toldailytopic: Do the wealthy in America pay their fair share of taxes?

[lightbringer]

They have tried this before.
It was called a Luxury Tax.
People who had enough money to afford luxury items (such as a yacht, for instance) were required to pay a higher tax for that item.

What was the result?

Less yachts were bought by the rich.
Which meant that several folks who built yachts lost jobs.
Several folks who repaired and maintained yachts lost jobs.
Several folks who worked at yacht clubs lost jobs.
Several folks who worked at yacht marinas lost jobs.

Actually the very rich had their yachts built here in the US, shipped to the Bahamas or another country, then took possession under a foreign flag, by doing so they bypassed the luxury tax and only suffered since they could only sail the waters of the US for 6 months a year, But that really didn't cause any problem since most would send their yachts to the islands for the winter any way.

As far as the jobs associated with yachts, well, it is a seasonal job for most north of Georgia..those that worked year round in the field would follow the yachts north and south, live in Florida or have a back up position for the off season.

I worked the yachting circuit for about 4 years until I found out I could make a lot more money running commercial vessels and do almost no labor other than the primary duties of a Master.

 

[Quincy]

Just return taxes to the way they were before Bush cut them and eliminate all the loopholes for corporations and such. It's not as complicated as people are making it.

 

[Totton Linnet]

Nope! It should be a flat rate. Equality for all.

Absolutely, straight down the middle.

er I don't mean 50 per cent tax rate. And why is the distinction not being made between income [which should be the same rate] and tax on profits etc or business rates. That is a different argument.

But honestly folks, how much of your taxes which bailed out the banks have been paid in massive salaries and bonuses.

The wealthy are the least patriotic of everyone.

 

[Alate_One]

I believe the rich should not be subject to a higher percentage of taxes just because they make a higher profit.

It is because of that higher profit that they create jobs.

Take Sam Walton, the founder of WalMart.
It is because of higher profits that he was able to create more jobs.
And not just the jobs of working at the stores, but also created jobs for contractors to build more stores.

Trickledown doesn't work. It never has. We have historically low tax rates on businesses and the rich. If this creates jobs, where are they? Corporations are sitting on their profits because of no demand. Not much is going to change that situation in the short term.

They have tried this before.
It was called a Luxury Tax.
People who had enough money to afford luxury items (such as a yacht, for instance) were required to pay a higher tax for that item.

What was the result?

Less yachts were bought by the rich.
Which meant that several folks who built yachts lost jobs.
Several folks who repaired and maintained yachts lost jobs.
Several folks who worked at yacht clubs lost jobs.
Several folks who worked at yacht marinas lost jobs.

And that's a stupid tax idea and not at all what is being discussed. Taxing income is not at all the same as taxing purchases.

What would be smarter would be to tax money that is "sitting on the sidelines" and not hiring workers or investing in physical improvements.

Eventually what should happen is the Bush tax cuts should expire for all Americans.

 

[Alate_One]

A flat tax is a very good idea.

Funny thing is when you look at total tax burden (rather than just federal income taxes), the tax rate is not particularly progressive, and actually goes regressive at the highest income levels.

 

[Tambora]

Trickledown doesn't work.

Sure it does.

Sam Walton (founder of WalMart) was living proof.

The more he made, the more stores he opened.

Creating jobs for those who would work for WalMart itself (over 2 million).

And not only did it create those jobs, but it created jobs for plumbers, electricians, lumber yards, steel yards, concrete yards, truckers, etc. who built the stores.

Good grief, Walmart doesn't hoard their profits.
They use those profits to pay employees, and pay contractors.
That's where the money comes from to create those jobs --- profits!!!!

It is because WalMart makes a profit that more and more folks can have jobs.

If WalMart were to just quit today and donate the profits they have now to charity, do you see how many folks would be left without employment?

 

[pqmomba8]

Nope! It should be a flat rate. Equality for all.

I fully agree - but what to do with all the deductions that self-employed / businesses can take advantage off that the "regular working Joe working on W2" can't?

 

[pqmomba8]

That you're going to sit down right this minute and write a big check to Uncle Sam?

Heck no! Only what my accountant tells me to do.....

 

[pqmomba8]

I believe the rich should not be subject to a higher percentage of taxes just because they make a higher profit.

It is because of that higher profit that they create jobs.

Take Sam Walton, the founder of WalMart.
It is because of higher profits that he was able to create more jobs.
And not just the jobs of working at the stores, but also created jobs for contractors to build more stores.

Start taking away more of their profit, and they hire less people (ie. less jobs created).
The first thing a business will do in order to offset lower profits is cut payroll (ie. lay off folks).

They have tried this before.
It was called a Luxury Tax.
People who had enough money to afford luxury items (such as a yacht, for instance) were required to pay a higher tax for that item.

What was the result?

Less yachts were bought by the rich.
Which meant that several folks who built yachts lost jobs.
Several folks who repaired and maintained yachts lost jobs.
Several folks who worked at yacht clubs lost jobs.
Several folks who worked at yacht marinas lost jobs.

So, in PRINCIPLE I agree with this. And I do recall the luxury tax - it was a disaster. However, no one's asking them t necessarily pay more, just be more equitable with everyone else.

 

[oatmeal]

You have no clue whatever.

A society in which the rich make their money on the backs of the poor is an evil society.

America is in the trouble they are in because of capitalism in which the rich get richer and the poor remain their slaves.

All small business is swallowed up by the rich who use cheap labor from overseas, while the countries youth lose out on jobs.

The people are gullible to believe that because things are cheaper from overseas, then they will live better for long.

The biblical principle of living righteously and sharing ones wealth to help other peoples, without making them your own slaves is the only way to stay under Gods blessing.

Most of the rich do not care about anything but their money.(that is Bible)

Thank God that many of the poor give to the helping of others in need and expect nothing in return.

God blesses and will bless them.


LA

A society in which the rich make their money on the backs of the poor is an evil society.

Good thing we are not like that.

In this country the lazy and unproductive ride on the backs of those that work for a living and are productive.

America is in the trouble they are in because of capitalism in which the rich get richer and the poor remain their slaves.

Good thing there are no slaves in the USA. We have people who are freeloaders though.

The lazy poor are greedy. They want something for nothing. If they are able to work and do not they should not eat.

Those that work keep getting paid and those that do not should get nothing.

All small business is swallowed up by the rich who use cheap labor from overseas, while the countries youth lose out on jobs.

Businesses are overburdened by socialism and the over taxation and regulation that makes it impossible for them to grow, make money and hire more qualified workers.

The greed of many unions drives businesses to look for cheaper labor out side of this country, so that the people here can afford their products. The places where they move to have lower taxes and do not oppress businesses with government regulations.

Basically, Democrats and liberal policies are motivated by their power hungry stupidity.

oatmeal

 

[rexlunae]

America has one of the highest corporate taxes in the world. As a result many of the jobs are now going overseas. The high taxes of our present administration on the rich and company owners has caused a poverty boom. Poverty has climbed from 14.3 percent in 2009 to 15.1 percent.

Funny, I missed where Obama raised corporate tax rates. Oh, wait, that's because he didn't. So that's not why the poverty rate is rising.

 

[drbrumley]

How To Cut the Deficit by $1.5 Trillion
Posted by Laurence Vance on September 19, 2011 07:36 PM

So, Obama wants to cut the deficit by $1.5 trillion over ten years by raising taxes on the "rich." I've got a better idea (who couldn't come up with a better one?). $1.5 trillion over ten years is $150 billion a year. That is almost what we spend fighting the senseless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan every year. To cut the deficit without raising taxes just end the wars. It shouldn't be too hard. Obama did win a peace prize, didn't he?​

No argument from me there.

 

[Alate_One]

Sure it does.

Sam Walton (founder of WalMart) was living proof.

The more he made, the more stores he opened.

WalMart in the US is currently actually losing sales.

Corporations are *currently* sitting on their profits because of . . . weak to no demand. It ain't rocket science, it's simple economics. Companies will not invest if there is no profit to be made. Giving them more money is not going to make them invest since they aren't investing the money they *currently* have.

Creating jobs for those who would work for WalMart itself (over 2 million).

And not only did it create those jobs, but it created jobs for plumbers, electricians, lumber yards, steel yards, concrete yards, truckers, etc. who built the stores.

Good grief, Walmart doesn't hoard their profits.
They use those profits to pay employees, and pay contractors.
That's where the money comes from to create those jobs --- profits!!!!

And all those wal-mart workers that rely on public assistance for support?

Not giving workers medical benefits when you can clearly afford them (given huge profits) is evil. And yes that is hoarding profits.

If WalMart were to just quit today and donate the profits they have now to charity, do you see how many folks would be left without employment?

Nobody is suggesting they do that. We're suggesting they actually pay a living wage to their workers so that the taxpayer doesn't have to pick up the bill for their healthcare and food assistance.

 

[Lighthouse]

I have to assume that like the middle and lower income brackets the higher are paying more than they should.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Liberal definition of "fair":

You got it, I want it.

 

[Ted L Glines]

No, the wealthy do not pay their fair share of taxes. They are wealthy and we envy them, right? So, let's strangle their P&L statements, and watch what happens then, as they move their money and businesses offshore.

Raising taxes on the wealthy will create zero jobs, and it might lose quite a few. Raising taxes on the wealthy will reduce our treasury deficit, and most Americans do not care a whit about that. As a matter of fact, Americans like deficit spending; i.e., spending to the credit card limit while making only the minumum monthly payment. To Americans right now, lowering unemployment is the priority.

The real problem right now is little to no consumer demand. No demand = business reduction = unemployment rises.

Consumer demand is not about how much money is earned. It is about how much of that money (%) we spend in the consumer market. I am earning exactly the same $ now as I was before the market crash, but I am spending much less (%) on optional items than I was in those days. I am also traveling less and spending much less on entertainment and optional health care. Multiply that by the millions of active consumers and you have our failed consumer market, and our rising unemployment.

The solution sounds simple: Raise consumer demand so that supply-side businesses will hire more people. Simple? How are you going to increase demand when I refuse to increase my spending? You can bring on your splashy ads and "tempting" promotions. Good luck on that.

 

[Caino]

Yes, and they pay the "shares" of others as well.

Maybe the question should be, does the government spend more then it is allotted?



Caino

 

[Granite]

No, but I doubt that's going to change any time soon. The wealthy seem to be an untouchable class in this country, like most.

 

[Frank Ernest]

No, but I doubt that's going to change any time soon. The wealthy seem to be an untouchable class in this country, like most.

Where would the ruling class get its political campaign funds, if not from the wealthy?

 

[Nick M]

Uh, yeah. More than a fair share. Besides, God said don't be partial to the poor or the rich man. The tax man should be taking equal from both.