[bootlegga]

DanSC DanSC:

$1:

You know what? If asking a billionaire to pay their fair share of taxes, to pay the same tax rate as a plumber or a teacher is class warfare, then you know what? I’m a warrior for the middle class. I’m happy to fight for the middle class.”

I guess the flat tax idea is back?

Nope, not at all - it's just time to get rid of some tax breaks that are geared towards the wealthy and re-institute a more level playing field.

[DanSC]

The quote was

$1:

If asking a billionaire...to pay the same tax rate as a plumber or a teacher is class warfare, then you know what? I’m a warrior for the middle class. I’m happy to fight for the middle class.

A flat tax may not have been what the speaker intended, but that's the only way everyone would "pay the same tax rate."

[Lemmy]

Of course, the only way everyone pays the same tax rate is with a flat tax rate. Duhh. But equity in taxation has nothing to do with the tax rate. Equity means that everyone is equally BURDENED by taxes. Taking 50% in taxes from someone making $50K per year leaves them with $25K. Taking 90% from someone making $100M a year still leaves them with $10M. Now, I'm not suggesting anyone should pay 90%, but my example is a lot more equitable than charging both 50%.

[martin14]

No, its not.

Progressive tax rates are punitive and discriminatory.

[Lemmy]

martin14 martin14:

No, its not.

Progressive tax rates are punitive and discriminatory.

Nonesense. No one who's ever taken a course in taxation or welfare economics would make such a ridiculous claim.

[xerxes]

$1:

By the way, the Utopia that comes along with that policy looks like this:

Really? A return to Clintonian tax levels is going to turn the US into Soviet Russia and every city will start to look like Birmingham?

During the Eisenhower years, tax rates for top income earners was 91% and as far as I know, there weren't any collective farms or toothbrush shortages because of it.

[bootlegga]

DanSC DanSC:

The quote was

$1:

If asking a billionaire...to pay the same tax rate as a plumber or a teacher is class warfare, then you know what? I’m a warrior for the middle class. I’m happy to fight for the middle class.

A flat tax may not have been what the speaker intended, but that's the only way everyone would "pay the same tax rate."

No, the quote was;

$1:

You know what? If asking a billionaire to pay their fair share of taxes, to pay the same tax rate as a plumber or a teacher is class warfare, then you know what? I’m a warrior for the middle class. I’m happy to fight for the middle class.”

Your edit conveniently left out the "fair share of taxes" part, which is the crux of Obama's statement.

This is about equity, not just equal taxation.

Making a billionaire live on $200 million per year instead of $300 million per year (example tax rate of 33%) really doesn't affect them all that much, but when you take $5,000 from someone earning $15,000, you seriously affect their lifestyle. Even taking $25,000 from someone earning $75,000 affects them far more than it does the billionaire in the example above.

[martin14]

Lemmy Lemmy:

martin14 martin14:

No, its not.

Progressive tax rates are punitive and discriminatory.

Nonesense. No one who's ever taken a course in taxation or welfare economics would make such a ridiculous claim.

Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership in a certain group or category.


Progressive income taxes discriminate against people based on nothing more than a person's income. Since you pay a higher rate if you make more money, it fits the definition.

As for punitive, when you have hourly wage workers refuse extra work because they know
the added income for the period will bump them into a higher tax bracket,
that is isn't an special benefit.



Or what about charging rich people more money to pump gas or buy groceries ?
Consumption taxes are least equitable.

[CommanderSock]

martin14 martin14:

As for punitive, when you have hourly wage workers refuse extra work because they know
the added income for the period will bump them into a higher tax bracket,
that is isn't an special benefit.

Taxes are progressive, them refusing to work more because they're in a higher tax category makes zero sense.

bootlegga bootlegga:

Making a billionaire live on $200 million per year instead of $300 million per year (example tax rate of 33%) really doesn't affect them all that much, but when you take $5,000 from someone earning $15,000, you seriously affect their lifestyle. Even taking $25,000 from someone earning $75,000 affects them far more than it does the billionaire in the example above.

Their thinking goes, "they are job creators", they will take that extra 100 million we would have taxed them, and re-invest it in more job creating activites.

However, in most cases it's total bull, most rich hoard their money or swirl it around the ETF system. When does in investment banker's bonus of 30m, plus 100m only taxed at 15% (due to capital gains tax) ever create a job for another person? Maybe a maid here, a gardener there. But they're not exactly pumping the money back in the industrial/service part of the economy where the bulk of the jobs are. This is where I'm puzzled by the thinking of "job creators". They're not.

We were creating far more jobs when there wasn't a massive concern over dividend payments, when money was actually re-invested, not pumped into dividends of $0.16 to the dollar, something only major investors (holders of millions worth of equity) can actually see a big profit on.

There was a time when many rich in the western world were industrialists (and many still are, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Carlos Slim, etc), but most of the paper bankers aren't creating jobs, on the contrary, they're destroying them.

[martin14]

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

martin14 martin14:

As for punitive, when you have hourly wage workers refuse extra work because they know
the added income for the period will bump them into a higher tax bracket,
that is isn't an special benefit.

Taxes are progressive, them refusing to work more because they're in a higher tax category makes zero sense.

Ask anyone who gets paid by the hour. The smart ones know exactly the level
of income for a week or two when they jump tax brackets.

[Bruce_the_vii]

The wide world is ailing and people are looking at the money the rich got as a source of taxes. Last weeks' The Economist cover was the world leaders dressed up as horse mount fox hunters and the quarry was the rich. Quietly, through out the world people are eyeing the rich for taxes.

[andyt]

Good idea - that's where the money is.

[martin14]

andyt andyt:

Good idea - that's where the money is.

Bad idea - the money will just float away.


Consumption taxes, hit them when they buy stuff.. it's the best way.

[Prof_Chomsky]

How come it's class warfare when we ask the rich to pay even the SAME percentage as the rest of us, but it's normal when we pay more? We had 30 years of 91% top income tax brackets after WWII, and those golden years are what even the REPUBLICANS refer to as the good old days... About time Barry stood up and grew a pair.

As for the idea progressive tax rates are punitive, consider this. The ENTIRE economy is structured in order to support capitalists creating new businesses, and it should be. The problem with capitalism is the rules don't change once you are a billionaire... so all of a sudden you have all the money and power you need to invest and start new and better businesses, but the system is STILL rigged to make that even easier, which means normal Joe's like the other 95% of the country can't compete with them, and this is anti-competetive and bad for the economy. Not to mention it makes the country so poor that it can't even afford to maintain the infrastructure it had the money to buy NEW 40 years ago... This is the rough edge of capitalism that the progressive tax rate is setup to correct.

[sandorski]

"Class Warfare", lol. Fox News, lol.