How much are the rich taxed?
When the super rich (earning above a couple of million bux a year) earn a dollar, under the Clinton tax system they were taxed at 39.6 percent (that was the 36 percent top bracket, plus a 10% "surcharge" on the top rate. Silly way to do business, huh?). Then when they died, the government took 55% of what remained. That means the Federal government took about 73% of everything they ever earned that they didn't give to away charity. Under current law, the government takes away only 64%. That is only Federal income tax. It doesn't include State income taxes (let's say they're about 5% (we'll exclude new york)) state sales taxes on anything they buy, yearly excise taxes on their expensive cars and boats and their multi-million dollar estates. It's almost enough to make you feel sad for them! So, what's the right level of taxes for the super rich? |
|
|
| Well, one characteristic of being super-rich, is that you're super-rich. So it would seem that however much they're currently taxed, or were taxed, they're still super-rich. So not really worth losing any sleep over. To re-phrase something you said in another post: Ron wrote: If you can afford a flat screen or a cell phone or sneakers that cost more than $20, shouldn't you instead pay something to run the country? If you can still afford owning multiple 100+ room mansions, supersized yachts, private jets, fleets of luxury cars etc. etc. You can probably still afford to pay a good share to run the country where you were able to achieve this wealth... That's my thinking on it, but I'm a Canadian!  |
| I agree with you David. |
I like that explanation.  David Regardless of what "they" pay, the fact of the matter is the tax system is horribly broken. It's broken for them and every citizen alike. |
| "No matter how much"? So if they were taxed 99% to bring them down to our level, that's fine by you? |
| But the point is, they're not! They're super rich (and the levels of just how rich the super rich in the US today is insane)! So obviously, they're not being over taxed. I am not saying they need to be taxed until they're paupers, but it just seems an unbelievable argument to say taxes are too high or are high on the super rich. And to argue their taxes should be lower, but... they're super rich! It's like a guy coming up to you, just having won the 50 million dollar lottery, in tears complaining bitterly that he didn't win 55 million dollars. I can't even try and fake sympathy, it just leaves me flabbergasted. And (no offense to Ron or anyone else here), I find it astonishing that there seems to be plenty of definitely NOT super-rich (I'm assuming you're not posting this from your 500ft yacht or your private orbiting space station Ron ) who seem like it's the most significant issue at hand for them personally that the super-rich are just not quite rich enough. I just don't get it. And that the best way to deal with a US with record deficit and bankrupt state governments is to lower government income, from the very source it does not need to be lowered from??? That's just plain out bonkers to me. The great-grandkids of today's entire middle class should still be paying off today's debt because the super-rich today, aren't just quite rich enough?  |
| Because it's a question of fairness. Why should the government take away what you've earned, just because "You can afford it"? What kind of a justification is THAT? I hope you have a few spare dollars at the end of the year, should I take them from you at the point of a gun just because you do? After all, anyone earning $10,000 a year is SICK RICH compared to most of the rest of the world. Why shouldn't the world government come and take ALL or most of YOUR assets because you are just WAY too wealthy, and you got that way because of the world you live in? Sounds different when we just change the nouns from national to global, doesn't it? Answer the question: What level of taxation is fair? Our Federal government is spending about $13,000 for every single man woman and child in the country. How much income should a US family of four earn before they pay their "fair share", the amount the government is spending ($50,000) on their behalf? Until people have skin in the game and actually have to pay for the stuff that they expect to be funded by the government taking property from somebody else, the voters will never impose fiscal discipline on the government. While the rich feel they are being treated unfairly and there is no hope for fiscal responsibility, they won't want to step up and help us out of this problem. Those are just the "fairness" arguments; the fiscal arguments are stronger. At 100% taxation of the rich, the economy collapses. At 0% the economy will likely overheat. The ideal is to maximize the economy and set spending levels to the ideal taxation level. So what do you think the right level of taxation is of the rich? (and please, this is only a philosophical, intellectual discussion. Nobody should take it personally. My personal thoughts on where things should be and how we should accomplish our goals aren't necessarily expressed here. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to dock my space yacht.) |
Ron wrote: So, what's the right level of taxes for the super rich? What about a flat tax? Personally, I do not believe in redistribution of wealth. I know super rich, so rich they do not know how much they have in their coffers. And they are not charitable people. BUT, it is their money - they inherited it. No one, the gov't, me, the poor, or Santa Claus should dictate to anyone how they are to spend their money. I do believe, ofr the most part, Americans are charitable and help their fellow man. Would I love to be super rich, oh hell yes. What fun. But, I think it would be incumbent upon me to care for others who are in need and I would reach out from the heart. |
| Let me ask this question as an answer if I may. Is it not the super rich and upper class that employee many people? If they know how much they are going to have to pay in taxes, does that incent them to provide more jobs for the unemployed or encourage them to keep there money in their pockets? The economy is not going well and we need these people to "contribute" their money back into society and not sit on it. I will give an example that people have money and are willing to spend it for things they want. I live in Alabama and one of our college teams are going to the BCS Championship in Arizona on Monday. The tickets that were being sold for $750 each when they first came out are now worth upwards of $4000 each. I do not think that ALL of the people buying these are mortgaging their house to go to this game. Are people are sitting on their money because they feel the government is going to get quite "their FAIR share"? |
| Hailing from my rusted-out tug boat... Ron wrote: Why should the government take away what you've earned, just because "You can afford it"? What kind of a justification is THAT? Whenever I hear this and the "it's not fair to the rich" argument, I have to respond, so please forgive me and don't take this personally, but... Before we even think about how fair the system of taxation is, shouldn't we look at how unfair our system of wealth distribution is? Okay, so some guy runs a business, does fairly well in his profession because he is (lucky for him) a white, middle class, decently educated male who has also been lucky enough to "climb the ladder of success", which really means that he has had opportunities others didn't have or didn't take advantage of. Does he work any harder each day than a construction worker, a teacher, a custodian, etc.? And even if he does, is it sufficiently harder or more serious work that he deserves to make 50 or 100 times what his "low-level" employees make? And also, telling the uber-rich that they have a right to be tight-fisted doesn't much encourage them to put money back into the economy as everyone seems to be hoping and praying they will do. Trickle-down economics is a load of crock. That is not gold they are showering down on us.... |
kerrym wrote: Hailing from my rusted-out tug boat... No, we shouldn't look at how fair wealth distribution is first. That's not our system; if you want to change the system, feel free to work towards that end. However if you want to talk about the free enterprise system and taxation levels, I'll be happy to continue! Ron wrote: Why should the government take away what you've earned, just because "You can afford it"? What kind of a justification is THAT? Whenever I hear this and the "it's not fair to the rich" argument, I have to respond, so please forgive me and don't take this personally, but... Before we even think about how fair the system of taxation is, shouldn't we look at how unfair our system of wealth distribution is? Okay, so some guy runs a business, does fairly well in his profession because he is (lucky for him) a white, middle class, decently educated male who has also been lucky enough to "climb the ladder of success", which really means that he has had opportunities others didn't have or didn't take advantage of. Does he work any harder each day than a construction worker, a teacher, a custodian, etc.? And even if he does, is it sufficiently harder or more serious work that he deserves to make 50 or 100 times what his "low-level" employees make? And also, telling the uber-rich that they have a right to be tight-fisted doesn't much encourage them to put money back into the economy as everyone seems to be hoping and praying they will do. Trickle-down economics is a load of crock. That is not gold they are showering down on us.... "Okay, so some guy runs a business" underlines a basic misconception of what it takes to do that... taking a risk, earning nothing, putting you, your family, all of your assets at risk, employing others and making sure they are (and the government is) paid before they are, and yeah, if their hard work succeeds (80-90% of all businesses fail in the first 5 years) and they are "lucky", the government then takes away 70%ish of what they earn. Lucky! "deserves to make 50 or 100 times what his "low-level" employees make" Do you deserve to make 50-100 times more than people in Darfur? "not taking advantage..." Whose fault is that? And I am DONE talking about privilege as a black/white thing. ANYBODY can be whatever they want in this country regardless of color. The challenge is cultural. People should TAKE A CHANCE! Go and start your own business! I don't care what it is, go DO something to MAKE money. Someone wiser than I coined the phrase "Try taking a risk instead of taking a paycheck" Go employ someone else and see if it's as easy as digging the ditch. See if you work a 37.5 hour week. You're right that it's not gold showering down. It's blood sweat and tears. |
Ok...its a very small 2 cents worth that I have to contribute here, Ron, but...speaking as one of those risk-taking start your own business people who DO work something like 80 hours a week...we are not good examples of where the "uber rich" come from  Maybe a few...but they are super rare. Mostly us "entrepreneurs" struggle along with no health insurance, no money to hire lawyers or accountants to cut down our tax bills, no govt. bailouts, no vacations, and very few luxurys of any kind. Maybe more folks would take that risk, or succeed when they do, if our system and govt. supported small business...as opposed to huge corporations.That's it...I now return you to your regularly scheduled political debate! |
| I understand your frustration with those who take more than entitled, or everyone should get off their bum and work and they will make it one day, etc etc - but I respectfully take exception to "ANYBODY can be whatever they want in this country regardless of color." I live in the gateway to the South, Kentucky was divided in the Civil War, brother against brother on the issue of slavery. Kentucky's infamous slave trade is nationally known - the Ohio River made slave trade very profitable. Bigotry has been a scourge in many states in the South. The despicable KKK is still strong in Kentucky; they march at a whim to let us know they are still around. There is a Grand Wizard who lives here who flies the Confederate flag with spot lights on it and all kinds of discriminatory items in his yard. Life is still very difficult for minorities. Hard work is not the only key to success, there is also the bank loan, familial support, just a break, being at the right place at the right time, education, know how. Life isn't that cut and dry. I lean towards conservatism, my heart is less conservative than my wallet. I do like our system of gov't and believe it the best. But nothing is as black and white as you describe, that would be eutopia. |
| I believe the majority of the rest of the country is completely in he dark about the very real race issues in the deep south. I know I absolutely believed those days were long over until the first time I went to the delta in Mississippi. Segregation is very real, and the opportunity we assume exists for all Americans is mostly non-existent for minorities there. |
| Some current members of congress from the deep south http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennie_Thompson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Sewell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Scot ... itician%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_C._Scott http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedric_Richmond http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis ... itician%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressio ... h_Congress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama I didn't say it was or would be easy. It wasn't easy for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton some white guys, either. Three elected Senators have been African Americans: Barack Obama and Carol Braun from Illinois, and Ed Brooke from Massachusetts (for whom I had the privilege of working (full-time volunteer) in his Boston headquarters for his (failed) re-election campaign in 1978). Life isn't easy. Government can't make life fair. Government needs to BE fair. Government favoring or penalizing one group over another is patently unfair. We need to realize broadly across the country and in the desperate communities that long term, diverse unfocused assistance is counterproductive. The need to strive to survive and thrive is essential for the well being of any society. Complacency at whatever level is destructive. Children need to be inculcated to STRIVE FOR EXCELLENCE; that no matter what their circumstance they can overcome any and all obstacles and succeed and become whatever they wish. But taxes is the subject and not the welfare state (and state of mind), and that isn't the largest immediate issue facing us right now. Right now the government is expanding at an alarming rate and spending is completely out of control. For instance The Media has been reporting that the tax compromise bill just passed and signed added 1 trillion dollars to the US debt, but that is just completely wrong. It added *3.3* trillion to the deficit; .7 trillion for the rich, .3 trillion in yet more "stimulus" spending and 2.3 trillion for the middle class tax cut. I was against the tax cut 10 years ago, I saw our primary responsibility to be to pay down our debt in advance of the baby boomers retiring, then we piled another trillion on top of that with the **unpaid-for** Medicare drug coverage. What lunacy. Not to mention when we went to prosecute a war we didn't pay for that, either. But NOW we need NOT to raise taxes at all during a recession, but 2 years from now ALL of the tax cuts MUST be allowed to expire, or at least phased out over a couple/three years. ALL Americans need to be asked to sacrifice, the Rich, the Middle Class and people needing services. |
rdf wrote: I believe the majority of the rest of the country is completely in he dark about the very real race issues in the deep south. I know I absolutely believed those days were long over until the first time I went to the delta in Mississippi. Segregation is very real, and the opportunity we assume exists for all Americans is mostly non-existent for minorities there. In terms of segregation, Birmingham, AL is first but Detroit, MI is second. I think people expect it in the south but would be very surprised to the racial tension present here. But that's a whole different discussion. All race issues aside, all people cannot be whatever they want. It sounds nice to say that it's possible but even when people have decent opportunities (and I say decent, not coming from a situation where opportunities can be purchased), some people just aren't cut out to do higher level jobs that will help them move up in the world. Not everyone's capacity to work, and think critically, is the same. To put it bluntly, there are people out there that just aren't that bright. But, we need those people in society to do the jobs that are better suited to them and support those at the higher levels. Back to taxes again. I've always been supportive of a percentage that is the same for everyone-- and everyone pays something. If you live in this country, you shouldn't be exempt, whether you have an official "income" or not. I'd almost rather it be called a rent tax, for the privilege of living here and taking advantage of our system and services. Though I don't have kids, I pay a lot of taxes towards schools. This always annoyed me but then my husband and I had a discussion about some kids that we know that are home schooled and I felt worse for their family than us. Not only do they pay the same taxes we do, they aren't even using the schools and have the added expense of teaching their children at home, which means one less salary, cost of textbooks, continuing education... I think if you choose to home school your kids, you should get that portion of your taxes back. |
| People can remember and teach "You can do anything and be anything you want in this country!!" I'm not sure that society can expect parents and their children to remember the phrase "You can do anything and be anything you want in this country to the extent that your God-given talents, personal ambition, tenacity and good fortune allow, rather than allowing current and perhaps exigent circumstances to incapacitate you." |
Ron wrote: People can remember and teach "You can do anything and be anything you want in this country!!" I'm not sure that society can expect parents and their children to remember the phrase "You can do anything and be anything you want in this country to the extent that your God-given talents, personal ambition, tenacity and good fortune allow, rather than allowing current and perhaps exigent circumstances to incapacitate you." Perhaps that's part of the early aptitude test?  |
| Ron, you mention "fairness" in taxes as the most important thing, it trumps all other ethical and moral considerations. For one, I just do not put a lot of importance to that, other considerations are more important for me. Life is pointedly, essentially unfair. It is not "fair" that one individual is born into a wealthy society which offers enormous opportunities and supports their endeavours, while other individuals are born in Calcutta slums or completely depressed Inuit reserves in Northern Labrador. It's a complete crapshoot that we have no control over. Every super-rich individual, even if they're super rich because they are brilliant, ambitious, extremely hard-working, and have great judgement, ALSO owe a tremendous debt to chance, good fortune, and the society around them. Everyone, when passing a homeless person on the street, should have a sense that "there, but for the grace of God, go I". The "brilliant, ambitious, extremely hard-working, possessing great judgement" super-rich person deserves a lot of good things, and well, they have them! They should also be paying back *their* fair share to society. And the law requires them too, with taxes. As to the idea of a flat tax, exactly the same for everyone. How could that possibly work? If you truly mean the exact same tax payed by everyone, from the homeless, to the super-rich. Obviously it would have to be extremely low to not crush the middle class and the poor. So you would just completely bankrupt all levels of American government, essentially ending the nation. I know there is a lot of very popular rhetoric in the US about small (or even no-government), but the truth is, the US is a gigantic, extremely technologically and socially complex nation. 90% of Americans are not pastoral nomadic goat-herders who need virtually no infrastructure or government. It is partly a cause and a result of the great things about the US, and its wealth and power that the US is so complex with such a complex infrastructure, all of which requires a lot of government, and that comes with a heavy cost. Taxes are the price of civilization I've heard. And the super-rich are getting a lot (in fact, get the most) from living in this great civilization. It is greatly to their benefit to have a stable, productive nation, they should be eager to pay an extended share to keep it that way. I know this for myself, but it is like going to the dentist. I know it's good for me and it's for my benefit, but I also hate paying taxes. |
| It is unfortunately not true that in the U.S. you can do/be anything. Unfortunately, the circumstances in which you are born play a pretty big factor on what opportunities are available to you and your ability to make the most of them. In the town where I live, my kids grew up and went to school with other kids of absolutely every ability level and every economic level there is, including other students with profound disabilities and those who were profoundly gifted intellecutally and kids whose families lived in poverty for generations (please note: I am talking white kids here. Very small minority presence in my area) as well as children of millionaires, also generally speaking from several generations of millionaires. The parents ranged from illiterate/semi literate to doctors, lawyers, members of the state legislature, college professors and other Ph.D's, etc. You get the picture. Kids whose parents (at all of those intellectual/economic levels) who supported and loved their kids and parents who abandoned their kids, either physically or emotionally. Regardless of the economic circumstances of the parents, the kids who have done well for themselves--that is, achieved goals they set for themselves, were the kids whose parents were able to give them consistent emotional support. I know quite a few kids who grew up not knowing when the electric might be turned off who made it through university. And unfortunately, a few who have struggled mightily against terrible, terrible circumstances and families who were openly opposed to these kids achieving more than the family low. Right now, of the two I know best, one is approaching graduation, after a lot of set backs. Another has dropped out. I am hoping the drop out is temporary but he has such an uphill battle, including no money or access to any money to pay for school and a family who openly assumed failure, not to mention a grandmother who stole his rent money. I hope he makes it but he might not. |
Ron wrote: People can remember and teach "You can do anything and be anything you want in this country!!" In my personal opinion, this bumper sticker philosophy is flawed. I want to be a rocket scientist (I actually have one in the family who has a PhD in Engineering from MIT) and be brilliant and wealthy and giving and winter in the Caymans and summer in Maine. But I can only do what I can do. And, and this is huge, if I succumb to disaster such as a serious health problem, I am finished. I will stumble along as good as I can, but will be seriously hindered. Life is a crap shoot - you do the very best you can, but it doesn't always become "be anything you want in this country." I know people who are not charitable because "it is the government's job to provide," and "it is MY money, i worked for it." These kinds of attitudes are profoundly unfortunate and grim. Our taxes cannot single-handedly care for those in need. it is in the billions of dollars on what volunteerism and charitable works save our country in taxes. It is incumbent upon us, as Americans, to give to and help our fellow man. I think it is Ted Turner or Buffet who is giving away all of their money because there is just so much money they would never spend it. I work hard, i pay taxes, but I also try to do something for somebody every single day of my life, it is sometimes the only way some of the very poor or needy or simply someone who is having a really bad day can survive. I am not a bleeding heart nor do I believe in redistribution of wealth, but I do believe in the concept of giving and helping. I will not chew this cabbage over and over again, but you have the added "baggage" of discrimination and helplessness, you are really in big trouble. I wish our lives were all just hard work and sweat, but it just ain't so. As to taxes, a flat tax may the be the solution, I don't know. I am not a tax pro. I know that I am against taxing the dead. |
| never mind./ |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|