11 opinions, 8 replies
Add your opinion:
Preview:
(mouse over or touch to update)
Add your opinion
71
7 votes
Jul 13, 2015

It is not the solution. It is merely a beginning. Bringing down the rich does not make the poor any richer. There should be an increased emphasis on elevating the poor, working, and middle classes through higher minimum wages and expanded opportunity. Increased taxes on the rich should only be used insofar as to promote the growth of the have-nots and must not become a means of punishing people for accumulating wealth.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Jul 13, 2015

It's not even a beginning. Obviously the rich should pay taxes. Everyone should. But "Taxing the rich" is not really a solution to anything. Except if you think you have too many rich people, in which case you are strange. :-)

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
User voted Inequality is not something that needs a solution.
1 vote,
Jul 27, 2015

Indeed. Taxing rich people alone just creates new rich people. And dismissing the necessary process after the deed is done is not only foolish but dangerous. Is taxing rich people the solution to inequality? It is a good first half of the solution, so it's not a complete no. However, it is not the entirety of the solution, so the answer can't be yes. Ultimately, though, humans have always had it in their nature to measure what they deserve according to either the things they create, the effort they spend daily and/or the conditions they are currently living in.

Whatever, the point is, humans measure what they deserve, period.
The natural thought is not to go and say "that guy over there who has no house and gets drunk everyday deserves a high paying job and a beautiful house and a nice family just like mine", the natural thought is "i'm here because i deserve it, (s)he's there because he deserves it". Indeed, equality is not the original state of nature, so one has to wonder, would people benefit from being considered as the same? I'd say the answer is no. Sure, i'm all in favor for establishing bare minimums, but gifting resources to those who don't ask for them is illogical. Maybe give them to those who do ask. Probably invest them in those who might pay off in the future. You should spend in what you think is best for your country/generation/race, but that's not the same as saying everybody should be equal.

subscribe
100
User voted No.
2 votes
Oct 13, 2015

I am in favor of making the tax system more progressive so the rich pay more of their fair share, raising the capital gains tax, and closing tax loopholes for the rich and corporations as a way to reduce the deficit, but that alone will not solve the problem of socioeconomic inequality. Socioeconomic inequality is a much broader issue, involving education, job opportunity, latent racism, the criminal justice system, and much more.

Taking the rich does not guarantee that these issues will be addressed. It will increase the revenue the government needs to reduce the deficit, thereby allowing the possibility that these issues could be addressed, but the government must be forced to use the funds in that way. That can only be done by electing a Congress that will make it happen.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted No.
main reply
0 votes,
Oct 29, 2015

The top 10% are already paying close to 70% of the federal income tax collected, how much more should they pay? The problem isn't the rich, the problem is that the government has for years overspent we now spend over $220 billion per year on the national debt's interest. We owe about $ 66.000 per citizen without that debt we could afford to solve most of our problems, but until we get a balanced budget amendment the government will continue to over spend. Fix the debt and over spending problem and most of the others will go away.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted No.
0 votes,
Oct 29, 2015

I know the stats. heritage.org/federalbudget/top10-percent-income-earners

But considering the top 10% receive over 70% of the total income, own about 75% of the wealth, and own almost 85% of the financial assets, I think you just proved my point. Some groups don't give you those stats.

CBO Distribution of Household Income and Federal Income Tax

Scientific American - Income Inequality It's Far Worse Than You Think

I am in the top 5% and I think the top 10% should pay more, and proportionately among those in the top 10%, since the disparity is even greater there. Look at the following.

For 2015, a single person making $35,000 is in the bottom 40% income bracket and taxed at 15%.
They pay $5,250 and have $29,750 left.

A single person making $70,000 is in the top 40% income bracket and taxed at 28%.
They pay $17,500 and have $52,500 left.

A single person making $100,000 is in the top 20% income bracket and taxed at 25%.
They pay $25,000 and have $75,000 left.

A single person making $145,000 is in the top 10% income bracket and taxed at 25%.
They pay $36,250 and have $108,750 left.

A single person making $200,000 is in the top 5% income bracket and taxed at 33%.
They pay $66,000 and have $134,000 left.

A single person making $2,000,000 is in the top 1% income bracket and taxed at 39.6%.
They pay $792,000 and have $1,208,000 left.

A single person making $20,000,000 is way up there in the top .5% or less and they also re taxed at 39.6%. They pay $7,920,000 in taxes and have $12,208,000 left.

In 2015, the difference in tax rate between someone making $200,000 and $2,000,000 is 6.6%. In 1958, using todays dollars for income, the difference would have been about 40%.

I am not saying we should return to those rates, but certainly we can find a medium. More progressive tax rates did not hurt the economy in the 1950s and 60s, and it won't hurt it today. It didn't stifle growth then, it won't now. I agree that the Federal budget can be reduced, but not enough to eliminate the deficit.

The numbers are clear. We need more revenue.

2015 tax rates:
efile.com/tax-rate/federal-income-tax-rates/
Income percentile:
nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/15/business/one-percent-map.html?_r=0
money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/income-rank/

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted No.
0 votes,
Oct 29, 2015

But in the 1950's and 60's you had a ton of loopholes so almost nobody paid the top rates and if they did it was on a very small percentage of their income. Top rate back then was 90% nobody paid that, they could write off a lot of their income. So trying to say the rates were much higher back then so we should be higher now, is fair, we don't have the loophole they had back then. Do we need tax reform, yes, but unless there is a balanced budget amendment congress will keep on spending until we look like Greece. What a person have leftover after taxes means nothing really I worked hard and I gave up whatever percentage the government takes what's leftover is mine to spend.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted No.
0 votes,
Oct 29, 2015

You are correct in that there were more deductions, but that does not negate the fact that the median rate of taxes paid was higher or the numbers concerning what different income brackets pay in 2015. I did not mention that corporate taxes made up a greater share of revenue, even factoring in employer matching Social Security payments.

We may disagree on whether we need more revenue, but I think we both agree that business as usual cannot continue.

A balanced budget amendment could help or hurt. Without a long-term, bipartisan plan on what to cut, across-the-board cuts would be necessary. Cutting into existing services or defense spending without knowing the effect on the economy, our national defense, and our most needy citizens could be more disastrous than the current deficit.

Even President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich were able to pull both their parties to the table and win concessions. President Clinton campaigned on being pro-business and cutting welfare. Speaker Gingrich helped hold him to his promise on welfare, and welfare spending would have been much larger today without the bi-partisan legislation they got both their parties to accept. Republicans gave up some defense spending and allowed a small tax increase averaging about 3-6%, and Democrats accepted cuts in social spending and welfare reform. By the end of both their terms the deficit was virtually eliminated. Even though there is some debate about whether the budget was truly balanced, the deficit was a hell of a lot smaller than it was when Preident Bush left office and than it is today.

We need to decide if the government is going to provide the basic services to its citizens that all the other major industrialized countries provide, and to what level. We need to address rising healthcare costs that have been rising uncontrollably for three decades, and neither the ACA nor the alternative Republican plans do that effectively. I am for a strong foreign policy involving realistic, deterrent military capability coupled with strategic military and trade agreements that make the global market more stable and the world a safer place. Nevertheless, we need to prioritize military spending and look at the number, purpose, and location of our military bases abroad and at home. We need to maximize the benefit citizens and taxpayers receive from spending on social programs. I am sure you and I could name plenty of areas to look at spending, even if we don't agree. But Congress has to start somewhere and the unwillingness of both sides to come to the table and negotiate in good faith is preventing real solutions in favor of partisan slogans, both sides telling their voter base what they want to hear.

I never thought I would long for the Clinton/Gingrich years, but right now they are looking pretty good. Speaker Gingrich may have shut down the government, but then both sides compromised and they got something done.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted No.
0 votes,
Oct 30, 2015

When you look at the median rate of taxes paid though time it's almost same over the last 60 years. But what's funny is there was a plan to make taxes more fair and so easy to fill out that a 3 x 5 card would contain the entire form and the math. A family of 4 making 20,000 would pay $200 in income tax, everyone should pay something, if that same family made 50,000 they would pay $200 on the first 20,000 and a higher (at the time it was15%) on the 30,000, and anything over that was taxed at 30%. There would be no deductions, simple. Now you could play with the percentages but it would be "fair", everyone would pay something those who could afford it would pay more, while still keeping much of what they made. But unless you have a balanced budget, the government will keep overspending and giving out "free" stuff. But at some point and time the credit card bill will come due, just like it did in Greece.

subscribe
100
1 vote
Sep 28, 2015

It is a part of the solution in some specific circumstances. It is not a panacea in most situations. Taxing the rich must be paired with appropriately targeted means-tested programs (designed to reduce negative secondary outcomes), long-term investment into human capital and infrastructure, regulations, utility provisions, etc.

I am not comfortable with after-the-fact efforts to redress inequality. They are less just inherently than altering the opportunity structure in the first place. While some rich generated their wealth from contributing very little of value or being outright parasitic, others did so by making real contributions. While those contributions should not be viewed as orders of magnitude more important than anyone else's, they did work within the opportunity structure that we have.

However, our tax system is so problematic, at least in the United States, that it is basically a regressive tax. That needs to be adjusted. But it is only a part of the solution.

subscribe
100
User voted No.
1 vote
Jan 2, 2016

Inequality exists because some people have more opportunity than others, which starts early when some people simply work harder in school than others. Some people get into better universities than others. Some people get into better careers than others. This is always going to exist, regardless of who gets taxed more. If you believe simply taxing the rich is a solution to a societal inequality that has always existed and will always exist then you fail to understand the nuances of the subject.

One point I'd also make is that in the UK the top rate of tax got decreased a few years ago and revenues actually went up. Taxing people into oblivion is a surefire way to reduce tax income.

subscribe
67
3 votes
Jul 13, 2015

It isn't 100% of the solution, and by 'tax the rich' I personally mean removing loopholes that allow the wealthy people and billion dollar profiting corporations to get tax refunds and/or owe no taxes, but yes doing these things will help the government collect taxes that it has tried to levy but the rich have avoided paying up using various obscure methods only available to the rich expressly for the purpose of avoiding paying taxes.

The tax code should be simple, with the only additions being temporary subsidies to encourage business growth, and EITC for families. The standard deduction should be increased to 75% of the minimum wage (11,310 at 7.25) because that will set it at a level that will help a significant portion of people who spend the majority of their earnings on merely surviving in addition to giving some extra cash to people who are bordering the middle class.

subscribe
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes
Jul 18, 2015

Taxing rich people appropriately may not be the complete method of balancing out the extreme differences between the haves and the have-nots, but it's a step in the right direction.

I don't think people should have more money and wealth than they can spend in twenty lifetimes when there is such misery at the other end of the spectrum.

And no, I'm not a communist, but I DO believe that above all else the human race is being tested, and failing, because of our inability to apply such a simple rule as the "golden rule" to our comprehensive being on this planet.

subscribe
0
opinion
0 votes
Jul 19, 2015

Its Not even taxing the rich that would be a decent solution, its taxing corporations that make massive profits and AVOID paying taxes, after all, according to citizens united, corporations are apparently people.

subscribe
0
0 votes
Jul 23, 2015

Yes, if you reallocate the money from these taxes to poor people.

subscribe
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes
Jul 24, 2015

A qualified yes. Yes, it's the only way forward at the moment; in the future, it may not be.

Right now, inequality is far too high, and the top earners are not doing anything to improve matters. At the same time, there are major problems in the US that need to be addressed, such as inadequate health care, inadequate repairs and maintenance of infrastructure. The best way forward right now is a high tax on the rich, with the revenue generated being used to create jobs in construction and administration. This will re-inject the lost money into the economy and improve matters for everyone, allowing the economy to grow again.

However, this change should not be permanent, and should expire further down the road.

subscribe
0
0 votes
Sep 2, 2015

It is the only solution.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Sep 28, 2015

Let's say that we taxed the rich and put that into subsidies for the rich. Would that solve inequality?

subscribe
0
opinion
0 votes
Oct 20, 2023

We already disproportionally tax high earners. So the question assumes a false premise.

subscribe
Add your opinion
Challenge someone to answer this topic:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: