the perrenial battle cry of the rich...don't impede our wealth building or we'll make you pay.

fact of the matter is that most of the rich (that didn't inherit their wealth) are alpha type personalities that thrive on overcoming obstacles. i've writte nmore in depth in the past on this and don't feel like repeating myself...so i'll levave it at that.

just as raising the min wage a few duckets won't cause the economy to tailspin inherently, neither does gatting a percent or 2 from the wealthiest in the long run.

in wwII taxes were raised on the wealthy for a greater good. people sacrificed in their own lives for a great cause. in this era, in another wartime, no one is asked to sacrifice anything except our civil liberties.

what a shame.

Lower taxes generally mean increased economic growth. So, if you allow for increased economic growth, then that smaller percentage in taxes leads to a higher amount of tax that can be collected via one with a larger percentage of tax for that same time period.

The problem is, what is good for the short run is often not what is good for the long run. Too many people I've spoken to don't understand this. Yes, by raising taxes, you've helped alleviate the problem in the short run, but the solution would not have been nearly as good as if it were done in the long run.

Let's say you owned a factory, and you could run this factory with machines, or through manual labor. Let's say that you currently are running the factory with manual labor and were thinking of switching to machines, which would end up reducing costs substantially. However, you would have to lay off the manual labor.

Now, some might say that it's wrong to lay off all those workers and that just hurts the economy. In the short term, they may be correct, as there aren't as many workers employed right now. But this is before the benefit from the machine labor has had a chance to propogate thoroughly. The lower operating costs leads to reduced prices most likely, or even for the owner of the factor to invest the saved money and expand a bit allowing opportunities for new jobs. The economy will eventually become stronger than it would have been otherwise.

I generally don't like politics interfering with economics too much. I mean, all too often, politicians who are running for relatively short terms, need to show immediate results and so will often put forth economic policies that seem to show benefit in the short run, but won't do as well in the long run. This is so they can show that they've done a good thing and perhaps become reelected, often leaving the problems that come with their policies and dump them on someone elses term.

Now, let's say that you tax the hell out of the wealthy to the point where either there's not as much incentive to gain wealth anymore (if it's just going to be taxed to death) or the wealthy simply leave the country. Yes, you've aqcuired money to give it to those that "need" it, but now look at what happens in the long term. You won't have nearly as many wealthy people, so where are you going to get the money to keep giving to those "needy" people.

Let's say you have a tree whose fruit also act as seeds. Well, if you eat all the fruit now, well, you'll have none left later, and so you die. If you eat none of the fruit and plant them all, you'll die still. The trick is to find the correct balance between short term gain and long term gain, for if you neglect either one completely, you're gone.

Again, to my original point, if you lower the taxes of the wealthy a bit, yes, you might not have as much money at the start, and it might seem as if those "needy" people are getting screwed. But now these people have more money to put into things such as creating new markets for jobs, and now those poorer people can find different areas to work and earn money, making them better off.

Except you don't really know what you're talking about.  I mean, what's your qualifications? Referring to yourself as a source for your own opinion is pretty silly.

How about basic principle: It is morally wrong to force one person to pay for another person. It is particularly repugnant to force that person simply on the basis of "need".

No offense but people like you and Gene always demonstrate rank ignorance when it comes to how the wealthy use their capital.  I too have written many times on what happens if you reduce the investment capital of "the rich". The difference is that I can self-reference because I actually am, by any standard, "rich" so I know not just from first hand experience but also because those are the circles I travel.  An investment banker could tell you much the same thing.

“Now, let's say that you tax the hell out of the wealthy to the point where either there's not as much incentive to gain wealth anymore”

We do not need to tax the Hell out of the rich to solve the deficit. We need to end the pork, have better enforcement of the existing laws and have 3-4 % more from the wealthy. That will not cause the wealthy to stop investing or changing their spending. The idea that to INCREASE TAXES 3% or 4% for the wealthy will cause the “sky will fall” is just BS!

i did. we've had this discussion before. and i still say they were smart. and the senate versions of the bill are showing that as more and more of the GOP abandons this president. even robert novak commented this week that this president "stands alone" and is "isolated" as the GOP runs away from him.

No one cares what your dad does. 

In my experience, often the most uninformed, naive people are children of successful parents. Saying your dad was a success doesn't suddenly, as if by magic, endow you with knowledge of how the real world works.

One can snap on Reality TV to see how worldly the children or spouses of successful people are.

Look, Sean, here's the thing:

Someone who knows something about money in the real world can instantly identify people who don't know about money when they argue for things that are dumb.

For example, Col Gene (and you) arguing to raise INCOME tax rates on the rich. This is dumb.

I recommend getting this:

http://www.shoppbs.org/sm-pbs-buffett-and-gates-go-back-to-school-dvd--pi-2477747.html

Gates and Warren Buffet both strongly believe that the rich should be contributing more to society. They believe the rich aren't taxed enough.

However, neither think the INCOME tax rate shoudl go up. As Buffet pointed out, he could have gone most of his life without paying a cent of income tax rates.  The tax system, right now, is so ridiculouarly rigged against people who WORK that it's ridiculous. 

Let me give you the example Buffet gave:  Rather than payng himself a salary, a business owner could simply borrow a bunch of money at a relatively low interest rate on the assets of his company and live in style for the rest of his life.  Amount of taxes he would pay: $0.  He would live in luxury for the rest of his life without paying taxes. And if his company merely "broke even", it wouldn't pay taxes either.

Meanwhile, people like you and Gene, who don't really understand money very well, are running around arguing vigorously to raise the income tax rate, as if THAT is a good idea when in fact all it does is punish people who are putting in labor and don't choose or cannot play such games.

I mentioned awhile back that if I wanted to, I could avoid paying taxes if I wanted to.  Raise my taxes and I could just pay myself $0 in salary and take it all in dividends which are only taxed at 15%.  Warren Buffet's idea is even more clever -- just borrow money from the business and as long as the company's value grows at greater than say 6% (interest rate) -- which any decent business is -- then you're golden.

So when I see someone arguing that the "solution" is to raise income tax rates, it is the same thing to me as someone saying that the solution to landing on the sun is to do it at night time.

i was gonna say something that might get taken the wrong way here, but i'll just keep my mouth shut on that one.



actually, i have endorsed raising taxes on the wealthy, but i don't think i have specifically only zeroed it down to INCOME taxes. if, by my saying "taking a percent or 2 from the rich" is interpreted as only an income tax increase, then my apologies. but i think there are plenty of places we can find those percentages. i have talked about luxury and sin taxes, and other taxes that could be utilized. and i am open to suggestion.

as far as what buffett has said, i do know know that he said this, as reported by the ny times in november of 2006.

“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

This conversation keeps coming back to mind because, in the last couple of weeks, I have been on one television panel after another, talking about how questionable it is that the country is enjoying what economists call full employment while we are still running a federal budget deficit of roughly $434 billion for fiscal 2006 (not counting off-budget items like Social Security) and economists forecast that it will grow to $567 billion in fiscal 2010.

When I mentioned on these panels that we should consider all options for closing this gap — including raising taxes, particularly for the wealthiest people — I was met with several arguments by people who call themselves conservatives and free marketers.






WWW Link

he can speak for himself, as was i. i can understand the confusion. i was just attempting to clarify. again, i have spoken of adjusting rates at many other places besides income tax rates. i also seem to remember pointing out the fact that much of the rich don't pay payroll taxes like employees do and other differences in how they are taxed.



as do i. and yes, i believe we can do better than simply just looking at income tax rates. and where i won't go as far as saying those rates don't ever need adjustments or a re-look, there are plenty of other places we can look before income taxes.



it does make for good stump speeching, but i would like to think, at least away from the podium, that at least some of these guys (not all) are just simplifying the message for the masses. i don't believe they are only considering income tax adjustments, but adjustments, taxes, fees or whatever they are termed across the board to create a fairer system.

talking about the income tax rates and suggesting that they give a percent or 2 more of their income is an easy message to get across. most people can understand it. where that specifically comes from is hardly limited to a federal income tax increase. even within the tax code, there are always loopholes that can be closed and more creative things done than simply the increase of rate.

as far as the specific argument about the tax cuts when we were going to war, and suggestions that we "roll back" the cuts to the "clinton levels." is again, more political fodder than anything. it is the reflection of the resentment that alot harbor over the concept that when we go to war , there is "shared sacrifice." something this war hasn't seen, unless you include the sacrificing of our civil liberties and the lynching of our constitution. if a plan was put forth that the majority of americans could see the sacrifice without negatively affecting the economy with an undue adjustment in income tax rates, and found the funding elsewhere, i'm sure most would be satisfied. in this specific case, the argument wasn't only economic, but a social morale issue. the tax cuts are the easiest symbol of that lack of shared sacrifice that most people can understand and relate to.

but i digress,,,and i'm sure we have differences on what we feel is the best path forward. but i do agree that income taxes are definitely not the 1st place to look when you simply want to increase revenue and balance the budget. there are far more effective things we can do to make things more fair. but again, i am only speaking for myself here.

I seem to like the idea of a bigger sales tax. You could make it a tax on non-essential items or give refunds to the lower class to keep from being unfair to them since they need most of their money for essential goods (like food and a place to stay). That way, if you invest, you're not penalized for it and that can promote economic growth, and those that have higher income will probably consume more goods and therefore be taxed more in that fashion.

This would also prevent having to pay no taxes at all when doing something that Warren Buffet mentioned. Also, some of the taxes can be specific to related services. For example, have a gas tax, and have those funds be used directly for road work. The more people that are driving, the more money you get from the gas tax, the more money there is to expand/improve the roads.

Now, my main concern with regard to this kind of tax system is that if it discourages spending too much, then people will consume less to the extent where several businesses fail, thereby causing unemployment, thereby hindering economic growth. But I believe that the urge to consume will be strong enough with proper advertising and the like that it will be able to overcome this issue.