Social Connection
When the richest 10% of American households have 50% of consumer spending, why shouldn’t they get taxed more?
December 2nd, 2011 | 
Author: Question by Nancy Pelosi 2016: When the richest 10% of American households have 50% of consumer spending, why shouldn’t they get taxed more?
Here’s the story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/10/us/10iht-letter10.html?ref=world
Why not tax the very rich, and instead of giving that money off as welfare to working-class Americans, we could redistribute it to start-ups for small businesses that the working- and middle-class want.
So it’s win-win for both liberals and conservatives!
Best answer:
Answer by goodluckwithhat
Wow! She wasn’t bad looking back in the day. (Pelosi could never win.)
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
Popular Posts:
- Stocks Posting Sharp Losses In Early Afternoon Trading – U.S. Commentary
- TIer 5 Unemployment Extension Update 05/15/2010
- How does one qualify to receive the FED-ED unemployment insurance extension in California?
- NCESC Unemployment Benefits – www.ncesc.com « Breaking News
- How can i get money?I am a jobless person and don’t have any source of income with me.?
Incoming search terms:
- richest 10% of americans
- ca edd gov up[dates for 99ers
Tags:
well you just answered you own question, because they spend the most, if we tax them more, then they will have less to spend, and by spending less then the economy will only get worse!
anyone named Nancy Pelosi 2016, cannot be taken seriously.
Because taxes should be on who uses the government more, not who makes more.
This subject has been run into the ground. Your reasoning is flawed on several things, any tax increases wouldn’t go to America, your hero as president would merely give it away to foreign countries or throw it away foolishly. Class warfare has become sickening.
The top 20% own and control 95% of all financial wealth in America.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Yet they pay an effective tax rate of around 18%. Some even less.
Yes, they should get taxed more. Eliminate the capital gains tax rate, and tax that money as true income at the 35% level, as called for under the Bush tax cuts.
I’m a “con”
I have a hard time believing the Millionaires and Billionaires live paycheck to paycheck. Those Bush tax cuts are a scam!
It still boils down to re-distribution of wealth. The wealthy already pay the lion’s share of taxes. When is it enough? Do we limit all income to a maximum of $ 250,000 and give anything over that to the gov’t? Where does it stop? If we hike it now, in a few years the same arguments will arise that the wealthy need to pay more taxes. Then, after the next hike, in a few more years it will come around once more.
First it is not our money to redistribute.
Second if you do, given the current Fiscal Irresponsibility we are addicted to, when do you stop?
Who says enough is enough?
When the rich are either bled dry or they pick up and move, do we then consider the middle class rich and bleed them dry to replace the revenue we will lose?
When the middle is gone do we bleed the poor dry too?
When is it enough? Will it ever be enough?
It is not win-win it is a slippery slope that ends in fiscal ruin.
Cut the spending to responsible levels, everyone gets what they deserve and most get what they want. That is win-win.
We should. We have to get deficits under control. The wealthy have been redistributing middle class wealth to their bank accounts for years through the tax code. That is simply not fiscally sustainable.
Good question. Thanks for posting.
Sure.
Let’s get rid of income tax and implement a VAT tax only.
Seems fair to me.
starting work at 12 years old and working for 50 years to accumulate my wealth, why should i share it with anyone. tax all you want, my investments are well hidden and safe from your ilk.
It seems like an obvious solution but it has just never worked. Old Adam Smith wrote 300 years ago that “money” (in this case, very wealthy people’s money) goes where it is treated best which usually involves lower taxes, safety and potential for return. The US already has THE highest corporate taxes in the world and some of the highest personal taxes as well. If we took the entire incomes of the top 100 richest people in the our country it would not dent our annual deficit but it would certainly cause these people (probably pretty smart folks) to move their money and investments somewhere else.
What we need is a lot less rediculous spending. Just evaluate how much faster we are growing all government spending compared to growth in the economy. It is a complicated mess but my sense is that the problem is in all of our governments spending and making promises that are not financially possible.
I would like to see the source for that study. I notice that your reference makes the claim but does not provide any way for us to verify its accuracy.
Besides – under the liberal theory of ‘trickle up economics’ – consumer spending is the key for getting us out of the recession. If you tax the people who are providing the bulk of the consumer spending, wouldn’t you (using your own liberal theories) be doing nothing but making the recession worse?
Or are you admitting that the ‘trickle up economics’ theory is wrong?
So, let me get this straight. YOU want to be taxed on your income. Then, YOU want to be taxed on every dollar YOU spend? That is what are asking for. Don’t you realize that getting people to spend money keeps the economy going?
What makes you think that the government will do ANY better starting business with this “tax” you want than they have have already with the stimulus that had accomplished nothing but waste nearly a trillion bucks? Name ANY enterprise that the government has ever been able to run well? They SUCK at business. Who is better at spending money wisely; those who know how to manage it and create wealth or those who only know how to squander it?
News flash, the very rich are already taxed.