Lowering taxes on the wealthy make them more wealth, and little else.

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
30,307
32,014
1,743
oklahoma city
#61
My stance on this issue is more complex than that. I believe that an individual has to obtain a skillset through education that will allow them to make a living wage. This can be as simple as a technical degree from a trade school, or as complex as an advanced degree from an Ivy League school. Regardless of what path someone chooses, they have to obtain a skillset that will allow them to have success in life. I don't think obtaining a high school degree from a rural Canadian town fits that criteria.

One of the results from the study is definitely of note. It said that more young men chose to stay in school and graduate as opposed to leaving school early to start working. We have to find a way to help more young people make this decision. I'm sure the draw to leave school early and start making money is strong when you're in poverty, but too many people make the wrong decision in this situation. Things like hard work, discipline, & delayed gratification aren't easy when you're young, but they're necessary to have success in life.

BTW, the TED talk you posted earlier said that we can lift everyone out of poverty with $175B per year. He didn't really provide details, but I assume that's the cost on top of existing welfare programs to bring everyone above the poverty line. I think that's a great idea, because it would help children to stay in school longer and it wouldn't increase inflation significantly. IMO, targeting those in need would provide a better outcome than providing a UBI to everyone. It wouldn't lower inequality across the board, but it would provide a better pathway out of poverty for people at the bottom.
I really like the universally of a UBI. When you make a line in economics there are incentives around that line that cause behavior. Make it universal, and that goes away.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
30,307
32,014
1,743
oklahoma city
#65
With $50/hr minimum wage we don’t need UBI or any government handouts. It’s a lot simpler. People earn more tax revenue increases and government spending dramatically decreases. It’s a win win.
Well, despite the glaringly obvious problem with your plan, this post also points out the weakness of your thought on these issues. Not everyone that receives a "government handout" does so because they are unemployed or underemployed. It would be amazing if this was merely a case of the hard-working vs the lazy as your simplistic thoughts show. Unfortunately, real-life and real issues are harder than that. Luckily for all, including you, there are people that understand better than you.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
17,195
1,880
1,743
Where else but Stillwater
#66
$2 mil/yr? Why not. I like it. We’ll have an entire country full of instant millionaires.
What would you do with it? Gambling it away at the casinos when you're not sitting at home being addicted to watching reruns of Gilligan's Island and I Love Lucy? I think I'd rather buy stock in casino companies and stay out of them and go on cruises around the world.
 

UrbanCowboy1

Some cowboys gots smarts real good like me.
Aug 8, 2006
3,540
1,851
1,743
Phoenix, AZ
#67
Combining federal income, state income, property taxes, and local sales taxes adjusts the discussion.
1) Fed income taxes: No doubt that the tax revenues are paid heavily by higher income earners. Just 3% of all income earners pay nearly 50% of all fed income taxes
* The top 1% earners pay 26.8% in taxes. Six times more of a percentage than the bottom 50% who pay 4.3%.
* The top 50% earners paid 97% of federal income taxes

2) Fallacies: “the tax structure is rigged to reduce the burden for those of means and hurt those who live hand to mouth”.
Our federal tax structure heavily hits those of higher incomes (see #1 above). Property taxes hit those with more expensive properties. State income taxes hit higher wage earners hard. None of those taxes provide the tax payer any more benefit than those who don’t pay the taxes.

Yes 3) Changing capital gains tax to equal regular tax rate:
Okay, but also need to adjust rules for capital losses. There are current very low maximum amounts that can be claimed as capital losses. If we want to tax people for their gains on their risks, we need to provide same allowances for losses on those risks.
I'm not for higher taxes, but your first point is looking at it backwards in regards to number 2. You could get all kinds of crazy skews when you say "people with X income pay 80% of taxes, and people with Y income only pay 20%, so X is shouldering the burden". Taxation is ideally done at rates relative to the income of the individual, not what they contribute to the tax base as a whole.

Also, as a side note, I hope people understand when we're talking about the wealthy, it's unlikely anyone on this board falls into that category. Not that it makes it morally right to tax them at higher rates, but the top 1% of wage earners out-earn the bottom 90% of incomes - and that was in 2017. And their lead has grown even beyond that in 2020, fairly certain (looking for a source) that they are now earning more than the top 95%. Speak as you wish on taxation rates, but that system will fail eventually.
 

UrbanCowboy1

Some cowboys gots smarts real good like me.
Aug 8, 2006
3,540
1,851
1,743
Phoenix, AZ
#68
Interesting concept. Which wealthy politician constantly complaining about income inequality do you think will be the first to sign on to it? Should we take bets?

Bernie
Warren
Feinstein
Pelosi
Kennedy family
Clinton’s

Since Biden is now the president for all people maybe he would be the first.

All Bernie would have to do is sell one of his three homes. How many homes does one guy need?
I noticed Bernie changed his rhetoric from 'Millionaires and Billionaires' to just 'Billionaires' once he became a member of the former group. :D
 
Dec 18, 2019
245
72
78
40
Central Oklahoma
#69
Well, despite the glaringly obvious problem with your plan, this post also points out the weakness of your thought on these issues. Not everyone that receives a "government handout" does so because they are unemployed or underemployed. It would be amazing if this was merely a case of the hard-working vs the lazy as your simplistic thoughts show. Unfortunately, real-life and real issues are harder than that. Luckily for all, including you, there are people that understand better than you.
$110,000/yr may not fix problems for self absorbed doctors and lawyers but it would solve many problems for the average Joe’s in the country.
 
Dec 18, 2019
245
72
78
40
Central Oklahoma
#70
What would you do with it? Gambling it away at the casinos when you're not sitting at home being addicted to watching reruns of Gilligan's Island and I Love Lucy? I think I'd rather buy stock in casino companies and stay out of them and go on cruises around the world.
Considering a cheeseburger would probably cost $400 after inflation, probably nothing more than I’m doing today
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
7,043
3,432
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#72
The way I see it.
1. The billionaire can pay whatever they wish and when they wish it. The tax code isn’t effecting them. They will just retire if it does. Or move.
2. The millionaire can also adjust themselves on the fly too, unless they’re just beginning. Even at 3-5 million worth is enough to pack up and leave, or quit or both.
3. Going after their money that they already paid taxes on, that’s not invested, that’s not working and sitting in a safe is still just that, theirs. Hell, some of them will destroy it first before paying more taxes on it.

Lowering taxes on the 1% won’t do much for anyone but buy votes from the have nots. What we really mean by taxes on the rich, means the rich that can’t get away.

Will the US economy do better with a higher tax rate on just the upper class? What is the upper class? One answer was anyone making double the national average. Another said individuals making $78k or couples making $156k.

These are the ones in reality that will have to deal with any rise/falls in tax rates. If you’re making $80k now, how do you feel about 20% tax? 40%? Some people, even leaders in Congress, have been floating 50%. I read one calling for 90%. Regardless, some will not contribute their time to a job that losses half the pay. Unless the perks cover the other half. And they will have to, because that’s already a practice. Deferring pay is another. And if you defer, they pay it back the next year, with interest. You can also “loan” your paycheck back to the company. For a tidy profit. Who knows how many ways there are to get around taxes but I know it’s harder and harder the less you make.
 

jobob85

Drunkle
A/V Subscriber
Mar 11, 2009
23,147
27,363
1,743
#73
To really tax the wealthy you need to reform inheritance and dividend/capital gains tax. Income tax reform helps but while some people get paid well they aren’t necessarily wealthy.
Historically a higher income tax rate doesn’t change the effective tax rate much anyhow because of the allowable deductions that go with the tax bill.
 
Mar 11, 2006
3,340
2,007
1,743
#75
It’s well beyond time D.C. changed the focus from new mousetraps for generating income, to the same for reducing spending and balancing the budget.
Amen. A $25T debt for 250M adults is unsustainable.

The problem is balancing the budget will most likely cause a short-term recession and politicians crave power.
 

Jostate

Bluecolla's sock
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
21,328
14,881
1,743
#76
Amen. A $25T debt for 250M adults is unsustainable.

The problem is balancing the budget will most likely cause a short-term recession and politicians crave power.
Inflation is inevitable with that kind of debt. I don't know when but the only way out is to devaluate the currency.