I have stated 'punish the rich who do not pay their fair share'. It is punishment when you target someone who is not paying their 'fair share' when they are doing it legally. And when you try to punish people like Trump, you're also punishing many of those who continue to do the right thing. You continue to ignore this. This gives a much needed break to those corporations who could actually use it but you really dont care because those super wealthy people who already pay very little now pay less.
So not passing a tax bill that cuts their tax rate is punishment? Inaction is punishment here? Me not actively desring tax cuts is me wishing punishment?
Couple questions here about this post (not trying to be nasty, just a couple clarifying questions)- -Why would punishing Trump (closing loop holes like carried interest, making billionaires like him actually pay taxes, not gifting Don Jr.s billions without paying taxes, etc.) also punish many others who "continue to do the right thing"? Not sure anyone is arguing that billionaires are doing the right thing or wrong thing. Its just that they had a tax system that favored them before, and now it will favor them even more with the new tax law. -What evidence do you have that there was a "NEED" for corporations to have a tax break? Yes.... tax rates needed to be more competitive (even Obama pushed to lower the corporate rate in 2012), but there was no evidence I've seen that suggests cash on hand was a problem. Everything I've seen suggests that the top 2000 US companies have more capital now than they ever have. Lowering the corporate rate is being sold as a way to bring back manufacturing type of jobs that were lost overseas, but what evidence do you have that this is actually going to bring back manufacturing type of jobs just because the corporate rate has been lowered?
Right. Who is it that stated I support anything as long as the middle class get something? Who stated there is NO way for the rich to pay their fair share? You are engraved in beliefs that the GOP party and the very rich loves. If being against that extreme position and erroneous belief makes me a party follower, and mindless, so be it. And no, you haven't a clue what my ideas are. But as usual of you, assume you do.
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2015-update/ The myth that the wealthy don’t pay their fair share of taxes is just that, a myth. In 2013, 138.3 million taxpayers reported earning $9.03 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.23 trillion in income taxes. Every income group besides the top 1 percent of taxpayers reported higher income in 2013 than the previous year. All income groups paid higher taxes in 2013 than the previous year. The share of income earned by the top 1 percent of taxpayers fell to 19.0 percent in 2013. Their share of federal income taxes fell slightly to 37.8 percent. In 2012, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers (69.2 million filers) paid 97.2 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.8 percent. The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (37.8 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (124.5 million filers) combined (30.2 percent).
Here are the facts:- The rich already pay a lot in taxes and also employ a lot of people. If taxation in this country is to be truly fair, why not a flat tax rate across the board?
It may surprise you that we agree on many points you made in this post. While rich people often believe that poor people don't pay their share, and they may even believe middle class doesn't pay enough compared to what they get (eg medicare), its clear rich people are the ones that get out of paying taxes in many different ways. I also think that middle and lower class tax payers deserve more help. One benefit is that I believe providing middle class tax payers more of a tax break will cause more economic growth. So here's an approach... increase the tax cut to middle and lower income tax payers and lower if not eliminate any tax cut to wealthy tax payers. They will still find their ways to limit their taxes, and also ultimately benefit from an improved economy. Consider it "trickle up economics".
I should start by saying I'm in favor of a flat tax, but flat taxes can seem kinda regressive. The reason being is that the idea of proportionality does not stay the same for all income classes. Case in point, if you're poor and you spend 50% of your income on rent and utilities, 30% on food, 20% on kids needs the same percentages do not match up for a rich person. Conceivably those percentages go down, and then percentages for disposable income rise. So if 10% of a rich person's income goes to taxes, but he or she having more money actually has a >10% share to disposable income no standard of living changes have to occur. However, in a flat tax situation where disposable income can be almost null that means a person might get less to eat, live in a worse part of the neighborhood, or god forbid not take good care of their children. It doesn't hit all parties equally, hence why it hits lower income individuals harder than higher income ones. Also, your argument that rich people employ a lot of people is also somewhat fallacious. Not all rich people sit there with tons of employees. Furthermore, the money they make largely stays with them, and not their employees. If I were to make $20 million a year, but employ even $18 million worth of employees I wouldn't be rich for very long. All in all, this idea of trickle down economics is flawed. Giving the rich more money doesn't come down to you. While I do support the idea of a flat tax, I'm not sure how it could go into practice and be a fair compromise for all. Looking at the raw percentages that people pay isn't necessarily a complete picture here. Its not about amount, it's about ability to do so. When you make more, you have more disposable income. In times where we need to tighten our belts and keep the standard of living up for all, those who can help more should. This is what makes us a society, it makes us a flock. What baffles me is why trickle up economics hasn't been pushed. The idea that when the lowest rungs on the ladder are cared for, it improves everything for those above them. Think about it, if you take care of your workforce such that they are happy, healthy and educated they can make better decisions and save you money in the long run. When you pay a person barely enough to care, why are you shocked when they don't?
Im going to kick this back to you and ask you this question; How do you 'fairly' tax the wealthy when there are so many means to make wealth and redistribute it? For example, you ask why do corps NEED tax breaks and question the 2000 top companies. A corporation can be 3 people or 3 million people. Tax code can not be written that blankets everything. I work for one of these very little corporations and we will be hiring on an additional person even though we don't NEED the person. Tax breaks will help us quite a bit. I have more respect for wealthy people who create jobs even if they do not pay their 'fair share' over those who do pay their 'fair share' but not contribute to the economy such as traders or speculative investing.
Does it bother you that the top 400 richest people in the USA have 50% more wealth than every African America family in the USA? How about the fact that the 400 richest people in the USA also have 50% more wealth than every Hispanic family? You don't find that to be at all concerning from a societal perspective? Since just 2013 the top 1% have seen their wealth grow from 37% to 40% of the total wealth in the USA. The bottom 90% saw their wealth decline by 3% in that same time period. Does it bother you that the ultra wealthy now holder a greater percentage of the wealth than in the 1920's? This is the highest accumulation of wealth by the smallest group of people in US history. The last time that there was a comparable accumulation of wealth (% wise) we had a great depression. Does it bother you that over the last 25 years, the only segment of the US population to see their net wealth increase is the ultra rich? Oddly enough, the increase % of wealth accumulated by the ultra wealthy is consistent with the percentage decrease by the rest of the US social classes. The top 10% of the US own 80% of the wealthy in the USA. That rate is the largest in the industrialized world. If you break it down to the top 1%, they own 35% of the total wealth in the USA. Does it alarm you that the average white person has 13X the wealth of the average black person? It doesn't bother you from a simple societal perspective? If you fail to see the long term societal consequences then you either choose to ignore them or are obtuse. It is proven that large wealth inequities lead to less inovation because of wasted potential, and less social mobility. The OECD has estimated that the large inequality gap has cost 5% growth over a 20 year period. That doesn't even delve into crime in areas with little wealth, increased drug usage and violence... which all come at an economic and financial cost. When you have one tiny % of the population accumulating wealth, at the expense of the other 99% of the population, there IS a problem.
There is sooo much truth to this. The issue boils down to job creation, not speculation. I think the best we can do is a reward based system, where innovative companies, expanding companies, job creators get greater breaks. We can do this research side, fund more public research that can lead to privatized industry (gap grants come to mind). We can also this via tax breaks as well, but I'm not sure how to implement it. But, the only way for people to really think about this critically is to rid themselves of the idea that just because a person has money does not make him/her a job creator. (In the same line, just because a person has money doesn't mean he/she got his/her money from parents, and also isn't a comment on them being good or evil.)
Equality of outcome is not a constitutional right. Does every US citizen have the same right to Pursue wealth? Of course they do. Does ever person have the same privilege of growing up in a family that has had the good fortune of multi-generational wealth? Of course not. Should people be penalized because they grew up in a wealthy family? Absolutely not. I don’t know who the top 400 wealthiest people are but I’m more concerned with my own welfare then trying to steal their money and redistruting it. As long as we are living a good life, getting compensated fairly for the job we do and we have the same rights to seek individual advancement as any other US citizen then why should we worry about how much money 400 specific individuals have?
That's a bit of a deception since the tax rates for the wealthy have been cut dramatically over the last 50 years. Their "fair share" used to be a hell of a lot more until Republicans screwed the country by dramatically cutting their rates and spending like drunken sailors because deficits didn't matter. Nothing is scummier than the wealthy complaining that the lower and middle classes that struggle to pay their medical bills aren't paying their "fair share" of taxes.
Its not good for an economy. Suppose you have two individuals: Person A and B. Person A make $1 Person B make $100. If You give person A an extra dollar they are going to spend it. Person B might chose to save it. If person A spends that money it creates demand which create jobs etc. Trickle down economics does not work. It has never worked. Its voodoo economics.
That really isn't the point. Lots of things are not "constitutional rights" and are pursued as in the great good of American society. The vary tax bill we are discussing isn't a constitutional right. Who said they didn't? Again that really isn't the issue. Again, this really doesn't mean much. Again, this really isn't the issue. Steal their money? Their wealth is large part a result of US policy and rules. No one is trying to "steal" from anyone. The USA gave them the ability to make money and profit accordingly. This argument is absurd. Is taxation of any kind theft? Yeah that is the point, people are not living as good a life as they should. Why? Because wealth has been sucked from 90% of Americans and dumped into the top 1% of the population. People are not getting fairly compensated for what they are doing.
Both people have a right two do what they want with their money. Having said that I get your point. But that’s why the corporate tax cut is the real value in the tax plan IMO.
That's the core issue here and I think where he and others might reach an impasse. Also, it sort of exposes hypocrisy on both sides. A key reason why republicans don't want to pay for taxes that fund social welfare programs is because they say they don't see a direct benefit. Now true, some have gone on to expand the argument saying they don't work (of which is a flawed argument). However, they expect the rest of us to send the rich money and benefits we don't directly get and say that it will eventually come back to us. It's flawed logic here. The difference between the two issues is such, social welfare programs do a lot of good, and for the most part they come out doing what they intend to do, that's feed and care for the less fortunate. However, social welfare programs for the rich do not do what they are supposed to do, which is stimulate the economy. Economic experts have somewhat of a consensus on this, but people choose to ignore them when making the trickle down argument. All in all I can say this, the companies that treated me best, and paid me fairly I went to bat for them. The companies (and you can lump my PI from grad school in here too) that treated me poorly made it hard to care. I can't say I gave 110% to those institutions. I did the job and that's it. But, when I was treated with respect and got fair compensation I worked harder (and even did stuff off the clock for the company). It's just human nature.
If I’m taxed for the purpose making sure you have more money then that is theft, plain and simple. Just for the record, I am very libertarian in my core belief for taxes. If I had my way the US would have a consumption tax and zero individual income tax period.
