tax the rich (be careful of what you ask for)

[KGW]

Re: tax the rich (be careful of what you ask for)

Ignore this guy. . .All he does is sit around and drink "porter" all day.

[flintlock]

Re: tax the rich (be careful of what you ask for)

If people really wanted to tax the ACTUAL "Rich", they'd address capital gains tax rates, tax loopholes and deductions, and quit focusing purely on the argument about INCOME taxes. Do people really think Warren Buffet gets a $200 million W-2 form every year?

I'm not advocating for or against raising any taxes here by the way, just pointing out how easy the sheep are led into class warfare, which of course distracts them from the real issues, (which is their goal). The biggest potential offenders in regards to paying their fair share( I hate this term btw) are probably those we dont even know or think about. Not your local emergency room doctor, or successful RE agent, or businessman. Most of us will never meet in the normal course of our lives, the kind of people that make the really big money. Sorry, but they just don't hang with the plebs.

A lot of this talk sounds a lot like sour grapes at times. I wonder how many rich haters out there actually know any rich people. Not that many I'd bet. I'm talking high net worth rich, not high income. (Some don't know the difference!) I know a handful of them, at least to some degree. Some are pricks. Some are awesome and very generous people. But this ridiculous notion that most rich people inherit their wealth is simply BS. That inherited type of wealth usually only lasts three generations. The first earns it, the second builds it and the third blows it. Almost without fail. For every Kennedy or Vanderbilt clan, there are ten thousand Smiths or Jones who have amassed wealth, passed it down to their heirs, only to see it fractured into smaller and smaller fragments. Often pissed away, but sometimes just the due to the math.

Now are some more privileged than others no doubt. But in my experience, most of this is passed on in the form of better schools, higher levels of education, etc, than any lump cash payment. As a matter of fact, I know more middle class "trust fund kids" who got large sums when their parents died early and they received hefty life insurance payments, than I know rich kids who were given huge amounts of cash early in life. Does that make the kid who's parents died early "lucky"? I don't think so. Is he not entitled to the proceeds of the insurance his parents paid for? Or does that make him a spoiled brat?

[lektrode]

Re: tax the rich (be careful of what you ask for)

If people really wanted to tax the ACTUAL "Rich", they'd address capital gains tax rates, tax loopholes and deductions, and quit focusing purely on the argument about INCOME taxes. Do people really think Warren Buffet gets a $200 million W-2 form every year?...

no but thats entirely the point of it, isnt it? and why buffet, et al gets away with piling up BILLIONS while paying "less in taxes (rates) than his secretary" - the best way to get past all the loopholes and deductions, semantics of cap gains vs wages or 'earnings' would be - quite simply - to levy the FICA tax on ALL FORMS OF 'INCOME' - every last dollar, from the 1st to the last - at least until the soc sec and medicare/caid acccounts are balanced and cover all the liabilities against them

until this happens, there is NO 'SECURITY' for _anyone_
since at some point, without any hope for a better future, for themselves of their children?

the working class will riot and then even the leafiest of the green gated communities _will_ pay the price.

[c1ue]

Re: tax the rich (be careful of what you ask for)

For many in the lower tax brackets (who pay little or no Income Tax)
their FICA taxes are offset by the Earned Income Tax Credit.

If you earn $40,000 per year and have two children you can receive over $5,000 in EITC,
effectively wiping out all of your Social Security and Medicare taxes and then some!

The situation isn't always as regressive as you might think.

Fair enough.

However, this only applies to the bottom quintile (20%).

In reality, it is the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quintiles who are the ones getting screwed.

Warren Buffett's secretary doesn't qualify for EITC, nor do most families with non-day labor jobs.

[Raz]

Re: tax the rich (be careful of what you ask for)

Fair enough.

However, this only applies to the bottom quintile (20%).

In reality, it is the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quintiles who are the ones getting screwed.

Warren Buffett's secretary doesn't qualify for EITC, nor do most families with non-day labor jobs.

You are correct, sir, and as usual I find myself [mostly] in agreement with you.

Charles Hugh Smith described it perfectly. Read the attached.

[c1ue]

Re: tax the rich (be careful of what you ask for)

Charles Hugh Smith described it perfectly. Read the attached.

The general sentiment, I wholeheartedly agree with.

The comparison with Rome - not applicable.

The US doesn't conquer/exterminate other nations and then colonize with former soldiers.

Similarly Roman elites, except for a very brief period in the first century, never significantly were represented in the Roman legions.

There is some parallel in the financialization aspect: during the Roman era, slavery was physical whereas in the American century, the indenture is financial. But again the first glance comparison is invalid: Roman patrician families owned vast swathes of land staffed with slaves and made money by using said slaves to grow food and produce sellable goods. Bankster families own vast swathes of financial assets, but these are generally divorced from direct labor - consisting instead of money and capital assets. Even such notables as the Kochs derive most of their income from commodities rather than any form of labor.

[Raz]

Re: tax the rich (be careful of what you ask for)

The general sentiment, I wholeheartedly agree with.

The comparison with Rome - not applicable.

The US doesn't conquer/exterminate other nations and then colonize with former soldiers.

Similarly Roman elites, except for a very brief period in the first century, never significantly were represented in the Roman legions.

There is some parallel in the financialization aspect: during the Roman era, slavery was physical whereas in the American century, the indenture is financial. But again the first glance comparison is invalid: Roman patrician families owned vast swathes of land staffed with slaves and made money by using said slaves to grow food and produce sellable goods. Bankster families own vast swathes of financial assets, but these are generally divorced from direct labor - consisting instead of money and capital assets. Even such notables as the Kochs derive most of their income from commodities rather than any form of labor.

Very perceptive, and you raised valid objections.

However, I stand in agreement with the section I placed in a red rectangle;
the outcome will be the same - utter ruin.

[Kcim67]

Re: tax the rich (be careful of what you ask for)

We have natural rights to life, liberty and property, as was argued by John Locke. What difference is a handful of people can be lazy and not work? That is their right. And certainly the man who created so much value for the world and who earned his fortune also has a right to pass it on to his family. What you are proposing is not un-American, it is theft. And, by the way, you'll find that most wealthy family's are actively engaged in charity, which is far more effective than government will ever be.

I think not Porter,
It is theft when after having made your wealth in a nation that had rules and regulations that where conducive to wealth creation for the majority, you then use that accumulated wealth to game the system and change the rules from wealth creation for many to wealth protection for the few and then have the absolute affrontary to hand the begging bowl round when their system crumbled and they were all found out!!!!

[c1ue]

Re: tax the rich (be careful of what you ask for)

However, I stand in agreement with the section I placed in a red rectangle;
the outcome will be the same - utter ruin.

The outcome will be TEOTWAWKI, but it won't be Somalia. It will only feel like it.

[flintlock]

Re: tax the rich (be careful of what you ask for)

This issue is: "The rich paying at least a reasonable share of taxes".

Trying to define the word "reasonable" in this statement is like trying to define the word "beauty". Some would say "one man, one vote, so the same tax regardless of what you earn is fair." Others would base it on percentage of your income. Others "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

By any measure you use, both percentage of disposable income as well as percentage of overall taxes paid vs. overall wealth/income levels, the top 1% and especially the top 0.1% are simply not paying a reasonable share.

And others would use a different measure, like percentage of taxes paid vs % of population. So its not true "by any measure you use". Its impossible to define what a "fair" tax is. It means something different depending on who you ask. And the truth is, there is no RIGHT answer.

My guess is a combination of higher taxes and cuts would be the only hope, albeit a slim one. Did anyone ever consider focusing on capital gains and other taxes rather than just income? Seems to me that is where the real money is anyway. Closing FIRE focused deductions like mortgage would be another place to start.

[flintlock]

Re: tax the rich (be careful of what you ask for)

While not a perfect comparison by any means, there are some startling similarities between Rome and the USA. Same could be said for a lot of Empires. They tend to follow a pattern because all were run by humans, and human nature is the one constant throughout history.

[wayiwalk]

Re: tax the rich (be careful of what you ask for)

Not that it would be legal, but it sure would be fair. Let's look at how the "rich" earn their money. Venture capitalists, entreprenuers, small to medium business owners - why stick it to them? They are likely providing jobs for americans. But If they work in finance and make more than $1 mill/year - I see it differently. The system now helps provide outsized incomes to those who are in finance, well beyond what was considered normal a generation ago.

So raise their taxes - but give those same individuals an opportunity to invest in productive businesses based in this country, with 90% of the jobs related to that business based in this country, (yes, that's probably a loophole you could drive a bus through but hopefully it could be minimal) to earn offsetting tax credits....give them an incentive to invest in this country's future, instead of their own future wealth growth. And if they don't like it - may they switch careers or switch countries!

If the stats are correct, and the wealth is accumulating there, no matter how you look at it - that is not good for this country. That is something that must be fixed.

[mesyn191]

Re: tax the rich (be careful of what you ask for)

So raise their taxes - but give those same individuals an opportunity to invest in productive businesses based in this country

This is effectively the same reason why capital gains are taxed differently in the first place from labor.

Once you put a way to tax investing and financial gains differently from labor into law then others will find a way to abuse it or lobby loopholes into it.

[wayiwalk]

Re: tax the rich (be careful of what you ask for)

This is effectively the same reason why capital gains are taxed differently in the first place from labor.

Once you put a way to tax investing and financial gains differently from labor into law then others will find a way to abuse it or lobby loopholes into it.

You're right. That was in the back of my mind during my rant, I guess I just want to make sure that since we aren't fixing the structure of the financial sector, at least the taxpayer gets back from it somehow. Capital gains would handle it.