Re: "Don't overtax the rich"Too late -- we're
already doing it.The rich already pay a grossly disproportionate
share of the taxes in the US, particularly the federal income tax. And Obama
regime scams to increase taxes on those already paying the lion's share of
the federal income tax are not just needlessly punitive, they're completely
ineffectual and will have only a tiny impact on the federal revenue deficit.It's nothing more than a divisive socialist scam to divert
attention away from the real problem -- deranged liberal fiscal pandering to the
most ignorant and vulnerable American voters.Exactly the same as
they're doing in the failing eurosocialist "workers'
Jared, Don't you think that it shows a certain degree of
unpatriotism to abandon your country because you are being taxed?What it shows to me is that greed is more valuable than social responsibility;
which goes back to Jesus' comments as to why it is so hard for a rich man
to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
During a recent trip to France, American actor Will Smith was being interviewed
on local TV with a translator and was asked about the Obama wanting the
“rich” to pay higher taxes. Mr. Smith said he wouldn’t mind
paying higher taxes. The interviewer told him that in France he would be paying
75% of his income to the government. The look of shock and horror on Mr.
Smith’s face was priceless! He then said, “God bless
America”. If Obama is re-elected, America will become just like France,
bankrupted economically and morally!
Over taxed? Romney's less than 15% tax rate which is far lower than the
average blue collar worker is over taxation? What flavor of Kool-aid are you
drinking? Unless you are in this group, I am astounded you are so gullible.
All of you need to look at what tax rate the rich were paying during the
Eisenhower administration. Remember those 1950's that you all want to
return to? Well, it was about 70%!I didn't hear the moaning
and groaning from them like I do now. Now those people (of the greatest
generation) were patriots. We have a bunch of greedy wimps in America right
now. I would have my taxes raised if Obama gets his 3% hike passed, but,
believe it or not, I can afford it and would pay it willingly to help us out of
our crunch.Anyone else?
For the 16 trillionth time, the wealthiest Americans pay nearly 80% of all
federal income taxes paid while nearly 50% of Americas pay no federal income
taxes at all. What’s the “riches” fair share? And even we the
“rich” paid 100% of all their income to the government; it
wouldn’t come close to paying for the deficit. Could it be possible that
the government is SPENDING too much?
There is no major developed country in the world in which the rich would pay
lower taxes than they do here. There are only a few small tax havens like
Monaco, Cayman Islands, Singapore, etc. The rich mainly pay such a
high percentage of the taxes in this country because the rich have gotten almost
all the economic gains of the past thirty years. If the national income
distribution was the same today as it was in 1980, the average family would be
making $12,000 a year more, and I'm sure they would be happy to spend a
portion of that on higher taxes.
re: MountanmanYou throw out the stat that the wealthy pay a high
proportion of the taxes in this country, as if it's proof they are
overtaxed. Take this into account. If they are paying most of the taxes, and
they are taxed at a lower rate than the average worker (Romney's 15%, for
example), what does that tell you? It means they are taking in a
disproportionate amount of the money in the first place.In the
50s...our strongest economic years...the average CEO made about 20 times as much
as their average full-time employee. Now that number is over 400 times. Is the
work they put in really worth 400 times as much to society as their average
FULL-TIME employee? I'm not arguing that everyone should have the exact
same pay--taking the risks and paying your dues to get to the top should be
rewarded. But I think a rate of 20 times as much is plenty.A CEO
and two of his workers are sitting around a table. He takes 11 cookies and says
to the one worker, "Watch out, the other guy's going to take your
Jared Brown's view about Don't over tax the rich is too similar to the
story of abused wives who are told not to ask their husbands to stop beating
them or their darling husbands may leave them. If that is the kind of people the
rich are then who needs them and who wants them.
Investment income is taxed at a lower rate than salary for good reason -- to
encourage investment. Without that tax advantage, a LOT of money would move out
of private companies, including banks, and our economy would suffer
tremendously.Where in the constitution is the federal government
allowed to tax (penalize) one citizen at a higher rate than another?
Progressive tax is fundamentally unfair by definition. What is unfair is the
47% of citizens who pay no federal income tax and yet reap benefits. If a
politician wants "fairness," they would logically have everyone pay
federal taxes at the same rate.
"...they [the rich]will take their substantial entrepreneurial talent and
money and will flee to places that respect their ability and wealth." Yes
the wealthy have an advantage in that they can move whereas labor like myself
cannot. This question of equity for the wealthy cannot be addressed without the
Marxian analysis which sees labor as never being fully compensated for the value
it adds to the production process. This is Marx's famous surplus value and
it IS VERY REAL. Since most economists lack this perspective liberals (and
labor like me) are doomed to lose. BTW, the wealthy did just fine when the top
marginal rate was 93% in the 50's.
To quote Mountainman, "for the 16 trillionth time," the problem with our
system is not the redistribution of income, it is the current distribution of
ownership. Those who actually produce the products do not own a fair share of
the businesses they work for. If we want to talk fair, let's get to the
heart of the matter. The real issue is that in our corporate system, most people
do not own capital. (And don't give me the ridiculous argument about owning
stock through my 401k. That doesn't make me a capitalist, and anyway 80
percent of the stock is still owned by 10 percent of the people.)Just to put Jared's letter in some sort of context, consider that after
World War II, when debt was a larger percentage of GDP than it is now, the top
marginal tax rate was 91 percent. With this progressive rate system in place, we
were able to jumpstart an economic boom, rebuild Europe, educate a whole
generation of returning GIs, pay our debt down, and guess what, the rich still
@ Thinkin\' Man, Romney holds offshore bank (and other) accounts. How does
that money help create jobs or other economic activity in the U.S.? Not at all.
Therefore, why should income derived from such investments be given
preferential tax treatment? We have a system gone crazy, and between the
lobbying to protect these practices and apologists of the system (who then turn
around and call for reform to the tax system when the discussion changes), how
will we ever clean up the mess we have? Nobody wants their goodies touched, and
the power lies mostly with those who already have. Who are the Republicans in
the House targeting for cuts? The poor and middle class. Whose programs do
they refuse to touch? Those that benefit the wealthy and powerful. Like it or
not, the Occupy Wall Street folks have it figured out. Why doesn't the
rest of middle America?
As a number of posters have pointed out, the greatest period of economic growth
in the history of our country coincided with a much higher tax rate than we
currently have. What those posters have not mentioned is that rich people in
the 50's mostly didn't whine about it. They were patriots, and they
knew their country needed them.Let me also point out that
Europe's problems have arisen from their foolish attempts to solve a demand
side recession with austerity measures. That's precisely what the Paul Ryan
plan attempts to do. It's the Right that wants to copy failed European
France wants to tax their rich seventy five percent. Watch for an exit there.
"One of the great evils with which our own nation is menaced at the present
time is the wonderful growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few
individuals. The very liberties for which our fathers contended so steadfastly
and courageously, and which they bequeathed to us as a priceless legacy, are
endangered by the monstrous power which this accumulation of wealth gives to a
few individuals and a few powerful corporations." -- LDS First Preszidency
wait - you mean to suggest that a 75% tax of those making 1 million or more in
France is too much?? Come now - France does allow those nasty rich folks to keep
a whopping 25% and isn't that fair? I'm certain taxing at the 75% rate
will encourage investment and incent those darn rich folks to create new
business and expand existing business... right? If someone takes 75% of your pay
check doesn't that make you want to go and buy a new car? Of course it
does. Those good socialist folks in France are so darn smart aren't they.
It warms the heart to know we too have a good socialist minded president who is
cut from the same cloth as those in France. Remember - it's all about
fairness. It think it is fair to say that those who make more than a million in
France will take their money elsewhere. Ya think?? But never fear - the
government will always come to the rescue!!!
what's funny, is that this letter writer destroys his own argument. He writes about how higher taxes would send the rich packing.He states how rich folks are already leaving.Yet, we have the
lowest tax rates on the rich that we've had in decades right now. So what this person seems to advocate is even LOWER taxes on the rich. Ummmm what????Is there a single reputable economist that
believes that LOWER taxes on the rich will do anything positive? We've seen what lower taxes did over the past decade. They did not
promote economic growth. Instead, they prompted even further debt and helped to
give us the largest economic disaster since the 20s.
To Thinkn Man: We actually have an easy way to test your hypothesis that lower
tax rates on investment will produce more investment. Up until fairly recently,
capital gains taxes were double what they are now. So what was the result of
cutting the rate in half? The percentage of GDP being invested in the economy
stayed the same.
Patriot: "wait - you mean to suggest that a 75% tax of those making 1
million or more in France is too much?? Come now - France does allow those nasty
rich folks to keep a whopping 25% and isn't that fair? I'm certain
taxing at the 75% rate will encourage investment and incent those darn rich
folks to create new business and expand existing business... right?" Please
correct me if I'm wrong but I think the 75% refers to the rate ON THE TOP
BRACKET. It does not mean that 75% of French fat cats' income would be
taxed.For example in the United States I think the top maringal rate
is about 35% - this just refers to the top bracket in a graduated income tax
system. The actual overal rate of taxation of the wealthy is about 15%.
Even at 15% Romney paid much more in taxes dollar wise than any of us. I
don't see why that is relevant. He took advantage of the laws in place to
legally cut his tax rate. I do that myself as a lower middle class working bee.
What did I pay this year? Nothing. I got money back.
The picture that DN staff selected to illustrate the letter looks like some
pictures made public showing the contraband from a large drug raid. Are those
blocks of cocaine, heroin or gold? And in the lower left, is it wheat or gold
re:marxistNope - you're wrong. The new French Pres has as one
of his campaign pledges to tax ALL those who make in excess of 1 million per
year at an insane rate of 75%. Yes 75%. Not sure why you are surprised by this
since this IS the socialist mind set after all.
Patriot,That is about the same rate that Norway has charged for
years - but they do not complain nor leave their country. They seem to think
that educating their children right through college is the best thing for their
country. Yes, they have free college education. They happen to believe that
taking care of their elderly is a very acceptable use of their taxes. They
actually believe that mothers should be able to stay home with their children
until they go to school - and pay them to do that!Socialist? Yes,
but they do not want to change their ways.PS> the US had an
income tax rate of almost 70% for the top earners before Reagan changed it. No
one was crying about it like everyone does their mere 35% today! What did
Reagan do but create a generation of whiners! Where are the patriots of just 30
It is easy to spot those posters who listen only to the opinions and half-truths
they agree with (Fox News, right-leaning radio). They spout the "47% of
Americans don't pay any taxes," nonsense. Has anyone looked at their
paycheck recently? Check out all the withholding that is not income tax. It is
a lot, and everyone pays it. Payroll tax, social security, etc.If
you want to make an argument, at least make a real one with real facts.
Per OHBU @ 8:57 a.m.“A CEO and two of his workers are sitting
around a table. He takes 11 cookies and says to the one worker, "Watch out,
the other guy's going to take your cookie."Well selected
analogies are wonderful tools to make clear an idea. Analogies do NOT prove
the idea, but sure can clarify the idea. Actually the cookie bowl would have
many dozens of cookies in it.
>PatriotSorry, but you are mistaken. The 75% tax bracket French
proposal is a special bracket for millionaires. My source: the Wall Street
Esquire,The effective tax rate paid by the average blue-collar worker,
after considering tax credits and deductions, is far short of 15%.And the income that is subject to that 15%? It was ALREADY taxed at its
source at around 35%, so it is being taxed twice. THAT is NOT the way to incent
investment capital in the USA. Without investment capital, no economic
growth.really?47% pay no INCOME tax. THAT is a fact. Those withholdings are NOT federal income taxes. SS and medicare
withholdings go into trust funds administered (not too well) by the federal
government. Those paying into those trust funds will have the right to draw on
those funds, not at their whim and pleasure, but under the rules associated
therewith. income taxes go not into trust funds, but to support the general
operations fo the government.Sorry you do not know the difference.
Too much MSNBC for you!
Taxing the rich equals socialism? This is just using a hated term to bolster
you otherwise logically deficient argument. The bottom line is that we need to
pay for government services, past and present and we need the wealthy to help.
Where much is given much is expected. Those that fight tax fairness are
perfectly willing to let the poor and less fortunate carry the burden. The Ryan
budget demonstrates that perfectly.
Don't undertax them either. Or the middle class.
The 1% make 23% of the money and pay 38% or more of the taxes!Me thinks the extreme left just want a free ride on someone else's
back,and not only that but believe they are entitled to it.___RE: Esquire your 15% tax rate story is
>Lost in DCI'm sure it's great fun to play semantic games in
which a tax isn't a tax, but payroll deductions are absolutely taxes.
They're taken out of your paycheck, pursuant to federal law. Don't pay
'em, go to jail. They're a tax. They don't belong to the
worker--there isn't some bank account with a worker's name on it.
They do go to a trust fund, administered exceptionally effectively by the
federal government--you're welcome to try to find a private health insurer
who pays out 98% of premiums for benefits, but I won't hold my breath
'til you do. As for the lucky duck 47% who pay no federal income
tax, well, do you pay federal income tax? Wanna trade positions with people who
don't? When it comes to disposable income, they don't have any.
Wealthy people do pay more taxes. And have plenty left over afterwards, for
investing, and also just to spend as they please. So as a percentage of
disposable income, poor folks are taxed at 100% plus. Rich people hardly pay
any tax at all.
Re.The Truth/Lost in DCSo all wealthy people are Republicans and all
the poor are Democrats/Liberals?Sure, lower income levels don't
pay income tax, but when all taxes are considered, the poor pay a greater
percentage of their income in taxes than do the wealthy. So it is just flat out
dishonest to characterize them as not paying taxes.Carried Interest,
which is the source of much of Romney's wealth was NOT taxed twice. Bain
is a partnership. Partnerships don't pay tax, the money flows directly to
the partners as income. The partners (Romney) would primarily invest other
wealthy people's money by buying a controlling interest into a company,
agreeing that they would give back the investors their investment plus a
certain percentage return. Any profit Bain's partners made they would then
pay a 15% tax rate. Bain has lobbied heavily to protect the carried interest
rule. Bain would also charge management fees which would be taxed as ordinary
Rich people, of whom I am not, spend their riches on goods and services. This
creates jobs. Sending money to the federal government penalizes those with
income and has little effect on job creation. Creating entitlements, not jobs,
is the government's specialty. The entire concept does not address the
problem that people do not have employment. Taxing as a fairness issue is in the
eye of the beholder. It usually reduces to taxing anyone who makes more money
than I do.
What I earn is my money. I should be able to keep as much of it as possible.
That is the beauty of America and any other freedom loving country! You simply
cannot tax the rich or anyone else enough to pay for the mess that's been
The percentage of total taxes paid by the top 1% is approximately the same
percentage paid by middle class Americans (average income $68,700):IRS figures show that the very rich paid 23% of their incomes in federal
income taxes in 2006. The middle class paid about 8% of their incomes in federal
income taxes. Based on U.S. CBO figures, the very rich pay just under 2% of
their incomes toward social security, while the middle class pays just under
10%. According to a study by The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the
very rich pay about 7% of their incomes in state and sales and property and
excise taxes, while the middle class pays approximately 10%. Another year of
Bush tax cuts will reduce the taxes of the very rich by at least 3% more than
the middle class.So total taxes for the very rich are 29% of their
incomes (23% + 2% + 7% - 3%). Total taxes for the middle class are 28% of their
incomes (8% + 10% + 10%). These figures agree with CTJ's 2011 estimate of
total taxes paid.“Five Tax Fallacies Invented by the
1%”by Paul Buchheit
The writer of this letter has been swoonboggled by ALEC propaganda.
I just read that even after the JP Morgan Ooops, CEO Dimon will be paid $26
million plus bonuses next year.
re: marxist 9:04 a.m. May 17, 2012"BTW, the wealthy did just
fine when the top marginal rate was 93% in the 50's."America was really growing then. I wonder what the GDP was when Eisenhower was
POTUS?The tax rate for the rich is small potatoes to me. Its these
mega multimational corporations that pay no taxes at all that bother me. p.s. Didn't Romney say Corporations are people too?
Well now Marxist you've ruined a good story.
Eric,You mean I will be able to draw on the federal treasury like I will
on SS and medicare?I guess you missed the part where I said the SS
and medicare withholdings go into trust funds administered by the feds since you
felt you had to explain to me what I had already explained. Withholdings DO belong to the workers who paid them. Just because the feds
administer the accounts does not mean the feds OWN them! The workers are DIRECT
beneficiaries of the funds.47% of us have NO disposable income?
REALLY???? There are way too many people at theaters, restaurants, ball games,
Disneyland; way too many people with I-pads, flat screens, and cable/satellite
TV packages for you to say 47% have NO disposable income.Truthseeker,Show me where I said lower income folks pay no taxes. I
said no federal INCOME tax. If the only way you can call me dishonest is to
misquote me, what does that say about you?RanchHand,If your
source says the middle class pays 10% in SS, your source is lying, since the SS
rate is 7.5%. stop confusing STATE and Federal! Atheists cannot creditably
The biggest lie put forward by the right is that the rich create jobs. The second biggest lie: that the rich pay too much in taxes.
@Mountainman. For the sixteen trillionth time your are misleading people on the
numbers. If someone has a million dollar tax bill and I have a five thousand
dollar tax bill of course you can claim that the rich pay eighty percent of
taxes. Fifteen percent of 6 million will always be more than twenty five percent
of any middle class American.It seems you want equality for the
wealthy on taxes but you do not want for anybody else.
Tax rates are the lowest they've been in over half a century. Returning to
the Clinton-era tax rates is not overtaxing since that's the level of
taxation we had when we last had an essentially balanced budget.
Gosh. Poor rich people! (Sarcsm) As...
Title: Study: Rich get a lot richer, outpace middle class. By Andrew
Taylor. AP. 10/26/11 The study comes from the Congressional Budget
Office and is based on IRS and Census Bureau data. It finds that after-tax
income for the top 1 percent of U.S. households almost tripled, up 275 percent,
from 1979 to 2007. For people in the middle of the economic scale, after-tax
income grew by just 40 percent. Sarcasm off. I'm
sorry, am I supposed to feel PITY for peole who's income, already higher
than my own... grew almost 300%, while mine grew less than half?
"France has also decided to drink the same Kool-Aid under their newly
elected president, Francis Hollande, with his 75 percent income tax. Those with
wealth are stampeding out of France taking their capital and entrepreneurial
talents to more friendly places. "Jared, name one. Where do
you come up with this stuff? And the fact is, no tax increase has happened in
France, and the French president can't unilaterally set these rates any
more than our president can. But please, don't deviate from the rhetoric
of false facts to try to prove a point.So turn off your radio, stop
reading blogs that have an agenda to push, and look at the real story. It
usually lies somewhere between what the two sides are both lying about.
French fleeing the country. Good grief, what will we make up next.
According to some like Patriot, those who believe in a progressive tax system
are socials/communist...... interesting.By virtue of this, that
father of capitalism, Adam Smith, was in fact a socialist. A cornerstone to
his policy was a progressive tax system. Poor Mr. Smith.... tried so hard, but
it seems in Utah, he too is a socialist. Will anyone escape the
charge of being socialist?
"In September, co-founder of Facebook, Eduardo Saverin, renounced his U.S.
citizenship and moved to Singapore because of the threat of increased taxes.
"Eduardo, as a matter of fact, was Brazilian born, and held dual
citizenship. If he moved to Singapore to avoid taxes, interesting pick. While
Singapore is a tax haven, it is by no means tax free. The rate Eduardo will be
paying will be 20% of everything over 320k singapore dollars, and will be taxed
as normal income. He may benefit in the short term because his income was
earned overseas, but from here on out it will be 20% of income, without the
miles of deduction Americans take advantage of. The 20% he will pay is more
than our own 15% old Mit payes. But it is a lovely place - he will
enjoy it a lot.
We should not punish success; however, we also shouldn't have a society
in which 5 percent of people control the money. A rich man will have a hard
time in the next life and we sometimes don't like to acknowledge this even
in church because it makes people nervous and guilty. There has been an
explosion of wealth upon the earth in the last 25 years, so there is hope for
all. I hear in the last 20 years one billion people on the earth have come out
of poverty and in the next 20 years two billion people will join the middle
class. So the world is getting richer and richer. (though in 2008 I think 25
percent of wealth disappeared; fortunately we are recovering from that) If
the rich aren't generous, I like Book of Mormon chapter Helaman 13 that
speaks of "slippery riches" ------ the Lord knows how to give and how to
"Socialist attacks" does not equate to paying adequate taxes. Is it not
an entitlement that if you make over a million a year your effective tax rate
goes down, freeing a person up to make huge contributions to a super PAC.