Does Progressive Taxation make the Rich/Wealthy less Rich ?

[southernmissouri2007]

Does Progressive Taxation make the Rich/Wealthy less Rich or less Wealthy I know Progressive Taxation does not make the Rich Poor or cause there to be Income Equality but does Progressive Taxation make the Rich less Rich ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax




The Prime Minister

People on all levels of income are better off than they were in 1979. The hon. Gentleman is saying that he would rather that the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less rich. That way one will never create the wealth for better social services, as we have. What a policy. Yes, he would rather have the poor poorer, provided that the rich were less rich. That is the Liberal policy.

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/108256

Argument For



The U.S. and many other capitalist countries institute a progressive tax due to the nature of income inequality that usually happens in a system of winners and losers. To prevent the rich from becoming too wealthy and owning too much in the system a progressive tax redistributes wealth to prevent this income gap. A progressive tax system also believes that the rich should pay more because they tend to have more sway in the political system than the poor, and should thus pay for this privilege.

http://www.ehow.com/about_5475898_progr ... -fair.html

[brandon]

The progressive tax makes us ALL less prosperous.

[wizardwatson]

The progressive tax, if we're talking about progressive income tax is simply insufficient. It benefits the corporations and companies who only pay income tax on net income, whereas individuals pay on revenue. The fairest tax in my opinion would be a flat % tax on net worth for both individuals and corporate entities.

I still haven't heard a convincing argument against this.

[southernmissouri2007]

Anyway the Rich have ways to avoid higher taxes like loopholes.

[pcosmar]

Another thread on this,,
How about just eliminating Income Taxes entirely.

Starve the Government back to an impotent size.

[wannaberocker]

Recently there was a Cato Institute article regarding the warren buffet tax situation. In the article the writer talked about how the top 400 earners are often changing. Now i know it dosnt directly answer your question about a progressive tax rate. But it still fits in to the larger point of "the rich". We seem to think that once someone is rich they stay rich. But the reality is that there are alot of ups n downs in earnings even among the rich.


The IRS traced the identities of all taxpayers who showed up in the top 400 anytime between 1992 and 2008. The IRS found that there were a huge 3,672 different taxpayers who appeared during that timeframe. Of these 3,672, fully 73 percent only appeared once in the top 400! And 85 percent appeared only once or twice.

So at the top end of our capitalist system is a continual generation of new wealth and new wealthy people, and that dynamism reflects the still-energetic and free-wheeling nature of our economy.

[libertybrewcity]

Think about this logically.

Let's say you make a sum of money, 100 units. You are now taxed, say 10 units. You now have 90 units.

I don't see how you could NOT be less wealthy. :?

[Pericles]

The progressive tax, if we're talking about progressive income tax is simply insufficient. It benefits the corporations and companies who only pay income tax on net income, whereas individuals pay on revenue. The fairest tax in my opinion would be a flat % tax on net worth for both individuals and corporate entities.

I still haven't heard a convincing argument against this.

It can force people who have all of their wealth in assets be forced to sell off those assets that don't produce cash in order to pay taxes.

The worst consequence of the income tax is that the tends to prevent the accumulation of capital that the lower and middle class need to move up the scale, while the wealthy live from investments. The income tax serves to lock people into their current economic circumstances.

[The Free Hornet]

Think about this logically.

Let's say you make a sum of money, 100 units. You are now taxed, say 10 units. You now have 90 units.

I don't see how you could NOT be less wealthy. :?

The units are fiat currency. So what if you kept 100 units but the government printed 11 units instead of taxing you? The adjusted value gets you back to 90 units (100 * 100/111).

By focusing us on taxation, the government gets away with more spending. THERE ARE NO TAX BREAKS with deficit spending. Instead, we get a tax that wipes value from every dollar, costs interest, spooks the investors, and distorts the markets ever further.

I am not saying you disagree with any of this...

Imagine if no income above $50,000 was taxed but the first $50,000 was taxed at 50%. If you are rich, you might think that is great, but the help that used to cost you $25,000 could now cost $50,000. Realistically, not everyone would be able to command a 100% jump in the cost of their labor. As such, work would migrate away from those people. You might prefer workers already earning over $50,000 that can charge a lower price (as they are not taxed on it). Or you would go without. Taxing higher incomes does a similar disservice, those that would otherwise work harder, elect not to.

Non-flat and non-fair taxes are the government's way of picking who works and who goes without. Just like the minimum wage, those that can command a marginally higher salary, keep their jobs and might be better off. The rest become unemployed and, eventually, unemployable. All of us suffer the resulting inflation. A worker who would rather sit down for a hot, freshly-prepared lunch will end up brown-bagging it. I.e., rather than performing his import job assisting heart surgeries, the market distortion encourages him to enter the food-service business (even if it is just his own lunch).