People Want to be Rich, and then they Want Obama to Tax the Rich

United States
August 2, 2012 9:02pm CST
You know how everyone says they'd love to earn a million dollars. Everyone dreams about it, some people work hard and actually get it, but most people don't, but then people are so happy when Obama wants to "Share the Wealth" by making the rich pay more. If you made $250,000 the government considers you rich, at least, according to Obama. So my question is, do you still want to be rich? If you do, look forward to a tax hike, because everyone thinks you're evil and that you should pay more.
3 people like this
9 responses
• United States
3 Aug 12
1 Work 40 hours a week make $20,000 a year, keep $17,000 after taxes. or 2 Work 40 hours a week make $300,000 a year and keep $225,000 after taxes. I have yet to see anyone who makes even $50,000 a year quit and work at a fast food restaurant so they won't have to pay taxes on their hard earned income and can maybe even get some of that yummy government cheese. Nope, despite all the constant crying and complaining not a single person has given up a nice high paying job to avoid all those taxes... Wonder why that is...
1 person likes this
@mommyboo (13198)
• United States
3 Aug 12
Some people like their job too and would stay there regardless of the income or potential, as long as they make enough to live on lol. To be honest, I never really thought about the tax rates when I was working full time, it seemed an awful lot was taken out but I also worked a lot of overtime, so I was still able to net a decent amount even if MORE went to taxes. All my benefits were taken out pre-tax, so I wasn't taxed on what went to my health plan, 401k, health fund, and such.
@lawdude (237)
• United States
7 Aug 12
It's not a question of evil or class warfare. It's a question of sound economic policy. The tax rate on the highest earners was 91% in the 1950s, 70% from 1965 to the 1980s. After that under Reagan and successing administrations the top marginal rate varied between 28% and 38% and capital gains rates varied between 28% and 15%. Of course, with tax shelters, most wealthy taxpayers pay far less than the top marginal rate. The whole income tax code is a mess. The whole brouhaha about whether to extend the temporary Bush tax cuts is a farce. Under Clinton the top marginal rate was 38% and under Bush it was reduced to 35%. Empirically, the Clinton administration balanced its last few fiscal budgets. Under Bush, the national debt ballooned or doubled when he reduced taxes while we were fighting two wars (the first Pres. in history who ever reduced taxes during war; previously, taxes were raised to pay for wars and war was considered a shared sacrifice). In any event, no matter which side you listen to and whom you believe, it's a fact we can never reduce our sovereign date without reducing spending and increasing taxes. Most mainstream economists believe the current tax rates are inadequate to sustain fiscal health and balance over the long run. Politicians who say we can accomplish our goals by reducing both spending and taxes are in my opinion (to put it kindly) full of it.
@AidaLily (1450)
• United States
9 Aug 12
I agree with you. Honestly, there is no way for the country to run on little to no tax revenue the way they have everything set up. I also don't haven't heard anyone put a percentage to the proposed higher tax on the rich and the few that do say it's 40%. If it is already 35% and they would be getting a 5% tax hike, what is the point of leaving the country. I could see if it went from 35% to 60% that is a whole 15% more in taxes they are paying.... but it's 5%. Most people waste 5% of their yearly income in one to three months, not all, but most people. A lot of people don't even realize that amount of money goes somewhere else like in the form of loose change in the couch or buying something small that is on sale or something like that. I help people out with their finances and they are surprised to find out they are sometimes wasting anywhere from $50 - $500 a month. It is sad to realize how much Americans don't realize they spend and most can't even remember what they spent the money on even though it is usually something like a candy bar, a bottle of pop, or something small every day, multiple times a day, or every other day. Sorry for the mini-rant thing, it just surprises me how many people don't actually realize how much they spend. Any politician who says that we can accomplish goals by reducing both spending and taxes or just reducing taxes needs some finance classes. Any one who believes that these politicians can pull it off, should also take a finance class. You can not successfully run the government with little to no tax revenue. I am sure it sounds great when they are campaigning, but they should really make more realistic campaign promises.
@mommyboo (13198)
• United States
3 Aug 12
Here's the thing, if you make over $250,000 a year, you SHOULD be living comfortably, even if you live in a higher cost area. I'm not even saying RICH, like Bill Gates is rich, I'm saying COMFORTABLY, knowing your bills are paid each month, knowing when your kid needs a soccer uniform you can just go buy it, knowing if you get a call from family about a reunion in another state you can fly out there and not be begging or scrounging for money, knowing if you have a car problem you can go take it to the mechanic, pay for the repairs, and get a rental in the meantime. I actually believe if we're going to have taxes, EVERYBODY has to pay them, and it should be based on your income, but that doesn't mean people, especially non citizens, have the right to pretend they have no income so they pay no taxes. I have a huge issue with that. Anyway, someone making 250K a year SHOULD pay a higher percentage than someone making 100K, for instance, and it should be reflected in the tax rate. I think money taken in taxes needs to be put into programs that you can benefit from IF you need it though, and not just given willy nilly to all the other people who have nothing and then if YOU ever hit bottom, then there's nothing left for you. I don't know how this would be calculated but there should be a way. My solution would to be JUST UNDER that cap, or for a couple who isn't married, each of you could make say... $245,000 a year and not have penalties because even if you live together and support each other, you're not legally counted together lol. As far as people who make BANK... like millions, YES, ALL of them should pay more BECAUSE THEY EARN WAY MORE THAN THEY COULD EVER SPEND - if they were a normal person. If the government is going to steal, take from someone who doesn't need every penny to be comfortable. DUH.
@mommyboo (13198)
• United States
3 Aug 12
Keep in mind I would rather have NO taxes because I don't really see the point of taxes unless every cent was going BACK TO US - or.. for purposes of illustration, to fund World War II, which ended a long long long time ago. Government positions like president, vice president, senate, congress, and related positions really should be unpaid or pay a very little stipend AT FIRST, dependent SOLELY on how trustworthy, truthful, decent, and hardworking the person is. If they PROVE their worth, they could then EARN a salary, determined by a panel of ordinary people and never determined by any other person 'in government' and also not paid for by taxes. I would be okay with government fundraising because I would never donate lol... unless it was through causes that benefitted me.
@scheng1 (24741)
• Singapore
6 Dec 15
They do not understand that no government can tax the rich effectively. The rich are the ones not earning a salary. They get their money from trust fund, dividend from companies and investments, and they receive rental income from many overseas properties. A single country has no power to tax such persons who have bank accounts all over the world, and income from all over the world. Many countries do not tax investment income the same as salary. Those who earn big bucks are still employees. They are not the rich ones.
@sofssu (14806)
20 Nov 15
I think it is sensible economic policy ( most economies follow) to tax the rich more than the poor. The rich would never give up being rich as they still will have a bit more after taxes.
@andy77e (5165)
• United States
3 Aug 12
The problem I have with taxing, is that it does not hurt the wealthy, as much as it hurts the poor. This is true at any level. First, you have to remember that income, their salary, is not why the rich are rich. The rich are rich because they have investments. Millions in investments. None of which can be taxed. It's like buying a car. You have the car. Does the government come and tax away a tire, or window every year? Of course not. Well if a rich guy owns property, the government does not tax away a pound of dirt every year either. So what do income taxes do? The primary result of income taxes, more than anything else, is to prevent people from becoming wealthy. It never hurts the people already wealthy, only those trying to get wealthy. Rich richer, poor poorer. Second, when you specifically try and tax rich people, and only rich people, it nearly always back fires. In the UK, they tried to put in place a wealth tax. The result was that wealthy people packed up their money, and left Briton. This seems counter-intuitive for some odd reason. Think about it like this. If you were told that by moving your bank account to another bank, you could save $2,000 in taxes, would you do it? Of course! So all I have to do is move money money from Bank X to Bank Y, and I save $2,000? Does that mean I'm greedy? No. It's just wise. It's intelligent. Well Rich people are no different. When Venezuela started taking rich people's stuff, the rich people packed up and left, just like in the UK. But the rich people are who make jobs. When the job closes down, and the Rich people leave, who is really hurt? The poor. Again, rich richer, poor poorer. Lastly, and this seems the most obvious to me. When the business owner is taxed more, who pays that tax? The rich? Really? Where does he get that money? From the business. So how does that work? Well there's less money for pay raises. Less money for benefits. Less money for hiring new employees. Less money for making new products. I mean, think about it. The CEO is the CEO. He can make his own pay scale. If you tax him more, he'll just increase his own wages. The employees and the people never hired, are the ones who lose. Again, rich richer, poor poorer. This is how it works. Conclusion: I am against all taxes. People try and accuse me of being in favor of the rich because I'm against all income taxes. This is incorrect. I'm in favor of the poor, and that's why I'm against all income taxes.
• China
3 Aug 12
Yes I want to be rich and if I am a rich man I willing to pay high tax cause I think that everyone live in this world should be have responsibility to help others when he/she get that ability,if we become rich we can not just care about ourselves and we should do something to help others,so why not to pay more tax if you can?
@asyria51 (2870)
• United States
3 Aug 12
In all honesty, if i were ever to make close to 250,000 in one year i would be ecstatic. I live well in my community, but we are a modest community with a lot of section 8 housing. If my taxes and being taxed more, would help feed the kids or provide better health care I would be all for it. Unfortunately, I do not get to decide where my tax dollars are spent, so I do my best with what I have to make donations to programs I know help those directly in my community.
@BabyCheetah (1913)
• Australia
3 Aug 12
I know and once people become rich that's when they will start complaining how it's not fair and that they shouldn't have to pay more etc. Another thing that is similar are people who have the money to pay for things and yet still ask for discounts and pretend they are poor. It's kind of ridiculous I think