- This topic has 131 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Should the rich have higher taxes on gross income due to the deductions they end up getting? I know the free market hackery disguised as crony capitalism. I believe in free enterprise. But what happens is that the middle class gets taxed at unfair takes leaving them with little money to invest.
Do you mean the rich or the ultra-rich?
As my father Z”L used to say every April as he wrote a large check to the government: You have to make it to pay it, and thank G-d I made it.
I remember income tax rates of 70% and now believe 33% is too low on those with large incomes.
I would have no problem with 50% top Federal income tax rate…provided not one cent is spent on the useless southern border wall.DISCLOSURE: as a senior citizen, I have no deductions for children and my home’s mortgage was paid off years ago. The Trump changes already reduced my deduction for state taxes (property and income) to 10K which is less than 1/3 of what I pay. STILL, I am willing to pay more so those who truly need government help will get it.
The only reason anybody would be against taxing the ultra wealthy is they’re either ultra wealthy already, or hope/dream to be.
Considering both those scenarios are very highly unlikely, there’s no reason why the majority of the voting population should be against the idea of higher taxes for the ultra wealthy. It only stands to benefit the many.
Of course they should be taxed, who else the poor? They dont have money how can you tax someone that doesn have money??
The ultra rich? Take away all their money, they figured out how to make a furtune the first time around, im sure they’ll figure it out if they try again..
צרות עין
קנאה
חמדהIt gets complicated, because the rich have more options for sheltering their income.
CTL; Thanks for caring. I too support the philosophy of; from each according to his means, to each according to his needs.
“The only reason anybody would be against taxing the ultra wealthy is they’re either ultra wealthy already, or hope/dream to be.”
Not true. I used to be a brainwashed, pro-flat-tax good Republican boy who was never rich, but believed that more money for the rich would lead to more hiring and higher salaries for everyone underneath. So, there’s a third group you forgot to mention: anyone who believes in the myth of trickle-down economics. I’ve since hacked up the cool-aid and would be fine with taxing the daylights out of them. Naturally, I still vote Republican; I’m just a bad Republican boy now.
@2scents
Your premise is faulty. Many of the rich did not figure out how to make money, their parents or grandparents did.I have trust clients who receive annual incomes in the millions because great grandfather made a fortune. The current recipient(s) have never worked and would have no way to amass a new fortune.
CTL; If you have had personal contact with your trust fund clients, how would you rate their character vs. self made clients of similar socio-economic status?
The ultra rich don’t need the money. There is only so much a human being can possibly need or want.
The rich pay most of the taxes. When their incomes fall, the government revenue takes a hit. Remember that taxation is basically a form of theft, and as any smart thief will tell you, it makes a lot more sense to rob from the rich than from the poor.
Politically, the problem is that the Democrats consider anyone not living “hand to mouth” to be rich, whereas the Republicans perceive “rich” as someone who really doesn’t have to worry about money. So to the Democrats, most of the middle class is “rich” and fit for heavy taxation.
CTL,
If thats your logic behind taxing the rich, how about there be a different tax rate for those that inherited their money and those that worked hard to amass a fortune.
Lets say I work really hard and brain storm solutions to peoples problems which get me rich, why should I have to pay a higher tax rate when I worked hard to earn the money?
Only because you are ok with giving the government 50% of your income is not a sufficient reason why Others and myself should be required to do so.
RY,
Those ultra rich people have taken risks that paid off so they can have financial freedom for themselves and their children.
Others shouldn’t get to decide how much money a person should be allowed to earn or how much someone should want.
Its the desire to earn money that drives economies.
1, free-market economics and crony capitalism are two very different things. In the former case there is free entry into the market. In the latter case businesses (not necessary big ones – LA actually has a test requirement for flower arrangers) get government protection from competition/
Neville, trickle down worked for both JFK and Reagan. It has transformed gray socialist states into prosperous countries. It is also transforming Israel.
CTL. so what if they inherited it? It is their money. Moreover, their investments create jobs., which is the highest form of tzedaka.
“The current recipient(s) have never worked and would have no way to amass a new fortune.”
Boo hoo, who cares? Their inheritance and wealth should have been taxed at a rate that forced them to work. The fact that the system allows people to live off old money and never contribute anything proves that there’s a problem. Let them work at a fast food chain if they have to. Force them to see how real humans live.
Its the desire to earn money that drives economies.
That’s the “positive side”of the yetzer hara.Another theory I’ve seen is to abolish income tax, and use other funding, such as expanding the tax on consumption. Rich people buy a lot more stuff than poor people.
All of you socialists/communists: as history has shown repeatedly, those ideologies don’t work. By punishing the wealthy for working hard you take away any desire to put in any more effort to earn more. No one wants to work like a dog to have their money taken away. Democrats are unfortunately doomed to repeat history if they don’t learn from it.
“But, I don’t think the taxes take motivation away from people,”
I am sure that there might be some truth in what your claim, at least to an extent. However logic would say that if you reduce the incentives fewer people will show up.
at 50% tax rate that means you got yourself a complete partner to your profits, that seems like a reduced incentive to go out and work really hard and solve problems and drive the economy.
It would be very easy to understand why someone that is on the receiving end to make the argument about taxing the rich at greater rates than the average person, those that are idealistic and are willing to do so, good for them but that does not necessarily mean that others should be obligated to do so.
” Their inheritance and wealth should have been taxed at a rate that forced them to work. The fact that the system allows people to live off old money and never contribute anything proves that there’s a problem. ”
First off, these people are more likely to invest and create jobs and opportunities for the rest of us than anyone else only because they have the money.
Second, why not start by actually removing benefits from the poor so that they are forced to go out and work really hard to survive, this will not only stimulate the economy, it will reduce taxpayer cost, reduce crimes which will make our country a better place.
I am not advocating for this policy, I was just using your line of thinking and applying it elsewhere.
@UncleBen
#1 self made people of wealth are NOT the same socio-economic strata as old money. They are the noveau riche. The groups do not generally mix. The self made are often trying to show their wealth by aquisitions and trappings. Old money is understated.
#2 The 3rd and 4th generation beneficiaries of the family trusts have learned to be wary of gold diggers and learned to live according to the rules et forth or suffer the consequences of their actions.About 5 years a go I was holding a premarital conference with a 4th generation trust daughter and her fiancee. The young man asked how much money the girl would be ‘kicking’ in to buy and furnish their starter home. The man expected an equal contribution to the money he’d earned and would be spending. The girl replied, oh your type buys it, we inherit it. She then asked me what properties were in the family portfolio that would be suitable homes any tenant in place in the chosen home be given a notice of non-renewal of lease. She also suggested a tour of the storage building on grandfather’s estate to choose furniture, artwork, china, crystal and silver. No need to touch capital to outfit a home,
I have seen the trust fund babies go through their sense of entitlement in their teen years, but once they start receiving a regular trust income as an adult they fall in line. Many work hard to preserve the trust to insure the future of their offspring.
It is also my observation that the trust families are far more charitable than the self mades who are all about me@2scents
Those who inherit their money are also subject to inheritance tax, as well as income tax. Your inventor is not.
I’d like to tax all estates starting at 5 million dollars. There was no reason it jumped to 11 million in 2018 to benefit trump’s cronies.
And yes my estate would have to pay taxesCTL; Thank you for the detailed response. It’s not necessarily how I would have imagined it. It does seem like a mixed bag though.
Boo hoo, who cares? Their inheritance and wealth should have been taxed at a rate that forced them to work. The fact that the system allows people to live off old money and never contribute anything proves that there’s a problem. Let them work at a fast food chain if they have to. Force them to see how real humans live.
It’s their money. You just want to steal it.
“Second, why not start by actually removing benefits from the poor”
What benefits do you think there are to being poor?“these people are more likely to invest and create jobs”
CTL was very explicitly referring to people living off of trust funds with no new income, not business owners. I don’t see why there couldn’t be common sense measures to differentiate between business owners and those sitting on their money benefiting nobody.By the way, a progressive tax rate is not communism. It’s the system used by every civilized country for probably centuries now. If you think the regressive tax systems practiced in the times of feudalism were any better than communism, then I don’t know what to tell you.
Trumps cronies are probably way above the 11 million dollar mark, they probably believe that the single digit millionaire is not considered ultra rich anymore.
The fact that you are happy to taxed at a greater rate does not mean that everyone else in your financial situation should be subject to a greater tax.
The fact that you are making this more of a political argument seems that there is a political idealistic component to your position which not everyone shares.
It so seems that your exposure to the ultra-rich has been through managing their trusts and inheritances. This is not the same group of people that actually created something significant and took a risk that benefited mankind while generating wealth.
” I don’t see why there couldn’t be common sense measures to differentiate between business owners and those sitting on their money benefiting nobody.”
That would be equal to lets say you purchasing a car for your personal use despite not really depending on it, just for added freedom to actually use whenever and however you prefer.
So if lets say you dont really need it, or dont really use it that much, why not make it mandatory that other people should get to use it, what benefit is there to society if your car is just parked in your garage?
Even those that inherited their riches, there was someone that worked for it, that person took risks, exchanged goods or services for these monies and did so that their children and grandchildren should be well off.
Its not like these monies came out of nowhere. What right do we as a society have to obligate these people to pay a greater percentage, especially when they are already paying a greater share?
“Those who inherit their money are also subject to inheritance tax, as well as income tax. Your inventor is not.”
So is the argument that the entrepreneurs and inventors are not subject to the inheritance taxes a reason to subject them to greater tax rates?
I would think that the argument works better the other way around.
Because the inheritors are already subject to inheritance taxes, they have already paid a greater share than anyone else. Let them decide on their own if they want to further donate some of their own money to charity. Why tax them at a higher rate only because you have the power to do so?
In NY, the top 1% already pays 46% of the ststes incone tax, which is why more wealthy people are moving out. Most wealthy residents of Connecticut don’t agree with CTL as Conn has proportionately lost more wealthy taxpayers than NY. BTW, I admire CTL’s ability to generalize from his client base and smear all people of inherited wealth. Is he honest enough to tell them what he really thinks about them?
Heres an idea…government tkes a dmall percentage for defense and run the government. Afterward, people must pay a percentage, sliding scale, to whatever government program they prefer. Housing, infrastructure, entitlements etc.
CTL said hes willing to give more so that people who really need help can get it.
I would only give for short term help and vocational training.CTL, it is admirable that you are generous with your own money but you have no right to be generous with other people’s money. We learn this from Avraham Avinu who would not take even a shoelace after the war of five kings against four but insisted that his soldiers be paid. I reiterate that the free enterprise system is the best tzedaka provider because it provides a better standard of living for all as a result of productive work. Those who are considered poor today live much better than medieval nobility.
@nevillechaimberlin
“Not true. I used to be a brainwashed, pro-flat-tax good Republican boy who was never rich, but believed that more money for the rich would lead to more hiring and higher salaries for everyone underneath. So, there’s a third group you forgot to mention: anyone who believes in the myth of trickle-down economics. I’ve since hacked up the cool-aid and would be fine with taxing the daylights out of them. Naturally, I still vote Republican; I’m just a bad Republican boy now.”You became an economist? What made you change your mind?
Isn’t anyone besides AviK concerned with what’s right, instead of what they want?
Boo hoo, who cares? Their inheritance and wealth should have been taxed at a rate that forced them to work. The fact that the system allows people to live off old money and never contribute anything proves that there’s a problem. Let them work at a fast food chain if they have to. Force them to see how real humans live.
So basically you’re a communist. What right do you have to take their money. As mentioned by other posters, someone in the family worked hard, took risk, probably struggled to amass their fortune. Now you want to steal it from them basically because of jealously. The money is still involved in the economy via investments and the stock market. No one is living off a vault filled cash.
You can make the same statement that you made about people who live of government benefits and various charities. You can argue that they contribute even less to the economy that these “old money” billionaires do.I like that everybody in politics copy and paste the empty talking point of a 70% top tax rate, but that is dishonest. There were more deductions then, even deducting new cars for example. No one paid 70%.
As for taxing the rich, why is this something that someone says thinking they will get elected? Taxing the New England Patriots does nothing for me nor you. It’s as empty of a talking point as I just discussed.
And this is ignoring the grave consequences that such a foolish policy will create.
“What made you change your mind?”
I met more people in life.“What right do you have to take their money. ”
I never said I have any interest in taking it personally. Where are you getting this idea that the wealthy shouldn’t have to pay a higher tax rate? It’s just a policy Republican candidates pretend to believe in as a transparent attempt to stop losing votes to Libertarians. You actually fall for it?By the way, those of you who keep using the word “right,” and “what right,” as though it poses any sort of real argument need to consider that we have a progressive tax code already. The precedent is set. There is no human-right to not be taxed at a higher rate than people with less money. Trump’s tax code is progressive, not flat. Just because it’s less progressive than it previously was doesn’t mean he supports your loony oligarchical interests.
“So basically you’re a communist.”
Basically, I support the underlying way the tax code has worked for our entire lives. Do you consider the US to be communist? It taxes the rich at higher rates, which, in your extremely limited understanding of economics, seems to be the definition of communism.“Isn’t anyone besides AviK concerned with what’s right, instead of what they want?”
Because this is a democracy. Personal interests combine to form national interests at the voting booth. Avi isn’t any more concerned with right/wrong than anyone else. He just words his opinions differently. That not my style. At least not when I’m on the internet.I recall that when I was in eigth grade my Rebbi ( who was quite poor) told us how in the non-jewish worl RObin Hood is praised becuase He stole from the rich and gave to the poor”.
Yet in Yiddishkeit he would be called a “ganaf” simply put he stole and the poor people who wanted rich peoples money are called “jealous”.
in Yiddishkeit jealousy is not praised, to put it mildly.
Another thing I recall from history is that Benjamin Franklin stated “democracy will only work until poor people start realizing they can tax rich people to get their money.And from a purely observational standpoint.
I wonder lets see if you gave a thousand dollars to Tomchei Shabbos and 1000 dollars to the government both with the express purpose of helping the less fortunate.
Who would put the 1000 dollars to more efficient use?From a religous perspective.
It’s fairly basic understanding that Jewish education is a must. Public for the overwhelming majority of orthodox jews is simply not an option.
So incredibly an entire network of schools have been created.
Yet tuition barely covers half the budget of most of our schools.
In addition to that we have shuls.
We have Camps.
We have Chesed organizations.
All of these cost money.
And they are supported by wealthy individuals.
What would happen if all of a sudden those wealthy individuals would be paying 70% taxes>
Hint: One of the most famous cases against the New Deal was Shuster.
It was a Kosher butcher suing the government because New deal policies made it impossible to run a kosher slaughtering company.
If you think there is a tuition crisis now, wait till there is attempts at imposing 70% tax rates on the wealthy individuals giving tens of millions of dollarsNeville,
Without involving politics into this discussion, while you are entitled to your personal opinion you would have to say something more substantial than just having met a number of people to argue in favor of a greater tax rate.
This is a subjectively based discussion, which means that some want to impose their beliefs on others which would result in others have to pay more in taxes, why is that acceptable?
I strongly believe that if this were a republican ideology, CTL would be against it.
“while you are entitled to your personal opinion you would have to say something more substantial than just having met a number of people to argue in favor of a greater tax rate.”
I’m not the one making the chiddush. We currently have a progressive tax system, even under Trump’s plan. You seem to be the only arguing that we should return to the antiquated system where the rich don’t pay any more than the poor. Generally, the one advocating a radical change is the one expected to need more backing.I’m not sure which one of us isn’t understanding the other. Are you aware that the rich already pay a higher rate than everyone else? Are you advocating they pay a lower rate? What exactly are you hung up on about what I said?
Also, not to sound condescending, but please tone down the buzz-phrases like “imposing beliefs.” Believing that a progressive tax rate is fair isn’t “imposing” any more than believing a flat tax rate is fair.
Tax deductions on donations make more sense if the tax rate is high.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.