What's the counter argument for why we shouldn't tax the rich?

[soccerballtux]

The more taxes corporations have to pay, the less they can spend on investing, which means less jobs for ME and any other skilled laborers, because without investment we won't have anything new to work on.

Only reason you'd be against something like this is if you aren't a skilled laborer who is working, and would rather the rest of society pay taxes for you and then some, so that you can have free money from welfare.

Not saying taxing the middle class is good, but if you don't tax the corporations they at least keep us employed. What you would have would leave a lot more of us unemployed.

No, the company doesn't take all that profit straight home, they have an obligation to investors to keep the company running and do the smartest thing with the money. Lots of the time that involves investing. The times when it doesn't (GM) the company fails and falters, and the company with more long-term-goal-oriented-vision (Toyota) steps in and takes your business.

You can make the argument that if you tax the middle class then they have less money to spend to reward the companies that innovate, but the solution to that is not taxing the other guy, because that only treats the symptom of the real problem. The real problem is an excessively large government that controls ~40% of the nation's income, and then turns around and uses that money to get their way with laws the states make by denying them federal funding if they don't comply; just like how the drinking age got raised to 21, or how we have a bill going through now which will mandate an equal number of men and women in the science and research fields, in order to qualify for federal funding. Nevermind only 10% of the applicants were female, you have to have 50/50 employment, other 40% of men be damned. edit: this rant was off-topic

I'm not some neocon or anything, I just haven't heard a good argument for why we should tax the rich, too; because that would just shoot ourselves in the foot. They'd take their money to other nations' markets, like China's; wherever has the greatest return. Taxing it away means Americans have to out-innovate the extra tax for the company to not move headquarters to another country. Ease of conducting business, and low business tax rate are what has driven this economy as long as we've had one. The great ideas our inventors have had would never have come to fruition like they have now, had we greater taxes on the corporations.

 

[Dari]

The same reason why people rob the bank: that's where the money is.

BTW, corporate tax is already lower than individual tax. WTF would you want to make it lower and have the poorer people pay more? Don't you realize that's how revolutions start?

 

[sandorski]

I think the appropriate response to that would be: "You're an idiot."

That will contravene the instructions given for your Homework, but is appropriate given the original overly verbose "argument".

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: sandorski
I think the appropriate response to that would be: "You're an idiot."

That's an intelligent, well thought-out response. I really wish the mods were more vigilant about enforcing that "no personal attacks" rule. They could really clean this stuff up. They'll jump all over an article posted without personal commentary, but basically ignore the many blatant violations of the "no personal attacks" rule.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: sandorski
I think the appropriate response to that would be: "You're an idiot."

That's an intelligent, well thought-out response. I really wish the mods were more vigilant about enforcing that "no personal attacks" rule. They could really clean this stuff up. They'll jump all over an article posted without personal commentary, but basically ignore the many blatant violations of the "no personal attacks" rule.

waaah!

Who did I Attack? Looks like some random quote from some random location on these thar Internets tubes by some person no one really knows.

Start a thread in Personal Forum Issues.

 

[Vic]

Investors don't reap dividends when consumers are too poor to purchase their products.

This is why nations with large wealth disparities and a small middle class also tend to have weak economies.

In general, the logic is that the wealthy get more out of society, and the maintenance of society's status quo is more important to them, therefore they should pay into society accordingly.

And the idea that taxing the wealthy necessarily equates to an unreasonably large government is mostly a modern neocon fabrication. Even in a libertarian model, the person who demands more and gets more from government is going to be expected to pay in more as well.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: sandorski
I think the appropriate response to that would be: "You're an idiot."

That's an intelligent, well thought-out response. I really wish the mods were more vigilant about enforcing that "no personal attacks" rule. They could really clean this stuff up. They'll jump all over an article posted without personal commentary, but basically ignore the many blatant violations of the "no personal attacks" rule.

Like this thread?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless you can show otherwise, to me, the OP is not a quote but the originator's opinion

Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

The more taxes corporations have to pay, the less they can spend on investing, which means less jobs for ME and any other skilled laborers, because without investment we won't have anything new to work on.

Only reason you'd be against something like this is if you aren't a skilled laborer who is working, and would rather the rest of society pay taxes for you and then some, so that you can have free money from welfare.

Not saying taxing the middle class is good, but if you don't tax the corporations they at least keep us employed. What you would have would leave a lot more of us unemployed.

No, the company doesn't take all that profit straight home, they have an obligation to investors to keep the company running and do the smartest thing with the money. Lots of the time that involves investing. The times when it doesn't (GM) the company fails and falters, and the company with more long-term-goal-oriented-vision (Toyota) steps in and takes your business.

You can make the argument that if you tax the middle class then they have less money to spend to reward the companies that innovate, but the solution to that is not taxing the other guy, because that only treats the symptom of the real problem. The real problem is an excessively large government that controls ~40% of the nation's income, and then turns around and uses that money to get their way with laws the states make by denying them federal funding if they don't comply; just like how the drinking age got raised to 21, or how we have a bill going through now which will mandate an equal number of men and women in the science and research fields, in order to qualify for federal funding. Nevermind only 10% of the applicants were female, you have to have 50/50 employment, other 40% of men be damned. edit: this rant was off-topic

I'm not some neocon or anything, I just haven't heard a good argument for why we should tax the rich, too; because that would just shoot ourselves in the foot. They'd take their money to other nations' markets, like China's; wherever has the greatest return. Taxing it away means Americans have to out-innovate the extra tax for the company to not move headquarters to another country. Ease of conducting business, and low business tax rate are what has driven this economy as long as we've had one. The great ideas our inventors have had would never have come to fruition like they have now, had we greater taxes on the corporations.

Your answer is bolded.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Only reason you'd be against something like this is if you aren't a skilled laborer who is working, and would rather the rest of society pay taxes for you and then some, so that you can have free money from welfare.

Your answer is bolded.

Because welfare is the only government service that taxes pay for? :roll:

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Not saying taxing the middle class is good, but if you don't tax the corporations they at least keep us employed. What you would have would leave a lot more of us unemployed.

Here's your answer. You'd probably be nothing if Massah Corp'ration didn't hand you a job.

I expect people to pay for what they get it. If you're reaping the benefits of government services and protection, roads, bridges, ports, defense, military, police, courts, law, etc., then you should expect to pay too.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: sandorski
I think the appropriate response to that would be: "You're an idiot."

That's an intelligent, well thought-out response. I really wish the mods were more vigilant about enforcing that "no personal attacks" rule. They could really clean this stuff up. They'll jump all over an article posted without personal commentary, but basically ignore the many blatant violations of the "no personal attacks" rule.

It depends. If you're on "their side" you damn well better believe they have your back. If you're on "the other side" you can damn well bet they will target you for anything they can. Ask me how I know, and ask me whos looking into it.

Sorry to drag your post off topic.

I have not heard a logical argument yet as to why 1 individual should be required to pay more to support our basic services then another. I've heard many emotional arguments however. It seems theres no logical argument however. Logically, it makes sense that all members pay an equal share to support the services the government provides. But emotionally, oh no that doesnt sound right at all.

 

[1prophet]

A feel good farce, because the rich write the laws and they will let you think they are getting taxed while it is you who will end up with the the tax burden.

Text

The AMT was introduced by the Tax Reform Act of 1969[1] and became operative in 1970. It was intended to target 155 high-income households that had been eligible for so many tax benefits that they owed little or no income tax under the tax code of the time.[2] The original AMT targeted tax shelters used by a few wealthy households. However, when Ronald Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the AMT was greatly expanded to aim at a different set of deductions that most Americans receive. "A law for untaxed rich investors was refocused on families who own their homes in high tax states."[3]

Text

The 1986 Tax Reform Act

In 1986 Congress approved a major reform of the tax code proposed by President Reagan, Sen. Bill Bradley and others. Once again the Alternative Minimum Tax was included in the final tax package. In addition, Congress approved a Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax.

Years later investigative journalists Barlett and Steele, writing in the Philadelphia Inquirer (October 1991), revealed that the AMT of 1986 actually reduced taxes on the wealthy:

When Congress enacted the Tax Reform Act of 1986, lawmakers hailed its alternative minimum tax provision as the most stringent ever, guaranteeing that nobody would ever escape paying at least some tax . . . [But] passage of "the toughest minimum tax ever' resulted in a 75 per cent drop in the number of people who paid the tax, and a 90 per cent drop in the amount they paid. On average, a millionaire in 1986 paid an alternative minimum tax of $116,395. Three years later, a millionaire paid $54,758. That amounted to a 53 per cent tax cut.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: sandorski
I think the appropriate response to that would be: "You're an idiot."

That's an intelligent, well thought-out response. I really wish the mods were more vigilant about enforcing that "no personal attacks" rule. They could really clean this stuff up. They'll jump all over an article posted without personal commentary, but basically ignore the many blatant violations of the "no personal attacks" rule.

It depends. If you're on "their side" you damn well better believe they have your back. If you're on "the other side" you can damn well bet they will target you for anything they can. Ask me how I know, and ask me hows looking into it.

Sorry to drag your post off topic.

And can we assume that 'the other side' from the mods is supposed to be your side? There are other mods here besides Harvey, yaknow. If you think that all the mods here lean to the left, it would be safe to say that that's only because you lean so far to the extreme paranoid right you fell over.

 

[Jhhnn]

Gee Whiz. We taxed the rich much more heavily between ww2 and the reagan era, and they still got richer. Nor was there some sort of systemic lack of capital, either, and regulated banking didn't fall on its face with any regularity. Offshoring wasn't much of an issue, because of a variety of factors... median incomes soared, too...

Fast forward to today, when the top 1% share of income has risen from <9% to >21% between 1980 and 2005, investment capital is as fickle as a fart in a windstorm, and the whole banking system is on the verge of collapse... not to mention enormous deficits and balance of trade problems... plunging housing and dollar values, as well... inflation adjusted median income has actually fallen from its peak in the 70's...

Maybe this whole growth at any cost trickle down utopia isn't what is was claimed to be, at all, but rather a very successful exercise in class warfare, perpetrated by those at the very top... an attempt to bankrupt the govt and destroy the uppity middle class in the process...

What makes anybody think that people who have the financial savvy to become billionaires did all this by accident, anyway?

At some point in the near future,, the rich will be the only people worth taxing, because they're the only ones who'll have any money...

 

[Craig234]

besides Jhhnn's typically good points, I'd answer largely by pointing out my basic economic view: that there's a 'Goldilocks' happy medium on wealth distribution, both because there's a human interest/fairness to wealth being reasonably distributed, but also because it increases productivity for society.

Papa Bear's too much distribution leaves too little reward/incentive for productivity. Mama Bear's too little distribution leaves the classic societal model of feudalism, where a few wealthy terrorize everyone else as effective slaves, and there's also too little reward/incentive for people, because the wealth is so tied up in a few hands (look at so many countries around the world filled with peasants and a small wealthy class).

In the Goldilocks model, there are carrots for people to do more, and wealth is distributed enough for there to be lots of opportunity. When you want a CEO to do a good job, it's not so important, however much they'll disagree, whether they're making $2 million instead of $1 million, or $200 million instead of $100 million - both incent them to do more. See other nations' corporations with much less compensated CEO's for comparison.

Similarly, the Walton kids aren't exactly making Wal-Mart a whole lot more productive corporation for stockholders or society; they simply have a lot of stock so they're the wealthiest family in the US, and others run the company while billions are handed to the Walton family for their highly skilled owning of the stock. Multiply them by 1000 and you have the 'ownership class' in the US, in great part.

If you don't tax the rich, the harms are many and large. The rich will tend to get richer, owning more and more of all the wealth in society, which is a direct threat to democratic government. Opportunity, reward, will be reduced.

It's a right-wing myth that every dollar put in the hands of a wealthy person is used for the benefit of society; actually a fraction of it is, while a lot of it simply goes towards owning more leading to more wealth. It'd be more accurate in most situations to say that the same dollar given to the *bottom* does more good for society, where it's spent and helps the economy move.

In short, not taxing the wealthy enough, IMO, increases corruption and tyranny in the nation, and harms the middle class and the standard of living for everyone else. It's simply unacceptable in a healthy society.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

How much do we tax the rich already? What percentage of taxes overall do the top 1% pay? How about the top 5% or top 10%?

What about the top 25%? Why should we target just the uber-rich? Clearly anyone in the top 25% is making more than their due and more than their fair share. So why don't we take that tax stick to them too and shove it right up theirs too?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: sandorski
I think the appropriate response to that would be: "You're an idiot."

That's an intelligent, well thought-out response. I really wish the mods were more vigilant about enforcing that "no personal attacks" rule. They could really clean this stuff up. They'll jump all over an article posted without personal commentary, but basically ignore the many blatant violations of the "no personal attacks" rule.

It depends. If you're on "their side" you damn well better believe they have your back. If you're on "the other side" you can damn well bet they will target you for anything they can. Ask me how I know, and ask me hows looking into it.

Sorry to drag your post off topic.

And can we assume that 'the other side' from the mods is supposed to be your side? There are other mods here besides Harvey, yaknow. If you think that all the mods here lean to the left, it would be safe to say that that's only because you lean so far to the extreme paranoid right you fell over.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
The more taxes corporations have to pay, the less they can spend on investing, which means less jobs for ME and any other skilled laborers, because without investment we won't have anything new to work on.

Only reason you'd be against something like this is if you aren't a skilled laborer who is working, and would rather the rest of society pay taxes for you and then some, so that you can have free money from welfare.

Not saying taxing the middle class is good, but if you don't tax the corporations they at least keep us employed. What you would have would leave a lot more of us unemployed.

Holy elitist batman

So what blood sucking America hating corporation are you a CEO of?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: sandorski
I think the appropriate response to that would be: "You're an idiot."

That's an intelligent, well thought-out response. I really wish the mods were more vigilant about enforcing that "no personal attacks" rule. They could really clean this stuff up. They'll jump all over an article posted without personal commentary, but basically ignore the many blatant violations of the "no personal attacks" rule.

It depends. If you're on "their side" you damn well better believe they have your back. If you're on "the other side" you can damn well bet they will target you for anything they can. Ask me how I know, and ask me whos looking into it.

Sorry to drag your post off topic.

I have not heard a logical argument yet as to why 1 individual should be required to pay more to support our basic services then another. I've heard many emotional arguments however. It seems theres no logical argument however. Logically, it makes sense that all members pay an equal share to support the services the government provides. But emotionally, oh no that doesnt sound right at all.

*their side*? well i don't know what you've gotten your bannaninations for but the only thing i ever argued about was because they made a conspiracy idiot a mod who kept harrassing me to until i responded in kind.

I've NEVER complained about a ban nor anything else, i accept the rules but then again, i'm good at that or i wouldn't have spent over 20 years in the military by now.

Everyone contributes to society, if you'd like you could contribute based on the size of your house, the weight and miles of your car and it would land you pretty much in the same fucking zone.

Do you think the tax brackets were pulled out of thin air?

You do more wear and tear on society, you pay more, isn't that how it fucking should be?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: sandorski
I think the appropriate response to that would be: "You're an idiot."

That's an intelligent, well thought-out response. I really wish the mods were more vigilant about enforcing that "no personal attacks" rule. They could really clean this stuff up. They'll jump all over an article posted without personal commentary, but basically ignore the many blatant violations of the "no personal attacks" rule.

It depends. If you're on "their side" you damn well better believe they have your back. If you're on "the other side" you can damn well bet they will target you for anything they can. Ask me how I know, and ask me hows looking into it.

Sorry to drag your post off topic.

And can we assume that 'the other side' from the mods is supposed to be your side? There are other mods here besides Harvey, yaknow. If you think that all the mods here lean to the left, it would be safe to say that that's only because you lean so far to the extreme paranoid right you fell over.

He's so fucking scared of everything that he shivers in the corner with his knuckles going white around his shotgun.

Oh yes, hes the great preeeeteeender, pretending what he wants to beee, he's pretending to be what he's not, you see, pretending that Bush will be around...

 

[fskimospy]

I didn't know people still bought into that trickle down bullshit? I thought that went out after the 80's.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Dari
The same reason why people rob the bank: that's where the money is.

BTW, corporate tax is already lower than individual tax. WTF would you want to make it lower and have the poorer people pay more? Don't you realize that's how revolutions start?

BTW we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world...
link

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
How much do we tax the rich already? What percentage of taxes overall do the top 1% pay? How about the top 5% or top 10%?

What about the top 25%? Why should we target just the uber-rich? Clearly anyone in the top 25% is making more than their due and more than their fair share. So why don't we take that tax stick to them too and shove it right up theirs too?

It would be counter-productive to discourage incentive. There should be rewards for success. But there comes a point where money is no longer that which pays the bills and becomes power. The Top 25% might be retiring comfortably, but the Top 1% couldn't lose the family fortune if they tried. Their money IS the market. And in the meantime, their wealth controls the fates of millions. That's alarming to many, and rightly so.

I once said that the biggest thing wrong with the trickle down theory is its name. Economies should not merely "trickle" in any direction, much less down.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Dari
The same reason why people rob the bank: that's where the money is.

BTW, corporate tax is already lower than individual tax. WTF would you want to make it lower and have the poorer people pay more? Don't you realize that's how revolutions start?

BTW we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world...
link

That must be before all the deductions. I thought it was more like 28%.

 

[Capitalizt]

Originally posted by: Vic
Their money IS the market. And in the meantime, their wealth controls the fates of millions. That's alarming to many, and rightly so.

I find it more alarming when a large chunk of the population starts considering "their wealth" to be "our wealth" and has no moral problem with electing others to confiscate it at the point of a gun.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt

Originally posted by: Vic
Their money IS the market. And in the meantime, their wealth controls the fates of millions. That's alarming to many, and rightly so.

I find it more alarming when a large chunk of the population starts considering "their wealth" to be "our wealth" and has no moral problem with electing others to confiscate it at the point of a gun.

I don't want it to be confiscated at the point of the gun. Far from it. I expect them to pay fee for service commiserate to their station in society. They want more from govt, and get more, so they should pay more in too. Should the guy who ordered the hamburger pay the same price as the guy who got the filet? Remember, these ultra rich we speak of do not share your lofty libertarian ideals. Their money wields power in our halls of government, including the power to break the law, and that's the way they like it and maintain it. Even better for them is when they get the rest of us to pay for it, which they do as well.