Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Is Robbing Peter to Pay Paul the ANSWER to many of our problems?

If you believe it is, who would your targets be? I know that many of you feel that CEO's of many companies are overpaid, but I doubt that all of them put together would be docked enough to make all of the difference. Who else makes the big bucks that we can tax harder? How about movie stars, directors and much of the Hollywood elite who make fortunes? Singers? Doctors? Should we tax them heavier (they're in that top percentage)? Sports stars? Hey, many of them are overpaid and sign contracts for outrageous salaries- right?

Let's add to this list. Who else can we add to the list? And while we're at it, do you agree that this is the route to take and will it make a lot of that 'bad stuff' disappear?

Kindly elaborate.

28 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Another great question.

    First, look at how the economy works. If I am one of those corporate CEO's and I have a lot of money, what do I do with it? I either spend it or invest it. If I dig a hole and put it in the ground, then I am pretty sure I will not be a CEO for very long.

    Ok so I spend it. That means that I have to have someone make the products I need, service those products, and eventually make bigger and better products for me. That means that I put people to work in some fashion or another.

    Now if I inverst it, then whatever I invest in has to be serviced in some fashion. Again, that puts people to work.

    So if we tax these CEO's so they have very little to spend, then we prevent them from buying the products and services that many of us provide. Not a good idea.

    What about those other rich people in Hollywood and sports. Same thing applies. After all, Michael Vick had to buy those dogs from someone.

    I would say that everyone has to pay based on what they have earned. Therefore, if I earned $100k, I would spend money based on what I had. So say I spend $60k over the course of that year for all kinds of things. I should pay according to what I have spent, say 5% of that $60k or $3,000. If I only made $30k the next year and I could only spend $20k then I would pay 5% of $20k or $1,000. That would seem pretty fair to me.

    Oh and one other thing. If I am a drug dealer, I make all my money as cash that never gets reported to the IRS today. Under the other method, I would pay for every penny I spend. So my new Cadillac that costs $75k would force me to pay $3.75k in taxes. So now the drug dealer has now paid taxes that he did not before. An unexpected source of income for the government.

  • 1 decade ago

    Let me start with this, corporate welfare is a myth. A corporation is not a taxpayer.

    When the government levies a tax on a corporation, the corporation has only three options: 1: reduce dividends, 2: pass the added cost to consumers by increasing the cost of goods/services, or 3: reduce the number of employees.

    Let’s keep in mind that America is still a capitalist country. A CEO SHOULD make more than the average employee. If the government again enforced “wage and price controls” think about how productive an engineer (just for example) would be if instead of a salary s/he were paid the same hourly rate as an entry level clerk.

    Now to address your question, why not just lobby for removing the current federal income tax system and replace it with a national sales tax?

    Imagine, everyone would have to pay the same percentage for whatever they purchase. We would have no need to rob anyone.

  • 1 decade ago

    I agree with the poster above who brought up the concept of fair tax in lieu of the income tax. Its the only fair system of taxation. If you need a 2 million dollar yacht, then you can pay the taxes for it.

    The real problem in America now is that we owe Paul hundreds of billions already. We arent just going to have to rob Peter either, but sell the estate down to the brass tacks to just put a dent in the interest Paul is going to demand. The cost of the war in Iraq combined with the Prescription Drug plan, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security have economists running to the doctor for blood pressure medication. Throw in the burgeoning debt bomb and you have a major economic disaster that needs to be addressed now.

    Eliminating the estate tax was another brilliant disaster. Im all for easing the burden on the American farmer, but what do I care that the great-great granddaughter of the guy who invented the widget gets to keep her 1000 acre estate? (that should get me some thumbs down)

    At any rate, unless there is a major "surge" in the economy that results in a massive surplus, the bill is going to come due for our spending and taxes will have to be raised or the taxation system in America revamped to address our current needs. Is it "fair?" No. Is it necessary? Yes. Im afraid daddy spent the grocery money at the track, now we all need to tighten our belts until next payday.

  • 1 decade ago

    Well America does have the highest paid executives in the world which to me speaks more about the general selfishness of our generation than it does the government. Truth is, we need a balanced Federal budget and sound fiscal policy to go hand in hand with cutting out corporate handouts (a 450 billion dollar budget item anually) and a real need to define America's future in foreign policy and feed a can do attitude across the land.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Then just why would we want to be educated or compete or try to achieve anything in this life, if we had to increase taxes unfairly on those who succeed? Wouldn't people just become more apathetic? Our country as someone stated in another answer has the richest poor people in the world, and that I believe to be true. So I say, with a resounding No, to the question that everyone should have opportunities to better themselves without a penalty.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Government funding for the arts has GOT TA GO ! You know, I'm all about the arts if that's your fancy, but why does the government have to subsidize it with my/your tax dollar? If there is a real legitimate interest in the arts then it will survive on it's own by people who support it.....just like sports. Football, baseball,...NASCAR...they all seem to be doing fine because people WANT to pay their money to support it. If people do not want to go the the symphony, if there is no support or interest in it , then why government sponsorship? I don't get it big Dan?

  • 1 decade ago

    I say you tax the h3 ** out of the president and anyone else who makes more then 100,000 a year I am sure they get taxed but it don't make a difference in their pays. Why is it that people like Paris Hilton get all this money and not had to do a thing with it. On the topic why isn't celebrities fines just a little bit higher when they get trouble think about it they are looked up to by many of our younger society. They get in trouble get fine higher that would also help with taxes a little bit. I say why don't we make people like Paris Hilton and others that where fed the silver spoon pay a little bit more in taxes I mean come on they did not even sweat to get the money. Paul will always have your back So I say root for Paul and always pay paul . Screw Peter he screws everyone else

  • Izzy N
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    The Federal Reserve is a sham and out monetary system is shot, as is our economy as a whole. Our country produces almost nothing but service jobs and entertainment. Look at a chart of the value of the US Dollar, it's been dropping for the last 75+ years. Countries are cashing out their USD for Euros, and once OPEC changes to the Euro we're screwed.

    Watch this video if you don't really understand how our money system works:

    Have you heard about the NAU?

    I think the NAU is a necessary evil for our flailing economy.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Well since so many poorer people like me don't make that much money.The poor need all the money we can get just to survive and to be able pay our bills and be self-reliant in the way U republicans want us to be.But on the other hand,the pop stars,doctors,star athletes and what not can still get pretty heavily taxed, but still manage to have enough money for all the luxuries of the world. I believe in lower,but still more progressive taxes.

  • 1 decade ago

    OK How about making tax free municiple bonds only tax free for the first $200,000.00, the rest is all taxable. That way Theresa Hienz and John the Gigolo Kerry can contribute their share to the great society.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.