General discussion

Locked

The rich are not paying their fair share of taxes. . . . .

By maxwell edison ·
..... or so says Hillary Clinton.

"The rich are not paying their fair share (of taxes) ..... whether it's individual, corporate or whatever (form of) taxation"
- Hillary Clinton to an audience at the Brookings Institution

Full quote and context:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0510/Clinton_The_rich_are_not_paying_their_fair_share.html

Questions:

Define the rich?

At what percentage should corporations be taxed?

Do you think the cost of corporate taxes are passed onto the consumer, or absorbed by corporate officers, or applied to (deducted from) corporate profits, or something else?

At what percentage should capital gains be taxed?

What percentage of total taxes collected should be paid by:

- the top 5 percent of wage earners pay?
- the top 10 percent of wage earners pay?
- the top 50 percent of wage earners pay?
- the bottom 50 percent of wage earners pay?

What is the maximum percentage a person's income should be subjected to taxation?

Should income be taxed at all? Why or why not?

Would you favor a consumption tax instead of an income tax?

Would you favor a consumption tax in addition to an income tax?

Should Social Security taxes be increased? If yes, on whom and by how much?

Should Medicare taxes be increased? If yes, on whom and by how much?

Should we pass on to future generations (our children and grandchildren) a system (a government) that taxes them more than it taxed us so it can pay for the promises made to us?

Would you be willing to pass-on your personal debt to your children and grandchildren?

Are you willing to pass-on your government debt to your children and grandchildren?

That's a good question to be the last.

All questions asked with sincerity. Please answer as such. Moreover, feel free to ask your own. In due time, I'll answer all questions myself.

Disclaimers:

- I do not believe that ALL taxes should be abolished. I believe taxes are a vital element to maintaining a free society.

- I believe in the Laffer Curve.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/06/The-Laffer-Curve-Past-Present-and-Future

However, I'm not an absolutist on suggesting that either increased or decreased tax rates will increase (or reduce) tax revenue. For example, if the tax rate was zero percent, the revenue collected would be zero. If the tax rate was one hundred percent, the revenue collected would be zero. Therefore, the rate at which taxes are accessed and will generate the greatest amount of revenue is, at best, a percentage that's on a sliding scale.

Last question(s): If you agree with my sliding scale suggestion, what's the best way to zero-in on the optimal rate?

If you don't agree with it, why not?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

146 total posts (Page 2 of 15)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

depends

by Jaqui In reply to Would that, then..

on the business setup.
small businesses like a consultancy [ one person show ] the business income is the owners salary.

the partnership, or "corporate entity" they have to pay themselves a salary, the business income belongs to the business not them, legally.

Collapse -

ok

by NexS In reply to depends

So a (one person) small business owner with staff under 10 who takes a wage along with his workers WILL be charged?

I don't mean to say that every small business owner will take a wage, but those that do won't be happy. Nor would they be happy with changing their systems of payment, etc.

Collapse -

The near- entirety

by santeewelding In reply to everyone Santee

Of what we call, "government", exists in large part to guarantee the sanctity of commercial free association and transaction, having no little to do with, "property".

You, like the Founders, are fixed on, "property". It's why, in California, they futz and wring their hands about taxing or not taxing candy bars, not to mention, water, which "they" justify by a CRV on the plastic bottle, so as not to enrage -- what's next: air?. Excuse me. They have done that with gas stations here. Air for your tires has been by legislative fiat been declared to be, "free" -- no charge, neverminding what it costs you the station owner to compress and store it in the first place. On and on...

What, I ask, does it cost for administration of civil law? Civil law guaranteeing the sanctity of transaction? Have you studied and are you steeped in just how much of civil law has to do with the sanctity of transaction?

Screw property. Screw income, which is property.

Collapse -

Well, at least they've gotten rid of pay toilets

by DelbertPGH In reply to The near- entirety

I haven't seen one of those since 1976. Probably the rise of homeless men led to guys walking into the rest room, observing the coin slot, and leaving a big steaming pile in front of the door rather than paying to get in. They suffered for all of us!

Collapse -

So consumers pay twice?

by TonytheTiger In reply to everyone Santee

Since we know that corporations include their tax in the cost of goods and services.

Collapse -

Corporations pay twice

by DelbertPGH In reply to So consumers pay twice?

Knowing that their employees have to pay taxes, in addition to buying shoes and bread and paying rent, corporations have to pay twice, too, through increased wages. Oh, the humanity!

Collapse -

Which they get from

by TonytheTiger In reply to Corporations pay twice

consumer. Inflation is the inevitable result. And inflation is the largest cause of the difference between the haves and have-nots.

Collapse -

Inflation is a have-less for everybody

by DelbertPGH In reply to Corporations pay twice

It doesn't distinguish between haves and have-nots.

Collapse -

Sure, but

by TonytheTiger In reply to Corporations pay twice

people who can pass their extra costs along do so, so the richer you are, the less the effect.

Collapse -

I like the principle

by JamesRL In reply to A truly radical suggestio ...

Lets make it easy, stop all the monkey business that goes on with tax avoidance strategies which puts capital into intentionally unproductive business, radically reduce the size of the revunue service etc.

This is not to say I think we eliminate consumption taxes. In fact I think property tax should be less, and more of the costs should be consumptive in nature. Gas taxes should go up to cover all the costs of road infrastructure, or tolls. Eliminate gas guzzler taxes which penalize the type of vehicle you buy and tax you based on your actual usage (which gives everyone an incentive to use less gas).

James

Back to Software Forum
146 total posts (Page 2 of 15)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums