"...all wealth belongs to the government to distribute as they see fit."

[RC]

From a small town newspaper blog.

May 11, 2011, 10:45 am

WLanger said: "Kadizzle thinks that all wealth belongs to the government to distribute as they see fit. He thinks that by the govt taking less of what someone has that they are actually giving something to that person. His way of thinking will never change and your time would be better spent by-passing his posts."


{My Response}
No, it is you that does not understand. The government provides services. Those services have to be payed for by someone. That someone is us taxpayers.
For instance. All those expensive war toys the government needs in supplying the war services in the Middle East for the Military Industrial Complex, the F16's F22's, Global Hawks and Predator drones, B2's, cluster bombs... All this costs money. Money the Well-to-do are not paying because of the Bush tax cuts. These are the same Well-to-do that are profiting directing from the wars.

If we are to continue to kill rock throwers and making more terrorists so we can kill them using multimillion dollar machines, the top 1% are going to have to start paying their fair share or else the government will have to stop our wars and bring our troops home because we will not be able to pay the war machine manufactures overrun costs. Our credit cards are about maxed out now. In other words, we are already running out of money.
You wouldn't want that to happen now would you? Understand?

Conrad sold out the Democrats
http://www.bismarcktribune.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_2a4e7fcc-7b6a-11e0-a82d-001cc4c03286.html?mode=comments


Think the 28%'ers can understand this way at looking at things?

[dkf]

1. Someone on Morning Joe said it yesterday...all income over $250,000 was $1.1 trillion.

So if you taxed that amount 100% you still wouldn't close our $1.5 trillion deficit.

That is a 100% tax rate with nothing left to be taxed by the state.

Ironically the rich don't make enough to pay for everything.

[Fumesucker]

2. Just because someone on Morning Joe says something does not make it an actual fact..

Indeed, I would think just the opposite.

[dkf]

4. I checked out the taxes collected earlier and it looks like a good number.

Would you like me to get the data for you?

[Fumesucker]

5. You made the claim..

You can back it up or not, I don't care either way.

[dkf]

8. Well if it makes no difference to you I won't bother. It's not easy to find

And I didn't bookmark it.

But if you appreciate the point I am making then I'll try to find it.

[Fumesucker]

12. I don't believe the point you're making..

And most browsers have a "history" option that lets you easily revisit sites you have been to before in the past without having to necessarily bookmark them, I use mine on a fairly regular basis for just the reason that I almost never bookmark anything.

http://www.lcurve.org/

The US population is represented along the length of the football field, arranged in order of income.

Median US family income (the family at the 50 yard line) is ~$40,000 (a stack of $100 bills 1.6 inches high.)

--The family on the 95 yard line earns about $100,000 per year, a stack of $100 bills about 4 inches high.

--At the 99 yard line the income is about $300,000, a stack of $100 bills about a foot high.

--The curve reaches $1 million (a 40 inch high stack of $100 bills) one foot from the goal line.

--From there it keeps going up...it goes up 50 km (~30 miles) on this scale!

[Hannah Bell]

13. i'd like to see it.

[RC]

3. Over ten years that is 11 trillion dollars

One would think that would make a dent in the deficit.
Just because it doesn't cover it in one payment, does not mean it doesn't help.

[dkf]

6. Yes it helps but it is unrealistic to think the rich can take care of us.

We haven't even got to the real peak in Medicare costs due to the baby boomers becoming eligible and the increase in longevity.

My point is people who think taxing the rich solves our problems haven't taken a look at the numbers. I think our government has done us a real injustice by not explaining things. Probably they realize that the reality of the situation is pretty dire going forward and they are too scared to let us know the truth.

Notice how they tell us we need to look at entitlements but they never really explain why with charts.

[Angry Dragon]

7. +1000

Plus that money would be used to help the bottom, they would spend the money, which would add to the incomes of the middle, which would then make more money and then pay more in taxes.

I think many of the tax cutters don't understand that by putting more money at the top stops the circle of spending. More spending creates more taxes collected. And if companies paid more then there would be less of a bottom.

[dkf]

9. Good grief you are seeing a perpetually disintegrating bottom line and you seem not to care

And think you can actually spend more?

Is this how you run your life?

[Angry Dragon]

14. Either I did not explain myself very well or

you missed the point.

The Op was talking about taxing the 1% at 100% and not being able to cover the deficit.
Others stated that it was not logical to just get it done in one year.
I was trying to say that if taxes were raised on the rich to at least 50%.
By doing that it would not be necessary to cut payments to help the poor and others at the bottom.
By doing this it would create more money in the stream and would be spent many times over.
Creating more people making more and would then even create higher incomes to the middle class.
Which would be taxed creating even more tax revenue which would further reduce the deficit.

When money is concentrated at the top it does not get spent so it reduces taxable income at all levels

Better??

And do not assume that you even know how I feel about things without asking me.

[econoclast]

10. Actually the number is pretty close

I looked at something similar a while back. I stillhave the numbers. 2008 tax receipts were the most recent I could find at the time:

2008 IRS data

Top 1%

1,399,606 returns

1,685,472,000,000 Total Adjusted Gross Income for top 1%

Minimum income for top 1%
380,354.00

Minimum income Times # of returns =
532,345,740,524

AGI over minimum =
1,153,126,259,476


So, in year One, taxing the top 1% at a marginal rate of 100% of income over 380,354.00 gets you 1.1 trillion.

However, because folks who make that much have the ability to make adjustments to their income stream, in year Two through Ten you would probably raise lots lots less. Example. Back in the days of 90% marginal rates Arnold Palmer (golfer) would routinely not play in the last few tournaments of the year because his income was too high already. Actors wouldn't make more than one big movie a year.

That is one kind of tax avoidance scheme. I would think that sports stars would renegotiate contracts to get salaries spread out over 30 years. That kind of thing would put a big crimp in out-year collections.

[exboyfil]

17. What makes anyone think that all high income tax earners

will remain U.S. citizens given high marginal rates on income? Only those who actually have to live in the U.S. to earn income will subject themselves to this. Many can move off shore and still engage in the same activities.

An interesting question would be what should the top marginal rate be.

Lets assume we remove the cap on Social Security and tax those earnings at 5.3%/5.3% (reducing the withholding rate by the 15% S.S. benefit rate).
Current top marginal rate of 35% for Federal
Top marginal rate in state of California 10.3% (about 13% in NYC if city tax is included)

I think we get the marginal rate on Fed much above 45% we are going to quickly reach a point of diminishing returns. At that rate the next dollar earned is taxed at around 60% (with employer kicking in another 5.3%).

I am thinking that the annual increase in revenue from the richest can only be increased by another $100B or so. Say it is up to $200B if you include $250K and up. Still a far cry from covering the exenditures. Remember the S.S. increase is only to keep that program solvent in the long term. The $200B is going to be needed for all the other spending that leads to the deficit.

Realistically you are not going to get more than $200B from defense cuts, and it will take time to get to even this level (don't close my base crowd). I would like to see us spend no more than 2.5% of our GDP on defense (it is currently 4.7%). That is about what our major allies spend on defense, and I don't see why we should spend more.

[Fumesucker]

18. Where are they going to go that has a lower net tax rate?

Somalia?

Or maybe one of those floating island thingies that keep being proposed for the ultra wealthy.

I don't think even many wealthy people want to live there, despite the low personal taxes.

[exboyfil]

19. Try any of a host of Carribean countries

Enough rich folks get together, and they can buy their own government and island.

Take a look at OECD top marginal tax rates

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=586&Topic2id=95

Top statutory marginal rate is currently 41.9% and applies on income over $383K
Germany's top rate is 47.5% and applies on income over $297K and German is one of the highest

Folks on this board who think that the top marginal rate on Federal can go to 50 or 60% are crazy. After you lift the cap on Social Security, the best you are going to do is another 5% to 10%. The U.S. already has the most draconian laws for tracking down the earnings of U.S. citizens - even those earnings generated by economic activity outside of the U.S. We were able to get balanced budgets with Federal income tax marginal rate at 40%.

[Fumesucker]

21. Let them go..

They cost us more in many ways than they contribute to our society, the way their Brobdingnagian influence warps our politics being only one aspect of those costs.

[EC]

16. The deficet is for 10 years.

And I don't care if all their wealth won't do it...since they earn more than we do combined, then we can't make it up either if we give them all out money. They need to pay more, period.


What irks me the most is that most of the rich - don't even KNOW how much money they have or how much they pay in taxes. Ask a rich person how much money they have...they'll say "oh, somewhere around" or "I don't know" etc.

[RandomKoolzip]

20. Well you won't close it by eliminating Social Security, Welfare, and Medicare combined either

One solution (raising taxes on the wealthiest among us) harms a very small group of people in a way from which they can recover. The other solution (cutting social programs) harms a very large group of people in ways from which they are unlikely to recover. Neither solution will COMPLETELY close the deficit, but one solution does far less harm than the other.

[DefenseLawyer]

11. People have been given this false choice for years

If you are walking down the sidewalk with $20 bucks, would you rather keep the $20 bucks or wad it up and throw it in the street? There's a constant drumbeat that paying your taxes is the equivalent of flushing money down the toilet. No one likes to feel like a sucker, right? Now, I don't claim that the government spends every dime wisely or on only things I think they should. But I also don't have a total disconnect between paying my taxes and paying for services I value. This "it's my money, I should spend it like I want" crap, yet still still demanding money for "the troops" or the war on drugs or their kid's school (not all schools of course, they are a lost cause, but OUR school is great!) is everywhere. It is amazing how overwhelming this disconnect is in this country.

[EC]

15. If you really think about it the government does own all the money

there would be no money if the government didn't valuate it or make it. We'd still be bartaring.