Fiscal Responsibility Bill [On President's Desk]

[Sbane]

Don't punish the rich like that! If you take into account regional and local sales taxes, they will pay almost 3/4 of their income in taxes. I support increasing revenue, but please don't do it this way. After all, %1,000,001 in NYC is merely middle-class, whereas in a rural area it's pretty f#$%ing rich!

No, if you make a million a year you are rich no matter if you live in NYC or SF or in some rural town. Even in my area if an individual is making above 200k or a family is making above 350k, they would be considered rich.

[Sbane]

Don't punish the rich like that! If you take into account regional and local sales taxes, they will pay almost 3/4 of their income in taxes. I support increasing revenue, but please don't do it this way. After all, %1,000,001 in NYC is merely middle-class, whereas in a rural area it's pretty f#$%ing rich!

No, if you make a million a year you are rich no matter if you live in NYC or SF or in some rural town. Even in my area if an individual is making above 200k or a family is making above 350k, they would be considered rich.

Yeah, I've already admitted I wasn't thinking straight when I made that argument

I saw that statement and I had to comment immediately since it had no bearing on reality. I have since read the thread and I am happy you have backed off of that statement.

Now the tax rate in question is a bit too high, I would rather have the highest marginal tax rate be 50%. But if the rich are evading taxes, wouldn't it be better to crack down harshly on them? If we guarantee them 10 years in a real prison, I doubt many would try it.

Now as for investment, are you really sure all their investments are put to good use? What if they go around the country buying up property so they can sell it at a later date for profit? Does that really help the economy or just jack up house prices for the rest of us? What if they invest in gold or crude oil futures and other commodities thus raising prices for the rest of us? What if they just invest in wall street banks which come up with fancy financial instruments that ultimately leads to the collapse of our whole economy? Getting money to VC is important but when there is too much money it will inevitably lead to bubbles and money will be wasted. Even when there is less money to go around for investment, the best ideas will still find funding while there will be less money for less appealing ideas that still find funding today because VC's are flush with cash. Basically there will be more competition for investment and the best ideas will prevail.

If taxes on the rich are raised, their contribution to charities will unfortunately fall. Yet you seem to assume that charities are better able to give services to the poor than the government. It may be true when it comes to say, food banks, but is it true for things like providing health care or subsidizing heating oil for the poor (two social safety net bills passed lately). There is most certainly inefficiencies in government, but is there any less inefficiencies in charities?

[Sbane]

Don't punish the rich like that! If you take into account regional and local sales taxes, they will pay almost 3/4 of their income in taxes. I support increasing revenue, but please don't do it this way. After all, %1,000,001 in NYC is merely middle-class, whereas in a rural area it's pretty f#$%ing rich!

No, if you make a million a year you are rich no matter if you live in NYC or SF or in some rural town. Even in my area if an individual is making above 200k or a family is making above 350k, they would be considered rich.

Yeah, I've already admitted I wasn't thinking straight when I made that argument

I saw that statement and I had to comment immediately since it had no bearing on reality. I have since read the thread and I am happy you have backed off of that statement.

Now the tax rate in question is a bit too high, I would rather have the highest marginal tax rate be 50%. But if the rich are evading taxes, wouldn't it be better to crack down harshly on them? If we guarantee them 10 years in a real prison, I doubt many would try it.

Now as for investment, are you really sure all their investments are put to good use? What if they go around the country buying up property so they can sell it at a later date for profit? Does that really help the economy or just jack up house prices for the rest of us? What if they invest in gold or crude oil futures and other commodities thus raising prices for the rest of us? What if they just invest in wall street banks which come up with fancy financial instruments that ultimately leads to the collapse of our whole economy? Getting money to VC is important but when there is too much money it will inevitably lead to bubbles and money will be wasted. Even when there is less money to go around for investment, the best ideas will still find funding while there will be less money for less appealing ideas that still find funding today because VC's are flush with cash. Basically there will be more competition for investment and the best ideas will prevail.

If taxes on the rich are raised, their contribution to charities will unfortunately fall. Yet you seem to assume that charities are better able to give services to the poor than the government. It may be true when it comes to say, food banks, but is it true for things like providing health care or subsidizing heating oil for the poor (two social safety net bills passed lately). There is most certainly inefficiencies in government, but is there any less inefficiencies in charities?

Charities have demonstrated that they are more efficient than the government in most areas, though yes, they don't cover anything. Now, it's true that the rich don't always invest in things that benefit the common man, but they often do. Again, they invest in small businesses, government bonds, and research, all of which help the everyman. I feel that 60% is too much. Like I said, mid-forties would be sufficient and it wouldn't be unreasonable. I do agree, as I've said elsewhere, cracking down on tax evaders is more important.

I just don't think a tax rate that high is worth the trade-off.

BTW, sbane, I didn't know you read the fantasy boards.

Charities can be more efficient solely because they are managed on a more local scale. Creating a large government bureaucracy is not what I am necessarily advocating, but for some things like health care it is necessary. Other programs should be devolved down to the states or even counties if possible with the feds providing funding and management being the smaller entity's responsibility. Of course this does create accountability issues and so on and so forth.

I didn't use to read the boards much but got more interested during the election. You can thank the RPP for that. I still read the other boards more though.

[Sbane]

Actually it's the middle class that we really need to consume more. If we don't raise taxes and it lessens the value of the dollar due to increasing debt, the middle class has to consume less.

[Sbane]

I'm not concerned about someone making over $2 million a year having to pay half or slightly more of what he makes over $2 million. We are only taxing at that rate from that point on, it's not like he's going to be paying over 50% of his total income!

Good point. Some people don't understand this is the marginal tax rate.

[Sbane]

Here's the basic thing, Vepres. The rich can afford to pay a little more without it affecting their standard of living. If you raise their taxes their standard of living will not go down, which would actually happen with upper middle class folks (and even there it would be on luxury goods only). When you tax the rich more it just leads to less investment (consumption isn't affected as much as it would be with even upper middle class folks), which actually wouldn't be such a bad thing. Remember this current crisis we are in did not occur due to a dearth of investment, but rather there was so much investment it led to bubbles in many different fields (started with the tech bubble, ended with housing and finance).