Why Do We Get Onto the Rich About Taxes?

[Dave Ellis]

People making minimum wages don't pay any taxes except SS and Medicare, and that's for their own benefit. I agree that the rich should pay more. It's how much more that is the question. In the past the high 'progressive' rates were actually punitive.

The other objection to higher taxes is that the government is so inefficient.

Q. How many government workers are needed to change a light bulb?
A. 5,000. One to hold the light bulb and 4,999 to turn the building.

I agree there is a point where taxation would be too high for any income bracket. However, the US is pretty clearly nowhere near that point, especially in regards to the super wealthy.

It would also be great if there was a way to make government run more efficiently, however efficient or not, some of the services provided are pretty indispensable.

 

[Aldebaran]

I agree there is a point where taxation would be too high for any income bracket. However, the US is pretty clearly nowhere near that point, especially in regards to the super wealthy.

It would also be great if there was a way to make government run more efficiently, however efficient or not, some of the services provided are pretty indispensable.

How much do the "super wealthy" need to be taxed before it's too much? Is it when they have to start laying off employees? Or is it when their standard of living drops below that of the middle class?

 

[Dave Ellis]

How much do the "super wealthy" need to be taxed before it's too much? Is it when they have to start laying off employees? Or is it when their standard of living drops below that of the middle class?

The super wealthy almost by definition will always have a higher standard of living than the middle class.

As for a reasonable rate of taxation, it would take an economist to set an exact ideal rate (and it may require tweaking from time to time as well as economic factors change). In principle though, it would be a rate which is not punitive to high income earners, however creates the downward flow of wealth to the middle class than used to exist in the United States, back when it actually had a vibrant middle class.

 

[dmmesdale]

Trump's a moron. There's exactly zero evidence that if you give the wealthy more money it benefits everyone else. It only benefits the wealthy.

It sounds like the usual class warfare rhetoric. Similar to the National Socialists vilifying of the Jews in Germany. They were greedy, etc. If they legally earn money and pay taxes then there is no real obligation on their behalf to do anything for anyone else. Most of my employment life was made possible by business types who were rich. Operated and fixed their machines, using their tools in many cases, on their property at their expense. They provided a living wage, paid half of my Social Security and the bulk of the total cost of my health insurance.

If I cheated on my taxes to the tune of millions of dollars, they'd throw me in jail for a decade

The bulk of tax cheating is thru the Earned Income Tax Credit which is federal welfare for the working poor with children. When my daughter was born in 85 the out of pocket expense for both my health insurance and her birth was zero. It did not cost me one red cent. Now that is not the case. A potential family has to have family coverage thru their employer and will probably pay somewhere around 2 K out of pocket for delivery at a hospital. It has all changed and part of the reason it has changed is the working has to pay for those who get it free. No matter their health condition.

...and that's exactly what should happen to the very wealthy who cheat on their taxes. Let some of them rot and die in prison then we'll see what the rest of them do.

The wealthy would have accountants to do their taxes. They have to. So your not going to see a lot of tax cheating since the IRS would be targeting them in the first place. If the subject is tax cheating then the real culprits is the working poor and the earned income tax credit. Eliminate that, which will never happen, then they could indeed balance the budget. It is the poor who do not pay their fair share.

 

[Aldebaran]

The super wealthy almost by definition will always have a higher standard of living than the middle class.

As for a reasonable rate of taxation, it would take an economist to set an exact ideal rate (and it may require tweaking from time to time as well as economic factors change). In principle though, it would be a rate which is not punitive to high income earners, however creates the downward flow of wealth to the middle class than used to exist in the United States, back when it actually had a vibrant middle class.

In order to do this, it wouldn't be just the tax rate that would have to be adjusted, but also how the person spends/invests his or her money. If they spend it on anything, it's going to benefit the middle class because it keeps people working. It could even be reasoned that if they invest it in the stock market, it has the same affect by propping up the same companies that employ the middle class. The only way it wouldn't help the middle class is if the super wealthy stored their cash in their mattress. Rate of taxation won't affect that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It sounds like the usual class warfare rhetoric. Similar to the National Socialists vilifying of the Jews in Germany. They were greedy, etc. If they legally earn money and pay taxes then there is no real obligation on their behalf to do anything for anyone else. Most of my employment life was made possible by business types who were rich. Operated and fixed their machines, using their tools in many cases, on their property at their expense. They provided a living wage, paid half of my Social Security and the bulk of the total cost of my health insurance.

"The usual class warfare rhetoric"?

You do understand that there's genuine economic and political issues that only occur when the vast majority of wealth is in the hands of an increasingly few people?

How long has "too big to fail" been a phrase you've heard and do you even have a clue what it means?

The bulk of tax cheating is thru the Earned Income Tax Credit which is federal welfare for the working poor with children. When my daughter was born in 85 the out of pocket expense for both my health insurance and her birth was zero. It did not cost me one red cent. Now that is not the case. A potential family has to have family coverage thru their employer and will probably pay somewhere around 2 K out of pocket for delivery at a hospital. It has all changed and part of the reason it has changed is the working has to pay for those who get it free. No matter their health condition.

The wealthy would have accountants to do their taxes. They have to. So your not going to see a lot of tax cheating since the IRS would be targeting them in the first place. If the subject is tax cheating then the real culprits is the working poor and the earned income tax credit. Eliminate that, which will never happen, then they could indeed balance the budget. It is the poor who do not pay their fair share.

I guess you've never heard of the Panama papers.

 

[Belk]

People making minimum wages don't pay any taxes except SS and Medicare, and that's for their own benefit. I agree that the rich should pay more. It's how much more that is the question. In the past the high 'progressive' rates were actually punitive.

The other objection to higher taxes is that the government is so inefficient.

Q. How many government workers are needed to change a light bulb?
A. 5,000. One to hold the light bulb and 4,999 to turn the building.

Well, other then Payroll taxes, gas tax, sales tax, sin tax, and state taxes. But other then those no other taxes at all.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Well, other then Payroll taxes, gas tax, sales tax, sin tax, and state taxes. But other then those no other taxes at all.

Payroll taxes: Are accounted to them for their retirement.
Gas tax: Poor people can't afford vehicles.
Sales tax: Poor people can't afford to buy anything.
Sin tax: Poor people don't sin.
State taxes: Poor don't pay State taxes.

 

[jaybird88]

On the other hand, if it wasn't for the poor working stiffs, the rich wouldn't be rich either.

Guess how much money Bill Gates would have made at Microsoft without any staff to operate the company?

The workers generate the vast majority of the wealth which usually goes to the upper class. They deserve their fair share too. There has to be a balance where the wealthy keep a good amount of what they make, however they should also bear the burden of the heaviest taxation because they are the ones who can afford it.

it used to be that way back when the common people had a voice in this country.

 

[Dave Ellis]

In order to do this, it wouldn't be just the tax rate that would have to be adjusted, but also how the person spends/invests his or her money. If they spend it on anything, it's going to benefit the middle class because it keeps people working. It could even be reasoned that if they invest it in the stock market, it has the same affect by propping up the same companies that employ the middle class. The only way it wouldn't help the middle class is if the super wealthy stored their cash in their mattress. Rate of taxation won't affect that.

The thing we do see however is that the super wealthy are essentially sitting on their money.

That's not to say they don't invest it, of course they do. But large corporations only need a certain number of people to do a certain number of jobs. If it takes 50 staff to run a McDonalds, they'll hire 50 people. They won't hire 60, because there aren't the shifts available, you can't have five people manning one grill. The corporation will pocket the profits, and they'll continue paying the 50 staff they have minimum wage, or close to it. The executives will get higher bonuses for increasing profit margins and keeping the shareholders happy.

That's the case for plenty of the large corporations. They're only going to hire as many staff as they need to ensure smooth operations (and in many cases, they don't even hire as many staff as they should, leaving workers overworked and overstressed).

Corporate profits are at an all time high, executive pay is at an all time high, and the middle class is still in rough shape. How low do you need to cut taxes before this trickle down effect actually happens?

Or maybe return things to the way they were decades ago when the tax rates were significantly higher on businesses, and the middle class thrived.

 

[Aldebaran]

The thing we do see however is that the super wealthy are essentially sitting on their money.

That's not to say they don't invest it, of course they do. But large corporations only need a certain number of people to do a certain number of jobs. If it takes 50 staff to run a McDonalds, they'll hire 50 people. They won't hire 60, because there aren't the shifts available, you can't have five people manning one grill. The corporation will pocket the profits, and they'll continue paying the 50 staff they have minimum wage, or close to it. The executives will get higher bonuses for increasing profit margins and keeping the shareholders happy.

These shareholders are the ones who also invest money for their retirement. Not exactly the super-rich. They are everyday people who are trying to get their money to grow so they can be financially secure. The company operates a profitable way, people invest money into it, and they get rewarded and are encouraged to continue doing so, and therefore the business thrives and many people are employed. Why wouldn't the executives who do this be rewarded?

 

[jaybird88]

These shareholders are the ones who also invest money for their retirement. Not exactly the super-rich. They are everyday people who are trying to get their money to grow so they can be financially secure. The company operates a profitable way, people invest money into it, and they get rewarded and are encouraged to continue doing so, and therefore the business thrives and many people are employed. Why wouldn't the executives who do this be rewarded?

of course they are rewarded, i think the point he was making is the reward gets bigger and bigger while at the same time the working folks that are out in the trenches every day only get rewarded with the minimum pay the employer can get away with paying them.

 

[Aldebaran]

of course they are rewarded, i think the point he was making is the reward gets bigger and bigger while at the same time the working folks that are out in the trenches every day only get rewarded with the minimum pay the employer can get away with paying them.

Lately, a lot of those in the trenches are getting pay raises and even bonuses as a result of the recent tax reform. Sounds like reduced taxes really are good for the working class as they are rewarded with what they couldn't be rewarded with in the past. What's good for the company is what's good for the workers.

 

[Dave Ellis]

These shareholders are the ones who also invest money for their retirement. Not exactly the super-rich. They are everyday people who are trying to get their money to grow so they can be financially secure. The company operates a profitable way, people invest money into it, and they get rewarded and are encouraged to continue doing so, and therefore the business thrives and many people are employed. Why wouldn't the executives who do this be rewarded?

Pew research has reported that 53% of Americans have no money whatsoever invested in the stock market, and 62% of all money in the stock market is owned by the wealthiest 5% of the population.

In short, the significant majority of wealth generated by the stock market goes to people who are already super wealthy, and has virtually no benefit for over half of the population.

People who don't have much money don't have the disposable income to invest in the stock market.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Lately, a lot of those in the trenches are getting pay raises and even bonuses as a result of the recent tax reform. Sounds like reduced taxes really are good for the working class as they are rewarded with what they couldn't be rewarded with in the past. What's good for the company is what's good for the workers.

The only major company I'm aware of that gave out across the board raises is Wal Mart, and they're still $3 an hour under what the minimum wage is here in Ontario, Canada.

And this is the same company that's paid their employees so poorly for years that many of their employees have to rely on food stamps to feed themselves, despite record profits year after year.

While I applaud them for the raise for their workers, the cynical side of me sees this as a well crafted PR move.

 

[Aldebaran]

Pew research has reported that 53% of Americans have no money whatsoever invested in the stock market, and 62% of all money in the stock market is owned by the wealthiest 5% of the population.

Makes sense. Those with more money are going to have the most invested. If you have $100 to invest, then that's what you invest. If you have $10,000 and want to invest that much, that's what you do. They both benefit by the same percentage as the market increases.

In short, the significant majority of wealth generated by the stock market goes to people who are already super wealthy, and has virtually no benefit for over half of the population.

And I'm sure the vast majority of million dollar houses are owned by millionaires. What percentage of a certain income group is invested in a particular area is really irrelevant. Do you have $100 you'd like to see benefit from the stock market increases? Invest it there.

People who don't have much money don't have the disposable income to invest in the stock market.

Then they can invest in some other way. From what I've noticed, those with little income choose to squander it on pleasures rather than investments. That's what they choose to do and they reap the rewards of it. It's a matter of choice.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Makes sense. Those with more money are going to have the most invested. If you have $100 to invest, then that's what you invest. If you have $10,000 and want to invest that much, that's what you do. They both benefit by the same percentage as the market increases.

Correct

And I'm sure the vast majority of million dollar houses are owned by millionaires. What percentage of a certain income group is invested in a particular area is really irrelevant. Do you have $100 you'd like to see benefit from the stock market increases? Invest it there.

And the amount of wealth you'll generate with your $100 is pitiful, even counting compound interest. Disposable income is at an all time low.

If you put $10,000 or $100,000 away though, you can generate some real wealth. Problem is, there aren't many people that can afford to do that.

Then they can invest in some other way. From what I've noticed, those with little income choose to squander it on pleasures rather than investments. That's what they choose to do and they reap the rewards of it. It's a matter of choice.

Do you have any examples you can cite at all? From what I can tell, people without much money spend they money they have on food and shelter. There aren't many minimum wage earners taking three week vacations to Europe.

 

[Aldebaran]

And the amount of wealth you'll generate with your $100 is pitiful, even counting compound interest. Disposable income is at an all time low.

It might be pitiful compared to someone who has invested more. But what's the point of comparing what you have to what someone else has? Invest what you want, and reap accordingly.

If you put $10,000 or $100,000 away though, you can generate some real wealth. Problem is, there aren't many people that can afford to do that.

Because some people just aren't as successful as others. Not everyone is willing to go to college for many years and spend the time and effort necessary. Some just don't have the skills or attention span.

Do you have any examples you can cite at all? From what I can tell, people without much money spend they money they have on food and shelter. There aren't many minimum wage earners taking three week vacations to Europe.

Well, it is the people with the lowest incomes that smoke the most cigarettes and drink the most beer. I live in a low class neighborhood and there's a rental house right next to mine where renters have come and gone for the 19 years I've been there. At least a dozen. Every single one of them have smokers and drinkers. It's been said that only 20% of the population smokes and that the number is decreasing, but in low class neighborhoods, that number is much, much higher. Like I said, it's a matter of choices. They choose to spend $1800 a year on cigarettes and who knows how much on beer rather than saving and investing that money, and they reap the benefits of doing so.

 

[Dave Ellis]

It might be pitiful compared to someone who has invested more. But what's the point of comparing what you have to what someone else has? Invest what you want, and reap accordingly.

I'd like to invest $30,000,000, however I can't. So it's not a matter of investing what you want, it's a matter of investing what you can. Many people can't afford to invest anything at all, or small amounts that won't significantly improve their wealth.

Because some people just aren't as successful as others. Not everyone is willing to go to college for many years and spend the time and effort necessary. Some just don't have the skills or attention span.

Sure, not everyone will be as successful as others. I'm not suggesting everyone should get paid the same, however I am suggesting those people who work for a living should make enough that they can save a reasonable amount for retirement.

Well, it is the people with the lowest incomes that smoke the most cigarettes and drink the most beer. I live in a low class neighborhood and there's a rental house right next to mine where renters have come and gone for the 19 years I've been there. At least a dozen. Every single one of them have smokers and drinkers. It's been said that only 20% of the population smokes and that the number is decreasing, but in low class neighborhoods, that number is much, much higher. Like I said, it's a matter of choices. They choose to spend $1800 a year on cigarettes and who knows how much on beer rather than saving and investing that money, and they reap the benefits of doing so.

So because the people who lived beside you smoke and drink beer, that means the entire lower or lower middle class is blowing all of their paycheques.

And while I agree with you that smoking is a terrible choice both healthwise and financially, how sad is it that people can't afford to retire if they want to buy a pack of smokes or a case of beer? The idea would have been absurd a couple decades ago when a one decent income was typically enough to buy a house and retire at age 65 without much of a problem.

... and almost everyone smoked, and drinking was generally heavier than it is today.

 

[jaybird88]

Lately, a lot of those in the trenches are getting pay raises and even bonuses as a result of the recent tax reform. Sounds like reduced taxes really are good for the working class as they are rewarded with what they couldn't be rewarded with in the past. What's good for the company is what's good for the workers.

my pay is no different. somehow the only ones that benefit is everyone but you, i wonder how many "you's" are out there getting screwed.
but lets say the tax cuts are gonna help out us poor working folks, its the same story we hear every president and the end result is always the same, the workers get a little, the rich get a lot.