64% Say Tax the Rich!

[georgephillip]

blah blah blah.. you'd call it a fucking mandate if the mob were spouting YOUR opinions.



Tax the rich and tariff imports on nations that don't trade evenly with the US.

We did that with the Smoot/Hawley tarriff tax. IT WAS AN ECONOMIC DISASTER!

No we didn't.


Per usual you don't really know what you're talking about.

Look it up, lad.

Smoot Hawley is a rather limited tariff.

It's effect on the economy was minor.

Some Chomsky thoughts on tariffs.

"Economic historians have argued that Egypt was well-placed to undertake rapid economic development at the same time that the U.S. was.

"Both had rich agriculture, including cotton, the fuel of the early industrial revolution—though unlike Egypt, the U.S. had to develop cotton production and a workforce by conquest, extermination and slavery, with consequences that are evident right now in the reservations for the survivors and the prisons that have rapidly expanded since the Reagan years to house the superfluous population left by deindustrialization.

"One fundamental difference was that the U.S. had gained independence and was therefore free to ignore the prescriptions of economic theory, delivered at the time by Adam Smith in terms rather like those preached to developing societies today...

"Having gained their independence, the colonies were free to ignore his advice and to follow England’s course of independent state-guided development, with high tariffs to protect industry from British exports, first textiles, later steel and others, and to adopt numerous other devices to accelerate industrial development.

"The independent Republic also sought to gain a monopoly of cotton so as to 'place all other nations at our feet,' particularly the British enemy, as the Jacksonian presidents announced when conquering Texas and half of Mexico."

Truthdig

 

[edthecynic]

I feel sure I've been more successful, than a liberal loon who can only respond with an argumentum ad hominem. Do you even know what that is, or did you sleep through elementary logic, as well as economics? What's the matter; spent your education getting politically indoctrinated, instead of actually learning something of value? See, I can do that too. Argue the point, or STFU!

I obviously know what argumentum ad hominem is, it is both of your posts!!! See the first quote in my sig.

And I did argue the point which you could not rebut so you went on your argumentum ad hominem rant. The fact remains that Libs are MORE financially successful than CON$ and therefore would have to be envious of themselves for your earlier post to make sense!

Get a job, you lazy slacker, and you too could be as successful as the Libs you envy so much.

I'm retired, after a very successful career. Envy you? Who the hell do you think you are, Warren Buffett? I don'r envy you, I despise your thieving political ideology. If you feel guilty for being successful, that's YOUR problem, and I suggest you seek your absolution with your own money, not someone else's. If you allowed yourself to be indoctrinated by your professors at college, that likewise is your problem; I learned back then to ignore the Marxist drivel they laced every lecture with. As for me, I worked hard for what I have, and I do not owe the losers in this society one damn cent! I'll fight your detestable democrat party, and its poisonous communist ideology, as hard as I can, as long as I can, with no apologies. Same with your unions, same with your social agenda. I will fight the interests of any constituency it favors on the grounds that any democrat is my mortal enemy! I'd support ANYTHING, that I believed would lead to the permanent suppression of the left in this country, and all it stands for.

You gotta love how petulant CON$ervative children argue! I point out that Libs are more financially successful than CON$ and therefore it is both illogical and moronic to claim that Libs are envious of themselves, and that fact makes me a thief.

Grow up child and get off your fat ass and get a job and you too can be as successful and productive as the Libs you've been programed to jealously hate.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

What a bunch of scummy people who would voted for this. not that I believe anything the McClatchy polls.

class warfare at it's finest.

must of been all Liberals.

No doubt!!

It's time to rally the TEABAGGERS!!!!

THIS SOUNDS LIKE A JOB FOR:

"No habla ingles!"​

 

[chanel]

I find it interesting that people like to use the expression "all those billionaires" when advocating wealth distribution. Does anyone know how many "billionaires" there are in the US?

And some will use the expression "millionaire tax" when they are referring to those making over 250K.

How soon will "rich" include anyone who makes over 100K? Be careful what you wish for.

 

[rdean]

What a bunch of scummy people who would voted for this. not that I believe anything the McClatchy polls.

class warfare at it's finest.

must of been all Liberals.

I love it. Ms. Stephanie Teabirther, defending people who see her as "working scum". Hilarious.

 

[rdean]

I find it interesting that people like to use the expression "all those billionaires" when advocating wealth distribution. Does anyone know how many "billionaires" there are in the US?

And some will use the expression "millionaire tax" when they are referring to those making over 250K.

How soon will "rich" include anyone who makes over 100K? Be careful what you wish for.

The US has 413 billionaires

8.4 million Americans are millionaires

Explain why they should pay a lower percentage of taxes.

Rich people do NOT make jobs. Jobs are created from fulfulling the demand in "supply and demand". When no one has any money, there is no demand, leaving companies to fight over selling the basic necessities. Prices go up on those basics because of speculation from an unregulated Wall Street. The truth is RIGHT THERE. It's like arguing with the sky. Argue all you want, but it's still the sky.

 

[boedicca]

I find it interesting that people like to use the expression "all those billionaires" when advocating wealth distribution. Does anyone know how many "billionaires" there are in the US?

And some will use the expression "millionaire tax" when they are referring to those making over 250K.

How soon will "rich" include anyone who makes over 100K? Be careful what you wish for.

The US has 413 billionaires

8.4 million Americans are millionaires

Explain why they should pay a lower percentage of taxes.

Rich people do NOT make jobs. Jobs are created from fulfulling the demand in "supply and demand". When no one has any money, there is no demand, leaving companies to fight over selling the basic necessities. Prices go up on those basics because of speculation from an unregulated Wall Street. The truth is RIGHT THERE. It's like arguing with the sky. Argue all you want, but it's still the sky.

Dood. The burden is on you to prove why anyone should pay MORE. It is not a premise that the money belongs to the government and we have to justify keeping a certain portion of what we have earned.

 

[The T]

I find it interesting that people like to use the expression "all those billionaires" when advocating wealth distribution. Does anyone know how many "billionaires" there are in the US?

And some will use the expression "millionaire tax" when they are referring to those making over 250K.

How soon will "rich" include anyone who makes over 100K? Be careful what you wish for.

The US has 413 billionaires

8.4 million Americans are millionaires

Explain why they should pay a lower percentage of taxes.

Rich people do NOT make jobs. Jobs are created from fulfulling the demand in "supply and demand". When no one has any money, there is no demand, leaving companies to fight over selling the basic necessities. Prices go up on those basics because of speculation from an unregulated Wall Street. The truth is RIGHT THERE. It's like arguing with the sky. Argue all you want, but it's still the sky.

Duh moment here? Precisely what Obama and the Statists are shooting for.

Hey deany? What happened to the buggywhip industry? Or are you statists trying to cause a resurgence?

 

[chanel]

The tax rates ARE higher. You can argue all you want about loopholes but that's not what the president is proposing. The uber rich will always find ways to pay less (even though they still pay a lot) Small business owners are the ones who will be hit the hardest. And very few of them are "uber rich". Esp in states like CA, NY, and NJ. Does anyone give a shit what the state rates are? Is that figured into the equation? Of course not. Eff them.

 

[boedicca]

I find it offensive and disingenuous for Obama to point at Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg, and himself as being able to afford more taxes as though the three of them are even remotely comparable to a family with an income of $250K in a major metro area.

The first two are BILLIONAIRES and Obama has most of his living expenses paid for by the taxpayers, and can look forward to an affluent life financed by Clintonesque speaking fees.

An accountant and a nurse with two kids in a 4 bedroom 2 bath tract home have quite a different lifestyle from those three - yet they are the targets of the tax increase.

 

[edthecynic]

The tax rates ARE higher. You can argue all you want about loopholes but that's not what the president is proposing. The uber rich will always find ways to pay less (even though they still pay a lot) Small business owners are the ones who will be hit the hardest. And very few of them are "uber rich". Esp in states like CA, NY, and NJ. Does anyone give a shit what the state rates are? Is that figured into the equation? Of course not. Eff them.

Lyin' Ryan made a sucker out of you!
Less than 3% of small businesses have taxable income of over $250,000.

 

[boedicca]

Ah. So ETC thinks it's okay for the majority to mug a minority, as long as the minority is small.

What's the breakpoint, bub? 5%? 10%? 20%? When is a group big enough to have protection from the legal mugging racket?

 

[edthecynic]

Ah. So ETC thinks it's okay for the majority to mug a minority, as long as the minority is small.

What's the breakpoint, bub? 5%? 10%? 20%? When is a group big enough to have protection from the legal mugging racket?

You gotta just love the petulant CON$. Anyone who gives them correct information is a mugger. Don't dare upset the bliss of the willfully ignorant!

 

[rdean]

I find it interesting that people like to use the expression "all those billionaires" when advocating wealth distribution. Does anyone know how many "billionaires" there are in the US?

And some will use the expression "millionaire tax" when they are referring to those making over 250K.

How soon will "rich" include anyone who makes over 100K? Be careful what you wish for.

The US has 413 billionaires

8.4 million Americans are millionaires

Explain why they should pay a lower percentage of taxes.

Rich people do NOT make jobs. Jobs are created from fulfulling the demand in "supply and demand". When no one has any money, there is no demand, leaving companies to fight over selling the basic necessities. Prices go up on those basics because of speculation from an unregulated Wall Street. The truth is RIGHT THERE. It's like arguing with the sky. Argue all you want, but it's still the sky.

Dood. The burden is on you to prove why anyone should pay MORE. It is not a premise that the money belongs to the government and we have to justify keeping a certain portion of what we have earned.

Because we have two Republican wars to fight. We have Republican subsidies for oil companies to pay for. We have Republican Medicare Part D to pay for. Does that help?

 

[rdean]

I find it interesting that people like to use the expression "all those billionaires" when advocating wealth distribution. Does anyone know how many "billionaires" there are in the US?

And some will use the expression "millionaire tax" when they are referring to those making over 250K.

How soon will "rich" include anyone who makes over 100K? Be careful what you wish for.

The US has 413 billionaires

8.4 million Americans are millionaires

Explain why they should pay a lower percentage of taxes.

Rich people do NOT make jobs. Jobs are created from fulfulling the demand in "supply and demand". When no one has any money, there is no demand, leaving companies to fight over selling the basic necessities. Prices go up on those basics because of speculation from an unregulated Wall Street. The truth is RIGHT THERE. It's like arguing with the sky. Argue all you want, but it's still the sky.

Dood. The burden is on you to prove why anyone should pay MORE. It is not a premise that the money belongs to the government and we have to justify keeping a certain portion of what we have earned.

It just occurs to me. You don't understand it takes revenue to run a country. Without revenue, every disease you could name would be rampant. We would have lost the cold war. Our food would be dangerous. New Orleans would still be under water. Don't you get that? We would be Afghanistan without a government. Worse, we would be the Deep South all over.

 

[digger]

Liberals just don't get it. The center of the debate is that rich people create the jobs and therefor we should give them all the money. The discussion is not about whether or not to give them more tax breaks. The question is how much more money we should give them.

Since that is the center of debate, raising the top marginal tax rate to where it was in the 90s is socialism. They're the ones who create the jobs! If we tax them, than we'll all be poor forever.

For serious, dudes. We're in trouble if we tax the rich. That's why Ryan's plan is so good. We cut taxes on the rich by another trillion dollars! Don't worry, we'll still balance the budget. We'll just get rid of all of our government programs that have been turning us into lazy parasites for decades.

When all is said and done, we'll live in a new conservative paradise. Government will facilitate resource extraction and maintain population control, but will not interfere with the corporate right to profit. The investment class will use their vast wealth to create high quality jobs. New factories will open without the shackles of safety regulations or environmental impact studies.

 

[georgephillip]

Some are asking "Who Would Jesus Tax?"

"A University of Alabama School of Law Professor has asked God's forgiveness for the years she lived in the sin of ignorance about tax injustice.

"Susan Pace Hamill, a tax expert, business consultant, and dedicated United Methodist church goer, thought there was a misprint when she first read that personal incomes as low as $4,600 for a family of four were being taxed by the state, while timber owners holding 71% of the land of Alabama were paying less than $1 per acre in property taxes.

"Two hours later she found out there had been no mistake and that Alabama has the most regressive tax code in the country... "

WHO WOULD JESUS TAX? THE SAGA OF SUSAN PACE HAMILL'S ALABAMA TAX CRUSADE

 

[DiamondDave]

You do realize that property and income taxes are different things... and what was the value per acre?? I have owned property that I bought for CHEAP just to have it, paying less than $400 per acre, just for a place to camp in the middle of nowhere

This is pure bullshit sensationalism

 

[Vanquish]

Diamond Dave,

You're either shilling or woefully, terribly, amazingly naive.

This idea that if we only stop taxing the rich then they'll benevolently sprinkle the lesser people with jobs is not only erroneous, but historically inaccurate.

#1 The Bush/Obama Stimulus was 40% tax cuts. If you say the stimulus didn't work (as most conservatives do) then you're admitting that tax cuts don't help.

#2 Trickle-down theory has been disproven:

This graph shows the fluctuations of the real GDP growth rate over the period, indicating the performance of the U.S. economy as a whole. It is true that growth increased drastically after the 1982 tax cut, reaching as high as 7.3% in 1984. However, as the Reagan-Bush, Sr. administrations went on and taxes for the rich were slashed even further, growth fell to negative levels during 1991, at the heart of the last recession. And, two of the three years with the highest growth were during the 1950s, when the top tax rate was 91%. Overall, there seems to be no close relationship between the top tax rate and the GDP growth rate, and statistical analysis backs this up: the correlation coefficient between the two variables is 0.03, meaning that there is essentially no connection. (If tax cuts were strongly related to GDP growth, we would see a coefficient close to -1.) So much for upper-class tax cuts boosting the economy; now it's on to median income growth.

Same for income growth, wage growth, and job creation. It just doesn't work.

Link

#3 Simple logic: When rich people get to keep more of their money they have two basic choices - spend or don't spend. I can't make it easier for you than that. Even if we assume that spending the retained money and spending it via re-investment could be profitable...it doesnt mean that it will be profitable. Why does that matter? Because rich people know that. And it means that they won't necessarily risk their money. Which means that they save it. Don't spend it.

Like it or not we're in a crisis. One that's going to take more money. Either you can take it from those that will feel it less or you can speed up the crisis by taking it from those who will feel it more.

What you simply just don't understand is that while it might not be "fair" to tax rich people more...the alternative is the whole fucking system going down in fucking flames. Is that what you want? Seriously? You want the apocalypse now?

Sorry, I'm not naive. And I don't.

 

[georgephillip]

You do realize that property and income taxes are different things... and what was the value per acre?? I have owned property that I bought for CHEAP just to have it, paying less than $400 per acre, just for a place to camp in the middle of nowhere

This is pure bullshit sensationalism

"Alabama's tax system is most abusive because it taxes items like milk, yet offers tax breaks for certain farm products," she said in a Huntsville Times (3/26/03) interview. 'It's also unfair to allow timberland (which Hamill found out accounts for 71 percent of Alabama land) to generate only two percent of all state property taxes.'"

71% of the land generating 2% of all state property taxes.
Get it?
Maybe this will help

"Alabamians with incomes under $13,000 pay 10.9 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes while those who make over $229,000 pay just 4.1 percent.

"Commercial property owners pay more than 50 percent of property taxes, with homes approaching one-third.

"Alabama's sales taxes are among the highest in the nation, up to 10 percent in some areas, and do not exempt even the most basic necessities such as food.

"The state's 1901 constitution was written primarily by large landholders to secure their economic interests, consequently property taxes are extremely light on their holdings."

btw, most rational people can find ways to camp in the middle of nowhere without buying the land.

http://commonground-usa.net/hamils03.htm