Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How much more of the tax burden should the rich have?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Kievan Rus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 06:35 PM
Original message
How much more of the tax burden should the rich have?
Edited on Thu Aug-06-09 06:36 PM by Kievan Rus
Quite frankly, I'm for them having most of the American tax burden. They've got most of the money in this country; therefore, they should pay the most taxes. Everybody needs to pay their fair share, including the wealthy.

It will also send a clear message: America belongs to the people, not the wealthy and the corporations. The law of the land is the Constitution, not the whims of greedy jerks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SleeplessInAlabama Donating Member (341 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'm not sure of the exact number that it should be. However, in the 50s
the top tax rate was 91% and the rich were still buying expensive cars and homes. Clearly they can pay more of the tax burden, and the disparity between top and middle and bottom is even wider than in the 50s.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kievan Rus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. They pay a lot loss per capita now than then
That's the problem; they don't pay their fair share. That's all I think they should do. It was thouroughly destroyed by Reagan and Dubya.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PDJane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
2. Since they gain their wealth
from the use of the commons, they should pay their share to replenish the commons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
4. The "burden" should be equal for everyone
A $1000 in taxes is a fairly large burden to me. $10,000,000 might be the same burden for the ultra wealthy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gleaner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Right...
they should pay their fair share. They have tax write offs available to them that the middle class and poor don't have access to because we don't have enough money to take advantage of them. I refer to passive losses, flow throughs from corporations and partnerships which run at a loss, rentals of large numbers of properties which can eat up enough loss from other passive activities to completely negate any gain from their income, capital losses to eat up capital gains, investments in supposedly "for profit" activities which are really hobbies and so on. I could go on and on, but the specificity of the write offs isn't as important as the fact that the middle class pays a higher percentage of the taxes than the very rich. If they owe 10,000,000, that's what they should pay whether it is a burden or not. The rest of us have been burdened paying for their very expensive life styles, business ventures and dishonest deals for too long now.

They need to step up and share the burden and help pay for the safety nets which allow the poor to live a decent, dignified life, have jobs and stop taking advantage of those of us who live paycheck to paycheck and still pay everyone's way. I don't mind helping out poor people, but supporting the rich is growing more intolerable by the minute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I agree for different reasons
I want a system where taxes on the rich go to pay for government run programs that cause less and less people to need the safety nets. We need to advance from a system of government safety nets to a system of government regulation that removes the barriers that keep us needing the safety net. We should keep it there, but have little need to use it. I want to help out poor people, I want to help them so much they cease to be poor.

By taxing the excessive wealth being held by some people we can move toward a more equitable society.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gleaner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. I think we are both going ...
for the same conclusion.;) Maybe I was not as clear as I should have been. I think food, shelter and health care are basic rights. I think a civilized society provides these for all of its citizens. Then come jobs which most people want. Again, as FDR did, the government is in a unique position to provide all of the peoples' basic needs and to create programs to put people to work and get the economy humming again. The sticking point here has been the distribution of wealth and the greed of those who have it and are so unwilling to pay not only for themselves, but to help others, that they seem to see us as a bunch of worker bees who live only to support their needs. The safety nets need to be put back as a first step to alleviate the hardship of the poor and middle class. Then parity needs to be imposed so everyone has the same opportunities.

Yes, we should be taxing the wealth held by a few. We should be assessing windfall profit taxes against the health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, oil companies and all of the other large corporations who fed at the public trough at to the detriment of all of us. Windfall profit taxes would take back a lot of what they stole. That would be a great help. Taxing wealthy individuals consistently and eliminating their tax breaks once and for all would be an even greater help.

I also believe that individuals who seek to trespass or harass congresspeople and their constituents who are trying to discuss and learn about issues vital to them, should be arrested for disorderly conduct. These are the same people who tried to close down abortion clinics, inject their religious beliefs into secular government workings and public schools, and who continually try to run this country as if it is their own private fiefdom. We do have free speech, but it does not come attached to violence and threats. The place where these people, who are in a very small minority, are trying to take this is a violent place and they deserve a night or two in jail instead of payments from the fat cats who cannot stand the thought of a government which actually helps its people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. There is a nuanced difference
I'm for government health care, because economically it benefits the population. And there is no viable regulated market solution.

For the other aspects, I think the government should not "provide", but should make available. With safety nets for those unable to provide for themselves.

I consider it like this:Should a McDonald's worker be given a house and food or Should government regulation protect them from exploitation, so they can have a living wage and easily provide it for themselves. With safety nets to protect them if they still need them.

Safety nets are great, but we should be stopping people from falling into them. FDR did this by getting people back to work on public works. He recognized that we don't just need a safety net, we need some safety equipment up there with us all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gleaner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Was that not...
the meaning of what I just posted? I think instead of "nuanced" difference this amounts to a semantic difference. Semantics is a fascinating subject. Two people can use the same words and mean two different things, based on their own perceptions and experiences. As everyone has different perceptions and experiences each word that they all use in common may have many different meanings to them. Did you ever see the movie Rashomon? Nine different people witness the same incident and each sees it in a different way, so there are nine different versions of what happened. Each one is true, it is simply a matter of perception.

This is what I think you are missing from my post. You are attaching different meanings to what I wrote than what I intended. After reading your last reply I am stumwatggled as to how I can make myself any more clear, except to say I want the same thing that you do. It doesn't matter if we "nuance" words fifty different ways for rest of the millennium, my meaning won't change. Those are all of the reasons I have always had for wanting health insurance available to everyone with parity for everyone. They do not change no matter how they are "nuanced." Now for a personal note which will not change no matter how it is "nuanced."

I'm for government run health care for all of the reasons I have given. I am also for government run health care for many personal reasons, because my husband barely survived a bout with MRSA last year, and I was a first hand witness to how his health insurance company mistreated him. MRSA is an antibiotic resistant strain of staph which began in hospitals, but has now spread out into the community. It is very contagious, aggressive and mutates constantly to defy treatment. People usually die from it.

My husband survived but the MRSA did the following:

1. Took from him the ability to walk and use his left arm. This functionality has returned but only just barely. He will never be able to walk normally again. He spends a large part of his day in a hospital bed. The doctors don't know why. No one has seen that many cases of MRSA where the patient has survived.

2. Caused my husband to have a heart attack and destroyed his aortic valve so that his blood could not oxygenate. They had to wait to do surgery until they cleared the MRSA out of his blood. Since his breathing, even with machines to help him, was becoming less and less efficient they had to operate sooner than it was safe to do so. He barely made it out of a 7 1/2 hour surgery which was only a partial success. They had to install an ICD later to control his heart beat and fibrillate his heart if it goes out of rhythm. One of the surgeons said he spent the whole surgery picking piles of dead MRSA bacteria off of, and out of my husband's heart. The MRSA had also given him Endocarditis, a severe inflammation of the heart. He now takes a galaxy of medications for his heart that he never had to take before. They are very expensive. He has to eat a salt and fat restricted diet. All fresh food. This is becoming more and more expensive, but he will have potentially fatal heart problems if he uses salt which is found in most prepared foods. He also is beginning to have congestive heart problems and fluids pooling his lungs. He has to clear his lungs daily.

3. Caused him to form blood clots in his lower extremities which took weeks to dissolve with Heparin in an IV. He went into heart surgery with blood clots which could have killed him if the surgeons had not been exceptionally skilled. But he would have died if they had not operated without taking the risk of dealing with the clots. He will have to take warfarin for the rest of his life to thin his blood and keep new clots from forming.

4. Damaged the lower portion of his lungs by collapsing the alveoli. The doctors tried to keep the alveoli from dying. They did not succeed. Between his heart and his lungs he is short of breath at the slightest exertion. The doctors do not know why the lung damage occurred. No one has seen that many cases of MRSA where the patient has survived.

5. Attacked my husbands bone marrow. His red blood counts dropped to the point where he was and is profoundly anemic. His white count dropped until he had virtually no immune system. We had to wear masks to protect him. His food had to be irradiated before he could eat it and he could only drink bottled water. The depression of his immune system caused a yeast overgrowth in his mouth and throat and sores which would not heal. Until the white blood counts came back of their own accord he was unable to chew food. He lived on his IVs, Cream of Wheat and Cream of Mushroom Soup. His platelet count fell so low that he cannot shave, because if he cuts himself it takes forever for him to stop bleeding. He can't use an electric razor because that would trigger his ICD. He was given at least five blood transfusions to try to equalize his blood count. They didn't work. His Hematologist took a bone marrow aspiration to try to see what was happening. It told him what was happening with my husbands bone marrow but not why, so there was very little the doctor was able to do. My husband was given injections of medications in the stomach daily first in the hospital, and then by me when he came home. I gave him the injections because his health insurance company would not pay for any home nursing visits even though they are contractually obliged to do so. They simply refused and nothing I could say or do would change their minds. They also tried to deny him the medication I injected, until his doctor threw a fit and threatened to admit him to the hospital again if my husband could not get the necessary medication for home use. The insurance company caved and we injected, carefully following the instructions that came with the medication and sweating the possibility of an air embolism. My husband read the instructions aloud and pinched up his own skin while I injected. Not an activity I would recommend for people if they have any other choice. My husband's blood is slowly returning to normal, but whether it will ever come back fully, the doctors don't know. No one has seen that many cases of MRSA where the patient has survived.

6. Caused my husband to have to take Vancomycin which is the antibiotic of last resort for resistant staph infections. The protocol to clear the MRSA was six weeks in the hospital under constant supervision. Vancomycin is very toxic and not easily tolerated. My husband made it less than four weeks before he had an anaphalactic reaction to the Vancomycin. His whole body swelled, his skin turned an orange tone and began to slough off. He developed a rash which was almost black in his lower extremities. It damaged his kidneys to the point where the doctors were discussing dialysis with us. Fortunately the elevated kidney functions dropped to the point where this was not necessary. However, my husband still has kidney damage. He will have some degree of impairment for the rest of his life. In this case though the doctors do know why. It is one of the things Vancomycin can do to patients who use it. That is why the patients must be so closely supervised.

7. Caused my husband to have liver damage. The liver damage resulted in the inability of the body to break down waste products efficiently. Ammonia is being released into my husbands bloodstream. This can cause lethargy, confusion, coma and death. Fortunately the doctors were able to diagnose what was happening and medicate him for it. This is also an expensive medication that he will have to take three times a day for the rest of his life. The doctors cannot say why this happened. No one has seen that many cases of MRSA where the patient has survived.

8. It "colonized" my husband's body so that any small infection or a cold or the flu can turn back into full blown MRSA which the doctors are able to tell us that he probably would not survive.

9. Because of the liver damage and the fact that the liver eliminates medications and other foreign substances from the body, my husband has a very narrow range of medications for other medical conditions that he can take without causing further harm. We have to check with a doctor each and every time before he takes any new medications. Even over the counter medications. We also have to be sure that the doctor we are talking to is familiar with MRSA, because many of them are not. No one has seen that many cases of MRSA where the patient has survived, or has seen that many cases of MRSA period. Unfortunately that is going to change. It was just my husband's terrible luck that he was one of the first cases from the community. They sent in an Epidemiologist to try to figure out where he got it, but that was not possible. It could have been anywhere.

Now to finally terminate this post, let me tell you that my husband was in an acute hospital, as he should have been for 16 weeks. All during this time his health insurance company kept trying to force an early discharge which would have killed him for sure. I could not move them; they would not discuss it with me. One insurance representative told me that in spite of the fact that they were denying covered services it was their right. They also told me that they never considered the actual coverage when they were making decisions on patient care. Fortunately he was in a non profit hospital and the head case worker, who has seen an awful lot of this crap did three or four successful appeals for us which overturned every one of the insurance company's decisions. She had the staff, she had the knowledge, she had the lawyers and she had the compassion to do so. She did a heck of a job. If it had not been for the excellent medical care by both my husband's nurses and doctors which was given in spite of the health insurance company he would not have survived. But how many people have access to staff people at hospitals who care so much. It was a fluke that we did. It just happened to be the closest hospital with a vacancy that the EMTs could take us to. Your life should not depend on dumb luck. Everyone should have access to this type of care, but they do not because of the health insurance companies.

After he got home, the insurance company as I have stated, denied home nursing ordered by my husband's doctors and which was pursued by the hospital case workers, denied him physical therapy which might have helped him to regain muscle tone and walk, and denied durable medical equipment such as a walker, again ordered by his doctors and pursued by hospital case workers. In short after paying high premiums for years, higher co payments every year for less, and much more for prescription coverage the insurance company was not there for us unless the hospital was standing on them and forcing them to do what little they ended up doing. All this stress and frustration and fear during what is one of the worst times of a person's life anyway, a serious illness that could kill them and is not easily cured or curable.

We are still here, still alive, but nearly bankrupt and living with my husband's severe illness which no one understands, and my severe autoimmune disorder which is understood but not easily treatable, especially when the health insurance company would rather not treat it. We have no safety nets because Bush and other mostly Republican politicians took them away. Utopia, as you seem to envision it isn't happening right now and may not happen because the ugly fact is that the rich control the purse strings and the purse strings control a lot of politicians who could help all of us, but won't. What should happen will not happen easily, or may not happen at all if things go badly. We will keep trying, we will help other people the best we can no matter what is happening in our own lives, and hopefully we can create change together. Sometimes the nuances are not as important as the reality. Especially when we are talking about the same goal and for the same reasons.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
5. How much should you have to pay to support others - some consider each of use wealthy
how much should each of us pay to support poorer Americans or are neighbors in poverty in developing countries. It is so easy if others who make more are the only ones we think should pay
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abumbyanyothername Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
20. I, for one, am willing to pay 100%
I already am. I am a male, married with children. :-)

But seriously ... I have no problem working solely for the common good.

I have never been motivated by the urge to accumulate large sums of money. It's OK for me to earn a (relatively) high income because it indicates, tangibly, that society values my efforts. But I would work just as hard without the monetary aspects of the reward system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
6. All of it? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
8. they don't get all of the income, nor do they have all of the wealth
According to stats the top 5% gets about 22% of the income. The next 15%, who many DUers would say are not rich, get another 28%, leaving about 50% for the bottom 80%.

Now, as for wealth, that's a lot more uneven. The top 1% has 34.3% and the next 19% has 50.3%. Leaving only 15.3% for the bottom 80%.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

The question is - how much wealth does it take to be in the top 20% or the top 1%?

I don't find it in the article, but it does say that the median wealth for white households is $118,300. So it looks like it takes $80,000 in assets just to get in the top 50%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamanaut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
10. Some interesting numbers regarding the 2007 tax year
In 2007, the top 1% of taxpayers officially paid 40.4% of total federal income taxes.

The same 1% earned about 22.8% of the total adjusted gross income.

Over 40 million returns filed had no tax liability at all on their adjusted gross income, and many of those not only got back all of the monies withheld during the year, they got additional monies due to programs such as Earned Income Tax Credit.

The total share of taxes paid by the top 1% of taxpayers now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95%

All of this, and more, can be found at the link <http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SleeplessInAlabama Donating Member (341 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Yes, but 40.4% of all fed. income taxes is how much OF THEIR WEALTH?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamanaut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 06:36 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. I don't know how to answer that. I honestly don't care if someone
Edited on Fri Aug-07-09 07:00 AM by Obamanaut
has a larger house, a faster car, etc. than I have. My house is a modest one, my car is five years old and runs smoothly. I pay income tax every year. The people with the larger house and faster car earn more and probably pay not only more income tax, but more property tax, more capital gains tax, maybe give more to charity.

They have more stuff than I do, but I do not begrudge them their wealth. If they are in the top one percent if income earners, they are paying more taxes of every sort than I do, and more than the others in the 95% that I am in. I don't hate them because of what they have, nor do I envy them because of it. I like to look at their houses when I drive by on my way to the dermatologist (or wherever) but I don't want their stuff.

edit spelling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mainer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. it's not a a wealth tax. It's an income tax.
We don't tax wealth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4lbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
12. The rich paid a higher tax rate during two Republican administrations and still fared quite well.
Edited on Thu Aug-06-09 10:45 PM by 4lbs
During the Reagan years, from 1982 to 1987, it was 50% for any couple making more than $100,000 to $175,000 (it varied depending on the year). Yet there were lots of rich people made during the 1980s.

During most of the 1950s, Eisenhower's presidency, the top tax rate was 91% for any couple making more than $400,000. Yet, we still had a large economic boom and good times during the 1950s.

NOTE: These are --> marginal <-- tax rates, meaning only the amount ABOVE the stated monetary amount is taxed at that rate. Thus, during the 1980s, a couple that made $250,000 a year jointly, would have the first $100,000 to $175,000 taxed at a lower rate, and the rest at 50%.

Here is a table of the top marginal tax rates and the levels for every year from 1913 to 2003.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auggie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 07:56 AM
Response to Original message
15. While I agree people with high incomes should pay a higher percentage
in taxes, the burden should fall to corporations that reap the real gains.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
solstice Donating Member (278 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 08:10 PM
Response to Original message
17. A whole lot more than they do have. With no loopholes or write-offs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DailyGrind51 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
19. All of it! And, if they object, bring out the guillotines!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stranger81 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 07:46 PM
Response to Original message
22. Let's at least go back to the tax rates we had under Reagan.
And I say that as someone whose taxes would get jacked. But it's the only fair way to structure this system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Indeed. "Bring back Reagan's tax rates!"
...Now that would be a bumper sticker to cause some head scratchin'. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abumbyanyothername Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
24. The purpose of high top marginal tax rates
should not be revenue raising.

We should have a policy that limits the concentration of wealth, and with it power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC