Something smart2009 wrote got me thinking.... why don't the wealthy kick in a few extra percentage points on taxes. But instead they whine and hide behind tax cuts from the Bush administration.

Anyway he made the comment that essentially said, they can either pay a little more now to help upright this country, or, they can remain greedy and lose it all anyway in a few years.

Now that's not a direct quote, but I think that was the gist. Can anyone tell me why this would be a bad idea?

because the wealthy deserve their wealth, and the rest of us deserve our struggles

its a meritocracy, ya know

Yes, because its not your money. Lets take your car because there are people that haven't worked enough to save enough to buy a car. Its not fair you have one and they don't. Those top 10% already pay 70% of the taxes and carry the load of the people that made choices. how many of the whiners work 70 hour weeks week in and week out?

FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries?

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-rich-taxed-less-secretaries-070642868.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says he wants to make sure millionaires are taxed at higher rates than their secretaries. The data say they already are.

"Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it," Obama said as he announced his deficit-reduction plan this week. "It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million."

On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

The 10 percent of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70 percent of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

In his White House address on Monday, Obama called on Congress to increase taxes by $1.5 trillion as part of a 10-year deficit reduction package totaling more than $3 trillion. He proposed that Congress overhaul the tax code and impose what he called the "Buffett rule," named for the billionaire investor.

The rule says, "People making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay." Buffett wrote in a recent piece for The New York Times that the tax rate he paid last year was lower than that paid by any of the other 20 people in his office.

"Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires," Obama said. "That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that."

There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. But that's less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.

This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.

Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.

The latest IRS figures are a few years older — and limited to federal income taxes — but show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes, according to the IRS.

Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3 percent.

Obama's claim hinges on the fact that, for high-income families and individuals, investment income is often taxed at a lower rate than wages. The top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15 percent. The top marginal tax rate for wages is 35 percent, though that is reserved for taxable income above $379,150.

With tax rates that high, why do so many people pay at lower rates? Because the tax code is riddled with more than $1 trillion in deductions, exemptions and credits, and they benefit people at every income level, according to data from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress' official scorekeeper on revenue issues.

The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households, mostly low- and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year. Most, however, will pay other taxes, including Social Security payroll taxes.

"People who are doing quite well and worry about low-income people not paying any taxes bemoan the fact that they get so many tax breaks that they are zeroed out," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. "People at the bottom of the distribution say, 'But all of those rich guys are getting bigger tax breaks than we're getting,' which is also the case."

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was pressed at a White House briefing on the number of millionaires who pay taxes at a lower rate than middle-income families. He demurred, saying that people who make most of their money in wages pay taxes at a higher rate, while those who get most of their income from investments pay at lower rates.

"So it really depends on what is your profession, where's the source of your income, what's the specific circumstances you face, and the averages won't really capture that," Geithner said.



Cut the INSANE Spending-Spree of the present POTUS!
Cut up his Creditcard which is drawn on the American People!
Taxing the Rich more won't make a Scratch in the Deficit!

maybe its time to bring out the flat rate

25 to 30 percent like in other western countries, to cover healthcare and other social costs as well

until things get balanced

perhaps there can be a flat tax conversion during times of economic downturn?


will all the 'tax breaks' written in the laws, and loopholes, and write offs,, etc,, make such an idea just as unproductive as the one we use now,,,?


perhaps we can use current rates but SUSPEND all write offs and breaks until things when things are in a downturn?

Flat tax is the answer. Twelve percent will cover everything.If the lobbyists can't get their special exemptions maybe they won't be able to buy these prostitute polititions.Next an immediate flat spending cut across the board of ten percent, everything, and then justify that you need it back. This is insane that these bastards spray our money around like some big shots. Lets prosecute these backscratchers and build more jails!!!!

jails dont help , they breed

Inbreed

On Sharpton's show, which was being broadcast from the sunny park, Simmons said that as a member ofthe wealthy "1%," he is willing to pay more taxes.
"I'm happy to pay a little more taxes if it means better education for our children," he said. "I don't pay enough taxes and I know it."
He said it shouldn't just be him, though.
"I want to write a check when everybody else does," he said.

we already pay 52 gabillion taxes and just so happens my income covers it, now the filthy rich really deserve to have a gabillion dollars over the amount of tax they pay. *gleam*

I like those signs that read, "Your taxes at work" on the highways. I would love to see some of them on our county roads. Instead I see pot holes.

You can take all their money and it isn't going to solve the fundamental problems with our economic system.

In terms of creating viability raising taxes is meaningless..

It is merely a scheme to garner votes. When you can't point to your own successful agenda you have to create the enemy to take the focus off your own ineptitude.

How to fix the economy?

I think it is sad that politics must be in terms of 'enemies' at all.

IT can be so broadly applied to blur real issues. For instance, cutting social services is said to make poor people the enemy. Likewise increasing tax on wealthy is said to make wealthy people th enemy. I think, in reality, there is no way to bring in more money without bringing in more money and whomever that money comes from is not an 'enemy' at all, but someone who understands that concept and is willing and able to give BACK to the country they live in.

The problem is noone really wants to give back any MORE than they already do. So we keep doing the same things and expecting a better outcome. Our own collective fault, not any one political position or person,,, ALL of our collective fault. Everyone wanting to point to someone else to be the 'fix' is our own collectively failing philosophy which continues to get us nowhere but into more bipartisan debate with us and them fighting instead of all of us working together.

you start with education.

the unemployment rate for people with a bachelors degree is like 4.3%

the days of walking out of high school and getting a middle class job are over.

fix the trade deficit. you can't have a trade deficit of 5% of your gdp and expect to create the kind of jobs necessary to fuel a consumption based economy.

This is a novel concept... We make more of our own products that are sold in our own stores and bought by our own people.


Close all overseas military bases.. move all the troops back to the states. It will improve morale and quality of life for the troops and they will be spending their money in US towns and cities instead of in foreign countries. Not to mention the billions we would save yearly by not having the logistical costs of moving men and materials all over the world.

Lower the corporate tax rates to 20% for companies that bring atleast 50% of their jobs back to the US. It does no good for these companies like GE to move their jobs overseas and pay nothing in corporate income taxes.

This is just a start..



On a side note.. The Secretary of Labor for my state, Maryland, came out a few weeks ago and said that there are 80,000 available jobs in this state.

The problem, he said, not enough qualified applicants.. meaning a lack of skills and education..

These aren't waiting tables or WalMart jobs..

Nobody Should Be Fooled. It’s Protectionism.
Published: July 18, 2011
Twitter
Linkedin
Sign In to E-Mail
Print
Reprints
Share
The World Trade Organization’s ruling thismonth against China’s restrictions on the exportof raw materials is a welcome decision that we hope will temper China’s mercantilistic strategy, in which every policy decision is designed to favor Chinese exporters. It also should serve as a warning to others about these protectionist tools.
Related
W.T.O. Says Chinese Restrictions on Raw Materials Break Rules (July 6, 2011)
Prices of commodities are rising fast as growth in developing countries increases demand. The W.T.O.’s rules, which havebeen crafted mostly to remove barriers to imports, must be adaptedto address this new threat.
The ruling was not basedon general W.T.O. rules but on commitments thatChina had made in 2001 to end most export restrictions in order to join the group. In recent years, China has put export duties and export quotas on materials like bauxite and zinc. Last year, it imposed quotas and even export bans on 17 so-called rare earth metals (used in cellphones and other high-tech devices), of which China accounts for 97 percent of the world’s supply.
The verdict did not refer to the rare earth quotas, but it rejected China’s argument that export restrictions on other raw materials were justified because they were meant to protect the environment and protectpublic health. The W.T.O. found those arguments to be bogus since the restraints do not apply todomestic production or consumption. They benefit China’s domestic industry and push up prices of the materials onglobal markets.
China can appeal this decision. If it loses, it would have to remove the restraints or suffer sanctions. It should also remove export limits on rare earth metals.
The W.T.O. must consider how to fight export restraints more broadly. In 2007 and 2008, 25 of 81 countries surveyed by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization banned food exports or imposed export taxes. These policies have pushed up prices, undermining confidence in food markets and encouraging hoarding.
The W.T.O. allows countries to set temporary export restrictions to prevent or relieve “critical shortages.” There is no clear definition of what this means and leading economies have been unwilling to push for tighter standards. Access to resources is becoming fiercely contentious. The world economies need clear rules to avoid undue competition that could spark new trade wars.

Invictus, I like your suggestions and probably a big percentage of those jobs are in healthcare.

InvictusV, there is a lot of good in the scenario you sketched!

Leave the wealthy alone and give the middle class and small business ($10 million a year or less) a 40% tax break (just throwing a number out there) and I'll bet the economy will be significantly better by next summer. Its the middle class and the small business that make this country run, not the wealthy and it sure as hell isn't the poor.