So if someone works hard and is a self-made millionaire (exempt Paris Hilton from this analogy) and they can afford a nice house, they should somehow be taxed at a rate far in excess of everyone else?
I fail to see the logic in that.
I’m not suggesting we continue these tax cuts as I really don’t think the nation can afford them, but I just don’t see how the size or cost of someone’s house automatically suggests they should be taxed more because of their successes. That is nothing more than class warfare.
“they should somehow be taxed at a rate far in excess of everyone else?”
As I understand it, it isn’t that much more. And as I have said in the past, nobody makes that kind of money ‘on their own’ It’s the little guy underneath them them helps them get wealthy, so it’s not like they are solely getting taxed.
In some cases you are probably right, but a lot of multi-millionaires and Billionaires have the number of zeros in their bank accounts not because of those beneath them, but because of their investments and good fortune.
People often assume wealth is a zero sum game as if Warren Buffet is hurting everyone else because he is worth billions… but that isn’t the case. Whether he made his fortune or not would likely not have had a significant effect on many others.
As to the tax rates – it isn’t like we hit a point and get a flat rate… the more you make, the more you pay as a percentage.
So if I make over $375k I’m taxed 35% of that amount…whereas if I only make $80k I’m taxed at 25%. I don’t know about you, but I consider a 10% increase pretty significant.
Not that I pity those making seven figures or anything… I also know many of them have tax shelters or other creative ways of avoiding taxes, so this probably isn’t as big of an issue as it might seem.
However – people always wonder why CEOs never used to make the money they make today, and there is probably a good reason… because our government used to tax people for being successful – so there was probably no reason to even bother to earn that much money when 91 cents of every dollar you earned went to the government.
Just look at the top tax rates in the 50s and 60s….they are over 90%! I guess in comparison that 35% rate doesn’t look too bad… but in some way we are still punishing people for being successful.
It would seem that the middle class would have a better stake in society when the rich only have nine or ten times as much money versus one or two hundred times as much.
Anyone who disagrees with allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for the richest 1% needs to google:
Oprah’s house
john travolta’s house
shaq’s house
paris hilton’s house
etc.
So if someone works hard and is a self-made millionaire (exempt Paris Hilton from this analogy) and they can afford a nice house, they should somehow be taxed at a rate far in excess of everyone else?
I fail to see the logic in that.
I’m not suggesting we continue these tax cuts as I really don’t think the nation can afford them, but I just don’t see how the size or cost of someone’s house automatically suggests they should be taxed more because of their successes. That is nothing more than class warfare.
“they should somehow be taxed at a rate far in excess of everyone else?”
As I understand it, it isn’t that much more. And as I have said in the past, nobody makes that kind of money ‘on their own’ It’s the little guy underneath them them helps them get wealthy, so it’s not like they are solely getting taxed.
In some cases you are probably right, but a lot of multi-millionaires and Billionaires have the number of zeros in their bank accounts not because of those beneath them, but because of their investments and good fortune.
People often assume wealth is a zero sum game as if Warren Buffet is hurting everyone else because he is worth billions… but that isn’t the case. Whether he made his fortune or not would likely not have had a significant effect on many others.
As to the tax rates – it isn’t like we hit a point and get a flat rate… the more you make, the more you pay as a percentage.
Case in point: http://taxes.about.com/od/preparingyourtaxes/a/tax-rates_2.htm
So if I make over $375k I’m taxed 35% of that amount…whereas if I only make $80k I’m taxed at 25%. I don’t know about you, but I consider a 10% increase pretty significant.
Not that I pity those making seven figures or anything… I also know many of them have tax shelters or other creative ways of avoiding taxes, so this probably isn’t as big of an issue as it might seem.
However – people always wonder why CEOs never used to make the money they make today, and there is probably a good reason… because our government used to tax people for being successful – so there was probably no reason to even bother to earn that much money when 91 cents of every dollar you earned went to the government.
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
Just look at the top tax rates in the 50s and 60s….they are over 90%! I guess in comparison that 35% rate doesn’t look too bad… but in some way we are still punishing people for being successful.
Bush wrote it so that for the year 2010 they pay nothing, zip, da nada.
Gonna need a source on that claim Helga. Because the tax rate charts don’t seem to support that.
It would seem that the middle class would have a better stake in society when the rich only have nine or ten times as much money versus one or two hundred times as much.
SM – What do they need all the money for anyway? If workers made more money, we would spend more and be happier workers.