Would just taxing rich people be a good compromise?

funperson

@MayCaesar So you highlighted some potential outcomes of this plan but I’m wondering how you arrived at them.
@CYDdharta ~%40 maybe? I think it could vary too based on how much money one has. It’s like a mini-progressive tax.
@BaconToes Depends on their views. Some rich people are leftists, so they would like spending money on the government, and some are conservatives/libertarians who might not like personally paying taxes but they might be satisfied that the money is not being taken from everyone else. Again this plan is not aimed at satisfying rich people as an entire group.

CYDdharta

funperson said:

@CYDdharta ~%40 maybe? I think it could vary too based on how much money one has. It’s like a mini-progressive tax.

It wouldn't be enough.  The current max tax rate is 37%.  A 3% increase while decreasing taxes for everyone else would be a loss in revenue.

Depends on their views. Some rich people are leftists, so they would like spending money on the government, and some are conservatives/libertarians who might not like personally paying taxes but they might be satisfied that the money is not being taken from everyone else. Again this plan is not aimed at satisfying rich people as an entire group.

There is a faulty assumption.  If rich leftists actually wanted to spend more on the government, they are free to do so.  Instead, they take as much advantage of loopholes carve-outs and tax havens as anyone else. 

funperson

@CYDdharta Well it could be 40% for maybe the non-millionaires and then it could rise for the millionaires and billionaires. Well rich leftists would presumably want the gov’t to have the necessary funding for social programs so they would want to do their part in funding it. This plan doesn’t only concern rich leftists, it concerns the rich conservatives too who would have to pay more. I’m not seeing what the faulty assumption is.

CYDdharta

funperson said:

@CYDdharta Well it could be 40% for maybe the non-millionaires and then it could rise for the millionaires and billionaires.

When you figure it out, get back to us.

Well rich leftists would presumably want the gov’t to have the necessary funding for social programs so they would want to do their part in funding it. This plan doesn’t only concern rich leftists, it concerns the rich conservatives too who would have to pay more. I’m not seeing what the faulty assumption is.

Of course rich leftists want the government to have the funding for social programs, but they don't want to be the ones funding it.  If they seriously wanted to fund such programs, they are free to do so now.  Instead, they try to pay as little in taxes as possible, just like everyone else.

funperson

@CYDdharta
Yea I'd have to tweak the specific tax rates but if it works out, do you support this in principle, that's the question
If they try to pay as little in taxes as possible then wouldn't raising the tax rate be sufficient because it raises the minimum they need to pay?

BaconToes

funperson said:
@BaconToes Depends on their views. Some rich people are leftists, so they would like spending money on the government, and some are conservatives/libertarians who might not like personally paying taxes but they might be satisfied that the money is not being taken from everyone else. Again this plan is not aimed at satisfying rich people as an entire group.

You still haven't answered this:

What does the rich get from this "compromise"

CYDdharta

funperson said:

@CYDdharta
Yea I'd have to tweak the specific tax rates but if it works out, do you support this in principle, that's the question

No, people don't respect things they get for free.  Everyone needs to have some skin in the game.  I'd be more supportive of the FAIR tax, or a single flat rate.

funperson

@BaconToes I mean I kinda did haha. You can divide rich people into two groups here: leftists and the right-wingers. Rich leftists get the gov’t revenue and the rich right-wingers get a lesser tax burden on the population. So the rich would get one of those two things, got it? You’re asking me to lump all rich people into one group which I cannot do because once again this compromise is not meant to satisfy rich people.
@CYDdharta what things would people get for free here?

MayCaesar

funperson said:

@MayCaesar So you highlighted some potential outcomes of this plan but I’m wondering how you arrived at them.

I based these outcomes on the simple assumption that people are very protective of their core interests and will try to preserve them at nearly any cost. Now, the richest people are small in numbers, however they control a significant amount of capital and, hence, have a significant amount of influence - influence not only on the government, but on the population as a whole as well. And while I definitely do not advise putting their interests above the interests of everyone else, I do think that such a drastic measure as cutting their income by half will cause them to strike back on multiple levels.

The key to a true societal prosperity, in my opinion, is taking governmental actions that benefit all economical and social groups in some way - or, at least, do not disadvantage any group significantly. Whenever an economical or societal group holding a significant amount of power in the state is dismissed, there is a potential for that effect to be felt across the whole society. Plainly speaking, simply taking income away from the rich will, through indirect effects, lead to the income being taken away from everyone. More elegant solutions are needed to improve the wealth distribution in the society without severe adverse effects.

BaconToes

funperson said:

@BaconToes I mean I kinda did haha. You can divide rich people into two groups here: leftists and the right-wingers. Rich leftists get the gov’t revenue and the rich right-wingers get a lesser tax burden on the population. So the rich would get one of those two things, got it? You’re asking me to lump all rich people into one group which I cannot do because once again this compromise is not meant to satisfy rich people.
@CYDdharta what things would people get for free here?

You know that there aren't only two political sides? 

BaconToes said:

Well, you aren't taxing the right or the left, you are taxing the rich.

What do rich people get from your compromise?

yolostide

Punishing wealthy United States citizens is not a good or productive idea. This is due to the wealthy potentially contributing a large amount to the U.S. economy.

joecavalry

Taxing the upper class is not a good idea and could lead to an economic collapse of the United States. The upper class may contribute a large amount to the U.S. economy and by taxing them, that large amount of money could decrease tremendously.