This assumes giving the government more money will solve the problems most individuals face. The problem is, the wealthy will survive higher taxes, but sooner or later we run out of their money and they inevitably have to tax the middle class and ultimately everyone.
I don't care if the rich get taxed more, but I know I'll be next sooner or later, but society's problems will endure.
I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes
91–100 of 101 posts
Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I don't think increasing welfare is really the solution to ending poverty. Lots of evidence that welfare actually prolongs poverty, not to mention the waste endemic to bureaucratic administration. How about instead of taxing individuals we tax corporations to incentivize paying their workers more?
> Lots of evidence that welfare actually prolongs poverty [citation needed] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare%27s_effect_on_poverty
These statistics don't tell the whole story and often are misleading. While increasing the number of welfare recipients may decrease poverty stats for paper-pushing bureaucrats, on the ground you're increasing the number of people who are dependent on the govt for subsistence which isn't viable in the long-term.
It's been shown that a comfortable reliance on welfare disincentivizes becoming independent again. Especially when welfare recipients have a higher income than minimum wage. Any rational actor will have a hard time transitioning to minimum wage work at the risk of losing welfare when income from welfare is higher. This is plainly obvious https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/states-welfare-recipients...
Would you be in favor of adding a time-limit to welfare eligibility to disincentivize long-term reliance on welfare?
Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes
#93Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes
#94Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it's not. 45% of the federal government's income comes from individual taxes. In 2016, the US took in about 1,442,385,000,000 total of which 839,898,000,000 was from the top 5% of individual earners. That's OVER HALF of the total amount[1]. You're wrong. You're point is not valid or based in the actual data. To say that hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in extra revenue couldn't help fund social program…
The IRS only enforces tax collection on the wealthiest individuals because it isn't efficient to do otherwise, that's why you see most of the tax revenue coming from the wealthy. They only go after the big fish. You're wrong if you think that taxing individuals is going to decrease poverty or wealth inequality. Wealth inequality is not due to wealth individuals holding assets, but due to pay inequality. Corporations…
¿Porque no los dos?
Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, don't believe so (I mean, I could probably reject my income tax refunds too). But I think what they're arguing here is that as a class they feel they should pay more. While one billionaire paying extra for the Greater Good would be fine in isolation, how effective would that be in the big picture?
You are presenting a false dichotomy. Eli could dump his money into the US government and advocate for increased taxes for the rich. In fact, if he did that then he would be arguing from an even stronger position since it's obvious that he actually believes what he is saying and he's not just virtue-signaling.
you're assuming a dichotomy was presented. Again, what does one person putting forth extra of their funds do in the big picture?
Concerns of virtue signaling? The ramifications of what he is proposing is that if he gets his wish, he (and others like him) have their taxes go up. He's coming out in support of policies already being discussed (and attempting to persuade other politicians to also champion those policies). This isn't changing one's profile picture in support of the cause of the moment.
Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
Errr you can’t just hand the government money randomly. You have to owe it to them. It all has to add up in some way and be accounted for.
That's not true. There's a system for sending gifts to the treasury right here: https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html
Wow I truly learned something new, thanks :-)
Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes
#98That's an admirable expression of morals, but everyone with a calculator figure out that the 1% don't have enough money to pay for a welfare state. The plain truth is, if you want a welfare state, the middle class has to pay for it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/demo... I was really glad to find the Washington Post publish this. Perhaps it will wake up some people to the questionable promise…
Can you clarify why you believe this is a "virtue signal?" You're the second person in this thread to do so. My understanding of "virtue signal" means promoting "virtue" over "action." And yet: > Two decades ago I turned full-time to philanthropy and threw myself into supporting public education, scientific and medical research, and visual and performing arts, believing it was my responsibility to give back some of w…
Can we add virtue signaling signaling to the lexicon? A keyword (along with a host of others like SJW, etc) to say "ignore the topic and the messenger, it's too lefty to discuss".
Re: I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
The IRS only enforces tax collection on the wealthiest individuals because it isn't efficient to do otherwise, that's why you see most of the tax revenue coming from the wealthy. They only go after the big fish. You're wrong if you think that taxing individuals is going to decrease poverty or wealth inequality. Wealth inequality is not due to wealth individuals holding assets, but due to pay inequality. Corporations…
¿Porque no los dos?
Because one is just cynical pandering to non-rich people and an increase in government power at the expense of liberty while the other is actually effective at reducing poverty, reducing wealth inequality, and reducing dependence on the government. Throwing money at the problem doesn't work, especially a 5% increase. The problem is how corporations are structured.