This article is about Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's income (sort of). The governor and presidential hopeful will not tell his income but did say he gives fifteen percent of his income to the government for taxes. Romney is a wealthy American who is part of the one percent, so is it fair for him to have to pay the same or less percentage of his income in taxes compared to a teacher or other Americans who make far less than he does? Do you think tax breaks to the rich help the economy or is causing for a greater income inequality in America?
9 comments:
I found this to be quite an interesting article and the influence that Mitt Romney had among taxes. It really does show the inequality of income in the US and perhaps if we can improve this we can get our economy moving in the right direction.
Personally, I think he (along with the 1%) should be paying higher taxes. Yes, they did work hard to get to where they are today with the kind of success they have, but you also have to look at how much more better off they are compared to most of society. Like the Ted lecture I posted to the blog, we could possibly improve the real human quality of life by narrowing the huge differences in income (through taxation), but obviously that is not very favorable to a majority of people. However, it would make society a little more Pareto efficient-you aren't necessarily hurting the rich or decreasing their quality by taxing them a little more, and you are in turn improving the quality of life of those who are way worse off.
Yes I agree Greg. Giving tax breaks to the wealthiest people will not help stimulate the economy. Reagan implemented the trickle down theory, which states that the less the rich are taxed the more they will invest into business infrastructure and equity markets. During Reagan's presidency the marginal tax rate on the highest income tax bracket was cut from 70% to 28%. The policy was very unsuccessful. Furthermore, scientist who have looked at the correlations between money and happiness have found that beyond a GDP per capita of $15,000 money does not buy happiness. It seems logical to me to take into account the fact that past a certain point money does not buy happiness and using that knowledge to increase taxes on the wealthiest.
I agree with Greg. It is frustrating that the top 1% has such a vast amount of the over all income, but they fight to pay less taxes. People of every social class continue, however, to vote for those promoting deregulation, big business, and tax cuts. Unless there is a shift in voting, and people in lower social classes realize tax cuts means cheap labor, economic inequality will only heighten.
Looking at Mitt Romney's taxes that he released yesterday it was interesting to dig deeper into how he claimed his income and why it is linked this fact examples his lower rates. As a partner at Bain capital Mitt gettings his income in the forum of dividends from the equity he holds. Lets say the US raises the tax rates for dividends to 30% or 35% so it is equal to highest tax rates for income. Would this push Mitt to no longer invest in the private sector and push him to tax free investments like municipal bonds? How would this effect the economy? Will there be any collateral damage for raising taxes for the rich that invest in our economy?
I think we have to keep in mind that those 1% pay more tax than 50% of American Population. Yes, it's true that they are paying lower tax rate, but it doesn't mean they pay less tax. In addition, they are the one who invest the most in the economy, so if you tax them too much, there might be significant decrease in investment.
Yes, it's true that the top 1% invests the most. However, doesn't it make sense to tax them with higher rates since this small group has a ridiculous amount of money. Then the larger population can be taxed less allowing them to have more money and to make investments. The vast majority has far less money, but there are far more people. Therefore, if all their expenditures are combined it can make up for the money the extremely wealthy won't be investing. Then, the nation as a whole could be better off. I don't know enough about economics to create or fully understand policy, but to me it seems, the better off more people in a nation are--the better the nation is
I'm not sure taxing them more is the right move but I think they should pay their employees more. It makes no sense for American CEOs to make 400+ times as much as their average employee compared to Japan where CEOs make only 11 times more their average employee. If they won't share the money by giving back to the company who then could hire more people or higher salaries for their employees, I believe they deserved to get taxed more.
Post a Comment