Can’t raise taxes for the rich exclusively in the US. The 16th amendments wording prohibits raising taxes for specific individuals or groups of people. It has to be that everyone pays more taxes or it violates the Constitution. So if any politician says they’re going to make the rich pay their fair share, keep in mind that you’re going to pay more too.
I wasn’t talking about a flat tax. I was stating that if taxes increased for one part of society then it has to increase for everyone. Otherwise, whichever party is in power would increase taxes on the other party’s registered voters.
That’s just not how taxes work. It’s also not how they should work.
I have never, and I daresay will never have to pay
a tax on owning and operating a personal private jet.
I have never paid the rather hefty taxes on cigarettes.
There are plenty of taxes that target behaviors that have nothing to do with voting. These taxes are necessary because these behaviors cause indirect but real harm to others, and a tax is much more civil throwing rocks.
You missed my point. If taxes could be targeted to specific groups or people, politicians would increase taxes on their rivals and on possible revenue streams their rivals use.
No. I’m saying that increasing the taxes for a single bracket can’t be done. If taxes for the top bracket increase the taxes for the lower brackets will increase as well
It’s hard to find even one thing that affects just one group of people. For example, increasing the Capital Gains tax will also impact retirees cashing in their retirement plans. Also, what’s to stop them from just leaving the country and renouncing US citizenship when taxes get too burdensome?
A progressive income tax, as well as augmentation of the capital gains tax, are various ways to tax the rich that are obviously constitutional.
While some right-wing sources insist a wealth tax is unconstitutional, in fact no judicial inquiry has yet been tried, and mainstream sources readily affirm its viability.
I’m not saying that the progressive income tax is illegal. I’m stating an increase on one bracket will also mean an increase on all brackets. And such things as raising property taxes or the capital gains tax will hurt others than those you want to pay.
Please justify your claim that increasing the marginal tax rate for one bracket requires doing so for all.
Also note, even taking your claim on its merits, those in lower brackets benefit more greatly from spending on social programs. A household may experience a small rise in taxes offset by a large gain from in social spending.
Realistically? The number of people in the top tax bracket. There are less than a thousand reported in the US. Even if you give them an average of half a billion dollar incomes each it only adds up to around 5 billion dollars total. Not much. But, if you take the working population of the US and an average income of 30,000 dollars you get a total of 9 trillion dollars to work with. No matter how you work it there will always be more water in a shallow lake than a deep puddle.
And other ways to increase taxes on them sound equally attractive until you take a 80% hit on your 401k when you retire or your property taxes spike.
Taxing the rich is not offered as a panacea to solve all problems, and no one serious about the idea has framed it so narrowly as you have done.
One quite natural benefit, which you seem not to have considered, of taxing the rich, is beginnig to assuage the severe inequality that affords immensely imbalanced power and privilege to a tiny cohort of society.
Can’t raise taxes for the rich exclusively in the US. The 16th amendments wording prohibits raising taxes for specific individuals or groups of people. It has to be that everyone pays more taxes or it violates the Constitution. So if any politician says they’re going to make the rich pay their fair share, keep in mind that you’re going to pay more too.
Progressive taxes already exist and are perfectly legal.
I wasn’t talking about a flat tax. I was stating that if taxes increased for one part of society then it has to increase for everyone. Otherwise, whichever party is in power would increase taxes on the other party’s registered voters.
That’s just not how taxes work. It’s also not how they should work.
I have never, and I daresay will never have to pay a tax on owning and operating a personal private jet.
I have never paid the rather hefty taxes on cigarettes.
There are plenty of taxes that target behaviors that have nothing to do with voting. These taxes are necessary because these behaviors cause indirect but real harm to others, and a tax is much more civil throwing rocks.
You missed my point. If taxes could be targeted to specific groups or people, politicians would increase taxes on their rivals and on possible revenue streams their rivals use.
Are you suggesting that a progressive tax illegitimately targets the rich as a particular group of people?
Are you a troll?
No. I’m saying that increasing the taxes for a single bracket can’t be done. If taxes for the top bracket increase the taxes for the lower brackets will increase as well
Taxes could be raised on things which disproportionately affect billionaires, it’s not like a flat tax increase is the only option.
It’s hard to find even one thing that affects just one group of people. For example, increasing the Capital Gains tax will also impact retirees cashing in their retirement plans. Also, what’s to stop them from just leaving the country and renouncing US citizenship when taxes get too burdensome?
Probably the same reason they are manipulating the US right now. Greed.
But lets stop pretending you aren’t carrying a billionaire’s water for them in this argument.
Global economy. Nothing to prevent them from continuing to make a profit from a brand new tax haven country.
The emphasis of the post is not taxation.
A progressive income tax, as well as augmentation of the capital gains tax, are various ways to tax the rich that are obviously constitutional.
While some right-wing sources insist a wealth tax is unconstitutional, in fact no judicial inquiry has yet been tried, and mainstream sources readily affirm its viability.
I’m not saying that the progressive income tax is illegal. I’m stating an increase on one bracket will also mean an increase on all brackets. And such things as raising property taxes or the capital gains tax will hurt others than those you want to pay.
Please justify your claim that increasing the marginal tax rate for one bracket requires doing so for all.
Also note, even taking your claim on its merits, those in lower brackets benefit more greatly from spending on social programs. A household may experience a small rise in taxes offset by a large gain from in social spending.
Realistically? The number of people in the top tax bracket. There are less than a thousand reported in the US. Even if you give them an average of half a billion dollar incomes each it only adds up to around 5 billion dollars total. Not much. But, if you take the working population of the US and an average income of 30,000 dollars you get a total of 9 trillion dollars to work with. No matter how you work it there will always be more water in a shallow lake than a deep puddle.
And other ways to increase taxes on them sound equally attractive until you take a 80% hit on your 401k when you retire or your property taxes spike.
Money is not a resource of fixed supply.
Taxing the rich is not offered as a panacea to solve all problems, and no one serious about the idea has framed it so narrowly as you have done.
One quite natural benefit, which you seem not to have considered, of taxing the rich, is beginnig to assuage the severe inequality that affords immensely imbalanced power and privilege to a tiny cohort of society.