Welcome to PatsFans.com

A millionaire's tax?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, Aug 10, 2010.

  1. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,774
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +170 / 4 / -4

    Some argue that the money we get, as long as we get it according to what Congress and the Supreme Court call legal, is ours, and we shouldn't really have to pay any tax at all. Others believe that the wealthier you are the more the system benefits you. For instance, wealthy people are in much stronger positions to invest and spend, so many wealthy people did far better than middle class people by pulling money out of the market while it was still high and diversifying or improving their quality of life. In addition, wealthy people benefit more from our tax dollars than other people because they are better positioned to profit off government investments, such as the stimulus bill.

    At any rate, how much would a millionaire's tax yield? A small tax on people receiving over a million a year would generate a substantial amount:

    "Let's say we go with the plan of taxing marginal income above $1 million at 3 percent, and marginal income above $5 million at an additional 3 percent. That would produce a theoretical $39 billion per year. However, there would be some productivity losses, and perhaps some additional offsets resulting from people finding ways to transfer their income into more tax-advantageous activities, so perhaps revenues on the order of $35 billion per year, or $350 billion per decade, are more realistic."
    FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right

    One could only imagine how much more quickly we would reduce our deficit if we returned to the tax rates of the Eisenhower or Kennedy years, years that many American consider economic heydays, when unemployment was low, most families could manage okay with a stay-at-home parent, social services were good, and crime was low.

    It's interesting to note, how our low tax eras led to terrible economic crises as the chart suggests:

    Historical Top Tax Rate

    Seems to me a millionaire's tax would be a good step in strengthening our economy.
  2. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,329
    Likes Received:
    123
    Ratings:
    +297 / 3 / -13

    You've already posted this very same topic more than once Patters. Are you obsessed with this discussion?
  3. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,774
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +170 / 4 / -4

    This is the first time I've seen information on how much revenue a millionaire's tax might yield, and besides the issue takes on increased urgency given the fact that cities, states, and the federal government are taking on more debt. I'm nt more obsessed about this than you are about housing, pensions, ad nauseum. I'll gladly point out the umpteenth time you start a new thread on housing, and doubt you can find a recent thread on progressive income taxes that I started.
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2010
  4. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,715
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +35 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey

    A better step would be to find some way to reign in Congressional spending and finding ways to control non-discretionary spending. If that means raising the retirement age to 70 overnight to make the Social System solvent, so be it. If it means cutting back on those drop in the bucket programs that add up to substantial dollars, so be it. Eliminating earmarks, bridges to nowhere and studying how cocaine affects monkeys.... Secretary fo Defense Gates just yesterday talked of cutting into the defense budget, or more accurately being more efficient with the dollars they have.
    On a state level, the millionaire's tax had a paradoxical effect as they acted rationally moving to state's with no income tax. On a federal level, would they move overseas? More likely, they would use accountants to find the existing loopholes to minimize taxes. Also, the upper 1-3% are responsible for up to 30% of all consumer spending ( sorry no link available) so if you affect their spending, it will have a ripple ( not 'trickle down") effect on the economy as a hole. Lastly, are you proposing to raise taxes in a recession? That was one of the things that worsened the Great Depression, along with tariffs on foreign goods and tightened credit.
    I'm not disagreeing with you but there may be better ways to address the problem.
    Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2010
  5. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,774
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +170 / 4 / -4

    The article does take into account some of the likely ripple effect, and obviously increased taxes are not all upside. Also, I'm all for eliminating fraud and waste (who isn't?). There are many earmarks that are a waste as well as other programs, but it's not nearly enough to address our economic issues.

    Also, you're mistaken about taxes. Coolidge and Hoover both cut taxes dramatically, and Hoover only raised taxes after the crash and the Great Depression began in a desperate effort to get the economy back on track. In fact, the Depression didn't really end until the start of WWII forced FDR to raise taxes and government spending even more than he had wanted. There is a direct correlation between tax cuts and the Great Depression. The fact is government spending is part of our GDP and it's a more reliable and predictable part than the whims of the private sector and consumers.
  6. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,657
    Likes Received:
    154
    Ratings:
    +480 / 1 / -9

    Spending Money:

    President Barack Obama (Photo: REUTERS)
    What the great French historian Alexis de Tocqueville would make of today’s Obama administration were he alive today is anyone’s guess. But I would wager that the author of L’Ancien Régime and Democracy in America would be less than impressed with the extravagance and arrogance on display among the White House elites that rule America as though they had been handed some divine right to govern with impunity.

    It is the kind of impunity that has been highlighted on the world stage this week by Michelle Obama’s hugely costly trip to Spain, which has prompted a New York Post columnist Andrea Tantaros to dub the First Lady a contemporary Marie Antoinette. As The Telegraph reports, while the Obamas are covering their own vacation expenses such as accommodation, the trip may cost US taxpayers as much as $375,000 in terms of secret service security and flight costs on Air Force Two.

    The timing of this lavish European vacation could not have come at a worse moment, when unemployment in America stands at 10 percent, and large numbers of Americans are fighting to survive financially in the wake of the global economic downturn. It sends a message of indifference, even contempt, for the millions of Americans who are struggling just to feed their families on a daily basis and pay the mortgage, while the size of the national debt balloons to Greek-style proportions.

    While the liberal-dominated US mainstream media have largely ignored the story, it is all over the blogosphere and talk radio, and will undoubtedly add to the President’s free falling poll ratings. As much as the media establishment turn a blind eye to stories like this, which are major news in the international media, the American public is increasingly turning to alternative news sources, including the British press, which has a far less deferential approach towards the White House.

    The First Lady’s ill-conceived trip to Marbella and the complete disregard for public opinion and concerns over excessive government spending is symbolic of a far wider problem with the Obama presidency – the overarching disdain for the principles of limited government, individual liberty and free enterprise that have built the United States over the course of nearly two and a half centuries into the most powerful and free nation on earth.
    The Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime: extravagant and out of touch with the American people – Telegraph Blogs
  7. TBradyOwnsYou

    TBradyOwnsYou Rookie

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,586
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    As a non-millionaire, I can easily say that if I were a millionaire I would be happy to pay more in taxes (as I could obviously do so and still have a ton of money to swim in Scrooge McDuck style).
    However, being realistic, I have to imagine that if I were a millionaire I probably would NOT like paying more in taxes. Especially since I hate paying taxes NOW just to watch it get wasted by the government.
    I'd like to think that I'd be for a millionaire's tax though since millionaires are also the reason our government is so ineffecient...
  8. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    I hate millionaires because they won't let me into their club. Something about "You don't have millions of dollars" n stuff. I have a family member who is in the club and he has told me- even bragged about it- that it's a crime how little he pays in taxes, and he only does it because it keeps the auditors off his back. He got very lucky in life with very little effort so I think he has some guilt about even having the money.

    I think he's in the minority.
  9. STFarmy

    STFarmy Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    You know, I think that a graduated tax system is fine. I understand the philosophy that if you earn more, perhaps you should give a little more. I'm not talking extravagently more, but a graduated tax scale from the poverty level to the richest of the rich makes sense to me.

    As PatsfansinPhilly points out, however, we can't just keep increasing taxes on top earners to try and make up for some of the absolutely ridiculous and unexcusable spending our country undertakes. It's ridiculous, and it's not sustainable. Trying to keep taxing top earners to cover our stupid spending is like putting a bandaid on a sword wound. It won't do much good for very long.
  10. chicowalker

    chicowalker On the Roster

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,933
    Likes Received:
    105
    Ratings:
    +180 / 2 / -2

    While in theory I'd prefer a flat tax for all income, in reality I accept a progressive tax rate and far prefer extra tax rates on people at higher income levels such as this than arbitrarily having a top rate at income levels that are nowhere near being "rich," as long as the top tier never exceeds 40% (yes, my limit is arbitrary, too -- it just doesn't "feel" right that somebody should pay half their income in taxes)

    however, as Philly points out, the bigger issue is spending. Even if an extra $35B per year in tax revenue is raised, my concern is that it will just get spent.
  11. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,265
    Likes Received:
    28
    Ratings:
    +58 / 3 / -0

    #91 Jersey

    Where was the OUTRAGE when Laura Shrub went to Africa on a safarie in '07? Oh that was different.
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2010
  12. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,687
    Likes Received:
    296
    Ratings:
    +468 / 9 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    Have we been doing that? Have we been continuely raising taxes for the top earners?

    Or have we been giving them tax breaks for the most part?

    I was under the impression that the last big change to the income tax system took place in 2001 under GW - and that significantly cut taxes to the wealthy. Even if the government allows them to expire when they are due to expire in December it will not really raise taxes on the wealthy, it will merely return them to the rates which were in effect during the Clinton era.

    Maybe I'm wrong. If so, please enlighten me and tell me where we've
    "kept increasing taxes on the top earners" for the last decade or so.
  13. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    38,603
    Likes Received:
    369
    Ratings:
    +776 / 5 / -15

    #87 Jersey

    The more rich people pay the government to dole out to citizens to make things equitable then the less they have for investment which menas less jobs for the people and then more people on the dole.

    I would prefer tax breaks for the rich if they invest in companies that 100% produce in the United States. that would lead to more jobs, happier citizens, a better economy and less people on the dole. More jobs would also mean more spending which leads to more sales tax income.

    The problem I don't get is taxing millionaires is like taking in money from gambling ... neither has any benefits to healthy local economies. A quick look at Obamanomics and this is what is happening right now. His administration has done little to nothing to create a better manufacturing environment in this country ... all they want to do is tax - tax - tax. It's no secret that healthy econmies are the result of more jobs ... it's not rocket science. 3rd world countries are 3rd world because they have few jobs.

    The government does not participate in manufacturing ... manufacturing = jobs which equals more income for the government due to more people paying taxes. We need more jobs so more people pay something instead of fewer people paying more.
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2010
  14. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,329
    Likes Received:
    123
    Ratings:
    +297 / 3 / -13

    LOL! You got me there! Reminds me...I need to start a new thread on housing since I just did one on pensions!;)
  15. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,329
    Likes Received:
    123
    Ratings:
    +297 / 3 / -13

    Like the person who continually cries poor mouth, but has debt out the yazoo, people need to realize that we have a SPENDING problem, not a REVENUE problem.

    We should have a law that makes it mandatory to set aside excess revenue during booms for recessions. Our problem is that during the recent boom, our gov't just spent all the revenue like it was theirs.

    News Flash!!! Tax dollars belong to the "We the people" not the federal gov't!
  16. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    38,603
    Likes Received:
    369
    Ratings:
    +776 / 5 / -15

    #87 Jersey


    [​IMG]
  17. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,687
    Likes Received:
    296
    Ratings:
    +468 / 9 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    Maybe we should just do away with government altogether. Just dump it. Let every person work for himself, let him decide what to allocate to what or let him decide to keep every dam penny for himself.

    He!!, who needs government, anyhow? We don't need a defense system, or an education system or a transportation system. Banks and businesses have already proven they're dam good at policing themselves - don't need no government sticking their noses in there, do we?

    We can all just be responsible for ourselves.

    What you're looking for, PR, is not "We, the people." What you are looking for is "I, the Individual."

    We already have "we, the people," and they elect officials and pass laws and make decisions. You just don't like it that we, the people don't always agree with you, the individual.
  18. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,329
    Likes Received:
    123
    Ratings:
    +297 / 3 / -13

    No, I just don't like the people that are making such decisions...but rest assured, that will change soon.
  19. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,657
    Likes Received:
    154
    Ratings:
    +480 / 1 / -9

    I don't remember that, she must have been on a mission of mercy......:p
  20. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,687
    Likes Received:
    296
    Ratings:
    +468 / 9 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    Just like a freekin librul loon - running off to Africa to administer aid when millions of Americans are being eaten by tigers at home.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>