HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Taxing The Wealthy
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 02:04 PM

Taxing The Wealthy

By taxing the wealthy and easing the tax burden on the non-wealthy, Obama is stimulating the economy by taking excess money from wealthy people whose needs are already met and will therefore have no need to spend the money, and giving it to non-wealthy people who still have many needs and therefore WILL spend the money.

http://www.economy.com/dismal/article_free.asp?cid=224641

Look at Table 3 “Bang for the Buck” in this Moody’s Analytics report. It shows that every dollar spent on unemployment benefits generates $1.52 in economic stimulus. This is because the unemployed will immediately spend the money, thus kicking off the “multiplier effect” as that money moves through the economy and creates jobs along the way. However, a dollar spent on benefits for the rich, such as making dividend and capital gains tax cuts permanent, generates only 39 cents worth of economic stimulus because wealthy people already have more money than they need and thus tend not to spend any additional funds they receive.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19/households-wealth-american-1-percent_n_1687015.html

The wealthiest 1% have a whopping 34.5% of the assets in this country, and the wealthiest 10% have 74.5%. That means the other 90% have only 25.5%. And the lower 50% has only 1%.

The way to stimulate the economy is to prevent the excessive accumulation of wealth. $6 million per person amounts to $50,000 a year for 120 years. That ought to be enough money for anyone, but let’s say $10 million just to be sure. Tax laws should ensure that anyone wealthier than $10 million either pays enough taxes or gives enough away to friends, family and charity to ensure that their personal net worth is no higher than $10 million.

“The top 1%… saw their average wealth grow to $16.4 million in 2010″ – http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/11/news/economy/wealth-net-worth/index.html

If the 1% had no more than $10 million per person, that’s $16.4 million – $10 million = $6.4 million that the average 1%-er could contribute to public investments or charitable contributions. The US population is 312 million, so there are 3.12 million 1%-ers. Multiplying, $6.4 million * 3.12 million = $20 trillion.

The total national public debt of the United States is 16.432 trillion as of January 10, 2013. Therefore, taxing away the excess wealth of the 1%, leaving them with a mere $10 million each (that’s $100,000 a year for 100 years), would COMPLETELY PAY OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT, with $3.5 trillion more still left over for public investments!

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

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

9 replies, 820 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to commenter8 (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 02:26 PM

1. You greatly overestimate the number of wealthy people.

 

As of the end of 2011, there are nearly 2 million households in the U.S. with more than $3 million in investable assets, including 1,074,000 households with $3M – $4.9M, 654,000 households with $5M – $9.9M and 196,000 households with greater than $10M .

http://www.ustrust.com/publish/content/application/pdf/GWMOL/2012-UST-Insights-Wealth-and-Worth-Full-Report.pdf

You are averaging 1%ers with less than $10 million in with the billionaires.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 09:39 PM

5. You greatly underestimate the number of wealthy people

CNN was quoting the average TOTAL wealth of 1%-ers. You are quoting a very DIFFERENT figure.

The measure known as "investable assets" excludes a large portion of personal wealth (the non-investable part). For example, one's multi-million-dollar mansion would not be an "investable asset" and a personal fleet of Lamborghinis would not be an "investable asset" either.

Therefore, you are greatly underestimating the number of wealthy people by giving wealthy people a free pass on their non-investable assets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to commenter8 (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 10:54 AM

7. And what is the value of a formerly $23 million house if you aren't allowed to own more than $10m?

 

You've just collapsed the value of top end real estate.

Moreover I highly doubt people with $5 million in investible assets have $5 million in home equity.

Hint....people with $5 million dollars own normal houses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to commenter8 (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 11:17 AM

8. Hey look at these people who will be taxed heavily...

 

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) is the richest Member of Congress for the second year in a row, reporting a vast fortune that in 2011 had a minimum net worth surpassing $300 million for the first time.

McCaul is followed by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who reported a minimum net worth of $198.65 million, and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who reported a minimum net worth of $140.55 million. The two lawmakers swapped places since last year's list.

The lawmakers who round out the top five, Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), also flipped positions from 2010 to 2011, with Warner's reported minimum worth rising about $9 million to $85.81 million and Rockefeller's minimum worth rising slightly to $83.08 million.

http://www.rollcall.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-112th-2012.html

Even Tom Harkin will have assets taxed away and Pelosi loses more than half. Look at Feinstein. Wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to commenter8 (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 02:30 PM

2. All we need to do is tax wealth at 2% per year, and that will balance the budget.


There is over $60 trillion in wealth in this country. Don't let anyone tell you the wealthy are all tapped out and can't be taxed any more. It's the biggest lie being told right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to commenter8 (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 02:42 PM

3. TAX THE RICH, TAX THEIR CAPITAL GAINS, AND TAX THEIR DEAD

 

i am not rich but even my money is not enough to be fat and happy.

I am so glad California increased their tax to balance the budget. The only problem is that the increase in taxes will be paid by the 98%.........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to commenter8 (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 03:06 PM

4. If only we could somehow make this so

there needs to be a cap on a persons maximum wealth.
No one needs so many millions they can never spend it all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to commenter8 (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 09:46 PM

6. Ironic that the unemployed are actually Job Creators

Look at Table 3 “Bang for the Buck” in this Moody’s Analytics report. It shows that every dollar spent on unemployment benefits generates $1.52 in economic stimulus. This is because the unemployed will immediately spend the money, thus kicking off the “multiplier effect” as that money moves through the economy and creates jobs along the way.


The wealthy, not so much:

However, a dollar spent on benefits for the rich, such as making dividend and capital gains tax cuts permanent, generates only 39 cents worth of economic stimulus

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to commenter8 (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 11:17 AM

9. Rewrite the tax code from scratch, remove all distinction of income, eliminate all deductions,

 

eliminate all inheritance shelters/loopholes with a confiscatory rate after it kicks in at a reasonable level ($5M), and require a single purpose and limited lifespan for all incorporations.

People would be shocked at how low their taxes would be (except for the parasite class of course) if we implemented this. Our nation generates so much more wealth than most realize. We create enough for every single person to live very well but force a significant population into deprivation because of the obscene subsidization of the very richest people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread