Home More advice Politics & Law
I read this: "Every time some in Washington raise taxes, they think the people they want to help will feel better because somebody's being gotten even with. The rich are going to suffer like you are? No. The rich will keep their jobs. You're going to get laid off." - Would you agree or disagree with this assessment ?
Let's see...more people in poverty now than before our current US president.
And, we helped the uber rich by moving their tax bracket, down, from 38% to 35% (for federal income tax).
I have yet to read one single report about people losing jobs as a result of changing this tax bracket for the rich. OR people gaining jobs, as a result of the richest Americans starting more companies, hiring more domestic workers, etc.
Have you heard that story? I'm 100% sure that it'd be plastered across every media outlet available, if it was true...fact is, lowering taxes on people that make an annual income of more than 500K is lunacy. The lifetime expected income (us census) of a college graduate is only 3 million as of 2000...so, given that the most rich make that kind of money in six years, instead of 30...well, did it make fiscal sense to give them a break?
:) Granted, if I ever crack that tax bracket personally, I'll be voting for the breaks for me & my newly acquired ultra rich friends...however, until then, it's not something that makes any logical sense.
I don't hear people talking about taxes as a weapon.
It generally comes down to Americans wanting others to pay their fair share.
A lot of poor people think the rich have ways of avoiding paying their fair share. A lot of rich people think of poor people as parasites who because of their low tax rate get a free ride. I've even heard people in the middle class opine that neither the rich nor the poor pay their fair share so most of the burden falls on the middle class.
When you factor in every way the government collects money America already has flat taxes. Our income tax in progressive but nearly every other way the government collects money is regressive. Suprisingly when you add up every tax, tarif, fee, and fine most Americans from the poorest to the wealthiest pay about the same percentage of their income to Uncle Sam. Nobody is getting a free ride.
Amblessed, you like loaded questions...
One cannot asnwer this yes or know, unless you accept the premise that "'Every time some in Washington raise taxes, they think the people they want to help will feel better because somebody's being gotten even with."
It is a false argument, because no one raises taxes to get even with the rich. The rich are the ones pulling all the strings and have the most access to government and infrastructure due to their wealth. They should have to pay an inordinant amount of tax.
And raising taxes is sometimes needed in order to pay for government, especially with Bush spending policies. It is quite obvious that deficit spending is killing us. And the rich are the only ones not affected, in fact they are still doing quite well. Its not about getting even, its about fairness.
filletofspam, I actually agree with you. My answer wasn't really clear, sorry. Trickle down economics has been shown to be false. The main reason for the economic boom in the 80s was not Reaganomics, but the incredibly cheap gas prices resulting in exploitation of new sources of oil in several countries.
I guess what I meant was that taxing "the rich" is an ambiguous statement that's easier said than done, since the rich get their income in so many different ways. I do agree that it's sometimes necessary to raise taxes for the sake of the economy, and I applaud Obama for admitting that it might now be necessary. It isn't often you see a politician with the guts to do that during a campaign.
That statement is based on the assumption that the "rich" being taxed more are corporate CEOs who would then move their operations overseas to avoid the burdens of taxation, thereby causing Americans to be out of work.
But the richest Americans are not just corporate CEOs. In fact, they're a minority of the mega-rich Americans. The rich include people like actors, athletes, musicians, hedge fund managers, big shot trial lawyers, investment bankers, and certain media personalities. And these people earn their money in all kinds of ways, some of which are more heavily taxed than others. So "taxing the rich" does not necessarily involve driving wealthy people out of the country.
majx1979, cutting taxes and deficit spending does indeed stimulate the economy. In fact it is sometimes essential to do this. The problem comes from when governments do this as a matter of course instead of as a temporary fix. If it wasn't for the fact that our government had been cutting taxes while spending like a drunken sailor for most of the last 30 years it would be the right thing to do now. Reagan and both Bushes relied on this trick for their entire tenure and there is no more mileage in it.
I read many sources in the morning, I don't recall exactly which outlet and article contained this assessment - I'll see if I can find it.
Source? Context?
How Much Money Can I Expect to Recover in My Personal Injury Case?
What to Do for a DUI Probation Violation?
When Is It Okay for Private Investigators to Breach Confidentiality?
What to Look For in A Criminal Defense Attorney