Posted on 08/01/2011 6:46:11 PM PDT by yetidog
Forgive me for asking…but what is so wrong about raising taxes to some negotiated extent on the most wealthy taxpayers in the US? While I know this question violates conservative orthodoxy, there are a lot of folks in the US who make a lot of money…some of it easily earned (inherited), some of it by talent (professional athletes), some of it by luck (actors and lottery winners) and some of it by a lot of hard work and perseverance. Now I agree that $250,000 is not the place to start, but maybe 5 million (or some other negotiable figure and percentage) is. And I know that revenue gained from “raising taxes on the rich” is a mere drop in the bucket, but an negotiated agreement to do so would destroy a persistent liberal argument that makes a lot of sense to many voters in the country. Not every rich person is the key to unemployment nor or they particularly deserving of protection because they are among the 5% or so that pay 80% of the taxes. This is not a matter of class envy nor income distribution, rather it addresses about the only rational argument that liberals still have in the ongoing fiscal policy debate.
I’m sorry but I can’t forgive you for asking. This is a fundamental moral issue. The “rich” own their wealth, and so long as they came by it honestly, no one has a claim on it. And if they came by it dishonestly, only the actual aggrieved have a claim, not “society”.
How does someone justify holding a gun to the head of “the rich”? If you hire the government to steal money from someone to give it to you, or to those you favor, because you envy them, you still have stolen the money.
The answer is:
Because it is their money, not yours, and you have no right to it. Neither for yourself or to “help” the people you designate as less fortunate.
Almost no wealth comes from fortune. It comes from work.
Forgetting the fact that further raising taxes on the “wealthiest” is simply government theft and institutionalized violation of “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods”, the simple fact is, it would not make a dent on the deficit for one year, let alone the national debt. If you were to subscribe to the irrationally inane notion that raising taxes on the “wealthiest” would not change their behavior regarding taxable income, then you might could argue that such a change in tax policy would increase tax revenues in the first year by perhaps a few hundred billion, well short of the TRILLION dollar deficit. But by the second year, when the “wealthiest” have had a chance to change their income situation, they would shelter their income and tax revenues will go down.
There have been articles on this subject posted that went into the simple and straightforward mathematics on the subject based on the data from the IRS.
What’s wrong with cutting government spending? Where’s it written that spending has to go up every year?
That's why when he says "millionaires and billionaires" he does mean that $200K.
There's little use raising rates because they're not paying the full rate now. Obama himself pays, not the 35%, but 24-26%. Biden, also in the 35% bracket, pays even less than Obama just 22-23%.
Raising taxes on some businesses (not GE, of course) will make things even worse, continue to drive them overseas to avoid taxes.
The single best plan is to get people working again. That will lower spending (fewer on welfare programs) and increase tax receipts.
ObamaCare has businesses going out of business, it has 30-50% of small businesses looking to end their health coverage which will ensure even MORE spending by the Feds.
ObamaCare itself includes higher taxes and cut Medicare by $500 billion.
There is nothing in Obama's policies that will incentivize anyone to expand and hire. He has a war on private sector employers, in particular, those not union shops.
We must win in 2012.
Tax reform is necessary but Obama's idea of tax reform is the wrong prescription.
Yetidog posted nearly verbatim BOR’s little rant. BOR called for more taxes because he said there’s clearly a revenue problem.
Seek not the fruits of another man’s labor. Instead, create through your own labor and you will then know the meaning of the injustice you once supported.
Any other questions?
The United States has the most progressive tax system in the world - that means that “upper income earners” pay more than their fair share already.
Half the people in the country pay no income tax at all.
Sure - Why not punish the successful even more in order to reward the unsuccessful?
After all, who needs personal gain as an incentive?
Oh - wait. That’s called human nature!
Within a decade, we’ll all be billionaires.
I like it but the colors are wrong.
Just look at the mess you made with your socialist ideas.
Feel better now? Take that poster of Stalin off the wall in your living room.
Cause I KNOW you don’t have it in the garage!!!!
How about this: Institute a national retail sales tax. No deductions or prebates etc... Repeal the XVIth Amendment. Institute the XXVIIIth Amendment prohibiting the imposition of any income tax or property tax what so ever. Everyone will know how much their government costs them every time they buy something. It will make them think twice about sending big spenders to DC.
Only reason I watch BOR is to see what the goofball moderates and so-called “free thinkers” are saying and thinking.
The progressive tax can be likened to a boat in heavy seas with 10 rowers. 5 are below decks drinking rum bought with the boat’s funds. The captain tells 3 of the 5 guys actually rowing to take the rest of the night off. He then tells one of the last two rowers (the strongest rowers on the boat who do the most work) to go take a nap for a bit. He then starts whipping the last guy left and screams at him to row harder, everyone is depending on him!!
This is the progressive tax system.
You are correct, of course. The point I was trying to make is the ‘the rich’ still pay almost nothing. Production and hard-work are what is taxed, not ‘the rich’.
That’s why we still have plenty of ‘rich’ while production and hard-work are officially discouraged.
Progressive taxation is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
If we are lucky that billion will be enough to buy a loaf of bread...
Washington’s spending problem, when combined with it’s intelligence, as in IQ, deficiency, leaves little hope for any improvement.
You got it. We don’t need more taxes. We need less government. Even if we could afford more government, we need to put it on a diet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.