Is that statistic actually real? Only 48 people...that's insane. And people keep pointing out that some rich people aren't paying taxes. Well, most of them aren't paying taxes because they lost a lot of money...either through investing or through their businesses. It's not that they are walking away unscathed
Ultra-rich asking for a tax increase?
- Thread starter cheshire
- Start date
because they cant make a difference by voluntarily paying 2% more by themselves, they need all the multinational corporations like Google, Microsoft, Walmart to do that as well. These corporations probably have much more money then individuals like warren buffet.
You do realize you first have to be taxed at 35% to make income, which you then invest and hopefully make profits which you then pay 15% on.
It's like the Google guy asking for more a higher tax rate. We will say in his time at Google he made $20 million dollars, which I am sure he was taxed on at a higher rate. He has no job anymore, hence no income, and probably won't ever work, so why does he care if the income tax rates go up. He doesn't pay income tax anymore.
You want to try that in English?
Why does he have to be taxed at a higher rate? It all depends on how he was paid.
Me thinks you don't have a clue.
Wow! That Craig Oley (his donation form goes to the paypal address CraigOley@gmail.com) is one slick MoFo with that site!
I'm really jelly of this idea! -I bet he's making some coin for sure.
Hopefully now some spambots will scrape his pp address of this page and make him pay a bit. :banana_sml:
That's funny. I am actually the guy that runs that site and randomly stumbled upon this site and post. I was setting up that site: PleaseRaiseMyTaxes.com as a way for people to discuss and post about the income inequalities and the idea of raising taxes on the wealthy. My idea was that I would not mind having my middle class income taxes raised by a few percent as long as the rich got a tax increase too. I would rather live in a country with less debt and more hope for a stable future than the one we live in now, even if it means sacrificing a few hundred dollars a year. Unfortunately I started working on other sites after putting about 2 hours of work into that site. I don't think I will ever get back to it, so the site will probably die at re-registration in 10 months.
As for the donations, no I have not received any. If I had, I was going to split the money half to popular charities like Donors Choose, etc - and the other half I was going to put into paying for my server costs. I was not going to "make some coin" - at least that wasn't my intention. And no, I haven't gotten any spam e-mail yet
So you're basically saying that you're a socialist lib that made the site because you truly want the world to be a better place and you didn't have a cashflow plan in place for it?
LOL! As a lib, you're doing a poor job of showing the world how giving and charitable other libs are. From this news one must deduce that everyone who speaks up in agreement with Buffet that the richest should have their taxes raised are just poor welfare queens who wouldn't know what a donation button looks like if it bit them.As for the donations, no I have not received any. If I had, I was going to split the money half to popular charities like Donors Choose, etc - and the other half I was going to put into paying for my server costs. I was not going to "make some coin" - at least that wasn't my intention. And no, I haven't gotten any spam e-mail yet
More than likely you have done a very poor job of monetizing an EMD site in a very hot topic. Your original impulse was correct; this was a great money-making idea. TONS of potential... It was about Money, afterall, can't get a more profitable niche than that!
Sadly, your follow-through was incredibly sad. Hell, you could have sold freaking T-Shirts and made some coin in that niche with that property!
This entire country is full of welfare queens - the rich just as much as the poor.
- When you get laws passed that exempt your company or industry from certain taxes or create loopholes - that is welfare(banks, auto, oil, agriculture, sugar, logging, take your pick).
- When your company/industry needs to get bailed out - that is welfare(banks, auto).
- When you rely on government licensing/permit schemes to reduce competition in your industry - that is welfare(Interior design, medical, lawyers, nursing, electricians, funeral parlors, take your pick).
- When your industry relies on the government manipulating the loan market to give people enough money for your product - that is welfare(college education, auto industry, real estate, banking)
- When your industry relies on government infrastructure that you can keep competitors from using - that is welfare (telecom, media distribution)
- When your industry relies on government law enforcement to deal with civil matters - that is welfare. (copyright enforcement, music industry, movie industry, software industry)
Our industry is about as close to a free market as things get in this country, but how we earn our money is not how most "rich" people in most industries earn their money.
I'm going to opt out of the "taxation" question in general right now because my opinion varies so much depending on the industry in question. But if you're going to demonize one type of welfare queen, it's a bit odd to elevate the other far more expensive/damaging welfare queens up to god-like status.
If taxes were raised to create more revenue, do you actually believe that would help the country have less debt or would the government just see all that new revenue and spend even more instead?
No doubt about that, and there was no elevation of the others intended.
I did 'demonize' his type of welfare queens as you say, but I did not intend that other biz types do everything right and his type is the worstlessness... Mainly I just said it to make fun of him for failing so badly with that site.
+rep bro, this one of the truest posts ever written on this forum regarding the topic. Everybody sees what they want to see to back the narrative they WANT to hold as true. Bunch of hypocrites...
EDIT: I've given out too much rep today...
Last edited:
This is another massive "affiliate mindset" problems. A lot of us have LLCs. We pay for early ads and whatnot with personal cash. Many have few/no employees, which helps to make line in between company expenses and personal expenses is quite thin. This is not how the rest of the country operates.
Lloyd Blankfein(Goldman Sachs) does not pay for employees out of pocket. You could tax him to hell and back and it would have no impact whatsoever on "job creation". This goes for almost any CEO in the country today outside of our industry or similar ones.
The money you take from them would not ever be used to hire an employee. It's left the company. It will never again enter the company, so it will not be used to hire.
There are certainly ethical arguments about whether or not you should tax them to hell and back, but you could and there would be almost no negative repercussions. Most of them are not going to pick up and move everything to a foreign country.
On a slightly more "big picture" note:
Jobs right now are the carrot at the end of the stick. During the banking crisis, it was the loans we wouldn't be able to get if we let banks fail. We didn't let them fail, and we still didn't get the loans.
This is exactly what is going on right now, but on a broader scale. They want the money and there's real arguments that they should be allowed to have it. But if you think they're going to create jobs with it you're sorely mistaken and have a poor understanding of corporate vs. personal taxes.
Lloyd Blankfien's paycheck is gotten via corporate welfare. His bonus and salary is paid for with the money the major banks and AIG swore up and down would go to make sure they could keep giving out loans.
But more the point of my specific reply was: Lloyd Blankfein's taxes will not play a role in "job creation" or how many jobs are created.
I think it's important to point out that there are significant consequences to raising the capital gains tax, that can adversely affect the U.S economy.
The effects of changing the capital gains tax rate is drastically different than the effects of changing the income tax rate.
You can raise the income tax rate from 35% to 45% and ALL persons affected will still remain profitable. You will earn (profit) 10% less than you did prior, but you will retain a portion of your income.
However, you can raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 25% and SOME persons affected will no long be profitable investors. How so? Here's a demonstration:
Scenario A: 0% Capital Gains Tax
If there is no capital gains tax, than any investor that successfully invests >50% of capital will see a return!
Scenario B: 15% Capital Gains Tax
With a 15% capital gains tax, than any investor that successfully invests >54% of capital will see a return.
Scenario C: 30% Capital Gains Tax
With a 30% capital gains tax, than any investor that successfully invests >59% of capital will see a return.
As you can see by my demonstration, when you increase the capital gains tax, you make it harder for an investor to realize a return.
What are some of the consequences?:
Yes, you can raise the capital gains tax rate, but there are consequences.
Want more jobs? more innovation? Then you want a lower capital gains tax rate, not a higher one.
If you're looking for ways to increase tax revenue, look at xmcp123's posts in this thread. Close the tax loopholes.
The effects of changing the capital gains tax rate is drastically different than the effects of changing the income tax rate.
You can raise the income tax rate from 35% to 45% and ALL persons affected will still remain profitable. You will earn (profit) 10% less than you did prior, but you will retain a portion of your income.
However, you can raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 25% and SOME persons affected will no long be profitable investors. How so? Here's a demonstration:
Scenario A: 0% Capital Gains Tax
If there is no capital gains tax, than any investor that successfully invests >50% of capital will see a return!
Scenario B: 15% Capital Gains Tax
With a 15% capital gains tax, than any investor that successfully invests >54% of capital will see a return.
Scenario C: 30% Capital Gains Tax
With a 30% capital gains tax, than any investor that successfully invests >59% of capital will see a return.
As you can see by my demonstration, when you increase the capital gains tax, you make it harder for an investor to realize a return.
What are some of the consequences?:
- By raising the capital gain tax rate, some investors will not see a return. So, long term, you actually DECREASE the amount of taxable capital gains. You could actually end up with less total tax revenue.
- By forcing capital out of business investment, you reduce the amount of capital available to all companies, including startups. This will slowdown innovation, hamper growth (harder to grow if you can't get access to capital), and potentially result in a higher unemployment rate (If it's harder for investers to see a return, they will avoid risky investments. Business's that may have otherwise received captial could be forced to layoff employees or even go out of business.)
- Capital will leave the United States and go to other countries with lower capital gains tax rates.
Yes, you can raise the capital gains tax rate, but there are consequences.
Want more jobs? more innovation? Then you want a lower capital gains tax rate, not a higher one.
If you're looking for ways to increase tax revenue, look at xmcp123's posts in this thread. Close the tax loopholes.