Can any con/repub give me good reason why the rich should not be taxed MORE?

[Chris]

As this graph shows it was the Reagan and Bush tax cuts for the rich that have created the income disparity in the United States.

 

[Wicked Jester]

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.

This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth.

In what way does this not make any sense?

And don't get it twisted. I have nothing against the wealthy. I think these hard-working individuals deserve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.

When was the last time YOU actually wrote a check to the IRS?

When was the last time you VOLUNTARILY sent more money to the IRS then owed?

When was the last time you walked the walk?

 

[M14 Shooter]

WASHINGTON, D.C.--The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during the 15-year period covered by the IRS statistics. The average federal tax bite on the top 400 was 30% in 1995 and 23% in 2002.

Richest 400 Earn More, Pay Lower Tax Rate - Forbes.com

Thank you for this "fact".
Is there a point attached?
What is it and how does your post support it?

The rich pay taxes at a much lower rate than the rest of us?

They do? I have never paid more than 6% of my gross.
If YOU do, you're doing something wrong.

Is that fair?

Why wouldnt it be?

 

[teapartysamurai]

It's very simple.

If we took away all the money they rich had, it would not pay off the deficit, it would deplete the private sector of money, and wealth/jobs would be in the toilet.

Taxing the "rich" is a con job, it won't help the economy and the biggest loser will be the poor--YES THE POOR!

Say I'm a "rich" person who makes shoes. I don't make expensive shoes. I make shoes that are sold in Walmart, K-mart, and other stores for lower income people (like the real me!)

So, Obama institutes a tax on the "rich" people and businesses like me.

When taxes are raised on business, they simply pass that cost on in the price of their merchandise.

So, the leather I use in my shoes, the rubber I use in my soles, the canvas I use, the shoe laces, the metal for eyelets. On and on. The price for all of these things has gone up!

Which means in order to afford to keep buying these things to make my shoes, *I* must either:

A) Lay off people.

B) Raise prices

C) Both.

In order to keep my shoes in a price range so the poor can afford my shoes, I will probably have to do C, a bit of both.

This not only hurts the poor who WERE WORKING at my factory, but the poor who want/need to buy my shoes, since they will not only be out of work, the necessities they need to buy are at HIGHER PRICES (like low end shoes)!

Now the IDIOT left will make it out like it's evil to raise prices in the face of higher taxes, but that's pure stupidity.

IT TAKES MONEY TO BUY THE MATERIALS I NEED TO MAKE MY SHOES AND MONEY TO PAY THE PEOPLE WHO PUT THE SHOES TOGETHER. IT TAKES MONEY TO PAY THE PEOPLE I HAVE IN ACCOUNTING, PAYROLL, MANAGMENT, ETC.

If the government takes some of the money away (in taxes) I need to do my business, I have to make it up somewhere or go out of business.

If taxes are raised on the "rich" it won't put one dime more in the pocket of the poor (in fact it will take money away) and it won't put one more dime in the well of the deficit.

The fact is the super rich will find aways to avoid paying the taxes. Take a look at GE and the other companies that Obama is giving waivers and bailouts for an example of this.

While small businesses, WHO DON'T GET WAIVERS AND CAN'T GET BAILOUTS will pay the brunt of those taxes and that will hurt the back bone of the American economy, THE AMERICAN SMALL BUSINESS.

Not that I expect this to make the left see how wrong they are in their class envy.

It's not about helping the economy. It's about their rage against anyone who they think has more money than them. It's about real greed in the US, the left.

 

[BlindBoo]

Jobs

Uh huh! Them job creators sure paid Presdent Bush back after he cut their taxes alright.

Under Bush, private employment shrank by 673,000 jobs, federal employment grew by 50,000 jobs, and government employment grew by 1,753,000 jobs.

Job Creation: Bush vs. Obama - By Veronique de Rugy - The Corner - National Review Online

Does Increasing Taxes On The Wealthy Hurt

 

[M14 Shooter]

Taxing the "rich" is a con job, it won't help the economy and the biggest loser will be the poor--YES THE POOR!

If the liberals stop promising to tax the rich so they can hand out benefits to their constituents, how will they get people to vote for them?

 

[Hoot]

Bush signed a bill ...Tax Reconcilliation Act, which increased the percentage of Americans not owing taxes from apprx 37% to 48%.

Then you right wingers whine about 1/2 of Americans not paying taxes. Doh!

In the 60's, CEO pay, compared to the lowly clock puncher, was about 25-1. Today, it's over 350-1!

The latest figures from the IRS show the top 30 Fortune 500 companies paid zero tax from 2008-2010.

The remainder of the 500 paid an average of 18%...far less then what the average middle class American pays.

The rich are far more likely to own corporations and business's, right? Therefore, their trucks cause far more damage to our infrastructure and they use far more of our common resources.

Yes, the rich should be paying more! You'd have to be an idiot not to realize the middle class, the backbone of America, has all but disappeared, while the rich have grown and taken far more of the cream off the top then at any time in history.

Besides, all we're saying is place the top tax rate back to Clinton era levels...a time when the nation enjoyed great properity.

But repubs would've rather balance the budget on the backs of the middle class and the poor while preserving the greatest income disparity for the rich in the history of the world.

Cry me a river.

 

[Listening]

As this graph shows it was the Reagan and Bush tax cuts for the rich that have created the income disparity in the United States.

More mindless graph posting.....

Once again I will ask how you explain the relationship you claim exists. The graph shows some data points.

It's up to you to explain them.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Jobs

Uh huh! Them job creators sure paid Presdent Bush back after he cut their taxes alright.

Under Bush, private employment shrank by 673,000 jobs, federal employment grew by 50,000 jobs, and government employment grew by 1,753,000 jobs.

Job Creation: Bush vs. Obama - By Veronique de Rugy - The Corner - National Review Online

Does Increasing Taxes On The Wealthy Hurt

You lefties can lie about "job creation" under Bush and give us opinion piece after opinion piece about increasing taxes, BUT THE FACTS/STATS DON'T LIE!

US Unemployment Rate by Year

2001 4.76
2002 5.78
2003 5.99
2004 5.53
2005 5.08
2006 4.63
2007 4.61
2008 5.76
2009 9.26

The United States Unemployment Rate By Year

Now you look at the unemployment rates under Bush and then you figure out why the left go to cite "job creation."

IT'S BECAUSE WE WERE AT FULL EMPLOYMENT UNDER BUSH.

Five percent and under is generally considered full employment.

Why did the left fall to this stupid meme?

Because John Kerry needed something to rail against Bush in the 2004 election and he couldnt' say Bush was doing a bad job on the economy.

The fact was Bush was doing gang busters.

So, he created the "job creation" meme.

IT DIDN'T WORK!

Voters saw through this nonsense.

And it's laughable that the left still want to use this against Bush CONSIDERING WHO THEY ARE BACKING!!!!!!!!!

I mean ARE YOU JUST PLAIN STUPID BOO?

Considering where employment is under Obama you want to bring up that old canard about job creation with Bush? REALLY????????????

Don't you think that's epitome of throwing stones in glass houses?

You better look to your own guy when it comes to that charge.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Bush signed a bill ...Tax Reconcilliation Act, which increased the percentage of Americans not owing taxes from apprx 37% to 48%.

Wait....
Bush's tax cuts benfitted a significant number of people -other- than the rich?
So... those that oppose those cuts have been lying all this time?
Or were they simply ignrant of the facts?

 

[teapartysamurai]

Taxing the "rich" is a con job, it won't help the economy and the biggest loser will be the poor--YES THE POOR!

If the liberals stop promising to tax the rich so they can hand out benefits to their constituents, how will they get people to vote for them?

And that's all it's really about!

 

[teapartysamurai]

Bush signed a bill ...Tax Reconcilliation Act, which increased the percentage of Americans not owing taxes from apprx 37% to 48%.

Then you right wingers whine about 1/2 of Americans not paying taxes. Doh!

In the 60's, CEO pay, compared to the lowly clock puncher, was about 25-1. Today, it's over 350-1!

The latest figures from the IRS show the top 30 Fortune 500 companies paid zero tax from 2008-2010.

The remainder of the 500 paid an average of 18%...far less then what the average middle class American pays.

The rich are far more likely to own corporations and business's, right? Therefore, their trucks cause far more damage to our infrastructure and they use far more of our common resources.

Yes, the rich should be paying more! You'd have to be an idiot not to realize the middle class, the backbone of America, has all but disappeared, while the rich have grown and taken far more of the cream off the top then at any time in history.

Besides, all we're saying is place the top tax rate back to Clinton era levels...a time when the nation enjoyed great properity.

But repubs would've rather balance the budget on the backs of the middle class and the poor while preserving the greatest income disparity for the rich in the history of the world.

Cry me a river.

You have any urls and facts to back that up or do we just have to take your word.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Taxing the "rich" is a con job, it won't help the economy and the biggest loser will be the poor--YES THE POOR!

If the liberals stop promising to tax the rich so they can hand out benefits to their constituents, how will they get people to vote for them?

And that's all it's really about!

Of course it is - everything they do is a means to gain and retain as much partisan political power as possible.

This is why a liberal's position will change based on whatever he thinks will gain him the most at that moment.

 

[manifold]

There is certainly no good reason why we shouldn't at least go back to Clinton era rates.

 

[Oldstyle]

Bush signed a bill ...Tax Reconcilliation Act, which increased the percentage of Americans not owing taxes from apprx 37% to 48%.

Then you right wingers whine about 1/2 of Americans not paying taxes. Doh!

In the 60's, CEO pay, compared to the lowly clock puncher, was about 25-1. Today, it's over 350-1!

The latest figures from the IRS show the top 30 Fortune 500 companies paid zero tax from 2008-2010.

The remainder of the 500 paid an average of 18%...far less then what the average middle class American pays.

The rich are far more likely to own corporations and business's, right? Therefore, their trucks cause far more damage to our infrastructure and they use far more of our common resources.

Yes, the rich should be paying more! You'd have to be an idiot not to realize the middle class, the backbone of America, has all but disappeared, while the rich have grown and taken far more of the cream off the top then at any time in history.

Besides, all we're saying is place the top tax rate back to Clinton era levels...a time when the nation enjoyed great properity.

But repubs would've rather balance the budget on the backs of the middle class and the poor while preserving the greatest income disparity for the rich in the history of the world.

Cry me a river.

So your solution to a disappearing Middle Class is to tax the wealthy until they become the Middle Class?

I repeat, how much money we have coming "in" isn't the crux of the problem. We have a spending problem. Government in the US needs to be smaller. We need to eliminate poorly conceived regulations. We need to get rid of things like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce that haven't done what they were created to do. All this talk about who should be paying what percentage of the taxes collected is nothing more than a diversion to keep you from holding Washington's feet to the fire and forcing them to make cuts.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is certainly no good reason why we shouldn't at least go back to Clinton era rates.

You might want to ask The Obama why He didn't do so, rather than forcing the Democrats to extend GWB's tax cuts.

 

[teapartysamurai]

There is certainly no good reason why we shouldn't at least go back to Clinton era rates.

In a bad economy we should raise taxes????????????

Are you lefties just that stupid about how an economy works??????

"Going back" to the Clinton era rates IS JUST ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING RAISE TAXES!!!!!!!!

YOU CAN'T IMPROVE AN ECONOMY BY TAKING MONEY OUT OF IT!

Why doesn't that penetrate???????

 

[teapartysamurai]

Bush signed a bill ...Tax Reconcilliation Act, which increased the percentage of Americans not owing taxes from apprx 37% to 48%.

Then you right wingers whine about 1/2 of Americans not paying taxes. Doh!

In the 60's, CEO pay, compared to the lowly clock puncher, was about 25-1. Today, it's over 350-1!

The latest figures from the IRS show the top 30 Fortune 500 companies paid zero tax from 2008-2010.

The remainder of the 500 paid an average of 18%...far less then what the average middle class American pays.

The rich are far more likely to own corporations and business's, right? Therefore, their trucks cause far more damage to our infrastructure and they use far more of our common resources.

Yes, the rich should be paying more! You'd have to be an idiot not to realize the middle class, the backbone of America, has all but disappeared, while the rich have grown and taken far more of the cream off the top then at any time in history.

Besides, all we're saying is place the top tax rate back to Clinton era levels...a time when the nation enjoyed great properity.

But repubs would've rather balance the budget on the backs of the middle class and the poor while preserving the greatest income disparity for the rich in the history of the world.

Cry me a river.

So your solution to a disappearing Middle Class is to tax the wealthy until they become the Middle Class?

Hit the nail on the head, post of the day!

 

[Oldstyle]

There is certainly no good reason why we shouldn't at least go back to Clinton era rates.

If you can give us a "Dot Com Boom" to go along with those Clinton era tax rates then that should work out great, Manifold. If you can't come up with one of THOSE then it's going to be an economic disaster. What the fuck is wrong with you people? Put some thought into it before you post this nonsense.

 

[Hoot]

M14 Shooter...I'm just saying I'm sick of the whining by the right using the phrase..."half of those filing taxes owe nothing," when this was a result of a republican sponsored bill which Bush signed which raised the totals of Americans not oweing taxes from 37% to about 48%.

In otherwords, it's the fault of the right that almost 1/2 do not owe taxes, so quit whining about it.


To Tea Party Samuri...the fiscal year ends in September, so the first 9 months after Obama raised his right hand, he had no control over the unemployment rate, which in Sept of '09 stood at 9.8%.

The unemployment rate rose steadily toward the end of the Bush nightmare.

How can you blame that on Obama?!