Santorum says the rich don't have to pay taxes because they are rich

[Lincoln Republican]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/05/rick-santorum-says-wealthy-people-dont-have-to-pay-taxes-because-they-are-rich-video/

During the Ohio campaign.

“Once we defeat Barack Obama this economy will start turning around. Because you’ll know you have someone in there who’s going to unshackle businesses, reduce rates, not increase them. The president’s promised increased taxes if he’s re-elected. All he wants to do to solve the deficit problem is increase taxes on people, particularly higher-income people. You see, that sounds very populist. Go after the 1 percent… Well, higher-income people don’t have to pay taxes if they don’t want to because they can move their money somewhere else, they can move their investments. They can stop investing. They can stop working. They don’t need to work. They’re higher-income people.”

[Tidewater_Wave]

Liberals love taking a Christian conservative out of context.

[RI]

Other than the fact that he keeps being PC by saying "higher-income people" rather than "rich", I don't see anything inaccurate about what he said. Like usual, he probably could have worded it better, but he makes a valid point.

[patrick1]

This is largely correct, if a bit of excessive hyperbole.  The richer you are the higher the likelihood that you can and will take advantage of loopholes or shelters.  The tax code needs to be simplified and the number of deductions and eligibility for those slashed. There has been rumblings from both parties about this but nothing ever gets done.

[J. J.]

This is largely correct, if a bit of excessive hyperbole.  The richer you are the higher the likelihood that you can and will take advantage of loopholes or shelters.  The tax code needs to be simplified and the number of deductions and eligibility for those slashed. There has been rumblings from both parties about this but nothing ever gets done.

The rich are very likely to take their money out of the country, if their taxes are too high.

[patrick1]

This is largely correct, if a bit of excessive hyperbole.  The richer you are the higher the likelihood that you can and will take advantage of loopholes or shelters.  The tax code needs to be simplified and the number of deductions and eligibility for those slashed. There has been rumblings from both parties about this but nothing ever gets done.

The rich are very likely to take their money out of the country, if their taxes are too high.

This is true, however, current rates on the highest earners are at historically low levels and you still have money fleeing to the Caymans or whatever the flavor haven of the month is.  You really need to get better on the enforcement and collection side of things. I think a small step toward this is to simplify the code. 

[BigSkyBob]

This is largely correct, if a bit of excessive hyperbole.  The richer you are the higher the likelihood that you can and will take advantage of loopholes or shelters.  The tax code needs to be simplified and the number of deductions and eligibility for those slashed. There has been rumblings from both parties about this but nothing ever gets done.

The rich are very likely to take their money out of the country, if their taxes are too high.

It is their investments that are most apt to be moved overseas.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm not commenting on the article but on some of the vague sentiment shown in the thread.

It's interesting how implicit blackmail is deemed acceptable (and worth submitting to) if the implicit blackmailer is the sort of person who would once have worn a silk hat. Grovel, grovel.

[Phony Moderate]

Tax rates on the rich were higher during the 1990s than the 2000s. Which decade was more prosperous?

[politicus]

By that logic rich people in all the countries that have a higher tax level than the US should have either left their countries or placed all their investments overseas. Plenty of countries manage to tax the rich harder than the US without major damage to their economy.
Most rich people dont like living in exile.

Other than the fact that he keeps being PC by saying "higher-income people" rather than "rich"

Is the term rich really not PC?!

[Cory]

Is the term rich really not PC?!

Not in the Frank Luntz world of Republican wordsmithing.

[useful idiot]

Well isn't that a disingenuous thread title....

[Torie]

This is factually wrong. Overseas corporate investment income, is Subpart F income, taxed in the US. It is only income from foreign subsidiaries running an active business overseas, that can delay paying taxes until the money is repatriated to the US parent. All income earned overseas by individuals is taxed in the US - all of it. And the rich do pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the non rich. Whether or not it is enough (it probably isn't), is another matter. Mitten's money overseas by the way is in a pension plan, which would not be taxed irrespective of where it is.

[Franzl]

By that logic rich people in all the countries that have a higher tax level than the US should have either left their countries or placed all their investments overseas. Plenty of countries manage to tax the rich harder than the US without major damage to their economy.
Most rich people dont like living in exile.

Other than the fact that he keeps being PC by saying "higher-income people" rather than "rich"

Is the term rich really not PC?!

Don't bother arguing from an international perspective. The American Right isn't interested in hearing it.

[memphis]

And the rich do pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the non rich.

No. First off, the rich pay only their special 15% rate. And the non-rich have their entire incomes subject to to sales and FICA taxes. How much of his income did Romney pay in sales taxes last year?

[Torie]

And the rich do pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the non rich.

No. First off, the rich pay only their special 15% rate. And the non-rich have their entire incomes subject to to sales and FICA taxes. How much of his income did Romney pay in sales taxes last year?

The rich still pay more, taking all of that into consideration on average (including the regressive sales tax - which is not a federal tax anyway of course). Sure if some guy just gets dividends, and has no taxable interest or earned income, the federal rate is 15%, bearing in mind that the income was already taxed once at 35% or whatever at the corporate level. FICA is meant to be sort of a pension plan, where what you put in, reflects what you get out, with means tested cross subsidies. To dump the FICA tax would put a particular burden on earned income, as opposed to unearned income, which is not wise in my opinion. If you want to soak the rich some more, get rid of a bunch of deductions on a means tested basis, and raise the rates if you have to.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not commenting on the article but on some of the vague sentiment shown in the thread.

It's interesting how implicit blackmail is deemed acceptable (and worth submitting to) if the implicit blackmailer is the sort of person who would once have worn a silk hat. Grovel, grovel.

Very true.

[memphis]

And the rich do pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the non rich.

No. First off, the rich pay only their special 15% rate. And the non-rich have their entire incomes subject to to sales and FICA taxes. How much of his income did Romney pay in sales taxes last year?

The rich still pay more, taking all of that into consideration on average (including the regressive sales tax - which is not a federal tax anyway of course). Sure if some guy just gets dividends, and has no taxable interest or earned income, the federal rate is 15%, bearing in mind that the income was already taxed once at 35% or whatever at the corporate level. FICA is meant to be sort of a pension plan, where what you put in, reflects what you get out, with means tested cross subsidies. To dump the FICA tax would put a particular burden on earned income, as opposed to unearned income, which is not wise in my opinion. If you want to soak the rich some more, get rid of a bunch of deductions on a means tested basis, and raise the rates if you have to.

Only federal taxes are "taxes" now? You said the rich pay more in taxes. And unearned income has certainly not been taxed already. One needs not pay taxes on principal. Only gains. Obviously. Which is how the rich earn their money. Remember, the GOP says thosr working for six figures are struggling middle-class folks.

[Torie]

Moving on to capital gains, the higher the rate, the fewer gains will be recognized, so there is an offsetting factor.

[memphis]

Moving on to capital gains, the higher the rate, the fewer gains will be recognized, so there is an offsetting factor.

You want rates to be low to encourage a deluge of selling of securities? That's an interesting economic theory...

[minionofmidas]

It's the truth. Taxes are historically what the poor pay to the rich. Today in our modern world, this is masked by the fact that most taxes are actually what just appears on middlingly-affluent people's nominal paycheck stubs without ever existing in real life, but the basic old process still holds. [/simplification]