Patrick.net

The Long Run History of Taxes on the Rich

By tovarichpeter   Follow   Thu, 12 Jul 2012, 3:45pm   989 views   16 comments
In South San Francisco CA 94080   Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/12/the-long-run-history-of-taxes-on-the-rich/

Viewing Comments 1-16 of 16     Last »     See most liked comments

1. thomas.wong1986 Follow Befriend 16 threads 4,426 comments

   1   4:17pm Thu 12 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)   maybe they can impose a new tax law on the rich.. calling it... Alternative Minimum Tax.. you think it will catch on ?

2. tts Follow Befriend 2 threads 470 comments

   2   11:34pm Fri 13 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   AMT is a joke and the rich are often able to work their way around getting taxed by it by using various tax shelters and off shore accounts thanks to the efforts of their high priced money managers working the loopholes for them. The best thing to do would be just eliminate the capital gains tax and tax all earnings as income while putting more tax brackets in for higher incomes. This would drastically simplify the tax system while also giving much needed income to the government without cutting or diminishing much needed social welfare programs. The rich would scream bloody murder about that but its pretty clear by now that having a capital gains tax has just allowed them to accumulate more money while doing nothing to help the rest of society or the economy at large. They'll still be rich anyways, just less so.

3. Peter P Follow Befriend (4) 117 threads 17,655 comments Premium

   3   11:43pm Fri 13 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Flat tax all the way! It is a compromise. Arguably, a regressive tax system better incentivizes production. Progressive taxation is an artifact of the under-regulated democracy. Or, Land Value Tax is not so bad if it replaces all income taxes.

4. robertoaribas Follow Befriend (23) 55 threads 3,790 comments Scottsdale, AZ robertoaribas's website

   4   11:59pm Fri 13 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Peter P says Flat tax all the way! worst idea ever... Value added/national sales tax (with higher rates on luxury items, such as cars 20% over median, houses over certain size, etc): 1. The rich spend their money. 2. catches illegal income... prostitutes, drug dealers, illegals working in the country still spend money. 3. encourages investment. Invested money isn't taxed until you cash out and spend it...

5. Peter P Follow Befriend (4) 117 threads 17,655 comments Premium

   5   12:06am Sat 14 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   I am fine with a national sales tax in place of the income tax provided that it applies to all consumer items uniformly without exceptions. No exemptions on food and medicine. No regard to "median value" or "size" or whether it is a "luxury". No value judgment at all. Consumption is consumption.

6. tts Follow Befriend 2 threads 470 comments

   6   12:17am Sat 14 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Peter P says Flat tax all the way! It is a compromise. Arguably, a regressive tax system better incentivizes production. A regressive tax system just means you end up impovrishing most of your population no matter how well it provides incentive for production since everyone but a select few slowly gets poorer over time. robertoaribas says Value added/national sales tax A VAT is a form of regressive taxation. The non-rich have to spend far more of their income on fundamental needs just to get by so you'll just end up effectively taxing the non-rich more than the rich. Yes, even if you do a "luxury tax". Even the super rich don't buy new yachts/mansions/etc. every year. They'll hardly see the effect of a "luxury tax" at all because of this. Also illegals/prostitutes/etc. are already effected by existing sales taxes, gas taxes, etc. Not that there is a lot of money there to squeeze from them, many are 3rd world levels of poor despite working and living in the US. Not taxing invested money just recreates the "capital gains tax" issue we already have now too and it was also implemented for the same reason (to encourage investment). Almost any special exemptions will be used and abused by the rich, you can't give them an opening, which is why all money earned should be considered and taxed as "income" or "wages" and fall under a simple tax bracket system that progressively taxes higher incomes more.

7. robertoaribas Follow Befriend (23) 55 threads 3,790 comments Scottsdale, AZ robertoaribas's website

   7   12:29am Sat 14 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Peter P says I am fine with a national sales tax in place of the income tax provided that it applies to all consumer items uniformly without exceptions. No exemptions on food and medicine. No regard to "median value" or "size" or whether it is a "luxury". No value judgment at all. Consumption is consumption. that is because either you are completely ignorant of economics, or your just an A___. Anyone who would tax the very poor on basic food and medicine, to pay less tax themselves is completely lacking in any human character.

8. Peter P Follow Befriend (4) 117 threads 17,655 comments Premium

   8   12:31am Sat 14 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Even with a regressive system higher income earners will still pay more taxes. Wholesale buyers get discounts because they buy more. I don't see why it isn't reasonable for higher earners to get a break. The real rich will always have their ways. Progressive taxation only hurts the middle class, especially wage-earning professionals. Saying there "should" be no special exemptions is like saying all crimes "should" be illegal. But for simplicity, we can settle on a flat tax system.

9. Peter P Follow Befriend (4) 117 threads 17,655 comments Premium

   9   12:33am Sat 14 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   robertoaribas says Peter P says I am fine with a national sales tax in place of the income tax provided that it applies to all consumer items uniformly without exceptions. No exemptions on food and medicine. No regard to "median value" or "size" or whether it is a "luxury". No value judgment at all. Consumption is consumption. that is because either you are completely ignorant of economics, or your just an A___. Anyone who would tax the very poor on basic food and medicine, to pay less tax themselves is completely lacking in any human character. There will just be a new equilibrium point for wages and goods. It is very dangerous to start defining what is basic and what is a luxury. Also, charities should remain tax-free. Those who value human character can and should donate as much as they want. There is no grace if compassion is mandated. On a side note, a calories tax (fat tax) may not be a bad idea. :-) I myself can hope to lose some weight.

10. tts Follow Befriend 2 threads 470 comments

    10   12:41am Sat 14 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Peter P says Even with a regressive system higher income earners will still pay more taxes. In nominal terms sure you'll get more tax dollars taxing $1 million at 10% vs $50k at 10%. In effective terms though that rich person is being taxed less since the marginal utility of each dollar decreases as you get more of them. The rich person will spend far less of his income on trying to get by and can easily invest more of it than the common wage earner. Peter P says But for simplicity, we can settle on a flat tax system. A progressive system based on tax brackets can be pretty simple too. Its only due to a lack of education that so many people are ignorant of our tax system, which is the reason why you can see otherwise intelligent people saying objectively stupid things like, "I'll keep my income down below $x so I don't go into the next tax bracket".

11. Peter P Follow Befriend (4) 117 threads 17,655 comments Premium

    11   12:47am Sat 14 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Those making $1M a year are not necessarily rich. You will be amazed how many of them are living paycheck-to-paycheck. A lot of them are literally drowning in debt. They are very likely to lead a high-expense lifestyle just to look good (for professional or ego reasons). Many of the truly rich people adopt the "own nothing, control everything" maxim. Money is only a tool for your will to power. Power is really the end goal. You think you can tax that? The problem with progressive brackets is that someone needs to decide who is "rich" and who is not. Quite likely, he will get the answer from the poll. We can argue all day, but every system is going to have some problems. I suspect that resource allocation is a problem that has no real solutions. We will just have to deal with whatever it is there.

12. tts Follow Befriend 2 threads 470 comments

    12   1:01am Sat 14 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Peter P says Those making $1M a year are not rich. Yes they are, they're in the top 1-2% income earners at a minimum. If that isn't rich than nothing is. Peter P says You will be amazed how many of them are living paycheck-to-paycheck. A lot of them are literally drowning in debt. Just because you can't control your spending doesn't mean you aren't rich. Peter P says They are very likely to lead a high-expense lifestyle just to look good. Oh such a burden to bear...listen carefully rich people of the world *rubs fingers together just so* the world's tiniest violin plays for you! Peter P says Power is really the end goal. You think you can tax that? If I was a government sure, I'd think I'd have enough power to tax that. I'd have guns, and nukes, and battleships n' stuff. The rich want to stay rich not get shot. I am not of course, but then we do happen to have one handy and despite its poor performance for the last, oh, 30 years or so it certainly is capable of taxing the rich more. Peter P says The problem with progressive brackets is that someone needs to decide who is "rich" and who is not Uh no. The brackets get determined based on income and the average cost of living along with other factors which is why they're often adjusted each year. They aren't based on arbitrary definitions of "rich" or "poor".

13. Peter P Follow Befriend (4) 117 threads 17,655 comments Premium

    13   1:06am Sat 14 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   tts says Yes they are, they're in the top 1-2% income earners at a minimum. If that isn't rich than nothing is. There are at least 100M income earners. Are you saying there are at least 1-2M rich people? That cannot be right. Income is a middle-class concept. Rich people only care about influence and control. How could you tax power? They are most often non-monetary. For example, if A owes B a favor, what is the market value of that?

14. tts Follow Befriend 2 threads 470 comments

    14   1:22am Sat 14 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Peter P says Are you saying there are at least 1-2M rich people? That cannot be right. Lot more than that actually. The US has more rich people than most any other country on the planet, don't be so surprised at that. What should surprise you is the wealth disparity between the top 5% income earners and the rest. Peter P says How could you tax control or power? If money is power then how isn't a tax on income a way to control power?

15. Peter P Follow Befriend (4) 117 threads 17,655 comments Premium

    15   10:34am Sat 14 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   In that case power will simply be expressed in forms other than money.

16. tts Follow Befriend 2 threads 470 comments

    16   10:58am Sat 14 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Peter P says In that case power will simply be expressed in forms other than money. So workers and politicians do what the rich want based on what? Their charisma? Their good looks? Their Ivy League College Diplomas? The world doesn't work that way. The rich get their power from their money, not the other way around. Without their money they're just like everyone else.