Millionaires storming in and demanding to pay more taxes!

[darkdog]

Valid point. 24 men making a one time donation to the Federal Reserve vs all those who fall within a certain income bracket paying increased taxes. About time too - the lowest income brackets pay the most in income tax.

Who says they can't voluntarily pay their fair share every year? You would think, per their rhetoric, they'd be more than willing.

And it's simply untrue that the lowest income brackets pay the most in income tax. The bottom 50% pay about 3% of the income taxes while earning around 10% of the income.

 

[darkdog]

They are paying what their "fair share" is determined by our current tax structure. They are demanding that the tax structure is changed so that their "fair share", and others in their income bracket are actually paying a "fair share" in comparison to other income levels. That is not hypocisy.

It would certainly mean more equity that we currently have. And add 70 billion to the coffers, according to your numbers.

$70 billion according to static analysis, which always overestimates because it assumes people won't change their economic behavior or move assets to tax shelters. But let's say it's $70 billion. That's about 0.5% of GDP.

You may see it as a step in the right direction, but it seems to me that if one is truly concerned about inequity, 0.5% of GDP would be little more than symbolic. But then, so is a few dozen rich individuals voluntarily paying their fair share.

 

[DeafCaroline]

What are the chances that all millionaires would voluntary donate?

You're right about the income tax - what about payroll taxes and sales taxes?

Apparently the top percentile of America's richest people earn more from investments than in actual working income.

" it's important to note that for the rich, most of that income does not come from "working": in 2008, only 19% of the income reported by the 13,480 individuals or families making over $10 million came from wages and salaries"


I found this interesting: "Wall Street and the top of corporate America are doing extremely well as of June 2011. For example, in Q1 of 2011, America's top corporations reported 31% profit growth and a 31% reduction in taxes, the latter due to profit outsourcing to low tax rate countries. Somewhere around 40% of the profits in the S&P 500 come from overseas and stay overseas, with about half of these 500 top corporations having their headquarters in tax havens. If the corporations don't repatriate their profits, they pay no U.S. taxes. The year 2010 was a record year for compensation on Wall Street, while corporate CEO compensation rose by over 30%, most Americans struggled. In 2010 a dozen major companies, including GE, Verizon, Boeing, Wells Fargo, and Fed Ex paid US tax rates between -0.7% and -9.2%. Production, employment, profits, and taxes have all been outsourced. Major U.S. corporations are currently lobbying to have another "tax-repatriation" window like that in 2004 where they can bring back corporate profits at a 5.25% tax rate versus the usual 35% US corporate tax rate. Ordinary working citizens with the lowest incomes are taxed at 10%."

"They suggest that average Americans have been hit much harder than wealthy Americans. Edward Wolff, the economist we draw upon the most in this document, concludes that there has been an "astounding" 36.1% drop in the wealth (marketable assets) of the median household since the peak of the housing bubble in 2007. By contrast, the wealth of the top 1% of households dropped by far less: just 11.1%. So as of April 2010, it looks like the wealth distribution is even more unequal than it was in 2007. (See Wolff, 2010 for more details.)"

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

 

[kokonut]

What are the chances that all millionaires would voluntary donate?

You're right about the income tax - what about payroll taxes and sales taxes?

Apparently the top percentile of America's richest people earn more from investments than in actual working income.

" it's important to note that for the rich, most of that income does not come from "working": in 2008, only 19% of the income reported by the 13,480 individuals or families making over $10 million came from wages and salaries"


I found this interesting: "Wall Street and the top of corporate America are doing extremely well as of June 2011. For example, in Q1 of 2011, America's top corporations reported 31% profit growth and a 31% reduction in taxes, the latter due to profit outsourcing to low tax rate countries. Somewhere around 40% of the profits in the S&P 500 come from overseas and stay overseas, with about half of these 500 top corporations having their headquarters in tax havens. If the corporations don't repatriate their profits, they pay no U.S. taxes. The year 2010 was a record year for compensation on Wall Street, while corporate CEO compensation rose by over 30%, most Americans struggled. In 2010 a dozen major companies, including GE, Verizon, Boeing, Wells Fargo, and Fed Ex paid US tax rates between -0.7% and -9.2%. Production, employment, profits, and taxes have all been outsourced. Major U.S. corporations are currently lobbying to have another "tax-repatriation" window like that in 2004 where they can bring back corporate profits at a 5.25% tax rate versus the usual 35% US corporate tax rate. Ordinary working citizens with the lowest incomes are taxed at 10%."

"They suggest that average Americans have been hit much harder than wealthy Americans. Edward Wolff, the economist we draw upon the most in this document, concludes that there has been an "astounding" 36.1% drop in the wealth (marketable assets) of the median household since the peak of the housing bubble in 2007. By contrast, the wealth of the top 1% of households dropped by far less: just 11.1%. So as of April 2010, it looks like the wealth distribution is even more unequal than it was in 2007. (See Wolff, 2010 for more details.)"

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Chances are greater that millionaires would rather donate voluntarily their money to their charity of choice knowing where their money is going and going for a good cause. Who would they trust more in making sure more donated would be well spent and have that transparency? The govt?

Forty-one percent of American millionaires consider charity one of their top three spending priorities, a far bigger share than wealthy people in 19 other countries, according to a new survey.

Global Giving: The Culture of Philanthropy - Barclays Wealth Insights

 

[Babyblue]

Chances are greater that millionaires would rather donate voluntarily their money to their charity of choice knowing where their money is going and going for a good cause. Who would they trust more in making sure more donated would be well spent and have that transparency? The govt?

Forty-one percent of American millionaires consider charity one of their top three spending priorities, a far bigger share than wealthy people in 19 other countries, according to a new survey.

Global Giving: The Culture of Philanthropy - Barclays Wealth Insights

They also donate to charity as a tax write off.

 

[TXgolfer]

Wouldn't continual tax payments be more profitable to the government than a one time payment to the Federal Reserve?

Government is in the profit business now. :Ohno:

But anyway, they are free to give that gift every year.

 

[TXgolfer]

Valid point. 24 men making a one time donation to the Federal Reserve vs all those who fall within a certain income bracket paying increased taxes. About time too - the lowest income brackets pay the most in income tax.

The bottom brackets pay almost 0 income tax.

 

[DeafCaroline]

The bottom brackets pay almost 0 income tax.

Yes, you're right. I was thinking of ALL taxes, not just income tax.

 

[DeafCaroline]

Who says they can't voluntarily pay their fair share every year? You would think, per their rhetoric, they'd be more than willing.

And it's simply untrue that the lowest income brackets pay the most in income tax. The bottom 50% pay about 3% of the income taxes while earning around 10% of the income.

Who says? Reality. If we were just to depend on people to have a good heart and voluntarily do the right thing, we wouldn't need laws.

 

[kokonut]

Government is in the profit business now. :Ohno:

But anyway, they are free to give that gift every year.

Tax write-off, too?

 

[jillio]

They're demanding they pay their "fair share" but refusing to do so voluntarily. If they're concerned with fairness, they should lead by example rather than continuing to indulge in the unfairness.

How about my question? If they get the policies they're demanding, would you be satisfied that the tax laws are equitable?

What do you mean, "refusing to do so voluntarily?" That is making no sense.

 

[jillio]

Who says they can't voluntarily pay their fair share every year? You would think, per their rhetoric, they'd be more than willing.

And it's simply untrue that the lowest income brackets pay the most in income tax. The bottom 50% pay about 3% of the income taxes while earning around 10% of the income.

Your figures are off. What would their fair share be. They are paying what is determined to be their fair share under our current tax structure. Are you suggesting that they just assign some arbitrary number and pay that?

Yeah, I want to see what happens when those tax forms are received.

 

[jillio]

$70 billion according to static analysis, which always overestimates because it assumes people won't change their economic behavior or move assets to tax shelters. But let's say it's $70 billion. That's about 0.5% of GDP.

You may see it as a step in the right direction, but it seems to me that if one is truly concerned about inequity, 0.5% of GDP would be little more than symbolic. But then, so is a few dozen rich individuals voluntarily paying their fair share.

Beats the hell out of zero percent, now doesn't it?

 

[deafskeptic]

What do you mean, "refusing to do so voluntarily?" That is making no sense.

That's an oxymoron lol.

 

[jillio]

Yes, you're right. I was thinking of ALL taxes, not just income tax.

But when it is divided up per capita, the middle income brackets carry more of a tax burden than do the upper incomes. Income tax included. It hits middle to low income workers disproportionately. You can't just look at the numbers, but you have to look at the impact of the numbers. That is what people are failing to consider.

 

[deafskeptic]

But when it is divided up per capita, the middle income brackets carry more of a tax burden than do the upper incomes. Income tax included. It hits middle to low income workers disproportionately. You can't just look at the numbers, but you have to look at the impact of the numbers. That is what people are failing to consider.

That is why It does not make sense to me. The government can get more money from all of the very rich than from all of the poor and middle class for its' programs.

 

[darkdog]

What are the chances that all millionaires would voluntary donate?

That's a strawman. I argued these "patriotic millionaires" should lead by example. If I were rich and wanted to argue that tax rates on the rich were too low and we weren't paying our fair share, I would donate whatever amount I was arguing I should be taxed. That would show that I take my notion of fairness seriously and send a more powerful message. What they're doing now just reeks of moral vanity. I wouldn't be surprised if they try to find loopholes and use offshore havens if their tax rates did go up. It's not like tax-loving liberals have never avoided taxes before.

You're right about the income tax - what about payroll taxes and sales taxes?

Payroll taxes- A highly regressive tax to fund programs that transfer wealth from the less wealthy to the more wealthy. I'd be all for doing away with it and privatizing the programs.

Sales taxes- There are no federal sales taxes, only state, and they differ from state to state. Since tax policies vary state to state and we're talking about federal taxes, I say let's leave this one for another discussion.

A bunch of other stuff.

That's going on a huge tangent and while I'd love to get into it, my time is limited. Bottom line- I want a mildly progressive tax with about 3 income brackets and no loopholes or deductions except charity.

Who says? Reality. If we were just to depend on people to have a good heart and voluntarily do the right thing, we wouldn't need laws.

Reality says the very people who are complaining they aren't asked to pay their fair share can't whip out their credit cards to pay their fair share? As I said above, if I were in their shoes, I don't see how I could hesitate if I were actually interested in paying my fair share.

 

[jillio]

And again, how would their "donating" their money to our IRS solve the problem of inequity in the tax structures?

You think they are just trying to get rid of a few bucks? Surely you understand they message they are communicating by their demonstration.

But if you want to use that line of reasoning...I see plenty of conservatives around here moaning and whining about the national debt every chance they get. How many of you guys are making contributions to bring it down? Walk the walk, guys, walk the walk.

 

[darkdog]

What do you mean, "refusing to do so voluntarily?" That is making no sense.

Sure it does. A reporter with an iPad with the treasury department's donation page asked these guys to donate to the treasury. They refused. Here's the link: Patriotic Millionaires | Higher Taxes | Treasury Department Donation | The Daily Caller

I went ahead and transcribed the first conversation:

Can you tell me a little bit about what you're doing here today?

So, I'm here arguing in favor of higher taxes on the wealthiest 1%. In fact, I'm considerably higher in the hierarchy than that and I think we should be paying more of our fair share. There's a lot of talk about shared sacrifice, but I haven't actually seen anybody asking the people who benefited the most from the policies that led to the deficit, the wealthy…

OK, well now is your chance. I have the department of the treasury right here [on the iPad]. Would you be willing to donate a few thousand dollars?

No, I wouldn't.

The rest of the conversations go pretty much the same way.

That's an oxymoron lol.

No it's not. See above.

Your figures are off. What would their fair share be. They are paying what is determined to be their fair share under our current tax structure. Are you suggesting that they just assign some arbitrary number and pay that?

Yeah, I want to see what happens when those tax forms are received.

They're paying their legal share, but they're arguing that's not their fair share. It's up to them to decide what's fair and it seems that most of them think the highest marginal tax rate before the Bush tax cuts (39.6%) is what's fair.

Beats the hell out of zero percent, now doesn't it?

But it doesn't solve the problem of inequity in the tax structure in your eyes, does it?

 

[TXgolfer]

That's a strawman. I argued these "patriotic millionaires" should lead by example. If I were rich and wanted to argue that tax rates on the rich were too low and we weren't paying our fair share, I would donate whatever amount I was arguing I should be taxed. That would show that I take my notion of fairness seriously and send a more powerful message. What they're doing now just reeks of moral vanity. I wouldn't be surprised if they try to find loopholes and use offshore havens if their tax rates did go up. It's not like tax-loving liberals have never avoided taxes before.


Payroll taxes- A highly regressive tax to fund programs that transfer wealth from the less wealthy to the more wealthy. I'd be all for doing away with it and privatizing the programs.

Sales taxes- There are no federal sales taxes, only state, and they differ from state to state. Since tax policies vary state to state and we're talking about federal taxes, I say let's leave this one for another discussion.


That's going on a huge tangent and while I'd love to get into it, my time is limited. Bottom line- I want a mildly progressive tax with about 3 income brackets and no loopholes or deductions except charity.


Reality says the very people who are complaining they aren't asked to pay their fair share can't whip out their credit cards to pay their fair share? As I said above, if I were in their shoes, I don't see how I could hesitate if I were actually interested in paying my fair share.

i agree except for the bold.....we don't even need that IMO. Oh, and a flat tax with a $25,000 exemption would create a mildly progressive tax without creating brackets.

What these guys did was nothing more than express their self righteous ideology. There is nothing wonderful about it. If they want to pay more they are more than welcome to. If they think their bracket should pay more they should just say that. I, however, would disagree with them. We lost $500 million on Solyndra, 100's of millions more on other solar companies not to mention turtle bridges, condom studies and big f-ing orange signs. Some say giving the government more money is "ethical", I say it is moronic. Especially given that we have the same clueless spend-a-holic in chief. It's like giving someone a dollar bill, watching them light it on fire, then giving them another. People think the "rich" are big greedy meanies because they don't want to help the poor. Truth is the rich don't think government fools can be trusted with the job. And for those few that do, put your money where your mouth is and mail a check.