What is wrong with "Tax the Rich" philosophy

@bobmnu (8157)
United States
November 3, 2008 11:13am CST
Taxing the rich always sound great. They make up a small portion of the voters and are not a threat to the politicians and re election. President Lincoln signed the first Income tax law that was to tax the top 1%. The income tax was brought back in 1894 again taxing the top 1%. This law was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. In 1913 the Sixteenth Amendment voided the Supreme Court Decision and again put the tax burden on the top 1%. In 1942-43 the government of FDR pulled of the biggest snow job on the American people by offering to for go the quarterly tax payment for a more affordable and easier "pay as you go" employer withholding of your tax bill. Now instead of paying a large quarterly tax you pay a smaller tax each week. The government had public service ad with people telling how this was much easier than trying to come up with a big tax payment each quarter. It also made raising taxes easier because most people would not notice the increase if done in small amounts. If you owe a tax bill of $1200 per year and you pay quarterly your bill is $300. If you pay it weekly it is $23. Since most people are paid by the hour and their wages varies slightly form week to week a 5% tax increase would be an increase of $60 a year, $15 a quarter bot only $1.15 per week. Most people would not notice it and if they did it is so little they see no harm done. What does this mean to you. No matter how they tax the rich the middle income people will pay sooner or later. In 1939 6.5 million people were paying income tax. After withholding was started in 1943 you saw a rise in the number and by 1945 48 million people were paying income tax, a tax to "Tax the Rich". This post was based on a paper Income Tax Withholding: Why "First Dibs" for Uncle Sam Leaves Taxpayers Finishing Last NTU Policy Paper 106 by Mark Schmidt Jul 29, 2002 http://www.ntu.org/main/press_papers.php?PressID=256&org_name=NTU I would suggest you read the paper and then think about it the next time a politician talks about taxing the rich.
4 responses
@ClarusVisum (2163)
• United States
3 Nov 08
I would suggest you look back eight years to see what happens when you give the biggest tax cuts to the wealthiest few percent. Did anyone feel that promised "trickle down"? I sure didn't.
3 people like this
• United States
3 Nov 08
Sure... It must have trickled down, cause we're in a recession. Wait, that doesn't make sense??
2 people like this
@irishidid (8688)
• United States
3 Nov 08
I've always thought that if I were making say $500,000 a year I'd have no problem handing a $100,000 over for taxes. If you can't live on what's left over there's something seriously wrong with you. But that's the view of someone looking in from the outside. I do think that some of the tax laws need to be changed for the benefit of all.
1 person likes this
@rodney850 (2145)
• United States
3 Nov 08
ClarusVisum, No, what you are feeling right now came from almost 16 years back when Clinton reinforced the "homeowners welfare" program so almost anyone who earned a little money could buy a house regardless of whether they could qualify or not. THAT is what you are feeling now!
1 person likes this
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
3 Nov 08
This is a good article which is joining many others in my files. This demonstrates what is wrong with spreading the wealth around... what's starts out as a way to stick it to the rich trickles down and ultimately involves everyone. It is an interesting point that the taxes were twice ruled unconstitutional until Congress changed the Constitution to allow them. It is too bad that more people do not study our history, and the reasoning of our Founding Fathers, because if they did, then people like 0bama would have no chance at the presidency.
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
3 Nov 08
To many today History is in the past and of no value to us today. Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat the past.
1 person likes this
@uath13 (8192)
• United States
3 Nov 08
They're never going to really increase the taxes on the rich much, they'd be increasing their own taxes. Not to mention increasing the taxes on all those people who run the special interest groups would also mean less money left to line the politians pockets. Since they're not going to hurt their own class who do you think they're going to go after?
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
3 Nov 08
They always start with a tax the rich because they are a small group and taxing them goes over big with the voters. however the tax becomeds a revenue generator and if we just lower the lable "rich" we could get more, and soon the tax applies to everyone.
1 person likes this
• United States
5 Nov 08
The problem with that is that the rich are the ones really in control and in office. Billionare oil companies and the CEOs of those oil companies are who puts money in our government's pockets to pass favorable laws. The big companies and the rich and powerful like Bill Gates are the ones with the power. IF they don't want to pay higher taxes, then they don't have to. There are far, far, far more middle and lower class people anyway. Taxing the rich would barely make a dent in what money would be brought in by raising the taxes of the middle and lower class families.
1 person likes this