Raise taxes on the rich

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Since you say it's not a myth, give me an example of even one lone day-trader of making even $10 million a year (half that figure you quoted) for a period of ten years.  (Indeed, to be making that kind of money, he's going to have to start with considerable capital.)

Are you really trying to say there's not a single such person in the world?  Well that is daft.  We have several as clients.  Most of them are retired traders that have 40 years of experience and do it while being bored at home.  And yes, many of them make in excess of $10 million a year.  They may have ups and downs (and of course, losses will be transferred back to the high tax country to be used or sold) but they are quite wealthy.

Yes, I realize my basis is skewed because I strictly deal with high net worth clients, but this is who we are talking about, right?

So you say, but frankly I think your claims of what you do are bogus, since you'd have much better things to do with your time than troll on an Internet forum such as this if they were true.  And merely repeating your claim without providing evidence is hardly proof of your assertion.

How does that help avoid taxes, assuming they don't cheat and fail to report their sales accurately?  Gross is gross and there's nothing that can be done legally to alter that, even with shell companies.  Indeed with shell companies, they could end up having to pay more for the privilege if they get dinged twice for the same sale, as I'm talking about taxing gross income, not that bureaucratic mess known as a VAT.

Clearly you have not read about net vs gross reporting of revenue in U.S. GAAP.  I'll give you an example.  Suppose I am an advertiser such as Google or Yahoo.  In fact, I'm using an actual example here.

Google and Yahoo act as intermediaries and get paid every time an internet user clicks on an ad.  They also give a small amount of money back to the owner of the website where the ad appeared.  With me so far?  So let us put some numbers together.  For every click on an ad, I (Google) earn $1 of which 80c is mine and 20c goes to the owner of the website.

Google reports as follows:  Revenue 80c

Yahoo reports as follows: Revenue, 100c,  less cost of sales: 20c

Net vs gross.  Yahoo is right because they really did get $1 and they really did pay out 20c; Google is right because legally they're not entitled to the full $1, just the 80c.

Both are acceptable in US and Canadian financial statements.  Both end up with the same tax liability because we tax net income, not gross.  Start screwing with gross and I'll start screwing with how gross is defined.

Its not up to corporate accountants to decide what gets counted as gross for purposes of tax.  What I see here is a grand total of $1.20 of gross income under a basic common sense definition of gross income tax.  In both cases, Yahoo and Google received $1 from the advertiser.  In both cases, the website owner received 20¢ from the ad broker.

Under a VAT model, both Yahoo and Google would be taxed on the 80¢ of added value, and the website owner would be taxed on 20¢.

Let's assume the government wants to raise 30¢ of revenue on that $1 transaction. (Absurdly high, but it lets me obtain nice round numbers for my analysis.)

Under the GIT model the government needs to set a 25% rate on gross income to get the desired revenue, under which Yahoo and Google would pay 25¢ tax and the website owner pays 5¢.

Under the VAT model, the government needs a 30% rate on added value to get the desired revenue, under which Yahoo and Google would pay 24¢ tax and the website owner pays 6¢.

The gross income tax allows lower stated rates and encourages vertical integration of businesses.  It is also far simpler to administer and audit, which is why I favor it. It does have the disadvantage that when it comes to multilevel service transactions, the order of who gets paid affects the amount of tax owed.

[I think we can safely say that under a gross income tax model, that a website owner will not willingly agree to a tax-inefficient scheme for this transaction wherein the owner pays an 80¢ commission to the ad-portal broker so that it pays tax on $1 and Yahoo and Google pay tax on 80¢, with the government yielding 45¢ of revenue.  For one thing, the website owner would lose 5¢ with every transaction.  However, I have no problem with the interlevel arrangements being made in as tax-efficient a manner as possible, so long as no scheme is possible in which a good which is transfered from entity A to entity B has less tax paid if it goes through entity C along the way.]

[opebo]

I don't want to pay taxes because the government WASTES ...  They just waste waste waste and waste.

Richious, the larger 'waste' is the amount that the privileged receive to waste upon themselves.  Even if we take 70% of their privilege, they still receive the 30% to waste upon themselves.

[Person Man]

Like I said, this entire tax thing isn't an issue. People will still have to pay for someone else's stupidity. The point should be to make the burden as easy as possible to bear.

[Хahar 🤔]

We have no army to speak of.

Dude, that's what America's for.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Raising taxes on the rich is absolutely necessary in countries where the inequalities raise a monstruous proportion as the USA. In countries who already have a solid welfare state, the only thing to do is not to lessen them ( as our dear Sarko did... ).

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Raising taxes on the rich is absolutely necessary in countries where the inequalities raise a monstruous proportion as the USA. In countries who already have a solid welfare state, the only thing to do is not to lessen them ( as our dear Sarko did... ).

[Antonio the Sixth]

Raising taxes on the rich is absolutely necessary in countries where the inequalities raise a monstruous proportion as the USA. In countries who already have a solid welfare state, the only thing to do is not to lessen them ( as our dear Sarko did... ).

Thanks for this very intelligent and developped argument that makes me understand better your opinion.

[opebo]

Raising taxes on the rich is absolutely necessary in countries where the inequalities raise a monstruous proportion as the USA. In countries who already have a solid welfare state, the only thing to do is not to lessen them ( as our dear Sarko did... ).

Thanks for this very intelligent and developped argument that makes me understand better your opinion.

Ah, Antonio, he's just a typical representative of the american working class - they don't know any better.  Strangely enough.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Raising taxes on the rich is absolutely necessary in countries where the inequalities raise a monstruous proportion as the USA. In countries who already have a solid welfare state, the only thing to do is not to lessen them ( as our dear Sarko did... ).

Thanks for this very intelligent and developped argument that makes me understand better your opinion.

Ah, Antonio, he's just a typical representative of the american working class - they don't know any better.  Strangely enough.

Antonio, when was the last time a poor employed anyone?  If the rich are taxed too much guess who they get rid of to pay the tax and stay rich..........YOU.  And if they dont buy stuff that rich peoople buy, who gets laid off.........YOU.

[War on Want]

Raising taxes on the rich is absolutely necessary in countries where the inequalities raise a monstruous proportion as the USA. In countries who already have a solid welfare state, the only thing to do is not to lessen them ( as our dear Sarko did... ).

Thanks for this very intelligent and developped argument that makes me understand better your opinion.

Ah, Antonio, he's just a typical representative of the american working class - they don't know any better.  Strangely enough.

Antonio, when was the last time a poor employed anyone?  If the rich are taxed too much guess who they get rid of to pay the tax and stay rich..........YOU.  And if they dont buy stuff that rich peoople buy, who gets laid off.........YOU.

You really don't make any sense here. Look at this article and please try to explain to me how low taxes on the rich solved any problems for America:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/14/income-inequality-is-at-a_n_259516.html

[Citizen James]

Mr. Richguy4 is a mafia don.  He makes money from a variety of sources (smuggling, prostitution, drug merchandising, as well as tax evasion).   Since he will do it anyway, we might as well let him get away with it.

Mr. Richguy5 is a bank robber.  He takes money from banks.  He also does not pay taxes.  Since he commits illegal acts, that means that we should just let him get away with it.

Perhaps you'd like it better in Somalia, where there are no wasteful government programs, no taxes, no laws - it sounds like a real libertarian paradise.

[War on Want]

Mr. Richguy4 is a mafia don.  He makes money from a variety of sources (smuggling, prostitution, drug merchandising, as well as tax evasion).   Since he will do it anyway, we might as well let him get away with it.

Mr. Richguy5 is a bank robber.  He takes money from banks.  He also does not pay taxes.  Since he commits illegal acts, that means that we should just let him get away with it.

Perhaps you'd like it better in Somalia, where there are no wasteful government programs, no taxes, no laws - it sounds like a real libertarian paradise.

Richius hates blacks and is bi.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Raising taxes on the rich is absolutely necessary in countries where the inequalities raise a monstruous proportion as the USA. In countries who already have a solid welfare state, the only thing to do is not to lessen them ( as our dear Sarko did... ).

Thanks for this very intelligent and developped argument that makes me understand better your opinion.

Ah, Antonio, he's just a typical representative of the american working class - they don't know any better.  Strangely enough.

Antonio, when was the last time a poor employed anyone?  If the rich are taxed too much guess who they get rid of to pay the tax and stay rich..........YOU.  And if they dont buy stuff that rich peoople buy, who gets laid off.........YOU.

I wasn't under the impression that rich people used personal income to pay their staff.  Instead I was under the impression that it was revenue from the products and services they provide that pay the employees.

How do you propose fixing our budget problem?  Are we going to treat defense as a sacred cow and gut the entire welfare system?

Since you're so keen on bringing up "raising taxes kills jobs".. then we'll put it this way "cutting people off their welfare kills people."

If it's not the poor guy who dies himself, then he'll probably kill somebody else to get what he wants/needs.

We need large amounts of funding for schools, healthcare, and infrastructure with a safety net for the disabled and working poor.

Closing this deficit on the backs of the poor and lower middle class will do untold harm to this country.  Doing it on the rich will only do imaginary harm.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Raising taxes on the rich is absolutely necessary in countries where the inequalities raise a monstruous proportion as the USA. In countries who already have a solid welfare state, the only thing to do is not to lessen them ( as our dear Sarko did... ).

Thanks for this very intelligent and developped argument that makes me understand better your opinion.

Ah, Antonio, he's just a typical representative of the american working class - they don't know any better.  Strangely enough.

Antonio, when was the last time a poor employed anyone?  If the rich are taxed too much guess who they get rid of to pay the tax and stay rich..........YOU.  And if they dont buy stuff that rich peoople buy, who gets laid off.........YOU.

I wasn't under the impression that rich people used personal income to pay their staff.  Instead I was under the impression that it was revenue from the products and services they provide that pay the employees.

How do you propose fixing our budget problem?  Are we going to treat defense as a sacred cow and gut the entire welfare system?

Since you're so keen on bringing up "raising taxes kills jobs".. then we'll put it this way "cutting people off their welfare kills people."

If it's not the poor guy who dies himself, then he'll probably kill somebody else to get what he wants/needs.

We need large amounts of funding for schools, healthcare, and infrastructure with a safety net for the disabled and working poor.

Closing this deficit on the backs of the poor and lower middle class will do untold harm to this country.  Doing it on the rich will only do imaginary harm.

1) A poor person will never be a person who signs your paycheck.

2) Gut the entire welfare system?  Don't tempt me to say yes...

3) Cutting people off of welfare will forece them to get a job like me and opie and all of your parents who support your ass.

Cold?  I could care less.

Get a job and dont worry about how much others have.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Oh, and all the factory workers who make Mercedes, Lexus', Cadillacs.......the blue collar people who make yacts and airplanes, what happens to them when the rich quit buying?

[Antonio the Sixth]

1) A poor person will never be a person who signs your paycheck.

And more taxes would change anything in that. Fiscal evasion is not linked to the real importance of taxes : those who don't want to pay taxes go away and the others accept them no care of their importance.

[Badger]

Raising taxes on the rich is absolutely necessary in countries where the inequalities raise a monstruous proportion as the USA. In countries who already have a solid welfare state, the only thing to do is not to lessen them ( as our dear Sarko did... ).

Thanks for this very intelligent and developped argument that makes me understand better your opinion.

Ah, Antonio, he's just a typical representative of the american working class - they don't know any better.  Strangely enough.

Antonio, when was the last time a poor employed anyone?  If the rich are taxed too much guess who they get rid of to pay the tax and stay rich..........YOU.  And if they dont buy stuff that rich peoople buy, who gets laid off.........YOU.

I wasn't under the impression that rich people used personal income to pay their staff.  Instead I was under the impression that it was revenue from the products and services they provide that pay the employees.

How do you propose fixing our budget problem?  Are we going to treat defense as a sacred cow and gut the entire welfare system?

Since you're so keen on bringing up "raising taxes kills jobs".. then we'll put it this way "cutting people off their welfare kills people."

If it's not the poor guy who dies himself, then he'll probably kill somebody else to get what he wants/needs.

We need large amounts of funding for schools, healthcare, and infrastructure with a safety net for the disabled and working poor.

Closing this deficit on the backs of the poor and lower middle class will do untold harm to this country.  Doing it on the rich will only do imaginary harm.

1) A poor person will never be a person who signs your paycheck.

2) Gut the entire welfare system?  Don't tempt me to say yes...

3) Cutting people off of welfare will forece them to get a job like me and opie and all of your parents who support your ass.

Cold?  I could care less.

Get a job and dont worry about how much others have.

No, but a poor guy will be the one who buys productas ansd services I may offer. I will purchase them from businesses who turn around and purchase them frm me. Etc.

Besides, most people receiving government assistance already are eployed. General welfare is gone, man.

As Warren Buffet recently pointed out, with the structure of payroll taxes and the light taxes on capital gains, he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, which is neither fair nor prudent realistic economic policy.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Does anyone who supports the "tax the rich" mantra have a real job and family responsibilities?

[Ban my account ffs!]

Does anyone who supports the "tax the rich" mantra have a real job and family responsibilities?

Contrary to conservative belief... you are not the only one paying taxes.

My sister is a mother who works 2 jobs to make ends meet.  Her jobs don't offer medical insurance, so she has none.  Her child has had medical assistance on and off, but they keep cutting it off and then she has to go through the whole application process again just to find out that her child was always eligible.  But that doesn't stop the bills from racking up.

She owes about $2500 in medical bills because she cut herself really bad last winter and had to go to the hospital in the ambulance.

Should she just go out and get a 3rd and 4th job when you cut her state support off (she had WIC and medical assistance for her son)?

Should she just not take her kid to the doctor?

All so the "rich guy" signing her paychecks (actually more like middle class small business owner) can get that extra yacht.  Poor rich guy.

Please offer a solution.  Without any kind of welfare of course, since that's what you're proposing.


Or should we consider my mom who suffered a debilitating stroke after her surgeon cut open a hernia that spread infection into her blood and caused massive hemorrhaging in her brain?  She worked her ass off for several years after that stroke, hobbling over to the lodge every morning at 7:30am, often falling (which led to sprained ankles and a broken leg), so she could run her business.  She was a dyed in the wool Republican... unfortunately she had to forego medical insurance for herself due to the extreme cost and the struggles she had with starting and running a family run resort.

Luckily in Minnesota we understand that sometimes life just plain sucks and that the least we can do is soften the blow.  Her huge medical bills were covered by the state.  She eventually lost the resort in the process, but her life was saved.

Then she finally got a job working for a friend in the hospitality business as a manager at a hotel.  Unfortunately her frail condition led to a series of falls that led to her needing brain surgeries due to a subdural hematoma.

She took the risk, opened her own business... and luck knocked her on her ass.. and she tried desperately to get back up and make things work.. but she got knocked down again.  Her doctor ordered her not to work at all... still, she took courses for medical transcription and did that for a while despite only having one working hand for typing.  Eventually that got too stressful and she had to quit that.

She paid her dues.  She lived the American dream... sending lunchmeat sandwiches with my dad to work on his 12-14 days so they could pay the mortgage on their new home and she could stay home with us 3 kids... then she took her dream and made it a reality with our resort. 

But she got burned by the Republicans when they started cutting the medical assistance budgets and she started getting notices saying she was no longer eligible (even though her medical expenses would have taken up 80% of the family's income).  She listened to Tim Pawlenty talk about how "some Minnesotans would have to learn to do with less" when asked about the 30,000 people he was kicking off hte state medical insurance program, knowing full well some of them could die (like my mom)... all so we could avoid a tax increase on the richest Minnesotans.

So, perhaps as you can see... it's very personal and I don't like it when people tell other people who are already worked to the bone and underpaid "to just go get a job for Christ's sake" or to "pick themselves up by the bootstraps"

Just how do you expect someone to improve themselves if they are disabled or have children to take care of, have no credit, and face ever dwindling resources to help pay for furthering education?

Oh, I know... that yacht is damn important.  But seriously.. that guy making the yacht can just as easily learn how to make a Crestliner or Lund boat and sell them to regular hardworking people.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Does anyone who supports the "tax the rich" mantra have a real job and family responsibilities?

Of course.

[War on Want]

Does anyone who supports the "tax the rich" mantra have a real job and family responsibilities?

Basically everyone who supports the "tax the rich" idea has a real job and family responsibilities.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I didn't realize until this thread that GM3 was a fool. I thought he was a reasonable guy? I suppose I should follow his posts more.

As for Richius.. Well most of his facts are ass backwards (like the stimulus, CARS, etc, being wastes of money) but he's generally just his stupid racist self here so I'm not entirely sure why you folks are humoring him.

[Richard]

Does anyone who supports the "tax the rich" mantra have a real job and family responsibilities?

Contrary to conservative belief... you are not the only one paying taxes.

My sister is a mother who works 2 jobs to make ends meet.  Her jobs don't offer medical insurance, so she has none.  Her child has had medical assistance on and off, but they keep cutting it off and then she has to go through the whole application process again just to find out that her child was always eligible.  But that doesn't stop the bills from racking up.

She owes about $2500 in medical bills because she cut herself really bad last winter and had to go to the hospital in the ambulance.

Should she just go out and get a 3rd and 4th job when you cut her state support off (she had WIC and medical assistance for her son)?

Should she just not take her kid to the doctor?

All so the "rich guy" signing her paychecks (actually more like middle class small business owner) can get that extra yacht.  Poor rich guy.

Please offer a solution.  Without any kind of welfare of course, since that's what you're proposing.


Or should we consider my mom who suffered a debilitating stroke after her surgeon cut open a hernia that spread infection into her blood and caused massive hemorrhaging in her brain?  She worked her ass off for several years after that stroke, hobbling over to the lodge every morning at 7:30am, often falling (which led to sprained ankles and a broken leg), so she could run her business.  She was a dyed in the wool Republican... unfortunately she had to forego medical insurance for herself due to the extreme cost and the struggles she had with starting and running a family run resort.

Luckily in Minnesota we understand that sometimes life just plain sucks and that the least we can do is soften the blow.  Her huge medical bills were covered by the state.  She eventually lost the resort in the process, but her life was saved.

Then she finally got a job working for a friend in the hospitality business as a manager at a hotel.  Unfortunately her frail condition led to a series of falls that led to her needing brain surgeries due to a subdural hematoma.

She took the risk, opened her own business... and luck knocked her on her ass.. and she tried desperately to get back up and make things work.. but she got knocked down again.  Her doctor ordered her not to work at all... still, she took courses for medical transcription and did that for a while despite only having one working hand for typing.  Eventually that got too stressful and she had to quit that.

She paid her dues.  She lived the American dream... sending lunchmeat sandwiches with my dad to work on his 12-14 days so they could pay the mortgage on their new home and she could stay home with us 3 kids... then she took her dream and made it a reality with our resort. 

But she got burned by the Republicans when they started cutting the medical assistance budgets and she started getting notices saying she was no longer eligible (even though her medical expenses would have taken up 80% of the family's income).  She listened to Tim Pawlenty talk about how "some Minnesotans would have to learn to do with less" when asked about the 30,000 people he was kicking off hte state medical insurance program, knowing full well some of them could die (like my mom)... all so we could avoid a tax increase on the richest Minnesotans.

So, perhaps as you can see... it's very personal and I don't like it when people tell other people who are already worked to the bone and underpaid "to just go get a job for Christ's sake" or to "pick themselves up by the bootstraps"

Just how do you expect someone to improve themselves if they are disabled or have children to take care of, have no credit, and face ever dwindling resources to help pay for furthering education?

Oh, I know... that yacht is damn important.  But seriously.. that guy making the yacht can just as easily learn how to make a Crestliner or Lund boat and sell them to regular hardworking people.

For your reference:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-pity.html

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Yes, Marokai my friend, keep paying attention.  I'll teach you all you need to know. 

[opebo]

If the rich are taxed too much guess who they get rid of to pay the tax and stay rich..........YOU.  And if they dont buy stuff that rich peoople buy, who gets laid off.........YOU.

Dude, they get their money in the first place from the labours of their serfs. What do you think, the money comes out their ass and they employ people purely out of the goodness of their hearts?

I can just imagine it now - I get my 1 mil./year from 50 peons labouring in my, oh lets say convenience stores.  Now, I have to pay 50% on the part above 200K instead of 30%.  Ok, lets close stores, fire lots of people, and bring my income down to 200K.  Yes, I really benefit from that.  Do you people ever think about whether your right-wing talking points make any actual sense?