Why We Must Raise Taxes On The Rich:

[mal]

"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners.

And who would that be exactly, Karl?

In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."

In other words, everyone would be dirt fucking poor and have a vastly lower standard of living with the exception of the .005% of the population who make up the ruling class who would be living high off of the hog like in the old USSR.

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

God you people are so fucking ignorant. Do you understand that correlation does not equal causation? Do you know how many times I have already explained this in various threads. Ok, here it goes again. Do you know why the U.S. was able to survive the 1940s and 1950s with 80 and 90% top tax brackets? Because we were one of only a few nations in the world producing anything. Europe was blown to shit from WWII and was rebuilding their infrastructure. We were manufacturing and exporting everything to everyone. You'll notice that as Europe came back online our economy began to decline and that is why JFK cut the top tax rates to 70% and then Reagan did so again to 50% and eventually down to 28%. Every time this happened the American economy improved. That is a fact, plain and simple. Deal with it.

And next time, maybe it can coupled with Spending Decreases... ACTUAL Decreases...

Then MAYBE we can start digging out of this Hole.



peace...

 

[sinister59]

"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners.

And who would that be exactly, Karl?



In other words, everyone would be dirt fucking poor and have a vastly lower standard of living with the exception of the .005% of the population who make up the ruling class who would be living high off of the hog like in the old USSR.

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

God you people are so fucking ignorant. Do you understand that correlation does not equal causation? Do you know how many times I have already explained this in various threads. Ok, here it goes again. Do you know why the U.S. was able to survive the 1940s and 1950s with 80 and 90% top tax brackets? Because we were one of only a few nations in the world producing anything. Europe was blown to shit from WWII and was rebuilding their infrastructure. We were manufacturing and exporting everything to everyone. You'll notice that as Europe came back online our economy began to decline and that is why JFK cut the top tax rates to 70% and then Reagan did so again to 50% and eventually down to 28%. Every time this happened the American economy improved. That is a fact, plain and simple. Deal with it.

And next time, maybe it can coupled with Spending Decreases... ACTUAL Decreases...

Then MAYBE we can start digging out of this Hole.



peace...

decreases ? you cut education , cut planed parenthood , civil services ,
froze federal pay ,"excepts members of either house " SS is under attack , medicare , whats left?

 

[AmericanFirst]

It's not an 'article', it's a blog.

Thank you. Now read the whole blog before disputing what Reich is saying.

You giving reich credibility? Laughing out loud now and rolling on floor.

 

[MikeK]

Yes it works so well for Canada that a Canadian politician came to the States to get her life saving operation. You need to get some better facts.

Do you know how many Americans travel outside the U.S. for medical treatment every year? Here is just one example:

From all accounts it appears Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple (AAPL), is experiencing some serious health challenges. And we all wish him well. It is not known if he returned to Switzerland where he has sought medical treatment in the past.

What is clear is that Jobs doesn’t hesitate to fly out of the U.S. for treatment to get what he needs. Watch the video “Steve Jobs Travels for Treatment Outside the U.S.”
Steve Jobs Travels Out of the U.S. for Cancer Treatment | International Health - Traveling4Health blog


The fact is so many Americans try to travel to Switzerland for medical treatment that Switzerland has seen fit to shut its door to them. If you doubt that, do a quick Google search and educate yourself.

The financially capable of every nationality routinely avail themselves of the best of everything. But the context of this discussion refers to the rule, not the exception.

 

[westwall]

Yes it works so well for Canada that a Canadian politician came to the States to get her life saving operation. You need to get some better facts.

Do you know how many Americans travel outside the U.S. for medical treatment every year? Here is just one example:

From all accounts it appears Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple (AAPL), is experiencing some serious health challenges. And we all wish him well. It is not known if he returned to Switzerland where he has sought medical treatment in the past.

What is clear is that Jobs doesn’t hesitate to fly out of the U.S. for treatment to get what he needs. Watch the video “Steve Jobs Travels for Treatment Outside the U.S.”
Steve Jobs Travels Out of the U.S. for Cancer Treatment | International Health - Traveling4Health blog


The fact is so many Americans try to travel to Switzerland for medical treatment that Switzerland has seen fit to shut its door to them. If you doubt that, do a quick Google search and educate yourself.

The financially capable of every nationality routinely avail themselves of the best of everything. But the context of this discussion refers to the rule, not the exception.

No, the financially capable go to whoever is BEST at that particular procedure. I guarantee you that if the best doctor in the world for what ails Mr. Jobs was here in the States that's who he would have seen. My little hospital here in Carson City has the best Cathlab in the US (which means it's arguably the best in the world). They have people coming from all over the US to have their heart procedures done here because of that.

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... einny, meeny, miney, moe...

... tax dem rich folks onna toe...

... if dey holler make `em pay...

... fifty dollars ever' day."

 

[Political Junky]

Why? It's working very well in every country where it's in place, e.g., Canada, France, Germany, et.al.

Where the hell did you get that idea from??

High death rates at 19 NHS hospitals revealed | Mail Online

NHS facing record funding £15m funding shortfall as experts warn service 'will not survive without major changes' | Mail Online

NHS short of 4,500 midwives, health service boss tells PAC | Mail Online

Pick up a British newspaper any day of the week and see how awful the NHS is.

Then there was this expose done by the LA Times just a few years ago.

Universal healthcare's dirty little secrets - latimes.com

He cited France, Canada, and Germany, not UK.

 

[Dot Com]

Joe Stiglitz is saying pretty much the same thing.

"The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live.

"Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late."

This time it is different. All those other times that the rich learned the hard way. The rich were paying nothing and taking from others. Here in America the top 2 % pay well over half the total tax load. They are paying!

Currently the richest 1% "earn" nearly a quarter of US national income and they control 40% of national wealth.

"Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent. One response might be to celebrate the ingenuity and drive that brought good fortune to these people, and to contend that a rising tide lifts all boats.

"That response would be misguided. While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall.

"For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades—and more—has gone to those at the top.

"In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride. Among our closest counterparts are Russia with its oligarchs and Iran."

In the last three years the richest 1% were either directly responsible for the Great Recession or they have increased their share of national wealth by nearly two percentage points in its aftermath. It's long past time for the parasites to pay the same tax rates they paid fifty years ago.

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% | Society | Vanity Fair

This is true:
Top 1 Percent of Americans Reaped Two-Thirds of Income Gains in Last Economic Expansion — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[jeffrockit]

Why We Must Raise Taxes on the Rich
Wednesday 6 April 2011
by: Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

It’s tax time. It’s also a time when right-wing Republicans are setting the agenda for massive spending cuts that will hurt most Americans.

Here’s the truth: The only way America can reduce the long-term budget deficit, maintain vital services, protect Social Security and Medicare, invest more in education and infrastructure, and not raise taxes on the working middle class is by raising taxes on the super rich.

Even if we got rid of corporate welfare subsidies for big oil, big agriculture, and big Pharma – even if we cut back on our bloated defense budget – it wouldn’t be nearly enough.

Read the whole article before disputing what Reich is saying:
Why We Must Raise Taxes on the Rich | Truthout

Here is why that wont help:
There Aren

 

[auditor0007]

Robert Reich...

He's starting with a flawed premise:

The only way America can reduce the long-term budget deficit, maintain vital services, protect Social Security and Medicare, invest more in education and infrastructure, and not raise taxes on the working middle class is by raising taxes on the super rich.

He has no interest in making social security and medicare more efficient by using free market solutions and we already pay way too much for education. He'll have to define what he means by infrastructure because that could mean anything.

Infrastructure includes everything from roads, bridges, sewer and water systems, to high speed rail. Total estimated costs to bring our infrastructure up to date is around $2.5 trillion. It's late and I have a headache, so if you need a supporting link, look it up; I'm sure you'll be able to find it. Our lack of foresight in this area is going to leave us far behind many of the up and coming countries in Asia.

As for the taxes, it is beyond obvious that the massive tax cuts that the wealthy have seen have been good for the wealthy. If they had been good for everyone, then we wouldn't be in this mess. Now, does that mean I think we should overtax the wealthy? Absolutely not. But part of the solution is bringing in more revenue, and the wealthy are the only ones who can afford it. But, if we go that route, and we will eventually, because we will have no other choice, we must also reduce spending, and that must include the Military, SS, and Medicare. And the only fair and equitable way to reduce spending on SS and Medicare is to raise the retirement age and to do it at a much quicker pace than has ever been thought of.

It really amazes me that when the super wealthy like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates even suggest that the wealthy aren't paying enough in taxes, those who are just basic middle class still think we should make them even richer. It just boggles my mind. I understand the frustration with wasted government spending, and that must be addressed, but it is only part of the solution.

 

[auditor0007]

This time it is different. All those other times that the rich learned the hard way. The rich were paying nothing and taking from others. Here in America the top 2 % pay well over half the total tax load. They are paying!

Currently the richest 1% "earn" nearly a quarter of US national income and they control 40% of national wealth.

"Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent. One response might be to celebrate the ingenuity and drive that brought good fortune to these people, and to contend that a rising tide lifts all boats.

"That response would be misguided. While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall.

"For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades—and more—has gone to those at the top.

"In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride. Among our closest counterparts are Russia with its oligarchs and Iran."

In the last three years the richest 1% were either directly responsible for the Great Recession or they have increased their share of national wealth by nearly two percentage points in its aftermath. It's long past time for the parasites to pay the same tax rates they paid fifty years ago.

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% | Society | Vanity Fair

This is true:
Top 1 Percent of Americans Reaped Two-Thirds of Income Gains in Last Economic Expansion — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

This was because the wealthy were expanding the economy and creating millions of new jobs. Oh, I forgot, we have millions out of work and millions more underemployed.

 

[Article 15]

It really amazes me that when the super wealthy like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates even suggest that the wealthy aren't paying enough in taxes, those who are just basic middle class still think we should make them even richer. It just boggles my mind. I understand the frustration with wasted government spending, and that must be addressed, but it is only part of the solution.

Those you speak of are foolish ideologues and the brainwashed.

Same goes for the tards who don't think spending cuts should be part of the solution though there seems to be a lot less of them around.

 

[bripat9643]

Why We Must Raise Taxes on the Rich
Wednesday 6 April 2011
by: Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

It’s tax time. It’s also a time when right-wing Republicans are setting the agenda for massive spending cuts that will hurt most Americans.

Here’s the truth: The only way America can reduce the long-term budget deficit, maintain vital services, protect Social Security and Medicare, invest more in education and infrastructure, and not raise taxes on the working middle class is by raising taxes on the super rich.

Even if we got rid of corporate welfare subsidies for big oil, big agriculture, and big Pharma – even if we cut back on our bloated defense budget – it wouldn’t be nearly enough.

Read the whole article before disputing what Reich is saying:
Why We Must Raise Taxes on the Rich | Truthout

False Premise. There's no reason we have to maintain all the Ponzi schemes and socialist boondoggles the libs are so fond of. It's time to stop flushing our money down the welfare sewer.

 

[bripat9643]

It's not an 'article', it's a blog.

Thank you. Now read the whole blog before disputing what Reich is saying.

There's no need to read it. We know what liberals are going to say. They've been saying the same thing for 100 years.

 

[bripat9643]

It's not an 'article', it's a blog.

I would love to see us adopted the 50% tax ,
everyone pays 50% of their wages to the government ,
and we get free collage , health care , and more . all of our services fire police , cover everything , no matter rich poor or middle class .

Everyone? You mean, even the poor?

I would love to see people like you lined up and shot. Keep your fucking hands out of my pocket.

 

[bripat9643]

"The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live.

"Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late."

A lot of morons in the "other 99%" don't seem to understand that they don't help themselves by destroying the rich. Class warfare is the fetish of envious mediocrities. It's not a policiy justified by economics or any moral principle other than pure naked envy.

 

[bripat9643]

This time it is different. All those other times that the rich learned the hard way. The rich were paying nothing and taking from others. Here in America the top 2 % pay well over half the total tax load. They are paying!

In a capitalist economy, the rich don't "take" anything from anyone, unless they are crooks. People get rich in this country purely through totally voluntary exchanges, by providing something of value to their customers. Government takes. The rich can only sell you something.

 

[bripat9643]

Reich's Wiki

Oddball's Wiki ?

"If the rich were taxed at the same rates they were half a century ago, they’d be paying in over $350 billion more this year alone, which translates into trillions over the next decade. That’s enough to accomplish everything the nation needs while also reducing future deficits."

Do you find this credible?

Why We Must Raise Taxes on the Rich | Truthout

Liberal schemes to soak the rich never produce the revenue their advocates claim. You see, the rich have ways of avoiding such schemes. One way is simply to move to where people are not so damn stupid.

 

[bripat9643]

"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."

Why would anyone want to pay 90% of their income to the government? Who are the "real owners" of the wealth if not the people who earned it?

You're an insane moron.

Enough said.

 

[bripat9643]

If the rich paid taxes today at the same rates they paid 50 years ago, they would pay in over $350 billion more this year alone.

Credible?

Or not?

Pure Idiocy is never credible.