Why are you against taxing the super-rich when they pay less taxes?

I did like the idea that I read somewhere that just as we want to get people off welfare because it makes them lazy and get them back to work, we should tax the heck out of the wealthy because they will have the tendency to get lazy and we want them, the best and brightest, to get back to work.

But seriously, the simplest and most equitable thing to do is abolish all the income taxes and introduce a nationwide sales tax instead (with exceptions for food, etc). Then, people with more money who buy more expensive things will pay more taxes, and poorer people who spend less will pay less tax.

Interesting question. I remember reading about eight years ago how much of Dubya and DICK Cheney paying around 5% or so in taxes. Wait a minute! I thought, I pay about 25 to 35% of my income in taxes, how is it these rich bastards are getting off so cheaply?

The wealthy will always pay less in taxes than the middle class, simply because they can afford the lawyers. Do you have money in off-shore tax free accounts? Do you think Rush Limbaugh does? That man makes 36 million $$$ annually, how much of that do you think he pays in taxes? Do you think he pays as much in taxes as I do, if we average it out for income differences? Do you want to buy a bridge, I have one for sale.~

This is why the conservative ReThugnicans are so against the healthcare plan. It has nothing to do with socialism, it has nothing to do with private insurers going out of business if they have to compete with the government, (FED-EX and UPS compete with the USPS, do you see either of those two companies whining about losing business to the US Post Office?) it has to do with the extremely wealthy having to pay their fair share in taxes, and to provide health care for those that can’t afford it.

Most conservative ReThugnicans live by the attitude, “I’ve got mine, f*ck everybody else!” I talked to one the other day that said it was a holiday, because Teddy Kennedy died. I thought, “That’s nice, you are a real compassionate man.”

The thing that cracks me up are the people who think Rush Limbaugh is telling them the truth. Rush Limbaugh, or as I call him, Douche Loosebowels has as much credibility as Jeff Foxworthy or Steven Wright.

The media is owned by the rich, and they’d rather feed the public crap about celebrities, sports, and other off-topic subjects rather than give us what we need, which is the unbiased truth.

There, I just pissed off a whole slew of conservative Republicans.

A flat tax is called a regressive tax because it unfairly places a larger burden on those least able to pay. It is hard to reconcile your wish for a flat tax with your concern that taxes are otherwise insufficiently progressive. I think you need to do a little work to understand the basics of taxation better in order for you to be able to ask a more cogent question.

@pdworkin I would agree that there are some problems with a flat tax. I still would not tax people wo are not taxed now, but it seems wholly unfair how it is. I am not saying tax the rich more, I just want it to be more FAIR and above board, now it is kind of a secret. I would venture to say that most people who make below $100K who have relatives and parents who make less than a $100K and who might not have college educations have no clue at all about how taxes really work. I only know a minimal amount, but I know how it worked when I owned a rental property, and I have seen the taxes my relatives pay who have small businesses, all done on the up and up and I think a lot of people would be astonished at what these investments do for you. We, who have more money and more access to accountants and conversations with people who are in the know are more privy to the way it all works.

It seems like the current tax system is placing an unfair burden on the lower middle and middle middle class how it is now.

@PerryDolia I have considered the sales tax idea previously. In fact in my state that is pretty much what they do. No state tax, except on dividends (which I think is awful if you are elderly living off of investments, but I guess they were aiming for the rich??) and a very high sales tax, ours is 9.25% and they tax food, which I think is very regressive.

I think most people, except for the truly greedy and self-important would agree to a system where OVERALL (meaning when you factor in ALL taxes) everyone paid the same tax rate. In fact, I believe you’d even get a majority supporting such a tax rate if it didn’t kick in until a certain level of income. And there are a number of ways to do this, but it won’t happen, because most people have been conditioned to think only about the Income Tax and nothing else when you talk about increasing taxes on the rich. It is the aforementioned self important people who have tons of wealth and power who can buy off our government to make sure that the taxes on the wealthiest stay low…they justify it by claiming that this way the rich will have more money to trickle down to the poor via creating jobs. But in reality, most people who would pay more if we made taxes more fair would be somewhere between annoyed and pissed off, but none of them would have a harder time doing the things they want to do (and it is people with money doing what they want to do that creates jobs). To them it’s not the point that they still have more than enough, the point is they COULD have more if they used their money to obtain power and the power to obtain a tax break. But the problem is, the people benefiting most from this system have made the system the way it is, it is by design.

They get the rest of us to go along with it by convincing enough people that a) people who don’t have enough are lazy, b) the rich already pay most of the taxes in this country, and c) we’re only talking about federal tax. The people who have the most to lose first convince those who don’t have enough for themselves that their tax dollars are being given away to lazy people, which makes them angry (it completely demonizes the concept of a strong social safety net which in fact when we had one made us the envy of the world), and they use that anger to convince people that taxes are bad, that they will be wasted and that when you look at how much tax is paid and by whom, the rich are already overburdened. And if you look at it, the wealthiest 2% pay the majority of income taxes, but they distract others with anger so they won’t say to themselves, hey, wait a minute, don’t they also make most of the MONEY. If we could have an honest debate on what taxes are and should be used for and who should pay them and in what amounts, we’d be able to work out something far more fair than what we have today. But because money = power, those with this power are going to invariably use it to make more money.

@dalepetrie I was not even thinking of it from a perspective of the wealthy paying into the system to support social systems, I was thinking if we even say we are still going to collect the same amount of taxes over all, who is paying what would change if the system was more fair. If the middle class has more money in their pockets they will spend it, and as you said the super-rich are really not affected, because I am of the belief that if you make over $10m a year after taxes, it won’t be a big difference if you take a home a $100K less. But, it is impossible not to notice that in the last 8 years if the people in the article I provided had been paying a few percent more in taxes it would make a significant dent in the nations deficit.

Obama uses $250K and $300k a lot as a starting point for taxing the “rich” but that is not the rich by my definition. If he taxed people making > $1M a year do you think fewer people would be up in arms?

My goal would not be to stick it to the rich, just to not let them get away with what they get away with.

My sister-in-law doesn’t think anything would really work. Her experience, she is from Mexico, is when the government tried to get more money from the rich, they put it off shore. They know what to do, they have experts helping them. She believes there is no real way to get at the super-rich who want to get around these things.

I have never thought it was wrong to tax the super rich. I have always felt they should have a higher tax to pay and those that are lower to middle income should have the tax breaks.

The only truly fair tax system is a flat tax. When our tax code is 30,000 pages long (no one seems to know truly how long it is – depends on if you count the massive number of documents that explain how everything works), then no one can truly understand it, and anyone with a clever lawyer/account can find all of the loopholes that they want.

@syz A flat tax may be a lot of things but there lives no economist who would call it fair. It is the most regressive possible tax. How do you propose to reduce the inequities (keeping in mind that once you begin it is no longer flat?)

Perhaps “flat tax” is the wrong terminology as I understand it, then.
No tax – to a certain income.
No tax – to non-profits and churches, or whatever the agreed upon qualifications would be.
Set tax – varies, determined by income range.
No loopholes, no exceptions, no wiggle room – effectively, a one page document would be all that is required to understand our tax system.

@JLeslie – he could raise taxes only on people who made $10 million a year and a majority of self-styled conservatives who will never make 1% of that total would still be up in arms about it. It’s the Joe the Plumber mentality, people don’t pay enough attention these days to discern the differences between “overall” taxes and “Federal taxes”, or the difference between “tax rates” and “marginal tax rates”, so they hear about a tax increase on ANYONE, and they believe if it someone tells them that it’s unfair to raise anyone’s taxes. The Joe the Plumber argument, which when it was discovered that he made roughly 8% of what he’d need to make to be affected by Obama’s proposed tax increase was that “maybe some day I could, and if I ever do, if my taxes go up at $250k, I might as well only work hard enough to make $249k and not a penny more. They are sold on the wrong idea that they will take home LESS if they make more.

And @syz – the ONLY universe on which a flat tax would be “fair” would be one in which ALL taxes were collected at the Federal level and distributed downward. But we have taxes at the state, county and city level, sales taxes, and a whole host of taxes and fees built into everything we buy or spend money on. And these taxes are NOT fair, they affect the people with the least amount of money the most…they don’t vary with how much you make, only with how much you spend, and generally since people who only make $15 grand a year spend every dollar they make, whereas people who make $15 million clearly do not “spend” anywhere CLOSE to how much they make, the wealthy pay less as a percentage of their income than do the poor. And look at withholding taxes (Social Security is 6.2% of the FIRST 105k you make). That is a REGRESSIVE tax. Basically a person who only makes $10k a year has to pay $620, which is hard to come by when you only have $10k to start with. A person who makes 100k pays $6,200…probably not killing them, but certainly I would say most $100k a year earners aren’t exactly rich and that $6,200 would be more meaningful, more life changing than to someone making a million a year. And a person making $1,000,000 a year, they would pay about $6,500, as would a person making $10,000,00 or $100,000,000 a year.

Based on your next posting, I’ll go along with you if by “set tax” you mean that the tax varies with your income, such as the first $100k you pay x% and that percentage goes up for the next $100k and so on…basically a progressive tax which has no write offs…that is NOT however a flat tax. A flat tax would mean you pay the Federal Government 20% of your income, no matter how much you make, but you STILL have to pay the regressive SS tax and the regressive property tax and the regressive sales tax and the regressive taxes built into everything you spend money on. That would still be an unfair tax that would be borne more by the poor than the wealthy.

@dalepetrie I think I disagree with one part of your statement. About social security, you basically get back out what you pay in, or it is proportional to that, so I think that is fair.

I think Hong Kong has a flat tax system, but I don’t know much about how it is really designed and if it is considered successful.

The top 10% of this country pay 60% of the federal income tax. The other 90% pay only 40%. Let people keep the money that they earned!

When I was making $30,000 annually, I was actually getting only around $19,000 of it. My cousin makes around $95,000 annually, but sees only about $50,000 of it. I don’t pretend to understand tax law, but how is that fair? Especially when you consider that someone making 10 million annually could stand to pay a couple hundred thousand more in taxes and not be forced to make a significant lifestyle adjustment, whereas the $11,000 I was paying decided if I was going on vacation or seeing a dentist that year.

Maybe I’m a little too altruistic in my expectations of those having more paying more to ease the burden of the little guys a bit. I certainly wouldn’t be against paying extra taxes if I was making much more than everyone else: it’s the price of living a life that’s probably 90% better than everyone else’s.

@lisa16 “The top 10% of this country pay 60% of the federal income tax. The other 90% pay only 40%.” But the question is, is the top 10% making 80% of the income, then they are under taxed. I don’t know the actual stat, if anyone has it, it would be interesting to know. Your statistics lack the other side of the equation.

I have no problem with it. The state of CA wouldn’t be in such a problem now if we had luxury taxes. Why does someone need 14 cars worth millions of dollars—luxury tax. Why does someone need a 55 million dollar house—luxury tax.

@tinyfaery I don’t begrudge the rich for enjoying their money. I am not sure I am for a luxury tax? I just want the system to be fair, I think it is very unfair right now.

There are several reasons:

1. Rich people have the power to get bills passed that are beneficial to themselves. ex capital gains taxes

2. Rich people can spread propaganda that taxes on them are going to be bad for everyone. ex If taxes go up for full health coverage, I will go broke and you will have no jobs and death panels will kill you

3. Some not rich people think they will become rich and they won’t want to pay taxes. ex No taxes on estates over $1–2 mil because someday I might be that rich and I don’t want the govt to get my money even after I’m dead

4. And then there are those who don’t want to make rational decisions but instead want to stick their fingers in their ears and parrot,“No taxes, no matter what, give me money and services, but no taxes no matter what”

@JLeslie – I don’t see eye to eye with you on Social Security, because I think it’s social insurance, part of the social safety net. I think you look at Social Security as a “savings” plan, which is how the right wing wants you to think of it, like something that should give people back what they put in. But it’s actually more like “insurance”, some people will end up using more than they pay for and some will end up using less than they pay for, which is what makes insurance work. The reason it’s there is so that if you can’t afford to save up enough in your lifetime via your own efforts, savings and investing abilities, you can still retire. The theory is, after you reach a certain age, it gets harder to make a living and we need you to leave the workforce anyway to make room for new entrants. Basically, we should not even worry about collecting Social Security premiums, but we should equalize ALL taxes so that everyone pays the same percentage of their income overall. The rich will use some government services more heavily than the poor, the poor will use some government services more heavily than the rich, and yes, the poor will probably receive a disproportionate share of government spending, but government should act as somewhat of an equalizer. The idea of a capitalist society is you have the ability to go as far as your dreams, ambition and skills will take you, but you’ll be treated equally, but that means hey, maybe you do really well, and you don’t need to rely on the government for certain things, well that’s all well and good, but if you do poorly and you need to, that’s all well and good as well. But it’s not about YOU, because your fortunes could reverse and it could have NOTHING to do with you. So, if you’re rich and become poor, so be it, now you have access to help that you didn’t need before, and if you’re poor and become rich, you lose access to things you no longer need.

And @lisa16 & @JLeslie – It doesn’t really matter what percentage of Federal Income taxes the wealthiest x% pay, if you don’t a) consider ALL the other taxes they pay, b) what percentage of taxes that is of their income and c) what percentage of all monies earned is earned by this same percentage. The Limbaughs of this world have the one side of the stats that people too ill informed to see the big picture like to regurgitate on places like this, but you’ll never get as @JLeslie, an honest accounting of how much money they bring in. Why? Because those who DO dig further in support of their claims will tell you thinks like the top 1% make 20% of the income and pay 34% of the Federal taxes, BUT, they won’t tell you that this 20% is JUST income, and doesn’t include capital gains, which is where MOST of the money made in this country is made, and it’s taxed at 15%, not the 36% top marginal tax rate. And again, it doesn’t include ALL the other taxes paid. If you look at the top 1%, top 10% and top 50% of money earners (not wage earners), I guarantee you that you would see that they pay less in taxes as a percentage of their income than do the poor, and that they pay less in terms of a percentage of the overall tax collections at the Federal level than do those below them. But even if they didn’t, bottom line is, that’s how Federal taxes are MEANT to be. The wealthy should pay more in taxes than the poor at the Federal level, because the whole CONCEPT of a progressive Federal tax structure is that all other taxes are regressive and we need to balance them out.

@dalepetrie I need to think about what you said about social security. I actually agree with your basic premise. I am a big believer in social security and was horrified when they were talking about privatizing.

@JLeslie – exactly, essentially by saying that you should get what you put in out of SS is the argument of the privatizes. To do so would be to fundamentally change it from insurance to savings. We can save on our own, we buy insurance in case we need it through no fault of our own. Expecting people to only get back what they put in undermines the entire concept of Social Security.

@dalepetrie well, previously I did not think of it that way, this is why I feel I need to really ponder your statements. Previously I was against privatization, but did kind of think of it as a forced savings AND that younger generations helps support the older ones as the population grows to help take care of inflation needs and the reality that people are living much longer. When people for privatization would say things like, “it’s my money, why should the gov’t have MY money, I can save it myself.” My response was that most of America sucks at saving, so I like that the gov’t is creating a forced saving for your future. Kind of like the gov’t is saving you from yourself, which helps society in the long run overall. Even though I consider myself a great saver, I still cannot know how long I am really going to live, what if I save enough to last me until I am 89 and I live to be 102? SS is for the rest of your life—that’s important to me. Also, let’s say you never needed SS because you made plenty of money and have plenty of savings, still I think what’s the harm? If you have that much money and you will “get it back” in the end, why complain when it is for the greater good. So my take was slightly different than yours.

@JLeslie – sure, and I think that’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what SS was meant to be. I believe some people still call it “Social Security Insurance” because it IS insurance, it is NOT forced savings…it was never intended to be forced savings, it was ALWAYS intended to be retirement insurance.

@dalepetrie So, are you of the mind that if you are wealthy when you retire you shouldn’t get any SS, because you don’t need it? Seems that is the next logical step to what you are saying. I don’t agree with that.

Fairness? Is it fair that CEOs get miilions when their workers get laid off? Fair is all people having the same stuff. That is not America and it never will be.

@tinyfaery that is a good point, to the extent that life generally is not fair. But, I would argue the golden rule then. What would those rich people want if they were middle class? You can’t just think of yourself in society, then you really aren’t part of that society.

I totally disagree with them cuz rich ppl feel like they did something wrong. Do u kno how much rich ppl worked to become that rich!? very hard. They worked years and years for that money and that money is going to ppl that dont do anything with their lives and sit on their butts all day!

Um. I have to disagree with that sweeping generalization.

A large part of what constitutes company heads salaries has to do with “look what he is making at that company, are you saying I am not worth it when we make more?”

There is less accountability for the heads of these companies and the rich, and more loopholes than the middle class will EVER see in their jobs or taxes.

@JLeslie – I’m of the mind that it’s your decision. It IS insurance…it’s basically the opposite of Life insurance, which pays off if you die…call it death insurance because it pays off if you live. Not everyone who gets a life insurance payout needs the money if a loved one dies, but basically you pay your premiums and if and when you meet the criteria for payout, you get a defined benefit. It’s social insurance, meant to pay out if you live beyond your capability to work.

And @wowy123 – perfect example of what I’m talking about of how the people who have all the money and thus all the power convince the rest of the unwashed masses that the only people who ever need help from the government are lazy. Fact is only a small fraction of a percent of people are going to ever get rich, and it’s not that these people necessarily worked a lot harder, were a lot more talented or smarter or ingenious than the rest of everyone else. Yes, a lot of people who have a lot work hard for it. But don’t you think people who are working 80 hours a week at 3 jobs sweeping floors and cleaning out toilets work pretty fucking hard for their money, which isn’t even enough to pay their bills. You’ve been sold an elitist load of bullshit….very few people who get assistance from the government could get by without it, and it has nothing to do with how hard they work. Yes, in any system there will be cheats, but what happens is, someone with money flowing out his asshole can afford to buy and sell Congress, so he points to the visible examples that have been sensationalized by the media of people who’ve scammed the system, so that people like you will decide that everyone who uses the system for what it’s for is lazy and worthless and essentially stealing your tax dollars. That way you will demonize them as people who “sit on their butts all day” (you mean like the CEOs who sit behind their desks and pull down 8 or 9 figures by talking to people and making deals?), and that way you can argue for tax breaks for people who don’t need them. You’ve been played.

@wowy123 I agree that the people making lots of money probably worked VERY hard for the money. I, personally, and not talking about taxing them at a higher percent, but at minimum the same percent as the middle class; with the loopholes, capital gains, tax laws, and moving money off shore, they don’t in many cases, this is my central complaint. Would you agree that you don’t want the rich to pay lower taxes than the rest of us?

Warren Buffet took a survey of the people who work in his office and the secretaries were paying almost double the taxes he is http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html
There are lots of clips of Warren Buffet on youtube talking about taxes if you have any interest. He is SUPER RICH and telling the TRUTH. The statistics stated in the article I posted in the original question are numbers from the IRS, not some left wing radical group.