Taxing "The Rich:" Theory v. Practice

Stone Street Advisors's picture




 
0
Your rating: None
 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 03/28/2011 - 09:17 | 1108270 Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

When the U.S. was powerful and growing rapidly there were no income taxes.  All the government revenue was generated by import levies and tariffs.  This had the added benefit of keeping jobs at home.  Today we allow foreign companies to operate tax free while doubly taxing our own companies.  Makes a lot of sense, huh?

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 08:54 | 1108216 mdwagner
mdwagner's picture

Since the stock market doesn't do much to help anyone anymore other than the super-rich and CEO's, put capital gains taxes back to where they were.  Or even better, change to a transaction tax system so HFT have to pay the most taxes.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 08:05 | 1108086 nah
nah's picture

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/one-minute-macro-update-elections-infor...
by AN0NYM0US
on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 08:01
#1108067

and this just in

Syrian security forces open fire on hundreds of demonstrators in Deraa: witness

.

MakE TheM Pay MAkE TheM pay lol

.

git the rich or what rite... rebelion substitue is good for you... not that its all on topic but hey

.

revolutions tend to be epic and go on for more than say 10yrs... US, USSR, neapolean, christ... modern times baby dont seem so old

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 07:52 | 1108051 nah
nah's picture

tell me you dont want somebody in charge

.

these fucking rich... who is their daddy and what does he do

.

comes down to government taking more or less of peoples individual 'power' for centralized political controll... imean watch the tv what do they say

.

TAX THE RICH !

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 18:34 | 1106782 baldski
baldski's picture

So, are Stone Street Advisors rich assholes? If they are, then they will be writing shit like this.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 16:44 | 1106484 falak pema
falak pema's picture

One sector that should be taxed minimally is the small business enterprise. But this taxation debate is shit sterile as long as there as tax havens world wide. All the multinationals NEVER pay taxes as they transfer price from tax havens. Shut down the tax havens INTERNATIONALLY and we can start playing hard ball with the Transnational corporations; those who wipe their asses on Main Street, those who pay the politicians, those who make the wars and poison the atmosphere...

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 16:33 | 1106451 Kim Jong-Il
Kim Jong-Il's picture

Typical Koch brothers propaganda.

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's trickle down economics.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 08:57 | 1108222 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Ah, the Koch brothers. The new Bogeymen of the Left!

BOO!

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 09:25 | 1108305 snowball777
snowball777's picture

I hear they're looking for a fluffer. We'll send you an application.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 16:27 | 1106437 Djirk
Djirk's picture

Given the tax money via Fed monetization is being used to prop up the price of assets. It would be fair to have an asset tax, 1% of all assets. Like a property tax for securities.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 16:19 | 1106416 eureka
eureka's picture

Taxation can not be understood in simplistic terms; 

Correlated Example:

1) Rates instituted are on thing, actual rates another, 

2) 15% of 20K (US med inc) leaves 17K to live on -

    35% of 10Mil (up 3% inc) leaves 6.5M to live on

    (if actually paid; not happening - offshored)

Consequently, since no income is earned without

communally created infrastructure -

relently executed, progressive income taxation is:

Rational, Fair And The Only Foundation of Community.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 16:17 | 1106413 Bearster
Bearster's picture

The incomes of the rich *are* predictable.  They will be cut back in response to adverse tax changes.  Ever wonder why a doctor has Thursday evening office hours?  He values the income more than time with his family  Raise his marginal tax rate (the tax rate on his Thu evening hours) to 80% and this will be proven upon your medically-needy hide!

Ever wonder why high net worth individuals take insane risks and invest in early stage startup businesses?  Raise the capital gains tax to 80% and then lament why there do not seem to be any innovative startups any more.

It is not a "theory" to deny this.  It is dishonesty and buffoonery.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 16:55 | 1106510 snowball777
snowball777's picture

How much can we make if we raise the tax rates on the unemployed?

Why should investment be incentivized more than working for a living?

If we make cap gains taxes 0%, will they invest all their income?

 

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 22:10 | 1107242 GT2021
GT2021's picture

+1

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 17:47 | 1106642 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Well of course they will Snowball, jeez. Didn't you know that altruism is the only path to the top 1% of the ponzi?

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 16:12 | 1106395 Andy Lewis
Andy Lewis's picture

Wealth distribution is more lopsided to the high end than ever, yet real undisemployment is around 20%.  So this article ain't nuthin' but a crocka chickenshit bullshit. 

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 08:55 | 1108217 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Holy shit. Where did all the socialists come from around here? Is DailyKos on fire or something?

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 14:26 | 1109571 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

narf narf.

Maybe you're just misnoming 'socialists' (like most americans have been heavily conditioned to do), and the comments are really just coming from 'mixed economy capitalists'. You know, those pesky realists who base their convictions on existing, functioning, successful economies instead of unwittingly promoting the neocon endgame via 'unicorn-based laissez faire' ideals.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 22:08 | 1107237 GT2021
GT2021's picture

+1

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 17:48 | 1106621 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

++++

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I got their 'trickle down' right here.

<rattles zipper>

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 16:01 | 1106368 PulauHantu29
PulauHantu29's picture

I heard a lecture at one of the MBA shcools and the panel said"the rich do not pay taxes."

 

Can that be true?

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 17:49 | 1106616 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Anecdotal: I know a tax lawyer whose firm charges 600 fiat bux/hour to help those pulling in ten mil or more per annum minimize their share. And her business is booming, let me tell ya.

So, in my experience: yes, it is essentially true that the rich don't pay taxes. Certainly not anything like the percentage of their income that the 2nd and 3rd estates are coerced into paying. And the wealthy's percentage has been shrinking rapidly over the last decade too, IMHO.

ie The world is VERY "Free for those who can afford it, and very expensive for those who can't".

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 16:01 | 1106356 apberusdisvet
apberusdisvet's picture

With 5 years, Chicago will be a bigger Detroit; there will be no entrepreneurs left in California, and the good people in Taxachusetts will finally see the error of unbridled Keynesian entitlements and burn Barney in effigy.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 11:01 | 1108589 jimijon
jimijon's picture

Anecdote ... I live in Chicago, Illinois. Illinois is an official deadbeat state. It doesn't pay its bills. A worker over at UIC has money taken out for health insurance. I think the state pays for half. Well, said worker went to get medical care as was basically laughed out of the office as the medical establishment was not getting paid anymore. So, she would have to pay even more money to get the medical treatment she needed.

Again the state just takes the money and the benefits are nil.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 15:59 | 1106354 snowball777
snowball777's picture

Raise taxes on corporations, lower them on individuals.

For example, CA has a $1.2T SDP, yet collects < 8% of its tax base from corporations.

I'm betting you could make the corporate tax steeply regressive and leave small (for some rational definition of small) businesses unscathed and any corps which threaten capital flight would be in for a rather rude awakening when most of their talent turned out to be uninterested in moving to Wisconsin or Texas.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 08:53 | 1108204 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

How about raising taxes on corporations, and ELIMINATING them on individuals.

Corporations are artificial persons, and creatures of the state. Being creatures of the state, they should pay their masters for the privilege of their creation.

Free human individuals, however, cannot be subject to an income tax in a free society. Income tax is a form of slavery, which-- if rule of law meant anything in this country-- was outlawed by the 13th amendment. When the state is given first claim to the fruits of your labor, you are-- by definition-- a slave to the state.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 09:03 | 1108244 snowball777
snowball777's picture

Those individuals don't use any of the resources from this country in your worldview? While I don't believe we should be subsidizing fictional persons who benefit greatly from same, I have no problem with paying a fair price for my ticket to the show.

You really want to contract to have your own sewers built and go to war with your neighbors when theirs overflow onto the property you will be personally defending from Chinese invasion? Idealism is great for books but sucks when boots hit ground.

The stereotypical libertarian victim mentality is tiresome at best; the state is neither all blessing or all curse.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 16:26 | 1110011 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Ah, the income-tax-lovers lament-- "but...but...but...who's going to pay for the ROADS??!?"

Did you ever wonder how this country managed to get by for almost 150 years without an income tax?

We used excise taxes. Which were fair taxes, and worked just fine.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 17:05 | 1106536 Paladin en passant
Paladin en passant's picture

when most of their talent turned out to be uninterested in moving to Wisconsin or Texas.

Yep...that's why California's population is growing so much and the states around it are shrinking so terribly.

You seem to assume every corporation is as cool as Apple to work for. Most are quite mundane and the coolness factor of living in California is beginning to be outweighed by the stupidity of its governments, schools and universities.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 08:54 | 1108221 snowball777
snowball777's picture

CA 2000-2010 +9.1%

or +3M

or 1% of the entire US.

or 150% of the entire population of Nevada in 2000

or 150% of the population growth of NV and AZ combined since 2000.

And we still have 2.9M firms to Texas' 1.7M...hmmm...something's wrong with your theory, Hoss.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 15:54 | 1106339 leathaface
leathaface's picture

I love all this talk about tax rates, and who should be paying their fair share.  If they just simplified the fucking tax code (ie. flat tax or consumption tax), it would makes things a lot easier.  IMO, a consumption tax would be the best.  If you dont want to pay a lot in taxes, dont consume so much shit.  As an earlier poster said, the govt doesnt have a revenue problem, they have a fucking spending problem.  The rest is just noise.  Maybe our Govt should get out of the Welfare business, and just do the basics.  I am fairly young, and cant believe how reliant people are on the govt.  Think about how many different industries are subsidized.  Nevermind, the fact that we throw $ to the IMF for other countries BS.  Or, that we just like to go start ridiculous wars that we dont even factor into the budget.

Getting off topic, but this shit pisses me off!

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 16:15 | 1106408 snowball777
snowball777's picture

Consumption taxes are attractive for the reasons you outlined, but the revenue from them can be rather elastic (and not in a good way) as has been evidenced by Texas' issues with a sales tax based regime of late.

Do property taxes ('consuming' land over time) fit your definition too?

You are young and probably don't even realize how reliant you are on the government, but you'll get your chance to find out soon.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 21:08 | 1107107 leathaface
leathaface's picture

If the states only spent money they were taking in, as opposed to going so far into debt they cant even see straight, then we probably would not be in this bad of shape financially. 

i think property taxes are ridiculous as well.  Notice how they are still going up as property values fall.  Just another confiscation of wealth.  You should pay a one time tax on your property (which could be part of the loan/mortgage).  For intstance, if you buy a place for $100k, and the tax rate is 9%, then you pay that $9k to the govt once and then you own your place.  No one truly owns their property when they have to pay property taxes for life to the govt. 

i think the govt is going to find out how reliant they are on the citizens, and that they cannot keep raping them at every turn.  People will just move more to a black market system (obviously not w/ property) if the govt keeps imposing taxes on everything. 

Shouldnt the govt treat their finances like the (responsible) people do?  Responsible citizens dont go this far into debt and think that spending more, or begging their employer for more money is going to make it better.  You have to first cut out erroneous spending.  But in the case of the govt, they dont beg the citizens, they hold a proverbial gun to their head w/ the threat of jail time for not paying taxes.

just my 2 cents

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 09:22 | 1108296 snowball777
snowball777's picture

So you want to occupy land in perpetuity, only pay a 10% tax, but have access to services (like say...firefighters) as long as you live there? Nice theory. If you'll be contracting this out to a private company, do you really think you'll be paying less for the same service? Our operators are currently busy, please hold.

Black markets sound great...to anyone who hasn't actually been burned and had zero recourse after the fact.

How much do you think you could really cut from this 'erroneous' spending and maintain our quality of life in the US? If the government were 'responsible' in this fashion, they'd start executing seniors, leave the economy with 60% unemployment, and you would be walking to work because there wouldn't be any oil to put in your gas tank.

 

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 10:58 | 1108582 jimijon
jimijon's picture

Simple... no one lives forever. Eliminate trusts on property. Then every time the "owner" dies and an owner has to be a living person, then you tax the new transaction.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 11:08 | 1108633 jimijon
jimijon's picture

In fact, keep what I said above and add... all non-primary real estate is taxed yearly. That kind can be put into trusts and of course taxed.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 15:40 | 1106276 Augustus
Augustus's picture

A novel solution would be:

IF "we all" know that "we all" must have all of these programs and benefits, 

THEN "we all" are going to have to get with the program and help pay for it.

Drop the cell phone, cable subscription, fish tank, big screen home entertainment and potato chips.  Pay for the benefit programs.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 15:26 | 1106251 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

And if the economy magically turns around then the state government has windfall tax receipts due to the variability of the AGI of top earners, is the state to going to turn that extra money to only “the rich” from whom it came.  FUCK NO, they will spend it on some “investment”, the state is a kleptocrat employment bureau, and Stiglitz & Orszag are nothing more than thieving nerds drafting intellectual pseudo-economic cover for wealth redistribution.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 16:08 | 1106310 ElTerco
ElTerco's picture

We need to cut, or at minimum freeze, spending as Congress and the state Assemblies have finally begun to realize.  They finally "get it", at least for the near term.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 16:42 | 1106479 tgatliff
tgatliff's picture

I would be a nice solution if it had happened a decade earlier... However, the problem is too large now.. Only a massive reset at this point will solve the issue.   The key is how the largely insolvent financial institutions are handled.  They own over 55% of the US debt, and most of it is highly leveraged.   Deal with the mega financial groups and you will have effectively solved the debt problem..

 

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 15:06 | 1106182 ElTerco
ElTerco's picture

I'm all for lower taxes, but I'm all against BS.  The higest federal tax rate was north of 80% in 1950's for a *ten year stretch* and we had more general prosperity then than we have now.  I pay north of 10% of state taxes in CA, so I'm not happy about it.  On the other hand, the economy is in an emergency situation, and we need to fix it rather than run the country into the ground.  Finally, there is a difference between the tax rate and the effective tax rate.  The effective tax rate gets lower and lower as you become richer and richer.  Warren Buffet likes to point out that his effective tax rate is lower than his maid's.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 08:48 | 1108191 docj
docj's picture

The prosperity of the 50's had way more to do with being the only surviving industrial economy to come out of World War II than did anything involving taxes.  But hey, any time you want to bring back the level of "services" provided by fed/state gubermints in the 50's is A-OK with me.

BTW, the budget situation in Commiefornia has been an "emergency" for a decade, and wil be so for years to come.  At that point, it's not really an "emergency" anymore - it's the "new normal".

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 08:48 | 1108187 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

You are confusing correlation with causation-- rookie mistake.

Plus, the income tax code had more holes in it back then than a swiss cheese. Don't be fooled by nominal rates.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 16:09 | 1106386 Eternal Student
Eternal Student's picture

+1. The State Street Advisors article is just such complete BS it's disgusting. One has to ignore an awful lot of reality and actual successful examples to swallow this garbage.

Sorry, SSA. We need to make this a better society for the middle class. SSA is clearly geared towards the Wall Street Bankers and supporting them with this nonsense.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 08:57 | 1108230 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Um, ever think there might be a reason why you're an eternal student?

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 15:32 | 1106274 Broomer
Broomer's picture

In the fifties the American oil production was still growing.

Same happens to Texan prosperity. Take out their oil, see what happens.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 15:43 | 1106311 Augustus
Augustus's picture

It is not particulary about oil in Texas,

It is about producing something of value at a profit.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 14:53 | 1106141 falak pema
falak pema's picture

First of all you need honest government...the rest follows...Pericles and the State...As for traders of WS they are at best people who load the carts in the fish market...not the lords of the world...Never. (I know never say never, but I still believe in the Rubicon : the line between Republic and Totalitarian state).

(BTW Merkel lost in Baden-Wurttemberg).

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 14:36 | 1106078 SqueekyFromm
SqueekyFromm's picture

Well, IMHO, taxing the rich is better and more humane than guillotining them. Plus, all these really stupid people miss the positive impact that high tax rates have on employment. Put a 70% individual tax rate in, and people will start getting hired like crazy. Plus, there are other reasons to raise taxes. I did a Internet Article on "How Rich People are Like Mattresses" which explains how it keeps American capital to going to place like China.

Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 15:00 | 1106174 Cpl Hicks
Cpl Hicks's picture

Hey, need need to feel humble; you're a genius!

"Put a 70% individual tax rate in, and people will start getting hired like crazy."

 

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!