Can someone making $1 million a year afford a 5.87% tax increase?

[OnePercenter]

The economy was just fine until Reid/Pelosi took over Congress. Even then Barney Frank told us everything was just fine.

Why don't you study fact and get back to us.

Meltdown 2008 Timeline

Why isn't Reid/Pelosi Congress on your time line at January 2007?

Because the damage was already done.

A couple days ago, I posted graphs of GDP growth and unemployment. Both were in a positive trend from mid 05 through early 2007. The economy started it's dive some time later, then really tanked in late 08 around election day and got worse until January of 2011. Since then, there has been a slight improvement, but no bounce like we usually get coming out of a recession.

Because the giant Visa card became due.

No bounce back because big business isn't getting their subsidies. On the up side, the rich and corporate have been 100% back since 2010.

 

[Ernie S.]

It's useless trying to reason with you. Your lack of honesty is staggering.

 

[Londoner]

See, for people like you the answer is always, "Tax the rich more." Need more roads and bridges? Tax the rich a little bit more. Need more goodies from the government? Tax the rich a little bit more. Need more Social Security cash so you can retire at the same age your great-grandfather did? Tax the rich a little bit more.

Compare the American economy of 1957 to the American economy of today. Better yet. Compare a typical postwar manufacturing job to a Walmart job, the largest retail employer of today. The postwar manufacturing worker made a livable wage along with very generous health and retirement benefits. In fact, the father could support his family on just his wages, which allowed the mother to stay home and raise the kids (something conservatives appreciate). These high wages/benefits also lead to massive purchasing power. The unprecedented demand for goods and services gave the owners of Capital an incentive to innovate and add even more jobs to soak up all the demand. It's called a virtuous cycle.

However, big business didn't want to be beholden to the "first world" labor costs of a free citizenry. Don't get me wrong. The corporations who own government wanted lush subsidies, bailouts and patent protection - indeed, they wanted government to spend trillions protecting their oil fields and trade routes or handing out no-bid drug contracts - but those corporations didn't want any reciprocal obligation to the host nation. Here's how these anti-patriotic corporations erased their obligation to the host nation. They lobbied Washington to create the legislative machinery for shifting production to ultra low-wage freedom-hating nations (where workers make $5/day and live in hovels beneath dictators. If you don't believe me, research who manufactures Nike Sneakers or Walmart T-shirts and how much they get paid.) John Galt has contempt for this country.

The story of Post-Carter Capitalism is the story of how our capitalist class partnered with Communist China to bankrupt the American worker. And they did it while getting FOX News to drug the serfs with patriotic bromides about love of country and freedom. It was and is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated by a political movement. History will record our current group of ruthless monopolists as far more devious and evolved than the old Soviet Union.

So we moved high wage jobs out of the country and replaced them with an endless sea of no-benefit retail and temp jobs. The typical Walmart employee makes such low wages and receives such few benefits that he or she often requires public assistance just to survive. Meaning: in order to increase profits, we brought cheap labor to the USA. This meant we had to replace wage-based consumption with debt-based consumption. That is, we expanded credit (debt) to the bottom tax brackets so that the upper bracket could realize unprecedented profits. [To be fair. We were told that the act of lowering the costs of production would incentivize investment, innovation and job growth. Unfortunately, we underestimated how the act of lowering wages would, eventually, destroy consumer demand; we failed to anticipate the dangers of moving consumers from high wages to credit cards. Meaning: after 20 years of debt fueled economic growth, the consumer is too indebted in the aggregate to meet the demand requirements of economic growth]

But... let's get to your point.

We have systematically lowered wages over the last 30 years. We have replaced high wage manufacturing jobs with the less-than-subsistence Walmart wages. Compare the number of millionaires and billionaires of today to 1955.

America, since Reagan, has created unprecedented wealth on top coupled with unprecedented debt on the bottom tiers. This is why Wall Street booms and Main Street is a bust: because we spent 30 years handing out credit cards to make up for the money that never trickled down. The voodoo swallowed the middle class.

If you create a low-wage society where one group makes all the wealth (and, as a result, you grow a class of low wage serfs who can barely afford to survive), than the group who makes all the money should expect to pay higher taxes. If you're the only one making any real money, than you're going to be the only one paying taxes. But we've seen the opposite since Reagan. The wealthy have had the ride of their lives.... but their taxes have been cut by more than half since Eisenhower (when our economic growth was greater than that of the Reagan/Clinton boom). We lowered your taxes based on the promise of domestic job growth. . . and then [wait for it] you shipped all the fucking jobs to Taiwanese sweatshops that pump out Nike Sneakers and iPods for fifty cents an hour. And then [wait for it] you have the fucking audacity to complain about your historically low taxes as you quietly get massive subsidies and bailouts and patent protection from the nanny state... as you. . . [wait for it] invest trillions in FOX News so they convince morons that the hobos living under bridges on food stamps eating cat food are the true winners (since they don't pay taxes). . . and . . . [wait for it] the Koch brothers and Walton family are the persecuted victims ... as they jet off to private islands.

(You've been lied to)

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes, and I write them off.

Your utilities, phone garbage service? If you're deducting all of them, why don't you PM me your name and SS# The reward from the IRS will be awesome.

All are owned by a trust corporation thus perfectly legal under IRS rules.

Payments for what? Assisted living facilities?

 

[Ernie S.]

Labor unions priced themselves out of their jobs. American consumers can't afford to buy goods produced by American labor.

 

[zeke]

Nice side-step. I, and I'm sure you, want value from our expenditures.

Again! What do I get in return for my $58,700?

If I pay twice the taxes you do, do I get twice the services? Do I get an extra vote on election day?
I mean, shit! A guy making a million a year is already paying around a quarter million and a guy making 50K is paying < 12K. Does the first guy get 20 times the food stamps? Free cheese? Free housing? Can he expect to get 20 times the Social Security benefit at 65?

With a decent accountant our $1,000,000/year (salary) guy will pay about $250,000 in taxes. If he gave that much to the DNC, he'd be the Ambassador to the Cayman Islands or at least a frequent guest in the Lincoln Bedroom. What does he get from the IRS?

Defending the very rich today again I see. Them poor rich people. You think very, very rich people come on sites like this and read about the defense of their wealth by middle class people? I bet they laugh and laugh.

I would guess that Ernie is concerned about the governments deficit spending and would really like for severe cuts in spending to be made to help reduce deficit spending. But don't want to increase taxes on the very rich who have done so very well the past few years.

And I guess that the cuts in spending need to come from the poor and the middle class. Because we are the ones needing more government services to get by in the shitty economy created by those very same very wealthy people that can't be taxed any more cause they "already pay enough".

But I can't help but laugh. In the example of a one million dollar earner, he pays around 250k in taxes. Lets say total (Fed State Local) taxes are 400k.

Leaving this most fortunate individual a measly $50,000.00 net dollars a month to "get by on."

I wonder why people like you Earnie defend the very rich. WTF do you care about what taxes the guy making 50k net a month pays. He/she (very rich) would much rather that YOU and I take a cut somewhere in our benefits or services as opposed to them paying more. And I understand that. Don't care, but understand.

But why would you care if the very very rich pay 5 or 6% more in taxes?

Or, what are you willing to give up so they don't end up paying more in taxes?

Seems to me it is one or the other. Both would be best. If we really are concerned about how much money we spend and debt we have.

Less spending on most of us, more income from those with all the BIG fucking income gains. The very, very rich are the only ones who can afford a tax increase. And I don't care if they get one. Why do you? Just curious.

Why? Because they receive no more for their money than you do.

You seem to think it is fair to force the rich to pay for what you feel you deserve. Sadly, you deserve only what you acquire through your own efforts.

How about you address the issue of fairness. Tell me why one citizen should pay 20 times as much for the same services.

The issue of fairness you say.

Let me see if I can put this idea in a way that you MIGHT understand. I'll type big.

If the choice is cutting some programs or services that benefits myself or some one else that I care about VS. the raising of taxes on the ultra wealthy by a few percent, (here is the part you need to pay attention to) I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOUR IDEA OF "FAIRNESS."

Maybe that will explain my position cause you sure as hell didn't explain yours.

Why do you care what amount of taxes some very very rich pay? Or do you think the very very rich are worried about YOU? LMAO.

 

[Redfish]

the point that is being missed here is this:

If the tax rates on the rich were increased by 5.85% as suggested, would that solve the deficit problem? No, of course not. the govt would continue to spend more than it takes in.

the solution is not more taxes on anyone, the solution is to reduce govt spending.

 

[P@triot]

Defending the very rich today again I see. Them poor rich people. You think very, very rich people come on sites like this and read about the defense of their wealth by middle class people? I bet they laugh and laugh.

I would guess that Ernie is concerned about the governments deficit spending and would really like for severe cuts in spending to be made to help reduce deficit spending. But don't want to increase taxes on the very rich who have done so very well the past few years.

And I guess that the cuts in spending need to come from the poor and the middle class. Because we are the ones needing more government services to get by in the shitty economy created by those very same very wealthy people that can't be taxed any more cause they "already pay enough".

But I can't help but laugh. In the example of a one million dollar earner, he pays around 250k in taxes. Lets say total (Fed State Local) taxes are 400k.

Leaving this most fortunate individual a measly $50,000.00 net dollars a month to "get by on."

I wonder why people like you Earnie defend the very rich. WTF do you care about what taxes the guy making 50k net a month pays. He/she (very rich) would much rather that YOU and I take a cut somewhere in our benefits or services as opposed to them paying more. And I understand that. Don't care, but understand.

But why would you care if the very very rich pay 5 or 6% more in taxes?

Or, what are you willing to give up so they don't end up paying more in taxes?

Seems to me it is one or the other. Both would be best. If we really are concerned about how much money we spend and debt we have.

Less spending on most of us, more income from those with all the BIG fucking income gains. The very, very rich are the only ones who can afford a tax increase. And I don't care if they get one. Why do you? Just curious.

Why? Because they receive no more for their money than you do.

You seem to think it is fair to force the rich to pay for what you feel you deserve. Sadly, you deserve only what you acquire through your own efforts.

How about you address the issue of fairness. Tell me why one citizen should pay 20 times as much for the same services.

The issue of fairness you say.

Let me see if I can put this idea in a way that you MIGHT understand. I'll type big.

If the choice is cutting some programs or services that benefits myself or some one else that I care about VS. the raising of taxes on the ultra wealthy by a few percent, (here is the part you need to pay attention to) I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOUR IDEA OF "FAIRNESS."

Maybe that will explain my position cause you sure as hell didn't explain yours.

Why do you care what amount of taxes some very very rich pay? Or do you think the very very rich are worried about YOU? LMAO.

Why do you care about the "programs" or "services" that a worthless, lazy, parasite receives [MENTION=35352]zeke[/MENTION]? If you want those programs, YOU pay for them.

Unless, of course, you are one of those worthless, lazy, parasites?

 

[P@triot]

Let me see if I can put this idea in a way that you MIGHT understand. I'll type big.

If the choice is cutting some programs or services that benefits myself or some one else that I care about VS. the raising of taxes on the ultra wealthy by a few percent, (here is the part you need to pay attention to) I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOUR IDEA OF "FAIRNESS."

Maybe that will explain my position cause you sure as hell didn't explain yours.

Why do you care what amount of taxes some very very rich pay? Or do you think the very very rich are worried about YOU? LMAO.

Let me see if I can put this idea in a way that you WON'T understand (because people like you are ignorant fuck'n idiots - but it's fun to point out the facts anyway [MENTION=35352]zeke[/MENTION]). I'll type big.

I don't care about the wealthy. I don't care about the poor. What I do care about is the United States. And your ignorant policies of greed and sloth collapses nations. While conservative's policies of personal responsibility and freedom creates monumental prosperity for nations.

Let me dumb this down for you in a way you MIGHT understand:

 

[zeke]

Let me see if I can put this idea in a way that you MIGHT understand. I'll type big.

If the choice is cutting some programs or services that benefits myself or some one else that I care about VS. the raising of taxes on the ultra wealthy by a few percent, (here is the part you need to pay attention to) I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOUR IDEA OF "FAIRNESS."

Maybe that will explain my position cause you sure as hell didn't explain yours.

Why do you care what amount of taxes some very very rich pay? Or do you think the very very rich are worried about YOU? LMAO.

Let me see if I can put this idea in a way that you WON'T understand (because people like you are ignorant fuck'n idiots - but it's fun to point out the facts anyway [MENTION=35352]zeke[/MENTION]). I'll type big.

I don't care about the wealthy. I don't care about the poor. What I do care about is the United States. And your ignorant policies of greed and sloth collapses nations. While conservative's policies of personal responsibility and freedom creates monumental prosperity for nations.

Let me dumb this down for you in a way you MIGHT understand:

[/QUOTE

Rotty you are one stupid fucking dog.

The very practice of having the ultra wealthy amass more and more of the nations wealth is the very thing that will ruin the nation you claim to love so much.

How did you get so fucking stupid? PRACTICE PRACTICE PRACTICE I guess.

 

[RKMBrown]

The very practice of having the ultra wealthy amass more and more of the nations wealth is the very thing that will ruin the nation you claim to love so much.

So if I work to earn a million dollars, that means I stole a million dollars from Zeke? How does that work?

 

[Ernie S.]

Defending the very rich today again I see. Them poor rich people. You think very, very rich people come on sites like this and read about the defense of their wealth by middle class people? I bet they laugh and laugh.

I would guess that Ernie is concerned about the governments deficit spending and would really like for severe cuts in spending to be made to help reduce deficit spending. But don't want to increase taxes on the very rich who have done so very well the past few years.

And I guess that the cuts in spending need to come from the poor and the middle class. Because we are the ones needing more government services to get by in the shitty economy created by those very same very wealthy people that can't be taxed any more cause they "already pay enough".

But I can't help but laugh. In the example of a one million dollar earner, he pays around 250k in taxes. Lets say total (Fed State Local) taxes are 400k.

Leaving this most fortunate individual a measly $50,000.00 net dollars a month to "get by on."

I wonder why people like you Earnie defend the very rich. WTF do you care about what taxes the guy making 50k net a month pays. He/she (very rich) would much rather that YOU and I take a cut somewhere in our benefits or services as opposed to them paying more. And I understand that. Don't care, but understand.

But why would you care if the very very rich pay 5 or 6% more in taxes?

Or, what are you willing to give up so they don't end up paying more in taxes?

Seems to me it is one or the other. Both would be best. If we really are concerned about how much money we spend and debt we have.

Less spending on most of us, more income from those with all the BIG fucking income gains. The very, very rich are the only ones who can afford a tax increase. And I don't care if they get one. Why do you? Just curious.

Why? Because they receive no more for their money than you do.

You seem to think it is fair to force the rich to pay for what you feel you deserve. Sadly, you deserve only what you acquire through your own efforts.

How about you address the issue of fairness. Tell me why one citizen should pay 20 times as much for the same services.

The issue of fairness you say.

Let me see if I can put this idea in a way that you MIGHT understand. I'll type big.

If the choice is cutting some programs or services that benefits myself or some one else that I care about VS. the raising of taxes on the ultra wealthy by a few percent, (here is the part you need to pay attention to) I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOUR IDEA OF "FAIRNESS."

Maybe that will explain my position cause you sure as hell didn't explain yours.

Why do you care what amount of taxes some very very rich pay? Or do you think the very very rich are worried about YOU? LMAO.

And I don't care about services that benefit you or your family. Understand? If you need something, get the fuck off your ass and earn it.
The "Ultra wealthy" already pay hundreds of time more in taxes than what they receive in benefits, yet you want them to do YOUR job and provide for your family?

 

[OnePercenter]

Labor unions priced themselves out of their jobs. American consumers can't afford to buy goods produced by American labor.

Another attack the middle class post?

Some Americans can't afford to buy goods produced by Americans because their wages are so disproportionate with costs.

 

[OnePercenter]

the point that is being missed here is this:

If the tax rates on the rich were increased by 5.85% as suggested, would that solve the deficit problem? No, of course not. the govt would continue to spend more than it takes in.

the solution is not more taxes on anyone, the solution is to reduce govt spending.

We don't have a spending problem, we have an income problem.

 

[OnePercenter]

Why? Because they receive no more for their money than you do.

You seem to think it is fair to force the rich to pay for what you feel you deserve. Sadly, you deserve only what you acquire through your own efforts.

How about you address the issue of fairness. Tell me why one citizen should pay 20 times as much for the same services.

The issue of fairness you say.

Let me see if I can put this idea in a way that you MIGHT understand. I'll type big.

If the choice is cutting some programs or services that benefits myself or some one else that I care about VS. the raising of taxes on the ultra wealthy by a few percent, (here is the part you need to pay attention to) I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOUR IDEA OF "FAIRNESS."

Maybe that will explain my position cause you sure as hell didn't explain yours.

Why do you care what amount of taxes some very very rich pay? Or do you think the very very rich are worried about YOU? LMAO.

And I don't care about services that benefit you or your family. Understand? If you need something, get the fuck off your ass and earn it.
The "Ultra wealthy" already pay hundreds of time more in taxes than what they receive in benefits, yet you want them to do YOUR job and provide for your family?

Amazingly, the effective Federal tax rate for the 'ultra rich' is much lower than the middle class or poor.

Who pays more in sales tax, the ultra rich, or the middle class and poor?

 

[RKMBrown]

the point that is being missed here is this:

If the tax rates on the rich were increased by 5.85% as suggested, would that solve the deficit problem? No, of course not. the govt would continue to spend more than it takes in.

the solution is not more taxes on anyone, the solution is to reduce govt spending.

We don't have a spending problem, we have an income problem.

In your case, we have an asshole problem.

 

[RKMBrown]

The issue of fairness you say.

Let me see if I can put this idea in a way that you MIGHT understand. I'll type big.

If the choice is cutting some programs or services that benefits myself or some one else that I care about VS. the raising of taxes on the ultra wealthy by a few percent, (here is the part you need to pay attention to) I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOUR IDEA OF "FAIRNESS."

Maybe that will explain my position cause you sure as hell didn't explain yours.

Why do you care what amount of taxes some very very rich pay? Or do you think the very very rich are worried about YOU? LMAO.

And I don't care about services that benefit you or your family. Understand? If you need something, get the fuck off your ass and earn it.
The "Ultra wealthy" already pay hundreds of time more in taxes than what they receive in benefits, yet you want them to do YOUR job and provide for your family?

Amazingly, the effective Federal tax rate for the 'ultra rich' is much lower than the middle class or poor.

Who pays more in sales tax, the ultra rich, or the middle class and poor?

What is the effective federal tax rate you ignorant POS?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Nice side-step. I, and I'm sure you, want value from our expenditures.

Again! What do I get in return for my $58,700?

If I pay twice the taxes you do, do I get twice the services? Do I get an extra vote on election day?
I mean, shit! A guy making a million a year is already paying around a quarter million and a guy making 50K is paying < 12K. Does the first guy get 20 times the food stamps? Free cheese? Free housing? Can he expect to get 20 times the Social Security benefit at 65?

With a decent accountant our $1,000,000/year (salary) guy will pay about $250,000 in taxes. If he gave that much to the DNC, he'd be the Ambassador to the Cayman Islands or at least a frequent guest in the Lincoln Bedroom. What does he get from the IRS?

Defending the very rich today again I see. Them poor rich people. You think very, very rich people come on sites like this and read about the defense of their wealth by middle class people? I bet they laugh and laugh.

I would guess that Ernie is concerned about the governments deficit spending and would really like for severe cuts in spending to be made to help reduce deficit spending. But don't want to increase taxes on the very rich who have done so very well the past few years.

And I guess that the cuts in spending need to come from the poor and the middle class. Because we are the ones needing more government services to get by in the shitty economy created by those very same very wealthy people that can't be taxed any more cause they "already pay enough".

But I can't help but laugh. In the example of a one million dollar earner, he pays around 250k in taxes. Lets say total (Fed State Local) taxes are 400k.

Leaving this most fortunate individual a measly $50,000.00 net dollars a month to "get by on."

I wonder why people like you Earnie defend the very rich. WTF do you care about what taxes the guy making 50k net a month pays. He/she (very rich) would much rather that YOU and I take a cut somewhere in our benefits or services as opposed to them paying more. And I understand that. Don't care, but understand.

But why would you care if the very very rich pay 5 or 6% more in taxes?

Or, what are you willing to give up so they don't end up paying more in taxes?

Seems to me it is one or the other. Both would be best. If we really are concerned about how much money we spend and debt we have.

Less spending on most of us, more income from those with all the BIG fucking income gains. The very, very rich are the only ones who can afford a tax increase. And I don't care if they get one. Why do you? Just curious.

Why? Because they receive no more for their money than you do.

You seem to think it is fair to force the rich to pay for what you feel you deserve. Sadly, you deserve only what you acquire through your own efforts.

How about you address the issue of fairness. Tell me why one citizen should pay 20 times as much for the same services.

Since you raised the topic, sure we can discuss it. Let's address the issue of "fairness" as a concept. Is it "fair" that some people are born to poor parents and as a result have fewer opportunities than others to obtain wealth? Is it "fair" to penalize the less fortunate by making them pay a much larger percentage of their income for the same services that only cost you a tiny fraction of your income? Must they pay 25% of their income for the same government "service" that costs you only "2%" of your income?

 

[Nova78]

Just because someone makes a million dollars a year doesn't mean he/she has any more disposable income than someone who makes $30k a year.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Why? Because they receive no more for their money than you do.

You seem to think it is fair to force the rich to pay for what you feel you deserve. Sadly, you deserve only what you acquire through your own efforts.

How about you address the issue of fairness. Tell me why one citizen should pay 20 times as much for the same services.

As opposed to paying for the wars that only benefit the wealthy?

If everyone pays the exact same flat rate of taxes for "services" from the government then conversely everyone should receive an equal share of the profits from the companies that do business with the government. After all the taxpayers are the ones who are paying for those profits, right? So why do only the wealthy get to benefit from the profits generated by taxpayer funds? If you want to go 100% flat then it has to equitable in every respect.

So you ARE a socialist after all. What is it with you? You already get a piece of my income to buy votes for Liberals. Now you want privately held corporations to fork over their profits? And just how do wars benefit the wealthy? Wars do tend to put people to work, so don't they benefit labor?

Nope! As a FISCAL CONSERVATIVE I strongly believe in holding people accountable! The taxcuts were sold on the premise that "job creators" would actually create more jobs if they were given massive tax cuts. In the decade since those tax cuts were granted job growth has been non existent. Therefore the taxpayers have been screwed over by giving the wealthy tax breaks with nothing in return.

Genuine conservatives do hold people accountable for failure to perform. There has been an abysmal failure and it is time to hold them responsible and remedy the harm they have caused by taking these taxpayer funds and not providing anything of value in return.