What is the incentive to invest in new companies and ventures if you are only going to keep a fraction of the profits? Why would anyone work hard if they can keep more in their pockets and their families' pockets if they just "make do?"
"He and Saez, a professor of economics at the University of California-Berkeley, agreed in a November 2011 paper that the rich do behave differently when their taxes are raised. They pursue financial strategies to reduce their taxable incomes and bargain for higher compensation, instead of cutting back on how much they work and save or becoming less entrepreneurial.
Peter Diamond, who won the 2010 Nobel Prize in economics, also sees little evidence that raising rates on the top 1 percent of income earners -- households making about $350,000 or more a year in 2010 -- would restrict growth."
From the article: But because there are relatively few people in France whose income would incur such a tax — an estimated 7,000 to 30,000 in a country of 65 million — the gains might contribute but a small fraction of the 33 billion euros in new revenue the government wants to raise next year to help balance the budget.
I wonder what the basis for this estimate is because 3000 was the number widely cited during the presidential debate on this.
"According to a 2009 French Senate study, the 0.01% richest French taxpayers, or 3,523 households, had an average yearly revenue of €1.22 million."
Also, I'm highly amused that googling this issue in my phone pulls up many articles in which Will Smith's shocked reaction appears to be the primary point of interest.
Is this that whole households vs individuals thing again? Could that be the difference?
It's not really about "fair." It's about what needs to be done for the good of the country.
I think you'd find that the rich in France would be much more willing to fork over their money if they felt that it would make any difference. The article says that it would be a mere drop in the bucket and it wouldn't solve their deficient woes. Similarly, I think it just drives people crazy here when politicians call for higher taxes for the rich, and totally ignore SS and Medicare.
It's not really about "fair." It's about what needs to be done for the good of the country.
I think you'd find that the rich in France would be much more willing to fork over their money if they felt that it would make any difference. The article says that it would be a mere drop in the bucket and it wouldn't solve their deficient woes. Similarly, I think it just drives people crazy here when politicians call for higher taxes for the rich, and totally ignore SS and Medicare.
Yes, I am sure that raising the taxes on the rich to 75% will totally solve this country's economic issues.
I think you'd find that the rich in France would be much more willing to fork over their money if they felt that it would make any difference. The article says that it would be a mere drop in the bucket and it wouldn't solve their deficient woes. Similarly, I think it just drives people crazy here when politicians call for higher taxes for the rich, and totally ignore SS and Medicare.
Yes, I am sure that raising the taxes on the rich to 75% will totally solve this country's economic issues.
/sarcasm
I'm thinking it well do more than raising taxes on the middle class and poor while cutting taxes on the wealthiest among us.
So addressing Momi's point - she makes a good one in terms of off-setting tax penalties by reinvesting in the company, except that comes in with the higher corporate tax, not the individual's personal tax.
The thing about the prosperity in the 90s is always suspect in my opinion. On one hand I love Clinton because he balanced the budget, was able to find consensus between politicians on both sides, contributing to passing legislation that offers a healthy balance between doing-the-right-thing for workers and employers as well. On the other hand, a lot of people made a shitton of money in the mid-to-late 90s because they were buying/selling stocks that were all based on inflated assessments of the dot-com industry. Those who sold by 98 reinvested their money into other areas and made huge profits, and then so many of the rest still haven't recovered because when the bubble "burst" it actually popped a little and then kept leaking for years.
The "prosperity" of the country was largely inflated during those years as a result.
I'm thinking it well do more than raising taxes on the middle class and poor while cutting taxes on the wealthiest among us.
But what do I know?
...via mobile.
This is where I am. How is more revenue NOT going to help us? I don't make much money. There's only so much money we can part with. But Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have considerably more money than I have (and Mitt Romney has more far more money than Barack Obama). They can afford to pay more back into a country that helped them get where they are. It's for the good of everyone.
And that's the damn point Obama was making that is now some sort of stupid sound byte.
Why did this country help them get to where they are, when I'd like to be where they are, but the country didn't help me? WTF. By that logic I should be paying less. Much less
So addressing Momi's point - she makes a good one in terms of off-setting tax penalties by reinvesting in the company, except that comes in with the higher corporate tax, not the individual's personal tax.
The thing about the prosperity in the 90s is always suspect in my opinion. On one hand I love Clinton because he balanced the budget, was able to find consensus between politicians on both sides, contributing to passing legislation that offers a healthy balance between doing-the-right-thing for workers and employers as well. On the other hand, a lot of people made a shitton of money in the mid-to-late 90s because they were buying/selling stocks that were all based on inflated assessments of the dot-com industry. Those who sold by 98 reinvested their money into other areas and made huge profits, and then so many of the rest still haven't recovered because when the bubble "burst" it actually popped a little and then kept leaking for years.
The "prosperity" of the country was largely inflated during those years as a result.
I'm not (just) talking about the 90's. I'm talking about the whole shebang, since the depression.
Look. What we do is like a pendulum. And after the last depression, we upped taxes on the wealthiest, and increased regulation on financiers, in an effort to make it not happen again. Then, time passes, we forget, we drop taxes, we drop regulation... and... oopsie.
Look...
Look at how high the highest rates were in the 50's and 60's - - a time of incredible economic security and the massive growth of the middle class.
I seriously have no problem with economic demands on the wealthy as long as there is still a free society with freedom of speech and press. If dissent is allowed, then great.