Guitarhacker

The problem with taxing the "ultra rich" is that... they simply do not have enough money to be more than a drop in the bucket of the overall national budget. It might run the country for a few days to a few weeks.... max. And that is by confiscating 100% of their total wealth. Same issue exists with major companies. We may look at a CEO's compensation as being excessive.... but... it's generally minuscule when compared to the company gross, that if he/she gave it up 100% it would not make a hill of beans to the company bottom line.  

I'm not going to get into what I personally think is right or wrong when it comes to taxes here, but this is faulty reasoning.

If you artificially create a subset of the whole and then argue that it's a "drop in the bucket", that argument can be used on any subgroup just by creating a small enough one.

For instance, drewfx1 should pay zero taxes because he makes so little that it only amounts to an infinitesimal fraction of a drop in the bucket that it just makes no sense to tax him. Makes perfect sense, right? Except it also makes sense for any other individual also. Hence it makes no sense to tax anyone, right?

Similarly a CEO's compensation may be "small" in comparison to a corporation's earnings, but I'd bet any individual union member's pension and healthcare contributions are at least a tiny bit smaller.

Why do the rich get to be in their own tiny group that's "too small to matter", whereas everyone else is arbitrarily grouped into a comparatively huge group?

Don't just grab an opinion.... do some research. 

Personal incomes of the rich if taxed at 100% per year will not pay for much. Not with today's entitlements and budgets.  Bill Gates, for example, may be worth 50 billion.... depending on stock prices but that is NOT his taxable income.... taxable income is the number you must use to calculate how much you will get. 
If you confiscate all the accumulated wealth of multi millionaires and billionaires in the US, you can run the budget for a few months at most... then you are out of money and have no multi millionaires to tax. 

Second..... where exactly are you willing to draw the line on giving things away? Housing, food, medical, education, cell phones?  

How much free stuff, and more importantly... who decides who gets the free stuff?  and then... how do we ultimately pay for it if everybody's getting it?  

Just for the record I never said food or clothing should be free... also that 50% tax rate on the rich is demonstrably false.

Oh arseticles... I'm not getting back into this.

Oh look... a guitar. I think I'll hurt it for a while.

If the government could tax EVERYONE at an 80% rate, they would still find a way to spend more than they take in (and give their close buddies benefits)...

I agree craigb, but then again I do hang to the right

Beepster


Just for the record I never said food or clothing should be free... also that 50% tax rate on the rich is demonstrably false.

Oh arseticles... I'm not getting back into this.

Oh look... a guitar. I think I'll hurt it for a while.

You didn't.... but we do... food stamps, WIC, you name it... we got it for free for somebody....all compliments of the 50% who still pay tax.


and yeah.... I'm working on a new song for christmas.... it's almost time to start posting christmas music here..... so I'm redoing a classic.... with my ever improving mandolin skills..... and acoustic Taylor guitar..... and piano..... I'm trying to talk a famous keyboardist into playing it but if I get blown off..... I might just have a shot at displaying my proficiency on the ivories....  betcha kant wate on that. huh..... 

Guitarhacker

You didn't.... but we do... food stamps, WIC, you name it... we got it for free for somebody....all compliments of the 50% who still pay tax.

Actually, if you want to get technical, a lot of the money to pay for it was borrowed from the SS Trust Fund, which is funded by the payroll taxes that you don't happen to count in the "50% who still pay tax".

Of course, since it's borrowed money we don't know who's really paying for it until it gets paid back. 

One idea is to increase taxes on the "50% who don't pay taxes" - that way we can have them pay off the money we borrowed from them (plus interest of course). 

Boy, public policy can certainly be amusing confusing if you bother to really think it through... 

Bimbo, Bimbo, what cha gonna do-e-o
Bimbo, Bimbo, where ya gonna go-e-o
Bimbo, Bimbo, does ya think they know?....you're going
to buy up Hostess and let the twinkies go-e-o.....

Maybe the Mayan calendar predicted the end of Twinkies.  

Drew - you are da Man!

You get it! 

What happens all too often coming from the right, is way too much rhetorical license without credit. In any discussion, whatever premises you adopt for your argument you must allow the other side. This is why, at least these days, it's like shooting fish in a barrel when countering conservative leaning arguments - because you're hanging them with their own petard.

(Shoot me later for bringing it up  - but the glaring lack of details about M.R.'s fiscal policies would be implemented was a tactical decision because it would have hanged him even more than he eventually wound up.)