Of course, there is an argument that won't be made simply because liberals don't want to accept because they don't want to admit that government is less efficient then charities even though it's well documented.

Which is....

"Warren Buffet's money is better put into private charities, but if you raised the tax rate, it may raise more revenue from rich people who don't donate as much to charity and the pure increase in cash would offset the inefficiencies caused by Warren Buffets money going from private good charity, to bloated mediocre government ones."


I don't have the numbers to either confirm or deny an such a statement... but being that I like to play devils advocate... it's worth mentioning. I prefer every possibility to be considered personally.

You see people, this is why a rebellion is in dire need!

Oh, and the one thing to note where Warren Buffet is actually Cherry picking job numbers....

When tax rates were higher, and job rates were increasing at their highest.... tax rates were being lowered.

The biggest years were when Reagan GREATLY cut the top level tax rate... and then the .com bubble.

Of course if you ask me... tax rates only matter in the short term. 

Raise taxes, and in the short term you stunt growth because people aren't used to having such a tax rate.

Lower taxes and in the short term you increase growth because people think they are getting bonus money.

However in the long run, assuming the change isn't too much, it doesn't change much.

It's like buying food from a supermarket.  A product you normally wouldn't buy being on sale might make you buy it because you say  "oh it's cheap", but soon that "cheap" price is just what you'd except to pay for it if it never comes off being on sale. You may or may not continue to buy it then.

When a product you like goes up in price... you may not buy it, but a few months later you may give in and buy it, because it's just a few nickels more and the stuff you do do isn't as good etc.

Raising taxes is fine, as long as it's gradual and at a time of excess growth.

Cutting taxes... eh.  I don't see the point in cutting taxes really unless it's corporate taxes or capital gain taxes, since they have rivals.  Aka people can move companies overseas eaisly or buy into foreign markets.

Hence why it's better to have a corporate VAT for companies.

I fail to see how your view is consistent. You say you disagree with the rich paying more for the same government services but then you support a flat tax that would mean that the rich pay more overall?

"I know you're joking, but I suspect the massive resistance to a flat tax scheme is that it makes it much more difficult to bribe people or buy votes ...

If you notice a large portion of social programs are pushed by people who effectively say (by calling for higher taxes for people who earn a higher income) that these programs are not worth implementing if they had to pay for these programs themselves. With the other reforms I would implement it would be very difficult to sell social programs that the majority of people would not be paying for.

Essentially, if it meant that the tax rate would be increased from 25% to 30%, I doubt many progressive politicians would get much traction selling a universal day care program; but, as long as they can promise to tax the rich or pass on the debt to your great grandchildren, in the current system progressive politicans can be remarkably successful because they can promise anything without thinking of the costs."

Actually a lot of the people supporting progressive taxation and the welfare programs they can pay for are amongst the people who will be hit hardest by the progressive taxation.

I am actually in favor of repelling  the Bush tax cuts for married couple making more than 100k ( Obama wants to repell for those over 250k) and I would be affected quite a lot by that ...

I think you should re-read what I initially said, in particular "Why should there be a higher tax rate for those who earn more?" ... A flat tax system is entirely consistent with my first post.

Now, on the topic of progressives supporting social programs that they pay for please point me to the group of progressives who want to run a balanced budget and support broad-based tax increases on the majority of earners to pay for their spending? Please ensure that these people demonstrate this in more than meaningless words, remembering (of course) that all of Hollywood can't be used being that they move their movie productions to the jurisdiction with the lowest tax rates, and most liberal business owners can't be used being that they use every tax loophole in the book to avoid paying taxes.

What I really don't understand is the whole republican logic around the fact that raising taxes for people that makes over 250k a year will slow job growth.

I mean it's easy. Who in this country makes over 250k a year ? The list isn't that long.

- Lawyers, traders, executives, doctors, salesmen( some not all by far), actors, professional athletes...

Most small business owners do not even make that least .

And last I checked very few of the people in that list are actually engaged in creating new business, they already have a well-paid job and are pretty happy with it......( executives affect job creation but based on the company finances, not their own pay or tax level).

So explain to me how the way those are taxed affect job creation?

In a logical way please...

PS : I'm going to come close to that 250k limit this year due to exercising a lot of stock options and I can tell you for sure I am not planning to create any job....

There are a few reasons ...

First off, you have capital flight. If you're paying a punitive tax rate in one jurisdiction and you can pay a lower tax rate in another jurisdiction odds are pretty good that you will move to the lower tax jurisdiction if you can. While you may not have been directly involved in creating jobs, the loss of your spending and investment in a region can dramatically lower job creation.

Secondly, most high income earners have significant control over their own earnings and the earnings of others. If you increase the tax rate on executives or even small business owners odds are pretty good that they will give themselves significant raises and make cut-backs elsewhere or increase costs on their services to compensate.

Why doesn't Warren Buffet just set an example for everyone else and write a check for $5 billion directly to the treasury?

Why don't all the Hollywood A-list celebrities who love to tell the rest of us how to live our lives take half of their $20 million a pic paychecks and send it directly to the treasury instead of buying another yacht or mansion?

If the fat cats on Wall St have to pay their "fair share", then so do the rest of the multimillion and billionaires in other circles, like the sports, entertainment, and quasi-political industries.

I'd settle for them actually filming in this country instead of going to Canada for the tax breaks.