If Warren Buffet wants to give more taxes he can. It's his money, he can do what he wants with it.
The wealthy do import more. Stuff made in companies in other natuions that employ people.
But not employ people in the United States. Thus my jobless recovery comment - there seems to be this assumption that parents will just let their children starve if we killed food stamps.
Plus they have (often) houses with staff to tend it. Many have several homes, in the city (high tax areas) and some in the countryside (generally low tax areas). Where I live the govenor of California has(had?) a residence on an island. No doubt fairly low property taxes were paid on it. Overall, the wealthy spend moree. They have the money for it, why shouldn't they spend some of it?
If the money stays in the US - either via bank or purchases such as those - or taxes - then there is really no issue. It is really hard to actually 'remove' wealth from the global economy unless someone is wealthy enough and chooses to contribute no productive value to society (me, hate pensions? >_>).
If wealth goes out of the country, however, that can become a problem - America is home to an obscene amount of wealth, of course, but only so much can leave before it becomes an economic burden. Every fifty thousand dollars worth of imports is one person's job for a year.
On small scales, this is easily coped with. For 2007 and 2008, however, the trade deficit was eight hundred billion dollars.
Anyone who wants a forecast of how Obama may be remembered may want to look at this graph
It's rather soon to say, but if imports continue to fall and exports continue to rise, Obama will have to actually try to fail. Heaven help the Republicans if the US has a trade surplus month during his first year in office.
My main issue with taxes, income taxes, mostly is those who do not pay it demanding those who do (anyone wealthier than they are) pay more. I've been told by some on another board that they would not mind if the tax on wealth generated over about $200,000 was about 70-95%. Their arguements for it usually ended up in several ways. 1; they have more so they can 'afford' to be taxed higher. 2; they deswerve to be taxed more. 3; The money is better spent by the government on social programs than by the ones earning it. 4; THE MONEY THEY ARE NOT PAYING IS KILLING PEOPLE!! THEY NEED TO BE TAXED SO IT CAN GO INTO NEEDED PROGRAMS AND SERVICES THAT WILL KEEP PEOPLE FROM DYING!!
I don't think anyone here is advocating such taxes on such a low bracket. Even Eisenhower's 90% bracket, adjusted for inflation, comes out to ~50 million a year or something like that.
More to the point, however, look at #4 for a bit. A more appropriate example is say, Ecuador or Peru and their water crisis, but that does not mean the same situation does not apply in the United States.
The premise is simple.
1: If you refuse to provide
2: If you refuse to educate
3: People will attempt to provide for themselves and their families via those means that they understand.
Who pays for the jails?
Who pays for the extermination squad, if you prefer to kill them?
Who pays for their children? Or do you seriously believe this nation has the political will to eliminate millions of starving children?
Sorry about the cap lock, but that last arguement was exactly what I was told by someone who framed her arguement that not paying more taxes was killing people and that everyone who was against raised taxed was, indirectly, a murdering bastard.
I would not call them murderers. I would call them shortsighted.
IF you raised rates, what would yopu raise them to? Would it be just the rich (in this case, the upper 50% of income payers) who would pay or would you be willing to extend the tax back down to the 45% or so that pay no income taxes?
Pay with what money?
Oh, sure. If you're willing to educate and provide proper support and regulation, this all becomes unnecessary. Ideally most people would pull in relatively egalitarian incomes, give or take. That all goes out the window when people lobby for their special exemptions, government contracts, and deregulation "You don't need to know what we put in your food, really!" People die
. Nations fail
Capoital gains affects those who own stock, right? If so that is a good many elderly and pensioners that are taxed too. Not just the rich business owners.
Yes, although it's taxed as income. Pensions are another anchor that chains the American economy. Fortunately we won't be saddled with them forever, but still, right now, they hurt.