Raising Income Taxes on People with the Highest Incomes

[Scott]

I recently made a blog post about how a highly paid CEO suggested raising the income taxes on very rich people like himself. Check it out: Highly Paid CEO Says Raise His Taxes

As I explain in detail in the blog post, I think raising the taxes of the very rich may be a effective and appropriate way to raise the funds to fix big problems in ours society to eventually reduce the need for taxes and government spending.

What do you think? Do you support raising the taxes of the very rich? Why or why not?

Noting that rich people pay a smaller percentage of their incomes in taxes than the rest of us and that their tax rate has been lowered recently, do you at least support raising rich people's taxes so that they pay the same percentage as the rest of us?

Thanks,
Scott
_________________
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

[patman200244]

We should give more money to a system that you yourself described as corrupt and unfair? We should serve them up a huge payday and watch them botch it like they botch everything else - or hire a company they're affiliated with so more of the money comes back to them and their friends? Then we should expect that, after dumping tons of money in their laps, they'll one day feel the need to relinquish power, stop being greedy dogs, and actually help the country instead of themselves and the corporations that funded their rise to power? Yeah, while we're at it, let's feed lions wagons of meat every day so that they'll become herbivores.

Completely unrealistic and dangerous. The only way we'll stop them is to wrestle power away from them. Giving them more power is foolish. That's what you should be focused on if you want to save the hungry and homeless, not handing your soul over to the government and saying, "Please take care of everything."

I know, I know, you're more concerned about the rich people and how monstrous it is that they can live in luxury while people are hurting elsewhere. But that's the way it is, that's the way it has been, and that's the way it'll be. I can guarantee you this government cannot and will not change that. Why would they? They're winning.

[n0npr0phet]

In addition to raising their taxes I suggest we reinstate the draft and then make an exclusion for the bottom 99%. Yes we will need a lot of the rich's sons and daughters for the meat grinder but you can bet we will not go to war except in dire need.

[Phil]

I was just wondering how you define the "riches".

Well, yes some people are rich but some may have big family to support or old parents to look after...

and i believe that some might make a significant amount of contribution each year to no profit organization...

just something to consider...'

Thanks

[steveuk]

I sympathise with the idea of raising taxes from the rich in order to eliminate poverty, however I also worry about the effect of strengthening the State and making people dependent on State services.


An alternative might be an element of Negative Income Tax, people with an income above a certain nominal level would pay tax in proportion to their income above that level, as now, while instead of the money going to the Government it would be paid directly to people below that level in proportion to their level below it.

That way people can pay for the services they need and have more control of their lives. Unpopular and purely public services would still be paid for the government through other forms of tax, duties and corporation tax etc. Gradually there could then be a shift away from Government service towards people empowering themselves and communities and local associations providing public services. It could even evolve into a moneyless society eventually. In contrast the tax and Government spending option empowers Government and makes this less likely.

In the transition the difficult part would be where to set the nominal level and the amount taxed or awarded in relation to it. Ideally I think it should be a levelling at a 'comfortable' income in accordance with necessary personal expenditure. The problem with this is the theory that people require a financial incentive to work, which I've never had myself but concede maybe the case with many people.
If so I think shows very poor motivation likely to lead to low quality production. Its cause is most likely a depressive mindset, produced by disempowerment, that requires consumer toys and shallow pleasures to compensate itself. However over time the re-empowerment and an associated culture should negate that, allowing people to transcend this mechanism and become motivated by self worth, vocation and even creativity, rather than a fast buck. That would take time of course, so the system might have to evolve from a basic welfare cover to a more egalitarian system very gradually along with cultural shifts encouraging self empowerment and mutual aid.

The other problematic issue is economic migration to tax havens or more conservative nations, which would be another good reason for a gradual evolution, and could also be helped by limitations on money movement, though again might give the State too much power.

From an Anarchist perspective the success of such a project could lead to a gradual evolution into an anarchist situation (the whole transfer system
could become automated, without the State even being involved, for as long as a money economy existed).
If at any stage this process was to stall, as it very well might, then we can start to talk about Insurrection

Steve

p.s. I don't think an Insurrectionary situation requires hardship or poverty, I leave such thinking to the authoritarian left, in fact it is more likely to cause a reactionary mindset.

[WisdomOfTheAnarchs]

I am astonished that so-called anarchists are here advocating increasing the amount of money that the State steals (taxes) from people. It's always so easy to hate and envy "the rich," that some people lose sight of the truth in the process.

First of all, there is nothing preventing this CEO from contributing more taxes than he is currently paying. Believe it or not, there is actually a government form that you can use to give an additional tax contribution to government, if you feel they aren't stealing enough from you already.

What this person is advocating is increasing the power of the State, and getting people more dependent upon government. He can afford the hit; most others can't--and it's all about the End Game of complete power with these authoritarians.

Don't be seduced by the Dark Side. Wake up and realize what's really going on here, and don't call yourself an anarchist if you advocate using force against others.

[theessentialform]

My only concern is that by raising taxes for the rich and the rich alone would lead us one step closer to socialism....But by taxing all people a fixed percentage, the rich would naturally have to pay higher. I think this is best solution, as Phil pointed out there are to many variables to charge the 'rich' more. and of course by a fixd percentage the rich would be paying more anyways.....
_________________
"On me let death wreck all his rage, I shall not long lie vanquished" Milton's Paradise Lost

[steveuk]

[steveuk]

If anyone's still in any doubt about the difference between Income Tax and Negative Income Tax here it is in super simple terms:

INCOME TAX

Person type A has an income of $100
Person type B has an income of $20
The minimum living cost is $40

So the State taxes $50 from type A gives $20 to Type B and uses $15 per person for Public Services. Type A is still better off and wont now get robbed by Type B.

NEGATIVE INCOME TAX (final stage)

Person type A has an income of $100
Person type B has an income of $20
The optimum for a comfortable lifestyle is $50

So Person type A declares their income and has $40 deducted and transferred to type B by the economic mechanism (State, Community or Database). Note, the Tax is less, the State abolishable and everyone's above the comfort line, so can pay for public services provided by the community (while a money system still operates)

[Belinda]

A state which has the power to make laws and enforce them is a perhaps unfortunate necessity of large modern nations. Until the time comes when so many individuals are cooperative and compassionate enough to live together in large societies without injustice and unfairness, we have to have powerful states.

States should reduce the differential between the very rich and the very poor so that at least there is a safety net for the very poor.The safety net should provide free at point of delivery health care for all, adequate food, clean air,useful work, educational opportunites, and adequate recreational and living space.

The slums in new industrial cities in early 19th century England are a clear illustration of how anarchic industrial developement shows itself to be immoral by any normal standard of morality.Apart from the efforts of philanthropic individuals it was the increasing power of an increasingly democratic state to address the issue of the new urban poor that sorted the huge injustices and poverty stemming from this time.

The emergence of the socialist Labour Party in England was the best movement for democracy and justice that caused improvements in the lives of the very poor.Socialism (NB NOT communism) is necessary for the curbing of the social class differential, which left to itself naturally develops, to be curbed even although it is impossible for it to be eliminated.

[nameless]

End Hunger and Poverty!
Eat the rich!!!

[WisdomOfTheAnarchs]

First of all, you folks should refer to yourselves as socialists, not anarchists. If you favor using the power of the State--for whatever reason--you are not holding true to anarchist principles.

Second, if "property is theft," it implies ownership by someone else. If your group feels entitled to it, isn't your group thieving, too, by trying to claim control of it?

No one else has a claim to my labor, body, time or talents. This is the kind of "property" I'm speaking of.

If I choose to require compensation for the exercise thereof--whether in money, precious metal, reciprocal labor, food, shelter, etc.--it is no one else's business but mine and the person with which I am exchanging. If I happen to amass a great deal of wealth in the process, it's still none of your business.

If you feel you have a claim to me and what I can accomplish, and then wish to control it, you are no better than the other authoritarians that you claim to oppose.

[Troke]

I am supportive of a FLAT PERCENTAGE TAX. I'm sick of all the free loading liberals not doing a g-damn thing, not pulling their own weight, and then demanding a handout. I see an America which is falling to mediocrity. This needs to change. America was created by people doing their best for themselves and for their peers.

Raising taxes on the rich won't help anything, just as throwing money at a problem (like liberals want to do) doesn't help at all and just makes a big corrupt government even bigger and more corrupt. F*** the State apparatus.

I suggest that the liberals shut the f*** up, stop bitching, and, instead of trying to free-load, focus their energy on doing their best to make America great again.

"Be the change you wish to see in the world"

[Belinda]

[df544]