Tax the Rich: Fix Jobs and Deficits

[MikeK]

I'm saying that you are probably one of the least qualified people to decide who deserves what. Every time a group of people try to "equalize" everyone economically they end up screwing everyone else over, and enriching themselves.

Your envy and greed are obvious to anyone who isnt a fellow money grabber such as yourself.

Unless you are among the rich you are among the brainwashed Tories who serve their interests like a trained dog. You've been conditioned to believe the ambition to restore economic balance is an intention to "equalize" the Nation's wealth resources, as in communism, when in fact there is no such intention, nor has any such idea been suggested.

Equitably taxing the rich does not mean impoverishing them. It simply means to tax them in proportion with the level of the lower income brackets. If the progressive tax rate that existed during the most economically successful decades in our history, the late 40s through the 70s, were restored the rich would still be rich, as they were then, they simply wouldn't be as rich.

Your problem is you see greed on the wrong side of this class war.

 

[daveman]

Do that for 14 years... Debt solved

After the first year, what incentive would the uber-rich have to keep making money?

Hint: None.

You guys really aren't very good at this.

It's hard to believe anyone could be so stupid they believe that such a plan would actually work.

When I see this level of stupidity, I realize this country is doomed.

It's really pathetic, isn't it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm saying that you are probably one of the least qualified people to decide who deserves what. Every time a group of people try to "equalize" everyone economically they end up screwing everyone else over, and enriching themselves.

Your envy and greed are obvious to anyone who isnt a fellow money grabber such as yourself.

Unless you are among the rich you are among the brainwashed Tories who serve their interests like a trained dog. You've been conditioned to believe the ambition to restore economic balance is an intention to "equalize" the Nation's wealth resources, as in communism, when in fact there is no such intention, nor has any such idea been suggested.

Equitably taxing the rich does not mean impoverishing them. It simply means to tax them in proportion with the level of the lower income brackets. If the progressive tax rate that existed during the most economically successful decades in our history, the late 40s through the 70s, were restored the rich would still be rich, as they were then, they simply wouldn't be as rich.

Your problem is you see greed on the wrong side of this class war.

The top 10% of earners currently pay 70% of all income tax collected.
How much more should they pay, to make things equitable?

 

[Steelplate]

After the first year, what incentive would the uber-rich have to keep making money?

Hint: None.

You guys really aren't very good at this.

It's hard to believe anyone could be so stupid they believe that such a plan would actually work.

When I see this level of stupidity, I realize this country is doomed.

It's really pathetic, isn't it?

Listen Mr. Unemployed. While I thank you for your service to the country. Go get a job... oh that's right... with your impeccable resume, I guess your job went to China.

Btw... nice that you left out my response to what you quoted. That's how you guys roll though isn't is... half truths and lies.

 

[georgephillip]

Where did you get the idea that there is a "share"?...
A share indicates the existence of a collective. We have no such thing here
Why do you care so much about what others are doing and so little about what you are doing?

Is Wall Street a "collective"?

No, Wall Street is not a collective.

What about a stock market?

"Formed by gathering or collecting; gathered into a mass, sum, or body; congregated or aggregated; as, the collective body of a nation."

collective - Wiktionary

 

[georgephillip]

I think a case could be made for some CEOs and top execs who are significantly overpaid compared to their European counterparts. I think more transparency and control should be given to the shareholders as far as compensation is concerned, but that's really not a gov't issue. You can sell your shares of the company if you don't like their policies, or even refuse to buy their products. It's not stealing from the workers, they never had that money in the 1st place. And those workers also have to right to go get another job elsewhere.

In today's news conference, President Obama called for raising taxes on the millionaires and billionaires, the guy with the corporate jets. But the vast majority of those top 1%ers that he wants to hammer are making a lot less than a million bucks. According to 2009 data from socialsecurity.gov, those making a million or more dollars are about .03% of the total earners, about 80,000 out of 150 million. Another .025% make between $500,000 and a million, so in essence you're talking about hitting the 99.5% who make between 200,000 - 500,000. Not many of these folks are flying around in private jets.

And then there's this: Obama wants to raise their taxes up to near 40% frm 35.6%. And in these debt ceiling negotiations he wants to remove the tax deductions and exemptions which cost them another 2%, and then his ObamaCare bill calls for raising their taxes another 3.8% in 2014. So now you've raised their taxes a full 10%, God Damn, how much is enough?

Do you really believe you can do this with no repercussions? Are you that naive? If you're a wealthy foreign investor or entrepeneur, are you going to think twice about starting a new business here with that kind of tax burden? We've already got people renouncing their citizenship, or just flat out leaving the country and taking their money with them. And you want to do this now, in the middle of a recession? It's lunacy, sheer lunacy.

Out of those 80.000 earners making $1 million or more there are 10,000 earners (0.01%) who earn an average of $50 million per year with assets averaging $350 million. According to my source those assets have increased 550% since 1978.

This tends to skew wealth distribution in some fairly predictable ways.
For example, imagine a poker tournament with four tables:

" Table 1 has 10,000 people who have $1M each to play with
Table 2 (top 10-0.01%) has 30M people who have $433 each to play with
Table 3 (top 20-10%) has 30M people who have $133 each to play with
Table 4 (bottom 60%) has 240M people who have $25 each to play with.

America is 234 Years Old Today – Is It Finished? | Phil

Since Germany and Japan rebuilt after WWII the gains from rising productivity in this country have gone almost entirely to tables one and two.

From what I can see, the rich have no interest in changing anything fundamental about how wealth is distributed in this country.

Why should they when Republicans AND Democrats write tax policy that guarantees the rich will prosper at the expense of everyone else?

 

[FA_Q2]

Changing our tax codes is only a very small part of the solution.

In and of itself it will solve nothing.

What is your solution then…

My solution?

As in tens words or less?

I certainly agree that this nation has given far too many breaks to the supply side (tx breaks being part of that process) and that does need to be addressed.

But if ALL we do is tax the rich, then seriously, FA....things will only get WORSE, not better.

Why?

Because the rich will simply channel their cash to foreign shores even faster than they've been doing that.

Where have I said anything about simply taxing the rich? I don't think that anyone other than the democrats have said that at all and I have argued against that exact thing. That is why I would rather see the tax system fundamentally changed NOT simply raising taxes. The system is broken in its current state. I believe that the actual tax rate should be far lower but that exemptions and credits should not exist. That WOULD create a tax increase for the uber rich that do not care what the rate is, reduce tax rates for the middle and upper middle class, slightly increase taxes for the lower middle class and would not affect the poor.

We need to close the door on money leaving this nation, and encourage investment here in this nation.

One of the way we do that is to rethink our trade polcies.

Obviously another way we must do this is changes in taxation policies.

I agree that our trade policies need a serious hard look and that it may cause very rough times in the short run but would massively improve things in the long run to create a trade environment that encouraged local production over off shoring.

What we really need to do is ask ourselves:

What is the point of having a nation if it doesn't understand that its purpose is to AID THE PEOPLE IN IT?

Very true but I thing that you and I have extremely different views on what that statement means.

We seem to have forgotten why people form governments to begin with.

We are as a people out of balance economically, and merely tinkering with the tax codes will NOT solve the problem.

We need to change the social contract.

Change the social contract? That is a statement without meaning in its current form. I ask you to expound in what you mean by that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is Wall Street a "collective"?

No, Wall Street is not a collective.

What about a stock market?

"Formed by gathering or collecting; gathered into a mass, sum, or body; congregated or aggregated; as, the collective body of a nation."

collective - Wiktionary

No, a stock market is not a collective.

 

[Wiseacre]

I think a case could be made for some CEOs and top execs who are significantly overpaid compared to their European counterparts. I think more transparency and control should be given to the shareholders as far as compensation is concerned, but that's really not a gov't issue. You can sell your shares of the company if you don't like their policies, or even refuse to buy their products. It's not stealing from the workers, they never had that money in the 1st place. And those workers also have to right to go get another job elsewhere.

In today's news conference, President Obama called for raising taxes on the millionaires and billionaires, the guy with the corporate jets. But the vast majority of those top 1%ers that he wants to hammer are making a lot less than a million bucks. According to 2009 data from socialsecurity.gov, those making a million or more dollars are about .03% of the total earners, about 80,000 out of 150 million. Another .025% make between $500,000 and a million, so in essence you're talking about hitting the 99.5% who make between 200,000 - 500,000. Not many of these folks are flying around in private jets.

And then there's this: Obama wants to raise their taxes up to near 40% frm 35.6%. And in these debt ceiling negotiations he wants to remove the tax deductions and exemptions which cost them another 2%, and then his ObamaCare bill calls for raising their taxes another 3.8% in 2014. So now you've raised their taxes a full 10%, God Damn, how much is enough?

Do you really believe you can do this with no repercussions? Are you that naive? If you're a wealthy foreign investor or entrepeneur, are you going to think twice about starting a new business here with that kind of tax burden? We've already got people renouncing their citizenship, or just flat out leaving the country and taking their money with them. And you want to do this now, in the middle of a recession? It's lunacy, sheer lunacy.

Out of those 80.000 earners making $1 million or more there are 10,000 earners (0.01%) who earn an average of $50 million per year with assets averaging $350 million. According to my source those assets have increased 550% since 1978.

This tends to skew wealth distribution in some fairly predictable ways.
For example, imagine a poker tournament with four tables:

" Table 1 has 10,000 people who have $1M each to play with
Table 2 (top 10-0.01%) has 30M people who have $433 each to play with
Table 3 (top 20-10%) has 30M people who have $133 each to play with
Table 4 (bottom 60%) has 240M people who have $25 each to play with.

America is 234 Years Old Today – Is It Finished? | Phil

Since Germany and Japan rebuilt after WWII the gains from rising productivity in this country have gone almost entirely to tables one and two.

From what I can see, the rich have no interest in changing anything fundamental about how wealth is distributed in this country.

Why should they when Republicans AND Democrats write tax policy that guarantees the rich will prosper at the expense of everyone else?

I would dispute your numbers, according to the socialsecurity.gov website, in 2009 there were only 72 US taxpayers who made 50 milion or more, and another 353 who made between 20 and 50 million. That's reported income, who knows what the real numbers are, but here's the deal: why are you so focused on these people? The extra revenue you're going to get by raising their taxes isn't that much, it's not going to come close to solving the debt/deficit problem.

According to the CBO, the additional revenue from Obama's tax hike on the rich is about 70 billion a year. But the deficit is about 1.5 trillion this year, so that 70 billion is a drop in the bucket. And some economists say, and conservatives believe, that raising the tax rates on these guys hurts investment an economic growth, so you lose out on revenue you might have received from other sources. So all this soak the rich stuff really doesn't solve the problem at all, it's just political theatre, populism to get out the vote.

 

[MikeK]

The top 10% of earners currently pay 70% of all income tax collected.

How much more should they pay, to make things equitable?

10% of the top "earners" have managed to acquire 90% of the Nation's wealth resources since Reaganomics was foisted on us. This would not be the case if the progressive tax rate that existed prior to Reaganomics had remained in place, nor would we have the existing deficit. Simply stated, we would not have the economic problems we presently have. The rich would still be rich -- but they wouldn't be filthy rich and the Nation would not be falling into third world status.

Rather than engaging in incipient class warfare we need to examine the economic maneuvers which enabled inequitable redistribution of the Nation's wealth resources and have created what it best described as a neo-aristocracy -- which is simply un-American.

I am not advocating wealth equality, as in communism. I have no problem with wealth. But we both should have a problem with excessive wealth because it has a severely counterproductive effect on the Nation as a whole.

The notion that lower income Americans are enviously resentful of the rich is patently false. There always have been millionaires in America but the only times there have been conflicts between the social classes was during the Gilded Age, when the super-rich (the "Robber Barons") lived like royalty while the working class grew increasingly impoverished, and now. What we're seeing now is a clear case of history repeating itself.

During the three decades of optimal economic stability (50s - 80s) there were many American millionaires and multi-millionaires, but there were few billionaires. The middle class was secure and comfortable and there was absolutely no conflict between the upper and lower economic classes. So the idea that the working class harbors hateful resentment for the rich is nonsensical propaganda put forth by the likes of Glenn Beck.

The simple fact is the super-rich acquired their fortunes by directly or indirectly bribing legislators to tamper with regulations, tax codes and other economic safeguards. That tampering must be reversed. But as long as we have so many ordinary Americans, many of whom don't have a pot to piss in, carrying water for the super-rich the problem will never be fixed and America will gradually devolve into a social and economic extension of Mexico.

 

[MikeK]

I would dispute your numbers, according to the socialsecurity.gov website, in 2009 there were only 72 US taxpayers who made 50 milion or more, and another 353 who made between 20 and 50 million. That's reported income, who knows what the real numbers are, but here's the deal: why are you so focused on these people? The extra revenue you're going to get by raising their taxes isn't that much, it's not going to come close to solving the debt/deficit problem.

According to the CBO, the additional revenue from Obama's tax hike on the rich is about 70 billion a year. But the deficit is about 1.5 trillion this year, so that 70 billion is a drop in the bucket. And some economists say, and conservatives believe, that raising the tax rates on these guys hurts investment an economic growth, so you lose out on revenue you might have received from other sources. So all this soak the rich stuff really doesn't solve the problem at all, it's just political theatre, populism to get out the vote.

The apparent flaw in your reasoning is the implicit assumption that restoring the progressive tax rate to its pre-Reaganomics level is expected to pay off our debt overnight. Of course it won't. What it will do is get the beast under control and help to pay it down just as one would gradually pay down excessive credit card debt.

A tax increase is only one of the things we need to do to dig out of the hole we're in. There must be spending cuts and my two suggestions are to focus on the Pentagon and the War On Drugs. Additional suggestions are invited.

 

[Snormo]

If anyone honestly believes that increasing the tax rates for the "rich" is going to be the only solution we need right now is clueless. Even assuming that the economy stays the same, it would cover less than 1% of the debt. I don't think you understand just how big of a hole we're in and the one area to look at is entitlement spending. It consumes over half of the budget and will continue to sky-rocket as the baby boomers retire.

Stop playing games and look at it. It's right there in front of you but congress and Obama doesn't want you to see it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The top 10% of earners currently pay 70% of all income tax collected.

How much more should they pay, to make things equitable?

10% of the top "earners" have managed to acquire 90% of the Nation's wealth resources since Reaganomics was foisted on us.

The Nation's wealth?
I thought the citizens had wealth?
What is this Nation's wealth you're talking about?
Please explain in more detail.

 

[FA_Q2]

The top 10% of earners currently pay 70% of all income tax collected.

How much more should they pay, to make things equitable?

10% of the top "earners" have managed to acquire 90% of the Nation's wealth resources since Reaganomics was foisted on us.

The Nation's wealth?
I thought the citizens had wealth?
What is this Nation's wealth you're talking about?
Please explain in more detail.

Did you forget that the liberals declared an end to personal property with the declaration that wealth is a NATIONAL RESOURCE!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

10% of the top "earners" have managed to acquire 90% of the Nation's wealth resources since Reaganomics was foisted on us.

The Nation's wealth?
I thought the citizens had wealth?
What is this Nation's wealth you're talking about?
Please explain in more detail.

Did you forget that the liberals declared an end to personal property with the declaration that wealth is a NATIONAL RESOURCE!!

I didn't forget, I just want them to come out and say it.....

 

[daveman]

It's hard to believe anyone could be so stupid they believe that such a plan would actually work.

When I see this level of stupidity, I realize this country is doomed.

It's really pathetic, isn't it?

Listen Mr. Unemployed. While I thank you for your service to the country. Go get a job... oh that's right... with your impeccable resume, I guess your job went to China.

If it did, it's thanks to you idiot leftists driving business out of the country. Thanks a lot, moron.

Btw... nice that you left out my response to what you quoted. That's how you guys roll though isn't is... half truths and lies.

You're whining because I didn't respond to your lame spin? Well, I guess you'll just have to live with it, you sissy bedwetter.

 

[georgephillip]

I think a case could be made for some CEOs and top execs who are significantly overpaid compared to their European counterparts. I think more transparency and control should be given to the shareholders as far as compensation is concerned, but that's really not a gov't issue. You can sell your shares of the company if you don't like their policies, or even refuse to buy their products. It's not stealing from the workers, they never had that money in the 1st place. And those workers also have to right to go get another job elsewhere.

In today's news conference, President Obama called for raising taxes on the millionaires and billionaires, the guy with the corporate jets. But the vast majority of those top 1%ers that he wants to hammer are making a lot less than a million bucks. According to 2009 data from socialsecurity.gov, those making a million or more dollars are about .03% of the total earners, about 80,000 out of 150 million. Another .025% make between $500,000 and a million, so in essence you're talking about hitting the 99.5% who make between 200,000 - 500,000. Not many of these folks are flying around in private jets.

And then there's this: Obama wants to raise their taxes up to near 40% frm 35.6%. And in these debt ceiling negotiations he wants to remove the tax deductions and exemptions which cost them another 2%, and then his ObamaCare bill calls for raising their taxes another 3.8% in 2014. So now you've raised their taxes a full 10%, God Damn, how much is enough?

Do you really believe you can do this with no repercussions? Are you that naive? If you're a wealthy foreign investor or entrepeneur, are you going to think twice about starting a new business here with that kind of tax burden? We've already got people renouncing their citizenship, or just flat out leaving the country and taking their money with them. And you want to do this now, in the middle of a recession? It's lunacy, sheer lunacy.

Out of those 80.000 earners making $1 million or more there are 10,000 earners (0.01%) who earn an average of $50 million per year with assets averaging $350 million. According to my source those assets have increased 550% since 1978.

This tends to skew wealth distribution in some fairly predictable ways.
For example, imagine a poker tournament with four tables:

" Table 1 has 10,000 people who have $1M each to play with
Table 2 (top 10-0.01%) has 30M people who have $433 each to play with
Table 3 (top 20-10%) has 30M people who have $133 each to play with
Table 4 (bottom 60%) has 240M people who have $25 each to play with.

America is 234 Years Old Today – Is It Finished? | Phil

Since Germany and Japan rebuilt after WWII the gains from rising productivity in this country have gone almost entirely to tables one and two.

From what I can see, the rich have no interest in changing anything fundamental about how wealth is distributed in this country.

Why should they when Republicans AND Democrats write tax policy that guarantees the rich will prosper at the expense of everyone else?

I would dispute your numbers, according to the socialsecurity.gov website, in 2009 there were only 72 US taxpayers who made 50 milion or more, and another 353 who made between 20 and 50 million. That's reported income, who knows what the real numbers are, but here's the deal: why are you so focused on these people? The extra revenue you're going to get by raising their taxes isn't that much, it's not going to come close to solving the debt/deficit problem.

According to the CBO, the additional revenue from Obama's tax hike on the rich is about 70 billion a year. But the deficit is about 1.5 trillion this year, so that 70 billion is a drop in the bucket. And some economists say, and conservatives believe, that raising the tax rates on these guys hurts investment an economic growth, so you lose out on revenue you might have received from other sources. So all this soak the rich stuff really doesn't solve the problem at all, it's just political theatre, populism to get out the vote.

It isn't just 10,000 "earners" paying taxes at less than a 20% rate that's contributing to a revenue deficit there's also a corporate component to tax evasion that's even greater.

"The 10,000 paid just $112Bn in taxes last year – that’s just over 20% of their income, while the rest of the country, of course, paid a much higher percentage of their income to make up for the shortfall.

"Warren Buffett, the third richest man in the world (behind Gates and Slim) paid 17.7% tax and made a point of checking and found out his employees paid an average of 32.9%.

"God bless Buffett becuase he made this point in a speech that was given to 400 of the 10,000, who were gathered at a Hillary Clinton fund raiser in 2007. It got a little attention at the time but then was swept under the rug – as if that didn’t matter.

"But it DOES MATTER and it matters a lot – the life of this country depends on it!

"If this were just a case of 10,000 people not paying $100Bn in taxes, maybe we could move on and forget it but it’s not. US corporations, who are (according to to the Supreme Court) also citizens of this country, paid just $300Bn in taxes last year on $6 TRILLION in income (5%).

"That’s right, if US corporations simply paid the same amount of tax as Mr. Buffett – that would, by itself, be enough to wipe out our deficit. But, things have gone decidedly the other way in the past 30 years:

America is 234 Years Old Today – Is It Finished? | Phil

The rich are preaching austerity for the many while expecting to see lower and lower tax bills for themselves.

Maybe $100 billion is a small amount to you; however, that doesn't mean it couldn't be used to offset spending cuts proposed by the rich that will lower the standard of living for thousands of productive citizens.

How much more are the richest 1% of Americans entitled to?

 

[Maple]

Since DC Democrats and Republicans are tone deaf to anything that doesn't ring of corporate cash, it falls on workers to demand a massive public works program which can be funded by taxing corporations and the richest Americans at pre-Reagan levels.

"And it makes complete sense because the growing inequalities in wealth over the past three decades has meant a spectacular concentration of wealth at the top.

"The rich have plenty of money to spare."

Spare me the brain-dead conservative vomit about how hard the rich have "worked" for all their money.

The rich have the money because Republicans AND Democrats threw money at Wall Street banks and hedge funds instead of prosecuting the executives responsible for the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression.

The rich have the money because their chief enabler, The Federal Reserve, has fueled a major commodity bubble "that may be in the midst of bursting, possibly triggering a double dip recession."

Throw in high unemployment which allows the rich to work remaining employees harder and thus increase profits and combine it with commodity speculation and you have the entire basis for a corporate recovery which both major parties tout as "proof" of economic "recovery."

It's another lie the rich tell.

When the Fed stops purchasing 60% of US Treasury bonds, a new creditor will have to step up. One that will probably demand significantly higher interest rates before loaning anymore money to the US Government.

Surprise, surprise - the rich win again!

They got all that free bail-out money which increased the deficit.
None of them went to prison for their crimes.
Their bottom lines are being enhanced by commodity speculation and high unemployment.
And now the rich want higher interest rates for investing in US Treasury Bonds.

"In (all) instances working people pay the bills."

The Rich Are Destroying the Economy | Common Dreams

The so-called tax on the rich would raise 100 billion per year, we have a 14 TILLION dollar deficit, that amounts to one drop of water in the Pacific ocean. BTW anytime you raise taxes on any group of people you REDUCE revenues to the government, Want to know why, these so-called rich are usually investors, business owners or invest in business. Business in the private sector employs people, you and me, when the top dog is taxed more than what they are paying now, they cut back on investments in business, the business then lays you off. What a deal!!!! Econ 101

Fred Thompson," When Democrats start talking about taxing the rich, the middle class needs to run for cover."

 

[Maple]

10% of the top "earners" have managed to acquire 90% of the Nation's wealth resources since Reaganomics was foisted on us.

The Nation's wealth?
I thought the citizens had wealth?
What is this Nation's wealth you're talking about?
Please explain in more detail.

Did you forget that the liberals declared an end to personal property with the declaration that wealth is a NATIONAL RESOURCE!!

That's a great quote and one I will surely use. How true- Democrats think that your money, which is personal property, belongs to them.

 

[Steelplate]

It's really pathetic, isn't it?

Listen Mr. Unemployed. While I thank you for your service to the country. Go get a job... oh that's right... with your impeccable resume, I guess your job went to China.

If it did, it's thanks to you idiot leftists driving business out of the country. Thanks a lot, moron.

Btw... nice that you left out my response to what you quoted. That's how you guys roll though isn't is... half truths and lies.

You're whining because I didn't respond to your lame spin? Well, I guess you'll just have to live with it, you sissy bedwetter.

Left wing idiots driving business away? Yeah.. that's it. I guess Reagan/Bush I had nothing to do with it.. giving China "most favored nation" status against many protests, huh? And boy your corporate boyfriends loved that... What a way to bust Unions and force lower wages to our people than to get slave labor.

YOUR boys created this mess.

Sissy bedwetter? you're the one collecting unemployment and at the same time pissing and moaning about deadbeats. hypocrite.