Welcome to PatsFans.com

How much should the very rich pay in taxes?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, Jan 26, 2010.

?

How much should the very rich pay in taxes?

  1. 1919, 73% of everything over $11.9 million (Wilson-D)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. 1929. 24% of everything over $1.2 million (Hoover-R)

    3 vote(s)
    15.0%
  3. 1939. 79% of everything over $73.9 million (FDR-D)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. 1949. 82.13% of everything over $3.4 million (Truman-D)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. 1959. 91% of everything over $2.8 million (Ike-R)

    1 vote(s)
    5.0%
  6. 1969. 77% of everything over $1.1 million (Nixon-R)

    2 vote(s)
    10.0%
  7. 1979. 70% of everything over $600,000 (Carter-D)

    2 vote(s)
    10.0%
  8. 1989. 28% of everything over $511,000 (GHW Bush-R)

    5 vote(s)
    25.0%
  9. 1999. 39.6% over everything over $349,000 (Clinton-D)

    3 vote(s)
    15.0%
  10. Other

    4 vote(s)
    20.0%
  1. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,654
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    Last edited: Jan 26, 2010
  2. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,591
    Likes Received:
    64
    Ratings:
    +116 / 7 / -10

    Well i chose 25% over a Mil, however I would prefer 17% of > 50k for a family of 4.
  3. atomdomb

    atomdomb Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    767
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    No offense Patters but kind of a dumb thread...spending is the issue.

    Forbes 400: September 2007,
    Total Net Worth = $1.54 trillion
    • This would run the US government for just six
    (6) months in the coming fiscal year.
    • If we raised the tax rate for all those taxpayers
    currently in the 35% tax bracket to 100%,
    • the US would raise $450 billion and this would
    keep the government running for 56 days in the
    coming fiscal year.


    This was from 2007 when the Forbes 400 had alot more money(before the crash). Lets raise the very rich to 100% and run the government for 56 days. Great idea! Oh by the way, we spend alot more now than we did in 2007 so it wouldn't even run the government for 56 days. Spending is the issue. You can not tax the rich enough if you spend like idiots.
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2010
  4. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,654
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    Atom, I'm raising an entirely different issue. That said, I think your point warrants a thread of its own.
  5. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,635
    Likes Received:
    74
    Ratings:
    +153 / 1 / -10

    Taxing anyone at 90% is just plain idiotic. It's like saying "No one deserves to make $X!" and that Mr Patters just isn't true. In the US of A, we deserve to make as much as we're willing to sacrifice to get there.

    So what Ike basically said is that people don't need to make any more than $2.8MM per year. That smells of an underlying distaste for very wealthy people. I think wealthy people are as likeable & loveable as middle-class and poor people...who wouldn't feel that way?

    So Patters, do you think there should be limits on how much people can make? Because if we taxed anything over $2.8MM at 90%, you can bet people would make every effort NOT to make over that amount.

    If we had this tax you propose and I made over $2.8MM, I'd donate the money I made in excess of this amount to people I wanted to have it just to avoid giving it to the gov't.
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2010
  6. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,654
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    PR, the government spends its revenue and who is best positioned to profit off that? The more liquid assets they have, the more ability they have to profit and a high marginal rate on earned income provides them with a hefty incentive to reinvest. on the other hand, if they absolutely must have that $50 million yacht, then a high marginal rates means it will cost them a bundle; they will have to, in effect return, some of that tax payer revenue that got as profits on their investments to the tax payer.
  7. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,635
    Likes Received:
    74
    Ratings:
    +153 / 1 / -10

    Just my personal opinion Patters, but I think you're one of those people who thinks everyone deserves the same...and they don't.

    No matter how much liquid assets one has to "reinvest", at some point they'll want to use some of that money for themselves. Call it what you like, but you're supporting income limits...plain & simple.

    Mainstreamers will never accept that. The FAR left has to realize that they'll never be mainstream....just as the far right needs to do the same.
  8. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,654
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    I don't think everybody deserves the same, needs the same, or even wants the same, but it's expensive to a run a country and people have to make sacrifices. I think it makes more sense for the very rich to lose out on some luxuries than for the poor and middle class to lose out on better education, health care, and so on. If a flat tax provided enough revenue to run a world-class country, I'd be all for it.
  9. NEPatriot

    NEPatriot Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,839
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2010
  10. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,635
    Likes Received:
    74
    Ratings:
    +153 / 1 / -10

    I think the answers lie somewhere between my and your opinion. Of course you can't decide what the gov't needs to provide until you know how much we have to spend. Somehow our gov't seems to have forgotten that simple truth.

    Stop fighting wars would be the perfect place to start. I'm sure we can agree upon that.
  11. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,654
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    Yes we can, but if we start agreeing too much, we'll hardly ever talk!
  12. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,635
    Likes Received:
    74
    Ratings:
    +153 / 1 / -10

    I'm more of a reactionary guy. I'll say what's on my mind at the moment which may or may not be influenced by my mood. Over time, I begin to intellectualize topics and typically come back from whatever emotion-driven comment I made.

    A personal flaw of mine....
  13. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    I don't think there's any permanent correct number. The right policy ought to be about collecting the money the nation needs with the least amount of suffering all around. I think that changes as the economy changes. I think its silly to assume some entrepreneur who's happy working 90 hours a week at a 25% tax rate will turn lazy if you tax him 35% or even 65% Its his nature to work 90 hours a week, tax policy won't change that and it won't stop him from getting rich either. I also think its silly to assume that tax rates affect exactly how much risk people are willing to take. I think some guy with a pile of money to invest looks more at the economy in general than he looks at tax advantages. If the economy says its a risky time no tax incentives will help.

    As a general rule I'd say the rich ought to bear their highest burden when times are tough and the poor/middle class ought to bear their lightest. When times are good that should flip around; but the exact, specific percentages and exactly what's a good economy vs a bad one is something for the egg heads to figure out.
  14. MrSparkle

    MrSparkle Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    I suffer from the same affliction. I'm also real good at typing out responses to posts and then just deleting them and saying f it.

    As for taxes. As little as necessary to run the country. I'm of the opinion the entire tax code needs to be thrown out. It's a mess. Simplify the code and come out with something fair for everyone. We all live here and must all contribute as able.
  15. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I think it's silly that you think it's silly that people don't look at tax rates when deciding how and where to invest their money.

    If someone is making enough money that their marginal tax rate is 91%, and they are looking at a 91% tax of their capital gains, then they have absolutely zero incentive whatsoever to invest. The government isn't going to subsidize 91% of their losses. Too much risk for virtually no real chance at real gains.

    Patters is making the same stupid mistake we see constantly from the left. These people believe - and I mean honestly believe - that they can raise taxes to oppressive rates such as 91% and it won't alter anyone's behavior.
  16. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,654
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    Don't put words into my mouth. Of course, tax policy alters behavior. It's one of many tools nations use to create a national identity, something that liberals and conservatives all share. And, FYI, the table only refers to earned income, that's why I stated, "Because the rich always have various loopholes, these rates would mostly affect those who literally spend millions of dollars a year on themselves."
  17. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,029
    Likes Received:
    186
    Ratings:
    +292 / 6 / -8

    I certainly think the top marginal rate should at the very least approach 50% -- note, I said "at the very least." I also think the 35% bracket we have at 373K should increase a percentage point or two, and that a further percentage point across the board is absolutely fine with me.

    I also think once again, some here need to "get" what the top rate is. It's not what you pay on all your money. If it kicks in at 373K, it's what you pay on dollar 373,001. A lower rate applies up to that point.

    Finally, although it's vastly unpopular, I think that both the Bush regime's giveaways and nationalizations (AIG, Fanny, Freddy,) and the less expensive auto sector rescues under Obama, were necessary. I believe the $787B stimulus package was necessary. And -- contrary to what the Pres is about to say tomorrow night -- I believe more stimulus spending would be the better move right now than a lurch toward fiscal conservativism.

    I say this advisedly. I do not like deficit spending. I do not like perverse inventives and high taxation, particularly for their own sake. In my own personal life, if I've got 10 K in debt I'm damn well paying 1K per month over the interest charges for most of a year and making it go away.

    But that ain't what we're looking at folks. We're looking at revenue -- the equivalent of our national paycheck -- virtually disappearing, while expenses shoot through the roof. And note: these expenses -- the non-war related bits, anyway -- are the outgrowth of the economic crisis of 08. We have them, and if we are smart, we'll have more of them (but we're about to be dumb.) Because those expenses are the cost of making the damn paycheck come in, i.e., to have the employment to bring revenue closer to normal. That also means individuals would be going back to work, which after all is the goal in the first place.

    I know the dum-dums here love to characterize me as loving taxes, and loving spending, and blah blah blah blah. I also know the current popular mood. Finally, I also also see the need for fiscal discipline, but that can't simply be a "spending only" solution. To begin with we seem to have declared our "security" spending to be non-discretionary, and that's in addition to the 2/3 of the budget we already don't appropriate in spending bills (the trust funds.)

    That leaves us screaming bloody murder about what? The 1/8th of the pie that we actually consider "discretionary." You know, "everything else": Highways, demonstration projects, research grants, unemployment benefits, etc. etc. etc. All of it. 1/8th.

    How can you even start to talk about spending without including social security (means testing, anybody?) or the military?

    And how can you look at a country in its current state, and pretend there should never, ever, be higher taxes, given that we're at a historical low, that we pay lower taxes than comparable economies, and that we can't get from point A to point B through spending cuts alone?

    Finally, how the hell do people run around making these facile arguments as if we have not been footing the bill for one major and one minor war since 2001, and as if 2008 had never happened?

    PFnV
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2010
  18. KontradictioN

    KontradictioN Do you even lift? PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    26,512
    Likes Received:
    354
    Ratings:
    +900 / 18 / -25

    No Jersey Selected

    They wouldn't make every effort NOT to make over that amount. They'd just take the amount they already have (which we're assuming is in the millions as it is, maybe even billions) and leave the country. Jobs would go from bad to worse. There's a very good reason why you don't overtax the rich.
  19. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,856
    Likes Received:
    90
    Ratings:
    +151 / 3 / -19

    The current rates are somewhat stupid and with all the deductions are basically worthless.... i

    The only hope of equity is some type of flat tax or tax based on consumption, not only would it level the playing field.. also eliminate the whole IRS... taxes could be done an a half page sheet of paper...

    The reality is that this government and the previous governments have a spending problem.. this endless war in the mideast, often overlooked, has put a tremendous drain on our economy..
  20. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    If the best you have is to alter what I say and then attempt to criticize it then go away and start a friggin' blog already.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>