If you were taxed more, wouldn't you just spend less?

-I'm a failure at understanding economics.

Wouldn't you want to continue saving (ex: 15% of your income) so you would have less to spend?



That means rich people would buy less boats, less of a house, less airplanes

And wouldn't more people be out of work with less things being built?



Looking for opposing views from someone that wants higher taxes.

(I'm not rich, but trying to understand honestly how this all works)The ONLY people who want higher taxes are the people who bottom feed off of the system and want bigger handouts and the people in Washington who cater to those people. Hard working Americans who support themselves and actually made something out of their life, don't want higher taxes. Do you know what happens when you raise taxes on businesses ( I know YOU know! LOL)?? They raise prices to compensate, move operations overseas, and/or close down permanently!! Those who want higher taxes and bigger handouts need to move to Norway......I'll even pack your bags!What people WANT and what they can AFFORD are 2 different things. For most people, if you raise their taxes they will continue to spend about the same amount and they will save less. if they do cut back, they'll do it in areas that hurt the economy like eating out less or spending less on entertainment.



When you talk about "rich" people in terms of taxes and tax cuts, its not the doctor who makes $150k/year. it means CEO's and investors, some of whom make $150k per DAY. Those people spend only a small fraction of their income and most of the rest just goes into investments.



I personally know someone who made $8.5 million on his investments in the month of April alone, and this was a typical month for him. His personal income is around $100 million per year and his net worth is rapidly approaching a cool BILLION. He already owns a large house with every luxury you can imagine, he already owns a Yacht bigger than my house that has plenty of amenities for his family and close friends to sail anywhere in the world that he decides to go, and he already drives a Bentley. There's nothing left for him to spend money on so most of his money goes back into investments to perpetuate his own wealth. Don't get me wrong, this guy is one of the nicest and most generous men I've ever met, he's not greedy. His goal in life is to give a BILLION dollars to charity and he's well on his way. But raising his taxes by 3% wouldn't affect how much he spends on things that stimulate the economy such as food, clothes, entertainment etc and it certainly wouldn't cost a single person their job.
It's all a matter of degree - and why progressive taxes (richer people paying more) are the norm.



Some rather extreme examples:



$10,000 annual income

a 10% tax is painful to this person

trying to live on $10,000 is nearly impossible, paying $1000 in taxes would be extremely difficult



$100,000 annual income

a 20% tax rate is annoying, but doable

they've still got $80,000 to live on, so they may not have all the toys they want, but they are secure



$1,000,000 annual income

a 30% tax rate - he may yell and scream, but it doesn't "hurt" him in any way

they've still got $700,000 to live on - i.e. way more money than they need

If you taxed him at 35%, he'd yell and scream even louder - but still would have more money than he needs, so no he wouldn't spend any less.



In these cases, it could easily be argued that the person paying the 10% tax is the one most in need of a tax break even though he's already at the lowest bracket.
of course if one pays more of his disposable income to the gov't it means he has less to buy the things he wants, or put it away for retirement etc.

a business man who has to pay more in taxes, has to cut is work force or other things he would really like to improve his business production

paying high taxes has never resulted in more jobs, and the gov't does not create jobs--just more civil servants that taxes have to be used to pay their salaries
No, the extra revenue for the government would benefit you another way. It is only a return to a previous tax rate. Wealthy people have many ways to avoid taxes and they end up paying less than people who work for them. No, it does not affect luxury items. It affects the lower income person.



We have had tax rate reductions since the 1980s. In the last 10 years only 2 million jobs were added to the economy despite lower income tax. Jobs have nothing to do with taxes. The U.S. pays less tax to its government than most countries.



The Dow Jones index is up 6,500 points since Obama took office, so the wealthy hedge fund managers and bankers profits are up 50% and everyone else is in a depression.
You're more or less right. The argument for higher taxes on the rich, however, is that yeah, they'll have less money but not so much less as to affect their buying habits.



Your assertion is much more applicable to the middle class. They feel it much more when their incomes are decreased than the rich.
Sure if taxes are increased and then people will most likely spend less money because their disposible income has declined.



Yes, the people down the chain are the ones hurt by this.

- less money being spent = less people needed to build, sale, and maintain the items.
The rich already don't spend all of their money.



If their taxes went up, they would save less but they wouldn't necessarily spend less.



They certainly haven't spent (or hired) any more with their taxes at an all-time low.
Not necessarily. I'm pulling around $80k per year. I could pretty easily absorb a 1 or 2 point increase in taxes without changing much. Much more than that and I may have to rethink a few things.



Very few people save regularly, and those who do cut that first when disposable income shrinks.



Wealthy individuals spend a FAR smaller portion of their total income than the poor and middle class. They can easily absorb a tax increase without touching spending or saving much at all. Taxes were modestly higher at the top of the income scale during the Clinton era yet the wealth at the top 5% still grew at an impressive rate.



The poor cannot tolerate any tax increase without dramatic impact on their lives or spending habits. For the most part, every penny goes to essentials leaving nothing more to tax. With the minimum wage kept artificially low -- it would be around $15 an hour if it had kept pace with inflation since the early 1960s -- it has become necessary to dig deeper into the public pot to ensure that they have marginally enough to survive on. Businesses being able to pay a minimum wage that is artificially low are the primary beneficiaries of such wage policies.



The really stupid thing is that many who are making noise in protest of suggested tax increases on personal incomes in excess of $500k per year would not pay a dime more in tax themselves! And tax cuts to INDIVIDUALS have NEVER created jobs, aside maybe from the odd illegal alien nanny or grounds-keeper.



The oft-repeated right wing talking point that "Tax cuts create jobs!" is quite simply a lie. If that were true, the so-called Bush tax cuts would have created MORE jobs than were created during the Clinton administration. Job growth under Clinton was 22 million. Under Bush it was 8 million until near the end of his presidency when 2 million of those were lost. If tax increases killed jobs and tax cuts created jobs, those numbers would have been reversed! Yet they right-wingers repeat it so often that even they begin to believe it. Don't be a sucker! The claim flies squarely in the face of the cold, hard numbers.