The Rich Want to Pay More Taxes

[Lumpymunk]

http://reason.com/24-7/2013/10/25/harry-...use-republ

Senate majority leader Harry Reid says that "Everybody" is "willing to pay more" taxes. He said so in an interview with a Nevada Public Radio host.

“The only people who feel there shouldn’t be more coming in to the federal government from the rich people are the Republicans in the Congress,” Reid told the radio host, according to Roll Call. “Everybody else, including the rich people, are willing to pay more. They want to pay more.”

Then why do they spend so much effort avoiding them? I promise if you send a check to the IRS or Treasury they won't mail it back to you. Pay as much as you like... but for some weird reason people aren't voluntarily sending money to the government (despite Reid's belief in their desire to do so).

One of the biggest examples that the administration uses to pander this trash is Warren Buffett and his comments about his secretary. Peter Schiff breaks down how Buffett uses some tricky language to perpetuate the myth of him paying low taxes.





...again, mail your checks to the government. They will accept as much money as you are willing to give them.

[DLJ]

Did you have a question for your audience?

[Captain Colostomy]

Well hell, I'm all for extra taxes(with the caveat that it isn't used on pork barrel projects), but I wouldn't just blindly toss money to Washington either. Point?

[Faith No More]

I'd have to question the sanity of anyone that would want to pay more taxes to such a spend-happy, wasteful government such as ours, especially knowing that rather than going to the education of a child, it will be used to design a more efficient killing machine.

Rather than approaching the issue by raising taxes, we need to make our government more efficient and get spending under control.

[Psykhronic]

Yeah, I'm all for increased taxes... to a government that is at least competent. One step at a time, I suppose.

[Doubting Thomas]

If the rich really want to pay more in taxes, then what's with all the offshore tax havens?

[Lumpymunk]

If the rich really want to pay more in taxes, then what's with all the offshore tax havens?

Exactly, Harry Reid is full of shit.

[popeyespappy]

Rather than approaching the issue by raising taxes, we need to make our government more efficient and get spending under control.

It isn't that simple. Yes, there are efficiencies to be gained in government spending. Yes, we also need to reduce our military spending. Although the later needs to be slowly cut over over time. Slashing the military budget in half next year would result in millions becoming unemployed overnight and cause an economic downturn that would make the last one look like a trip to Disneyland.

Those things alone can't fix the problem. The government is either going to have to cut spending on what are by far its biggest expenses which are the social security and medicare programs or increase revenue. The smart thing to have done would have been to raise SS & MC taxes while the baby boomer generation was earning their highest levels of income. But as far as I can tell intelligence isn't something our elected representatives have ever had an abundance of, and that hasn't happened. In fact instead of doing that they did the exact opposite and decreased those taxes for a short time making the problem even worse. Compounding the problem is the fact that the government needs to be increasing spending in areas such as education and infrastructure. This issue makes reducing the overall level of government spending problematic at best.

Simply rolling back taxes to pre Bush or pre Reagan levels would also have serious negative consequences to the economy. We don't want to do that either. The answer is to increase revenue through raising taxes, spend the money more efficiently on things other than the military, and reduce the rate of growth of government spending. In order to lessen the impact on the economy these things need to be phased in slowly over time. At least a decade. Maybe two or three.

I have a couple of things to say about the video in the OP too, but I'm about to head out the door and that is going to have to wait until later this afternoon.

[Lumpymunk]

Slashing the military budget in half next year would result in millions becoming unemployed overnight and cause an economic downturn that would make the last one look like a trip to Disneyland.

Yeap, this happened in the 1921-22 recession after WW1. It would be worse this time around for two reasons. Minimum wages and Inflation. After WW1 returning soldiers were able to offer their services (labor, etc...) for lower wages, making them competitive. After WW1 the flood of labor and lowered wages, along with the government actively increasing interest rates and lowering inflation, brought about the general decline in prices (an increase in purchasing power). Now with Quantitative Easing, even if they were able to get jobs for lower wages the Fed won't allow deflation to occur... which would lower prices. Even though it would boost purchasing power and lower unemployment. It would be pretty nasty.

Especially if you consider that returning soldiers will now be eligible for fully subsidized health insurance with an income of nothing... unemployment and other entitlements.

...as bad as the military spending needs to stop... the question is how?

I would be fine with scrapping the NSA entirely... for a start!

The answer is to increase revenue through raising taxes, spend the money more efficiently on things other than the military, and reduce the rate of growth of government spending. In order to lessen the impact on the economy these things need to be phased in slowly over time. At least a decade. Maybe two or three.

What is the realistic answer though? "Government" and "fiscal responsibility" don't go together.

[popeyespappy]

What is the realistic answer though? "Government" and "fiscal responsibility" don't go together.

That is the answer. The people need to hold the government responsible for the fiscal policy they implement. A good start would be campaign reform that takes the money out of politics in order to make the politicians beholden to the voters as opposed to the corporate dollars they are currently obligated to.

Now about the video in the OP. Yes Warren Buffet is effectively taxed twice on his corporate holdings. He does however reap a huge benefit through corporate ownership. He is personally protected from financial obligations incurred by the corporation beyond the limits of his stock holdings. I would be perfectly fine with doing away with corporate taxes if two conditions are first met. First that any individual income realized from corporate holdings be taxed as regular income. The second is the biggie. It is the one that I don't think Buffet or any other stock holder on the planet would be willing to give up. That is give up the legal immunity granted to stock holders for being financially responsible for the actions of the corporation. Because basically that is all a corporation is. It is a legal entity with the ability to enter into bindings contracts just like an individual. The difference between a corporation and a sole proprietorship or partnership is protection of the owners from liability. Corporate taxes are the cost share holders pay for that protection. Otherwise a corporation would just be a partnership without the personal liability.