Do you guys support a Millionaire's Tax?

[Labgrownmangoat]

I just want to know where those who dont want to raise taxes plan to pull $14.3T out of spending cuts. I have stated numerous times if you show me a plan that cuts the deficits without crushing middle class families at the same time then i dont think tax cuts are bad. But honestly this deficit is not going anywhere if we take tax cuts arbitrarily off the table. The only types of tax cuts i hear are guarded remarks that there is a large segment of the population that gets away with paying no taxes. That of course leaves out that the large block which they refer is so poor they dont qualify to pay taxes. These are individuals that make less than 133% (i believe that is the number) of the poverty line.

To expand on your final point, that complaint also refers only to income taxes as well. It ignores the fact that between payroll taxes and sales taxes (among others), the working poor pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than most anyone else.

In my opinion, those who benefit from the fruits of society should help pay to sustain society. The wealthy reaped the vast majority of the benefits of society over the last decade, and the rest of us borrowed the money to pay for it. An obvious solution presents itself.

[The Schmooze]

Government seems to have no problem with cutting funding for the middle and lower class. So it seems only fair that they'd also ask the upper class to pay their fair share to close the budget gap. I'm sure many conservatives will claim that taxing the richest of the rich is "class warfare", but isn't cutting funding and benefits only on the lower and middle class and not touching the upper class the same?

I think so. I'm wondering where all the talk of "class warfare" was when the middle class' wealth has been shifted to the top 1% of people over these last 30 years...

What do you expect though? We live in an age where the authoritative face on TV have many people believing that "community organizing", unions, social programs, the poor, and regulations are the bad/the enemy....while corporations, the rich, tax breaks, and increased defense spending to "protect us" are good and need to be protected.

...and yes I support the rich paying slightly more; at the very least a 3% increase to what they paid under Clinton. Thankfully though they have many middle and lower class people in their corner to fight for them

[dbroncos78087]

Where are $14.3T worth of tax hikes? Just because the federal government makes a declaration of taxes doesn't mean the people are actually going to pay the taxes. If you think people 60 years ago actually paid 90% of their income, you're nuts. If you think shaking everyone down for every penny they have is actually possible, you're as impractical-minded as the people who think we can round up & deport 18 million illegal immigrants. It isn't going to happen.

Now are we going to make back $14.3T in spending cuts alone? Yeah, that looks bleak. But before we get to that, how about we do everything we can to STOP adding over $1 Trillion every single year? Can we do that with spending cuts? Yes we can. (Why does that sound familiar?) Once we get the budget balanced, then we can talk about paying down the debt. I believe if we ever actually get going in that direction, we'll see the way out.

I never said the debt and deficit have to be paid off in one year. But unless we want them to sit there and linger for 50-100 years ultimately they are going to need to be paid off through something then cuts to the poorest of the poor. Currently the Republican cuts have only targeted those poor. I dont see any cuts that have been made to target the very rich. Because programs like school lunches, subsidies for heating, and Planned Parenthood arent frequented by the wealthy in this country.

You can complain about programs that Democrats add, but at least when they add them they know that taxes will have to go up to meet the new spending. For instance the reason that it will increase the deficit when you repeal the new health insurance bill is because there were tax increases to pay for the spending. Unlike when you go to look at the Iraq and Afghanistan War they were just larded on with no consequence and assumed to be free. When Bush calculated his budgets the wars werent even considered in his costs. Now that Obama has actually started doing that you wonder why his budget is higher? The last time we were in a substantial war the marginal tax rates have been substantially higher because, surprise surprise, we have to pay for them. WWII it was above 80%, Vietnam it was above 70%, Iraq it was 31% the first time and never above 40% the second and much more costly time.

This is why i have said numerous times, tax increases arent the answer, but they cant be ignored. If you continue to spend through wars, defense projects, social programs; notice i listed strong democratic and republican programs, then you absolutely have to raise taxes. If you want to go to war to defend this country then you need to provide the funds through other means than we did for Afghanistan and Iraq. Just writing IOU and sticking a flag on it doesnt make it paid for. If you want to feed the poor then the same truth holds, you cant write an IOU and say "thanks for your help" on it.

Taxes are artificially low in this country based on how we spend. If you reduce spending in a way that affects everyone then i have never complained about reduced spending, and by extention reduced taxes. But if everyone insists on starting wars on a whim or trying to fight poverty with the government checkbook then there needs to be large deposits made into the account of that checkbook.

[avrpatsfan]

Well just think about it. If you make this scenario:

Revenue: $20,000,000
Costs: $19,800,000
Taxable Income: $200,000

How can you pay 35% of $20,000,000 when your income is only $200,000. If you lose money then you pay no taxes because your taxable income is negative. Then there are tax deductions beyond that regular taxable income, but since we are discussing individuals so i will ignore that.

Thanks for explaining it. I understand now.

[cabernetluver]

People of substantial net worth, pay a lower rate of taxes than the middle class if you don't define taxes as marginal tax rates on what has been defined as income.

As an investor, my net worth went up substantially last year. I paid no taxes on my investments. None. In fact, my investments are now at a place where their growth is passing up my earned income. If one assumed I was at a combined tax rate of 33% (remember tax rates are not a single rate, but a mixture unless one is only at the very lowest rate), and if one assumed my investments grew at a rate equal to my income, then the effective tax rate would be 16 1/2% excluding payroll taxes.

This soak the rich question is just plain bull pucky. The reality is that earned income is only a tiny fraction of what can be generically called income, and because of our code, those of us who have actually pay a much lower rate than those who don't.

[jrice9]

People of substantial net worth, pay a lower rate of taxes than the middle class if you don't define taxes as marginal tax rates on what has been defined as income.

As an investor, my net worth went up substantially last year. I paid no taxes on my investments. None. In fact, my investments are now at a place where their growth is passing up my earned income. If one assumed I was at a combined tax rate of 33% (remember tax rates are not a single rate, but a mixture unless one is only at the very lowest rate), and if one assumed my investments grew at a rate equal to my income, then the effective tax rate would be 16 1/2% excluding payroll taxes.

This soak the rich question is just plain bull pucky. The reality is that earned income is only a tiny fraction of what can be generically called income, and because of our code, those of us who have actually pay a much lower rate than those who don't.

Why cant the middle class also invest their money? I know many middle class people whether it be teachers, other government employees on middle class salaries or people in the private sector not making tremendous livings who supplment their incomes significantly through shrewd investing. Yes they cannot necessarily invest the same percentage of their income but their gaines or losses will be a larger part of their total income if large enough.

[Labgrownmangoat]

Why cant the middle class also invest their money? I know many middle class people whether it be teachers, other government employees on middle class salaries or people in the private sector not making tremendous livings who supplment their incomes significantly through shrewd investing. Yes they cannot necessarily invest the same percentage of their income but their gaines or losses will be a larger part of their total income if large enough.

In theory they can. In reality, the majority of the stock market is owned by the very, very rich. When you see that the market is up, it means the rich are getting richer. This may have a trickle down effect on the rest of us if we are lucky, or just slightly less rich. The top 1% of the US, by income, owns the majority of the individually held stock and bond market, literally. The wealthy, but not ungodly top-1% wealthy, own a lot more of it.

[dbroncos78087]

Why cant the middle class also invest their money? I know many middle class people whether it be teachers, other government employees on middle class salaries or people in the private sector not making tremendous livings who supplment their incomes significantly through shrewd investing. Yes they cannot necessarily invest the same percentage of their income but their gaines or losses will be a larger part of their total income if large enough.

Because they don't have the amount of disposable income that their richer counterparts do. I don't think that is unfair, but in the simplest sense it is true.

If you make $45,000 a year you really don't have the disposable income to put $5,000 in a Roth IRA to pay out for your retirement. Whereas if you have $450,000 a year putting $5,000 a year away isn't an issue. Social Security is a way of countering this fact by requiring a contribution from both employer and employee. It is always subject to attack because it is viewed as a socialist scheme to require people to save for themselves but it has drastically reduced the poverty level amongst the elderly because it caused a shift of how people save for their retirement both publicly (SS) and privately (401k, IRA, Roth IRA).

[Jeffy25]

No.

[jrice9]

Because they don't have the amount of disposable income that their richer counterparts do. I don't think that is unfair, but in the simplest sense it is true.

If you make $45,000 a year you really don't have the disposable income to put $5,000 in a Roth IRA to pay out for your retirement. Whereas if you have $450,000 a year putting $5,000 a year away isn't an issue. Social Security is a way of countering this fact by requiring a contribution from both employer and employee. It is always subject to attack because it is viewed as a socialist scheme to require people to save for themselves but it has drastically reduced the poverty level amongst the elderly because it caused a shift of how people save for their retirement both publicly (SS) and privately (401k, IRA, Roth IRA).

Agreed they have less disposable income but its still income they can use to create further income. But then the solution is to tax capital gains also on an increase scale (not substantially necessarily) but you could make a distinction between a 2 000 capital gain 25 000 capital gain and a 2.5 million dollar capital gain (which is more progressive taxing which is against my point- I guess but not really as its just making it fairer for people who dont typically invest money and those who do more than rich vs poor)

I also would like some proof that people in higher brackets pay less percentage of their income in tax than those in lower brackets.

[TunTavern]

I just want to know where those who dont want to raise taxes plan to pull $14.3T out of spending cuts.

Rephrase;

I just want to know where those who spend $14.3T more than they're capable of spending plan on paying for their expenses...

Wait, printing money, selling future generations, and overtaxing current taxpayers out of their livelihoods.

[dbroncos78087]

Agreed they have less disposable income but its still income they can use to create further income. But then the solution is to tax capital gains also on an increase scale (not substantially necessarily) but you could make a distinction between a 2 000 capital gain 25 000 capital gain and a 2.5 million dollar capital gain (which is more progressive taxing which is against my point- I guess but not really as its just making it fairer for people who dont typically invest money and those who do more than rich vs poor)

I also would like some proof that people in higher brackets pay less percentage of their income in tax than those in lower brackets.

But those types of investments require time and a lacking of money for that time period. So $5,000 out of your paycheck if you make $50,000 then it is a much bigger hit then someone making $500,000.

I dont think it is a matter of "fair" but just a matter of fact. If you dont have the money now you dont have the money to safe up. Again, not a matter of "fair", just a matter of fact.

Rephrase;

I just want to know where those who spend $14.3T more than they're capable of spending plan on paying for their expenses...

Wait, printing money, selling future generations, and overtaxing current taxpayers out of their livelihoods.

I dont think you are wrong, but acting as if there is no debt or deficit is horribly irresponsible. But the debt is just not going to be paid off with the artificially lower taxes that we have. This is why the deficit (and by definition the debt) has skyrocketed under Reagan and Bush II. It began to shrink under Clinton because he made the obvious realization that if people expect the government to provide the services they do then they have to pay for it.

[jrice9]

But those types of investments require time and a lacking of money for that time period. So $5,000 out of your paycheck if you make $50,000 then it is a much bigger hit then someone making $500,000.

I dont think it is a matter of "fair" but just a matter of fact. If you dont have the money now you dont have the money to safe up. Again, not a matter of "fair", just a matter of fact.



I dont think you are wrong, but acting as if there is no debt or deficit is horribly irresponsible. But the debt is just not going to be paid off with the artificially lower taxes that we have. This is why the deficit (and by definition the debt) has skyrocketed under Reagan and Bush II. It began to shrink under Clinton because he made the obvious realization that if people expect the government to provide the services they do then they have to pay for it.

But how is that any different that middle class/poor people saving at all for their retirement which they do.
For example here we have RRSP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registe...t_Savings_Plan

A Registered Retirement Savings Plan or RRSP is a type of Canadian account for holding savings and investment assets. Introduced in 1957, the RRSP's purpose is to promote savings for retirement by employees. It must comply with a variety of restrictions stipulated in the Canadian Income Tax Act. Rules determine the maximum contributions, the timing of contributions, the claiming of the contribution tax credit, the assets allowed, and the eventual conversion to an RRIF (Registered Retirement Income Fund) in retirement. Approved assets include: savings accounts, guaranteed investment certificates (GICs), bonds, mortgage loans, mutual funds, income trusts, corporate shares (stocks), foreign currency and labour-sponsored funds.

RRSPs have five effects:

1. Taxes on earned (employment) income (to the extent contributed to the plan) are deferred until the eventual withdrawals from the plan. There is no benefit from the deferral because it is an accrued liability that grows at the same rate as the investments themselves. The tax deferred is commonly called the contribution tax credit.
2. Income earned inside the plan on the after-tax savings (excluding the contribution tax credit) is not taxed either while within the plan or on withdrawal. Asset classes that attract the highest taxes (%income * %tax rate) are best kept within the plan to maximize the deferral benefit.
3. One's marginal tax rate when withdrawing cash may be higher (or lower) than the rate at which one claimed the original contribution credit. This creates a penalty (or benefit) equal to: ( Change in tax rate % ) divided by ( 1 minus tax rate on contribution ).
4. Canada has a variety of programs available to retired people whose benefits decrease as one's income increases. By deferring the income until retirement, the additional income created at that time may reduce those benefits.
5. Claiming the contribution tax credit may be deferred until a later year (when the expected marginal tax rate is higher), but there is a penalty for the delay. The penalty equals the income the tax credit would have earned during the delay. [1]

Not entirely teh same thing but you can invest your RRSP money which your saving for retirement

[cabernetluver]

Why cant the middle class also invest their money? I know many middle class people whether it be teachers, other government employees on middle class salaries or people in the private sector not making tremendous livings who supplment their incomes significantly through shrewd investing. Yes they cannot necessarily invest the same percentage of their income but their gaines or losses will be a larger part of their total income if large enough.

I don't no if you missed my point or ignored my point. The fact is that people of significant wealth do not make most of their income from earned income (technical term) and therefore are actually taxed at a lower rate than most middle class people who do get most of their income from earned income.

Here in the United States, unearned income is not subject to payroll tax, many times is not realized (technical term) and therefore is not subject to any tax. Beyond that, one must have substantial worth to take advantage of most of the better tax avoidance strategies.

It is not what people can or cannot do in terms of investing, it is just a simple fact that people at the top are actually taxed at a lower rate because their "income" is not subject to marginal tax rates.

[dbroncos78087]

I don't no if you missed my point or ignored my point. The fact is that people of significant wealth do not make most of their income from earned income (technical term) and therefore are actually taxed at a lower rate than most middle class people who do get most of their income from earned income.

Here in the United States, unearned income is not subject to payroll tax, many times is not realized (technical term) and therefore is not subject to any tax. Beyond that, one must have substantial worth to take advantage of most of the better tax avoidance strategies.

It is not what people can or cannot do in terms of investing, it is just a simple fact that people at the top are actually taxed at a lower rate because their "income" is not subject to marginal tax rates.

I believe it is referred to as "Passive Income", correct?