Soaking the rich doesn’t work

[whell]

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opi...work/22178585/

In making his pitch to soak the rich, Obama didn’t mention the more than 20 tax hikes on the wealthy he’s already imposed (some of which also hit the middle class).

He’s increased the top income tax bracket to 39.6 percent from 35 percent; increased the capital gains tax to 20 percent from 15 percent; and phased out tax credits and exemptions for wealthy families.

To fund Obamacare, he’s imposed on top earners an additional 3.8 percent tax on investment income, a .9 percent increase in the Medicare payroll tax, as well as other new levies.

The government may have got richer from the new taxes, but average Americans have lost ground.

That’s because the government is an inefficient Robin Hood. When it raises taxes on the wealthy, they tend to look for ways to shield their earnings from the taxman. Revenues to the government get a short-term boost, but the historic pattern is that they fall in the years after a major tax hike.

AMEN!

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opi...work/22178585/

In making his pitch to soak the rich, Obama didn’t mention the more than 20 tax hikes on the wealthy he’s already imposed (some of which also hit the middle class)...

He’s increased the top income tax bracket to 39.6 percent from 35 percent; increased the capital gains tax to 20 percent from 15 percent; and phased out tax credits and exemptions for wealthy families.
That’s because the government is an inefficient Robin Hood. When it raises taxes on the wealthy, they tend to look for ways to shield their earnings from the taxman. Revenues to the government get a short-term boost, but the historic pattern is that they fall in the years after a major tax hike.

AMEN!

This is more an indictment of our current tax system than it is the rates. The rich will always have accountants to shield their earnings, regardless of rates, and you can be sure than the GOP will help to ensure the perpetuation of such tax breaks for the wealthy. They talk a good line about simplifying the tax code, but they have no real plans to do so because these breaks are a quid pro quo for campaign contributions (for both sides).

[merrylander]

Can someone explain how having the manager of an investment fund pay a lower tax rate than his secretary is soaking the rich, pandering to the rich is more like it.

[Tom Joad]

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/ec...h-good-economy

One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods you'll hear during the next seven months of political campaigning is there's a necessary tradeoff between fairness and growth. By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow as fast.

Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.

This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.

If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany's average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.

You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.

Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going.

As we've seen in recent years, when disposable income is concentrated at the top, the middle class doesn't have enough money to boost the economy.

What we should have learned over the last half century is that growth doesn't trickle down from the top. It percolates upward from working people who are adequately educated, sufficiently rewarded, and who feel they have a fair chance to make it in America.

Fairness isn't incompatible with growth. It's necessary for it.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opi...work/22178585/

In making his pitch to soak the rich, Obama didn’t mention the more than 20 tax hikes on the wealthy he’s already imposed (some of which also hit the middle class).

He’s increased the top income tax bracket to 39.6 percent from 35 percent; increased the capital gains tax to 20 percent from 15 percent; and phased out tax credits and exemptions for wealthy families.

To fund Obamacare, he’s imposed on top earners an additional 3.8 percent tax on investment income, a .9 percent increase in the Medicare payroll tax, as well as other new levies.

The government may have got richer from the new taxes, but average Americans have lost ground.

That’s because the government is an inefficient Robin Hood. When it raises taxes on the wealthy, they tend to look for ways to shield their earnings from the taxman. Revenues to the government get a short-term boost, but the historic pattern is that they fall in the years after a major tax hike.

AMEN!

Congress levies the taxes, not the President. I thought you knew that.

[sheltiedave]

I agree, let's not soak the rich.

Let's move the tax rates back to the lowest level when Reagan was in office.

[whell]

Originally Posted by BeamOn

Congress levies the taxes, not the President. I thought you knew that.

many of those taxes discussed in the article are from Obama's signature piece of legislation - Obamacare, or the PPACA. I thought you knew that.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

many of those taxes discussed in the article are from Obama's signature piece of legislation - Obamacare, or the PPACA. I thought you knew that.

PPACA was a specific legislation, not an executive order correct and who passed it?
The tax increases you are referring to were probably a result of the Bush tax cuts expiring. Who allowed that? And who put those sunset clauses and why?

The title of the article in itself is meant to be misleading. It's the wages and not the tax burden alone that is hurting the middle class.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

Soaking the rich doesn’t work

How do you know? It's never been done.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by noonereal

How do you know? It's never been done.

Yes, it has, in the 1950s and it worked.

John