With all this talk from Zero, backed up by Warren Buffett, I thought I'd look into how much of difference it would make.  Looked up the richest people in America.  Forbes publishes an annual list of the 400 richest Americans.  Their combined net worth is ~$1.37 trillion in 2010.

If the government forced them to liquidate all of their assets and hand them over (and I mean EVERY penny), it would be enough money to fund the budget for 4.5 months.  That's it.  The government would spend every penny of that wealth by April 15th, coincidentally, tax day.  What would happen next year when those people are penniless and no longer employ anyone?  

As an aside, did you know that the government is currently spending approx $35,000 PER household every year?  Fucking ridiculous.

Not much.  What we need to do is tax the poor.

A lot of money would find a lot of sketchy places not on this continent.

No.  It won't work.

Actually it's really a tax on the middle class.  The rich can take advantage of all those write-offs that the middle class aren't even eligible to consider.  I'm more for cutting government spending by reducing government, no more $ to the U.N. or foreign aid, no more FEMA, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Labor, NEA, etc. and getting rid of government entitlements like welfare, Section 8 housing, public housing projects as well as ending our six wars.

No positive effect. Our present .gov would spend it, most likely to buy into more debt.

I think you missed the point.  You can raise their tax rate to 100%, and on top of that, confiscate EVERY SINGLE PENNY they have and you still wouldn't be able to fund the government through Easter.

Cutting spending is the only way to fix it.  We literally cannot pay for what the government spends.

Money, like life, finds a way.

if you confiscated 100% of the adjusted gross income of all people filing taxes who made $1m + you would be at $727 billion, with a deficit of $14.5 trillion, good luck.

 

This is a common misconception when in reality, due to the AMT, the reverse it true:  have too many deductions and you get to pay a minimum % regardless.  No matter how much you deduct, you are only saving your bracket on the deduction; example:  donate $1,000 to charity with a 35% tax bracket and you're only saving $350.  You can't donate your way out of taxation.

I'm not saying super-rich don't have ways of sheltering income, but there are few people getting million $ paychecks; they get stock options, dividends, capital gains, etc. which are not taxed as ordinary income.

Here's Obama's little lie.

Warren Buffett's billions were acumulated over a lifetime, he earns no income per se but earns on his investments ect. these are capital gains and are taxed at 15%.

His secretary is earning income, prolly a good one, she is paying 35% on her INCOME.  Buffett CAPITAL GAINS

It might even reduce revenues years down the road because the rich will move their money overseas.

They've done it before and will do it again if they are taxed to high heaven.

Not much, and they will only milk that cow for a little while, then it will go dry.

Please explain??  



The only tax "write offs" I am aware off cost real money.  Usually quite a bit more than the tax savings.



 

It would reduce the overall tax income.

It has been shown several times that the less taxes that those who control the private sector pursestrings have to consider, the more they spend creating jobs, thus having an overall effect of increasing the overal tax revenue.

This is a good place to step in, and say again Fuck Obama. Class warfare? Please.


He should send a check to every American for the 8k per citizen he pilfered in his "recession bailout/money grifting/ political payola scheme" he pulled when he was elected.

The rich have something called Social Mobility. They can take the money and be accepted any place in the world.



Taxes has always hurt the poor the most. Taxes has always stop the middle class and poor from moving up. It limit or prevent them from become rich.



When government taxes businesses. It hurt the poor the most because businesses have two choices. Go out of business or increase their price. 10 out of 10 times businesses going to increase their price for product or service sold.



 

Like I have said before only 1 way to reduce debt. Cut spending and increase revenue. I have a few problems with this dude's math. But first what is the Debt, here is my non Mr Webster's thought on that " Money owed to a lender accured over time". So this debt problem didn't just happen today. I mean we just didn't wake up and be more like 30 to 40 trillion in debt which IMHO is more likely the true number if the real truth be told,(good luck getting the truth out of Washington these days).

So you got to go back in time about 10 or 12 years. Which I am sorry to say lays this debt mess at the feet of Baby Bush and his gang of banditos. So our wack a mole wars in the middle east only cost us about 250+ billion a year, now that BS and we all know it. More like 350 to 500 billion a year would be more like it. But let's just use the 250 billion a year number. If 10 count that 10 years ago we would have just taken the freaken gloves off for 2 years at the start of that mess it would have been long done by now. So that's minus 2.5 trillion off the debt so now we are at 12.5 trillion. Let's not forget the other Pentagon increases in spending above the cost of doing the wack a mole stuff to the conservation estimate of what 3.5 trillion over 10 years and now we are at  9 trillion in debt. Now let factor in all the baby Bush tax cuts for the Job Creators which by the way didn't produce. I am not sure of the true number but let;s say 2.5 trillion over 10 years which is a very conservative number and now the debt is 6.5 trillion. Then factor in the increases in government like Homeland Security, pay increases, this pork and that pork, TARP, bank bail outs, this and that Job Creator incentive which still didn't produce any jobs, then factor in the grafs, corruption, out right BS to run this country for 10 years. Let's be conservative on that number spread out over 10 years and to the tune of like 6.5 trillion and what is the final math. We owe jack to anybody.

So if your going to spout math then make it the right math.

The number one job killer in the USA is minimum wage. You're right that taxes prevent creation of job and wealth for the poor and middle class.



 

I would say taxes and over regulation by the government are one and two on the list of job killers.  Minimum wage would be a number three with healthy competition from our overly litigious legal system.

http://drinkingwithbob.com/?paged=2

Negative effect. Taking every penny they own, wouldn't scratch the problem.  This would only lead to all their money going offshore, taking any positive economic benefits with it.

How does that answer the question I posed?  I understand that the rich have Social Mobility.  Do you understand that only a small percentage of the "rich" were born that way.  Most have earned their wealth and taxes hurt them just as much as the poor.  



When I pay 35% of my income to the government that is very painful, just like it would be painful for someone making $25,000 to pay 10% of their income in taxes.  Everyone needs to have skin in the game to make the system work.  The idea that poor people who make terrible life choices shouldn't have to contribute is ridiculous.  





 

Here's the bigger lie:  Warren Buffett's primary investment strategy is the avoidance of taxable events.  All by itself, that strategy improves returns by 10-15% per year.  I've watched him do his thing for ~ 25 years, and learned the real erosion power of taxes just by reading his annual reports.  By not ever selling positions, or by exiting positions using esoteric tax laws to his advantage (swaps, etc.), his funds don't have the capital gain hits incurred by other more "normal" funds.

Herein is the huge hypocrisy - he decries taxation in every aspect of his professional life, and then jumps on the Kenyan bandwagon to bitch about the tax laws.  

Bastard.





 

We are already bankrupt.



But if we tax more it definitely will allow the communist to give more free shit to the worthless and will definitely keep the commies in power longer or at least right up until to the collapse of our economy.

We don't have a revenue problem we have a spending problem.

From 1 cow you can have milk for a while or one BBQ.  The demoncraps think that one BBQ will be a better choice.

If you're going to spout the math, don't forget the prescription drug benefit- Medicare Part D. Estimated cost 2009-2018......... $727.3 billion.

Then misrepresents this to the ignorant masses as, "see Buffett pays less tax than his secretary". Not fair, shared sacrifice; fuck that, my family and I have pretty much sacrificed our entire adult lives. I was laid off had to slash expenses to survive, deployed for over five years over the course of a 21 year career. I'm done sacrificing.

I'm getting in the shared prosperity line.

Coincidentally right above your thread....

The "rich" are going to find better ways of making their money tax-safe. Tax revenue will decline.

WB probably make most of his money as qualified dividends and capital gains, thereby paying at a rate of 15%.  This is at his discretion.  He can find other ways to earn income.  Be that as it may, he undoubtedly makes many MILLIONS per year, and consequently pays millions in income tax. His secretary pays a fraction of that.  Now, how is this equitable?  Has he used the government more than she? What are the costs to society, in general, from his work?  What about hers?  How is it "fair" that he pays millions in tax and she probably pays 20-30k?  The breathe the same air, drink water, drive around on the roads, and are afforded protection of the borders (somewhat) by our military.  Who can argue that this is "fair?"

I heard an analysis today that using the group targeted by Obama's 'Warren Buffet Tax'  (people who make more than 1 million from all sources of income) were taxed at the unlikely rate of 50%  (remember Warren Buffet claimed to pay less than 20% tax vs 37% for most upper-middle class professionals) that would cover just 10% of our spending shortfall.

So even if we taxed these 'fat cats' 100% of their income, we'd still be 80% short.  

Clearly, taxing isn't the way to address this problem.

Now, should we look at making the tax code more fair? Absolutely! But we should do that be it a budget surplus year or a tax shortfall year.  Basically reworking the tax code to be more fair, have less loopholes, etc etc is an entirely separate issue.

We have GOT to start spending less money.

Well, for starters, if Buffet puts his money in multiple bank accounts he can have billions of insured by FDIC, whereas most people have much less insured by FDIC.  Therefore he is taking a much bigger service from the government.

Someone who owns multiple homes is protected by multiple police and fire departments.

When the President or say a state Governor flies to another country to encourage trade and partnership with American businesses, we all pay for that trip but the businesses get the big financial gain.  Maybe a bit trickles down thanks to the businesses employing a few more people here, but the gains are definitely not equal.

Rich people travel out of country more than the middle class and MUCH more than the poor class.  The embassy services we offer to ALL of our citizens who travel get used mainly by the rich.

We don't have US warships off the coast of Somalia to protect the investments of the middle class.



To be clear, I am NOT for taxing the heck of of the rich.  However, your argument makes it sound like everyone should pay one specific amount to the government...not even one flat tax RATE, one flat tax AMOUNT...like every person pays $10,000 per year no matter how rich or poor because they all get equal access to driving on the streets, traffic lights, police, and protection by the US military.

I don't know about your area, but in my state and most states, fire/police is paid for by property taxes, so that person that owns multiple homes actually pays more in taxes than the 'average'.

Many businesses are benefited by good trade deals, if you own a car and live in a rural area and see crops, you should realize that many crops are sold overseas to foreign nations. That helps local farmers quite a bit.

We have warships off the coast of Somalia to protect oil, if there is a major disruption in the world's oil supply the middle class is hurt more than ANYONE in this country.

Weneed to Shrink GOV everywhere.
From town,state to federal.

Been awhile, how you been?

Ready for the hockey season to start?  

TXL

You heard wrong, then.  I never said everyone should pay one amount.  But I know what type of taxes are paid, as I do a bit of research on the matter.  With that said, the "rich" pay WAY more in pure dollars than the average joe.  How is that "fair"?  If WB pays 20 million in tax and his secretary pays 20,000, how is that equitable?  He works, she works.  He earns, she earns.  He earns much more, by a factor of 5,000.  Is it fair that he has to pay out 5,000 times the tax?  Only in a realm wherein the government takes the money and WASTES it on all sorts of social programs for the "good" of the nation is this scheme deemed fair.  And only by someone who believes he is entitled to the fruits of others.

ETA:  The items you mentioned are perceived benefits.  The entitlements paid out each year are real, and they are derived from taking what someone produced and giving it to someone else.  That's called theft.

That's true.  Those who own more expensive homes and multiple homes pay WAY more in property tax.  Do they tax the system more?  Do they breath more air?  Do they burden the municipal government more so than others?  Sales taxes.  Rolex, 10k, tax = 700. Timex, 50 bucks, tax = 3.50.  Tax on rolex greater by a factor of 200.  How is that equitable?  Just because?  Oh, he's rich, he has the money.  TAKE IT.  That's not cool.  

Hey sexy!! I'm goodish, you?

Ducks look like they are in it to win it, how about your boys?

I saw a video someone posted in a thread here a few weeks ago that showed that, even if you took EVERYTHING from "the rich" (ALL of their

assets) that it would "more-or-less" just be a drop in the bucket as far as resolving our debt problem.

I think that video is posted a little bit above us.



 

Yeah..., looks like I missed that  Thanks for the heads-up.





 

None, though they do keep lowering the bar for the "rich."  Used to be $250,000.00/year, now it's down to $200,000.00.

Give it another several months and Obama will start calling those that earn $150,000.00/year "rich."

the phrase "drop in the bucket" comes to mind.

J-