If taxing the rich means they won't work as hard to make more money,

[hedgehog]

then isn't it time to tax the hell out of them?

Look, rich people trying to make even more money has brought us disaster from the Hunt Brothers trying to buy up all the silver in the world to Bernie Madoff. In Bernie's case, not only was he trying to become even richer, but he was able to run his scheme for so long because other people wanted to become richer! (Although he also took out a lot of pension funds and small investors in the process!) Rich people trying to get richer brought us Microsoft. Rich people getting richer turned Walmart from a regional chain specializing in American made goods to a behemoth that turned us into a dumping ground for China. When rich people try to get richer, their efforts inevitably distort the market. Having so much purchasing power in the ands of so few isn't that different from the planned economy of Soviet Russia. One mistake is devastating. So I say, take care of that problem by taxing the rich!

[phantom power]

1. Hmm....

:think:

[Richard Steele]

2. History would seem to support your premise.

Back when we taxed the rich heavily, our economy
was the powerhouse of the world.

Today, not so much.

[hedgehog]

5. There's nothing wrong with doing well, but when your wealth has

reached the point where it harms the rest of us, it's time to correct the situation. It's a radical idea, but 40 years ago the notion of telling companies they couldn't dump their wastes into the air or the nearest river was a radical proposal!

[anigbrowl]

21. That's a sort of misleading premise though

Consider that much of Europe got bombed to hell in WW2 so their efforts were focused on rebuilding (with the help of our money, on which interest was paid) for several decades afterwards. Ditto Japan, to a large extent. The USA saw virtually no damage at all to its industry or infrastructure. Meantime, India and China were technologically and socially for more backward than today.

So although the US became enormously successful economically during a period of very high marginal taxation, it doesn't follow that high taxes were the cause of that success.

[Richard Steele]

58. I did not say they were the CAUSE of success, I simply noted that they did not HINDER it.

The actual CAUSES of success are numerous and varied;
the fact that half of Europe's factories had been bombed to rubble
was certainly a big help to US Industrial concerns,
no doubt about it.

Not to mention that many of Germany's "best and brightest" engineers
and scientists ended up here after the smoke cleared.
The finest minds of the Nazi generation ended up hitched to our wagon.

Some came voluntarily, others we snatched up...
the ones that the Soviets didn't snatch first.

From the standpoint of "being an economic powerhouse",
losing those PEOPLE probably set Germany back more years
than losing its factories did.

You can build a factory in a year or three, but you can't BUILD
an Einstein, a Heisenberg or a Willstatter.

[Egalitariat]

30. You're assuming cause and effect just because two things happened at the same time

We could ban African Americans from playing Major League Baseball, but the American economy wouldn't get better.

Even though the economy was the powerhouse of the world when African Americans couldn't play MLB.

[Ken Burch]

63. Er, no. The economy actually picked up AFTER Jackie Robinson made the Dodgers

We should be trying to INCREASE the number of African American players in "the show"(a number that's been declining for awhile, actually)to recreate the parallel between the rise of the first generation of black baseball stars and the surging economy of the 1950's and 60's.


(that is, if the "blacks in the majors" thing actually WAS going to help.)

[AngryAmish]

34. my friend, no internet for you until you write 1000 times "correlation is not causation"

[Richard Steele]

59. See post #58.

Then Google up a YouTube clip of Benny Hill
explaining the concept of "What We Do When We ASSUME",
and watch it 1000 times.


















Ah, who am I kidding? Everyone knows I can't stay mad at you!
Watch it once, and write a 15-word essay.

[walkaway]

3. Try telling this to the assistant manager at my Jiffy Lube

He is convinced that he may one day be wealthy and he doesn't want to have to pay it all to the government. He lives in a rental apartment with his mother (on medicare and social security) and his disabled brother and he is livid about this class warfare.

One thing about the rich. They are really good at getting the stupid to do what they want them to and they are great at hanging on to their money.

[CTyankee]

67. My young mechanic feels the same way!

I feel terrible for him because I know what awaits him. He had to give up even going to Community College because of the economic crisis. He's just hoping to someday be a manager at a car dealer.

Somehow this guy feels superior when all this class warfare talk comes on hate radio shows that he listens to. I think it makes him feel better about his situation...

[jmg257]

4. OooooKkkkk. We don't want the rich to get richer, but we need them to get richer

so we can tax the shit out of them, to pay for the rest of us not to be rich.

:crazy:

Maybe we just need 1 guy/girl to get REALLY rich, and they can adopt us all and give us an allowance?

[hedgehog]

7. No, the point is that we need to tax them so they don't become super rich.

The fact that we have people who are superrich in and of itself is harmful to a properly functioning economy. On the one hand, it puts too many resources into the hands of a few, thereby depriving many others. It also slows the circulation of money, again depriving others. Finally, instead of many small decisions averaging out for the benefit of all, one person's decisions can drive the market.

It really doesn't matter if by raising the tax we deter people from becoming super rich or merely correct the situation by returning the wealth to the common purse.

[The Magistrate]

6. You Make An Excellent Point, Ma'am

[hedgehog]

8. I am honored at your approval, SIr.

[newtothegame]

15. I agree, Sir. It was a great post, Sir. Good point, Sir. n/t

[Lilith Velkor]

20. Mag! Wazzup?

Good to see ya, baby!

[Keno76]

9. Agreed

I agree with the article

[smoogatz]

10. If they're real go-getters, taxing them more will make them work even harder.

So they'll have more disposable income--that's what the acquisition of wealth is all about. Our problem has been that the rich, being undertaxed, have gotten lazy.

[hedgehog]

11. Excellent point!

[Winterblues]

12. How did the rich ever get to be rich during the fifties and sixties?

When they were taxed at ninty percent. America seemed to prosper quite well during those years, in fact to Republicans those are the Glory years, the years they would love to go back to. They also did quite well during the Reagan years when they were taxed at fifty percent. None of them quit trying to become richer...In fact they just tried all that much harder. Republican talking points have been disputed so many times it makes the head spin yet they keep repeating the same tired LIES.

[cdsilv]

17. Swiss bank accounts? n/t

[EOTE]

19. Because 10% of a billion is still a shitload of money.

I don't know when that 90% rate kicked in, but I'm guessing it was at the point where income was already at least 10x or so what the average worker was making. I've yet to see a multimillionaire who worked 100X harder than the workers they employ, or even 10X for that matter. Our progressive taxation system does just a little bit towards reclaiming some of the wealth that workers created and a very select few profit from. We could really use a 90% top rate right now, but I don't think it should kick in until probably the eight figure range.

[anigbrowl]

24. Lack of competition, in part

Europe was devastated in WW2, Japan too. It took them a generation to rebuild their infrastructure and and economic capacity. Russia and China were locked in the grip of fairly strict communism, and in any case were coming from a far less developed industrial position. India was then more like Africa today, with no major industry or infrastructure and most wealth arising from mineral resources or cottage industry. (Obviously, this is a highly abbreviated summary...)

So the US had perfect economic conditions during that period, having suffered no serious domestic damage during WW2. The environment wasn't a big concern, so if you wanted to build a steel mill or whatever you had a god-given right to do so without worrying about how much pollution you put out - people didn't realize how it could poison both the ecosystem and people who worked or lived around it. The US lent out huge amounts of money to Europe and Japan to help rebuild, and was collecting interest on it; meantime we had a fully tooled-up industrial economy, a massive new degree of political power, and a boatload of confidence.

In short, we had ideal economic conditions during that period. If Hitler had been more astute and less crazy - for example, not being in a hurry to invade Russia or devote significant energy to ethnic cleansing and genocide; and if Japan had not been so unwise as to initiate war with the US, then Germany and Japan would probably have ended up as powerful economically as they are today if not more so, but 30 years earlier.

[hunter]

13. Excellent plan.

Let's do it!

[Last Stand]

14. Who says that people who are rich necessarily work?

Or ever worked?
Or worked harder than coal miners?

Or base their work habits on tax rates?


These premises are a load of shit in every RW argument about making the rich pay their fair share.

[hedgehog]

18. I don't necessarily believe the premise that higher taxes deter

people from working harder, but if the premise is valid, let's use it to our benefit!

[anigbrowl]

25. There's a Chinese saying...

first generation builds wealth.
second generation enjoys wealth.
third generation loses wealth.

In my experience, a lot of rich people get that way by working their asses off. If they start out wealthy they still work, but are not as concerned with accumulating it. And by the time it becomes 'old money', grandchildren tend to also inherit a sense of entitlement. I know quite a lot of wealthy people via my line of work. The more hand they've had in making their own money, the more likely they are to be liberal, actually (not always, of course).

I think it's stupid to compare different types of work, such as asking whether rich people work as hard as coal miners or something. Physical labor is not the benchmark of integrity. I've done plenty of both physical labor and the mental kind, and brain work is no less arduous. Maybe more so in fact, since if you work with your head you need to constantly adapt and wrestle with new challenges, whereas for physical work you're not necessarily expected to innovate. There seems to me to be about the same proportion of good and bad people (or industrious vs lazy or however you want to frame it) at every social and occupational level.

[DJ13]

16. One thing thats always lost in the tax argument

Back when tax rates were in the 70% to 90% range for the top income earners there were writeoffs that offset those high rates that were targeted at spending their income in ways that benefited our society, like charitable spending on things like school endowments, and increased business spending to expand businesses (creating more jobs).

Unlike the current low tax rates, that only serve to induce saving or investments abroad, the high tax rates back then forced the wealthy to spend money in ways that improved our country.

[ItNerd4life]

23. You're idea is much better than the OPs.

We need a way to help society with taxes, not just taxing because we think someone makes too much money and adding to
the government coffers.

[Raineyb]

29. I think you're mischaracterizing the OP's point n/t

[anigbrowl]

27. That's a good point

I'm OK with charitable contributions (genuine ones, not legal smokescreens for hiding wealth) being deductible on a 1:1 basis. Of course some wealthy people will contribute to conservative causes I don't support, but then it drives conservatives nuts when wealthy people give money to environmental or family planning foundations. It all balances out. I do think non-profits should be subject to regular audit and the rules for tax status clearly defined, but it's not important to me that all large-scale redistribution of wealth must take place via the US treasury.

[ljm2002]

22. Now that is an excellent point! n/t

[unblock]

26. the notion that high taxes keep the rich from participating in the economy is an overplayed canard

it works for the right to use it because there's an element of truth to it. rich people do consider taxes when deciding what to do. but for the most part, it influences HOW they participate in the economy, not IF they participate in the economy.

high tax marginal rates might lead them to steer more of their money to tax protected instruments like munis, but is this really such a terrible thing?

the only real risk is that they might move out of the country entirely, but this is not likely to be significant for quite a number of reasons, not the least of it is that america remains the best place for the rich to protect and expand their wealth.


moreover, quibbling about something like 33% vs. 39% is ludicrous. NO ONE decides against starting a business because the tax rate is 39%, where they really would have done it had the tax rate been 33%. if we're talking about jacking up tax rates above 70%, then the right might have a point, but no one's talking about that.

and even when we DID have marginal tax rates that high, we had a ton of loopholes that amounted to the government directing the economy via the tax code. they made sure there were way -- productive way -- for the rich to shelter their money by doing something desireable. for the most part, anyway. eventually the rich lobbied for more and more crazy, non-productive loopholes that it became silly, thus building their argument for doing away with it entirely.

[mainer]

28. Instead of taxing those who actually MAKE the wealth ...

i.e., the first-generation strivers whose ingenuity and persistence establish the family's wealth, why not just focus on inheritance taxes? That way you don't hurt productivity, but you do stop the cycle of the lazy rich?

[Taitertots]

31. The idea was that if you tax the rich they won't have money to invest

and what money they do have will be taken elsewhere. This whole concept is premised upon the structure of a super rich class controlling investments and thus controlling the economy to their benefit.

We need to tax rich people, not profitable corporations. We should have almost no tax on corporations, and a tax rate that increases with personal income. A tax system that if you try to make more than a certain amount(very high) you will end up with less money. Where no benefit could even be seen beyond making one million dollars a year, because it would be taxed away. So there would be a steep tax peaking with anyone making 5 million before taxes having to pay 4 million in taxes, with any income above that being taxed at 110%. An estate tax on anyone with holdings valued above a certain very high value. There would be a government tax incentives for companies to bring up median income levels.

[mainer]

32. I think it depends on where that income comes from.

Someone who's invented a hot new app and is making money from sales of it shouldn't be taxed at that outrageous 80% rate you're suggesting. That would truly discourage innovation, invention, and hard work. Someone who's earning money based on active employment or work (not just investments) is performing a productive function in the economy.

And no, not everyone who earns 5 million a year is a no-good banker. I can think of a number of people in the arts who are earning that much through their books, music, or other creations. And how about the small business owner whose business begins to boom?

But anyone who's making 5 million a year purely from investments (while he himself isn't contributing any labor) is a different kettle of fish.

[Taitertots]

35. No matter where the income comes from

All deviation would do is allow personal bias to corrupt the system. You think a book writer, I think a hockey player, he thinks an executive.

One million dollars is more than most people make in a decade. How many people even make that much now? Do you expect the one million dollars a year is not enough to motivate people to work hard and innovate?

The small business owner needs to either lower his prices or pay his workers more. The business owner could use that money to expand the company, invest in new equipment, research new advancements.

Obviously any values would be fluctuated as conditions change over time.

[mainer]

38. I have a friend who is, literally, a rock star.

If he was told "you can't make more than a million," he would do just enough performances to make that million. And then he would STOP for the rest of the year. Which means no more performances, no roadie salaries, no ticket sales, no popcorn sales, etc., etc. Why on earth would he work for free for the rest of the year? Does that make any sense to you?

[hedgehog]

43. Ah, but what if because the economy is different, 2000 other people

go out and buy instruments and form up garage bands?

[mainer]

54. Nobody wants to hear those 2000 garage bands. That's the difference.

Yes, my friend started as a garage band-type singer. Did his time in nightclubs. The difference is, he had the talent, the musicianship, and the songwriting skills to gain an audience that loves him.

It's like publishing. Everyone wants to be an author. But only a few special authors are going to find a huge readership. And those readers don't want to read the dreck that 2000 other amateurs can "publish" on the web.

[Taitertots]

66. The world is not missing millionaire rock star divas

His talent, musicianship, and songwriting skills are not worth the GDP of a small nation. The world can do without the creations forgone by the greed of a few. If he won't produce people will find someone who will. He is not the Beatles and can be replaced as easy as the next fad.



The world is not going to miss the contribution of those so overcome with greed that a fortune isn't enough for them.

[Taitertots]

44. The world is not missing rock star millionaire divas

That would just make new opportunities for other musicians. The demand for rock concerts isn't locked to the number of musicians. The venues would just find replacements. There is no shortage of people who would work as musicians for several million dollars a year to replace them.

[hedgehog]

46. Your example illustrates what I am talking about when I think of money

circulating through more hands.

[FiveGoodMen]

48. The Beatles got taxed at 95% and kept making records (and money)

"Let me tell you how it will be
It's one for you nineteen for me"

Maybe your friend doesn't like his job that much anyway.

[mainer]

55. Would you work for free?

If the government says, you get paid from January to March and it's yours. Everything after that is mine. You bet you'd stop work on March 31 and do your own thing.

by the way, that's why the Beatles set up Apple -- precisely to get out from under those taxes.

•Derek Taylor: "Instead of paying nineteen and six on the pound. We paid only sixteen shilling...Apple was set up purely and simple as a tax saving project...Apple was never meant to try to save the world despite popular myth".

http://www.beatlemoney.com/applefacts.htm

[eridani]

62. Where have you come up with this delusion that tax money stops being yours?

I can't afford 20 miles of paved interstate between my house and my job all by my lonesome. All those other people that pitch in make it possible, and it doesn't stop the money from being ours.

[FiveGoodMen]

64. Never heard it put quite so well!

:applause:

[Taitertots]

68. I don't ever expect to make more than $200,000 per year

99% of people would never have to worry. The greediest .8% can deal with it and not work. If I ever did make that much I would have already retired.

[lumberjack_jeff]

73. So the venues would just stop holding concerts?

The truth is another musician would step up to fill in the gap. Concerts would still be held, but instead of one rock star making $2m, there would be two making $1m.

The same is true with anything. Anyone who is working 80 hours a week is preventing some unemployed person from working at all.

[hedgehog]

33. Exactly - we MUST tax the rich to keep them from making investments.

All too often, their investments actually cripple the entire economy!

[county worker]

36. I just don't get that idea.

It is a sort of fascism and not what the this country is all about. We need laws and regulations to give us all a fair chance but not laws that even us all out.

[Taitertots]

37. Isn't the goal to even us out

What sort of fascism is it where all our the means of production is owned and controlled by a tiny cabal? Where the super rich live in mansions while millions have no health care, unemployment spikes, and our automotive industry is on the brink on destruction.

[mainer]

39. Right. Even us all out. Regardless of our talents or hard work.

So I work 60 hours a week, you work 20 hours a week, and we should get paid the same?

I think not.

[Taitertots]

41. I would just get 20 hours of minimum wage pay

While you would get 60 hours of at least minimum wage, yet not exceeding several million per year.

[FiveGoodMen]

50. People who don't work at all make more than you

Lots of rich people just sit back and collect checks.

Nothing rewards people according to their hard work.

[mainer]

51. I do get rewarded for my hard work.

I don't know about you, but that's how I'm rewarded. And I think I deserve to earn more than the person who works only half as hard.

[Taitertots]

65. Yes, you do

But you don't deserve more than 100 people who work just as hard as you, like the ultra rich are getting.

[hedgehog]

42. The purpose isn't to even us out, but to recognize that when too much money is controlled by too

few people, it brings the entire system crashing down. In the end, even the super rich suffer when the economy goes bad. Of course, maybe their suffering is better than what any of us would ever hope for!

[Taitertots]

47. The super rich never suffer when the economy goes bad

Unless you consider having to get rid of the G-5 suffering. The only people who suffer are the growing middle class, who lose retirements, jobs, and homes.

How do we stop too much money being controlled by too few people? Even us out. Limit excess collection of wealth.

[hedgehog]

49. In case anyone is wondering what we are talking about:

http://www.lcurve.org/

We're probably talking about people closer than 1 foot to the goal line!

Be sure to zoom out to get the full effect of this image!


More graphs:

http://geocities.com/gordonite32/philo/incomes.htm

[hunter]

72. The guys inches from the goal line control the economy.

The United States is essentially an oligarchy and not a democratic republic. Because this oligarchy controls the mass media the majority of citizens vote against their own self interests -- motivated by false hopes, false fears and misinformation carefully crafted for that purpose by the oligarchy itself. The average person votes as if they are participating among the very wealthy oligarchs, but they are actually excluded from the places where the economic decisions that will determine their standard of living are made.

The oligarchs maintain their power by keeping their workers hungry and fearful for their livelihoods.

[JuniperLea]

70. "give us all a fair chance but not laws that even us all out"

Whiplash!

One of this things is EXACTLY like the other!

[NashVegas]

40. Most Rich People Don't Work Hard To Make Money

They convince people on the bottom to do the *actual work* for them, while they make deals over lunches.

[hedgehog]

45. I don't care whether or not they deserve or earn the money, the problem is that

they are screwing up the economy when they have too much!

[mainer]

52. Not according to the Millionaire Next Door.

The average millionaire works longer hours, and spends a lot less money, than you'd expect. Most of them got to be wealthy because they're very tight with a buck.

[w4rma]

60. The OP is about billionaires, not low end millionaires. (nt)

[Taitertots]

69. They are not making millions every year

They are saving their honest wages and investing. So my ideology wouldn't effect them at all.

[mainer]

53. If YOU want to get rich, STOP SPENDING! And stop whining about others.

Everyone here seems to hate millionaires -- without any understanding of who these people are. They are NOT all the scum of the earth. They tend to be thrifty and hardworking. My dad, for example, was a restaurant cook who worked 16 hour days, yet by the time he died, he'd amassed over a million dollars because he never moved out of his $18,000 house, never went anywhere, and never spent a dime on any luxuries. And here on this board, I hear people whining and moaning that the nasty millionaires are keeping them from being well-to do. Well, you know what? YOU stop buying new clothes. YOU try saving every dime. Maybe you'd save enough to stop letting that green-eyed monster goad you into picking up your pitchforks because you're too much of a spendthrift to tighten your own belts.

The millionaire next door
"The flashy millionaires glamorized by the media actually represent only a tiny minority of America's rich," Stanley and Danko say in the book. "Most of the truly wealthy in this country don't live in Beverly Hills or on Park Avenue -- they live next door."
The authors say that the typical wealthy individual is a businessman who has lived in the same town for all of his adult life and owns a small factory, a chain of stores or a service company. He lives next door to people with a fraction of his wealth. Their survey indicated that while the paycheck-to-paycheck crowd drives new cars, most millionaires don't. They're not wearing expensive clothes and watches and their houses are relatively modest compared to their financial status.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/RetirementandWills/EscapeTheRatRace/SimpleLivingYieldsSimplyMillionsInSavings.aspx

[Richard Steele]

56. Bullshit. That's not who this post refers to, and you should know it.

I think it's pretty dishonest to suggest that the OP
is talking about thrifty hard working folks
who managed to accumulate a million dollars.

That's not the sort of person the OP refers to,
and everyone but you seems to know that.

[HughBeaumont]

61. What if we can't save?

It's pretty disingenuous to pick the low-hanging fruit of "save every dime" when many of the middle/working/poor classes no longer have that luxury. When homes were 18 thousand dollars, incomes were a little over half of that price. Try getting a 1:2 income-to-home ratio today; it's not happening. The dollar went a lot further back then than it does now.

I also find the painting of the lower classes as materialistic financial dilettantes drowning in creature comforts and consumer debt kind of silly. Statistics taken by the author of The Two Income Trap tell a far different story. It isn't material goods that's killing us. It's the necessities (housing, health care, education, transportation, food, etc) that make up the overall cost of living that's ever increasing, unlike the average American income, which in real dollars has actually gone DOWN since 1979. With wages stagnant to regressing, how is any substantial savings going to happen?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

[Taitertots]

71. If YOU want to get rich...

People who are millionaires are not people bringing in huge annual wages so their taxes would go down under my plan. We would see many more millionaires. As people see real wage increases and real tax decreases as returns on investment go up, there would be a middle class explosion.


Your Dad sounds like the most pathetic millionaire of all time. So we can all be millionaires in your world if we live like hobos and have nothing. Just like the ultra rich want, slaves to work 16 hour days for BS wages. He never got vacations, new cars, or a decent house. He worked his whole life and only the super rich saw the benefits. Why don't we have a system where your father could have had a new car, decent house, retirement, health care, and decent work conditions?

[JuniperLea]

74. Are you in the right corner of the 'Tubes?

I'm not seeing any of what you claim here. All I'm seeing is people who want millionaires and billionaires to pay on the same tax scale as the rest of us. What's wrong with paying your fair share?

I've worked directly for many million and billionaires... names you'd know, and other's you could easily find Googling. They are as diverse as anyone else, with tastes in cars, homes, etc., that are all over the place. The first millionaire I ever worked for made over $6 million a year, and drove a Honda that was 15 years old. He bought a Jag, and swore me to secrecy because he didn't want his workplace peers to know. The guy on the floor above with an identical salary and identical corner office would parade his yearly new ride in front of everyone, and for weeks his greeting was, hey, have you seen my new Beemer/Mercedes/Boxter/Jag... whatever the car du jour.

Funny thing about these people, none of them are concerned with paying their fair share in taxes. Not a one. I'm constantly amused by people who don't have near the salary who are hell bent on keeping the rich getting richer at the expense of the rest of us.

[lumberjack_jeff]

75. A restaurant cook who works 16 hour days...

Is working his job as well as the one that should belong to some unemployed restaurant cook.

[Waiting For Everyman]

57. Agree.

The longer we don't do this, the worse it will get. Dis-incentivize destructive behavior at the top. It stops.