Slashdot Mirror
Millionaires: Raise Our Taxes To Address Poverty, Fix Roads (go.com)
jones_supa writes from an article on ABCNews: More than 40 millionaires, including members of the Rockefeller and Disney families, are asking to have their taxes raised to help address poverty and rebuild failing infrastructure. The millionaires wrote a letter to Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo and top New York lawmakers proposing new, higher tax rates for the top 1% of earners in the state. The letter says that additional revenue would help addressing child poverty, homelessness and aging bridges, tunnels, water pipes and roads. "As New Yorkers who have contributed to and benefited from the economic vibrancy of our state, we have both the ability and the responsibility to pay our fair share," the letter states. "We can well afford to pay our current taxes, and we can afford to pay even more." The tax plan, known as the one-percent tax plan, was worked out in conjunction with the Fiscal Policy Institute, a left-leaning economic think tank.
So open your checkbook and voluntarily pay more taxes. Don't take the tax deductions and credits you're taking.
Given they're trying to speak on behalf of many others that like as not don't feel as they do, it seems disingenuous. Besides, nothing is stopping them from giving more if they really feel that strongly about it.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
What's preventing them from sending more money to the government now? A trivial Internet-search immediately returns a link to the government site, which explains, how donations of cash or securities can be made to any Federal government agency...
Anybody, actually wishing to pay more taxes himself, can already do that. The only reason to make noise about it is to force someone else to pay more.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Nothing is stopping them now. They are free to write a larger check every quarter.
Just treat all income the same. Wages, dividends and capital gains should all be taxed as regular income. Where do you think the 1% make most of their money? Hint: it's not from their paycheck.
Even tax return has a box right near the end that says "contribute extra to US/state treasury".
Use it.
^that. I don't know why these stories never read as "millionaires have used existing mechanisms to voluntarily pay more in taxes". Somehow it never quite reads like that.
Wrong. they need everyone to pay more so that they can contribute more without giving their competition an advantage. They want to pay more AND they want to maintain a level playing field AND they don't want to be sued by stock holders.
Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
Baby boomers are retiring and the workforce is shrinking in the next 20+ years. Social Security and Medicare will consume two-thirds of the federal budget. Taxes will have to go way up to pay for everything else.
Because these are people who inherited their wealth (which is not taxed as income) and earn most of their new wealth through investments (also not taxed as income if capital gains) who are proposing raising INCOME TAX on upper middle class people who work for a living...not that I rtfa, but this is the game that has been played for the past 40 years by these people, so don't expect them to change their tune.
Given they're trying to speak on behalf of many others that like as not don't feel as they do, it seems disingenuous. Besides, nothing is stopping them from giving more if they really feel that strongly about it.
Nothing disingenuous with stating your own opinion that you'd be ok with higher taxes. The operating assumption of most politicians, especially in the GOP, is that "TAXES ARE EVIL!", so if you remind them that not everyone feels that way (at least if taxes are going to a good purpose), that's your right as a citizen. Feel free to disagree and write your own letter, but in the case of these millionaires, they wanted to point out that the assumption that all rich people don't want tax increases is wrong.
While you can write a check to the Treasury if you really felt like it, its a bit moot if there isn't an accompanying budget. What is preferable is that a tax rate is set that funds a certain budget with a set of priorities, so you know for sure that the law requires your extra tax money go to pay for education, roads, etc., rather than going into a US Treasury slush fund that is used for who knows what, including probably tax rebates for corporations that don't need them. The letter is not just asking for tax increases, but asking for a budget that prioritizes these services and raises taxes as a way to pay for it.
It seems not one poster here considered that they see they are capable of paying more and not being harmed BUT they know they can't solve all of those problems unless their fellow millionaires who are equally capable of paying but not equally willing kick in their part.
They are not hypocrites.
Actually they are. For example Warren Buffet, while saying his taxes should be raised in political venues, in real life dodges taxes. He is dodging inheritance taxes by transferring money to the Gates foundation. Why? Because he thinks Bill and Melinda can more effectively use his money to address social issues than the government, that they will do more "good" per dollar.
this is for income taxes stupid. most of these people make most of their income from dividends and other non-salary income which is taxed at much lower rates and i don't see anything about taxing it at higher rates. this is a tax on the newly uppity former poor people who made it out of rags and moving into neighborhoods they shouldn't be moving into.
Hell, all they have to do is not itemize and take no deductions, exemptions, or any other tax shelter's dodges, etc.
Determine absolute Gross income and send in 39% of it.
This whole "I think I should pay more, make me do it" crap is stupid.
And if their excuse is that they won't step up until everyone does, then their concern for the poor, infrastructure, etc. rings hollow.
Try actually doing it, then shaming others into doing the same instead of trying to use the Government to be the enforcers for your altruism.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
You've never paid property tax have you? That's exactly how property tax (the one that funds your local government, schools, etc) works.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Paradoxically, raising taxes is not likely to increase revenue. The higher taxes are, the harder people try to avoid them. Techniques include such things as deferring income, hiding income, leaving the country and changing citizenship. A favorite of people like the Clintons is to put money into their tax-exempt foundation, and then having the foundation pay for nearly all of their living expanses.
Furthermore, old-money millionaires don't care what the income tax rate is. They've got their bundle and can live off it; they don't think higher income taxes affect them.
The total richness of a country is a function of accumulated wealth, ongoing production, and the introduction of new products. High taxes on income reduce or remove the incentive to produce and innovate. The country as a whole loses with high taxes, and that affects everyone. The longer the time ovre which this phenomenon is examined, the more obvious it is.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
These same people, who get most of the spending pay nothing. The need is not for the worth to donate. The need is to force the scrounging rich to pay up.
You are very misguided....
From Google: The top 10 percent pays 53.3 percent of all federal taxes. When looking at just federal income taxes, they pay 68 percent of the burden. The top 1 percent pays 24 percent of all federal taxes compared to 35 percent of all federal income taxes.
From Google: The top 10 percent pays 53.3 percent of all federal taxes.
And close to half a trillion a year of spending from all that is going to fund Welfare for immigrants from certain countries; instead of on public goods.
The burden is significant on all payers, and we find the US government becoming further and further in breach of the social contract, by just taking money from peoples' wallets and straight-up giving it to other people, which also means: the US government has become less and less legitimate over the past 50 years, and approaching the tipping point where citizens will have a solemn duty to overthrow it and institute new government which does not steal from them......
high taxes on income reduce or remove the incentive to produce and innovate. The country as a whole loses with high taxes, and that affects everyone. The longer the time ovre which this phenomenon is examined, the more obvious it is.
Really? tell that to Sweden, Norway,Denmark and Finland.. High wages, high taxes, higher standard of life and much happier nations :-)
The multiple comments of 'they could donate if they wanted to' demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of how important it is for society to work together to achieve goals. No wonder America is so messed up.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Quite simply:
You can't budget based on individual charity. The rates set a reasonable expectation of incoming receipts for not just the next year, but future years.
Saying, "Check the box" doesn't provide anything that anyone can build a budget on.
This isn't about making a dent. Forty super-rich paying an extra 1% of gross won't make a dent. ALL the millionaires paying an extra 1% ALSO won't make a dent. (Seizing all the assets of all the top 1% - or even all the millionaires - might make a small dent in the year it was done, after which there would be a total economic crash, reducing the US to third-world status.)
This is about a handful of super-rich throwing speed-bumps in front of anybody trying to move from the upper middle class to rich, or from rich to super-rich, and becoming competition (for money and/or power) for the existing super-rich.
They're pulling up the ladder after they (or some ancestor) climbed it. They want to keep their exclusive club exclusive. That's how elites stay elite.
Remember: The money has massively inflated. A million dollars now was about $20,000 before we went off the gold standard. A million dollars annual gross may only yield a poverty-level income, if that, once you've paid expenses an get down to the net.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Tell that to Churches and many other non-profits.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
From Google: The top 10 percent pays 53.3 percent of all federal taxes. When looking at just federal income taxes, they pay 68 percent of the burden. The top 1 percent pays 24 percent of all federal taxes compared to 35 percent of all federal income taxes.
While it's true that taxation is indeed progressive, and that, generally speaking, higher earners pay progressively larger shares of the tax burden, this isn't necessarily an insightful observation.
Let's look at your first claim: the top 10 percent pays 53.3% of all federal taxes. This seems to suggest that they pay more than "their share" of taxes, right? Well, there's not sufficient data in your post to come to that conclusion. To demonstrate, consider this thought problem. If the top 10 percent makes 90 percent of the income (they don't, but hypothetically, if they did), an entirely flat non-progressive system of taxation would have them paying 90% of the federal tax burden. Not 10%. So, what we need to know is what percentage of income goes to the top 10%. If it were 53.3% of the income, then we'd have an effectively flat non-progressive system of taxation. If it's greater than 53.3%, we'd actually have a regressive tax system. If it's less than 53.3%, then we'd have a progressive system. In reality, based on a cursory web search, it seems that the top 10% make roughly 30% of the income. This suggests that we do indeed have a progressive system of taxation, and that the rich pay more than "their share" of taxes. However, your post did not contain sufficient data to support such a conclusion. Furthermore, it may have exaggerated the degree to which our tax system is progressive.
Disclaimer: This is a single look into a single data point, and taxation is a complex issue. Our tax code is progressive, but not progressive enough to prevent unchecked growth in wealth stratification.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
According to this website (https://billionairemailinglist.com/billionaires-list.html), there are 490 billionaires in the US in 2016. Topping the list is Bill Gates, at $78B, followed by Warren Buffett at $65.6B. At the bottom is Fred Chang, Newegg.com Founder - online retailer of computer hardware and software, with a measly $1B.
If you confiscated every penny of their collective wealth, it would not fund the US government for about 6 months. Their collective wealth is $2.273T, while the US government spends about $4T per year.
And, of course, a that point you're plumb out of billionaires until some new ones work their way above that magical line. But how many would work toward that goal if they knew that the minute they get there, their wealth will be "reset" to $0 by taxation.
But we don't tax wealth in this country (US), we tax income.
European socialism is not a universal success story. People very much like to cherry pick when they talk about how well Europe manages to do at anything. It's a mixed bag really. Some countries do well and others are a basket case.
Meanwhile, you have the obvious problem of comparing different countries with different cultures. What might work in a tiny country might not work in one the size of the entire EU. Culture might also come into play. This seems to even be a factor within the EU itself. Some countries have no discipline and are rife with corruption while others have all of the fiscal discipline and are keeping the whole thing from completely falling apart.
Then you have the UK where the Tories are running amok in a very familiar fashion.
Most of the people who engage in hysterics are at best spectators that really have no clue how any of this stuff works anywhere. They don't know the details and don't care to.
They've not experienced what American versions of these things exist either in their public or private versions. The haven't done so in Europe either and aren't really familiar with any relevant details.
At best they cite made up statistics that might not even bear any relationship to reality that still may cherry pick and leave out half of Europe to make it's point.
In the end, you can't be gifted what hasn't been made due to lack of incentives. It doesn't matter if you are living in a socialist utopia and like to brag about stiffing American drug companies. Someone has to innovate first.
I would rather we spend money like drunken sailors (or airmen) and have better facilities, more of them, and the best in the world, where we don't give up on people past a certain age or other bogus bean counting excuses.
If money were no object, there is a vanishingly short list of countries I would want to be treated in. None of the utopias to the north are on my list. They are all far too small and lack the requisite experience and expertise.
It's your life, not a car or an operating system or a burger.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.