Comments on: Taxing the rich: There are limits http://moremoney.blogs.money.cnn.com/2009/07/16/taxing-the-rich-there-are-limits/ Money Magazine looks at a wide range of personal finance issues and asks for your feedback. Tue, 22 Dec 2009 00:19:01 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Jeff Heaton, Lafayette Ca http://moremoney.blogs.money.cnn.com/2009/07/16/taxing-the-rich-there-are-limits/#comment-21624 Jeff Heaton, Lafayette Ca Sun, 25 Oct 2009 04:11:53 +0000 http://moneyfeatures.blogs.money.cnn.com/?p=1710#comment-21624 I want to start a ballot initiative to dramatically raise the income tax rate for wealthy individuals and corporations in California. I think the additional funds raised should be distributed to the counties and ear marked to subsidize small businesses and non-profits that promote sustainable economic activities. Any ideas on how I would write the initiative so it is legal. I figure the state tax rate combined with the federal rate should be over 50%. Do you know if it would be legal for voters to vote for raising state taxes that high? Thanks I want to start a ballot initiative to dramatically raise the income tax rate for wealthy individuals and corporations in California. I think the additional funds raised should be distributed to the counties and ear marked to subsidize small businesses and non-profits that promote sustainable economic activities. Any ideas on how I would write the initiative so it is legal. I figure the state tax rate combined with the federal rate should be over 50%.
Do you know if it would be legal for voters to vote for raising state taxes that high?
Thanks

]]> By: Tom, Phx, AZ http://moremoney.blogs.money.cnn.com/2009/07/16/taxing-the-rich-there-are-limits/#comment-21320 Tom, Phx, AZ Sat, 03 Oct 2009 02:37:26 +0000 http://moneyfeatures.blogs.money.cnn.com/?p=1710#comment-21320 When Americans stop demanding more and more from our government and start demanding fiscal responsibility from our politicians and demand we pay down our National debt now and not put the burden on the kids of tomorrow, I start supporting tax cuts. Until then tax the people who caused all the problems. Us, all of us. When Americans stop demanding more and more from our government and start demanding fiscal responsibility from our politicians and demand we pay down our National debt now and not put the burden on the kids of tomorrow, I start supporting tax cuts. Until then tax the people who caused all the problems. Us, all of us.

]]> By: Sam in Houston http://moremoney.blogs.money.cnn.com/2009/07/16/taxing-the-rich-there-are-limits/#comment-19289 Sam in Houston Sat, 25 Jul 2009 22:23:56 +0000 http://moneyfeatures.blogs.money.cnn.com/?p=1710#comment-19289 To anyone foolish enough to have voted for Obama. You have sealed your own pathetic fate for letting the rant of Socialist scum sway you. America is screwed. He is turning a disaster into catastrophe. I’m not an economist but when Clinton passed the “Home For Everyone Act in 1998 and GWBush did nothing to crush it our fate was sealed. I saw what was coming and saw how 20 year old piles of termite infested wood and brick would sell for 6 figure numbers in crime infested neighborhoods I bought a mobile home a paid it off in a few years. I bought two late model economy cars and don’t have credit card debt. I also saved a pile of cash that I am turning into gold, silver, guns and ammo. I don’t owe money to anyone and take responsibility for my actions. Soon the reaper will harvest what debt ridden Americans have sown. Look at Detroit. Good Luck and God Bless, your gonna need it. To anyone foolish enough to have voted for Obama. You have sealed your own pathetic fate for letting the rant of Socialist scum sway you. America is screwed. He is turning a disaster into catastrophe. I’m not an economist but when Clinton passed the “Home For Everyone Act in 1998 and GWBush did nothing to crush it our fate was sealed.
I saw what was coming and saw how 20 year old piles of termite infested wood and brick would sell for 6 figure numbers in crime infested neighborhoods
I bought a mobile home a paid it off in a few years. I bought two late model economy cars and don’t have credit card debt. I also saved a pile of cash that I am turning into gold, silver, guns and ammo. I don’t owe money to anyone and take responsibility for my actions. Soon the reaper will harvest what debt ridden Americans have sown. Look at Detroit. Good Luck and God Bless, your gonna need it.

]]> By: Michae, Odessa, Florida http://moremoney.blogs.money.cnn.com/2009/07/16/taxing-the-rich-there-are-limits/#comment-18912 Michae, Odessa, Florida Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:36:35 +0000 http://moneyfeatures.blogs.money.cnn.com/?p=1710#comment-18912 Wow. I can't believe people who think taxes are good. What is good about the taxes? Do we need the taxes? And most importantly, I think we should only tax those who thinks taxes are good. After all, if they want to do good, let them pay for it. Stop trying to do good with other people's money. Thank you. Wow. I can't believe people who think taxes are good. What is good about the taxes? Do we need the taxes? And most importantly, I think we should only tax those who thinks taxes are good. After all, if they want to do good, let them pay for it. Stop trying to do good with other people's money. Thank you.

]]> By: B, NYC, NY http://moremoney.blogs.money.cnn.com/2009/07/16/taxing-the-rich-there-are-limits/#comment-18871 B, NYC, NY Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:10:32 +0000 http://moneyfeatures.blogs.money.cnn.com/?p=1710#comment-18871 No tax area under poverty levels, and then a flat tax (20/25%) for everybody, with absolutely no deduction. And immediate jail for who doesn't declare a penny of his/her income. That's fair. I live in NYC and on top of the same federal tax that a guy in Atlanta pays when he makes the same money (but lives much better), I have the highest state and city taxes. It's ridicolous, it's becoming like Western Europe (I'm from there) and believe me, it will be awful. No tax area under poverty levels, and then a flat tax (20/25%) for everybody, with absolutely no deduction. And immediate jail for who doesn't declare a penny of his/her income.
That's fair.
I live in NYC and on top of the same federal tax that a guy in Atlanta pays when he makes the same money (but lives much better), I have the highest state and city taxes.
It's ridicolous, it's becoming like Western Europe (I'm from there) and believe me, it will be awful.

]]> By: shari, atlanta, ga http://moremoney.blogs.money.cnn.com/2009/07/16/taxing-the-rich-there-are-limits/#comment-18796 shari, atlanta, ga Wed, 22 Jul 2009 01:24:42 +0000 http://moneyfeatures.blogs.money.cnn.com/?p=1710#comment-18796 What I find fascinating is this whole argument. Isn't Obama the one who sais that he wasn't going to take special interest money - etc - that he was going to raise money by taking a little bit from everyone (i.e., he raised SO MUCH MONEY by getting $5 or $10 or whatever from so many people). So he was able to break records with the amount of money he raised. So...why does he think the complete opposite (oh, we'll just take a little more from the top earners...) - will get this country anywhere? Why not go with the first model? Start having EVERYONE who earns income pay taxes (well, I'm against the income tax to begin with, let's go with the fairtax, but I digress) - so that everyone pays SOMETHING. I believe more in the flat tax...well, if it really STAYED a flat tax (i..e, without these deductions, without all these extra rules, like what reagan tried to do oh so many years ago). With a caveat - and a small deduction ($10k or something? Pay 10% of your income over 10 or 20k or whatever, to make it a little more progressive). So, why not do that? Why not ask everyone to pay something (even if it's something like $100)? Well, um, then your voting base would be angry? What I find fascinating is this whole argument. Isn't Obama the one who sais that he wasn't going to take special interest money – etc – that he was going to raise money by taking a little bit from everyone (i.e., he raised SO MUCH MONEY by getting $5 or $10 or whatever from so many people). So he was able to break records with the amount of money he raised.
So…why does he think the complete opposite (oh, we'll just take a little more from the top earners…) – will get this country anywhere?
Why not go with the first model? Start having EVERYONE who earns income pay taxes (well, I'm against the income tax to begin with, let's go with the fairtax, but I digress) – so that everyone pays SOMETHING.
I believe more in the flat tax…well, if it really STAYED a flat tax (i..e, without these deductions, without all these extra rules, like what reagan tried to do oh so many years ago). With a caveat – and a small deduction ($10k or something? Pay 10% of your income over 10 or 20k or whatever, to make it a little more progressive).

So, why not do that? Why not ask everyone to pay something (even if it's something like $100)?
Well, um, then your voting base would be angry?

]]> By: Christine, Belchertown, MA http://moremoney.blogs.money.cnn.com/2009/07/16/taxing-the-rich-there-are-limits/#comment-18778 Christine, Belchertown, MA Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:58:24 +0000 http://moneyfeatures.blogs.money.cnn.com/?p=1710#comment-18778 While it is true working hard does not always equal getting ahead, working hard, investing smartly and living a frugal lifestyle can. I know a woman who worked in a low-income job for many years, but through her incredible frugality and smart investing, now has a few millions of dollars in investments which she smartly invests to learn a large yearly income. It took her a long time to save this much and she certainly earned it by living a completely no-frills lifestyle. So would it make sense to tax these types of people more? Does it make sense to punish people for doing well by limiting themselves for so long in life? I also agree with Joe's post that the cost of living also plays a large role. I have certainly notice discrepancies in the cost of living even within my own state. A friend of mine who lives and works out in Boston at the same salary I am making here in the western part of the state, was astonished that I was able to afford the lifestyle I am living on the same salary she is making. What is considered "rich" really depends on where you live. While it is true working hard does not always equal getting ahead, working hard, investing smartly and living a frugal lifestyle can. I know a woman who worked in a low-income job for many years, but through her incredible frugality and smart investing, now has a few millions of dollars in investments which she smartly invests to learn a large yearly income. It took her a long time to save this much and she certainly earned it by living a completely no-frills lifestyle. So would it make sense to tax these types of people more? Does it make sense to punish people for doing well by limiting themselves for so long in life? I also agree with Joe's post that the cost of living also plays a large role. I have certainly notice discrepancies in the cost of living even within my own state. A friend of mine who lives and works out in Boston at the same salary I am making here in the western part of the state, was astonished that I was able to afford the lifestyle I am living on the same salary she is making. What is considered "rich" really depends on where you live.

]]> By: Steve,Ocean City, MD http://moremoney.blogs.money.cnn.com/2009/07/16/taxing-the-rich-there-are-limits/#comment-18765 Steve,Ocean City, MD Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:26:02 +0000 http://moneyfeatures.blogs.money.cnn.com/?p=1710#comment-18765 I guess Nixon was a "socialist" by the standards of some...tax rates on the wealthy and corporations were much higher then. In Europe only ultra-extreme call it "theft" to pay taxes that provide for our roads, bridges, schools, etc. Truth is, the lower and middle class are screwed, so there is some reality there. The wealthy twist this reality into pretending *they* are over-taxes. No, the rest of us are over-taxes, the wealthy are far too under-taxes, let's go back to Nixon on this one. "Boo Hoo! I make only $300,000 per year whild other families survive on $60,000 or $50,000 or less! I don't wanna pay a few percent more, I'm quitting, boo hoo!" Well if you don't enjoy your job, quit, if you were doing it only or mostly for the money...quit. Find a job you enjoy intrinsicly, and would be happy "even" with "only"$200,000 instead of $250,000 left after taxes. Why "Flat" Tax is actually regressive in practice (until and unless you have much higher deduction and Exemptions) Numbers are for illustration only but make the point powerfully enough: The Jones Family total income might be $50,000, and might have only $10,000 in excemptions plus deductions. That leaves $40,000, say 25% "flat" tax, they pay $10,000 in taxes. But their expenses for basic, basic necessities like food and roof over your head might be $30,000 which means they only have $20,000 left over after basic, basic food and "roof over our head" type necessities. Result? Their effective tax rate on money they have after basic food and "roof over our head" (non-survival rate or NSR) is $10,000 out of $20,000, or 50% That's their effective tax rate on "What we have left over after we spend what we need to, to feed ourselves and so our children don't go hungry" plus basic-level roof over head type expenses. Elsewhere in the exclusive district, the Scrooge household has an annual incomeof $1,000,000 per year. Their pricey lawyers find a a lot of tricks so for starters, they decude a lot more than $50,000. Let's say it's only $100,000 in practice it's much more. Basic food plus basic shelter costs $30,000 per year but the Scrooge household *chooses* to spend far, far above what they need for "Basic" shelter and food, which is fine, it's a free country and that is their right... Fine. Ok! But as a result, what is their effective tax on money they have left over after the $30,000 needed to avoid-starvation, have a basic roof over your head, etc, is deducted? They pay the 25% "flat" tax on $900,000 so they pay $225,000. How much money did they have left over after the $30,000 needed to avoid-starvation, have a basic roof over your head, etc, is deducted? Well, They had $1,000,000 minus $30,000 or $970,000 On that $970,000 they had available to them for spending (as they see fit, as is right right, it's their choice, it's a free country, etc) they paid $225,000. Their NSR rate? 23.2% While the Jones family paid an NSR rate of 50% . No wonder (almost) the only countries that have a flat tax are poor, desperate Eastern Europe and similar countries... I guess Nixon was a "socialist" by the standards of some…tax rates
on the wealthy and corporations were much higher then. In Europe only
ultra-extreme call it "theft" to pay taxes that provide for our roads,
bridges, schools, etc. Truth is, the lower and middle class are
screwed, so there is some reality there. The wealthy twist this
reality into pretending *they* are over-taxes. No, the rest of us are
over-taxes, the wealthy are far too under-taxes, let's go back to
Nixon on this one. "Boo Hoo! I make only $300,000 per year whild other
families survive on $60,000 or $50,000 or less! I don't wanna pay a
few percent more, I'm quitting, boo hoo!" Well if you don't enjoy your
job, quit, if you were doing it only or mostly for the
money…quit. Find a job you enjoy intrinsicly, and would be happy
"even" with "only"$200,000 instead of $250,000 left after taxes.

Why "Flat" Tax is actually regressive in practice (until and unless
you have much higher deduction and Exemptions)

Numbers are for illustration only but make the point powerfully
enough:

The Jones Family total income might be $50,000, and might have only $10,000 in
excemptions plus deductions. That leaves $40,000, say 25% "flat" tax,
they pay $10,000 in taxes. But their expenses for basic, basic
necessities like food and roof over your head might be $30,000 which
means they only have $20,000 left over after basic, basic food and
"roof over our head" type necessities.

Result? Their effective tax rate on money they have after basic food
and "roof over our head" (non-survival rate or NSR) is $10,000 out of $20,000, or 50%

That's their effective tax rate on "What we have left over after we
spend what we need to, to feed ourselves and so our children don't go
hungry" plus basic-level roof over head type expenses.

Elsewhere in the exclusive district, the Scrooge household has an
annual incomeof $1,000,000 per year. Their pricey lawyers find a a lot
of tricks so for starters, they decude a lot more than $50,000. Let's
say it's only $100,000 in practice it's much more.

Basic food plus basic shelter costs $30,000 per year but the Scrooge
household *chooses* to spend far, far above what they need for "Basic"
shelter and food, which is fine, it's a free country and that is their
right… Fine. Ok! But as a result, what is their effective tax on
money they have left over after the $30,000 needed to
avoid-starvation, have a basic roof over your head, etc, is deducted?

They pay the 25% "flat" tax on $900,000 so they pay $225,000.

How much money did they have left over after the $30,000 needed to
avoid-starvation, have a basic roof over your head, etc, is deducted?
Well, They had $1,000,000 minus $30,000 or $970,000

On that $970,000 they had available to them for spending (as they see
fit, as is right right, it's their choice, it's a free country, etc)
they paid $225,000.

Their NSR rate? 23.2%

While the Jones family paid an NSR rate of 50% .

No wonder (almost) the only countries that have a flat tax are poor, desperate Eastern Europe and similar countries…

]]> By: Joe, MD http://moremoney.blogs.money.cnn.com/2009/07/16/taxing-the-rich-there-are-limits/#comment-18701 Joe, MD Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:57:27 +0000 http://moneyfeatures.blogs.money.cnn.com/?p=1710#comment-18701 To Fed Up .. 7 times out of 10, working hard DOES NOT equate to getting ahead. Especially in this day in age. There are soo many people that are working hard, but are not getting ahead. Example, the middle class. Now that doesn't mean that I agree with increasing the taxes only for the rich because being rich is relative based on where you live. Making $300,000 dollars is not the same as from making $300,000 in Atlanta. You're purchasing power is more in Atlanta because the cost of living is lower than the cost of living in New York. I agree with Mike, a flat tax is the ONLY way to resolve this issue. This insures that EVERYONE pays their fair share. To Fed Up ..

7 times out of 10, working hard DOES NOT equate to getting ahead. Especially in this day in age. There are soo many people that are working hard, but are not getting ahead. Example, the middle class.

Now that doesn't mean that I agree with increasing the taxes only for the rich because being rich is relative based on where you live. Making $300,000 dollars is not the same as from making $300,000 in Atlanta. You're purchasing power is more in Atlanta because the cost of living is lower than the cost of living in New York.

I agree with Mike, a flat tax is the ONLY way to resolve this issue. This insures that EVERYONE pays their fair share.

]]> By: Mike St. Paul, MN http://moremoney.blogs.money.cnn.com/2009/07/16/taxing-the-rich-there-are-limits/#comment-18695 Mike St. Paul, MN Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:37:22 +0000 http://moneyfeatures.blogs.money.cnn.com/?p=1710#comment-18695 A Flat tax is the only way for everyone to give their fair share! Cutting out loop holes that let the rich get out of paying their fair share. A Flat tax is the only way for everyone to give their fair share! Cutting out loop holes that let the rich get out of paying their fair share.

]]> By: Jeff E, Tulsa, OK http://moremoney.blogs.money.cnn.com/2009/07/16/taxing-the-rich-there-are-limits/#comment-18694 Jeff E, Tulsa, OK Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:34:09 +0000 http://moneyfeatures.blogs.money.cnn.com/?p=1710#comment-18694 Well, you can either pay up legally or we can just file for eminent domain and take it. Well, you can either pay up legally or we can just file for eminent domain and take it.

]]> By: Fed Up, Stamford, CT http://moremoney.blogs.money.cnn.com/2009/07/16/taxing-the-rich-there-are-limits/#comment-18692 Fed Up, Stamford, CT Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:09:35 +0000 http://moneyfeatures.blogs.money.cnn.com/?p=1710#comment-18692 The United States has always been a capitalist society. Capitalism means those that work hard get AHEAD. How is taxing those who work hard to give to those that do not going to bail out the economy? That just means that NO ONE will have money to spend! Obama wants socialism. The United States has always been a capitalist society. Capitalism means those that work hard get AHEAD. How is taxing those who work hard to give to those that do not going to bail out the economy? That just means that NO ONE will have money to spend! Obama wants socialism.

]]> By: Petey, Minneapolis MN http://moremoney.blogs.money.cnn.com/2009/07/16/taxing-the-rich-there-are-limits/#comment-18691 Petey, Minneapolis MN Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:24:52 +0000 http://moneyfeatures.blogs.money.cnn.com/?p=1710#comment-18691 When are policy makers going to realize that taxing upwards of 50% of the pay of the business owners that actually provide the jobs to everyone else will just cause people to stop being entrepreneurs and just live off the government handouts? What happens when this group of people decides they no longer want to be a part of the 5% of the population that pays over 45% of the tax revenues collected? Where is the incentive for innovative thinkers and dreamers to become successful? Is it fair that the President and Government get to decide what you make and how you run your business? This is certainly not a free market society any longer. It is not just the rich being taxed it is the higher earning middle income people that are getting hit. Tax laws are not always indexed for inflation or where incomes are higher simply because cost of living is higher. We are in desperate need of a new tax system, I believe that a consumption tax is a viable possibility, people who buy the most, pay the most. Wow could it be that simple?? When are policy makers going to realize that taxing upwards of 50% of the pay of the business owners that actually provide the jobs to everyone else will just cause people to stop being entrepreneurs and just live off the government handouts? What happens when this group of people decides they no longer want to be a part of the 5% of the population that pays over 45% of the tax revenues collected? Where is the incentive for innovative thinkers and dreamers to become successful? Is it fair that the President and Government get to decide what you make and how you run your business? This is certainly not a free market society any longer. It is not just the rich being taxed it is the higher earning middle income people that are getting hit. Tax laws are not always indexed for inflation or where incomes are higher simply because cost of living is higher. We are in desperate need of a new tax system, I believe that a consumption tax is a viable possibility, people who buy the most, pay the most. Wow could it be that simple??

]]> By: Kasey, Virginia Beach, VA http://moremoney.blogs.money.cnn.com/2009/07/16/taxing-the-rich-there-are-limits/#comment-18690 Kasey, Virginia Beach, VA Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:02:43 +0000 http://moneyfeatures.blogs.money.cnn.com/?p=1710#comment-18690 The wealthy in this country can not be held responsible for paying for governmental social programs! That is just insane to expect the top 5% of the population to pay for the remaining 95% of the population. It is another easy out for both government and the other 95% of the country to expect others to pay for their wants and needs. The only way to have more affordable healthcare in this country is to get the government out of it, remove the insurance companies ability to refuse treatment, and CAP malpractice payments! We have the best healthcare in the world because of the free market system but it is under attack with Obama's healthcare reform plans. The wealthy in this country can not be held responsible for paying for governmental social programs! That is just insane to expect the top 5% of the population to pay for the remaining 95% of the population. It is another easy out for both government and the other 95% of the country to expect others to pay for their wants and needs. The only way to have more affordable healthcare in this country is to get the government out of it, remove the insurance companies ability to refuse treatment, and CAP malpractice payments! We have the best healthcare in the world because of the free market system but it is under attack with Obama's healthcare reform plans.

]]> By: Tim, San Diego CA http://moremoney.blogs.money.cnn.com/2009/07/16/taxing-the-rich-there-are-limits/#comment-18689 Tim, San Diego CA Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:01:07 +0000 http://moneyfeatures.blogs.money.cnn.com/?p=1710#comment-18689 The truly wealthy can afford not to work. They need to organize themselves and choose to collectively take a couple years off. I think that the legislators would soon see how valuable and important these people are to funding government services, which disproportionately benefit the most needy. For the poor people that like to bash the rich it might be a real eye opener. The truly wealthy can afford not to work. They need to organize themselves and choose to collectively take a couple years off. I think that the legislators would soon see how valuable and important these people are to funding government services, which disproportionately benefit the most needy. For the poor people that like to bash the rich it might be a real eye opener.

]]> By: Des, Washington, DC http://moremoney.blogs.money.cnn.com/2009/07/16/taxing-the-rich-there-are-limits/#comment-18686 Des, Washington, DC Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:27:50 +0000 http://moneyfeatures.blogs.money.cnn.com/?p=1710#comment-18686 Daniel in DC: Right on. Any more taxes, or lifting the OASDI annual cap, and I stay at home. No sense working to make $350K when I can stay at home and we can make $200K. Daniel in DC:

Right on. Any more taxes, or lifting the OASDI annual cap, and I stay at home. No sense working to make $350K when I can stay at home and we can make $200K.

]]> By: Annonomous, TX http://moremoney.blogs.money.cnn.com/2009/07/16/taxing-the-rich-there-are-limits/#comment-18685 Annonomous, TX Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:08:46 +0000 http://moneyfeatures.blogs.money.cnn.com/?p=1710#comment-18685 Interesting, the rich, this the rich that the rich the other. With unemployment officially at 9.5% - 25% depending on the source how come the rich are not creating jobs anymore? So if the rich are really responsible for creating jobs then, Tax them to hell and back until they decide to either create more jobs or bring the jobs back home. If they leave then thats one less burden we have to deal with. Of course their is one alternative left either tax or have some desperate fool break into our homes. Interesting, the rich, this the rich that the rich the other.

With unemployment officially at 9.5% – 25% depending on the source how come the rich are not creating jobs anymore? So if the rich are really responsible for creating jobs then, Tax them to hell and back until they decide to either create more jobs or bring the jobs back home.

If they leave then thats one less burden we have to deal with. Of course their is one alternative left either tax or have some desperate fool break into our homes.

]]> By: David, Albany NY http://moremoney.blogs.money.cnn.com/2009/07/16/taxing-the-rich-there-are-limits/#comment-18683 David, Albany NY Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:14:58 +0000 http://moneyfeatures.blogs.money.cnn.com/?p=1710#comment-18683 "John in Jackson: absolutely brilliant post!" Didn't Warren Buffet claim that his tax rate was less than that of his secretary? Please reconcile. "John in Jackson: absolutely brilliant post!"

Didn't Warren Buffet claim that his tax rate was less than that of his secretary? Please reconcile.

]]> By: Will, Tucson, AZ http://moremoney.blogs.money.cnn.com/2009/07/16/taxing-the-rich-there-are-limits/#comment-18679 Will, Tucson, AZ Tue, 21 Jul 2009 03:56:29 +0000 http://moneyfeatures.blogs.money.cnn.com/?p=1710#comment-18679 If I were wealthy I would donate to charitable organizations that I valued and give as little to the government as possible. Government is inefficient and wasteful in its use of money. Over taxing the “rich” removes money used to build the wealth of American and will at the very least stunt economic growth. Well off business owners only owe their fellow Americans one thing and that is to use their influence and abilities to stand up for what is right. If I were wealthy I would donate to charitable organizations that I valued and give as little to the government as possible. Government is inefficient and wasteful in its use of money. Over taxing the “rich” removes money used to build the wealth of American and will at the very least stunt economic growth. Well off business owners only owe their fellow Americans one thing and that is to use their influence and abilities to stand up for what is right.

]]> By: Tom, Portland ME http://moremoney.blogs.money.cnn.com/2009/07/16/taxing-the-rich-there-are-limits/#comment-18671 Tom, Portland ME Mon, 20 Jul 2009 23:31:44 +0000 http://moneyfeatures.blogs.money.cnn.com/?p=1710#comment-18671 It doesn't matter how much you tax the rich and give to the poor - the free-market system inevitably siphons that money back up the food chain to the wealthiest. It doesn't matter how much you tax the rich and give to the poor – the free-market system inevitably siphons that money back up the food chain to the wealthiest.

]]>