Refman you are letting your experience as a working class attorney and how hard you would have to work to accumulate great wealth. cloud your fact gathering. This ignores the question of what they sacrificed to be in the position to make that kind of money. An awful lot of big money is inherited or the result of luck and relatively little sacrifice.
No...but if you put a pencil to it, it is close. For instance, I get zero student loan interest deduction. That brings it closer. I do not make a six figure salary. Of course, those funds aren't subject to annual income tax anyway.
Someone sacrificed at some point to make that money. Your forefathers sacrificed for the freedoms you have today. Should you give that up because you 'inherited' it?
IMO if you clear more than 10k a month, you are rich. With that kind of cash flow you don't have to worry about the basic necessities like the poor, working poor, or middle class. People need help, infrastructure needs to be built, etc. We've got to pay for it. I really don't understand those who act defiant about their money. You get all the benefits of living in this country, including the conditions ideal for you to make your money.
So basically you're rich if you don't have to worry about insurance or food. Got it. Yes, we've all got to pay for it. And the top pay for a whole bunch of it already. Not enough though, right? You're right. The conditions ARE ideal for EVERYONE to make this money.
If you are going to be unduly taxed so that you don't get to enjoy that money, why bother doing what it takes to get to be in a position to make it in the first place?
When the top marginal tax rate was around 90% from 1942 through 1963, is there any proof that Americans suddenly all gave up? Did people just quit trying and stand around and shoe gaze in fits of lethargy over the tax rate? In my understanding, that was about the most productive period in American history. On the surface, your thought experiment seems compelling. But I think the actual, experiential evidence indicates that the claim at its core is moot. Type A personalities will always compete to be the fastest rat on the treadmill, no matter how much resistance you apply. As long as they can recieve some prize for "winning", even if it is only that 10%, they will keep on trying.
To be fair, Ottomaton, during those decades of very high tax rates, there were also a host of ways for the wealthy to get around paying those taxes, so I'm not sure it's comparable. Having said that, I think the wealthy can afford to pay higher taxes, although nothing approaching those kinds of rates, of course.
Well, the wealthy can afford to pay a whole lot more taxes... enough to bring their income down to the level of middle class. But that would make it socialism.
Of course not. Cause you're not likely to get 'big' inheritances or leave one. It's funny how people don't have a problem with it when it doesn't affect them.
The United States was founded with something between antipathy and outright malice towards the concept of aristocracy. Anything that helps prevent the formation of what amounts to a de facto financial aristocracy is good and is entirely consistent with and actually furthers the founding principals of this country. Concentration of vast sums of inherited wealth is un-American, in the country where all men are created equal and each can succeed or fail according to their own talents. And there is a very good chance that I got a much larger inheritance than you.
I understand what you're saying. If it gets to the point where it's just generations after generations of wealthy that make a de facto aristocracy then we surely have a problem. But we don't have that problem. Here are Top 20 Richest Americans in 2008 and where they came from monetarily. You take out the Walton family (who are only 1st gen wealthy since their father was totally self-made from farmer) and the Mars family (who are 2nd gen wealty, their grandfather was poor and sick with polio) and I see plenty of opportunity for people from all backgrounds. The common denominator is their desire and hard work (and surely a whole lot of luck). I don't see any Vanderbilts or Rockefellers on that list. 1 William Gates III (upper middle class) 2 Warren Buffett (middle class, father owned grocery store) 3 Lawrence Ellison (middle class) 4 Jim Walton (1st gen wealthy) 5 S Robson Walton (1st gen wealthy) 6 Alice Walton (1st gen wealthy) 6 Christy Walton & family (1st gen wealthy) 8 Michael Bloomberg (son of immigrant) 9 Charles Koch (don't know... his father owned a business though) 9 David Koch (don't know... his father owned a business though) 11 Michael Dell (probably upper middle class, father was orthodontist) 12 Paul Allen (likely upper middle class... went to school with Gates) 13 Sergey Brin (middle class... parents were professors... unless that's considered upper middle) 14 Larry Page (middle class) 15 Sheldon Adelson (lower middle class) 15 Steven Ballmer (not clear but sounds middle class) 15 Abigail Johnson (wealthy, she runs Fidelity with her father) 18 Jack Taylor & family (Rent-A-Car. self made from navy pilot.. not sure how he grew up though) 19 Anne Cox Chambers (wealthy, father owned media company) 20 Donald Bren (not sure, son of Hollywood producer... at least upper middle class) 20 Carl Icahn (grew up poor per his interview) 20 George Kaiser (not sure but sounds at least upper middle class) 20 Forrest Mars Jr (wealthy) 20 Jacqueline Mars (wealthy) 20 John Mars (wealthy)
The allowance you give your son. His first car. The college tuition you pay for him. Those are all 'unearned'. You paid tax on that money when you earned it. How would you feel if he had to pay when you gave it to him? Double taxation.
If it was over a million dollars, I wouldn't feel bad at all if he had to pay tax on it. Why are you arguing against the taxation of small sums when that practice is not currently in place, nor are there any proposals to put it in place?
Are you seriously defending those notoriously anti-growth tax policies? Not even France would dare to raise their taxes that high again. And yes, those rates did adversely affect the economy. If you want to call if "Americans suddenly giving up" then so be it. Whatever you want to call it, it wasn't good.
