Posted on 05/03/2016 4:00:13 AM PDT by expat_panama
Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton often assert that the only way to correct wealth inequality in America is to tax the rich at even higher rates. A new study suggests this is false.
As part of what she called the “growth and fairness economy,” Hillary Clinton has proposed surtaxes on the wealthy and higher taxes on all capital gains to “shuffle the deck,” as she put it.
In the past, she has hammered the rich for being, well, rich. “Economists have documented how the share of income and wealth...
...both Clinton and Sanders would raise rates on the wealthy...
...even if they succeed, the primary stated goal of taxing the rich — closing the inequality gap — wouldn’t be achieved...
...higher taxes would mean the rich would save less. But they would still own their wealth...
...want to have the rich save less, when those savings are the engine of future investment, jobs and growth in the economy?...
...more of our smartest, most talented, most entrepreneurial people leaving our country to preserve their hard-won wealth from the prying hands of Big Government?...
...top 1% in incomes earned 19% of all U.S. income, but paid 38% of all income taxes. So Sanders and Clinton are right when they say the tax code is unfair — it’s unfair to those at higher incomes.
The only reason for imposing higher taxes on the wealthy, who already pay more than their fair share, is class warfare, spite and envy — the worst things on Earth on which to base economic policy. If Clinton and Sanders were truly serious about closing the inequality gap, they would be pushing for lower taxes, fewer regulations, school choice, more incentives to save and other things that would boost economic growth — not class warfare.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
It happens like this:
1. Democrat proposes raising taxes on the wealthy (income over $1M) to raise $X to help the poor.
2. Number crunchers find that the tax increases only produce 1/4 of $X.
3. Democrats redefine the wealthy as $100k or more.
4. Number crunchers find it only raises 3/4 of $X.
5. Democrats pass “sin” taxes to raise the rest, taxes that are primarily paid by the poor.
Ask any poor person if raising taxes on the rich have helped them in any way.
Answer: NO
But it makes them “feel” better that someone is looking out for them. Complete and utter lemmings.
1. Democrat proposes raising taxes on the wealthy (income over $1M) to raise $X to help the poor.
a) Republican agrees when asked.
That's no joke! Way back in '08 O was asked why he wanted to raise taxes even when we know that it means less revenue, and his answer (live in the debate w/o the telepromter) was that "it's a question of fairness".
It is my observation that the rich do not drink sugary drinks but most poor people do. There is no logic to liberal thinking.
No, like the article said when revenue is cut on rich guys like me what gets cut is savings/investing, and there's still lots left over for continuing regular spending.
What's not commonly known is that lifestyles don't change that much above a certain income level. Most millionaires drive a moderate sized car that's several years old. One reason is that the rich think money (that's how they got rich in the first place). Another reason is that everyone --everyone-- has to deal w/ limits, and it's just as easy to set the limit way below 'opulent' and be happy w/ 'comfortable'.
The author may very well be correct. Soaking the Rich may be a fool’s errand, and may utterly fail in its stated goal of reducing inequality.
We are going to find out. Looking at public opinion polling on the matter I’ve given up any thoughts that it will NOT happen.
1 - Are you in favor of that?
2 - If Bernie proposed that same idea, would you be in favor of it?
I support the part of Trump’s plan about getting hedge fund managers and day-traders to actually pay income tax if it is true that they do not.
I would however, lower the exemption bar on the Trump plan so that a few more people are taxed. If there is an income tax then most people should pay, even if they don’t pay much. Add a 4th rate of 3% for low income jobs
Actually I am a bit uncomfortable with Trump’s proposal of the one off tax. I would find another way to do it but assuming that it was a one off and that it did actually go towards paying down the national debt I would pay it (My wife and I might be wealthy enough to qualify). Possibly, make the “tax” voluntary. Simply ask everyone who makes over say $1.5 million a year to contribute an extra 2% for debt reduction, indeed, why not ask everyone to do that?
That said I am less uncomfortable with the one off tax proposed by Trump than the VAT tax in all but name that is in Cruz’s tax plan. A VAT is a hideous tax that should be avoided at all cost. The business tax (VAT) as proposed in Cruz’s plan is horrific because it looks 16% but functions like a 35% to 50% tax. It is also completely hidden and I don’t like hidden taxes.
I do like the simplicity of the Cruz plan. It is like the Hong Kong Tax system. We actually paid more in HK taxes than we would have in the US even though the rates were lower. I didn’t mind because the tax code was clear, understandable and I could see that it was fairly enforced. Even a person with a million dollar income only fills out a 1/2 page tax form. It takes about 15 minutes.
Neither plan is perfect, though both are probably better than what exist now. I prefer Trump’s plan overall because the lack of a VAT.
Perhaps I did not say it well but the issue for me is that I believe it is disingenuous to state that Trump generally supports higher taxes which appeared to be the essence of a poster (Maybe not you) had written above me. Trump’s published tax plan disproves that accusation.
>The system is broken and needs simplification and fairness.
What it NEEDS...is SCRAPPED.
*ONLY* and until the leviathan is cut off at the knees and stuffed back into its lawful and Constitutional size/limits should We even be talking about options.
When illegal/unconstitutional ‘entitlements’ suck 90% (I could be making that up, but I’d wager it’s damn close) of the taxpayer ‘donations’, you’re really up sh!t creek already (paddle or no). We haven’t even begun to discuss the ‘unfunded liabilities’
That very well could be but nobody knows for sure what the future holds. Meanwhile me and a lot of other investors are busy pricing big time market risk.
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.