Eddie Harrison

Profile

Username:
eddie
Name:
Eddie Harrison
Location:
Henderson, NV
Birthday:
02/07
Status:
Married
Job / Career:
Information Technology

Stats

Post Reads:
123,639
Posts:
121
Photos:
9
Last Online:
20 days ago
View All »

My Friends

> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago

Subscribe

Neon Is Back!

Politics & Legal > Millionaires and Billionaires Should Pay
 

Millionaires and Billionaires Should Pay

I keep hearing that millionaires and billionaires should pay their fair share. So I thought I would throw the question out in hopes of a rational explanation of what this means.

Besides the lack of any substantive thought, this argument has several flaws.

Flaw #1 - The incorrect use of the term millionaires and billionaires by politicians is used to mislead the masses and invoke class warfare.
Flaw #2 - The millionaires and billionaires are generally the people who employ millions of workers and provide goods and services.
Flaw #3 - Even if the government sticks it to the millionaires and billionaires as many people hope for...this will not help anyone. Not one dime with go the the people on the sidelines waiting for the handout. The money will go the corrupt politicians and ultimately cause the companies that the millionaires and billionaires own to either raise prices...or let workers go.
Flaw #4 - Who defines another persons "fair share"?

In the US, the obvious (and correct) definition of a millionaire is an individual whose net worth or wealth is equal to or exceeds one million dollars. A billionaire is 1000X that number. For tax purposes and politicians this actually means individuals who earn $250,000+ in a given year.

The bigger side to the millionaires and billionaires class warfare argument is the question of what is the "fair share" and who defines it? The correct definition of "fair" is free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice. Share is defined as one of the equal fractional parts, or to divide and distribute in shares; apportion. These definitions alone point to the fact that the "get the millionaires and billionaires" argument is flawed. Fair share actually means that EVERYONE should contribute equally...not just one group over another.

Should the rich define everyone's fair share? Should the poor make this decision? Should the politicians decide? I would be willing to bet that not one person who reads this and honestly comments can make this argument. Here is the challenge...

With regards to taxation, tell me what you think is another persons "fair share" is and what group of people should define it. Also, explain how you think it is going to help you personally. Pretend you are defining your fair share...you parents, your siblings. What is the number?

Rules. You cannot use the tired millionaires and billionaires line in the comment.

Here is an example: I think I should pay 15% of my annual gross income to the federal government without any possible deductions. And since the constitution states that all men are created equal, I think my unemployed sister and Bill Gates should pay the same rate. And if I ever get to meet Bill Gates, I will say "thank you" for contributing more than I do!

posted on Dec 3, 2011 9:23 AM ()

Comments:

Eddie, as a venture capitalist, can you possibly imagine your deficit spending in any given venture to be greater than your capital gains? That's freaking ludicrous. Our deficit spending as a nation is rapidly encroaching upon on our national GDP. What part of that doesn't anyone get?
comment by whereabouts on Jan 16, 2012 9:09 PM ()
Even if they did pay more than they currently do, it still wouldn't put a dent in the deficit, and would have almost no impact on revenues. Congress must STOP their OUT-OF-CONTROL SPENDING. That is where the problem lies.
comment by whereabouts on Jan 16, 2012 2:46 PM ()
Yep!
reply by eddie on Jan 16, 2012 2:52 PM ()
Well hello sir! I have no comment other than that.
comment by kristilyn3 on Dec 4, 2011 3:42 PM ()
Hello to you as well!
reply by eddie on Dec 4, 2011 8:04 PM ()
I had to post another blog in response to yours, there's to much to put as a comment here. You probably wont like my views on this subject but I wanted to address those "flaws" as you put it with my own take/opinion because I am so sick and tired of hearing those on the right confuse and mislead people with their talking points rhetoric that are less than credible or blown out of context. It is not personal and I hope it doesnt offend you.
comment by aussiegirl on Dec 3, 2011 4:58 PM ()
Nope...not offended. All of us can have a different viewpoint.
reply by eddie on Dec 3, 2011 10:14 PM ()
There are other ways to frame the discussion without rich vs. poor. I'll probably be branded as a socialist, or worse, but everybody should at least have enough (yeah, I know, who decides) to survive before they are taxed. When I pay the same sales tax on a roll of toilet paper as you do, I am paying a much larger portion of my income for the privilege of, well, you know, than you are. Same with federal tax if everybody payed the same rate. The tax code is a mess and loopholes make it unworkable, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it should be scrapped. The republican candidate who's associated with the Subway chain complained that he only has $600,000 left to feed his family after tax and business expenses. Well, if that's a problem, then how is life for the guy making $25,000? Should they be taxed "equally"?
comment by jjoohhnn on Dec 3, 2011 4:42 PM ()
My question though is why should I pay any tax? That was money withheld from my paychecks--I have 2 more years to go to break 'even'!
I, personally, don't want to 'get the rich'--I want to get the politicians--IF they had left the SS fund alone there would be plenty in it today--I want to eliminate all their perks--ALL--the question is if they are going into 'public service' should they leave with a huge profit in payouts?? They put the money in the general fund let them put it back!
I still don't understand the thinking that by taxing the rich there won't be jobs created--correct me if I am wrong but didn't GE pay zero taxes and now they are moving completely out of the USA?
As far as your argument goes that we are all taxed too much--I made my money in the 70s and for 10 years I paid unbelievable personal taxes as did my corporation but I still traveled to New Zealand, Australia, South America, etc., on vacations first class, had a new Caddy convertible every year, owned a town home and so on--I didn't feel I was taxed too much--I had more than enough to live quite luxuriously after taxes!
comment by greatmartin on Dec 3, 2011 2:00 PM ()
I agree with most of what you said. Your SS money should be there, and the politicians should have let it alone. I also agree that corporations (IE GE) should not be getting away without paying taxes. That is where the elimination of the deductions would help. I thing that when you were making a lot of money (70's), you would have been paying more taxes than you would be if you were not making a lot of money.
reply by eddie on Dec 3, 2011 2:18 PM ()
No charity deductions? Who's going to pay for the opera and public TV?
comment by troutbend on Dec 3, 2011 1:22 PM ()
reply by eddie on Dec 3, 2011 2:14 PM ()
Excellent point!
comment by jerms on Dec 3, 2011 1:21 PM ()
You never did answer my question on the other blog which was--Should I be required to pay 15% of the $10,000 social security (which is my only income)I paid in for 48 years of working? If I am lucky I will get a 1-3% raise (didn't get any the past 2 years) which is eaten up by the increase in Medicare every year.
My medical bills have gone up over 15% in the past 2 years--I am already considered below the poverty level (though I do agree poverty here is different than in a 3rd world country). Should I pay $1,500 leaving me with $8,500 which will leave me with about $700 plus some change a month to pay for rent, medicines and other necessities?
comment by greatmartin on Dec 3, 2011 10:19 AM ()
If you have the "get the rich" mentality...the short answer would be yes. If you believe that 15% is to much, then perhaps the tax should only be 10%. This makes one of my points that we are ALL taxed to much and that everyone can make a case why government should limit their spending. We all could then only pay maybe 5% or 2%.
reply by eddie on Dec 3, 2011 10:31 AM ()

Comment on this article   


121 articles found   [ Previous Article ]  [ Next Article ]  [ First ]  [ Last ]