How much $$$$ does one really need?

[Hugabear]

How much money does anyone really need? For the life of me, I cannot see how anyone could need billions or even millions of dollars. And to see how some of the wealthy flaunt their riches absolutely disgusts me.

We absolutely need to bring back the tax rates from the 1950s. I have a feeling that if we were to bring back the 90+% tax rate for the wealthiest in this country, we could give every lower- and middle-class person a real meaningful tax break. Those of us who are struggling every week to put food on our tables, to feed our families, pay our bills, we are the ones who need the help.

[Fuzz]

1. All of them?

[PDJane]

2. You could kill the deficit

and, if you also brought the troops home from all those bases, the wages of empire, you would be able to live comfortably.

[MercutioATC]

3. How much freedom do you need?

It's not about how much money one needs, it's a question of whether we want to limit success like that.

A real 90+% top tax rate (no loopholes) would absolutely kill achievement above whatever dollar amount at which that rate was set.

[Hugabear]

5. I think the economy did just fine during the 1950s

Not sure how many loopholes existed back then, but the economy seemed to do alright despite the high tax rates.

Seems like a right-wing argument that high taxes will kill achievement. If you're making enough to qualify for the 90% tax rate, then you're probably not going to be hurting.

[MercutioATC]

7. That was an entirely different economy.

That aside, a 90+% top rate would only serve to drive the wealthy out of the country...and we need them here.

Make them pay a fair rate (off the top of my head, a 60% rate on income over $1M/year would be reasonable) but don't try to soak them.

[leftstreet]

10. Why do we need wealthy people here?

[MercutioATC]

15. For a lot of reasons.

1) Property taxes

2) Philanthropy

3) Innovation and development

4) Support of local small businesses

...and on and on...


Do you seriously not see the necessity of having people with money in the U.S.?

[shraby]

19. Problem is, they are here, but their money is in

off shore accounts so they aren't even helping pay for our roads, police, street lights, libraries, bridges, etc.

[MercutioATC]

21. Actually, the things you mention are primarily paid for through property taxes.

...and if they live here, they pay property taxes.

[shraby]

25. Not state police, interstate highways, our military

and with more thought, many more perks we enjoy that taxes pay for.

[MercutioATC]

28. Locally, they DO pay for local police, streets, libraries, schools, fire departments, snow removal,

garbage removal, ambulances, etc.

...and because of the state in which they live, they DO pay for state programs (like state police).

...and because of the country in which they live, they DO pay for interstate highways and the military.


But you don't see their use :eyes:

[shraby]

36. Quite often its a combination of state, county and local

funds that provide the services. Not just local funds. I know when I lived in Michigan, over 80" of snow brought extra help from the state for snow removal, which the village usually got. The libraries got part of their funding from court fines people in the state had to pay..speeding, theft, etc. Not sure how it is now, but many services are a combo of taxes levied by different government entities, federal, state, county and local..even state highways get federal funds.

[MercutioATC]

38. And if they live in Barbados, how much of that do they pay?

[Art_from_Ark]

39. Property taxes?

If they own property in the US, they will pay property taxes wherever they are.

Support of small businesses?
I don't know where you live, but in my home town I don't see wealthy people rushing in to support struggling downtown businesses. Those businesses are left to sink or swim (mostly sink) on their own.

[iceman66]

56. More Republican talking points.

Property taxes are assessed based on property values and have nothing to do with income taxes, except that they have risen in recent decades to account for the lower income tax rates. This is itself an example of REGRESSIVE taxation - rich people have a much lower percentage of their net worth tied up in property and thus subject to property taxes.

Philanthropy was alive and well prior to the Republican tax cuts, even in the robber baron era.

The US LED THE WORLD in innovation and development from the post-WW2 period right up until the Reagan years. If anything, the decline in that area can be correlated to the tax cuts.

Likewise, small businesses thrived in that era. Conversely, the post-Reagan economic policy has instead empowered BIG businesses like Wal-Mart and led to the elimination of countless small and local businesses.

There will always be people with money in the US, just as there are in Europe and other countries with more progressive taxation. But seriously, I can't see how keeping them here should be a top priority.

[elias7]

48. Say goodbye to the arts...

[iceman66]

53. It was a different economy.

We had no real deficit to speak of. The US was a creditor nation.

Most products sold here were made here, by individuals earning a living wage.

Unemployment was low, and it was possible to comfortably support a family on one working-class income.

Tell us exactly how today's economy is just SO much better!

[HughBeaumont]

68. Not to mention the products we built LASTED.

People drove the same cars for years, used the same washers and dryers for years, used the same furnaces for years, watched the same TVs for years.

Now? PFFFFFFFT. It's actually cheaper to buy a new product than repair the existing one. The average life of an appliance has almost been cut in half.

We're in the worst economic shape in 75 years. Coincidentally, we also have the lowest TMTR in 75 years. Seems to me letting all of these rich folks off the tax hook so they won't "stifle innovation", "create jobs" and "be motivated to lead towards a sustainable future" has only really lined their pockets and left us in a boarded-up, unemployed morass of shit.

I seriously cannot believe there'd be so-called "Democrats" defending unbridled, status-quo corporatism.

[Yupster]

35. No one ever paid anything close to 90 % taxes

I wasn't super rich, but even I took advantage of tax breaks like the tax credit program which gave you 300 % tax break of the money you invested over 10 years. All kinds of interest was deductible just to give one other example including car payments and credit card interest.

The deal in the 80-'s was to radically reduce the tax rates and radically eliminate the tax breaks. The tax credit programs for instance all went belly up within a few years of the TEFRA Act.

Anyway, those saying bring back the rates of the 50's have no idea what they are talking about.

[onenote]

47. "not sure how many loopholes existed back then"

So you want to propose a return to a tax system you admit to knowing nothing about?

[ParkieDem]

55. Completely different.

One of the primary reasons the US did so well economically in the 15-20 year postwar period was because of (1) a massive surplus of production capacity, due to factories built for the war effort, and (2) the fact that industrial production in the rest of the world was completely obliterated during WWII. Hundreds of millions of people in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and elsewhere needed cars, cranes, trucks, bulldozers, construction-grade steel, concrete, you name it -- and the United States was, for a time, basically the only country that could provide it. People invested in the United States because there was truly no other place to invest.

Now, I think taxes need to bring in more revenue, sure -- but today, there are simply too many alternative places where people can put their money. A 90% tax rate would simply drive investment to Japan, Australia, Europe, Latin America, Singapore, Dubai (to a lesser extent), etc.

[Lorien]

61. The Right Wing always wants a return to the 1950's...

they just won't accept the terms that made the middle class large and comfortable during that era.

[PDJane]

6. That's a sophistry.

What it does is allow you to target tax breaks to build jobs, manufacturing capacity, and environmentally-friendly policies. It allows for a finely tuned tax policy that benefits everyone.

[MercutioATC]

9. We don't need a 90+% top bracket to do that.

Over 70% is punitive...and completely unnecessary.

[PDJane]

32. That depends.

Considering that a good portion of the deficit has been racked up supporting too big to fail and following resources around the globe, it may not be. If the deficit is going to be paid off at any point, let alone serviced in perpetuity, then punitive taxes for those who have reaped the biggest benefit from those policies may not be punitive.

I would posit that the folks are are collecting billions not only don't need to worry, they will go on collecting billions. Please note that I didn't say they earned it. At that point, the cash is coming from owning large portions of the world and its economy....and at that point, taxes are not punitive.

[handmade34]

8. legitimate deductions are much different than loopholes

a high tax rate on income over investments and legitimate expenses is all most want. This should not limit 'achievement' Studies (sorry, no link) show that those earning higher incomes do not contribute productively to society exponentially in relation to their income. Success equating to income level is problematic and freedom is a relative term. Your argument/statement is incomprehensible

[MercutioATC]

12. "Incomprehensible"? You seemed to comprehend it.

My "incomprehensible" argument is this:


Higher taxes on those who can afford it...but nowhere near 90%.

Simple.

[handmade34]

16. ahhh, I am pleased that you

are not arguing against all tax increases.

[MercutioATC]

17. Of course not...just silly torch-and-pitchfork increases.

There's plenty of room to raise taxes on the wealthy...but it should be done sensibly.

[handmade34]

24. reasonable

...I disagree with your maintaining that high taxes would quell achievement. That is why we have deductions- and a high tax rate encourages investmenting and philanthropy and that is what the U.S. needs right now. I suspect that I also disagree with the importance you place on the ingenuity of wealthy people. From my life experience (and I am mighty old and experienced) in schools and the business world and elsewhere, I believe that there are numbers of people that range from creative to genius that are kept down/quieted by our inequitable system.

[quaker bill]

43. It didn't

Freedom is neither created nor diminished by marginal tax rates.

[iceman66]

52. Rush Limbaugh himself couldn't have said it better!

Seriously, that argument is nothing more than a verbatim recitation of a Republican talking point, and it's bullshit.

The undeniable fact is that we had a much, much stronger economy when sensible tax rates were in place and income was more equitably distributed.

[Make7]

4. $11,201. ( n/t )

www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh08.html

[Throd]

11. I need about 5 million dollars.

[Blackhatjack]

13. That's Easy! Jamie Dimon needs $16mil as a bonus this year in addition to regular compensation

I guess it is hard to gauge the financial needs of Wall Street CEOs.

Me I could make do with a lot less, and likely do a lot more good with it helping the poor.

[pipoman]

14. What does anyone really NEED?

We are not a need based culture, thank dog. We could all live in tents and wear grass clothing after all. I sort of like having electricity, occasional vacations, a decent car, a television and computer, snacks in the cupboard, some eating out and movies...I really don't NEED any of that.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

42. In Texas, AC is a necessity, not a luxury.

Nobody gets used to the heat and humidity here. I grew up without it and it was incredibly miserable. You don't feel like doing a damn thing, and if you do something, you may end up with heat exhaustion and a trip to the hospital.

[stopbush]

18. I think that the vast majority of Americans would have no problem paying a 90% tax rate

if you told them they were to be paid $1MM a year. They'd keep $100,000.

Considering that only 5% of Americans make over $99,999 a year before taxes, the vast majority would love such an arrangement.

[MercutioATC]

20. I'd starve on $100k/year.

Not literally, but I'd have to make lifestyle changes...and I'm a nobody.

I'm all for the wealthy paying their fair share and providing a safety net for everybody, but you're talking about gross redistribution of wealth.

[Hugabear]

22. Maybe we need a gross redistribution of wealth in this country

You say that like it would be a bad thing

[MercutioATC]

26. That's not a country I would want to live in.

I believe in the idea that everybody should be entitled to a basic level of security. Nothing more.

The playing field SHOULD be more level. The "basic level of security" does not yet exist, and it should. There are a multitude of ways we could incentivize actions that would help this to happen (targeted tax laws, revisiting some trade agreements, etc.) but we've chosen not to do so.

That said, I'm wholly opposed to wholesale redistribution of wealth. It's unnecessary and (though I never pictured myself invoking this) it's Unamerican.

[leftstreet]

29. 'redistribution of wealth' is what WE'VE been giving THEM n/t

[PDJane]

34. Thank you.

The redistribution of wealth for a majority of the last 100 years or so has been upward to the few. Evening out the pie produces a happier populace with a reasonable lifestyle.

[handmade34]

27. sounds like Michael Steele

"Trust me, after taxes, a million dollars is not a lot of money" I understand that the more money you have, normally the greater your expenses, but imagine what that statement sounds like to someone who only makes $20,000 a year (give or take). There is no empathy from someone who cannot imagine making as much as you do and most of the time, it is of no fault of their own.

[MercutioATC]

30. Reality is rarely empathetic.

People making $20k/year don't need to empathize with my statement any more than I need to empathize with Steele's statement.

The simple fact is that we can provide a basic safety net for everybody without $20k/$100k/$1M even being an issue...and that's what we should be doing.

[Yupster]

37. That's like the old political stump speech story

Now if you had $ 3 million, you wouldn't mind giving $ 1 million to the needy, and the crowd nodded in agreement.

And if you had three mansions, you wouldn't mind giving one to the needy, and the crowd nodded in agreement.

And if you had three pigs, and one old boy interrupted and shouted out ... "Now just you wait a minute. I have three pigs."

The point being that everyone seems to very much agree that taxes need to go up, but they never put them self in the group that taxes need to go up on. We always need to raise taxes on the other guy. Me -- I need more stuff.

[Go2Peace]

63. Keep in mind a "90%" tax rate does not tax all income at 90%!

Tax rates are set in stages each dollar over the last threshold gets taxed at the new threshold. So a 90% tax rate on 1 Million could leave about 400-500 THOUSAND!

Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I thought taxes always worked that way?

[Jax]

23. Ah yes the right wing oxy'moran' conserva dems "I got MINE FUCK YOU"

have weighed in.

Noted.

Oh SO noted.

GREAT post.

Bring back the 50's taxes NOW.

[MercutioATC]

33. My great-grandparents came to this country with nothing.

My grandparents (Irish, German, and Italian bloodlines) were hardly advantaged. They made a modest living.

My parents divorced when I was 8. My father has been the CEO of a few national charities (he put himself through college and worked his ass off) and my mother has never made more than $35k/year (LD teacher and caterer).

My parents gave me great genetics and a supportive childhood. They didn't give me money.

I went to a private high school (scholarships) and 3 years of a private college (again, scholarships). I've worked as a telemarketer, a factory laborer, and a police dispatcher. When the FAA was hiring in 1991, I became an air traffic controller.

I've been an air traffic controller...working odd hours, missing holidays with my family...for 19 years. I make a decent living. I have a 19-year-old son that I hope to be able to give more to than my parents were able to give to me. I recently started a business on the side to help me do this.

I'm the person you're accusing of being an "I got mine, fuck you" "ConservaDem".

[Jax]

41. When did I accuse you personally of anything. Feeling guilty????

no surprise.

Racist Reagan DESTROYED the Air Traffic Controllers Union.

Did you protest THAT???

I did and still do. The effects of that sick right wing UNION BUSTING travesty are still felt today.
protest THAT on the job.



"my parents GAVE ME GREAT GENETICS"

what the fuck does that mean???!!!

[MercutioATC]

49. Not ME personally, just as an example.

My point is that disagreeing with a 90+% top tax rate doesn't make one a "right wing oxy'moran' conserva dem".

Disagreeing with the idea of wholesale income redistribution isn't an "I got MINE FUCK YOU" sentiment.


Plenty of us have spent considerable time and effort to gain the measure of success we have. There's nothing wrong with supporting increased (but reasonable) tax increases on those who have more in order to provide a security net for those who have less, while arguing against simply soaking the rich to hand money to the poor.

No, I didn't protest the PATCO firings...I was 14 years old at the time. However I am a member of NATCA and contribute to its PAC.


I am healthy and relatively intelligent...in part due to heredity. My parents gave me good genetics. Why is that difficult to understand?

[farmout rightarm]

60. I'm getting the impression that some people pining for the "good old 50s"

weren't there.

[Jax]

65. "heredity"

fuck yourself .

ugh...just a DU ugh...

not surprised. Ebonics are MercurtioATC.

You post 24/7 on a nameless forum for attention.

[MercutioATC]

66. You're an angry little person, aren't you?

[iceman66]

57. You may not realize this

but you have a lot more in common with the person making $20K than the truly wealthy.

The distribution of wealth in this country, at this time, is probably the worst it has ever been anywhere, with the possible exception of some of the oil-rich kingdoms in the Middle East that actually still have slavery.

Our 'elites' have more wealth, in proportion to the average person, than kings and queens did in the feudal system.

If we can rectify some of that through the tax code, why the hell not?

[MercutioATC]

58. I do realize that.

The point to the story was that my view isn't the product of a lifetime of luxury.

I believe that the very wealthy should contribute more, I just don't believe in excessive (90+%) taxation. There's absolutely no reason to set top marginal rates that high.

[iceman66]

59. Perhaps it would not be a bad thing

to discourage the accumulation of excessive wealth.

After a certain point, it just gets sucked out of the economy and hoarded, where it benefits no one.

Most of the individuals that would be subject to a 90% tax not only have more money than they need, but more than they could practically spend if they wanted to.

Thus, the effect on the tax on these people would be largely psychological, wheras the benefits to society as a whole would be substantial.

[taught_me_patience]

31. About 5 million to feel totally secure

and not have to work ever again.

[madamesilverspurs]

40. $752 a month.

At least, that's what Social Security tells me. And there's no bonus(COLA)this year. It's what I live on. I squander $9.95/mo for dialup internet, and I consider that a luxury. Compared to the folks in Haiti, I live like royalty.

---

[pipoman]

44. So few

these days realize how good they have it. Not realizing that compared to the entire history of humanity up until less than 100 years ago, the poorest 20% of people in the US today live like royalty...literally.

[cutlassmama]

45. It must be nice. I'll never know what that feels like

[onenote]

46. hate to break it to you: there were really rich people in the 1950s too

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

50. Of course there were, but US income inequality actually was much lower in the 1950s

[slackmaster]

51. Whoever said anyone needs billions of dollars?

:shrug:

[earcandle]

54. would be better if we relied on capital from a pool of worker savings, then from

the criminally wealthy. 

[Lorien]

62. My mom read a study about money and happiness

she said that the study concluded that people only "need" around 50k over the cost of their basic needs (home, food, medical care,education, etc) to feel "rich." Anything over that amount didn't significantly effect their level of happiness. Makes sense to me; back when I had (what I felt was) a really good income I didn't notice much of a difference between making $85k a year or making $155k a year. In both cases all of my needs were covered and I still had money left over for emergencies, travel, gifts for friends, eating out, etc. I wasn't thinking about money all the time in either case (like I am now, not having any) so in both cases I felt equally "free". I honestly don't understand why a CEO would think that making $120 million n bonuses would make his or her life better than making $120k in bonuses. What do they want? more stuff? Too much stuff and your possessions possess you!

[Go2Peace]

64. Our feelings of monetary security are directly proportional to the harshness of our system

That is part of our trouble. We are GREEDIER than we were before, period. But there is a reason for it.. when things are stable and you can always get a middle class job most people relax. But when the system becomes darwinian and people understand that a missed step could cause severe hardship for years they fight each other to go after the money "pot of security".

That leads to more GREED, which brings even more social problems and inequities.

It is a viscious circle.

[anarch]

67. personally, I don't need any money

I just need food, shelter, clothing, access to health care, access to information & education, and occasional respite from working.