Reply With Quote
you think wealth inequality isn't the problem right now?
And that's really the problem, isn't it?
um. Yeah. I think inequality is a problem. I don't think it can be solved exclusively through the tax code, but the tax code damn sure should not exacerbate the problem.
Or because it doesn't work and it leads to a non-existent middle class.
You're also grossly ignoring the 90,000,000 or so poor/middle class Republicans in this country who think the problem is that the rich are getting taxed enough so they don't have any wealth left to trickle down (the same 30% of the country that thinks a violent revolt is necessary because we're headed for socialism). If poor people actually knew what was best for themselves, the tax system would be a lot different.
1)
2) Lets say you're right. Cool, we have a tax system now that can't collect any revenue since a flat tax would destroy the economy if it were higher than 20% while the rich pay even less taxes than they do now. Wealth concentrates at the top at an even higher rate than it already does, and the destruction of the middle class is expedited.
I guess that's cool since no one will be getting their tax cupcakes.
Given how bad it's already gotten, I'd say the only way to reverse it is heavily taxing pre-existing wealth in addition to income. The wealth sitting at the top will do nothing but create more wealth unless we start heavily taxing capital gains and start heavily taxing estates.
This is a false premise. Americans are extremely tolerant of wealth. Wanting progressive taxation has less to do with wanting to stick it to the rich than simply understanding the economics behind providing rich world social services (i.e. somebody has to pay for them, so why not the people who have benefited most from the society?)
I think there's a valid arguement to be made for a progressive system down at the bottom end of the tax scale, but not so much at the higher end. Higher rates at higher incomes only provoke higher incomes to invest in politicians to try and get loopholes. I think the benefits of a tax system that will take money out of politics outweigh whatever warm fuzzy feeling significantly higher tax rates on significantly higher incomes may provide.
lol Reagan logic
Taxes on the rich are at 75 year lows while their investment in politicians is as high as ever. There's no empirical evidence to support the logic above.
It also doesn't make any sense regardless. "Well the rich will invest in politicians and fight tooth and nail to get tax blow jobs, so we should just give them tax blow jobs up front even though both scenarios arrive at the same result of wealth moving towards the top and no middle class."
Try adding some value.
Why not try and address the root of the problem, which is that people/corps can purchase favorable tax policy?
Last edited by Th'Pusher; 05-07-2013 at 12:01 PM.
Gotta break for lunch. I'll be back tho.
Good talk Pusher/DoK.
That's telling him.
Compare America's tolerance of wealth to any other modern country in the world. Our occupy movement is dwarfed by riots across Europe in countries that you probably consider socialist. We certainly have a much higher tolerance for wealth than they do.
Where do you think the American people's tolerance for wealth should be? Saudi Arabia?
The dude is just ing stupid. He reads a phrase like 'tolerance for wealth' and jumps to: "why should wealth have to be tolerated? ing socialist!"
You really think the low information voters are going to notice if some loophole gets put into a law somewhere?
Congressmen missed the "Monsanto shield amendment"
This is why I like the approach of capping deductions. Crate all the loopholes you want, but cap deductions at $25k and all income is taxed the same earned/unearned. The special interests can fight over which loophole you take advantage of.
We don't know that because it hasn't been tried. At least not to my knowledge. Besides, the middle class seems to be getting squeezed no matter what tax structure is in place, progressive or otherwise.
Yes, I'm ignoring them. A flat tax rate on all income, regardless of how it's earned (income, cap gains, dividends, whatever) renders their arguement null and void.You're also grossly ignoring the 90,000,000 or so poor/middle class Republicans in this country who think the problem is that the rich are getting taxed enough so they don't have any wealth left to trickle down (the same 30% of the country that thinks a violent revolt is necessary because we're headed for socialism). If poor people actually knew what was best for themselves, the tax system would be a lot different.
As for trickle down, that's a bipartisan concept these days.
With a flat tax there is no preferential treatment. Once you start adding preferential treatment in, you don't have a flat tax anymore.1)
2) Lets say you're right. Cool, we have a tax system now that can't collect any revenue since a flat tax would destroy the economy if it were higher than 20% while the rich pay even less taxes than they do now. Wealth concentrates at the top at an even higher rate than it already does, and the destruction of the middle class is expedited.
I guess that's cool since no one will be getting their tax cupcakes.
Disagree. Obama made his entire campaign about Romney's wealth and it worked. People voted to stick it to the rich guy.
No empirical evidence? The high investment in politicians combined with the effective tax rates the wealthy are paying is proof positive that what I described is not only going on, but that it works.
Remove the ability of politicians to hand out preferential tax incentives and you remove a lot of the incentive to the rich to invest in them. Not a bad thing IMHO.
Taxing all income equally above the threshold isn't a "tax blow job" to anyone. It's treating all people and all income equally.It also doesn't make any sense regardless. "Well the rich will invest in politicians and fight tooth and nail to get tax blow jobs, so we should just give them tax blow jobs up front even though both scenarios arrive at the same result of wealth moving towards the top and no middle class."
If nobody is getting a loophole and then someone does get one I'm sure the politicians who want votes from the low information voters will make every effort to point it out to them.
Disagree. People voted to stick it to the Wall Street asshole and the party trying to destroy medicare*.
*for all except for the baby boomers who are his base
i.e. the rich guy...
...and the party of rich guys....and the party trying to destroy medicare*.
strawman
Anyone with a basic understanding of math doesn't need to try a flat tax to know how it would work. Wealth would concentrate at the top over time and the middle class would be destroyed unless you coupled the flat tax with a confiscatory estate tax rate.
It also has been tried (qualifying it with "at least not to my knowledge" only means you're advocating a flat tax and your knowledge of historic flat tax usage is totally ignorant). Here's a link and image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax
The dark green represents countries with a flat tax. If only we had the strong middle class Eastern Europe, Madagascar and Saudi Arabia have.
lol ignoring the reason why I brought up the 30% of this country that's dirt poor but thinks lowering the rich's taxes will raise their wealth (hint: it has something to do with the re ed notion that people actually have a clue about how taxes in this country work)
If there's no preferential treatment with a flat tax, why do you suppose rich people love the idea so much? Must be the current big mean confiscatory tax policy, those richers have it so tough
If you understand basic math it's not melodramatic at all. A highly progressive tax code is the only way to create a middle class that can sustain control over a high percentage of the country's total wealth over time.
That's empirical evidence that higher marginal rates leads to investment in politicians. That's not in any way empirical evidence a flat tax will lower investment in politicians. But idk why I'm arguing, Saudi Arabia proves how much a flat tax keeps the rich away from influencing government.
Multi-billionaires with more wealth than they'll ever need pour millions into politics just to have that much more wealth. If there's the tiniest incentive for them the rich will try to influence Washington, and I fail to see how a flat tax removes any incentives, unless you're an idiot and you think a flat tax will magically make Americans informed thinkers who pay attention to proposed tax law.
You for example claim a flat tax "hasn't been tried" while you argue for it in spite of the fact it's the tax system primarily used in Eastern Europe. I'd say you're a shining example of Americans being ignorant and misinformed when it comes to taxes.
I feel like this is something you'd find in an Ayn Rand book.
Last edited by DUNCANownsKOBE; 05-07-2013 at 10:42 PM.
People get fooled NOW with trickle down bull ; they'd just be fooled into revoting for it. Additionally, you don't think Congress would run some sort of "You secretly give me this kickback, I'll give you that one"?
1 million low info/income voters is probably about equal to 1 high income voter, to be honest. Money rules.
what's stopping the wealthy from getting a better deal on a tax shelter overseas and stashing the money there like they do now?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
