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

[SeattleUte]

Here is the crux of the article:

No doubt the majority of that loss in millionaire filings results from the recession. However, this is one reason that depending on the rich to finance government is so ill-advised: Progressive tax rates create mountains of cash during good times that vanish during recessions. For evidence, consult California, New York and New Jersey (see here).

So the Wall Street Journal is telling a cautionary tale about the evils of "protgressive tax rates." Seriously, who in their right mind opposes progressive tax rates to some degree? You know, I'm a fiscal conservative but I've never understood what's so offensive about progressive tax rates. It's a matter of degree. It makes imminent sense to me that my marginal rate should be somewhat higher than someone who makes maybe five or ten percent what I make. I also happen to think that accumulation of capital is not a bad thing; on the contrary, it's a good thing; I agree it's essential to America's success and the good we all enjoy. But many people get rich through sheer serendipity or even by doing things that are net harmful to society. There are many object lessons today in the financial sector. The Wall Street Journal has and will apparently always preceive its calling to defend these folks. Even now it has no shame about doing so, as it rails on about the evil trial lawyers.

[beefytee]

As an individual who lives in a much more socially liberal country let me spell it out for you ... when you place a greater tax burden on the wealthy you in fact place a greater tax burden on every one else except the very very poor. And then you simply introduce lottery's to get at their money.

It is not possible to --simply-- heavily tax the wealthy. You must also heavily tax the middle class. That is life in Canada where citizens are more prone to simply grin and bear it.

Except that the income tax rate in Canada places a smaller burden on the wealthy that in the US.

Not to mention the national sales tax that doesn't disproportionally tax the rich.

[byu71]

Here is the crux of the article:



So the Wall Street Journal is telling a cautionary tale about the evils of "protgressive tax rates." Seriously, who in their right mind opposes progressive tax rates to some degree? You know, I'm a fiscal conservative but I've never understood what's so offensive about progressive tax rates. It's a matter of degree. It makes imminent sense to me that my marginal rate should be somewhat higher than someone who makes maybe five or ten percent what I make. I also happen to think that accumulation of capital is not a bad thing; on the contrary, it's a good thing; I agree it's essential to America's success and the good we all enjoy. But many people get rich through sheer serendipity or even by doing things that are net harmful to society. There are many object lessons today in the financial sector. The Wall Street Journal has and will apparently always preceive its calling to defend these folks. Even now it has no shame about doing so, as it rails on about the evil trial lawyers.

I too am not opposed to the progressive tax rate. I am just opposed to it getting out of hand.

As far as people getting rich through devious means, there ought to be laws to take care of those folks. I think that is a good use of trial lawyers. I think it would also be a good idea if a trial lawyer sues you and you deem it to be frivilous, you ought to be able to sue him back.

I would like a lot of things changed in the system. The progressive tax rate is not one of them. However, the dems. might over tinker with it with consequences they are not prepared to deal with.

[il Padrino Ute]

Here is the crux of the article:



So the Wall Street Journal is telling a cautionary tale about the evils of "protgressive tax rates." Seriously, who in their right mind opposes progressive tax rates to some degree? You know, I'm a fiscal conservative but I've never understood what's so offensive about progressive tax rates. It's a matter of degree. It makes imminent sense to me that my marginal rate should be somewhat higher than someone who makes maybe five or ten percent what I make. I also happen to think that accumulation of capital is not a bad thing; on the contrary, it's a good thing; I agree it's essential to America's success and the good we all enjoy. But many people get rich through sheer serendipity or even by doing things that are net harmful to society. There are many object lessons today in the financial sector. The Wall Street Journal has and will apparently always preceive its calling to defend these folks. Even now it has no shame about doing so, as it rails on about the evil trial lawyers.

So says the man who lives in a state with no state tax on his income.

[Mormon Red Death]

Here is the crux of the article:



So the Wall Street Journal is telling a cautionary tale about the evils of "protgressive tax rates." Seriously, who in their right mind opposes progressive tax rates to some degree?

I'd like to think I am in my right mind and I oppose progressive tax rates in any degree.

Ethically speaking why should someone pay more % wise taxes simply because they make more?

[tooblue]

Except that the income tax rate in Canada places a smaller burden on the wealthy that in the US.

Not to mention the national sales tax that doesn't disproportionally tax the rich.

That's my point! You cannot simply tax the wealthy. They have ways of hiding their money that the middle class does not. The middle class ends up with the greater tax burden.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...t-america.aspx

[byu71]

I'd like to think I am in my right mind and I oppose progressive tax rates in any degree.

Ethically speaking why should someone pay more % wise taxes simply because they make more?

I will tell you why plain and simple. To keep those who are in lower income brackets from revolting. It is a form of payoff. You see how angry Robin is. Now multiply millions and millions or people who blame others and the "rich" as an easy target.

So easy that there are the rich that point at the "rich" and say, attack them. These people are knowns as democrats, media folks and entertainment folks.

If you did not have a progressive system, it would be even easier to get people to feel they are getting ripped off.

[Mormon Red Death]

I will tell you why plain and simple. To keep those who are in lower income brackets from revolting. It is a form of payoff. You see how angry Robin is. Now multiply millions and millions or people who blame others and the "rich" as an easy target.

So easy that there are the rich that point at the "rich" and say, attack them. These people are knowns as democrats, media folks and entertainment folks.

If you did not have a progressive system, it would be even easier to get people to feel they are getting ripped off.

that is practically speaking .... I said ethically speaking.

[byu71]

that is practically speaking .... I said ethically speaking.

Sometimes I read too fast and miss things. Sorry.

[I.J. Reilly]

I'd like to think I am in my right mind and I oppose progressive tax rates in any degree.

Ethically speaking why should someone pay more % wise taxes simply because they make more?

I'll give you a reason that goes a little beyond the placating of the masses of 71.

Those that are rich have disproportionately benefited from what the country offers. I know that in this country everyone is supposed to have equal opportunity, but I don't think that opportunity coupled with hard work are the only factors. Luck, imo, plays a big chance in almost any venture. Some people get the breaks, some don't. A progressive tax system can help out those that, while they may be hard working, just haven't gotten the breaks.

[Indy Coug]

I'll give you a reason that goes a little beyond the placating of the masses of 71.

Those that are rich have disproportionately benefited from what the country offers. I know that in this country everyone is supposed to have equal opportunity, but I don't think that opportunity coupled with hard work are the only factors. Luck, imo, plays a big chance in almost any venture. Some people get the breaks, some don't. A progressive tax system can help out those that, while they may be hard working, just haven't gotten the breaks.

It's not just working hard, it's also being competent.

[Mormon Red Death]

I'll give you a reason that goes a little beyond the placating of the masses of 71.

Those that are rich have disproportionately benefited from what the country offers. I know that in this country everyone is supposed to have equal opportunity, but I don't think that opportunity coupled with hard work are the only factors. Luck, imo, plays a big chance in almost any venture. Some people get the breaks, some don't. A progressive tax system can help out those that, while they may be hard working, just haven't gotten the breaks.

So you are saying that progessive tax system is fair because its gets money from the lucky ones? That is the ethical reason for progressive taxes?

Additionally how is a rich person disproportianetly benefitting from what the country offers?

I say its the other way around.

A poor person pays a lot less for the same police, fire, public education and Army than a rich person does. The poor are also eligible for free medical care among other services.

[landpoke]

I'll give you a reason that goes a little beyond the placating of the masses of 71.

Those that are rich have disproportionately benefited from what the country offers. I know that in this country everyone is supposed to have equal opportunity, but I don't think that opportunity coupled with hard work are the only factors. Luck, imo, plays a big chance in almost any venture. Some people get the breaks, some don't. A progressive tax system can help out those that, while they may be hard working, just haven't gotten the breaks.

What you call "luck" and "the breaks" is actually God's will. Thus a "progressive" tax system is an abomination in His eyes as it seeks to undo his will.

I guess we've smoked us out another atheist boys.

[All-American]

I'm with SU. It's hard to argue against some form of progressive taxes, but they need to be kept in reasonable constraints.

The one angle I haven't seen discussed thus far is the wisdom of putting all the eggs in one basket.

During the legislative session in Salt Lake, Senator Allen Christensen proposed a hefty tax hike on cigarettes. The taxpayers association came to the committee meeting to speak against the bill, not because they in any way were going to bat for big tobacco, but because they were concerned at the prospects of focusing a prohibitively higher tax burden on a narrow group. It's a recipe for disaster. The bill died in committee on a 4-3 vote.

It is generally wise tax policy to tax with low rates across broad groups rather than high rates on a narrow group. That way, if an economic shock happens to hit one group harder than another, you have something to counterbalance it. It's simply diversity in investiture, and it's no less applicable in taxation than in managing your 401(k).

[SeattleUte]

So says the man who lives in a state with no state tax on his income.

I agree with the Gates family that our tax system is atavistic and hypocritical. This bluest of states taxes us heavily, but through a sales tax; a consumption tax is not progressive.