Topaz Posted February 27, 2014 Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 The IMF has come out to debunk the Conservative economic ideology that taxing the rich is bad for the economy. My view is sooner or later governments will have to go to the rich for taxes because the governments and corps. making the middle-class vanish with loss of jobs and earner power. Thoughts? http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/taxing-the-rich-is-good-for-the-economy-imf-says-1.2552141 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 27, 2014 Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 The IMF didn't debunk anything. Besides,"taxing the rich" is subjective. And "taxing the rich" doesn't create jobs. It might make some people feel better though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 27, 2014 Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 (edited) Increasing taxes on the rich if it is part of coherent plan to get government spending under control is not necessary bad. The main problem with the "tax the rich" meme is it is used as an excuse by lefties to avoid getting government spending under control by making actual cuts to spending. Simply "taxing the rich" on its own is nonsense because there are not enough rich people to make much of a difference to the over all government balance sheet. Edited February 27, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 27, 2014 Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 It's income inequality that taxing the rich is intended to address not government balance sheets. Getting better control over our governments is a different albeit just as important subject that should fall under the heading of redistributing power - redistributing wealth is only half the battle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 27, 2014 Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 It's income inequality that taxing the rich is intended to address not government balance sheets. Getting better control over our governments is a different albeit just as important subject that should fall under the heading of redistributing power - redistributing wealth is only half the battle. I think if wealth is redistributed, power gets shuffled as well. The EU seems to be a great example of just that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 27, 2014 Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 It's income inequality that taxing the rich is intended to address not government balance sheets. Getting better control over our governments is a different albeit just as important subject that should fall under the heading of redistributing power - redistributing wealth is only half the battle. Taxing the rich doesn't create a new better job for somebody not earning as much income. Regardless, there is no such thing as income inequality, because there's no such thing as income equality. Income is based on many things. Education, talent, effort, type of industry, type of job within said industry, and most importantly, the supply of labour that demands said job. This income inequality nonsense has to stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 27, 2014 Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 Yes taxation should be used to break up the modern aristrocracy just like it was used to break british lords and nobles, and the robber barons, and the railroad tycoons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted February 27, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 Taxing the richer incomers would help governments run programs better especially those who really need the social programs, the military and the golden pensions for MP's and PM's. They wouldn't have to increase EI premuims to get their surpluses before an election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 Taxing the richer incomers would help governments run programs better especially those who really need the social programsNope - do the math. There are not enough rich people to make a difference to the total government budget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 Nope - do the math. There are not enough rich people to make a difference to the total government budget. It doesn't matter how many rich people there are, it matters how much money they make/own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) It doesn't matter how many rich people there are, it matters how much money they make/own.Well. The top 1% make 100 billion/year. The most this could be increased by is 10% which brings in an additional $10 billion per year. The federal and provincial budgets are >$700 billion per year so the additional revenue is insignificant. Of course a 10% increase in taxes payable would have a huge effect on the incomes reported by the top 1% and would result in a much less that 10 billion. Edited February 28, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 The IMF didn't debunk anything. Besides,"taxing the rich" is subjective. And "taxing the rich" doesn't create jobs. It might make some people feel better though. Why is it always "the deficit the deficit the deficit the deficit" until it comes to raising taxes on the rich, at which point it becomes "well that won't create jobs"? Well. The top 1% make 100 billion/year. The most this could be increased by is 10% which brings in an additional $10 billion per year. The federal and provincial budgets are >$700 billion per year so the additional revenue is insignificant. Of course a 10% increase in taxes payable would have a huge effect on the incomes reported by the top 1% and would result in a much less that 10 billion. We're allegedly in a budget surplus condition right now, so an additional $10 billion a year of revenue could be put towards reducing the national debt, which stands at something like $600 billion right now. Debt servicing costs 11% of our budget, so paying it down would yield future benefits. I'm also curious as to why you say "the most this could be increased is by 10%". I don't understand where that 10% figure came from. I'm also curious about what you mean by "a 10% increase in taxes payable would have a huge effect on the incomes reported by the top 1% and would result in much less than 10 billion". Are you saying that if taxes were increased, the "1%" would find ways to pay less taxes? (As if they aren't already doing that?) -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) We're allegedly in a budget surplus condition right now, so an additional $10 billion a year of revenue could be put towards reducing the national debt, which stands at something like $600 billion right now.Which is why I said increasing taxes on the rich only makes sense if it was part of a comprehensive cost control program. The trouble is the parties that want to raise taxes on the rich want increase spending which means the new taxes are the equivalent of pissing into a hurricane. I'm also curious as to why you say "the most this could be increased is by 10%". I don't understand where that 10% figure came from.This group already pays 30% of their income in income taxes plus what they pay in GST/PST/property taxes. Increasing it to 40% would require marginal rates above 70% which is an abomination as it is (marginal rates should never exceed 50% IMO). I cannot see any rational argument for even discussing increasing taxes on this group more than 10%. Are you saying that if taxes were increased, the "1%" would find ways to pay less taxes? (As if they aren't already doing that?)It comes down to effort vs. reward. A lot of rich people own corporations and have complete control over the amount of income that is taken out each year. Increase taxes and people will adjust their wages accordingly. The only people that really get screwed by high marginal rates are middle class people that have one year with a large windfall such as selling grandma's cottage which was gifted to them years ago. Edited February 28, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted February 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 True or false, raising taxes against ALL taxpayers hurts the low and middle than the rich? The rich won't suffer as much as the lower two, they also have tax loopholes than the other two don't and they also has the means of offshore hiding spots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) True or false, raising taxes against ALL taxpayers hurts the low and middle than the rich? The rich won't suffer as much as the lower two, they also have tax loopholes than the other two don't and they also has the means of offshore hiding spots.The numbers are indisputable. Raising taxes by 1% on the bottom 90% raises more taxes than raising them 10% on the richest. Raising the GST by 1% returns 2-3x times more. The rich also do not necessarily do anything illegal. Income goes down because they can choose to earn less if the incentive to earn goes down. The money is left in companies and used for other purposes. Edited February 28, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 Nope - do the math. There are not enough rich people to make a difference to the total government budget. Bill Gates could cure world hunger RIGHT NOW. With all his money. Bill Gates could almost pay off the US national debt just on his own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 The numbers are indisputable. Raising taxes by 1% on the bottom 90% raises more taxes than raising them 10% on the richest. Raising the GST by 1% returns 2-3x times more. You advocate screwing the people that are facilitating those top earners to earn more. I would support a small tax increase on my wage if those at the top were taxed accordingly. But we know that is not the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 Bill Gates could cure world hunger RIGHT NOW. With all his money. Bill Gates could almost pay off the US national debt just on his own. The US national debt is about 250x Bill Gates' net worth. So no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 You advocate screwing the people that are facilitating those top earners to earn more.I am not advocating anything. I am just pointing out the cold hard math that there are not enough "rich" to make much of a difference even if you taxed them more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 I am not advocating anything. I am just pointing out the cold hard math that there are not enough "rich" to make much of a difference even if you taxed them more. It' not the amount of rich people, but the amount of wealth they own. That was brought up in this thread, and you ignored it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 The US national debt is about 250x Bill Gates' net worth. So no. Well it would be a start. That debt is not going to pay itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) Well it would be a start. That debt is not going to pay itself. No, it won't. But a one time contribution by a few top billionaires would hardly make a dent. The way for the US to get rid of its debt is to get rid of the structural deficit, which means reviewing both spending and revenues. Tax loop holes should be closed, and superfluous spending should be cut. Entitlement programs make up the bulk of spending and need to be updated to match the current reality. Edited February 28, 2014 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) It' not the amount of rich people, but the amount of wealth they own. That was brought up in this thread, and you ignored it.You can't just confiscate the wealth of the rich because most of it is tied up in businesses. Even if you tried - who are the rich going to sell those businesses to in order to pay whatever taxes you have dreamed up? Are you expecting Gates to sell Microsoft to the Chinese so he can pay down the the US debt which is held by the Chinese? How does this make sense? Edited February 28, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 You can't just confiscate the wealth of the rich because most of it is tied up in businesses. Even if you tried - who are the rich going to sell those businesses to in order to pay whatever taxes you have dreamed up? Are you expecting Gates to sell Microsoft to the Chinese so he can pay down the the US debt which is held by the Chinese? How does this make sense? The US sold some of it's debt to China. And your right, it does not make sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 which means reviewing both spending and revenues. Tax loop holes should be closed, and superfluous spending should be cut. TimG brought up the idea of a full review, that would result in increased taxes in exchange for modified spending. It's a budget nerd's dream come true, but a pretty much impossible task. Something like a means-based taxation and support system. Maybe a web form where you fill in all of your details and they assess your +/- with the government for the next year. Or this - why not make all government funding online only, so that it can be monitored through open source.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.