Not Enough "Rich" People for 0bama to Tax

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Net worth. As in after all that accounting. Like you said, wealth begets wealth.

What I would ask, as I asked before philosophically is:

Would increasing taxation on the richest individuals drive them to be not rich anymore?

If the answer is YES: then the method is wrong and should not be done.

If the answer is NO: then there should not be a problem asking the rich to give more of what they will not miss.

Furthermore, as wealth begets wealth- lowering the taxation rates on that other 99% of Americans will free up more funds to fuel the economy that are not proportionately spent on by the top 1%.

the problem with taxing the upper tier, is many of them are 'wealthy' but do not necessarily have a large 'income.'

[Zero Sum 305]

the problem with taxing the upper tier, is many of them are 'wealthy' but do not necessarily have a large 'income.'

No "large" income.

Poor rich people.

They make enough to get taxed.

[mawilson 2,133]

Net worth.

What accounting? Net worth = assets minus liabilities.

Would increasing taxation on the richest individuals drive them to be not rich anymore?

Increasing it a few percentage points would not. Bumping it up to 99 percent would drive them out of here. These people didn't get rich by being stupid. There's always London... or Hong Kong... or Singapore.

[Zero Sum 305]

What accounting? Net worth = assets minus liabilities.

Increasing it a few percentage points would not. Bumping it up to 99 percent would drive them out of here. These people didn't get rich by being stupid. There's always London... or Hong Kong... or Singapore.

Since the US Supreme Court now allows corporations to act as individuals, imagine it when major ones pay no income tax. That kind of Net effect. Its not unusual, when we hear of the rich getting hammered for tax evasion, that they took way too many deductions, misreported income, sheltered income offshore, etc...

I think you thought that I said the ultra rich should be taxed at 99%. I did not, it was an exaggeration as stated so. But you can do the numbers. Tax some at even that rate and they'd still be ultra rich without losing much- I am sure not a whole lot of them are that rich, but there have to be a few. That's how much money they make.

[mawilson 2,133]

Tax some at even that rate

I think you're confusing wealth and income.

Wealth is not taxed, income is. Passive income (capital gains) is taxed differently - the long-term capital gains rate is 15%.

[Zero Sum 305]

I think you're confusing wealth and income.

Wealth is not taxed, income is. Passive income (capital gains) is taxed differently - the long-term capital gains rate is 15%.

I knew you'd point out the difference. No worries, no confusion. Its obvious total income vs passive income merit different tax rates.

Once you have it, its yours.

[mawilson 2,133]

I knew you'd point out the difference. No worries, no confusion. Its obvious total income vs passive income merit different tax rates.

Even if you tax the top 1% at a 100% rate (take *all* of their income),

you will only raise enough cash to reduce the federal deficit by about

50 percent.

[Zero Sum 305]

Even if you tax the top 1% at a 100% rate (take *all* of their income),

you will only raise enough cash to reduce the federal deficit by about

50 percent.

A bit harsh I'd say. But think about those numbers and everyone else that gets taxed- including the other 99% (including the ones that have no tax liability) + corporations that don't evade paying taxes. Its not about punishing the rich, but keeping things within a sense of decency while preserving people's incomes and levels of wealth within reasonable bounds. This way the rich that earn their riches stay rich, and everyone is happy- even the ones at the top 0.1% that have a strange sense of self-preservation and a lack of money sense through incomes that are impossible to spend.

Once we get over the hysteria over taxing the rich, we can do some good for the benefit of all, including the rich themselves.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I think you're confusing wealth and income.

Wealth is not taxed, income is. Passive income (capital gains) is taxed differently - the long-term capital gains rate is 15%.

Foreign Income Exclusion is peanuts though (assuming they are all citizens).

By the way...how hard is it to attach an inflationary element to AMT so it doesn't have to be manually increased?

Edited April 14, 2011 by Sousuke

[^_^ 5,021]

Once we get over the hysteria over taxing the rich, we can do some good for the benefit of all, including the rich themselves.

Wow, how nice of you!

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

By the way, the clear answer is moderation. There needs to be both a reduction of spending and an increase in revenue. We need to take a hard look at the tax burden of each segment of society and adjust accordingly, even it means everyone has a tax increase

This goes back to the idea that our entire system is flawed. This isn't a job for politicians. Its a job for statisticians and computer models. We honestly have the worst segment of society managing the show right now.

Edited April 14, 2011 by Sousuke

[Zero Sum 305]

Wow, how nice of you!

You know how it is. The rich deserve their UI, Medicare, SSI, etc. You never know; they can get taxed into the unemployment line by some liberal communist.

By the way, the clear answer is moderation. There needs to be both a reduction of spending and an increase in revenue. We need to take a hard look at the tax burden of each segment of society and adjust accordingly, even it means everyone has a tax increase

This goes back to the idea that our entire system is flawed. This isn't a job for politicians. Its a job for statisticians and computer models. We honestly have the worst segment of society managing the show right now.

Yes! And as its been pointed out, they perpetually preserve things that way by keeping things gridlocked.