Millionaires on Capitol Hill: Please tax me more!

[freeatlast]

Lobbyists for a day, a band of millionaires stormed Capitol Hill on Wednesday to urge Congress to tax them more...
http://news.yahoo.com/millionaires-capitol-hill-please-tax-more-222330131.html

 

[billwald]

The old money billionaire families must hate the new money paper profit millionaires.

 

[freeatlast]

The old money billionaire families must hate the new money paper profit millionaires.

You may have hit on something. Persionally I am for a flat percentage tax the same rate for all with absolutely no deduction at all for anyone or for anything along with a no loop hole ballanced budget law.

 

[mandym]

Lobbyists for a day, a band of millionaires stormed Capitol Hill on Wednesday to urge Congress to tax them more...
http://news.yahoo.com/millionaires-capitol-hill-please-tax-more-222330131.html

Now someone needs to ask them to go ahead and actually donate. Not likely they will. This is a farce

 

[freeatlast]

Now someone needs to ask them to go ahead and actually donate. Not likely they will. This is a farce

That has already happened. The response was that they believe it should be for all and not just a few.

 

[targus]

That has already happened. The response was that they believe it should be for all and not just a few.

That doesn't change the fact that the line to donate money to the IRS is already on the form.

Why don't they use it regardless?

 

[freeatlast]

That doesn't change the fact that the line to donate money to the IRS is already on the form.

Why don't they use it regardless?

Read post #5

 

[targus]

Read post #5

So they will only do what they believe is right if the goverment forces everyone else to do it too?

Is that the code by which you live?

Then why is it acceptable to you in this case?

 

[freeatlast]

So they will only do what they believe is right if the goverment forces everyone else to do it too?

Is that the code by which you live?

Then why is it acceptable to you in this case?

It makes no difference to me as first of all I am against more taxes and second I know of no scriptural admonition against their view.

 

[Ruiz]

It is somewhat short-sited for the rich to ask for more taxes. First, this makes mobility from the bottom groups to the 1% more difficult. Oftentimes, the big cats endorse measures that cost them more knowing it helps eliminate more competition. The poor suffer and it becomes more difficult to move upward.

For me, I endorse no income taxes.

 

[InTheLight]

It is somewhat short-sited for the rich to ask for more taxes. First, this makes mobility from the bottom groups to the 1% more difficult. Oftentimes, the big cats endorse measures that cost them more knowing it helps eliminate more competition. The poor suffer and it becomes more difficult to move upward.

For me, I endorse no income taxes.

I'd like to hear you explain how a tax on incomes over $1M per year prevents the bottom group from moving up. Go for it.

 

[Salty]

The bottom 50% of Americans make less than $32,396.
I propose we increase taxes on anyone making more than 32,396 so those in the bottom half can work their way up the ladder of success.

If you believe in income redistribution, then you must be for my plan.!

 

[Ruiz]

I'd like to hear you explain how a tax on incomes over $1M per year prevents the bottom group from moving up. Go for it.

For some reason, people think that because a business or a person makes a lot of money that they "have it made." In fact, the bigger you get the more challenges you face.

Take, for instance, two companies. Compare two companies like Wal-Mart and XYZ Corporation. Wal-Mart's annual revenue is $419 Billion and Gross Profit Margin is at 24.7%.

Our pretend corporation's revenue is $100 million, small for a big box retailer. More likely, their margins are not as boisterous as Wal-Mart's, let's pretend their margin's are 15%.

The Federal Government decides to increase taxes by 5% on these corporations. Question, who benefits the most?

Actually, Wal-Mart would benefit from increased taxes for a number of reasons. First, Corporation XYZ will be forced to either raise taxes (margins would probably be put at risk of faltering and many of their stores will now be in the red). Wal-Mart, being a bigger company, can survive with single digit profit margin in needed. XYZ could not because they have less of a revenue stream. One bad bump, XYZ's investors leave and invest in Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart can afford many more bumps. Thus, your increase in the corporate tax rate by 5% hurts XYZ by 10% because their market standing is not as strong as Wal-Mart. The 5% hurts XYZ much more than Wal-Mart.

In order for XYZ to catch Wal-Mart, they have to work 10% harder than Wal-Mart had to work to get to the same position. By increasing taxes, you created a situation that solidifies even more Wal-Mart's position.

The people at the bottom end of the scale are usually hurt more than the bigger people that you hope to "punish."

The solution? I believe there are two solutions. First, get rid of all corporate taxes. This will allow all companies to compete on a level playing field, keep loopholes from being abused for gain, and force the big companies to stay in America to compete with other American small businesses.

Secondly, get rid of all corporate welfare. This usually goes to bigger companies or well networked companies.

 

[freeatlast]

For some reason, people think that because a business or a person makes a lot of money that they "have it made." In fact, the bigger you get the more challenges you face.

Take, for instance, two companies. Compare two companies like Wal-Mart and XYZ Corporation. Wal-Mart's annual revenue is $419 Billion and Gross Profit Margin is at 24.7%.

Our pretend corporation's revenue is $100 million, small for a big box retailer. More likely, their margins are not as boisterous as Wal-Mart's, let's pretend their margin's are 15%.

The Federal Government decides to increase taxes by 5% on these corporations. Question, who benefits the most?

Actually, Wal-Mart would benefit from increased taxes for a number of reasons. First, Corporation XYZ will be forced to either raise taxes (margins would probably be put at risk of faltering and many of their stores will now be in the red). Wal-Mart, being a bigger company, can survive with single digit profit margin in needed. XYZ could not because they have less of a revenue stream. One bad bump, XYZ's investors leave and invest in Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart can afford many more bumps. Thus, your increase in the corporate tax rate by 5% hurts XYZ by 10% because their market standing is not as strong as Wal-Mart. The 5% hurts XYZ much more than Wal-Mart.

In order for XYZ to catch Wal-Mart, they have to work 10% harder than Wal-Mart had to work to get to the same position. By increasing taxes, you created a situation that solidifies even more Wal-Mart's position.

The people at the bottom end of the scale are usually hurt more than the bigger people that you hope to "punish."

The solution? I believe there are two solutions. First, get rid of all corporate taxes. This will allow all companies to compete on a level playing field, keep loopholes from being abused for gain, and force the big companies to stay in America to compete with other American small businesses.

Secondly, get rid of all corporate welfare. This usually goes to bigger companies or well networked companies.

Please correct me if I am wrong here, but I don't think this applies to this article. You are dealing with corporate taxes not personal income taxes which is what the article is about.
My understanding is that these men were saying that personal income taxes need to be raised on the rich, not corporate income taxes.
Now I will say I am not in favor of even raising personal income taxes even on the richest of the rich. If they earned it, it should be theirs and they should not have to be penalized for it. I would like to see every deduction removed from the personal income tax and we all go on a flat percentage based tax at the same percentage rate for every individual, but Corporate taxes are another thing altogether and they were not asking to raise those.

 

[InTheLight]

For some reason, people think that because a business or a person makes a lot of money that they "have it made." In fact, the bigger you get the more challenges you face.

The topic of the OP was millionaires. The subject of my question was how putting a tax on personal incomes of $1M or more prevents the poor from moving up the income ladder.

Take, for instance, two companies.

The Federal Government decides to increase taxes by 5% on these corporations. Question, who benefits the most?

Not the topic of my question, not the topic of the OP.

Actually, Wal-Mart would benefit from increased taxes for a number of reasons. First, Corporation XYZ will be forced to either raise taxes

Corporations have the power to raise taxes? Do you mean capital?