Any wealthy here that support higher taxes?

If you look at the tax on a business owner who makes $250,000 in personal profit in a year, It removes 5% from his/her pocket $12,500 and gives it to a Bloated Federal Goverment to waste. Where in the US economy would this $12,500 be best used for economic growth. In a goverment agency like the EPA? Or in the pocket of a group of venders that supply a product to the business owner? This is not a trick question.

 

That is correct.

 

Um. You aren't really addressing anything I've said. Wealthy people vastly lower taxes because of loopholes and such...some are saying they support ending that to help close the deficit. All you did was point out that, yes, wealthy people do use loopholes.

Both sides agree that we need around $4-5 trillion in deficit reduction over ten years. Tax increases on the wealthy give us about $1.6 trillion of that. I wouldn't call that meaningless.

This tax would not affect 97% of business owners and, furthermore, as a business owner I know it does not seriously affect economic growth. I hire someone based off of the amount of demand we're dealing with, not my personal income tax rate. Furthermore, our infrastructure is in shambles. I would rather pay a little more and make sure our education, infrastructure, and other essentials can be paid for.

Fair enough then.

 

I pointed out your misinformed, misleading and dishonesty garbage. No one on this forum either believe or care about what income bracket that you are in. You brought Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Google in as to why you support higher tax rate on the wealthy. They're are BAD examples. The IRS is currently investigating Warren Buffet's company Berkshire Hathdaway to determine whether or not the company has dodged income tax in the last 5 yrs. The case has not been closed yet. Bill Gates has all of his assets in charitable trust, meaning, he is paying very little to no income tax. Why the hell does he care about any tax rate at all? His company, Microsoft, its SEC filing showing the company has not brought any profits from overseas back in the US since 2006. Google plows all profits outside the US border to Bermuda's account in the last 10 yrs. They're not doing anything illegal but they're doing so to AVOID paying 35% corporate tax. If they're so eager to pay tax, why would they do that?

Next time, do you homework on the issue before you shoot off your mouth. It's embarrassing.

Another deceitful liberal attempt = FAILED.

 

So you're agreeing with me that our tax system is fraught with loopholes and that the wealthy pay too low of taxes? Excellent!

 

Now you're spinning to save your dishonest little face.

I see.

 

So pay higher taxes. It is an option on your tax form. You need a government mandate to tell you what YOU should do or what you want me to do?

 

Not even a little. You completely summarized why our tax system has issues. Namely, the ability for the wealthy to get out of paying for their taxes.

Of course I'm not chomping at the bit to pay higher taxes. I support it as a policy position and am fine with falling into that category. Singly donating to run the government on behalf of everyone else? No thanks. The wealthy as a group need to be paying more. A couple of people volunteering doesn't make enough of a difference and it lets the others off far too easily.

 

1.6 trillion is barley a dent in out 17 trillion debt or whatever it is. and as the republicans are saying, that tax increase is meaningless without spending cuts.

 

Republicans would cut $2 trillion over ten years, Democrats $4 trillion. If Dems aren't cutting enough, then what are the Republicans doing?

The tax increase is meaningless without spending cuts. But Obama's plan gives us $2.50 in cuts for every $1 raised. That's better than what the Republicans are offering.

 

Sure it does. You haven't even tried it. Pay YOUR FAIR SHARE first before expecting me to pay mine. In ghetto terms, "put up or shut up".

 

Why do they need more money? Can't they just print it like they are doing for the bankers? Or does that not register?

Can't they just borrow it?

Debt doesn't matter after all. Ask your left wing economic propagandists.

 

Small government = smart government. Big government = waste and corruption.

 

I fall into the 250k+ income bracket. I know about 50 others that do as well. All of the ones that I frequently converse with are extremely opposed to the proposed tax rate increase. I currently pay a ton of taxes. When you add payroll taxes, it is borderline ridiculous. At least, I live in a state without income taxes. If you make less than 7 figures a year, directly affected by the tax increase and support this tax rate increase, you are probably over-achieving.

 

I am starting to question your ability to earn a large income.

 

I would define smart government as whatever size needed to get the job done without wasting money. Calling government large when a Democrat is in office and small when a Republican is in office is arbitrary.

Oh please. You know I'm not the only six figure Democrat. A news article cited several. A president of a construction firm making $300,000 per year voted for Obama and was fine with the increases, an individual not entirely unlike myself. More examples:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125918497

68% of millionaires support higher taxes on millionaires:

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/10...ort-warren-buffetts-tax-on-the-rich/?mod=e2tw

There's even specifically an advocacy group of millionaires that support the raising of their taxes:

http://patrioticmillionaires.net/


So...question my ability to make a large income all you want, but most people making more money than you and I both want higher taxes on themselves. Perhaps a little craziness is needed to be successful in business.

 

The higher the income bracket the higher the effective tax rate even with all the loopholes. I do support reducing loopholes, reducing tax rates and widening the tax base.

This isn't the first time "both sides" have been wrong. With the recent news of California receipts not meeting expectations, you would think that such a go getter like yourself would have the inclination to not count the projected receipts from the proposed tax rate increases. Some would argue with a great deal of success that increased tax rates actually reduce the potential economic growth that fuels tax receipts.

Demand doesn't fuel hiring. Potential profit off of the output gained from additional employees fuel profit. Potential profit from the hiring of additional employees is reduced by added tax burden. When considering a macro view of adding employees by the whole of business owners, additional tax burden can have no other affect but reduction of hiring. I suppose some folks that make a bit of money gain rent seeking privilege from the government and support higher taxes. I suppose that some folks that make a bit of moeny gain demand for their goods or services from those that directly benefit from re-distribution. Yet, unless a new and improved method of central planning has been developed, employment rates will be negatively affected by tax rate increases.

 

I question your credibility because of your statement. You state that a smart government doesn't favor one group over another while supporting the unequal protection of one groups possessions compared to anothers. The statement doesn't exactly ring of brilliance.

 

So, now it's most, huh. Craziness is mitigated to insure a more probable successful outcome.

 

You're absolutely right that high tax rates can have a negative effect on hiring. However, tax rates are at their lowest rates in decades. They are nowhere near the level that would hurt economic activity. In fact, economic inequality is what is hurting us the most. The other options Republicans throw around - cutting antipoverty programs or social security benefits or even raising taxes on the middle class, as Republicans have seriously suggested - would hurt the economy far more.

 

Regardless of the current rates, an increase would be a detriment to economic growth. If economic inequality was really the boogie man, why not significantly raise wages on those making 1m instead of 250k/yr, or 5m. Antipoverty programs aren't working, SS is just another budgetary line item with the internal debt and unfunded liabilities, and a reduction of loopholes and rates with a broadening of the base decreases the amount of misallocation of wealth promoted by central planning via the tax code. I am not a Republican or Democrat and believe that most of their ideas provide privilege to one group or another. Income inequality is natural and doesn't necessarily inhibit a mutual standard of living increase across all classes. Of course, you have alterior motives made evident by your repetitive use of Democrat talking points. I hope you are being intellectually dishonest and have some sort of actual gain from your spill.

 

As far as the income inequality goes, I definitely agree that taxes should be higher and higher on those upper levels. Even more so than the Democrats call for. I think we need to raise a full ten percentage points of GDP. I made a post about a progressive deficit plan elsewhere on the forum already. I support much, much higher taxes, don't worry. I'm not reiterating Democratic talking points, they simply come closer to my views than Republicans do on this issue.

If there is any negative effect from raising taxes on a small number of wealthy Americans, you seriously think that putting in place measures that reduce income of all Americans somehow is better for the economy?

 

It's not "their money" YET, if they haven't paid their taxes that they collected through the crapitalist system they took advantage of to get that money. Part of the deal.....earn some...pay some. Don't like it? You can always leave.

 

Keep in mind, Obama's own economic advisers say the opposite (lower absolute taxation to 33%). I want to ask, who are you citing as an authority to raise taxes? Who exactly is claiming higher taxes will increase revenue? Even a Keynesian would be against raising taxes in a recession.

That's not what Income inequality is. As shown by a Treasury department study, incomes have increased across the board since the 1990's, and there are earlier studies going back to the 1970's, affirming the same trend. Income inequality is a useless metric, because it cannot tell if people at the bottom are becoming richer or poorer, as it fails to measure absolute wealth, and is simply snap-shot-in-time data. It's a statistical artifact used as a Democrat ta;king point, pretending it's somehow relevant. Fact is people, poor people today are consuming more than they did 10 years ago. Their livelihoods have improved, not worsened.

 

Speaker Boehner has put $ 800 Billion of revenue on the table, which is essentially raising nominal rates on the top bracket from 35% back to the 39.6% of the Clinton Era. Estimated annual revenue from that move is $ 85 billion ($ 800 billion over 10 Years factoring in contraction).

Getting America's fiscal house in order cannot be accomplished with exclusively taxes, unless President Obama is willing to tax the middle class. The proposal has been to lower rates, broaden the base, reduce deductions, ect.

The rich are going to pay more in any framework, but if the additional revenue does not accompany significant cuts- No progress towards deficit reduction will be achieved.