Raising taxes on the rich

[Warrior1979]

I don’t believe in OVER taxing the rich. Personally, I don’t even think you need to raise their taxes if you close the loopholes and tax shelters they use in order to pay NO taxes.

The money of the wealthy never sits there doing nothing. Even if it’s in a tax shelter its doing something. As a very simple example, lets say a wealthy person buys 10-year Treasuries. Federal taxes are never paid. Let’s say the the government decides that the wealthy should now pay tax because “they have too much money.” Well, the wealthy folks will simply require a higher yield on Treasuries to compensate, otherwise they put their money in a different investment. The Fed then has to find other buyers, or raise the yield.

 

[vz71]

Perhaps the FairTax would be a better idea.

You choose how much you want to be taxed at whatever income you are at.

 

[MillTownCath]

Archbishop of the TC Diocese Nienstedt wrote an article that explains what the priorities of budgets should reflect.

thecatholicspirit.com/that-they-may-all-be-one/budgeting-with-the-common-good-in-mind/

1. Human life and dignity: Every budget decision should be assessed as to whether or not it protects or threatens human life and the dignity of persons;
2. Priority for the poor: A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects “the least of these” brothers and sisters (Matthew 25). The needs of the hungry, the homeless, the disabled and the unemployed should be primary in our considerations;
3. The common good: Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all members of our society, especially families who struggle to live with dignity during difficult economic times.

He ends with “Those of us who are able must be willing to make shared sacrifices,** including the raising of adequate revenues to pay our bills**, eliminating unnecessary military expenses, and addressing in a fair, effective and realistic way the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs.”

Bout as strong of a statement as you are going to get.

 

[nordskoven]

Americans have lost trillions in wealth, and that includes the rich. I do taxes and have seen the rich and middle class have their stock holdings WIPED OUT! I can count on one hand those who made money on the stock market this year and last year and the year before last. Almost 1/4 of mortgages are “upside down” i.e. homes valued less than mortgages. Raising taxes lowers revenue. Rinse and repeat.

Raising taxes lowers revenue. Lowering taxes stimulates business and jobs. Period. Government sucking money to pump into fraud-riddled MediCare/MediCaid would be saved by making consumers able to demand accountability from providers. Democrats dumped more people into the MediCare pool instead of preserving benefit levels. So let’s give them another trillion in stimulus to underwrite MORE GOVERNMENT PARASITE JOBS! No thanks. As with the American bishops giving Golden Parachute retirement plans to retiring sex predator priests, the government has no accountability. Put government employees on Obamacare. Inflict your own standard on others. Start taking victim reparations out of priestly retirement funds. Inflict your pain on yourself.

If your personality type is dictator loving, go ahead and marry some dominating spouse and work for a boss from hell. Don’t project your predeliction for bondage on America.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Archbishop of the TC Diocese Nienstedt wrote an article that explains what the priorities of budgets should reflect.

thecatholicspirit.com/that-they-may-all-be-one/budgeting-with-the-common-good-in-mind/

1. Human life and dignity: Every budget decision should be assessed as to whether or not it protects or threatens human life and the dignity of persons;
2. Priority for the poor: A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects “the least of these” brothers and sisters (Matthew 25). The needs of the hungry, the homeless, the disabled and the unemployed should be primary in our considerations;
3. The common good: Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all members of our society, especially families who struggle to live with dignity during difficult economic times.

He ends with “Those of us who are able must be willing to make shared sacrifices,** including the raising of adequate revenues to pay our bills**, eliminating unnecessary military expenses, and addressing in a fair, effective and realistic way the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs.”

Bout as strong of a statement as you are going to get.

Well, there has been nothing in the last two and a half years for the poor; really not since the Earned Income Credit, and that was Reagan’s. There is nothing in any administration or congressional proposals for the poor either.

Congressman Paul Ryan came out with a plan which he feels is a "fair, effective and (most of all) realistic way to address the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement plans. But few Republicans and no Democrats endorsed it. Nobody else has a plan of any kind, other than Obamacare, which, it seems fairly certain, will raise the costs of healthcare for everybody.

And the only plan anybody has for “raising adequate revenues” is obama’s plan to raise taxes on those making over $200,000/year and increasing capital gains and dividend taxes. A drop in the bucket when it comes to actually raising revenue, and nowhere remotely near the deficit increases he has created.

How does the good Bishop propose doing any of the things he recommends?

Has he considered the possibility that government spending other than military spending might be decreased without harming the poor; middle class welfare for one example; abandoning construction of multimillion dollar border facilities for roads leading to the Canadian border that don’t actually continue into Canada, for another? (Yes, “stimulus” funds paid for that.)

 

[Mister_D]

Taxing the rich is an interesting concept. It may help to first take a deep breath, step back, and reflect that the richest of the rich, pretty much own and or control the lion’s share of the physical, material, means of production on planet earth. Even more important to realize that they control the money supply (something only Congress should be doing instead of outsourcing it to a private group of individuals know as the “Federal Reserve Board”). Community based currencies (esp Ithaca Hours and possibly “Time Dollars” in Maine) may be a way for grassroots groups of like minded individuals to conduct a significant (25 to 33%) of their daily commerce by trading the one commodity we are alloted in common. We each get only 24 hours per day, whether you are Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, or the guy or gal in the street. I’m sure there are a few things you can do in one hour that will take me a half day (or more!) and there might be one or two things I can do in one hour that might take you two or three hours to accomplish. Maybe we can narrow the division between Haves and Have-Nots through alternative time based community currencies.

 

[copperblade]

I know a guy, doesn’t own a thing, the “company” owns it. In this big tax loop hole game. Eliminate the loopholes and you will get the missing monies. Maybe? I just realized I’m not an economist.

“Two out of every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005, according to a report released Tuesday by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress… Either way, the nearly 1,000 largest United States corporations were more likely than smaller ones to pay taxes.”

nytimes.com/2008/08/13/business/13tax.html

 

[Warrior1979]

“Two out of every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005, according to a report released Tuesday by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress… Either way, the nearly 1,000 largest United States corporations were more likely than smaller ones to pay taxes.”

nytimes.com/2008/08/13/business/13tax.html

There are plenty of reasons for this. Many smaller corporations exist for very specific reasons. The common ones I see are for liability issues and various tax benefits.

For example, many times when contractor’s built a spec building on a property they own, the property is owned in a corporation. It’s simply for liability purposes. If someone trespasses and breaks a leg, they don’t want to lose their life savings because the jury is having a bad day. With regard to benefits, one can write off health insurance through a corporation as a business expense, but can’t do it personally.

The result is that many of these corporations pay no federal taxes, but end up paying it on the personal end.

 

[valentino]

I can’t find him doing anything at Harvard aside from generating his pancake sorting program.

The only thing I can see about opening up time with computers that weren’t his was in his grade school.

-Prophesy

No it wasn’t during grade school I believe it was during his first year of college.I read it some time ago and have forgotten the details but it did take place.

 

[Mister_D]

I not sure why my original post today is not here. Being the “newbee” I’ll take responsibility. Regarding taxing the rich, I believe that the rich have always, directly or indirectly, passed the burden onto the rest of us. Now if this is a thread that is interested in pursuing a solution, and not just a gripe session, I would like to know of participants who are or have been involved with alternative community currency or barter groups. My gut feeling is that the majority of the folks here are intelligent, thinking, pro-active type, win-win, solution-oriented people. And I eagerly look forward to your response.
GBYA!!
Mister_D

 

[valentino]

Americans have lost trillions in wealth, and that includes the rich. I do taxes and have seen the rich and middle class have their stock holdings WIPED OUT! I can count on one hand those who made money on the stock market this year and last year and the year before last. Almost 1/4 of mortgages are “upside down” i.e. homes valued less than mortgages. Raising taxes lowers revenue. Rinse and repeat.

Raising taxes lowers revenue. Lowering taxes stimulates business and jobs. Period. Government sucking money to pump into fraud-riddled MediCare/MediCaid would be saved by making consumers able to demand accountability from providers. Democrats dumped more people into the MediCare pool instead of preserving benefit levels. So let’s give them another trillion in stimulus to underwrite MORE GOVERNMENT PARASITE JOBS! No thanks. As with the American bishops giving Golden Parachute retirement plans to retiring sex predator priests, the government has no accountability. Put government employees on Obamacare. Inflict your own standard on others. Start taking victim reparations out of priestly retirement funds. Inflict your pain on yourself.

If your personality type is dictator loving, go ahead and marry some dominating spouse and work for a boss from hell. Don’t project your predeliction for bondage on America.

You state including the rich.where did all this lost money go?Someone had to have gotten one way or another.Not all at once but over time.I say that some sopped up the money and got fabulously wealthy.Is the rich you speak of a millionaire?some doctor say?yes many millionaries lost money who invested just like in the scandal of that man who cheated investors out of $50 B.Many lost money but others sopped up the money.We can raise taxes but only on the very wealthy.Im talking billionaires and or perhaps people worth $10m or more.Billionaires shouldnt be able to make many more billions on their investments alone.Sounds like you’re implying these retired priests are going to live in some vacation home in Florida.most of them retire with just about enough to live on.most ofthen they share their residence with other retired priests or live in retirement homes with a community of retired priests.Right,gov.employees should be put on Obamacare like the rest of us.

 

[copperblade]

No it wasn’t during grade school I believe it was during his first year of college.I read it some time ago and have forgotten the details but it did take place.

Looks like both are right.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists

The version of BASIC that most people are thinking of was written/released while at Harvard, however he had started writing some versions of BASIC (for other systems?) while in high school.

"Hal also noted that rumors were circulating that Bill Gates developed BASIC on a Harvard University computer that was funded by the US government. Why should customers pay for software already paid for by the taxpayer?

Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and Monte Davidoff did use a PDP-10 at Harvard’s Aiken Computer Center. The computer system was funded by the Department of Defense through its Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and was delivered in the middle of the night in 1969 at the height of the Vietnam War protests. Harvard officials were not pleased that Gates and Allen (who was not a student) had used the PDP-10 to develop a commercial product, but determined that this military computer was not covered by any Harvard policy; the PDP-10 was controlled by Professor Thomas Cheatham, who felt that students could use the machine for personal use. Harvard placed restrictions on the computer’s use and Gates had to use a commercial time share computer until MITS provided access to a PDP-10 in Albuquerque."

So looks like they didn’t technically break any rules, but rules were put in place to restrict usage after they were caught.

 

[MillTownCath]

Well, there has been nothing in the last two and a half years for the poor; really not since the Earned Income Credit, and that was Reagan’s. There is nothing in any administration or congressional proposals for the poor either.

The article was about the MN State deficit, and many programs for the poor and disabled may not get enough funding to operate.

Congressman Paul Ryan came out with a plan which he feels is a "fair, effective and (most of all) realistic way to address the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement plans. But few Republicans and no Democrats endorsed it. Nobody else has a plan of any kind, other than Obamacare, which, it seems fairly certain, will raise the costs of healthcare for everybody.

**Fairly certain eh? Well what do you propose we do about our massively broken health care system?
**
And the only plan anybody has for “raising adequate revenues” is obama’s plan to raise taxes on those making over $200,000/year and increasing capital gains and dividend taxes. A drop in the bucket when it comes to actually raising revenue, and nowhere remotely near the deficit increases he has created.

So should we raise taxes on everyone then? He article was concerned with the MN State Budget, anyways

How does the good Bishop propose doing any of the things he recommends?

**Watch your tone. He’s actually quite a conservative hard liner, but he’s realistic on the budget. **

Has he considered the possibility that government spending other than military spending might be decreased without harming the poor; middle class welfare for one example; abandoning construction of multimillion dollar border facilities for roads leading to the Canadian border that don’t actually continue into Canada, for another? (Yes, “stimulus” funds paid for that.)

I’m sure he supports a balanced approach, cutting and raising revenue.

It’s simply unrealistic to believe massive deficits can be solved with merely cutting alone.

The poor didn’t get us into this mess, and starving them WILL NOT get us out.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m sure he supports a balanced approach, cutting and raising revenue.

It’s simply unrealistic to believe massive deficits can be solved with merely cutting alone.

The poor didn’t get us into this mess, and starving them WILL NOT get us out.

Hard to quote your responses, but here goes:

First part was this:
Originally Posted by Ridgerunner
Well, there has been nothing in the last two and a half years for the poor; really not since the Earned Income Credit, and that was Reagan’s. There is nothing in any administration or congressional proposals for the poor either.

YOUR RESPONSE : The article was about the MN State deficit, and many programs for the poor and disabled may not get enough funding to operate. **Well, not really. At the very first part of his article, he said: “As I sit down to write this article, our state House and Senate stand ready to pass a budget for next year that the governor is sure to veto. The same kind of impasse is also being experienced in Washington, D.C., with no less willingness on the part of legislators to reach agreement on the fiscal year 2012 federal budget.” Nowhere does he limit it to Minnesota.
**

Congressman Paul Ryan came out with a plan which he feels is a "fair, effective and (most of all) realistic way to address the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement plans. But few Republicans and no Democrats endorsed it. Nobody else has a plan of any kind, other than Obamacare, which, it seems fairly certain, will raise the costs of healthcare for everybody.

RESPONSE: Fairly certain eh? Well what do you propose we do about our massively broken health care system? The first question has to be whether it was massively broken in the first place. From 70-80% of people had health coverage before Obamacare. Even Obama admitted that Obamacare wouldn’t cover some 20%. Of the previously uninsured, some were between coverages, some just didn’t want insurance, some were illegals and, yes, some were people who COULDN’T get coverage due to preexisting conditions who, because they were not working did not have ERISA protection limiting disqualification periods to one year. (That would be most employer-based plans) What I might do to START improving it would take awhile to explain. Maybe there’s room and time, but maybe that’s another thread.

And the only plan anybody has for “raising adequate revenues” is obama’s plan to raise taxes on those making over $200,000/year and increasing capital gains and dividend taxes. A drop in the bucket when it comes to actually raising revenue, and nowhere remotely near the deficit increases he has created.

RESPONSE: So should we raise taxes on everyone then? He article was concerned with the MN State Budget, anyways. As I mentioned above, it certainly didn’t appear he was talking about the MN budget only. I’m not suggesting that we should raise taxes on anyone. I am, however, dubious about the ability of people like Buffet and Gates to avoid taxes on millions of discretionary income by donating appreciated stock to a private foundation. But not for budgetary reasons.

How does the good Bishop propose doing any of the things he recommends?

RESPONSE: Watch your tone. He’s actually quite a conservative hard liner, but he’s realistic on the budget. Well, you were the one who brought this up in the first place. I don’t care what his politics are. Bishops typically make very general statements about social justice and care for the poor and such, and that’s fine for them to do. But frequently people take those very general statements and try to make more of them than they are really saying. It is, however, just a bit surprising to see a “conservative hard liner” advocate for cutting the military budget, particularly while we’re in…what’s the count today? Four wars? But whatever.

…Oh, and where did I ever say we should starve the poor? If you scroll up, you’ll find that one of my complaints about the politics of budgeting is precisely that no one does anything for the truly poor, and has not for decades.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

This essay just arrived and addresses the question:

SWITZERLAND

Congressional District 4 in Oregon comprises 17,181 square miles, a little larger than the country of Switzerland, with 15,940 square miles. Moreover, District 4 has more natural resources - farmland, forests, and mineral deposits than does Switzerland.

Switzerland has, however, far more of the ultimate resource - people - with 7.9 million as compared with District 4 at 0.7 million. And, Switzerland’s people are far more free of government control, so they are able to produce more per person.

Corporate taxes in Switzerland average about 14%, depending upon the location, since most of these taxes are levied by local government. Oregon corporations labor under a tax burden of 41%, of which 7% is state and 34% is federal (for companies earning about $500,000 and ranging upward to 47% for larger enterprises).

Ah, but DeFazio will say that those taxes are paid by the “rich.” Our 13-term professional politician and Congressman Peter DeFazio wants to tax these corporations and those who own them a lot more. They are the evil rich who are not paying their share.

So, in Switzerland where the evil corporations have such low taxes, what is the fate of the ordinary person? The median household income in Switzerland is $100,000. In District 4 the median household income is $35,800 - even including Corvallis and Eugene where the universities receive large amounts of tax funding.

If DeFazio should be reelected and have his way, District 4 taxes will rise even further, and household income will fall lower.

Why should this be? After all, he just taxes the “rich.”

First, everyone pays these taxes. Regardless of our individual wealth, whether one is millionaire Peter DeFazio with four homes - two in New Zealand - or just an ordinary Oregonian, every time we buy something we pay the taxes of the supplier, too.

Second, the “rich” do not keep their wealth as piles of cash under their beds. Their wealth is invested mostly in stocks, bonds, land, and other productive assets (along with personal items). If that wealth is taken from the wealthy in taxes, they must sell their investments and give the money to the government. This deprives the economy of needed capital and further decreases the number of jobs available for everyone. Hence, family incomes fall.

Third, as taxes rise the incentive to produce falls. So, entrepreneurs are less motivated to start new businesses or to maintain the ones they have. That also costs Oregon jobs.

DeFazio thinks that he can win reelection with the politics of envy by posing as a champion of the middle class against the “rich.” The actual effect of his policies is to impoverish us all - except, apparently, 13-term congressmen.

Art Robinson

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Here is an essay about the productivity and positive economic impact of John D. Rockefeller.

Please read it:

thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-ghost-of-john-d-rockefeller/

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The money of the wealthy never sits there doing nothing. Even if it’s in a tax shelter its doing something. As a very simple example, lets say a wealthy person buys 10-year Treasuries. Federal taxes are never paid. Let’s say the the government decides that the wealthy should now pay tax because “they have too much money.” Well, the wealthy folks will simply require a higher yield on Treasuries to compensate, otherwise they put their money in a different investment. The Fed then has to find other buyers, or raise the yield.

The interest on Treasuries is taxable:

wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_TReasury_I_bonds_taxable

treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/tbills/res_tbill_tax.htm

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Read down through this … Rockefeller got rich because of his successes in innovation that dramatically cut the costs of petroleum products for the average person:

theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-summer/standard-oil-company.asp

Not everyone has the talents and skill sets to innovate to the benefit of everyone.

So, when someone like that emerges, why on earth would you want to penalize that person?

I think you all need to examine the sin of envy in some detail.

 

[valentino]

Looks like both are right.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists

The version of BASIC that most people are thinking of was written/released while at Harvard, however he had started writing some versions of BASIC (for other systems?) while in high school.

"Hal also noted that rumors were circulating that Bill Gates developed BASIC on a Harvard University computer that was funded by the US government. Why should customers pay for software already paid for by the taxpayer?

Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and Monte Davidoff did use a PDP-10 at Harvard’s Aiken Computer Center. The computer system was funded by the Department of Defense through its Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and was delivered in the middle of the night in 1969 at the height of the Vietnam War protests. Harvard officials were not pleased that Gates and Allen (who was not a student) had used the PDP-10 to develop a commercial product, but determined that this military computer was not covered by any Harvard policy; the PDP-10 was controlled by Professor Thomas Cheatham, who felt that students could use the machine for personal use. Harvard placed restrictions on the computer’s use and Gates had to use a commercial time share computer until MITS provided access to a PDP-10 in Albuquerque."

So looks like they didn’t technically break any rules, but rules were put in place to restrict usage after they were caught.

thanks for refreshing my memory.

 

[valentino]

Read down through this … Rockefeller got rich because of his successes in innovation that dramatically cut the costs of petroleum products for the average person:

theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-summer/standard-oil-company.asp

Not everyone has the talents and skill sets to innovate to the benefit of everyone.

So, when someone like that emerges, why on earth would you want to penalize that person?

I think you all need to examine the sin of envy in some detail.

I think you have forgotten some of the story.He monoopolized the whole industry and drove all competitors out by buying in bulk.the established his own railroads so he could ship at lower rates than competitors and didn’t have to pay the regular price other shippers had to pay,and many other practices that were unethical(although not illegal at the time).they soon put in laws that changed the way corporations could operate.By the time of his death it was reported that he was the most depised American in the US.Lower prices for a commodity does always mean you’re doing what’s best for Americans.He put many people out of work who had they’re businesses closed down.Now what Ive said doesn’t mean what he did was bad for Americans but there are yet other things I haven.tmentioned.Can’t remember the whole issue.Its true that some few individuals come up with real inventive ideas and they make fortunes but I don’t think that applies to many of the billionaires.Many have connections which most haven’t privy to.Joesph Kennedy had many connections through politicians and others who get inside information which isnt actually fair.