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.
Translation: "Please, we're sorry we were so stingy! Raise our taxes a little before the people vote in somebody who will raise them to where they should be!"
Captcha: unrest
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.
Here you go:
https://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/...
Even tax return has a box right near the end that says "contribute extra to US/state treasury".
Use it.
Uhh... Checking.
- Abril Fool's Day? No, too soon;
- Apocalipse? (go to the window, checks the telescope) No, no asteroids coming;
- Hell frozen? (as my nickname implies I can check this possibility)... DAMMIT, Hell has frozen.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
^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.
Hi. Your argument is incredibly stupid. As a society, you need to determine what is important and then come together as a group to get it done. Saying "oh, if you feel it is important, pay for it, if you don't then you don't have to" falls apart rather quickly. Infrastructure is a common good that all of society should pay for and those who lack the moral compass to realize that they should help pay for it should not be let off the hook. Ultimately, a donation system is not going to pay for our roads...
Competition is why. Think about it. If `everyone` has to pay, the playing field is level. This is what Warren Buffet has been explaining tirelessly for decades. So yeah, this question goes in the "answered a long time ago" bucket.
Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
Then they shouldn't say "We can well afford to pay our current taxes, and we can afford to pay even more." They should make it clear that they also want to take from other people who have not signed on to their cause. But they never do. It's always this altruistic "Oh, we can pay more." So yeah, your answer goes in the "non-responsive to the actual situation" bucket.
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.
They are not hypocrites.
It is not fundamentally hypocritical to follow the rules as they exist and simultaneously advocate that the rules be changed. This fallacy is what gets trotted out on Fox every time Warren Buffet says the same thing.
It's like calling someone a hypocrite if they advocate for pot legalization, but don't smoke up. There's nothing hypocritical about this position at all.
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.
40 millionaires opening their checkbooks and paying some extra tax won't solve large problems.
But if all millionaires do, that adds up to a lot more. This is a stunt by 40 millionaires to suggest that this is what should be done.
There's nothing hypocritical about it.
Governments are not allowed to take donations
Except when they are...
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
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.
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.
Because these are people 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.
I know reading the fabulous article is passe, but you might want to try it from time to time. For example, had you rtfa you would have noticed that the tax increased don't kick in unless you make more than $655k per year. If that is your idea of an upper middle class income, I would love to have you for an employer. I'd be rich.
But hey, it's not like we can expect you to be informed just because the article is conveniently linked in the header these days.
Minne-snow-da: Winter is comming...
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.
This whole "I think I should pay more, make me do it" crap is stupid.
It is. Fortunately that is now what they are saying. They are not asking for an opportunity to individually pay ore taxes. They are asking fr a collective arrangement in which all rich people pay more taxes.
This is not hard t comprehend. We organize a party and everybody chips in for a keg of beer, but once again we ran out of beer halfway through the party, so someone suggests: how about if we all chip in more money and we buy two kegs of beer?
And then some idiot (namely you) interjects and says "well you can always pay more if you want", ignoring the obvious fact that the proposal only works if everyone chips in.
Normally I don't reply to AC, but there is so much stuff that is so wrong with this post, I couldn't resist...
If someone holds stock for 20 years and it goes from being worth $100,000 to $20,000,000 there is nothing to tax.
There is if you sell it. There would be a taxable gain of $19,900,000. We're talking about taxable events, like selling things, receiving a dividend, or earning a paycheck.
Any more than you can tax someone on their home value increasing or someone holding an asset that becomes more valuable with time.
My annual property tax bill disagrees with your completely wrong assertion.
Plus rich people are smart, you don't cash in the stock --- you do things like take a loan against the stock.
Oh, my. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I'm sure somewhere at some point you read about some rich person 'taking a loan against their stock'. But I think you misunderstand why they do that. A CEO of a company might want to cash out (for whatever reason), but doesn't want to make it look like he is bailing out on his company. Or somebody has stock that has a sell restriction on it. Because, you see, there isn't a good TAX reason to take a loan against the stock. You have to pay that loan back, with interest. How do you pay the loan back? With... wait for it... MONEY! That money has to come from somewhere. Probably from, oh, I don't know, selling some stock? Which generates a taxable gain. So they haven't avoided any taxes at all.
Or you don't sell a building --- you sell the company that owns the building --- thus no real estate transaction occurred.
[face-palm] Wow. Just... wow. You do realize that the building is part of the value of the company. And you will be taxed on the gain of the value of the company. So, unless they plan to sell the company at a loss, I don't see how they avoid paying taxes. Again. As far as property taxes go, that only helps the purchaser of the company/building. It in no way helps the seller, because they no longer own the building. Obviously.
Corporation account and wealthy people accounting is in an entirely different dimension.
And your understanding of either is nearly non-existent.
You don't understand accounting at all
[giggles]
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.
Of course, in the US the top 1% own 40% of the countries wealth, and the top 10% own somewhere around 80%.
Stephan
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.
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.
Your understanding is also flawed. If you have enough stock, you don't need to repay loan during your lifetime. When you die, the loan is repaid from your estate. Crucially, this repayment happens before estate taxes are paid.
So, yes, there is a way to avoid paying taxes on stocks that you receive, even though you were able to turn the stocks into cash.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
[I first wrote this in 2012, so the "In the last year for which data is available" is wrong, and I could take the time to update the numbers, but the picture painted will not change...]
In the last year for which data is available, 2008, the highest marginal tax rate was 35%. This rate was paid on AGI above $357,700. Certainly someone with AGI over that value is in the well-to-do category, but may not be "millionaires and billionaires" (OTOH Mr. Obama seems to think income of $250,000 equates to "millionaire", but this is immaterial to my point). According to the IRS, the number of returns that were in this highest marginal rate was 971,510. So there's nearly a million households in this country that are, at least by the IRS bracket definition, "rich". Not too shabby, it seems the USA is indeed the land of opportunity.
According to the IRS, the cumulative amount of AGI subjected to this highest rate was $622,765,389,000, so let's round up to $622.8B. The taxes generated on this money is therefore $218B (the IRS reported $217,967,886,000). The overall effective rate for these returns (taxes paid / income) was 28.9%.
Let's assume for a moment (no matter how unrealistic the assumption is) that no one affected would change a lick of their income-generating behavior as a result if we raised the top marginal rate to 100%. How much revenue would that generate? Why, all of $622.8B, if no one modified their behavior in any way that affected their income and tax impact. That is, it would generate an additional $404.8B in revenue relative to the current 35% bracket.
If you added that $404B to the revenue pot, our deficit this year would still be over $1T...
> Really? tell that to Sweden, Norway,Denmark and Finland..
Not terribly innovative.
If I had to depend upon them for my health, I would be DEAD.
"happiness" and "standard of living" are things that get reduced to meaningless statistics spun to support whatever agenda is on tap.
They fail to capture the things like lack of central heating and high electricity costs that drive people to use pellet driven space heaters that would make American trailer trash chuckle.
The stuff in bold is to highlight what absolutely serious bullshit you just uttered. ....
https://healthmanagement.org/c...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
They have a better health care which is paid through taxes. now while private healthcare is also available , which gives choice, the state healthcare there is top notch and for you to suggest otherwise is either blatant ignorance or wilful ignorance or.. just disingenuous.
BTW you do realise that they have central heating in abundance.. oh and electricity is CHEAPER in Sweden, for example, than the USA
Basic (Electricity, Heating, Water, Garbage) for 85m2 Apartment 148.31 $ (1,221.12 kr)(USA) 86.48 $(712.04 kr) (SWE) -41.69 %
-41.69% cheaper....
so how are you trailer trash chuckling now at paying nearly 42% more than those pesky Scandinavians?
If you are going to make a statement about something , make sure your argument cannot be humped with very very very very little effort