Can a liberal please provide specific examples/reasons for taxing the rich more?

[NF0913]

please justify the notion that we should raise tax rates on the rich. i am genuinely curious to hear what reasons people have.

[leafs43]

Because the gov't can spend their money better than they can.

[anonymousceleb]

Because the more money you have, the larger the percentage of it you can afford let go. I don't agree with this concept, but it is a very simple one everyone should be able to understand whether they agree with it or not.

[ajn]

is it that you don't understand the concept of the progressive tax? or are you asking, in relation to current events, what the reasons are behind repealing Bush's tax cuts?

[ticktickytembo]

concentration of wealth is smaller and smaller (more wealth accumulated in a few hands), yet taxing them is a travesty, meanwhile the middle class is diminishing to only leave an upper elite and a mass of poor individuals resemblant to some third world nation.....

[healthybrah]

Because it works dimwit.

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/ec...h-good-economy

[healthybrah]

concentration of wealth is smaller and smaller (more wealth accumulated in a few hands), yet taxing them is a travesty, meanwhile the middle class is diminishing to only leave an upper elite and a mass of poor individuals resemblant to some third world nation.....

This. LOL at how the mega rich have brainwashed dimwits like OP into thinking they shouldn't have higher tax rates... and believing the myth that lower taxes for the mega wealthy trickles down wealth to the middle class and poor.

[Kane_89]

please justify the notion that we should raise tax rates on the rich. i am genuinely curious to hear what reasons people have.

Adam Smith advocated progressive taxation on the rich.

Its really not up for debate.

[x-trainer ben]

please justify the notion that we should raise tax rates on the rich. i am genuinely curious to hear what reasons people have.

Because middle class growth(66% of spending) grows the economy and as bill crystal said on fox news sunday, a few percentage points wont kill the rich.

[indosthetic]

lol.

Most rich people own businesses.

Even with higher tax rates, afterall of the tax write-off and corporate accounting tricks, their taxes are still minimal.

Its corporate tax rates vs personal tax rates. Keep the money in the business, and taxes are nothing.

Most people dont get this.

[NF0913]

Because it works dimwit.

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/ec...h-good-economy

1. you can't post an article that literally does not cite a single statistic as proof of your claim that raising taxes on the rich is good for the economy
2. the author of the article qualifies his claim that taxes help the economy by showing that during periods of high economic growth, we had higher tax rates while during periods of low economic growth, we had low tax rates. this is a simple misunderstanding of cause/effect which is something that most ordinary americans have trouble with. correlation is not the same as causation

is it that you don't understand the concept of the progressive tax? or are you asking, in relation to current events, what the reasons are behind repealing Bush's tax cuts?

i'm asking for a practical reason as to why we should raise taxes on the rich

concentration of wealth is smaller and smaller (more wealth accumulated in a few hands), yet taxing them is a travesty, meanwhile the middle class is diminishing to only leave an upper elite and a mass of poor individuals resemblant to some third world nation.....

more rhetoric and worthless 2-party talking points. you cannot prove that the rich get richer at the expense of the poor. you also cannot prove that taxing the rich will have good practical implications, such as significantly reducing our deficit. it has been shown time and time again that the explosion of our national debt is rooted in spending increases.

This. LOL at how the mega rich have brainwashed dimwits like OP into thinking they shouldn't have higher tax rates... and believing the myth that lower taxes for the mega wealthy trickles down wealth to the middle class and poor.

explain why we should raise taxes on the rich right now.

lol.

Most rich people own businesses.

Even with higher tax rates, afterall of the tax write-off and corporate accounting tricks, their taxes are still minimal.

Its corporate tax rates vs personal tax rates. Keep the money in the business, and taxes are nothing.

Most people dont get this.

please research how much US companies/rich people pay in relation to other similar countries. also, please research the total portion of United States tax revenues paid by the rich, vs the portion paid by the middle class and poor.

Because middle class growth(66% of spending) grows the economy and as bill crystal said on fox news sunday, a few percentage points wont kill the rich.

and as bill crystal said on fox news sunday, a few percentage points wont kill the rich.

how does taxing the rich equate to higher middle class growth?

[BFast55]

Because it works dimwit.

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/ec...h-good-economy

Slave labor works too, what's your point?

[BurrowedLurker]

First off, many large corporations (aka, "The Rich") have a big influence on government policy (lobbying and what not, it was the banks themselves who lobbied for stimulus money), so as a result, they should pitch in a relative amount for their say in government activities, which frankly, has a very large running cost.

[Dan916]

First off, many large corporations (aka, "The Rich") have a big influence on government policy (lobbying and what not, it was the banks themselves who lobbied for stimulus money), so as a result, they should pitch in a relative amount for their say in government activities, which frankly, has a very large running cost.

When the rich pitch in more, we pitch in more.

[ticktickytembo]

more rhetoric and worthless 2-party talking points. you cannot prove that the rich get richer at the expense of the poor. you also cannot prove that taxing the rich will have good practical implications, such as significantly reducing our deficit. it has been shown time and time again that the explosion of our national debt is rooted in spending increases.

Sanders is an independent.
You can prove that the rich get richer and accumulate larger percentages of wealth in regards to the entire nation.
Reducing the deficit is another point that isn't directly related to your original question.

[the8atman]

Because really, how much money does a person need? Just making 100k in America is enough to live like an ancient Egyptian pharaoh. Now you have these people who have more money than they and their family's could spend in 1000 lifetimes. It's ridiculous. Greed and hoarding needs to be controlled.

[ajn]

i'm asking for a practical reason as to why we should raise taxes on the rich

because it will raise revenue. trickle-down economics have been debunked many times, it doesn't make sense to continue parroting the misinformation.

more rhetoric and worthless 2-party talking points. you cannot prove that the rich get richer at the expense of the poor. you also cannot prove that taxing the rich will have good practical implications, such as significantly reducing our deficit. it has been shown time and time again that the explosion of our national debt is rooted in spending increases.

umm.. how was what he said a "2-party talking point"? where did he mention anything about politics? everything he said was quite factual. income inequality in the US is very high (the highest among all developed countries, actually) and has been steadily increasing for several decades now. you literally just ignored what he posted so you could spew a bunch of charged partisan bs you probably read on some conservative blog.

if you were trying to start a fruitful debate, you failed. you've revealed your bias already.

[NF0913]

Sanders is an independent.
You can prove that the rich get richer and accumulate larger percentages of wealth in regards to the entire nation.
Reducing the deficit is another point that isn't directly related to your original question.

you are assuming that because the rich are getting richer, it is at the expense of the poor

this is the same thing as the study done a few years ago which showed that americans would rather make less money as long as their neighbor was making the same amount, instead of making more money but having their neighbor out-earn them by a larger figure. it is not logic-based in the least bit and appeals to emotions (envy, jealousy, bitterness)

because it will raise revenue. trickle-down economics have been debunked many times, it doesn't make sense to continue parroting the misinformation.

how has it been 'debunked'? let me ask you a different question

do you believe that taking incremental dollars from the rich will work better? because if so, you are saying that you believe the government is a better spender of money than the rich. which i don't buy for a second given our deficit, national debt, etc. etc.

when you take money from anyone and transfer it to the government, you cannot honestly expect them to spend it well. has anyone heard of lobbyists or TARP?

umm.. how was what he said a "2-party talking point"? where did he mention anything about politics? everything he said was quite factual. income inequality in the US is very high (the highest among all developed countries, actually) and has been steadily increasing for several decades now. you literally just ignored what he posted so you could spew a bunch of charged partisan bs you probably read on some conservative blog.

if you were trying to start a fruitful debate, you failed. you've revealed your bias already.

the talking point comment i made was misdirected. i am sick of hearing the same retarded arguments that people like him make though that go like this...

"during this time period, we had high taxes and the economy was growing fast. therefore, high taxes are good for the economy."
"during this time period, we had low taxes and the economy was growing slow. therefore, low taxes are bad for the economy."

correlation does not = causation

i simply don't see how it makes sense to give more money to the government, regardless of whether or not it comes from the rich or poor. have they not lost our trust yet? look at the dysfunction in washington, and look at the government's budget... now they're saying they want more money because it's "fair", and the american people gobble it up without thinking twice.

[BFast55]

Because really, how much money does a person need? Just making 100k in America is enough to live like an ancient Egyptian pharaoh. Now you have these people who have more money than they and their family's could spend in 1000 lifetimes. It's ridiculous. Greed and hoarding needs to be controlled.

Well, this is a bodybuilding site. People here consume much more than the needed amount of calories to sustain their lives. So should they be barred from purchasing more food than they need? After all "how much [food] does a person need?"

[the8atman]

Well, this is a bodybuilding site. People here consume much more than the needed amount of calories to sustain their lives. So should they be barred from purchasing more food than they need? After all "how much [food] does a person need?"

It's not about having excess. Having excess is a GOOD thing. Thank God for excess. It's about a human tendency to hoard money to feed some kind of obsessive compulsive behavior. It's UNHEALTHY for the rich person and for society as a whole.

[Kane_89]

Seems like my post was skipped, so ill repeat it again...

Adam Smith advocated progressive taxation on the rich.

Its really not up for debate.

[ajn]

how has it been 'debunked'? let me ask you a different question

do you believe that taking incremental dollars from the rich will work better? because if so, you are saying that you believe the government is a better spender of money than the rich. which i don't buy for a second given our deficit, national debt, etc. etc.

when you take money from anyone and transfer it to the government, you cannot honestly expect them to spend it well. has anyone heard of lobbyists or TARP?

here is the most recent debunking (it's a nonpartisan study from the CRS): http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/bu...andeconomy.pdf

The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate
and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in
the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The
top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.

The 'low taxes for the rich = economic growth' theory is simply not supported by the facts. The facts point to what our intuition already tells us, which is that when the middle and lower classes have more purchasing power, there will be more demand and greater economic growth.

[leafs43]

Seems like my post was skipped, so ill repeat it again...

Adam Smith advocated progressive taxation on the rich.

Its really not up for debate.

""The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

-Adam Smith



Adam Smith supported proportional taxation, which is a flat tax.


Adam Smith supported progressive taxation on property, which we do at the state level, not federal level.

[BFast55]

It's not about having excess. Having excess is a GOOD thing. Thank God for excess. It's about a human tendency to hoard money to feed some kind of obsessive compulsive behavior. It's UNHEALTHY for the rich person and for society as a whole.

So, according to you, excess is a good thing, but after it reaches some arbitrary amount it becomes "hoarding"?
You dodged my question. Do you realize how much food professional bodybuilders eat in a day compared to most people?

[indosthetic]

Because really, how much money does a person need? Just making 100k in America is enough to live like an ancient Egyptian pharaoh. Now you have these people who have more money than they and their family's could spend in 1000 lifetimes. It's ridiculous. Greed and hoarding needs to be controlled.

no it doesnt.

that is communism.

the government has no business telling someone how much they can or cant make.

100k can be alot depending on the city. in ny or la its not THAT much.

[NF0913]

Seems like my post was skipped, so ill repeat it again...

Adam Smith advocated progressive taxation on the rich.

Its really not up for debate.

NF0913 advocates not raising taxes on the rich right now

it's really not up for debate

The 'low taxes for the rich = economic growth' theory is simply not supported by the facts. The facts point to what our intuition already tells us, which is that when the middle and lower classes have more purchasing power, there will be more demand and greater economic growth.

you're missing the point. the government is the middle man. they have to spend the money in a way that is going to give the middle and lower classes more purchasing power. do you trust them to do that? the money doesn't go straight from the rich to the poor. it doesn't just transfer to the poor and then they suddenly have higher purchasing power...

ffs use your damn brain

reading the link you posted now/after class

from what you posted...

"the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to how the economic pie is sliced—lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income disparities"

this study backs the notion that lower rates = higher income differences. that's obviously what you would expect to happen when you are applying percentage changes to large figures vs. applying percentage changes to small figures... not really a great example of the rich getting richer at the poor's expense from what i can see.

[Kane_89]

""The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

-Adam Smith



Adam Smith supported proportional taxation, which is a flat tax.


Adam Smith supported progressive taxation on property, which we do at the state level, not federal level.

"the expense of defending the society, and that of supporting the dignity of the chief magistrate, are both laid out for the general benefit of the whole society. It is reasonable, therefore, that they should be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society, all the different members contributing, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities."

"When the toll upon carriages of luxury, upon coaches, post-chaises, &c. is made somewhat higher in proportion to their weight, than upon carriages of necessary use, such as carts, waggons, &c. the indolence and vanity of the rich is made to contribute in a very easy manner to the relief of the poor, by rendering cheaper the transportation of heavy goods to all the different parts of the country." -Adam Smith

He was actually against a flat tax.

[jafomofo]

We've had a progressive tax system in place for a century so my question to you would be why do you hate america OP?

[Kane_89]

NF0913 advocates not raising taxes on the rich right now

it's really not up for debate

Giving more tax relief to the bulk of spenders (middle class) only HELPS the rich even more. Especially with housing starting to recover, now is the perfect time to raise taxes.

[the8atman]

So, according to you, excess is a good thing, but after it reaches some arbitrary amount it becomes "hoarding"?
You dodged my question. Do you realize how much food professional bodybuilders eat in a day compared to most people?

This doesn't have anything to do with bodybuilding. It's good to be rich. We in America are rich compared to the rest of the world. But after a point, there's only so much money a person really logically needs. This is why we have these billionaires who give away all their money to charity when they're old. They realize that it's completely ridiculous to hoard money when there are people in need. Does a man really need billions of dollars in disposable income? Absolutely not. Our government has historically been the one to place a check on greed.

no it doesnt.

that is communism.

the government has no business telling someone how much they can or cant make.

100k can be alot depending on the city. in ny or la its not THAT much.

It is our government's business though. 100 years ago our government had to tell the rich to stop using children as workers, and we made the child labor act. 200 years ago our government had to tell the rich that having slaves is against human rights. We made them pay workers instead of having slaves. All throughout history we see examples that human greed NEEDS to be controlled. And honestly, it's all just common sense. The problem is that people are so caught up in political ideologies they become blind fools.