Hayes: We Are No Longer Able To Tax The Very Rich In Our Country

[Rshermr]

Sallow applied notion of right and wrong to the fact that people create wealth, and he said that it was bad. The idea that wealth creation by individuals is bad is the very core of a Marxist ideology that's caused unspeakable suffering.

Who, exactly, believes in Marxist ideas? Just more tea party dogma. Get some evidence, if you can find some.

Who invoked the name of Marx? I didn't.

expat panama brought up marxism. He was responding to Sallow. Typical effort by a con to link progressives with communism. Stupid but true.

 

[MikeK]

the US economy is 30x larger today, than in 1960.

The problem is not volume but distribution.

Real wages are as high, or higher, than ever.

Really? Not according to CNN:

(Excerpt)

Incomes for 90% of Americans have been stuck in neutral, and it's not just because of the Great Recession. Middle-class incomes have been stagnant for at least a generation, while the wealthiest tier has surged ahead at lighting speed.

In 1988, the income of an average American taxpayer was $33,400, adjusted for inflation. Fast forward 20 years, and not much had changed: The average income was still just $33,000 in 2008, according to IRS data.

Meanwhile, the richest 1% of Americans -- those making $380,000 or more -- have seen their incomes grow 33% over the last 20 years, leaving average Americans in the dust. (How the rich became the über rich)

(Close)

How the middle class became the underclass - Feb. 16, 2011

Taking (other) people's money cannot be good, for the economy.

The IRS would disagree with that. And so do I.

your arguments seemingly are "those Americans are evil, so take their money away -- oh, and give some of it to me".

I enjoy a generous pension which is supplemented by Social Security. I have a nice stack of U.S. Savings Bonds to see me through any emergency that might arise. So combining that with Medicare I'm quite secure and comfortable and have no need for anyone else's money. Essentially, I am a beneficiary of FDR's New Deal which gave rise to the privileged American Middle Class -- which has been incrementally diminished.

That is the reason for my "wrath." I am concerned with my grandchildren's future and with the plight of millions of my less fortunate fellow citizens whose jobs, homes and pensions have been taken from them by corrupted politicians, bankers and Wall Street sharks.

 

[boedicca]

If you're worried about the purchasing power of the median income "adjusted for inflation", perhaps your energy would be better spent understanding why the dollar has devalued so much instead of worrying about someone earning more than you.

Another aspect of concern is economic growth. Labor is at a disadvantage when unemployment is high. High unemployment is caused by subpar economic growth. And that's what Obamanomics causes...pathetic growth.

 

[Synthaholic]

You really don't understand anything about the private sector, you poor widdle booby.

Boe-dickhead comes out of lurking mode to grace us with more of her special brand of retardation.

Aren't we blessed?

 

[expat_panama]

...you are assuming that wealth accumulation among the wealthy is ethical and legal. In many (I'd hazard to say most) cases, it's not...

That attitude's a ticket to failure...

...The idea that wealth creation by individuals is bad is the very core of a Marxist ideology that's caused unspeakable suffering.

Who, exactly, believes in Marxist ideas...

This is getting silly; is it that you're asking me who it is that believes wealth creation is exploitation?

...expat panama brought up marxism....

Ah, we're changing the subject from Sallow's evil wealth creators to my calling it Marxist. Must be because our radical left friends here are uncomfortable with the fact that hating wealth creation is both popular and Marxist. I'm uncomfortable about Marxism being popular too.

Hey guys, if you're Marxist don't try to hide it, be proud of your beliefs. Obama was proud to present himself as a Marxist socialist way into the 90's back when he was still telling everone he was born in Kenya. Let's be clear: Marxism means 'spread the wealth around it's good for everyone'. Marxism means millionaires and billionaires have more money than they need. Marxism means people don't create wealth --'somebody else did that'.

 

[daveman]

Please provide proof that Romney's wealth has an overall adverse effect on the economy overall.

Didn't you know?

Romney is The Man Who's Keeping Jonesy Down.

 

[daveman]

You really don't understand anything about the private sector, you poor widdle booby.

Boe-dickhead comes out of lurking mode to grace us with more of her special brand of retardation.

Aren't we blessed?

 

[daveman]

Occupy Wall Street And The Ignorance Of Their Math - Walter "Bruno" Korschek - Digital Journal

- If the Federal government confiscated the wealth of the 400 richest Americans, (cars, boats, real estate, cars, investments, etc.), they would end up with about $2.4 TRILLION of wealth that they could use to cover about 69% of the Federal government's 2011 spending. In other words, stealing the total wealth of the richest 400 Americans could not cover even one year's worth of political class spending and waste.

It could be safely assumed that these 400 Americans would never go to the effort to earn a lot of money again, forcing the remaining U.S. taxpayers to make up the difference in every succeeding year in Federal government taxes that these 400 Americans would have paid.

- This $2.4 TRILLION of confiscated wealth would cover only about 16% of the country's current national debt. The remaining national debt would have to be paid off by the rest of America, most of whom earn far less than $1,000,000 a year. Thus, "eat the rich," the despicable slogan the Occupy Wall Street people often use, would have a very short term desired effect but the long term effect would place a significant and ongoing burden on the non-millionaire taxpayers relative to the national debt.​

 

[daveman]

 

[boedicca]

Another classic Iowahawk:

Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day

Seems like these days I hear a lot of whiney whiners whining about "out of control government spending" and "insane deficits" and such, trying to make hay out of a bunch of pointy-head boring finance hooey. Sure, $3.7 trillion of spending sounds like a big number. "Oh, boo-hoo, how are we going to get $3.7 trillion dollars? We're broke, boo-hoo-hoo," whine the whiners. What these skinflint crybabies fail to realize is that $3.7 trillion is for an entire year - which translates into only a measly $10 billion per day!

Mister, I call that a bargain. Especially since it pays for all of us - you and me, the whole American family. Like all families, we Americas have to pay for things - health, food, safety, uncle Dave America with his drinking problem. And when little Billy America wants that new quad runner they promised, do Mom and Dad America deny him? No, they get a second job at Circle K, because they know little Billy might have one of his episodes and burn down the house.

So let's all sit down together as an American family with a calendar and make a yearly budget. First, let's lock in the $3.7 trillion of critical family spending priorities; now let's get to work on collecting the pay-as-we-go $10 billion daily cash flow we need....

iowahawk: Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day

 

[Widdekind]

What's particularly disgusting is the implication that it's the government's or anybody else's business as to what a person does with his AFTER TAX income.

When the accumulation of excessive after-tax wealth imparts a destabilizing effect on a nation's economy and social structure it becomes the business of the People who are affected by the imbalance.

how does some people having (lots of) money harm anybody else? Rich people do not "owe" anybody else their money. If they do help anybody else, then they are being generous. And you (or whomsoever they helped) say "thanks for the tip". Or, you could be rude, and just say "...and... ?"

Meanwhile, minimum wages have outlawed, criminalized, banned, and prohibited, millions of potential jobs. Eliminating minimum wages would regenerate those jobs, creating income opportunity for many Americans; and investment opportunities for other Americans. Simplistically, restaurants could expand into lower income communities, hiring people there for several dollars per hour. And, to build those restaurants, they would borrow investment funding from higher income areas. Even more jobs would be created whilst they built the restaurant, or renovated some pre-existing building. The restaurant would open, turn profits, paying workers, and repaying investors. Profitable economic activity, currently outlawed, would regenerate, regrowing the economy, hiring millions of Americans, and profiting those who invested in their growing markets.

Currently, "remote faceless Authority", of seemingly unknown, unidentified, and uncertain origin, Decrees that that is "bad". But it would be good (for the locals).

the US economy is 30x larger today, than in 1960.

The problem is not volume but distribution.

Real wages are as high, or higher, than ever.

Really? Not according to CNN:

(Excerpt)

Incomes for 90% of Americans have been stuck in neutral, and it's not just because of the Great Recession. Middle-class incomes have been stagnant for at least a generation, while the wealthiest tier has surged ahead at lighting speed.

In 1988, the income of an average American taxpayer was $33,400, adjusted for inflation. Fast forward 20 years, and not much had changed: The average income was still just $33,000 in 2008, according to IRS data.

Meanwhile, the richest 1% of Americans...

So, average Americans are still earning incomes as high as ever. $30K per year is allot of money, especially compared to developing nations. If you can point to a few rich Americans, and say "bad"; then can i point to many many poor foreigners? Am i supposed to say "good"?

Envy about O.P.M. is not legitimate, especially whilst ongoing conflicts, in the Congo, have killed over 6 million people to date (for example). For every "greener lawn in uptown" you are paying attention to, there are numerous "blood spattered battlefields in Timbuktu" you (seem) not to be paying attention to. "That grass is so green, woe is me" is not legitimate. Pretend you had to talk to Hutus & Tutsis in Rwanda. Now what?

So, meanwhile, eliminating minimum wage laws, would regenerate millions of (low pay) jobs, across the US, recreating income opportunities for millions, and investment opportunities for others. Everybody would make (at least a little) money. And nobody would die. If anybody has any better suggestions, then i "yield the floor".

 

[Rshermr]

What's particularly disgusting is the implication that it's the government's or anybody else's business as to what a person does with his AFTER TAX income.

When the accumulation of excessive after-tax wealth imparts a destabilizing effect on a nation's economy and social structure it becomes the business of the People who are affected by the imbalance.

how does some people having (lots of) money harm anybody else? Rich people do not "owe" anybody else their money. If they do help anybody else, then they are being generous. And you (or whomsoever they helped) say "thanks for the tip". Or, you could be rude, and just say "...and... ?"

Meanwhile, minimum wages have outlawed, criminalized, banned, and prohibited, millions of potential jobs. Eliminating minimum wages would regenerate those jobs, creating income opportunity for many Americans; and investment opportunities for other Americans. Simplistically, restaurants could expand into lower income communities, hiring people there for several dollars per hour. And, to build those restaurants, they would borrow investment funding from higher income areas. Even more jobs would be created whilst they built the restaurant, or renovated some pre-existing building. The restaurant would open, turn profits, paying workers, and repaying investors. Profitable economic activity, currently outlawed, would regenerate, regrowing the economy, hiring millions of Americans, and profiting those who invested in their growing markets.

Currently, "remote faceless Authority", of seemingly unknown, unidentified, and uncertain origin, Decrees that that is "bad". But it would be good (for the locals).

The problem is not volume but distribution.

Real wages are as high, or higher, than ever.

Really? Not according to CNN:

(Excerpt)

Incomes for 90% of Americans have been stuck in neutral, and it's not just because of the Great Recession. Middle-class incomes have been stagnant for at least a generation, while the wealthiest tier has surged ahead at lighting speed.

In 1988, the income of an average American taxpayer was $33,400, adjusted for inflation. Fast forward 20 years, and not much had changed: The average income was still just $33,000 in 2008, according to IRS data.

Meanwhile, the richest 1% of Americans...

So, average Americans are still earning incomes as high as ever. $30K per year is allot of money, especially compared to developing nations. If you can point to a few rich Americans, and say "bad"; then can i point to many many poor foreigners? Am i supposed to say "good"?

Envy about O.P.M. is not legitimate, especially whilst ongoing conflicts, in the Congo, have killed over 6 million people to date (for example). For every "greener lawn in uptown" you are paying attention to, there are numerous "blood spattered battlefields in Timbuktu" you (seem) not to be paying attention to. "That grass is so green, woe is me" is not legitimate. Pretend you had to talk to Hutus & Tutsis in Rwanda. Now what?

So, meanwhile, eliminating minimum wage laws, would regenerate millions of (low pay) jobs, across the US, recreating income opportunities for millions, and investment opportunities for others. Everybody would make (at least a little) money. And nobody would die. If anybody has any better suggestions, then i "yield the floor".

Yup, many, many better ideas. decreasing minimum wage is a great way to de stimulate the economy. Increasing minimum wage during bad unemployment economies is a good idea. So say almost all non partisan economists. Creating demand through government spending is the only way our economy has ever recovered from high unemployment.
If anyone has other provable ideas, let me know.

 

[Rshermr]

What's particularly disgusting is the implication that it's the government's or anybody else's business as to what a person does with his AFTER TAX income.

When the accumulation of excessive after-tax wealth imparts a destabilizing effect on a nation's economy and social structure it becomes the business of the People who are affected by the imbalance.

how does some people having (lots of) money harm anybody else? Rich people do not "owe" anybody else their money. If they do help anybody else, then they are being generous. And you (or whomsoever they helped) say "thanks for the tip". Or, you could be rude, and just say "...and... ?"

Meanwhile, minimum wages have outlawed, criminalized, banned, and prohibited, millions of potential jobs. Eliminating minimum wages would regenerate those jobs, creating income opportunity for many Americans; and investment opportunities for other Americans. Simplistically, restaurants could expand into lower income communities, hiring people there for several dollars per hour. And, to build those restaurants, they would borrow investment funding from higher income areas. Even more jobs would be created whilst they built the restaurant, or renovated some pre-existing building. The restaurant would open, turn profits, paying workers, and repaying investors. Profitable economic activity, currently outlawed, would regenerate, regrowing the economy, hiring millions of Americans, and profiting those who invested in their growing markets.

Currently, "remote faceless Authority", of seemingly unknown, unidentified, and uncertain origin, Decrees that that is "bad". But it would be good (for the locals).

The problem is not volume but distribution.

Real wages are as high, or higher, than ever.

Really? Not according to CNN:

(Excerpt)

Incomes for 90% of Americans have been stuck in neutral, and it's not just because of the Great Recession. Middle-class incomes have been stagnant for at least a generation, while the wealthiest tier has surged ahead at lighting speed.

In 1988, the income of an average American taxpayer was $33,400, adjusted for inflation. Fast forward 20 years, and not much had changed: The average income was still just $33,000 in 2008, according to IRS data.

Meanwhile, the richest 1% of Americans...

So, average Americans are still earning incomes as high as ever. $30K per year is allot of money, especially compared to developing nations. If you can point to a few rich Americans, and say "bad"; then can i point to many many poor foreigners? Am i supposed to say "good"?

Envy about O.P.M. is not legitimate, especially whilst ongoing conflicts, in the Congo, have killed over 6 million people to date (for example). For every "greener lawn in uptown" you are paying attention to, there are numerous "blood spattered battlefields in Timbuktu" you (seem) not to be paying attention to. "That grass is so green, woe is me" is not legitimate. Pretend you had to talk to Hutus & Tutsis in Rwanda. Now what?

So, meanwhile, eliminating minimum wage laws, would regenerate millions of (low pay) jobs, across the US, recreating income opportunities for millions, and investment opportunities for others. Everybody would make (at least a little) money. And nobody would die. If anybody has any better suggestions, then i "yield the floor".

Again, any proof in anything you say?

 

[Ariux]

It's been pointed out that Romney paid under 14% in all federal taxes combined, while the middle class pays about 25%. But, Romney actually paid under 10%.

In Romney's world, someone else pays his expenses, so they don't show up as income. You can verify this by looking at his return, he doesn't claim business expenses on his Sch C. So, he flies first class, eats in expensive restaurants, goes to NFL games, and none of the money spent on these things counts as income, even though it's essentially compensation to him. The rich are able to vastly under report their income. If he had to report this income, the IRS would limit how much of it he can deduct.

Romney has domestic help. Part of that 13.x % in taxes he paid is to pay the payroll taxes on behalf of his domestic help, money he'd by paying his help if he weren't giving it to the IRS. His maid pays a higher tax rate than he does.

 

[daveman]

Yup, many, many better ideas. decreasing minimum wage is a great way to de stimulate the economy. Increasing minimum wage during bad unemployment economies is a good idea. So say almost all non partisan economists. Creating demand through government spending is the only way our economy has ever recovered from high unemployment.
If anyone has other provable ideas, let me know.

Minimum Wage Laws Hurt the Poor and Help the Unions | All American Blogger

Lots of links in there. To credible sources.

 

[Synthaholic]

You really don't understand anything about the private sector, you poor widdle booby.

Boe-dickhead comes out of lurking mode to grace us with more of her special brand of retardation.

Aren't we blessed?

Use your words, retard.

 

[Widdekind]

Minimum Wage Laws Hurt the Poor and Help the Unions | All American Blogger

In 1979, the real (inflation adjusted) minimum wage was $8 per hour, and 8% of workers earned minimum wage or less. In 2005, the real minimum wage was $5 per hour (effectively reduced by inflation), and less than 2% of workers earned that amount or less. From those figures, increasing the minimum wage by +3 dollars per hour ($5 --> $8) affects over 6% of workers, or about 2% of the workforce per dollar of minimum wage increase.

Now, since 2008, the minimum wage has been increased to over $7 dollars per hour. And, unemployment has increased, too. Simplistically, jobs for 14% of the workforce could be recreated, by eliminating the minimum wage entirely. Millions of Americans could earn some more money as income. Thousands of businesses could earn some more money as profit. And their investors could earn some more money as returns on investment. All would be potential voters.

 

[MikeK]

how does some people having (lots of) money harm anybody else? Rich people do not "owe" anybody else their money. If they do help anybody else, then they are being generous. And you (or whomsoever they helped) say "thanks for the tip". Or, you could be rude, and just say "...and... ?"

Meanwhile, minimum wages have outlawed, criminalized, banned, and prohibited, millions of potential jobs. Eliminating minimum wages would regenerate those jobs, creating income opportunity for many Americans; and investment opportunities for other Americans. Simplistically, restaurants could expand into lower income communities, hiring people there for several dollars per hour. And, to build those restaurants, they would borrow investment funding from higher income areas. Even more jobs would be created whilst they built the restaurant, or renovated some pre-existing building. The restaurant would open, turn profits, paying workers, and repaying investors. Profitable economic activity, currently outlawed, would regenerate, regrowing the economy, hiring millions of Americans, and profiting those who invested in their growing markets.

So what you want to do is collapse the wage standard, which will further reduce the standard of living of the poor while elevating it further for the rich, and totally eliminate the privileged middle class. In other words, you want to follow Milton Friedman's advice and do to America what Pinochet did to Chile.

Since you've ventured into the realm of extremes let me tell you my idea.

I say government should confiscate all accumulated personal assets in excess of twenty million dollars and impose a substantial (85%) exit tax on any individual or corporation attempting to expatriate with funds in excess of one million dollars. The confiscated money should be used to commence repair of our infrastructure, effectively emulating FDR's WPA and CCC programs, which helped to raise millions of Americans (including my father) out of the poverty inflicted by the Great Depression and enabled an emerging middle class to rise to the privileged status that your ideas would effectively destroy.

In other words, I want to see a political revolution which will put an end to the emerging financial aristocracy in America. It will put an end to billionaires but enable many more millionaires and restore economic stability.

And if that seems to you like socialism, you're right. That's exactly what it is -- and it's exactly what America needs.

 

[daveman]

Boe-dickhead comes out of lurking mode to grace us with more of her special brand of retardation.

Aren't we blessed?

Use your words, retard.

You bark orders, I laugh in your face.

 

[expat_panama]

Excellent, it shows beautifully how the left's call for equality is in fact an attack on them that's better off.