Tax cuts for the wealthy

[HLH]

Back to the OP's point. Being wealthy is not an intrinsic evil. One can be wealthy and be a good christian. There is no preference in the bible for either the government caring for the poor or for the individual through private charities and the Church to take care of the poor. Either position is acceptable. What is an intrinsic evil is abortion and a Catholic cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate and remain in full communion with the Church. There is no justification for voting for a pro-abortion candidate because you like their idea of wealth distribution better. Not my opinion, Church teaching.

[Swiss Guy]

Originally Posted by yellow8yellowM

Yesterday on the radio Matt and Jim Blackburn (forgive me if I got the names wrong) had a caller who said she couldn't vote because both parties were bad. One party is pro-abortion and pro-same sex marriage, and the other party is for tax cuts for the wealthy. She claimed that tax cuts for the wealthy cannot be Christian.

Jim Blackburn then said that although he is sure there could be Christian motivations for tax cuts for the wealthy, that he could not think of any offhand. I was shocked to hear that he couldn't name a single good Christian reason to give tax cuts to the wealthy. Do you think he purposefully withheld his answer for some reason?

If not, is it not obvious to everybody (even liberals) why tax cuts to the wealthy could be good Christian policies, even if you disagree with them?

I don't know what he was thinking. Personally I can see both sides. People who are for tax cuts think that this will enable the rich to hire more workers, pay the workers more, and by doing that creating a better life and economy for everyone. People who aren't for tax cuts think that lowering taxes for the wealthy will take away money from programs meant to help less fortunate people, resulting in greater inequality between the rich and the poor.

[wondrousgnat]

I am a life long Republican. Most especially because of my opposition to abortion (and I wish Republicans would keep their campaign promises). But the tax issue is something I feel very uncomfortable with. The wealthy want to eliminate inheritance and capital gains taxes. That is how the large majority of the wealthy get most of their money. You hear very little about reducing taxes on labor. Thus, under that thinking. the tax burden would be placed on those who earn their money and not on those who get it.

I often hear that tax breaks for the wealthy would cause them to invest and hire more people. Why would they do that? What exactly is their incentive? If the working class had tax cuts then wouldn't they have more money to spend? Spend at the businesses that the wealthy run? More business means they need to hire more people and get more products from suppliers.

My major was not business or economics so I do not know an explanation here and don't recall hearing any. And, frankly, I am tired of hearing about class envy. I am happy with my lifestyle and most of the people I know are. It gets insulting. With some it sounds like class greed.

[Jeanne S]

Originally Posted by feed me

Tax cuts to the wealthy do no good but inspire more greed. Just look at the economy now.

And...increased entitlement programs that a lot of people take advantage of,when they shouldn't isn't a form of greed and dishonesty?

[chevalier]

Originally Posted by MidnightSun12

This argument is built on the assumption that taxation and government wealth re-distribution are charitable, which is something I disagree with. Charity is based on one's personal love for his neighbour and for God. An individual who pays their taxes are not doing so out of charity simply because they have no choice in the matter (there is no free-will). We can't be guilty of sin without full-consent and, thus, it follows logically that we also can't be virtuous without full-consent.

Government assistance, can indeed provide for the physical needs of the poor and there certainly cases where it is warranted but this is NOT charitable. Charity comes from you and me, it's the generous giving of ourselves for the love of God. If anything, the presence of social programs in our society indicates that we (as individuals) are not being charitable enough in caring for the least of our brothers and it actually underlines the absence of charity in our society, not its fruition.

No, it's not. I expressly said I didn't agree with redistribution tax, remember?

All I'm saying is that if you (as the government, society etc.) need to make a choice between two possible solutions, one which is liable to hurt the wealthy and the other to hurt the poor more, you should generally opt for the poor, i.e. shield them from risk more than the wealthy. Or if you need to distribute a monetary burden among all of the citizenry, you may find it proper to burden the wealthy proportionally more than the poor, in order that the poor are not driven to complete ruin. Starvation is a more serious matter than needing to tone down on luxuries (or even giving up some justified comforts). Therefore while I disagree with redistributive tax as a rule, I don't disagree with a tax burden distribution that protects the poor more than it does the wealthy.

Also, you can't resign the poor totally to charity if people are becoming poor due to injustice. If you have an injustice in your legal, economic or social system, you need to fix it. Not by bringing redistribution and equality on bayonets but by fixing the structural evil, the structural injustice. For example by removing loopholes which allow corruption of government officials to go unpunished or allow the wealthy to cheat on taxes.

For example if you can, as a US fast food corporation, establish a branch office in a tax heaven, transfer the intellectual property to your logos and brands to that branch office and devolve 95% of all sales proceeds as "royalties" in payment for a "licence" to use your own logo on the cups or plates and thus avoid taxes, this is very highly ethically questionable and shouldn't be tolerated by the authorities. I'm not saying the corporate officials should go to jail without due process for that, but I'm saying that such loopholes should be vigorously removed. Opposition to forcible, revolutionary solutions, should not be confused with tolerance for such injustice.

Similarly, if fines for offences against the rights of employees are so low that an employer can benefit more from ignoring his obligations (e.g. social insurance premiums, minimum wage) and paying the occasional fines when caught (because e.g. there's no real personal criminal responsibility for anybody, as in a jail sentence or community service or fine payable from private assets, but only a small fine to be paid by the corporation from the corporation's assets), then that also needs to be fixed.

[chevalier]

Originally Posted by Brendan

St. John Chrystom - Doctor of the Church, had this to say

That's an interesting quotation, thank you.

[TheRealJuliane]

Originally Posted by wondrousgnat

I am a life long Republican. Most especially because of my opposition to abortion (and I wish Republicans would keep their campaign promises). But the tax issue is something I feel very uncomfortable with. The wealthy want to eliminate inheritance and capital gains taxes. That is how the large majority of the wealthy get most of their money. You hear very little about reducing taxes on labor. Thus, under that thinking. the tax burden would be placed on those who earn their money and not on those who get it.

I often hear that tax breaks for the wealthy would cause them to invest and hire more people. Why would they do that? What exactly is their incentive? If the working class had tax cuts then wouldn't they have more money to spend? Spend at the businesses that the wealthy run? More business means they need to hire more people and get more products from suppliers.

My major was not business or economics so I do not know an explanation here and don't recall hearing any. And, frankly, I am tired of hearing about class envy. I am happy with my lifestyle and most of the people I know are. It gets insulting. With some it sounds like class greed.

Inheritance tax is double taxation, you do realize that, do you not? That money has already been taxed, at least once, and the only reason the government is getting its hands on that money is THEFT. What I make in my lifetime, I have paid my taxes on. How in the world can ANYONE justify the government ripping my heirs off after I am dead? It's absolutely theft of private property. It doesn't matter if you don't make the million dollars or whatever the lowest level is set to right now. What if your elected representatives decide to set the bar a lot lower, say, 100K in an estate now gets taxed 50% after your death? Would that make you angry? You earned that money and you want to pass it on to your children and grandchildren. You made that money honestly over your life and you paid your taxes exactly as you were supposed to. And now, just because you died, your children get RIPPED OFF to the tune of 50% of what YOU worked for!

Capital gains taxes are the same principal. If I take money that I have earned, and invest it, I have paid taxes on that money at some point. I mean income tax, not merely sales taxes on items I buy. So I have gotten a salary, have paid income taxes, and have taken some of the money and invested it. That money has been loaned to others so I have helped the economic system. So I get a dividend from doing that. And now the government wants to hit me with MORE taxes??

As for the incentive for businesses to invest in workers...Your model of giving money to the workers to increase their spending - their money comes from where, exactly? Their JOBS, correct? A lower tax rate for businesses is an incentive to locate in the country in the first place. Then, it's an incentive to grow the business and hire more workers. More workers = more people with paychecks = more spending. The cycle takes care of itself naturally if government lowers taxes and gets out of the way.

Punish business with higher taxes = business goes away.

[Georgia]

Free markets send the flow of capital to investments that produce desired returns, based on the risks and long-term growth. If a company is making returns through whatever means that are outside the norm, the stock price will rise, thereby bringing the returns into line. That, of course, assumes outside forces such as government do not skew the results.

Corporations do not pay any taxes, never have and never will. Taxes are passed to the consumers or are taken from the shareholders. Adjustments are made to meet expected rates of return, so higher taxes may in fact force jobs and infrastructure to places where the tax issues are lessened.

Capital is mobile. Money can move to any place in the world, particularly now when it travels with the click of a mouse. Wealth holders can move their money to any safe haven. Tax policy often ignores this fact, but it remains a factor either way. Try to tax too much and the money that powers the economy ends up in Hong Kong.

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by wondrousgnat

I

I often hear that tax breaks for the wealthy would cause them to invest and hire more people. Why would they do that? What exactly is their incentive? .

Well to start off with, Capital gains, are by definition, investments. Income can only be called a capital gain if it comes from an investment of one year or more.

If you discourage capital gains, that is a discouragement of investment, or at least long term investment.

What an increase in capital gains taxes would result in is more short term, speculative investing. After all, if the tax is the same, you might as well go for the shorter term gain. The investor would also only look at higher yield investments to conteract the higher tax he\she would have to pay (why invest in a stock that will only give you a 10% yield when you have to pay %50 tax on it)

That will result in a lot of market fluctuation, and most likely, the withdrawl of capital out of the market. Companies that are looking to expand ( ie hire more people) are going to find it harder to raise the money to do so. Only companies that could offer the higher yield needed to attract investors will be able to get the money. The rest will have to cancel their hiring and growth plans.

[He Man]

Originally Posted by TheRealJuliane

Inheritance tax is double taxation, you do realize that, do you not? That money has already been taxed, at least once, and the only reason the government is getting its hands on that money is THEFT. What I make in my lifetime, I have paid my taxes on. How in the world can ANYONE justify the government ripping my heirs off after I am dead? It's absolutely theft of private property. It doesn't matter if you don't make the million dollars or whatever the lowest level is set to right now. What if your elected representatives decide to set the bar a lot lower, say, 100K in an estate now gets taxed 50% after your death? Would that make you angry? You earned that money and you want to pass it on to your children and grandchildren. You made that money honestly over your life and you paid your taxes exactly as you were supposed to. And now, just because you died, your children get RIPPED OFF to the tune of 50% of what YOU worked for!

Capital gains taxes are the same principal. If I take money that I have earned, and invest it, I have paid taxes on that money at some point. I mean income tax, not merely sales taxes on items I buy. So I have gotten a salary, have paid income taxes, and have taken some of the money and invested it. That money has been loaned to others so I have helped the economic system. So I get a dividend from doing that. And now the government wants to hit me with MORE taxes??

As for the incentive for businesses to invest in workers...Your model of giving money to the workers to increase their spending - their money comes from where, exactly? Their JOBS, correct? A lower tax rate for businesses is an incentive to locate in the country in the first place. Then, it's an incentive to grow the business and hire more workers. More workers = more people with paychecks = more spending. The cycle takes care of itself naturally if government lowers taxes and gets out of the way.

Punish business with higher taxes = business goes away.

First of all, to argue about taxation without including a discussion on spending is naive and a waste of time. Taxes, high or low, can be negated by spending levels. Spend too much, and a 100% will not account for it. Spend too little, and a 0& tax will not be necessary.

And it becomes easy to support the inheritance tax when you have little to leave fyour heirs. The wealthy are naturally going to have more to leave their heirs, but who cares about them? Let's steal from them and double tax them, because they are rich, and I am not. I don't know if people just repeat slogans and talking points, but it comes off as extremely naive to endorse something as ludicrous as the inheritance tax. That, and the death tax, or to of the most disgusting forms of taxation we currently have. They are the starkest examples of the government saying "your money is only yours as far as we allow it to be." Dictatorial attitude, enacted by thievery.

[ProVobis]

Originally Posted by feed me

Actually, raising taxed on people like amazon or walmart aren't going to help the economy especially if you have a revolving door at the top where all the money from taxes on the wealthy come back at double the taxes spent. I fully agree that freeing up money for the small business owner is going to help him create jobs, but if you put it in the hands of really big folks and expect it to get down to the small business owner isn't going to help at all especially if that business owner has to pay for insurance and taxes, exe.

OTOH, increasing taxes may force the employer to hire more so that he can offset more expenses against his revenues, thereby giving him a lower taxable income. Just saying.

[aicirt]

Originally Posted by Ben F

There should be no tax breaks for anyone, poor or rich. The flat tax rate with no exemption is the way I would go. How about everybody pay ten percent. You make ten bucks, then one buck goes to Uncle Sam. God bless

You realize the simplicity of your idea provides no loopholes. What is it about 30 words on a sheet of paper? Needs more work.

[Inquiringperson]

Originally Posted by wondrousgnat

I am a life long Republican. Most especially because of my opposition to abortion (and I wish Republicans would keep their campaign promises). But the tax issue is something I feel very uncomfortable with. The wealthy want to eliminate inheritance and capital gains taxes. That is how the large majority of the wealthy get most of their money. You hear very little about reducing taxes on labor. Thus, under that thinking. the tax burden would be placed on those who earn their money and not on those who get it.

I often hear that tax breaks for the wealthy would cause them to invest and hire more people. Why would they do that? What exactly is their incentive? If the working class had tax cuts then wouldn't they have more money to spend? Spend at the businesses that the wealthy run? More business means they need to hire more people and get more products from suppliers.

My major was not business or economics so I do not know an explanation here and don't recall hearing any. And, frankly, I am tired of hearing about class envy. I am happy with my lifestyle and most of the people I know are. It gets insulting. With some it sounds like class greed.

Quick question: Do you like 999 then? I'm not trying to start a debate.

[MidnightSun12]

Originally Posted by chevalier

No, it's not. I expressly said I didn't agree with redistribution tax, remember?

All I'm saying is that if you (as the government, society etc.) need to make a choice between two possible solutions, one which is liable to hurt the wealthy and the other to hurt the poor more, you should generally opt for the poor, i.e. shield them from risk more than the wealthy. Or if you need to distribute a monetary burden among all of the citizenry, you may find it proper to burden the wealthy proportionally more than the poor, in order that the poor are not driven to complete ruin. Starvation is a more serious matter than needing to tone down on luxuries (or even giving up some justified comforts). Therefore while I disagree with redistributive tax as a rule, I don't disagree with a tax burden distribution that protects the poor more than it does the wealthy.

Also, you can't resign the poor totally to charity if people are becoming poor due to injustice. If you have an injustice in your legal, economic or social system, you need to fix it. Not by bringing redistribution and equality on bayonets but by fixing the structural evil, the structural injustice. For example by removing loopholes which allow corruption of government officials to go unpunished or allow the wealthy to cheat on taxes.

For example if you can, as a US fast food corporation, establish a branch office in a tax heaven, transfer the intellectual property to your logos and brands to that branch office and devolve 95% of all sales proceeds as "royalties" in payment for a "licence" to use your own logo on the cups or plates and thus avoid taxes, this is very highly ethically questionable and shouldn't be tolerated by the authorities. I'm not saying the corporate officials should go to jail without due process for that, but I'm saying that such loopholes should be vigorously removed. Opposition to forcible, revolutionary solutions, should not be confused with tolerance for such injustice.

Similarly, if fines for offences against the rights of employees are so low that an employer can benefit more from ignoring his obligations (e.g. social insurance premiums, minimum wage) and paying the occasional fines when caught (because e.g. there's no real personal criminal responsibility for anybody, as in a jail sentence or community service or fine payable from private assets, but only a small fine to be paid by the corporation from the corporation's assets), then that also needs to be fixed.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying here. Thanks for the clarification

[littlenothing]

Doesn't it depend on what is meant by "tax breaks". It seems they just use it as a general term to include even things like the child tax credit and low capital gains taxes. They seem to get more breaks because their taxes are a great deal more complicated than those of us who are not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination.