http://michael-hudson.com/...rica-had-a-90-income-tax/

an interesting video...

the rich can afford to pay taxes. err, wait, maybe not. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24358175/

lol... they "don't consider themselves wealthy" when they only have $10M to invest above and beyond their homes and retirement savings....

the US should print more money to devalue their debt, and the assets of the rich; having no assets, my wages should keep up and i'll become relatively less poor than those with assets ^^

So youre advocating for slavery?

Why print more money when you can make more imaginary money with quantitative easing! lol

hehe I need to watch the video still, but to clarify qz's comments: qz lives in a small communist island situated in the heart of a right-wing dominated province :p

I don't support the US printing more money (at least not MUCH more -- no hyperinflation) but the US has to do something.... :p

capital gains tax -> 90% !

no one would invest

thats not worth any risk

llaar: Waste of time, socialists have no understanding of economics. The only thing on their mind is stealing from others to enrich themselves.

That's certainly a fair and balanced representation of our opinions, I think we're all indebt to Klown for stating what needed to be said. I am particulary glad that these lovely children are here today to hear it. Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, but it expressed a courage little seen in this day and age.

they musta asked a person who had just made 1million in net.. then again, owning a $450k house makes a person seem rich.. being a 1 millionaire, isn't really being rich.. but they need to be taxed at the same going rate as the rest of us.

Has anyone here ever heard of a color called gray?

I did not think so. A 90% capital gains tax would crush investment and the flow of capital would screech to a halt. However, if income tax were equitably applied to all income - a capital gains tax would not be needed anyway. The tax code in the US is so Byzantine and full of loopholes that only the wealthy can exploit that the rich only pay taxes on a small portion of their income.

Warren Buffet has rather famously joked that its embarrassing that his actual rate of income tax paid is lower then what his receptionist pays.

If we did away with all of the tax vehicles specifically designed to allow the wealthy to hide income, we would not need extra or higher taxes.

Remember, in the US the wealthy own the politicians, because getting elected is expensive and there are no limits on campaign giving. We will never resolve our tax codes until we resolve our election financing.

well, obiously it couldn't be a flat tax; but the point would be to have a graduated one; and they would invest, investment happened under those terms for the first half of the century, why can't they continue to happen? the difference is people would expect to make their gains based on actual industrial production rather than speculation on stocks and real estate.


I would argue it would encourage *more* investment -- but in things that would return dividends from actual production, rather than things that "might go up in price". Long term investment, rather than 20 second investment.

This too!

If the wealthy own politicians then why didn't John Corzine win his re-election? Money doesn't take you nearly as far it used to in politics these days.

Warren Buffet is a hypocrite. For starters, it's 17% because he lives in one of the lowest state income taxed states in the nation and because he's only paying capital gains tax. To make matters worse, he donates shares of Berkshire-Hathaway to charitable foundations to get the full price noted in his donation instead of taking the money out, paying capital gains and then donating. And seriously, he thinks the middle class deserves a tax break but only pays his secretary $60,000 while proudly claiming to stand for the little guy? Right, point in hand.

atleast some rich people are trying to help in other ways.. tax Donald trump each year at a going rate of 45% and then ask him if he thinks he's getting taxed too high... and then ignore his pleas for a lower rate for acouple 12+ years before saying you'll think about droping it, while of course not doing so.

Hm? The upper tax rate is not the way that class of people earns their actual income.. from investments much more than nominal income. So I don't know why this is even a question, because it's a sleight of hand.

And Junky, 45% is too low, it should be Eisenhower's rates of 70%.. you know, when America was the most profitable and successful that it has ever been. It must really chafe kneejerk Republicans that Obama's tax rates are lower than Bush or Reagan.. and to realize that Reagan raised taxes 13 times.

Also, at no point has a lowered tax rate brought in more revenue: Bartlett left the Republican party because of that childish nonsense.

Remember, it's not socialism for the top 1%.. it's fascism for them.. because they run the businesses that have captured their regulators.

Yea... lower taxes never increase returns, that's a logical fallacy that many have convinced themselves of, but the historical numbers show this to be incorrect...

and the capital gains tax being so low is really really dumb, as it moves investment from the real economy, ie industry &etc, to real estate & stock speculation...


How many people buy a stock and stick with it for 20 years these days? not that many...

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/...gh-or-low-a-further-look/

This is written by the guy who was essentially Reagan's chief financial officer.

Heh it's nice to see some numbers; but yea, it does seem weird that americans seem like their taxed unfairly when - at least I thought - everybody knows they're being taxed at lower levels than any time since WWII

michael hudson has a good site with pretty epic blog posts... i'd call them more like essays... but he seems to have well reasoned arguments that have come true more often than not -- he was one of the first warning with specific details and predictions about the housing market collapse in 2006

http://michael-hudson.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

^^ Awesome vidoe :P

The housing bubble problems had their genesis during the Clinton era. Mostly when The Congress required the regulator and lenders that they wouldn't discriminate against and/or deny people who couldn't afford to buy property.

who the heck can afford to buy property if they need a 30 year mortgage in order to be able to do it? housing bubble was probably just a bunch of rich people buying up the land and passing it off on some poor unfortunate bastages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...eenth_Amendment_arguments

interesting...

heh america needs to tax people; income is the most fair way generally

though if we abolished income tax and made the budget come all from captial gains and other un-earned income, then i suppose that would work; the budget is pretty big though

you can't realistically push your tax burden to capital gains or it creates incentives to invest elswhere, create tax shelters, dummy corporations, etc

as archaic mentioned, when you do anything that curbs investment, the economy will almost certainly contract
and in the end, that was what the credit crunch was all about, eh? :p

It would make sense that if you needed to collect tax, you would encourage activities that created in real economic expansion (investment, which leads to business and job creation, innovation, etc) and avoid taxing that to death. Instead collect tax on behaviors you want to reduce or eliminate ("vice" taxes, increased taxes on gas guzzling vehicles, increased taxes on proceeds from stock shorting, etc).

What I don't understand is how some folks feel we need to tax people just to keep them from becoming too rich. Maybe governments should just instead tax with the aim of collecting revenues to do the business of governing instead of trying to become its own business (something that has been proven over and over it sucks at and doesn't do nearly as well as real businesses?).

They know no better. Because obviously the US Postal Service has been a smashing success left to run as a business.

I think the economy is gone now, it's too far beyond recovering all the way.

It's time to contract the government, slash their pays, get rid of special retirement and medical services for them. How can Medicare and Social Security be balanced when the people who control it don't use it and don't have to pay into it.

You can't tax the poor and due to ever increasing unemployment the middle class aren't paying their taxes...

No answer though for what to do, a federal sales tax could work but that would probably stop retail sales and drive them down. They tried opening jobs with tax breaks to business that would hire and all that happened was businesses abused it so no real employment improvements while they still got their tax breaks.

you are one pessimistic SOB arn't you?

No, just a realist. We won't get all the jobs back. I lost my job twice to moving work overseas before the decline. Was lucky just to have my income cut and keep my job afterwards.

I have several friends with families that have lost their houses.. Most of them get to keep them because their is no interest currently in them. Some that were ejected get to watch their house sit empty for years now.

The jobless rate has only gotten worse, the only time they see improvement is when large batch layoffs run out of unemployment as they are not counted anymore.

What city do you reside in if you don't mind me asking?

My company has experienced mass cuts but that has more to Obama's defense research budget cuts than the economy, although i guess you could argue that they are one in the same. I'm the only non PE at my company now, hopefully i get to keep my job till i can take the exam in a year.

St Paul, Minnesota, well Burnsville now.

Which is light in the unemployment compared to other places, I couldn't even imagine what some people have to do to make ends meet or where they have to work.

I know a former boss of mine headed to McDonalds when they did their open recruitment drive day.

I'm still amused at this thread because the notion of establishing such a high rate on the rich ignores the obvious: the rich are those people with the highest potential mobility. The people who end up punished are the so-called wealthy who exist in the six digits, but they don't have the income flexibility to move. Thus the actual rich are able to accumulate more money to invest and stay rich while the cash-stripped states/countries continue to pummel the lower wealth/upper-middle class into oblivion. It's dumb policy.

Our country has a serious debt problem. CBO painted the picture yesterday and it ain't pretty. When your entitlement spending will eclipise double the size of your total economic output in the next 15-30 years is when you know you're royalled screwed. Some folks here think the solution is to try to double taxes (which never leads to a doubling of revenues...and I challenge them to find me an instance where it does) to maintain entitlement spending and probably expand entitlements. The reality is that people grow dependent on entitlements and then you create a downward debt spiral for the future.

If you want to escape from the spiral you need to create an environment where tax and regulatory structure is predictable, fair and below the level where it becomes cost-effective for businesses to move headquarters/capital/investment elsewhere. Encouraging investment will pave the way for a more robust economy that you can ride for more savings (see the late 90s). Simultaneously you have to ween people off entitlements. You can't do it over night because it's not politically feasible, but you need to have a sliding scale for the age and benefits of SS/Medicare (and probably overhaul SS Disability while you're at it) and you should means-test it.

None of this stuff is rocket science: debt problems compound themselves, entitlements breed dependency, businesses abhor the unknown--especially in tax policy, investment and economic success reduce all of the above.

trumper and archaic are pretty spot on i'd say. the reality of tax on the ultra wealthy coming down over time is in direct correlation to how much the elitist banker power over DC has increased. and unfortunately now that the world economy is post-globalization, to go back would only force even more business offshore.

qz your ideas have a valid point. in a static environment where you can just throw numbers around without consequence, you may even be right, though i'm sure there would truly never be a way to avoid tax loopholes. it is unfortunately a moot point. the US is too far in over their heads, too in bed with Israel/UK/Industrial Military Complex. if there will be any changes now, it will only be extremely gradual. unless they really screw things up bad and we revolt, but i don't see them being that foolish with their money at stake, or a majority of american people caring enough.

It's kinda of a significant problem if big corporations didn't pay their full due to the country's coffers. Oh wait, they're already avoiding paying $100,000,000,000 in taxes by hiding their stash in tax havens.

Meanwhile the top 1% of the population makes far more income than the bottom 50% of the American peeps while paying a lower % in taxes. Maybe someone should think about getting some of that cash moving?

Are big corporations not paying their full due or are they just using the system like everyone else? I mean, the mortgage interest deduction is a direct benefit and tax haven of sorts if you will for the middle class. I'm not saying to necessarily eliminating it, but just pointing out there are a lot of shelters for taxation that every rung of society takes advantage of.

It's different when they're deliberately shifting operations and liquid assets to offshore countries (tax havens) where they're exempted from being taxed or are taxed at a very low rate. (According to estimates by the Treasury) The federal government is missing out on $100,000,000,000 in taxes yearly due to the big corporations using "legal" loopholes to avoid paying their dues to the nation. A significant number of financial institutions that were part of the recent government funded bailout, have taken part in the scheme to "cheat" the US government of their tax revenue.

For example:




Source: http://publicintelligence.net/...ns-to-avoid-paying-taxes/

Of the 100 largest public companies, 83 do business in tax-haven hotspots like the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands, where they can move their income into tax-free accounts.

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/...ingnews/main4822689.shtml

According to an AIG rep:



That's a nice way of putting the spin on things. It still doesn't change the fact that US companies that make BILLIONS in profit, pay barely anything in taxes (compared to the profits they make). Even though it's "legal", it still doesn't change the fact that they're using the system to get out of paying the American people the money they're owed.



Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/...tary-by-robert-pozen.html

In short, it's bullfluff that the most powerful and wealthiest segment of society (the big corporations) get to skimp out on paying their taxes when they owe their existence and continued business to the US. At a time when the US is at its lowest and is trying to reduce its deficit, the big corporations should be doing their part to help reduce the financial burden.



Source: http://sanders.senate.gov/

^ That's the guy who got the Federal Reserve to divulge the details of the secret multi-trillion dollar "private bailouts" in the form of loans for an international cartel of banks at an extremely low interest rate WITHOUT congressional approval.

Sanders: Americans Want Shared Sacrifice to Solve Deficit

http://current.com/...acrifice-to-solve-deficit

As deficit cut talks continue, Sen. Bernie Sanders joins Keith to stress all Americans -- not just middle-class Americans -- must make sacrifices to engineer an economic recovery.

For those of you criticising the idea based on the mobility of the wealthy.... and "you shouldn't tax investment" stuff...

1) Tax capital gains is different from taxing investment; capital gains specifically refer to what can be called "unearned income"; ie you bought something low and sold high; while some call this "investment", that's not really what it is; it's more like short-term holdings, as a gamble; when I think of investment in business, I think of long-term holdings, looking for things like dividends &etc; building a business, etc. Most of the capital gains can't be moved offshore -- how can you move a house offshore when you resell it for example; you can tax capital gains on stocks of companies based in the US as well, surely.

2) Unearned income, like rent can be taxed, and these things are also not mobile:

"Unearned income has often been treated differently for tax purposes than earned income, in order to redistribute income or to recognize its qualitative difference from income derived from work. Such a tax structure is most often associated with a progressive income tax structure. Supporters of this say that the people who obtained this income did not work to get it and that it should be used to benefit the general population. For instance, income tax on high unearned incomes reached 98% in the United Kingdom in 1979. In recent times the pendulum has swung the other way, and most western countries tax unearned income more favourably than income from work. In the United States, current unearned income is taxed at the rate of 15%, which is far less than earned income rates."

The whole point of taxing unearned income rather than labour is to move from a feudal modal to the progressive model - private enterprise and labour are freed from the burden of supporting the public sector, and that is instead put on the unproductive members of society, those holding the land & etc.


As is, the US is moving back towards the feudal model -- the whole middle class is in debt to the banks, and they collect the large majority of their earnings.

Inouda--would you call it a tax haven for companies based in more tax-friendly states? Or if individuals declared residency in said countries? This goes back to the point of income mobility. You want to try punishing those corporations to find out which ones can permanently move their headquarters? Or permanently employ folks in another country to do the same job? This concept of an irreplaceable labor force is crazy. You get businesses to say by providing an environment they can thrive in--fiscally, socially, labor pool-wise, etc. And you make the system fair and predictable so they stay.

How about removing Mortgage Interest Deductions? I wonder how much extra income the US Gov't would receive if citizens holding mortgages could no longer deduct their interest payments from their annual income?

I like the idea of a capital gains tax that would deter speculation and encourage investment into the physical economy, but I also like the idea of saving money and stashing it into investments (stocks, bonds, etc) for retirement purposes. That one is a bit of a stickier issue.

In any case, I align myself a little farther left economically than most people. I'm all for a higher % of income (earned and unearned) tax on those who make a higher income per annum.

Err hold on a sec...which "people" do you refer to, and what are they being owed? I thought in the land of opportunity people were supposed to work for a living, not sit back and do nothing, and collect a check from the government (like my drug dealing neighbor across the street?)

And these companies that make BILLIONS...isn't that what the purpose of a company is? To make money for its employees and shareholders? What incentive is there in having a company that breaks even all the time, after taking into account all of the risk it takes to do business? For the companies that report a gigantic loss every quarter should the government pay them a "reverse tax" to subsidize them?

Are not the companies making "all of this money" actually using that money to grow their business (creating jobs, creating products, creating money for its investors)? Or do we want to totally drive companies out of America by making it too expensive to do business here...then who will employ Americans? Do you think standing in line for bread and toilet paper is an alternative solution?

I can potentially see some of this argument for companies that make money shearly out of money manipulation (and not producing anything, ala the movie Wall Street), but in the end those types of companies are also injecting capital into the credit markets that is the engine that enables the system to run, so if such companies no longer are incentivized to offer credit, how will you get a car, a house, how will someone turn a small idea into a brilliant business? Do I need an angel investor if I want to own a home? Or maybe government can supply me a house too while they are at it (I hear Cabrini-Green is lovely this time of year!)

yes, because oil futures sure pump money into our economy.

Consumption Tax!

With a rebate added in based on income under say 100K a year. Lower the income, the bigger the rebate (to pay back estimated costs of food/clothes taxes for the year.)

Import someting? Pay the tax. Buy it online? Pay the tax.

Imagine how many companies, woiuld come if they didn't have to pay taxes.

Imagine how many they would employ?

More people working= more consumers consuming= more taxes.

Even throw in a 3% exra tax dedicated topaying off the debt that goes away! when the debt is paid off.

No income tax. No buisnestax= every major coorporate office would want to headqurter in the U.S. Especially with the financial/education infrastructure we allreday have in place.

My 2 cents:)

Vice taxes are moronic. They are an overreach of government into the lives its citizens. A slippery slope that can change simply by who is in power and what they consider a vice that needs "taxed". Not to mention the fact that vice taxes are hypocritical. You are taxing something as a means of eliminating its use but are profiting from it's use as a result. It's also unsustainable if it turns out to be effective. You reduce the vice or eliminate it and then have to search for a NEW thing to tax.

Another thing increasing taxes beyond a reasonable threshold is a short term solution. The more money put into government the more money it has to spend. Government rarely ever (like as rare as a green flying whale) returns money it doesn't need. Instead it makes room for spending it either by increasing the budget of a program or creating a new program. That's the fundamental problem with government budgets. They tend to scale upward continually. Government (particularly the US government) doesn't spend money effectively and that needs to change first. Not just increase taxes and forget about the underlying problems.

exactly; so shift the burden to capital gains & rentier taxes...

Capital gains taxes already are at a preferred (Lower) rate then ordinary income, and ofcourse it also counts as unearned income so even better no Social Security/Medicare taxes.

Now they're talking of going to Zero Capital Gains taxes , How many people will become added to the Unemployment line when liquidating is tax free but keeping the doors open and making money is taxed? Seems it lowers the time period required for a return on investment to be worth while making the invesrment.

Oh but I'm sure we will hear the claim it will help free up money to make new investments, I guess on the same logic that we needed to refill the banks with free cash that our grandkids will pay for. Oh thats right the banks are just sitting on the money and not making the loans, but somehow the same people sitting on them board of directors will act completely different with this free cash

Actually oil futures and "speculation" (read investments) help keep the price of oil steady. Read up on the onion prices when commodity prices start jumping around. Speculation is banned in that market, yet onion prices swing more than any other commodity...why is that?

I've always wondered why someone would want to have taxes high for anyone. Is tearing down another person going to help your situation? It comes down to what you think government is here to do. Are they here to provide a service for the least possible cost, or are they here to provide "equality" for its citizens? To me its prosperity vs equality. Should we allow those that succeed to be rewarded? Or shall we enforce an equal outcome on all involved? Prosperity increases productivity, equality increases dependency.

Anyways, it has been shown that when Clinton lowered the capital gains tax it actually increased tax revenue. Obama wanted to raise the rate for fairness purposes. Prosperity vs equality.

"Anyways, it has been shown that when Clinton lowered the capital gains tax it actually increased tax revenue."


I'd have to see pretty rigorous analysis of that -- i don't see how lowering a *capital gains* tax could increase revenue -- that makes no sense at all; capital gains are not productive; rents are not productive. Prosperity does not happen when everybody is indebted to the bank (except for the bankers, who are basically the new feudal lords).

Prosperity and equality go hand in hand, unless by prosperity you're talking about a few individuals rather than the economy as a whole.