Can Taxing The Rich Save The U.S. Economy?

[NYCguy]

So simple question? Can Taxing The Rich Save The U.S. Economy?

 

[B35 via Church]

"This video has been removed by the user"

 

 

Anyway, regarding taxing the rich....

 

What's the point, they're gonna find (or create) loopholes around whatever increased taxes that'd be imposed on them anyway.... and the economy is still gonna remain in the toilet, the middle class will continue to be slowly phased out, resulting in more people bordering on poor/lower class status...... If you aint rich, prepare to be a part of a permanent underclass..... That's what we're eventually heading towards in this country anyway......

 

All you can do nowadays is do the best you can for you & yours......

[realizm]

Crap they deleted the video. I did'nt even have a chance to look at it.

[Kamen Rider]

Every dollar I pay in taxes I can't spend on the common market. to me, it the taxes that are the problem to begin with.

[Shortline Bus]

Another question on this heated debate especially in this year's election is this? Should the IRS be scrapped for a new tax agency?

[VWM]

I'm with B35. The rich will find loopholes.

[SoSpectacular]

"This video has been removed by the user"

 

 

Anyway, regarding taxing the rich....

 

What's the point, they're gonna find (or create) loopholes around whatever increased taxes that'd be imposed on them anyway.... and the economy is still gonna remain in the toilet, the middle class will continue to be slowly phased out, resulting in more people bordering on poor/lower class status...... If you aint rich, prepare to be a part of a permanent underclass..... That's what we're eventually heading towards in this country anyway......

 

All you can do nowadays is do the best you can for you & yours......

 

 

Sadly, this... The tax code would have to be totally re-written in order to make sure there aren't some bullshit loopholes

[Harry]

I think the problem is too big and the math doesn't work anymore.

[Q10 Airport]

I think the problem is too big and the math doesn't work anymore.

 

 

The lack of decent math with tax rates . . . how else can Romney pay a lower tax rate than my parents?

[CenSin]

They should just nullify all the tax rules and start from scratch.

[Den]

If every single person in the USA was taxed 50% the economy still wouldnt recover. The only way to help. Stop spending hundreds of billions on the military every year.

[Phantom909]

Here are the facts:

 

1. taxing the rich will do next to nothing. According to Forbes, there are 400 billionaires in the United States. The total net worth of those 400 is $1,585,250,000,000.

 

http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/#p_1_s_arank_All%20industries_All%20states_All%20categories_

 

So far this year, the amount of money spent by congress and approved by the President is $3.585 trillion dollars. The budget deficit this year so far is $1.214 trillion dollars.so if you took every dime from those 400, you you would have a surplus of $371 billion dollars, but at the rate of spending, that would be wiped out in 23 days. the national debt today is $15.983 trillion dollars. every taxpayers share of it is $139,951.

 

2.On the subject of loopholes. First of all nobody can create a loophole, they are written into the tax code by the politicians who write the code.Most of the so called loopholes are deductions, for example, charitable donations, business expenses etc. I know that some people do take advantage of them, but that can be fixed, ill get into that in point #3

 

3. Yes, the IRS should be scrapped and replaced with a simpler system. The more complicated the system, the more ways it can be beaten.There are a few ways that we could go, Herman Cain`s 9-9-9 plan (9% federal income tax for everyone with no deductions, 9% corporate tax with no deductions, 9% National sales tax) wasnt horrible, but personally i think that to work it would have to be more like 12-12-12 but thats not as catchy. another option was a VAT tax (Value added tax). To explain that simply is right now, sales tax is only collected on a product at the final sale point.Lets use a McDonald`s hamburger as an example, a rancher sells a cow to a slaughterhouse, the slaughterhouse has a "resale" number with the IRS so they dont pay a sales tax to the rancher, the slaughterhouse sells the beef to a processing plant which also has a resale number, so again no sales tax collected, the processing plant sells it to McDonalds, which also has a resale number, so again no sales tax, McDonalds sells the burgers to a McDonalds franchise owner who has a resale number, so no sales tax is collected, the franchise owner sells it to the consumer, who has no resale number, therefore he pays the sales tax. Simply put, a VAT tax would be added to every step that burger went from the rancher all the way to you, which would increase the cost to you by basically the entire tax paid along the way. My preference is a "consumption tax" which is a national sales tax. You would not have any money deducted for federal income tax from your check (you would still pay FICA, state and local taxes, plus disability) so lets say you make $1000 a week, right now with federal, FICA, local taxes etc you take home lets say about $700, With no federal income tax you would bring home about lets say $925. but everything you buy would have lets say a 15% consumption tax on something less than $1000, you could raise it for higher ticketed items. Im not saying this is the Holy Grail of taxation, but its a start and its much simpler.

 

4. Why Romney paid less taxes than your parents is simple. Romney does not have a paying job, His income comes from investments, selling stock, property etc. That money is taxed at a Capital Gains rate, which is about 15%. The reason that its lower is because, the money Romney, and every other investor invests has already been taxed at the federal income tax rate when he earned that money. To encourage investment, the lower rate is because you take a risk when you invest money, there is a chance you can lose all of it.A salary , there is no risk of losing it, thats what you earned. Would you invest money if there was a chance you can lose it all, but if you make money, it would be double-taxed. The risk-reward factor isnt worth it.

 

Joe

[DanTheTransitMan]

Short answer: Yes

[Shortline Bus]

Joe I agree with almost everything you said below. I only slightly disagree on "taxing the rich." It would help a little to get the economy started. However a bigger problem Obama and others who support that plan is they igorning a bigger problem. Those who pay little or no taxes at all costing all of us in America alot of money.

 

Here are the facts:

 

1. taxing the rich will do next to nothing. According to Forbes, there are 400 billionaires in the United States. The total net worth of those 400 is $1,585,250,000,000.

 

http://www.forbes.co...All categories_

 

So far this year, the amount of money spent by congress and approved by the President is $3.585 trillion dollars. The budget deficit this year so far is $1.214 trillion dollars.so if you took every dime from those 400, you you would have a surplus of $371 billion dollars, but at the rate of spending, that would be wiped out in 23 days. the national debt today is $15.983 trillion dollars. every taxpayers share of it is $139,951.

 

2.On the subject of loopholes. First of all nobody can create a loophole, they are written into the tax code by the politicians who write the code.Most of the so called loopholes are deductions, for example, charitable donations, business expenses etc. I know that some people do take advantage of them, but that can be fixed, ill get into that in point #3

 

3. Yes, the IRS should be scrapped and replaced with a simpler system. The more complicated the system, the more ways it can be beaten.There are a few ways that we could go, Herman Cain`s 9-9-9 plan (9% federal income tax for everyone with no deductions, 9% corporate tax with no deductions, 9% National sales tax) wasnt horrible, but personally i think that to work it would have to be more like 12-12-12 but thats not as catchy. another option was a VAT tax (Value added tax). To explain that simply is right now, sales tax is only collected on a product at the final sale point.Lets use a McDonald`s hamburger as an example, a rancher sells a cow to a slaughterhouse, the slaughterhouse has a "resale" number with the IRS so they dont pay a sales tax to the rancher, the slaughterhouse sells the beef to a processing plant which also has a resale number, so again no sales tax collected, the processing plant sells it to McDonalds, which also has a resale number, so again no sales tax, McDonalds sells the burgers to a McDonalds franchise owner who has a resale number, so no sales tax is collected, the franchise owner sells it to the consumer, who has no resale number, therefore he pays the sales tax. Simply put, a VAT tax would be added to every step that burger went from the rancher all the way to you, which would increase the cost to you by basically the entire tax paid along the way. My preference is a "consumption tax" which is a national sales tax. You would not have any money deducted for federal income tax from your check (you would still pay FICA, state and local taxes, plus disability) so lets say you make $1000 a week, right now with federal, FICA, local taxes etc you take home lets say about $700, With no federal income tax you would bring home about lets say $925. but everything you buy would have lets say a 15% consumption tax on something less than $1000, you could raise it for higher ticketed items. Im not saying this is the Holy Grail of taxation, but its a start and its much simpler.

 

4. Why Romney paid less taxes than your parents is simple. Romney does not have a paying job, His income comes from investments, selling stock, property etc. That money is taxed at a Capital Gains rate, which is about 15%. The reason that its lower is because, the money Romney, and every other investor invests has already been taxed at the federal income tax rate when he earned that money. To encourage investment, the lower rate is because you take a risk when you invest money, there is a chance you can lose all of it.A salary , there is no risk of losing it, thats what you earned. Would you invest money if there was a chance you can lose it all, but if you make money, it would be double-taxed. The risk-reward factor isnt worth it.

 

Joe

 

[Shortline Bus]

"This video has been removed by the user"

 

 

Anyway, regarding taxing the rich....

 

What's the point, they're gonna find (or create) loopholes around whatever increased taxes that'd be imposed on them anyway.... and the economy is still gonna remain in the toilet, the middle class will continue to be slowly phased out, resulting in more people bordering on poor/lower class status...... If you aint rich, prepare to be a part of a permanent underclass..... That's what we're eventually heading towards in this country anyway......

 

All you can do nowadays is do the best you can for you & yours......

 

 

If that prediction is true bro (B35) on your above statement then the 99.9% of the population should scrap those dreams of going to college and make these changes . Those of us on the boards better be prepared in 10-20 years to 1)teach your son or daugther(if you have kids) to throw or shoot a ball, kick a soccer ball or skate 2)To learn how to sing/rap and dance and get an "once in lifetime" break on youtube like Justin Brieber lol 3)Keep hoping and praying you win the grand prize in Powerball or Mega Millions Lottories.

[B35 via Church]

If that prediction is true bro (B35) on your above statement then the 99.9% of the population should scrap those dreams of going to college and make these changes . Those of us on the boards better be prepared in 10-20 years to 1)teach your son or daugther(if you have kids) to throw or shoot a ball, kick a soccer ball or skate 2)To learn how to sing/rap and dance and get an "once in lifetime" break on youtube like Justin Brieber lol 3)Keep hoping and praying you win the grand prize in Powerball or Mega Millions Lottories.

 

heh, what do you think is goin on now w/ all these babies having babies (so to speak)..... that in itself is a "lottery".....

("out of all these kids, one of em will make mamma rich")..... bad enough they're siphoning money from the taxpayer by way of welfare enough as it is.... man, I wish I could smack the shit out of any father that co-signs any baby mamma's get rich quick hustle.... which is all it is.... being the logical gender, men should know better..... but then again, these dudes are just as lazy & p-whipped..... lemme stop here on that......

 

As far as college goes, they're already tryin to make it more difficult to get into 'em in general (I still say college is the biggest scam going, but that's neither here nor there).... these trade schools are not posting commercials during the day, to the tune that they have been, for nothin - they're tryna bank off the fact that it's getting harder for students to get into these universities (well, for academics anyway)..... In other words, 'colleges try to make it hard for you to even get in - okay, we'll be glad to take your money'..... Yeah, I fell for the trap too - so much for job placement upon graduation.....

 

like I said, we're heading towards a permanent underclass....

I do not wanna be alive when 100 percent of the population consists of being either [filthy rich] or [dirt poor & uneducated to go along with it].....

[Phantom909]

Joe I agree with almost everything you said below. I only slightly disagree on "taxing the rich." It would help a little to get the economy started. However a bigger problem Obama and others who support that plan is they igorning a bigger problem. Those who pay little or no taxes at all costing all of us in America alot of money.

 

 

the ones who pay little or no taxes are basically the bottom 47% of taxpayers. they are the least able to afford it.Even if Obama`s "Buffet rule' is passed, the Congressional Budget Office has scored it as bringing in $47 billion dollars over the next 10 years. thats $4.7 billion a year, that pays for about 11 hours of government spending. Taxes are not the real problem, its the out of control spending that is going on thats the problem.

 

Joe

[Tokkemon]

Welcome to the Gilded Age 2.0

[MHV9218]

Here are the facts:

 

1. taxing the rich will do next to nothing. According to Forbes, there are 400 billionaires in the United States. The total net worth of those 400 is $1,585,250,000,000.

 

http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/#p_1_s_arank_All%20industries_All%20states_All%20categories_

 

So far this year, the amount of money spent by congress and approved by the President is $3.585 trillion dollars. The budget deficit this year so far is $1.214 trillion dollars.so if you took every dime from those 400, you you would have a surplus of $371 billion dollars, but at the rate of spending, that would be wiped out in 23 days. the national debt today is $15.983 trillion dollars. every taxpayers share of it is $139,951.

 

2.On the subject of loopholes. First of all nobody can create a loophole, they are written into the tax code by the politicians who write the code.Most of the so called loopholes are deductions, for example, charitable donations, business expenses etc. I know that some people do take advantage of them, but that can be fixed, ill get into that in point #3

 

3. Yes, the IRS should be scrapped and replaced with a simpler system. The more complicated the system, the more ways it can be beaten.There are a few ways that we could go, Herman Cain`s 9-9-9 plan (9% federal income tax for everyone with no deductions, 9% corporate tax with no deductions, 9% National sales tax) wasnt horrible, but personally i think that to work it would have to be more like 12-12-12 but thats not as catchy. another option was a VAT tax (Value added tax). To explain that simply is right now, sales tax is only collected on a product at the final sale point.Lets use a McDonald`s hamburger as an example, a rancher sells a cow to a slaughterhouse, the slaughterhouse has a "resale" number with the IRS so they dont pay a sales tax to the rancher, the slaughterhouse sells the beef to a processing plant which also has a resale number, so again no sales tax collected, the processing plant sells it to McDonalds, which also has a resale number, so again no sales tax, McDonalds sells the burgers to a McDonalds franchise owner who has a resale number, so no sales tax is collected, the franchise owner sells it to the consumer, who has no resale number, therefore he pays the sales tax. Simply put, a VAT tax would be added to every step that burger went from the rancher all the way to you, which would increase the cost to you by basically the entire tax paid along the way. My preference is a "consumption tax" which is a national sales tax. You would not have any money deducted for federal income tax from your check (you would still pay FICA, state and local taxes, plus disability) so lets say you make $1000 a week, right now with federal, FICA, local taxes etc you take home lets say about $700, With no federal income tax you would bring home about lets say $925. but everything you buy would have lets say a 15% consumption tax on something less than $1000, you could raise it for higher ticketed items. Im not saying this is the Holy Grail of taxation, but its a start and its much simpler.

 

4. Why Romney paid less taxes than your parents is simple. Romney does not have a paying job, His income comes from investments, selling stock, property etc. That money is taxed at a Capital Gains rate, which is about 15%. The reason that its lower is because, the money Romney, and every other investor invests has already been taxed at the federal income tax rate when he earned that money. To encourage investment, the lower rate is because you take a risk when you invest money, there is a chance you can lose all of it.A salary , there is no risk of losing it, thats what you earned. Would you invest money if there was a chance you can lose it all, but if you make money, it would be double-taxed. The risk-reward factor isnt worth it.

 

Joe

 

 

That is the furtherst you could possibly get from the facts. Your math is flat wrong, nothing you mentioned has any fiscal merit, and your first point is complete and utter bullsh!t. I'm sad to see two people have been fooled into agreeing with that post.

[Phantom909]

That is the furtherst you could possibly get from the facts. Your math is flat wrong, nothing you mentioned has any fiscal merit, and your first point is complete and utter bullsh!t. I'm sad to see two people have been fooled into agreeing with that post.

 

 

ok ill bite on this, show me what facts i posted were wrong. and show me your facts

 

joe

[Threxx]

He doesn't need to show anything to prove that what you said was a heap of bullshit....

[realizm]

Joe I agree with almost everything you said below. I only slightly disagree on "taxing the rich." It would help a little to get the economy started. However a bigger problem Obama and others who support that plan is they igorning a bigger problem. Those who pay little or no taxes at all costing all of us in America alot of money.

 

the ones who pay little or no taxes are basically the bottom 47% of taxpayers. they are the least able to afford it.Even if Obama`s "Buffet rule' is passed, the Congressional Budget Office has scored it as bringing in $47 billion dollars over the next 10 years. thats $4.7 billion a year, that pays for about 11 hours of government spending. Taxes are not the real problem, its the out of control spending that is going on thats the problem.

 

Joe

 

 

I think Joe has one point made that I do agree with which is obviously uncontrolled spending. I think that's understood as to how and why. As for those who pay no or little taxes, are we talking about those who cannot afford to pay exorberant amounts in taxes? Or those ripping off the IRS? Considering that yes there are many loopholes that can be found to avoid paying taxes?

[Phantom909]

I think Joe has one point made that I do agree with which is obviously uncontrolled spending. I think that's understood as to how and why. As for those who pay no or little taxes, are we talking about those who cannot afford to pay exorberant amounts in taxes? Or those ripping off the IRS? Considering that yes there are many loopholes that can be found to avoid paying taxes?

 

 

again, wheteger you agree or disagree with loopholes, they are legal. Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, and everyone else cant make up their own loopholes, they are written into the tax code which is written by the congress. Id like to have my own personal loophole where i can deduct Arby`s Roast beef sandwiches cause i need those bad boys, but the IRS would be knocking on my door and taking me on a perp walk, so i wont do it.

 

Joe

[realizm]

I was'nt clear. I'm not questioning people looking for loopholes from an ethical perspective. Of course it's legal. That's not exactly what I meant. I'll take advantage of legally permissable loopholes at any given opportunity myself.

 

I meant ripping off the IRS by means of tax evasion and such and getting away with it.

[B35 via Church]

The rich have free reign to do anything they want in this country; that's part of the problem now..... To sit up here & state loopholes can't be created is moot; considering the power the rich has in this country.... No one's questioning the legality of the loopholes.... You so call increase taxes on the rich & they will find a way around it....