Here is a good example why raising taxes on the rich won't work

[Mormon Red Death]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124329282377252471.html

Governor Martin O'Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were "willing and able to pay their fair share." The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would "grin and bear it."

Dumbass governor... who is he to determine what their "fair share" was. Now the middle class of Maryland will be paying for a governor who doesnt understand incentives.

[byu71]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124329282377252471.html



Dumbass governor... who is he to what their "fair share" was. Now the middle class of Maryland will be paying for a governor who doesnt understand incentives.

I would love to hear those on the board who are in the raise taxes on the rich camp, tell us what incentive there is for income earners in the higher brackets take risk and invest.

I would like the discussion to be one of reality and how humans are and what motivates them, not how we would like them to be. I think a lot of rich people do good things out of the goodness of their hearts and perhaps even guilt at having so much and seeing others have so little.

The liberal democrat approach to solve their goodness or guilt is to make the choice for everyone as to how to solve their guilt and others guilt. We will tax the rich and that makes them, the dems., feel good.

[il Padrino Ute]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124329282377252471.html



Dumbass governor... who is he to what their "fair share" was. Now the middle class of Maryland will be paying for a governor who doesnt understand incentives.

What a surprise. Raise taxes on one particular group and those targeted leave for somewhere less hostile to success.

The governor actually believes people are willing to pay taxes? Is he really that dumb?

[RobinFinderson]

The liberal democrat approach to solve their goodness or guilt is to make the choice for everyone as to how to solve their guilt and others guilt. We will tax the rich and that makes them, the dems., feel good.

Actually we just want to tax the rich to balance our budgets and continue paying for services that are enjoyed disproportionately by the rich (police, fire, military, parks and rec, public roads, highways, etc. all benefit the rich more than the poor).

[Indy Coug]

It's such a hardship to move out of the sizeable state of Maryland to a neighboring state too. No way the governor could have foreseen this one.

[byu71]

Actually we just want to tax the rich to balance our budgets and continue paying for services that are enjoyed disproportionately by the rich (police, fire, military, parks and rec, public roads, highways, etc. all benefit the rich more than the poor).

Your disproportinate statement is bull crap, but let's discuss that issue later. Answer my question taking your ignorant supposition that the rich get more.

Since they pay over 50% of the taxes now, how do you incent them to want to pay more. You can dislike them all you want for not believing as you do, but that won't change anything.

How do you take the guy who is worth say 10,000,000 and is very comfortable with his income and get him to invest in risky ventures that will create more jobs. If he succeeds, Uncle Sam and other government agencies will get 50%-60% of his success. If he fails, he gets to write off a whopping 3,000. Why shouldn't the guy just put his money in CD's or muni's and forget about taking risk.

[RobinFinderson]

Who cares if the wealthy leave? Let them go. We'll learn to do more with less, and they will have a longer commute over crappier roads.

[Surfah]

Who cares if the wealthy leave? Let them go. We'll learn to do more with less, and they will have a longer commute over crappier roads.

They still live there. They haven't moved. Just moved their primary residencies to tax friendlier states.

[il Padrino Ute]

Who cares if the wealthy leave? Let them go. We'll learn to do more with less, and they will have a longer commute over crappier roads.

They'll have a longer commute over crappier roads? You think they'll commute back to where they used to live in order to work?

[RobinFinderson]

Your disproportinate statement is bull crap, but let's discuss that issue later. Answer my question taking your ignorant supposition that the rich get more.

Since they pay over 50% of the taxes now, how do you incent them to want to pay more. You can dislike them all you want for not believing as you do, but that won't change anything.

How do you take the guy who is worth say 10,000,000 and is very comfortable with his income and get him to invest in risky ventures that will create more jobs. If he succeeds, Uncle Sam and other government agencies will get 50%-60% of his success. If he fails, he gets to write off a whopping 3,000. Why shouldn't the guy just put his money in CD's or muni's and forget about taking risk.

Who cares if wealthy SOB's invest or not? It is a travesty, in a world of finite resources, that anyone is able to amass the kind of privilege you describe. We might not be able to take that liquid privilege back so easily, but we needn't perpetuate the environment that allowed that kind of wealth concentration in the first place. Innovation and material 'progress' are overrated. The world needs to slow down and figure out how to manage a finite set of resources before we self-destruct. A few steps 'backwards' may prove in the long run to be a giant leap 'forward.'

[landpoke]

Your disproportinate statement is bull crap, but let's discuss that issue later. Answer my question taking your ignorant supposition that the rich get more.

Since they pay over 50% of the taxes now, how do you incent them to want to pay more. You can dislike them all you want for not believing as you do, but that won't change anything.

How do you take the guy who is worth say 10,000,000 and is very comfortable with his income and get him to invest in risky ventures that will create more jobs. If he succeeds, Uncle Sam and other government agencies will get 50%-60% of his success. If he fails, he gets to write off a whopping 3,000. Why shouldn't the guy just put his money in CD's or muni's and forget about taking risk.

I understand your motives, but you'll be money ahead if you just call him an effin' commie parasite and move on. Logic and reason play no role in his world or the world of his comrades.

[Indy Coug]

Who cares if wealthy SOB's invest or not? It is a travesty, in a world of finite resources, that anyone is able to amass the kind of privilege you describe. We might not be able to take that liquid privilege back so easily, but we needn't perpetuate the environment that allowed that kind of wealth concentration in the first place. Innovation and material 'progress' are overrated. The world needs to slow down and figure out how to manage a finite set of resources before we self-destruct. A few steps 'backwards' may prove in the long run to be a giant leap 'forward.'

It's because those with the amassed wealth provide the opportunities for others to make more than menial wages. A middle-class, small business owner isn't going to be paying $75K-$100K a year to their employees.

And since the wealthy are the ones creating wealth for everyone else and assuming a higher level of risk along the way, they should be compensated accordingly.

[Mormon Red Death]

Actually we just want to tax the rich to balance our budgets and continue paying for services that are enjoyed disproportionately by the rich (police, fire, military, parks and rec, public roads, highways, etc. all benefit the rich more than the poor).

1. The rich already pay more for these services than the poor do even if its not a progressive rate (flat rate)

5% on a million dollars is 50k
5% of 40k is 2k

2. Prove to me the rich benefit more from "community services" than the poor folks do.

[byu71]

Who cares if wealthy SOB's invest or not? It is a travesty, in a world of finite resources, that anyone is able to amass the kind of privilege you describe. We might not be able to take that liquid privilege back so easily, but we needn't perpetuate the environment that allowed that kind of wealth concentration in the first place. Innovation and material 'progress' are overrated. The world needs to slow down and figure out how to manage a finite set of resources before we self-destruct. A few steps 'backwards' may prove in the long run to be a giant leap 'forward.'

This is what scares me about liberal thinkers such as yourself. You ramble in terms of platitudes and yet have no real concrete way to reach those platitudes. It is full of we should's, we can's and very lacking in "here's how". Let's not have a concentration of wealth. Perhaps your example is North Vietnam, oh wait, there is a concentration of wealth there. Perhpaps it is the Europeans, oh wait, they do have a concentration of the rich aristochracy. Perhaps you can point to this place where there isn't the wealth concentration you desire.

Look, I can understand how you may not feel you are being rewarded for the contribution you make. You deserve a seat at the front of the bus too. However, if you don't want to do what it takes to get to the front, you think others shouldn't have that choice. Your choice is to flatten the tires.

[landpoke]

Who cares if wealthy SOB's invest or not? It is a travesty, in a world of finite resources, that anyone is able to amass the kind of privilege you describe. We might not be able to take that liquid privilege back so easily, but we needn't perpetuate the environment that allowed that kind of wealth concentration in the first place. Innovation and material 'progress' are overrated. The world needs to slow down and figure out how to manage a finite set of resources before we self-destruct. A few steps 'backwards' may prove in the long run to be a giant leap 'forward.'

I've heard this somewhere before. "We must destroy this village in order to save it" or some such.

And there I go, ignoring my own advice. Effin' commie parasite