• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Patriotic millionairs for fiscal st

Econ4every1

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
4,272
Reaction score
2,353
Location
NW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
EDIT: Ok I was typing the title to the thread and got side tracked and never went back and finished it.

Spelled correctly it's supposed to be: Patriotic millionaires for fiscal strength.

Moving on....

“TAX ME! BECAUSE MY COUNTRY-OUR COUNTRY- MEANS MORE THAN MY MONEY.”
Charlie Fink, former AOL Executive
Click to expand...

“RICH PEOPLE ARE NOT THE CAUSE OF A ROBUST ECONOMY, THEY ARE THE RESULT OF A ROBUST ECONOMY.”
Ron Garret, Angel Investor
Click to expand...

The Patriotic Millionaires

 
Last edited:
Would not be surprised if this was an attempt to 'let some steam out'.

Like what Socialist reforms FDR imposed during the Great Depression to take the wind out of the emerging Communist party in USA.

Like what the Leaders did to the Communists in the evanescent Costa Rican civil war ('48? might have been the thirties can't recall but wiki ftw) where they accepted Socialist reforms like welfare and co-operative technical support that completely deflated the people's support for Communism.
 
If they 'truly cared" what's stopping them from just giving extra funds to the government?
 
azgreg said:
If they 'truly cared" what's stopping them from just giving extra funds to the government?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Just do as they say, and not as they do. It sounds great to have fiscal responsibility, unless you're the one who is paying for it, while having no control over it.
 
lizzie said:
Exactly. Just do as they say, and not as they do. It sounds great to have fiscal responsibility, unless you're the one who is paying for it, while having no control over it.
Click to expand...

I would say the Rich have the most control over where the money goes.

Who funds Senatorial (let alone, who in 1/4 of the Americans actually DO vote that can) and Congressional media campaigns?
 
csbrown28 said:
EDIT: Ok I was typing the title to the thread and got side tracked and never went back and finished it.

Spelled correctly it's supposed to be: Patriotic millionaires for fiscal strength.

Moving on....





The Patriotic Millionaires
Click to expand...


I am not a millionaire and we do not tax every credit or deduction available to us. Sometimes, it just isn't worth the hassle.
 
azgreg said:
If they 'truly cared" what's stopping them from just giving extra funds to the government?
Click to expand...

Because a few rich people giving money to the government doesn't solve any budget issues. But if EVERY rich person had to contribute more, based on the degree of income that they suck from our society, then it could go quite a ways towards solving our budget issues.
 

Fair enough. How much would you like to see them give?
 
azgreg said:
If they 'truly cared" what's stopping them from just giving extra funds to the government?
Click to expand...

That's not tax policy. The issue being discussed is tax policy.

I could say the same about conservatives who want a flat tax -- if they don't want to take their deductions, don't take them. But leave mine alone.
 

Exactly. In short, the OP is about tax policy, not about some rich people paying more or less. Why do conservatives always try to avoid discussing the real issue.
 
azgreg said:
Fair enough. How much would you like to see them give?
Click to expand...

As little as possible, and still be able to fund our government without having to print up so much money that we cause inflation over the Feds target rate.

It's about practicality, and promoting a good economy, not about punishing anyone.
 
imagep said:
As little as possible, and still be able to fund our government without having to print up so much money that we cause inflation over the Feds target rate.

It's about practicality, and promoting a good economy, not about punishing anyone.
Click to expand...

I understand. I wasn't trying to put you on the spot. I'm all for a reasonable tax rate for all quintiles. It's just that every time someone says X group needs to pay more they can never come up with a number.
 
azgreg said:
I understand. I wasn't trying to put you on the spot. I'm all for a reasonable tax rate for all quintiles. It's just that every time someone says X group needs to pay more they can never come up with a number.
Click to expand...

Seems a bit silly to argue on those grounds. If your sick and I tell you you need an antibiotic, and you say, "well that's fine, but how much antibiotics do I need?" And I respond, "I'm not sure". Does that invalidate my claim that you need antibiotics?

To much money is pooling at the top. The bottom 80% controls less money today than at any point since 1983 (and possibly longer than that as the records I can find only go back to 1983). Wealth held by the bottom 80% has dropped 7.6% From 18.7% to 11.1%. since 1983. 4.9% of that drop just since 2007.

I've said this in several other posts so I'll say it again, I'm open to other ideas on how to reverse this trend (assuming you see the problem with money pooling into the hands of the few). Perhaps I just lack imagination. If you think taxes are a poor way to redistribute income, I'm open to suggestions....

Thoughts?
 

Nice post, doesn't answer the question. If you want to raise taxes on the rich that's fine if you truly think that will solve the problem (it won't, but go ahead). How much then? I've asked this question many times (as have others), but no one will answer.
 

Again, failure to answer your question does not invalidate the premise.

You say it won't "solve the problem", but I'm not clear if you actually believe there is a problem, and if you do, what that problem is.

Now I'd be happy to discuss "how to solve the problem", but you need to tell me what you think the problem is.
 
azgreg said:
I understand. I wasn't trying to put you on the spot. I'm all for a reasonable tax rate for all quintiles. It's just that every time someone says X group needs to pay more they can never come up with a number.
Click to expand...

Thats probably because that number is dependent upon how much is needed to fund government, and control inflation, and reduce income disparity. I don't think that we can set any fixed percent, without knowing how much taxation is needed to satisfy the purpose of taxation.

I would suggest that our current top tax rate of 38.6% might be plenty high enough, if all forms of income were taxed at that rate, regardless of source, and if we eliminated means tested citizen welfare and corporate welfare. I'd actually like to see that top tax rate reduced even lower.
 

I believe that the most obvious answer is that we need enough progressivity in our income tax system so that all income brackets have an after tax income which increases at about the same rate.

We could either jack up taxes on the rich a lot, and keep middle class tax rates about the same, or we could reduce middle class tax rates, cut government spending, and keep the top tax bracket at about the same rate it is now. It's the difference between taxation on the median income earner and the top income earner that creates progressivity, not the exact tax rate.
 

Fair enough. I don't believe we have a revenue problem. If I'm not mistaken our revenue levels are as high as ever before or higher. It sounds like you are trying to steer the discussion in a different direction which is fine (it's your thread after all). It sounds like you are trying to get at a individual income level inequality that is getting bigger and bigger all the time which in effect is shrinking the middle class. In that I don't disagree, I just don't see how raising the tax rate on the rich addresses that. Raising the taxes on the rich won't change the fact that they are making absurd amounts of money and the poor are making squat.
 

I agree with taxing all income at the same rate (cap gains, etc.). I also agree that we shouldn't see a higher rate (to me no higher than 40%) on the rich.
 
azgreg said:
Fair enough. I don't believe we have a revenue problem.
Click to expand...

You would be correct. Government doesn't even need revenue from taxation to fund itself, it has unlimited ability to print and to borrow.

The need for tax revenue is purely to reduce income disparity, keep inflation in check, and to promote social change.

The ONLY need for an income tax is to reduce income disparity, which in turn creates a better economy. Thus, it is pointless to have an income tax on income that is below the mean average income, and it might be somewhat self defeating to tax any income that is at or below the income range that is considered "normal".
 

I really wasn't trying to "steer" the conversation. I'm open to alternatives other than taxes, or that taxes be a small part of a broader solution. I mean, if you agree that the wealthy are spending too much money in areas that the common person can't benefit (specifically financial markets), then it seems that *requiring the wealthy to invest in domestic projects gives people the opportunity the opportunity to earn money while at the same time allowing capitalism to work as the wealthy would still get to choose what they invest in.

*Now what I'm calling "require" could simply be more of an incentive and not necessarily compulsory. Companies and wealthy investors could be made to pay much higher taxes on those investments that do little to provide income to the "bottom", while those investments that put people to work could be taxed at very low rates as the money earned by the lower and middle class would be taxed several times and, in theory, would create more tax revenue because, again in theory, it would increase the tax base and the velocity of money.

Now I'm thinking off the cuff here, trying to demonstrate that I'd rather see a system that encourages working for money rather then being handed it, but at the end of the day I know the system, as it's working now, doesn't work and will result in our failure as a nation.
 

I see where you're coming from and I agree somewhat. I'm not comfortable telling someone what to do with their money.
 
azgreg said:
I see where you're coming from and I agree somewhat. I'm not comfortable telling someone what to do with their money.
Click to expand...

I think that it's really a game of incentives. I think things work best when the "rules" are structured in such a way that people act in their own self interest, but their self interest is a benefit to others. Simply taxing the wealthy and giving it to the poor, as far as I'm concerned, is an admission that there is no set of rules that can be created to allow people at each point in the income spectrum to act in their own interest and simultaneously be a benefit to others. I haven't given up on that idea yet. I see taxing as a last resort to solve the problem of inequity. Not inequity in a "fair" sense, but more in a practical sense.

The strength of capitalism, in my opinion, is that it mutually incentivizes people. The problem that imagep points out is that modern financial markets are corrupting the beauty of capitalism. It has warped the incentive structure. It has damaged the symbiotic relationship between the wealthy few and everyone else. I'm open to systems that give everyone choices, but I'm vehemently opposed to the system as it is now.
 
azgreg said:
I see where you're coming from and I agree somewhat. I'm not comfortable telling someone what to do with their money.
Click to expand...

As a follow up to my OP, I think the wealthy realize that their money isn't working for the country, the same way it works for them. The least creative solution to solve the problem is to increase taxes. I'd like to think that their campaign is more about pointing out that the system is broken, then simply advocating higher taxes.

The problem is, in my mind, that a paradigm shift, usually only accomplished after a crisis of monumental proportions, needs to take place. People need to be reminded that their fate is tied to the fate of those around them. Everyone from the janitor to the CEO needs to feel invested in the system and only then do I think we can effect real change.
 

Well I fear that is what is going to happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…