Raise taxes on the rich (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 31, 2024, 08:37:38 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Raise taxes on the rich (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Raise taxes on the rich  (Read 7159 times)
Mint
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,566
« on: August 16, 2009, 09:50:19 PM »
« edited: August 17, 2009, 05:53:07 AM by Mint »

There is nothing wrong with raising taxes on the rich to a point. However, you can't get rid of a more than 1 trillion dollar deficit by taxing the rich alone. Certainly raising their taxes a few percentage points and cracking down on tax evaders is a very good thing and can contribute a lot to the government's revenue.

You know what, the rich mostly don't care if you raise their taxes. If I was making 250K a year, I wouldn't particularly care if the government took another 10k from it in taxes. Which is why many super-rich congressional districts actually elect Democrats.

There comes a point, though, where raising their taxes is detrimental to the economy. For example, with taxes at the current rate, a rich person could invest in a small business, which creates jobs. If his taxes are too high (I'm talking over 50% federal income tax), he doesn't invest that money, and instead saves as much as he can.

Now, I sincerely doubt that Obama or the Democrats would do that. The point is, if you want to deal with a budget deficit this large, then you must either have an across the board tax hike, or you can cut spending.

But you know what? I looked over the 2009 tax brackets, and I have to say that Republican's rhetoric is overblown. It doesn't even exceed 30% until you make 372K a year. At that point you probably have so many investments that it doesn't matter that much.

The thing I don't like about Democrats on this issue is that their answer to any questions about the deficit is to raise taxes on the wealthy. As I said above, you either have to raise taxes on everybody, or cut spending. Few Democrats will admit this, which is a shame.

33% of your income plus local taxes (state income, property tax, sales, etc.) is horrendous. In some states you can wind up paying well over 50% of your income in taxes. I don't think anybody should be forced to pay that much, especially not professionals or small business owners. Those people work extremely hard to get where they are generally speaking, and often at great cost (risk) to themselves - higher taxes could discourage that.

Raising taxes on the middle class and poor in addition to the rich through something like a national sales tax or VAT is even worse in my opinion. That would put an even higher tax burden on individuals already being hit hard not just by the economy but often by other local tax raises (e.g. property tax). If you think the protests now are bad just imagine what things will be like if they attempt that. The public would be furious, and rightfully so.

What I think we need to do is to put the government on a diet, by reforming our entitlement systems and downsizing the various government bureaucracies we've established over the years. Even more importantly, we need to stop propping up all the 'too big to fails' out there. When we're running deficits in the trillions, our government is telling us the cost of the bail outs alone could be $23 trillion (nearly twice our current gdp!) and countries like china are buying less and less of our debt I think it's obvious where this will lead if we do not reverse course.

TL;DR: Stop taxing so much, stop spending so much, stop subsidizing proven failures, establish an economy based on savings and production instead of debt and mindless consumption.
Logged
Mint
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,566
« Reply #1 on: August 17, 2009, 11:04:44 AM »

I agree that cutting spending is preferable to raising taxes. However, if you make 400k a year, what's another 10k off that to you? If you had a good investment portfolio with that kind of income, a small tax hike would be meaningless.

Well that all depends. If you're something like a lawyer or something like that, it's probably not felt as much although you still have to deal with tax hikes locally even now. If you're a business owner however any tax increase is going to hit you hard. Those people are already paying for the bulk of the tax system. And some groups like doctors take years to make any sort of return on, and pay comparatively less than other professionals.

My main problem though besides the principle of it (that is, that >33% of your income being taken from you is basically robbery) is that tax hikes rarely do anything to curb the deficit. What inevitably happens is that politicians treat it as a mandate to do even more spending. It's never enough for these people. If you want a classic example, look at CT (the state I go to college in). Until the 1990s they had no state income tax. Then the politicians told them they needed to do it to shore up the budget. Sure enough, their deficits are even worse than ever and now they have to contend with a high tax burden too.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd prefer a very low tax, low service model comparable to what Texas has now or to some extent what New Hampshire has traditionally enjoyed. We shouldn't have local income tax at the very least, the government already takes enough at nearly all levels.

Although when I speak about the 'wealthy' I'm really talking about the professional class, which is to say the people that go onto graduate school. I'm not really thinking about the people making well over >$500k a year who probably have tax shelters and all sorts of other means to get around that. Although again, I don't think anyone should be forced to give up that much of their money... And having taxes that are both lower and more simplified than now would cut down on a lot of that behavior.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure it has more impact, but everything I've seen points to it slowing economic growth in the overall economy.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

At this point I don't even think this is optional. Unless maybe we went to 1930s style income brackets where the top earners were paying 70-90% of their income, but even if that was a 'workable' solution economically it would be totally unacceptable politically.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.028 seconds with 11 queries.