Nothing! And having done really well, why do they also deserve a tax break that can't be enjoyed by the middle class?
well, it depends on how much taxes you think the rich should pay. my understanding is that the rich are paying more than their share. the stats i see show that a small percentage of folks pay for almost everything. so the tax break would go mostly to them, as almost all the money came from them in the first place. everyone knows the example. if you and i go out to eat and you pay the 100% bill, because you are a gentleman, and i handle the 20$ tip, but then we find a 20% off coupon, we dont just give all that return to me so i have paid nothing. you were the one paying, so you get the break.
They pay less taxes as a percentage of earnings. Conervative groups like the heritage Foundation like to say that the top 1% pay something like 50% of taxes, but they make 90% of the money. You can find a statistic to back up almost anything, no matter how absurd. But the facts are that Bill Gates paid less taxes, as a percentage of income, than his secratary.
what percent of their income do you believe, for example, people who earn over a million should pay. 75%?
At the very least, the same percentage as everyone else. As already pointed out, as a % of income - the richest Americans pay LESS than the poorest. Of course, total $ wise it is still more, but that's not the point.
is this theory of yours based purely on capital gains and investment income? the much larger income tax percentages on the rich are not enough to make up for that? what do you propose we do to get more money from these rich freeloaders who enjoy the services the government provides while only paying for almost all of them? would you favor a flat tax on all income, including capital gains? do you think that this would mean that the flat tax rate would be so high as to hurt the poor? i guess that wouldnt make sense, if what you say is true, because a flat tax rate would actually raise the effective percentage that the rich are paying, right, given that you believe they pay less as a percentage now? also, of the rich people that are in the highest tax brackets, how many of them are warren buffet that lives off income from massive investments and tax shelters and not traditional salaries? the CEO that makes 900 grand, he is certainly paying more than his secretary, eh? wouldnt raising the income tax rate be impossibly unfair to him? are you simply arguing in favor of higher capital gains taxes? even if we concede that the bill gates' and warren buffets of the world are paying effectively smaller tax rate, would that apply to the rich in general? those fellas are kinda unique.
So let me get this straight... under Jimmy Carter the tax bracket for the wealthiest Americans was north of 70%. If someone enterprising and ambitious decided to risk all of his life savings on a business idea.... say a young developer deciding to build a new neighborhood of homes. And used the money he has saved and already paid taxes on risking it all, worked for two years, self employed, paying himself a taxable income. You think at the end of that project and he has collected the profits should be expected to pay 70 percent of that to the government? I say to you there would be no reason to take the risk if there are no rewards and therefore no new homes (or subsitute for any scenario) then what? The government would build the homes? The reason the taxes are lower on Capital gains is because it is a reward for risking your previously hard earned money.... and everyone has the same oppurtunity to attain wealth and then if they so choose risk it to become "rich". When you take away the incentive, everyone loses..... Not that i don't think government shouldn't play a role in keeping the rules fair. There job is to not let companies get too big to fail, which they didn't. And not let companies create monopolies eliminating the competition that keep the rules fair. They Haven't. And not let people like Franklin Raines (Fannie Mae) collect millions in bonuses for destroying a company. I say Congress already has way too much power and letting them control more of peoples hard earned money will only lead disaster.
I'd say that 70% is too high. But certainly 0% is too low. And with the tax loopholes available to those with resources, especially corporations, 0% is often what they pay. I could go with a flat tax for everybody at 25%, but all of the tax evasions, loopholes, credits, etc. have to be scrapped, so that nobody gets to duck it.
