If we slip into a depression and people are really scratching to get by, how does Obama justify raising taxes on the low & middle class like he promises?
lowering taxes on low and middle class families won't do shit because they contribute almost nothing.
Are you sure? My wife has a business, makes about $15,000 per year and pays 40%. I make about $60,000 and pay nearly 30%. That's low? That's insignificant?
In the grand scheme of the economy, the rich pay a disproportionate amount of the taxes in this country. http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/10/top-1-pay-more-.html The new data shows that the top-earning 25% of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5% of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86%). The top 1% of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2% of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4% of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1% of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95% of tax returns.
This is a bad thing xericx? This 1% of taxpayers I'm guessing are some pretty wealthy people with very good lifestyles. They made their fortunes and can live their lifestyle because of everything this country has given them (freedom, democratic society, capatalist market) They should give back to the country that gave them the opportunity to make thier fortune. They should give back to the country that protects thier freedom and provides them a democratic society. They should give back to the country that allowed them to grow and become some of the most fortunate poeple in the world. Giving money back to a country so that the country can continue to be the best country in the entire world to live in is not too much to ask from the top 1% of wealthy americans.
Its patriotic, isn't it? By making more money, they ARE giving back more. Suppose the tax rate is 30%. Someone making 1 million a year is giving 300,000. Someone making 30,000 is giving 9,000. You can say that the richer person has more money to give...yeah...well that's how life is. They make more and therefore have more room to spend for things. ...however..... They are penalized for being more successful because they get not only taxed more, they are taxed at a higher percentage. To me, it doesn't seem fair. I'm ok with them paying more money if they make more, but to be taxed at a higher percentage than everyone else is stupid. Why should they be forced to pay a higher percentage of their income than everyone else. I believe in fairness across the board.
Because it is better for everyone if they pay a higher percentage. Them paying a higher percentage lowers the percentage that middle class taxpayers pay. That increases disposable income for the middle class. Why is that important? Because there are many more middle class taxpayers than rich people. If 100 million middle class people each have $1000, they can buy 100 million computers. If instead 100,000 rich people each have $1 million, they won't each buy 1000 computers. They might buy 10 computers apiece, but that reduces the demand for computers by a factor of 100, and now the computer manufacturer is out of business. The economy is built on consumerism, and the middle-class are the consumers. Give them more disposable income (or more credit) and they'll buy more. Less money? Less purchasing, and the economy goes downhill (see, e.g., 2009). barfo
That's a spurious justification for a cascading taxation system. I could counter that by stating that rich people tend to hire more people, therfore providing more employment and jobs in this country. You can make up thousands of scenarios. Face it, its an unfair system. A system of redistribution of wealth. Tax everyone at the same rate. Its the American way. Punishing one's success and upward mobility isn't.
Hire them to do what? How many servants does a wealthy person need? Unfair is in the eye of the beholder. Taxation is not punishment. barfo
How is that a counter? Sure, they hire more people. Whether they pay an extra million in taxes really doesn't affect that. They hire those people because it's in their best interests in making money. Unless the taxes are so crushing that they can't afford to invest in their money-making ventures, your point isn't relevant to the effects of a cascading tax system on the overall economy. And I've seen nothing to suggest taxes are that crushing.
of course not, its just being patriotic. With more available funds, a richer person is more likely to invest in more businesses and the stock market to provide funding for companies, start a business, hire workers...while a poor person buys playstations and plasma screens. While consumerism is important, so is equality in taxation. I don't look at this in terms of what is "in the interest of the people", I look at it in the terms of what is fair.
So your argument is: "they can afford it, lets milk them more"? As for it being relevant, barfo brought up that its in the best interest of the economy for the middle class to have tax cuts because they spend it on consumer goods. His argument is as weak as mine. Tax cuts for the middle class is really penalizing people for success.
If the current tax code actually didn't have so many loopholes and if the wealthy made the bulk of their money from paid salary then I'd agree that they shouldn't pay a higher % tax, but fact of the matter is that people in the top 1% income brackets make their money off of investments, dividends, and capital gains, futhermore these people are also able to bring to bear massive reserves hiring lawyers, accountants etc. who help make sure they don't pay their "fair share" in taxes. Hell, they even crow about how to people can get out of paying their fair share: Look, I hate taxes as much as the next guy, but until there is a radical overhaul in the way our tax code is structured, I won't be crying for the wealthiest 1% in this country and the "burden" they bear.
No, my argument is that your point isn't relevant to effect on economy. The money they pay isn't money they'd invest back into the economy. I'm not arguing the "fairness" of it, here. It's not. He tied middle class tax cuts to an actual benefit to the economy: purchasing power, which is the engine that makes the economy go. Your argument didn't relate to any benefit to the economy, as I pointed out.
