the tax system desperately needs to be changed to support savings, investment and production.

We need to make savings non-taxable, instead of punishing it. There's really not a very good incentive to save when tax rates are so much higher than interest rates?

Image


Once your taxes are paid, you have three options with your after tax money: you can spend it; you can invest it; or you can save it.

Remember, we already incentivize savings with the tax system. Pension and retirement savings contributions are generally made with pre-tax income, and only become taxable upon withdrawal. These tax deferral systems serve to maximize savings growth for individuals. Why on earth would we need to do more than that?

Outside of the tax system, we already have an incentive for savings--it's called recession. When the stock market drops, people start putting their money in dollars--buying up treasury notes and GICs. Savings are good, in the sense that they provide a liquidity cushion that makes recessions less dramatic, but ironically, people who can save tend to do so more in recessions, which actually makes them worse, because of the loss in consumer confidence that this represents. Over the last three years, I have been pouring money into buying cheap investments--which is good for market liquidity--but which means that I am not spending anything close to what my income would support in consumer spending.

So while you are advocating for the tax system to incentivize savings and investment, bear in mind that you are also advocating for the tax system to disincentivize spending. And that is something that you need to think about carefully.


_________________
--James


simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

19 Jul 2012, 11:55 am

There are other factors in the savings rate drop. Like a generational shift in attitudes. By the 1970-80s a lot of frugal people who had seen the Great Depression were dropping dead. My grandmother would save and fold up wrapping paper from each present at Christmas for re-use. She'd wince when people tore paper. Today impulse spending is tied up with self-worth.

Quote:
What's needed is a tax system that supports investment in the country where taxes are due. Part of the problem for the US at the moment are the tax loopholes for multi-nationals.


They've been trying to close these for half a century or more. They never get closed. Obama took a swing in 2010 but was fillibustered.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

19 Jul 2012, 3:16 pm

visagrunt wrote:
CSBurks wrote:
Where the hell is the 'like' button?

On that note, the tax system desperately needs to be changed to support savings, investment and production.

We need to make savings non-taxable, instead of punishing it. There's really not a very good incentive to save when tax rates are so much higher than interest rates?

Image


Once your taxes are paid, you have three options with your after tax money: you can spend it; you can invest it; or you can save it.

Remember, we already incentivize savings with the tax system. Pension and retirement savings contributions are generally made with pre-tax income, and only become taxable upon withdrawal. These tax deferral systems serve to maximize savings growth for individuals. Why on earth would we need to do more than that?

Outside of the tax system, we already have an incentive for savings--it's called recession. When the stock market drops, people start putting their money in dollars--buying up treasury notes and GICs. Savings are good, in the sense that they provide a liquidity cushion that makes recessions less dramatic, but ironically, people who can save tend to do so more in recessions, which actually makes them worse, because of the loss in consumer confidence that this represents. Over the last three years, I have been pouring money into buying cheap investments--which is good for market liquidity--but which means that I am not spending anything close to what my income would support in consumer spending.

So while you are advocating for the tax system to incentivize savings and investment, bear in mind that you are also advocating for the tax system to disincentivize spending. And that is something that you need to think about carefully.


Maybe economists need to start thinking outside the box and come up with new solutions. It seems to me the decrease in savings and increase in the amount of GDP tied up in asset bubbles and private debt (both personal debt and corporate debt in the form of "leveraging" for profit) is a form of compensation for a much more fundamental structural weakness. It's not an accident at all that people are buying more and saving less. Corporations benefit through this mechanism and actively encourage it. It seems a modern absurdity that entire nations rely on frivolous and excessive consumption (in the name of Keynesian stimulus) just to keep jobless rates down and people off the streets. I don't see any absence in the ability of our society to produce vast material wealth. The problem is we are not interested in distributing the wealth we produce in a functional way.



WhiteWidow
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Dec 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 662
Location: Here

19 Jul 2012, 8:17 pm

Do you know why this is even an article? Because it's meant to look like a complex and intellectual ISSUE. It shouldn't even be up for discussion. Who do you expect to pay for all of the crap that poor people can't pay for? The birds and the bees and the fish in the sea? No! The people who make more than their fair share! The people who have enough for everyone. Remember in kindergarden when you had more than one or two? You were told to give one to your friend. I guess that lesson some how went out the window once people realized that crime pays. But what does it pay? Material wealth, which is scientifically proven to not make people feel complete.



bizboy1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 945
Location: California, USA

19 Jul 2012, 8:57 pm

No.


_________________
INTJ


aussiebloke
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Oct 2009
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,407

19 Jul 2012, 9:11 pm

Oodain wrote:
bull

denmark has a high income tax and lower ammount of unemployed compared to the us.

so at least we can be sure its not inherently so or the most realistic option, there are thousands of variables independant of tax that help decide how people behave.

why we even entyertain these absolutist notions in either direction is far beyond me.


And than some .....


_________________
Theirs a subset of America, adult males who are forgoing ambition ,sex , money ,love ,adventure to sit in a darkened rooms mastering video games - Suicide Bob


xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

20 Jul 2012, 6:21 pm

WhiteWidow wrote:
Do you know why this is even an article? Because it's meant to look like a complex and intellectual ISSUE. It shouldn't even be up for discussion. Who do you expect to pay for all of the crap that poor people can't pay for? The birds and the bees and the fish in the sea? No! The people who make more than their fair share! The people who have enough for everyone. Remember in kindergarden when you had more than one or two? You were told to give one to your friend. I guess that lesson some how went out the window once people realized that crime pays. But what does it pay? Material wealth, which is scientifically proven to not make people feel complete.


Who makes these things? Why, machines do? Who invested in the machines? Governments did that, it was government research that drove automation. That means the people. One more point; NAIRU. Governments deliberately create a reserve army of labour in the name of fighting inflation. Surely it would be indecent not to keep the army of inflation fighters alive.



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

20 Jul 2012, 6:23 pm

ruveyn wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
riffing on lord acton, i say that money is power, that power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely.


all the more reason for keeping the government as unpowerful as possible consistent with peace and order within the domain.

ruveyn


Indeed, an entity that's the most accountable to the people must be defanged so a bunch of ultra-psychopathic Bond villains can run loose. Brilliant!



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

20 Jul 2012, 7:45 pm

xenon13 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
riffing on lord acton, i say that money is power, that power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely.


all the more reason for keeping the government as unpowerful as possible consistent with peace and order within the domain.

ruveyn


Indeed, an entity that's the most accountable to the people must be defanged so a bunch of ultra-psychopathic Bond villains can run loose. Brilliant!


The day to day running of the U.S. government is quite unaccountable to the people. The U.S. government is the thing most dangerous to the liberty of the American people.

When Joseph was viceroy of Egypt he laid on a 20 percent tax and was accounted a wicked man for doing so.

During the Feudal period serfs paid at 25 percent tax to their Liege Lord.

The American people are taxed at over 30 percent on the average.

We are not only overtaxed we are expected to thank our government for plucking our feathers out.

ruveyn



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

20 Jul 2012, 8:02 pm

ruveyn wrote:
The American people are taxed at over 30 percent on the average.

ruveyn


Well, I think that most people have no (or little) federal income tax.

State income and sales taxes take a bunch, as do property taxes.



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

20 Jul 2012, 10:30 pm

The main problem with government is that there are such filthy rich people who are allowed to be so filthy rich that they buy off politicians and control the government. That's the main problem. If those people were defanged that would solve much of what's wrong with the government. The problem is the filthy rich who think they should own everything and everyone.

People have more say about what they get for taxes than any serf on a demesne ever did. That is until a bunch of filthy rich bought the government of course.



SilverStar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,058
Location: Ohio, USA

24 Jul 2012, 5:44 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
The American people are taxed at over 30 percent on the average.

ruveyn


Well, I think that most people have no (or little) federal income tax.

State income and sales taxes take a bunch, as do property taxes.



You are correct. I think around 47% of the population doesn't pay any federal income taxes in this country. State and local governments, is where most of our tax dollars go (as it should be). When you add up all of the nickel and diming from state, local, and federal governments, some people (especially the ones that pay federal income taxes) are paying in the neighborhood of 40-50% of their income out to taxes.



SilverStar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,058
Location: Ohio, USA

24 Jul 2012, 5:57 pm

WhiteWidow wrote:
Do you know why this is even an article? Because it's meant to look like a complex and intellectual ISSUE. It shouldn't even be up for discussion. Who do you expect to pay for all of the crap that poor people can't pay for? The birds and the bees and the fish in the sea? No! The people who make more than their fair share! The people who have enough for everyone. Remember in kindergarden when you had more than one or two? You were told to give one to your friend. I guess that lesson some how went out the window once people realized that crime pays. But what does it pay? Material wealth, which is scientifically proven to not make people feel complete.


I understand what you are saying, but I don't really make more that my fair share, yet I am still required to pay extra for people that don't. This is an issue for the working poor, and middle class people as well, you know.

The way people in our government think, is like this; "hey, rich people have all of the money now, so we'll just tax them more, and give it to ourselves, and/or other people"

What they should be thinking is this; "Hey, how did such a small percentage of people get so much money, while the rest of the population has very little?"



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

24 Jul 2012, 7:26 pm

Many got rich because we dropped their rates substantially in the 1980s and never replaced the revenue stream. Hello debt.

The same reason that so many don't pay federal income taxes. Under Clinton the rate was only 34% not paying. Today it's 47%. That's the Bush cuts. When you cut taxes and increase credits you put more people into that zone. It's funny that it's a GOP talking point today. They voted for it. lol.

Everyone needs to pay more. Cold hard facts. But it's not a pretty thing to run on.



SilverStar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,058
Location: Ohio, USA

24 Jul 2012, 8:23 pm

simon_says wrote:
Many got rich because we dropped their rates substantially in the 1980s and never replaced the revenue stream. Hello debt.

The same reason that so many don't pay federal income taxes. Under Clinton the rate was only 34% not paying. Today it's 47%. That's the Bush cuts. When you cut taxes and increase credits you put more people into that zone. It's funny that it's a GOP talking point today. They voted for it. lol.

Everyone needs to pay more. Cold hard facts. But it's not a pretty thing to run on.




I agree. The amount of money coming in should at least be equal to the amount going out, and that doesn't even cover paying off the debt. The problem with those people that aren't paying enough, or any taxes, is that they will pitch a fit if they have to pony up, even though they should have been paying more all along. :D