1. Originally Posted by Marine1
Well our budget is so high now, you could double the tax on the rich and not come close to balancing the budget.
How do you define rich?

If we doubled the effective tax rate on the top 1%, we'd reduce the deficit by half. If you double it on the top 10%, we'd create a surplus.

2. Originally Posted by Iriemon
How do you define rich?

If we doubled the effective tax rate on the top 1%, we'd reduce the deficit by half. If you double it on the top 10%, we'd create a surplus.

Can we balance the budget by taxing the rich?

In 2009, the richest Americans (top 5%) paid approximately 29% of their income in taxes. The poorest Americans (bottom 20%) paid -1% of their income in taxes (paid nothing and received money back.) The average for 95% of Americans is 10.8% compared to the the top 5% of Americans who pay 29%. This means the richest Americans are taxed at a rate 3 times higher than the rest of America.

In 2009, the deficit for the federal government was \$1.5 trillion. Let’s see how much we would have to raise tax rates on the rich to balance the budget. We start by raising taxes on the rich from 29% to 44%. This would only raise \$400 billion and would cut the deficit from \$1.5 trillion to \$1.1 trillion.

How much, then, would we have to tax the top 5% to balance the budget? We would have to tax them at 88%. The households in the top 5% earn an average of \$300,000. The 88% tax would reduce their income to \$36,000, making the average rich household worse off than the average household.

In the 1960s the top marginal tax rate was 90%, but with deductions and allowances, the effective rate was 50%, far lower than the 88% we would need to tax the rich. In addition there were only about 5,000 households in the 1960s that earned enough to be in the 90% bracket. To balance the budget today, we would have to tax 9,000,000 households. That would require us to include those making \$100,000 and \$180,000, in effect doubling their taxes.

Arguing about taxing the rich is a waste of time and diverts our attention from the real issue: spending. The budget deficit is so large there aren’t enough rich people to tax. Our only solution is to reduce spending.

3. French Government Denounces Wealthy Leaving Country After Imposition of 75% Tax Rate

France’s Socialist President Francois Hollande famously declared “I don’t like the rich” and upon taking office hit the wealthy with a 75% tax rate — a rate that I have criticized as economically foolish and part of an increasing demonization of the wealthy around the world. Now wealthy French citizens have responded predictably by moving out of France and last week famed French actor Gerard Depardieu joined the exodus. The steady stream of departures has left the Hollande government incensed and this week Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault blasted the rich. The English have also seen the same decline in wealthy taxpayers after it imposed a 50% tax. They are now going to reduce that tax after the departure of many wealthy Brits and David Cameron controversially pledged to “roll out the red carpet” for any French residents fleeing the massive tax hike. In the meantime, anger at the wealthy continues to rise in France, where “eat the rich” signs are appearing. The problems is that you cannot eat the rich if the rich flee before the meal.

Depardieu is not going to a tax haven. He is reportedly moving to Belgium which has a 50 percent taxation rate. He is moving to Nechin, a town just a kilometer inside Belgium near the French city of Lille.

Bertrand Delanoe, the Socialist mayor of Paris regretted the move because Depardieu “is a generous man but in this instance he is not showing that.”

Politicians often assume that higher taxes have no impact on market behavior for earners. However, such taxes often make no investments less attractive once the labor and time is factored into the lower rate of net profit.

While I am in the minority on this blog, I continue to be concerned over the economic impact of such confiscatory tax rates and the demonization of the wealthy. A 75% tax rate will not only encourage many French to leave the country or find ways to avoiding direct income, but it will discourage those who might become French citizens. I also fail to understand the increasing vilification of the wealthy which is defined as anyone making over \$250,000 a year (as defined by the Administration’s proposed tax hike on the rich). Many of such earners are active in community work and supporting social programs. They also pay the vast majority of taxes in this country. Will they have to pay more, yes. However, the suggestion that they are all deadbeats who do not pay their fair share is unfair in my view.

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/12/12...f-75-tax-rate/

4. Location: US, Califorina - federalist
Posts: 13,910
I guess the wealthiest in France don't believe it is a real time of War, sufficient to be more "patriotic" regarding wartime Tax rates.

5. Originally Posted by danielpalos
I guess the wealthiest in France don't believe it is a real time of War, sufficient to be more "patriotic" regarding wartime Tax rates.
Well they are leaving on a 75% tax. The British are leaving with just a 50% tax. What are the rich paying here now?

6. Location: US, Califorina - federalist
Posts: 13,910
It depends on the "accounting" method.

However, I find it less plausible that the wealthiest believe it is a real time of War, sufficient to require sufficient "patriotism" for wartime Tax rates through their "vote with their feet".

7. Location: US, Califorina - federalist
Posts: 13,910
In my opinion, a more serious question is, why can our wealthier elected representatives not simply purchase the best solutions money can buy under any form of capitalism, with an official Mint at their disposal?

Why do the least wealthy have to "suffer" from that lack of more efficient opportunity costs?

8. Originally Posted by Marine1
Can we balance the budget by taxing the rich?

In 2009, the richest Americans (top 5%) paid approximately 29% of their income in taxes.
According to the CBO, the figure is about 25%. About 2% of that is apportioned corporate taxes.

The poorest Americans (bottom 20%) paid -1% of their income in taxes (paid nothing and received money back.) The average for 95% of Americans is 10.8% compared to the the top 5% of Americans who pay 29%. This means the richest Americans are taxed at a rate 3 times higher than the rest of America.
They also make about three times the income.

In 2009, the deficit for the federal government was \$1.5 trillion. Let’s see how much we would have to raise tax rates on the rich to balance the budget. We start by raising taxes on the rich from 29% to 44%. This would only raise \$400 billion and would cut the deficit from \$1.5 trillion to \$1.1 trillion.
The deficit in 2009 was \$1.4 trillion. It was \$1.1 trillion last year. The top 5% take 26% of all income. Gross national income is \$13.4 trillion. Thus their share of the income is \$3.484 trillion. In 2009 they paid 25% of all taxes. Taxes last year were \$2.450 trillion, meaning they paid about \$612.5 billion in taxes. Thus their effective tax rate was about 17%. If you doubled their effective tax rate to 34% that would bring in another \$600 billion in revenues, reducing the deficit by more than half. If you tripled it to an effective rate of 51%, it would eliminate the deficit.

Source: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...bles_Final.xls
Gross income: http://bea.gov/national/nipaweb/Sele...?Selected=N%20 Table 2.1

How much, then, would we have to tax the top 5% to balance the budget? We would have to tax them at 88%. The households in the top 5% earn an average of \$300,000. The 88% tax would reduce their income to \$36,000, making the average rich household worse off than the average household.

In the 1960s the top marginal tax rate was 90%, but with deductions and allowances, the effective rate was 50%, far lower than the 88% we would need to tax the rich. In addition there were only about 5,000 households in the 1960s that earned enough to be in the 90% bracket. To balance the budget today, we would have to tax 9,000,000 households. That would require us to include those making \$100,000 and \$180,000, in effect doubling their taxes.
The top 5% would be about 5 million households.

Arguing about taxing the rich is a waste of time and diverts our attention from the real issue: spending. The budget deficit is so large there aren’t enough rich people to tax. Our only solution is to reduce spending.
Not at all. Tax revenues over the past three years were proportionately the lowest in 60 years. Had tax revenues last year been the same percentage of GDP, revenues would be \$750 billion greater, the deficit would be reduced by about 70%.

To ignore this loss of revenues in the equation is to leave out a substantial portion of the reason we have a large deficit in the first place.

I agree we are currently spending too much, and it needs to continue to be reduced proportionate to GDP. However, we are now spending less proportionate to GDP that we were in some Reagan years. But our revenue collections are on par with the Eisenhower years. We need to trim spending, but we need to bring revenues back up to where they were in the 90s.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Marine1
French Government Denounces Wealthy Leaving Country After Imposition of 75% Tax Rate

France’s Socialist President Francois Hollande famously declared “I don’t like the rich” and upon taking office hit the wealthy with a 75% tax rate — a rate that I have criticized as economically foolish and part of an increasing demonization of the wealthy around the world. Now wealthy French citizens have responded predictably by moving out of France and last week famed French actor Gerard Depardieu joined the exodus. The steady stream of departures has left the Hollande government incensed and this week Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault blasted the rich. The English have also seen the same decline in wealthy taxpayers after it imposed a 50% tax. They are now going to reduce that tax after the departure of many wealthy Brits and David Cameron controversially pledged to “roll out the red carpet” for any French residents fleeing the massive tax hike. In the meantime, anger at the wealthy continues to rise in France, where “eat the rich” signs are appearing. The problems is that you cannot eat the rich if the rich flee before the meal.

Depardieu is not going to a tax haven. He is reportedly moving to Belgium which has a 50 percent taxation rate. He is moving to Nechin, a town just a kilometer inside Belgium near the French city of Lille.

Bertrand Delanoe, the Socialist mayor of Paris regretted the move because Depardieu “is a generous man but in this instance he is not showing that.”

Politicians often assume that higher taxes have no impact on market behavior for earners. However, such taxes often make no investments less attractive once the labor and time is factored into the lower rate of net profit.

While I am in the minority on this blog, I continue to be concerned over the economic impact of such confiscatory tax rates and the demonization of the wealthy. A 75% tax rate will not only encourage many French to leave the country or find ways to avoiding direct income, but it will discourage those who might become French citizens. I also fail to understand the increasing vilification of the wealthy which is defined as anyone making over \$250,000 a year (as defined by the Administration’s proposed tax hike on the rich). Many of such earners are active in community work and supporting social programs. They also pay the vast majority of taxes in this country. Will they have to pay more, yes. However, the suggestion that they are all deadbeats who do not pay their fair share is unfair in my view.

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/12/12...f-75-tax-rate/
Shoot, if they are moving to Belgium with a 50% tax rate, let's make ours a 49% tax rate. Then they'll move here and we should have plenty of revenues.

Last year the Govt collected \$2.450 trillion on \$13.3 trillion in gross income. That equates to an 18% overall effective tax rates. In 2000 the rate was 23.9%. We have a long way to go before we are in the confiscatory territory.
Last edited by Iriemon; Jan 24 2013 at 01:09 PM.

9. Originally Posted by Marine1
Well our budget is so high now, you could double the tax on the rich and not come close to balancing the budget.
How do you define rich?

If we doubled the effective tax rate on the top 1%, we'd reduce the deficit by half. If you double it on the top 10%, we'd create a surplus.