Tax the Rich: Fix Jobs and Deficits

[FiscalSanity]

I want capital gains to be treated like any other income. I never said anything about raising the top rates; In fact, i've suggested in other places that they could be dropped to between 25-30%, but only if capital gains were treated as normal income.

As for whether or not people can change their income in reaction to the rates, that's totally immaterial. If someone chooses to hold instead of selling, that's their busines. I can choose to hold my labor instead of selling it at a rate I don't find acceptable, and I don't see an investors stocks or bonds as any different. When the sale (be it my labor or their stock) takes place the income is earned, and it should all be taxed at the same rate. The only difference between my labor and their capital is that it's acceptable for them to switch their capital around every time they find a higher return, while a worker switching jobs every time they have a better offer get's a reputation for being an unreliable job hopper

 

[georgephillip]

George,

Ok, You're talking about what i think of as the wealthy. These are the people who have so much that they couldnt' spend it all if they tried. I once read an article that did the math on that kind of money, and they earn so much off interest and other types of returns on their investments that they can spend pretty much however much they want without ever coming close to touching their principle balance.

Frankly, once you've got that kind of money the chances that you (or your descendants) will ever be anything but wealthy are pretty slight. About the only things that can wipe you out are war or a change of government that leads to the destruction/confiscation of your assets. Even then the chances are that you haven't put all your eggs in one basket and still have plenty of untouched assets someplace else.

FS:

Here's another article from the same source that has stirred a fair amount of controversy on this board.

Do you spot any obvious flaws in the writer's claim?

"As this chart shows, the US is cranking out multimillionaires at a record pace with super-rich (more than $10M) households doubling in the past decade.

"What’s scary is that doubling the amount of people who have more than $10M per household (from 300K to 600K) means there’s $3,000,000,000,000 less available for the other 98% of the of the households as MONEY IS A COMMODITY and can only be possessed by one person OR another.

The rich really are different in the sense they're completely oblivious to the levels of misery and suffering their lifestyles inflict on humanity. As refugees from Iraq to Afghanistan to Area C can attest.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I want capital gains to be treated like any other income. I never said anything about raising the top rates; In fact, i've suggested in other places that they could be dropped to between 25-30%, but only if capital gains were treated as normal income.

As for whether or not people can change their income in reaction to the rates, that's totally immaterial. If someone chooses to hold instead of selling, that's their busines. I can choose to hold my labor instead of selling it at a rate I don't find acceptable, and I don't see an investors stocks or bonds as any different. When the sale (be it my labor or their stock) takes place the income is earned, and it should all be taxed at the same rate. The only difference between my labor and their capital is that it's acceptable for them to switch their capital around every time they find a higher return, while a worker switching jobs every time they have a better offer get's a reputation for being an unreliable job hopper

What do you want to accomplish? Do you want to collect more revenue and encourage business investment, or do you want to punish the nasty capital gains recipients (which includes middle class mutual fund owners, by the way), collect less revenue and discourage business investment?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

George,

Ok, You're talking about what i think of as the wealthy. These are the people who have so much that they couldnt' spend it all if they tried. I once read an article that did the math on that kind of money, and they earn so much off interest and other types of returns on their investments that they can spend pretty much however much they want without ever coming close to touching their principle balance.

Frankly, once you've got that kind of money the chances that you (or your descendants) will ever be anything but wealthy are pretty slight. About the only things that can wipe you out are war or a change of government that leads to the destruction/confiscation of your assets. Even then the chances are that you haven't put all your eggs in one basket and still have plenty of untouched assets someplace else.

FS:

Here's another article from the same source that has stirred a fair amount of controversy on this board.

Do you spot any obvious flaws in the writer's claim?

"As this chart shows, the US is cranking out multimillionaires at a record pace with super-rich (more than $10M) households doubling in the past decade.

"What’s scary is that doubling the amount of people who have more than $10M per household (from 300K to 600K) means there’s $3,000,000,000,000 less available for the other 98% of the of the households as MONEY IS A COMMODITY and can only be possessed by one person OR another.

The rich really are different in the sense they're completely oblivious to the levels of misery and suffering their lifestyles inflict on humanity. As refugees from Iraq to Afghanistan to Area C can attest.

Here's a flaw, rich people don't keep their $3 trillion under their pillow.
Very little of their net worth is held as cash.
They invest their capital in businesses that employ millions of Americans.

 

[georgephillip]

Not to mention millions more Chinese and Indians and Brazilians.

How much more do the rich deserve?

"According to the annual world wealth report by Merrill Lynch and Capgemini, the wealth of HNWIs around the world reached $42.7tn (£26.5tn) in 2010, rising nearly 10% in a year and surpassing the peak of $40.7tn reached in 2007, even as austerity budgets were implemented by many governments in the developed world.

"The report also measures a category of 'ultra-high net worth individuals' – those with at least $30m rattling around, looking for a home.

"The number of individuals in this super-rich bracket climbed 10% to a total of 103,000, and the total value of their investments jumped by 11.5% to $15tn, demonstrating that even among the rich, the richest get richer quicker.

"Altogether they represent less than 1% of the world's HNWIs – but they speak for 36% of HNWI's total wealth."

Do you see the connection between HNWIs increasing their income by 10% between 2009 and 2010 and the imposition of austerity budgets around the world?

World's Wealthiest People Now Richer than Before the Credit Crunch | Common Dreams

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not to mention millions more Chinese and Indians and Brazilians.

How much more do the rich deserve?

"According to the annual world wealth report by Merrill Lynch and Capgemini, the wealth of HNWIs around the world reached $42.7tn (£26.5tn) in 2010, rising nearly 10% in a year and surpassing the peak of $40.7tn reached in 2007, even as austerity budgets were implemented by many governments in the developed world.

"The report also measures a category of 'ultra-high net worth individuals' – those with at least $30m rattling around, looking for a home.

"The number of individuals in this super-rich bracket climbed 10% to a total of 103,000, and the total value of their investments jumped by 11.5% to $15tn, demonstrating that even among the rich, the richest get richer quicker.

"Altogether they represent less than 1% of the world's HNWIs – but they speak for 36% of HNWI's total wealth."

Do you see the connection between HNWIs increasing their income by 10% between 2009 and 2010 and the imposition of austerity budgets around the world?

World's Wealthiest People Now Richer than Before the Credit Crunch | Common Dreams

Raise American taxes on the rich and see how many fewer Americans they employ as compared to citizens of nations where they're taxed at a lower rate.
How'd that luxury tax work out after 1990?

 

[Steelplate]

Not to mention millions more Chinese and Indians and Brazilians.

How much more do the rich deserve?

"According to the annual world wealth report by Merrill Lynch and Capgemini, the wealth of HNWIs around the world reached $42.7tn (£26.5tn) in 2010, rising nearly 10% in a year and surpassing the peak of $40.7tn reached in 2007, even as austerity budgets were implemented by many governments in the developed world.

"The report also measures a category of 'ultra-high net worth individuals' – those with at least $30m rattling around, looking for a home.

"The number of individuals in this super-rich bracket climbed 10% to a total of 103,000, and the total value of their investments jumped by 11.5% to $15tn, demonstrating that even among the rich, the richest get richer quicker.

"Altogether they represent less than 1% of the world's HNWIs – but they speak for 36% of HNWI's total wealth."

Do you see the connection between HNWIs increasing their income by 10% between 2009 and 2010 and the imposition of austerity budgets around the world?

World's Wealthiest People Now Richer than Before the Credit Crunch | Common Dreams

Raise American taxes on the rich and see how many fewer Americans they employ as compared to citizens of nations where they're taxed at a lower rate.
How'd that luxury tax work out after 1990?

Well geez... that's simple enough... ban the practice of manufacturing outside of the country... works for China, doesn't it?

 

[FiscalSanity]

George,

Sorry about the slow response. The obvious flaw in his argument is that he's acting as if the amount of cash in circulation was a constant. It's not. Just because x number of people now make 10 million doesn't mean that there is that much less for everyone else to make. I can't remember the last time the money supply actually contracted, so every day there is just a little more money (be it cash or just a number in a ledger) available.

Todd,

Drop the whole source of the income argument. Income is income, and it makes no difference whether it comes from investments or selling your labor. I don't think that money magically becomes different because it is in the hands of an "investor", and I know that all your scare talk about how people won't invest if they have to pay higher taxes on capital gains is just that, talk. Investors are going to invest no matter what, because they have to unless they want to go out and find a job. They are going to sell their stocks and bonds just like they always do, because if they don't they won't have the cash liquidity they need to pay their monthly bills. They will gripe and moan about it, but they are still going to continue to play the game.

See, you seem to act as if investing were somehow sacred or something special. It's not. It's just another way of earning a living, albeit one that requires you have a pretty good amount of money already before you can start "working".

 

[Political Junky]

George,

Ok, You're talking about what i think of as the wealthy. These are the people who have so much that they couldnt' spend it all if they tried. I once read an article that did the math on that kind of money, and they earn so much off interest and other types of returns on their investments that they can spend pretty much however much they want without ever coming close to touching their principle balance.

Frankly, once you've got that kind of money the chances that you (or your descendants) will ever be anything but wealthy are pretty slight. About the only things that can wipe you out are war or a change of government that leads to the destruction/confiscation of your assets. Even then the chances are that you haven't put all your eggs in one basket and still have plenty of untouched assets someplace else.

FS:

Here's another article from the same source that has stirred a fair amount of controversy on this board.

Do you spot any obvious flaws in the writer's claim?

"As this chart shows, the US is cranking out multimillionaires at a record pace with super-rich (more than $10M) households doubling in the past decade.

"What’s scary is that doubling the amount of people who have more than $10M per household (from 300K to 600K) means there’s $3,000,000,000,000 less available for the other 98% of the of the households as MONEY IS A COMMODITY and can only be possessed by one person OR another.

The rich really are different in the sense they're completely oblivious to the levels of misery and suffering their lifestyles inflict on humanity. As refugees from Iraq to Afghanistan to Area C can attest.

Here's a flaw, rich people don't keep their $3 trillion under their pillow.
Very little of their net worth is held as cash.
They invest their capital in businesses that employ millions of Americans.

Tax Offshore Wealth Sitting In First World Banks - Forbes.com
<excerpt>
Many aboveground economies around the world are struggling, but the economic underground is booming. By my estimate, there is $15 trillion to $20 trillion in private wealth sitting offshore in bank accounts, brokerage accounts and hedge fund portfolios, completely untaxed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

George,

Todd,

Drop the whole source of the income argument. Income is income, and it makes no difference whether it comes from investments or selling your labor. I don't think that money magically becomes different because it is in the hands of an "investor", and I know that all your scare talk about how people won't invest if they have to pay higher taxes on capital gains is just that, talk. Investors are going to invest no matter what, because they have to unless they want to go out and find a job. They are going to sell their stocks and bonds just like they always do, because if they don't they won't have the cash liquidity they need to pay their monthly bills. They will gripe and moan about it, but they are still going to continue to play the game.

See, you seem to act as if investing were somehow sacred or something special. It's not. It's just another way of earning a living, albeit one that requires you have a pretty good amount of money already before you can start "working".

Really? Investors don't change their behavior when after tax returns change?
That's funny!
You're right, investing is nothing special.
The majority of new jobs are not created by new small businesses.
What was I thinking?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here's a flaw, rich people don't keep their $3 trillion under their pillow.
Very little of their net worth is held as cash.
They invest their capital in businesses that employ millions of Americans.

Tax Offshore Wealth Sitting In First World Banks - Forbes.com
<excerpt>
Many aboveground economies around the world are struggling, but the economic underground is booming. By my estimate, there is $15 trillion to $20 trillion in private wealth sitting offshore in bank accounts, brokerage accounts and hedge fund portfolios, completely untaxed.

It's true, raising taxes on income and capital will cause that wealth to flood into the United States.

 

[Steelplate]

Here's a flaw, rich people don't keep their $3 trillion under their pillow.
Very little of their net worth is held as cash.
They invest their capital in businesses that employ millions of Americans.

Tax Offshore Wealth Sitting In First World Banks - Forbes.com
<excerpt>
Many aboveground economies around the world are struggling, but the economic underground is booming. By my estimate, there is $15 trillion to $20 trillion in private wealth sitting offshore in bank accounts, brokerage accounts and hedge fund portfolios, completely untaxed.

It's true, raising taxes on income and capital will cause that wealth to flood into the United States.

I can't tell if you are being serious or sarcastic.

But either way... these people are criminals and they ought to be treated as such.

 

[sparky]

fat chance.....
GOP Blew Up Debt Negotiations To Protect Tax Breaks For People Making $500,000 Or More | ThinkProgress

 

[editec]

I want capital gains to be treated like any other income. I never said anything about raising the top rates; In fact, i've suggested in other places that they could be dropped to between 25-30%, but only if capital gains were treated as normal income.

As for whether or not people can change their income in reaction to the rates, that's totally immaterial. If someone chooses to hold instead of selling, that's their busines. I can choose to hold my labor instead of selling it at a rate I don't find acceptable, and I don't see an investors stocks or bonds as any different. When the sale (be it my labor or their stock) takes place the income is earned, and it should all be taxed at the same rate. The only difference between my labor and their capital is that it's acceptable for them to switch their capital around every time they find a higher return, while a worker switching jobs every time they have a better offer get's a reputation for being an unreliable job hopper

I think it does make sense to differntiate rates depending on the amount of TIME that the seller of the asset owned it.

I ALSO think that the rate of inflation needs to be taken into account when the tax is levied, too.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tax Offshore Wealth Sitting In First World Banks - Forbes.com
<excerpt>
Many aboveground economies around the world are struggling, but the economic underground is booming. By my estimate, there is $15 trillion to $20 trillion in private wealth sitting offshore in bank accounts, brokerage accounts and hedge fund portfolios, completely untaxed.

It's true, raising taxes on income and capital will cause that wealth to flood into the United States.

I can't tell if you are being serious or sarcastic.

But either way... these people are criminals and they ought to be treated as such.

Criminals should be punished.
It's obvious that raising tax rates increases the rate of compliance. /sarc!

 

[georgephillip]

Not to mention millions more Chinese and Indians and Brazilians.

How much more do the rich deserve?

"According to the annual world wealth report by Merrill Lynch and Capgemini, the wealth of HNWIs around the world reached $42.7tn (£26.5tn) in 2010, rising nearly 10% in a year and surpassing the peak of $40.7tn reached in 2007, even as austerity budgets were implemented by many governments in the developed world.

"The report also measures a category of 'ultra-high net worth individuals' &#8211; those with at least $30m rattling around, looking for a home.

"The number of individuals in this super-rich bracket climbed 10% to a total of 103,000, and the total value of their investments jumped by 11.5% to $15tn, demonstrating that even among the rich, the richest get richer quicker.

"Altogether they represent less than 1% of the world's HNWIs &#8211; but they speak for 36% of HNWI's total wealth."

Do you see the connection between HNWIs increasing their income by 10% between 2009 and 2010 and the imposition of austerity budgets around the world?

World's Wealthiest People Now Richer than Before the Credit Crunch | Common Dreams

Raise American taxes on the rich and see how many fewer Americans they employ as compared to citizens of nations where they're taxed at a lower rate.
How'd that luxury tax work out after 1990?

As I understand it, the luxury tax you refer to worked about as well as the Bush tax cuts.

If it's true that only the USSR lost as many jobs in a single decade (its last, btw) than we lost between 2001 and 2010, is it possible technology has reached a level where capitalism can not provide jobs to all who need one?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not to mention millions more Chinese and Indians and Brazilians.

How much more do the rich deserve?

"According to the annual world wealth report by Merrill Lynch and Capgemini, the wealth of HNWIs around the world reached $42.7tn (£26.5tn) in 2010, rising nearly 10% in a year and surpassing the peak of $40.7tn reached in 2007, even as austerity budgets were implemented by many governments in the developed world.

"The report also measures a category of 'ultra-high net worth individuals' – those with at least $30m rattling around, looking for a home.

"The number of individuals in this super-rich bracket climbed 10% to a total of 103,000, and the total value of their investments jumped by 11.5% to $15tn, demonstrating that even among the rich, the richest get richer quicker.

"Altogether they represent less than 1% of the world's HNWIs – but they speak for 36% of HNWI's total wealth."

Do you see the connection between HNWIs increasing their income by 10% between 2009 and 2010 and the imposition of austerity budgets around the world?

World's Wealthiest People Now Richer than Before the Credit Crunch | Common Dreams

Raise American taxes on the rich and see how many fewer Americans they employ as compared to citizens of nations where they're taxed at a lower rate.
How'd that luxury tax work out after 1990?

As I understand it, the luxury tax you refer to worked about as well as the Bush tax cuts.

If it's true that only the USSR lost as many jobs in a single decade (its last, btw) than we lost between 2001 and 2010, is it possible technology has reached a level where capitalism can not provide jobs to all who need one?

The luxury tax was supposed to punish the nasty rich people.
Did it punish the nasty rich people?

 

[FiscalSanity]

Todd,

There's no point in beating my head against the wall with this argument. You believe what's good for investors and big business is good for America, and i don't. You're right that the rich will seek every loophole they can to hide their income, which is why I advocate doing away with all the loopholes. If they want to step over the line into outright tax evasion then they'll deserve everything that happens when the IRS catches up to them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd,

There's no point in beating my head against the wall with this argument. You believe what's good for investors and big business is good for America, and i don't. You're right that the rich will seek every loophole they can to hide their income, which is why I advocate doing away with all the loopholes. If they want to step over the line into outright tax evasion then they'll deserve everything that happens when the IRS catches up to them.

You should punish investors and see if that results in more investment or less.
Make it more difficult for car companies to make the cars Americans want to buy and see if American car companies make more cars or fewer. Make higher profits or lower.
Employ more Americans or fewer.
I guess if you only care about hurting the mean rich folks, none of those other questions will matter to you.

 

[georgephillip]

Raise American taxes on the rich and see how many fewer Americans they employ as compared to citizens of nations where they're taxed at a lower rate.
How'd that luxury tax work out after 1990?

As I understand it, the luxury tax you refer to worked about as well as the Bush tax cuts.

If it's true that only the USSR lost as many jobs in a single decade (its last, btw) than we lost between 2001 and 2010, is it possible technology has reached a level where capitalism can not provide jobs to all who need one?

The luxury tax was supposed to punish the nasty rich people.
Did it punish the nasty rich people?

Maybe the luxury tax was just another lie the nasty rich people write?

How much more money are the richest 1% of humanity entitled to?

All of it?