WHY Raise Tax's on the Rich ?

[Fenton]

I realize it's rhetorical but I'm just trying ro understand the lefts motivation for raising tax's on the rich.

It makes no sense economically, doesn't increases revenue and it puts the brakes on a already stagnant economy.

 

[CalGun]

Votes have been bought and now they need to be paid for. The rich have fewer votes...

I realize it's rhetorical but I'm just trying ro understand the lefts motivation for raising tax's on the rich.

It makes no sense economically, doesn't increases revenue and it puts the brakes on a already stagnant economy.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

I realize it's rhetorical but I'm just trying ro understand the lefts motivation for raising tax's on the rich.

Its not just the right...
Bill Kristol: 'It Won't Kill The Country If We Raise Taxes' On Millionaires (VIDEO)

It makes no sense economically,

Yes it does.

doesn't increases revenue

Of course it does

and it puts the brakes on a already stagnant economy.

If thats true then the economy would of never grown from the 40's-the early 80's

 

[imagep]

Increasing taxes on the rich is about three things, the first is increasing federal revenue so that we don't have to borrow and print so much. The second is about providing a disincentive for people with high incomes to desire even higher incomes. As more and more income goes into the pockets of the rich, less and less goes into the pockets of the non-rich. In short, higher tax rates for the rich tends to directly and indirectly reduce income disparity. The third thing is that the rich by definition already have more income than they need, thus higher taxes on the rich do not harm their lifestyle, while the non-rich are significantly harmed by taxes.

Raising anyones tax rate will cause damage to our economy. However, since the rich have a lower propensity to spend than the middle class and the poor do, if there is a need for tax hikes, raising the taxes on the rich will do significantly less harm to our economy than raising taxes on the non-rich.

Ideally, in a shaky economy, if we do have a need to increase taxes on the rich, then we should probably lower taxes on the non-rich to balance the economic effect. We can still obtain a net increase in tax revenues because the tax decreases on the non-rich would not need to be nearly as large as the tax increase on the rich in order to have a net zero effect on our economy.

 

[head of joaquin]

I realize it's rhetorical but I'm just trying ro understand the lefts motivation for raising tax's on the rich.

It makes no sense economically, doesn't increases revenue and it puts the brakes on a already stagnant economy.

1. Generally you should tax people who have money, not people who don't. It's amazing that conservatives don't understand this principle.

2. The income gap (too much money in the hands of too few people) causes bubbles and recession (see the recent Bush Meltdonw), so it is good economic policy to tax the top bracket at a steep rate.

3. Infrastructure repair and expansion costs money and benefits everyone, including the wealthy, who depend on it. So they should pay for it.

4. Basic fairness dictates taxing the higher brackets at higher rates since the marginal utility of top bracket dollars is less to the rich than dollars in the lower brackets are to those taxpayers.

 

[longview]

1. Generally you should tax people who have money, not people who don't. It's amazing that conservatives don't understand this principle.

2. The income gap (too much money in the hands of too few people) causes bubbles and recession (see the recent Bush Meltdonw), so it is good economic policy to tax the top bracket at a steep rate.

3. Infrastructure repair and expansion costs money and benefits everyone, including the wealthy, who depend on it. So they should pay for it.

4. Basic fairness dictates taxing the higher brackets at higher rates since the marginal utility of top bracket dollars is less to the rich than dollars in the lower brackets are to those taxpayers.

I would think basic fairness would dictate that every one would pay the same price for the same service.
Imagine if all goods and services were based on our ability to pay?
The service of our federal government is about $12,000 per person per year.
I think our Government should demonstrate they have a fiscal clue, before they get ONE penny more.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Increasing taxes on the rich is about three things…. … The second is about providing a disincentive for people with high incomes to desire even higher incomes.

The desire to better one's standard of living is what drives the creation of business, the creation of jobs, and the creation of opportunities for others to better their own living standards as well. Creating a disincentive against this desire can only stifle an already-weak economy.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I realize it's rhetorical but I'm just trying ro [sic] understand the lefts [sic] motivation for raising tax's [sic] on the rich.

It's all about greed — nothing more. It's funny that those on the left like to accuse those on the right of being greedy; but when you get down to actual policy positions, it is the left's policies that are most clearly and strongly based on the desire to take what doesn't belong to them, from those to whom it does rightfully belong, to be used for purposes other than those which the rightful owners would use what is being taken.

 

[Tigger]

Very simply; You raise taxes on the Rich when you have become so pandering to the Poor that you could never ask them to kick anything into the pot themselves and you're trying to make yourself seem even more pleasant to the have-nots in Society.

 

[imagep]

The desire to better one's standard of living is what drives the creation of business, the creation of jobs, and the creation of opportunities for others to better their own living standards as well. Creating a disincentive against this desire can only stifle an already-weak economy.

Sure, I alluded in the second paragraph of my post, where I said "Raising anyones tax rate will cause damage to our economy" you just decided to ignore it.

 

[iguanaman]

It's all about greed — nothing more. It's funny that those on the left like to accuse those on the right of being greedy; but when you get down to actual policy positions, it is the left's policies that are most clearly and strongly based on the desire to take what doesn't belong to them, from those to whom it does rightfully belong, to be used for purposes other than those which the rightful owners would use what is being taken.

It is about greed but not from the left. We have spoiled the wealthy for 35 years and now they think they deserve it. We were told they would use their extra money to grow the economy for all, but greed got in the way.

 

[Fenton]

Its not just the right...
Bill Kristol: 'It Won't Kill The Country If We Raise Taxes' On Millionaires (VIDEO)



Yes it does.



Of course it does


If thats true then the economy would of never grown from the 40's-the early 80's

Bill Crystal is an idiot and I was hoping for more in depth answers than " yes it does" and "of course it does"

The least you guys could do is be honest or explain exactly how it increases revenue.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It is about greed but not from the left. We have spoiled the wealthy for 35 years and now they think they deserve it. We were told they would use their extra money to grow the economy for all, but greed got in the way.

What is greed, other than the desire to take what doe snot rightfully belong to you. Whatever you think of the wealthy, it is their money; they earned it, and it rightfully belongs to them. To seek to take it from them, to be used as you think it should be used, is the very definition of greed.

 

[Fenton]

It is about greed but not from the left. We
have spoiled the wealthy for 35 years and now they think they deserve it. We were told they would use their extra money to grow the economy for all, but greed got in the way.

They currently pay the lions share of taxes in this Country and if you want them or anyone to spend their money how about not electing a moron to run our Country.

Honestly how will raising taxes on the rich improve our economy or inxrease revenue ?

 

[iguanaman]

They currently pay the lions share of taxes in this Country and if you want them or anyone to spend their money how about not electing a moron to run our Country.

Honestly how will raising taxes on the rich improve our economy or inxrease revenue ?

It worked under Clinton and it will work today. The Clinton tax increases were followed by increased wages, GDP growth and corporate investment. If you want to know why, ask the wealthy.
Oh and those tax increases were also followed by 6 years of balanced budgets, not that you care about that.

 

[Fenton]

1. Generally you
should tax people who have money, not people who don't. It's amazing that conservatives don't understand this principle.

2. The income gap (too much money in the hands of too few people) causes bubbles and recession (see the recent Bush Meltdonw), so it is good economic policy to tax the top bracket at a steep rate.

3. Infrastructure repair and expansion costs money and benefits everyone, including the wealthy, who depend on it. So they should pay for it.

4. Basic fairness dictates taxing the higher brackets at higher rates since the marginal utility of top bracket dollars is less to the rich than dollars in the lower brackets are to those taxpayers.

1) They already pay most of the taxes, its amazing the liberals dont understand this principle.

2) You have no clue what causes bubbles and recessions. If you want less income disparity elect a compentent president next time.

3) LOL ! Infrastructure ? You mean the same "infeastruxture" Obama lied about when pimping for his first stimulus ?

4) Fairness as defined by whom ? The Govt ? You ? You realize how foolish it is to let the govt be the arbiter of fairness ? It's subjective and all.

 

[imagep]

They currently pay the lions share of taxes in this Country...

No, thats not true. They currently pay the "lions share" of income taxes, but not of taxes in general, income tax makes up less than 50% of our total tax revenues.

... Honestly how will raising taxes on the rich improve our economy or inxrease revenue ?

As long as we are on the left side of the Laffer Curve, and EVERY qualified economists admits that we are on the left side, raising taxes will increase tax revenue. I won't help our economy, unless running a lower budget deficit helps our economy. However, it would be less harmful to raise taxes on the rich, than the non-rich, since the non-rich have a higher propensity to spend.

So do you think that the economy is harmed by a high budget deficit?

 

[Fenton]

It worked under Clinton and it will work
today. The Clinton tax increases were followed by increased wages, GDP growth and corporate investment. If you want to know why, ask the wealthy.
Oh and those tax increases were also followed by 6 years of balanced budgets, not that you care about that.

LOL !!! Hahaha......I knew this thread would make me laugh.

Clinton LOWERED Capital Gains Taxes and had NO part of balancing the budget other than lifting a pin to sign the Republicans budget.

You people claim responsibillity for Newt Gingrich's Contract with America now ??

Unbelievable.

 

[Monserrat]

I realize it's rhetorical but I'm just trying ro understand the lefts motivation for raising tax's on the rich.

It makes no sense economically, doesn't increases revenue and it puts the brakes on a already stagnant economy.

I don't know what will or will not work for us economically (not my forte) but I don't like the idea of raising taxes on the wealthy. It's their money why should everyone else have a "right" to it?

Side note: is the Obama Administration raising taxes or just letting the Bush tax cuts fall instead of renewing them like they did in 2010?

 

[imagep]

Clinton LOWERED Capital Gains Taxes

I thought that this thread was about the income tax, not capital gains tax.

Nice strawman though.

 

[imagep]

I don't know what will or will not work for us economically (not my forte) but I don't like the idea of raising taxes on the wealthy. It's their money why should everyone else have a "right" to it?

Side note: is the Obama Administration raising taxes or just letting the Bush tax cuts fall instead of renewing them like they did in 2010?

The Obama Administration isn't doing anything yet. The "fiscal cliff" was designed by congress, all Obama can do is to sign or veto any bills.

If congress sends a bill to Obama increasing taxes on anyone other than the top 2%, I am sure that he will veto it. We are really talking about the expiration of the Obama tax cuts (he gets credit for them since he signed the bill extending them) on the top 2 tax brackets, no one is proposing increasing taxes above the Clinton tax rates.

 

[Fenton]

No, thats not true. They currently pay the "lions share" of income taxes, but not of taxes in general, income tax makes up less than 50% of our total tax revenues.



As long as we are on the left side of the Laffer Curve, and EVERY qualified economists admits that we are on the left side, raising taxes will increase tax revenue. I won't help our economy, unless running a lower budget deficit helps our economy. However, it would be less harmful to raise taxes on the rich, than the non-rich, since the non-rich have a higher propensity to spend.

So do you think that the economy is harmed by a high budget deficit?

Your now claiming some sort of sincere concern over the defecit ? After 6+ trilion in defecit spending ?

Raising taxes with Obama in office wil have zero effect on revenue and will likely cause revenue to fall as the rich and investors and small bussiness protect their money, lay off workers or quit hiring.

Its stupidity and has nothing to do with improving our economy or increasing revenue.

Stop with the BS and tell me WHY you want to raise taxes.

Raise capital gains taxes now and Obama will be responsible for even MORE suffering.

 

[Monserrat]

The Obama Administration isn't doing anything yet. The "fiscal cliff" was designed by congress, all Obama can do is to sign or veto any bills.

If congress sends a bill to Obama increasing taxes on anyone other than the top 2%, I am sure that he will veto it. We are really talking about the expiration of the Obama tax cuts (he gets credit for them since he signed the bill extending them) on the top 2 tax brackets, no one is proposing increasing taxes above the Clinton tax rates.

If that's the case than I don't see what all the outrage is about.

 

[Mycroft]

I realize it's rhetorical but I'm just trying ro understand the lefts motivation for raising tax's on the rich.

It makes no sense economically, doesn't increases revenue and it puts the brakes on a already stagnant economy.

There is only one reason to tax the rich:

It furthers the left's desire for warfare on the rich.

 

[rjay]

I realize it's rhetorical but I'm just trying ro understand the lefts motivation for raising tax's on the rich.

It makes no sense economically, doesn't increases revenue and it puts the brakes on a already stagnant economy.

$1Trillion over 10 years.
That represents one part of a balanced approach that will also include budget cuts.