Let's Tax the Rich More!

[midcan5]

Lordy, over 90 posts defending the rich - does anyone here know any rich people I wonder?

"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."

UBI and the Flat Tax

Social security beats the market!

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1227/p01s03-cogn.html

Social security is insurance for all Americans - great and noble thing, you'd think everyone would praise a genuinely Christian and humanitarian project.

 

[Old Rocks]

How does it make more sense to penalize those who are at the bottom rung trying to work their way out of poverty instead?

I will repeat what Newby said, because it's true:

The poor don't pay taxes.

There is a bottom line, if you earn less than that you pay nothing in income taxes.

I think I read/heard somewhere that something like 48% do not pay taxes, but I'd have to verify that b/c I'm not sure if it's really that high. And that's a big problem if it is that high, because then that 48% have absolutely no stake in what the feds do or how high they make the taxes. In fact the opposite is true, and they are voting to raise taxes and to keep all the free goodies coming. It's the basis, in my opinion, of what the Democratic party stands for. Vote for us, we'll take care of you, give you everything you need and pay for it all by taking the money from all the 'haves', and when it's a voting block of 48% and growing, then the stage it set and the pandering begins. It's a lousy system that we've allowed to evolve in this country.

Well, you are wrong. What the Democratic Party hopes to accomplish is to raise the economic tide to the point that all who have a positive contribution to our society have an income that is large enough to be taxed. Taxes are the price we pay for civilization. From the physical infrastructure that provides our water, transportation, and energy, to the societal infrastructur that provides the education, communication, and legal structure that creates a viable society. We have seen just this year how a capitalistic society without adaquete regulations can fail. We have seen from the prior century how a society supposedly based on socialism can fail. But we see many societies that are providing for their citizens better than we are. So it is time to examine our assumptions, and create what will work best for out citizens.

 

[Old Rocks]

you have absolutely no evidence that if an employer didn't have to pay the 7.5% for SS that the employee would receive a higher income.

this is about what a person actually pays,not what a person "effectively" pays

The corporations I had worked for acted like what they paid in social security for me was part of my salary/earnings and always included it in with my statement they sent me at the end of the year, describing what I earned and how it broke down, x amount in salary, x amount in bonus, x amount in social security, x amount in life insurance they paid for me, x amount in health insurance they paid, x amount in profit sharing, x amount to match my 401k etc.....

Maybe a small business would not pay the extra SS money to their employees if it were dropped as you imply, but that would be A DAMN SHAME and quite selfish and greedy of them imo....and gives reason to the gvt keeping it as a tax they have to pay, a benefit they have to pay....if small businesses or other companies decide to POCKET IT and leave their employees hanging, when it comes to their retirement then these companies can take their companies and shove it up where the sun don't shine...as far as I am concerned. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.... and we wonder why we HAVE to have SS forced by our government? sheesh...

Care

I already offer a retirement plan with a match for my employees so if I didn't have to pay that 7.5% of payroll for my employees i would keep some of it and i would use most of it to improve the business, expand, buy new equipment, hire more people yeah gee that's really greedy of me. Horrors, i would like to employ MORE people but because i have to pay into a corrupt Ponzi scheme i can't.

And really is it your employer's responsibility to make sure you save for retirement?

Well, no. In fact the Scandinavian Nations have a very good example of how it should be done. As does Holland.

 

[Iriemon]

'Let's Tax the Rich More!'


There ya go, tax me to death, yeah, yeah keep it coming, the more you take me, the more I layoff, the more I layoff, the more you tax me. Just remember, I have the option of cashing in and retiring and/or relocation, do your voters?

I'm sure that's an option thanks to all the debt fincanced tax cuts you benefitted from.

How was it that lower taxes were supposed to make people work more again?

 

[Chris]

We defintely need to tax the rich more.

Raise their rate to 40%.

 

[MatthewAycock]

I see that some of my comments have been misread here.

My position is that a government should only collect enough in taxable revenue to protect its people from foreign invasion. They should not reallocate these funds into investments in individuals or corporations that fail miserably at contributing to the nation.

Our country focuses more on bailing out failure companies and people who will never push for any level of success. Betting on the failures is not the way to stay number one in the world.

Instead, this post was designed to point out how the target of annual income levels as earning the label of "rich" is ignorant and designed to oppress those in the middle class from using their hard efforts to make a better life for their families.

 

[Xenophon]

Are you saying you don't know how to keep the government out of your pockets?

You need to understand the difference between "ownership" and "control" as well as the difference between "income" and "wealth."

Remarkable fothrightness by Rush.

His point explains why the GOP have fought so hard to reduce/eliminate things like investment and estate taxes.

Checkmate.

So now the righties can continue to argue for their masters, who in reality aren't even paying any taxes.

Yes it was, for you and the other one.

It fails to dawn on you that all the money 'the rich' have was taxed at one time, doesn't it.

It appears you believe that after a certain amount of time, people should be taxed again on what they were already taxed on.

That appears to be your inane argument.

 

[garyd]

Sealy you idiot how do you tax money when you don't know how much money if any is there? The big draw of Both the Cayman Islands and the Swiss banks is that once your money is in there no one can find out about it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why would you remove the two wars? That's how the GOP/Haloburton/Blackwater/KBR and every other Dick Cheney subsidiary is making all their money. And this has a lot to do with our economy, budget, deficit, debt, etc.

You do know that, right?

Socialize the losses and privatize the profits. What a plan.

And you can say that the Afgan was wasn't Bush's fault, except for that it was his fault, because he got hit on 9-11. Can you imagine if a 9-11 happened to Obama? Would you be so kind to give Obama the free pass you gave Georgie? Fuck no.

I was going to say Iraq was his fault, but on second thought, both wars are.

because you idiot, i was never in favor of Iraq or Afghanistan and i thought you weren't either.

So you're in favor of unnecessary wars as long as it's a Dimocrat in charge right?

Earmarking has also been at the center of recent bribery scandals, including one that led to the imprisonment of former Representative Randy Cunningham, a California Republican.

Lots of earmarks qualify under either criterion. Consider a $1 million water-free urinal conservation initiative obtained by Rep. Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich., or a $500,000 grant for the Arctic Winter Games in Alaska, slipped into a Pentagon spending bill by GOP Sen. Ted Stevens.

Some of these earmarks are more audacious than others. For example, last year there was a "bridge to nowhere," a $223 million project connecting Alaska's Gravina Island — population 50 — to the mainland. That project drew so much ridicule from the media that an irate public successfully demanded that the bridge be shelved.

Even though term limit rules have forced Stevens out as Senate Appropriations Committee chairman, he still runs its defense subcommittee and managed to deliver $325 million to Alaska, according to the group's estimates. That comes to about $490 per man, woman and child in the state.

FOXNews.com - 'Pork Barrel' Spending Hit Record High in 2005, Watchdog Says - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

The nationwide average is $31 in pork per capita. That means larger states such as Georgia, Florida, Texas and Michigan are not getting an equal share compared with smaller states represented by veterans like Stevens.

Earmarks have blossomed under GOP control of Congress. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., advocated the practice to help cement GOP majorities.

Now, core GOP voters are restive over the party's record on spending.

The public is angered by scandals such as the bribery conviction of former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., who took more than $2.4 million in using his seat on the House Appropriations Committee to obtain earmarks in behalf of defense contractors

Checkmate SKULL.

By far Red states take more pork than blue. And blue states pay more fed taxes than we take, and red states take more than they give.

can you stop making every argument a repudlican v dimocrat argument.

the runaway spending and absolutely dismal fiscal policies of government have nothing to do with either party as they both are equally culpable.

If you're really worried about pork go here and send you reps a letter to sign the earmark pledge

 

[Xenophon]

He can't, that is the problem.

Until people like him wake up to the fact that both parties behave the same, are both 'to blame' and both deserve 'credit' when things go good or bad, all you will get is these lame partisan back and forths.

 

[hipeter924]

I see that some of my comments have been misread here.

My position is that a government should only collect enough in taxable revenue to protect its people from foreign invasion. They should not reallocate these funds into investments in individuals or corporations that fail miserably at contributing to the nation.

Our country focuses more on bailing out failure companies and people who will never push for any level of success. Betting on the failures is not the way to stay number one in the world.

Instead, this post was designed to point out how the target of annual income levels as earning the label of "rich" is ignorant and designed to oppress those in the middle class from using their hard efforts to make a better life for their families.

I think people should have the right to rise and fall on their own merits, the same should be true for companies. When a company or person falls and you bail them out that is socialism or communism, when you say to someone 'hey I will buy your company and make it better, or hey I could find you another job' that's capitalism as it should be. Not the corporate socialist paradise Obama wants to turn the USA into.

 

[Gunny]

That's actually logical.

Did it hurt?

I say make Bush's unfair tax breaks to the rich permanent, but then close all those loopholes where they keep their money in Switzerland (UBS) or the Caymen Islands.

One or the other. Compromise. Can't have both. You pick Gunny. Which one does your master have to give up? Neither is not an option.

Yea yea yea, we know, it'll lead to us companies being less competitive and it'll raise the prices of goods. Yea yea yea, we know. Heard it a million times. We aren't afraid. S&D and free markets will take care of that. They'll have to find another way to cut costs, like cut down on executive bonus'.

Now pick. Which tax break to the rich needs to go. One can stay.

Can you post anything that isn't non sequitur and/or a strawman?

Your two options are hardly the ONLY two options. Only in YOUR vlack-or-white only mindset.

I don't know who this "we" is, but it is quite clear some of you aren't afraid of stealing from those who earn more.

You aren't very bright. Really. You "share the wealthy's wealth" fans don't seem to have a clue. Your minds wallow in the acceptance of mediocrity while trying to destroy any incentive whatsoever to excel. That's what those unions you are so proud of will do to your brain. You are a PERFECT example of the nanny state baby clinging in fear to the government tit.

 

[Gunny]

If that is your logic, then aren't we by lowering taxes on the poorer encouraging growth in that lower classes?

Isn't that what we want to do?



You raise an interesting point on an asset based tax as a partial supplement. Particularly since many assets that were generated in a system where the Govt incurred debt to finance the lower taxes, it makes sense that those who benefitted most from that policy pay for fixing it.

Sure, let's figure out a way to penalize people for saving their money as well. Geez ... you people NEVER quit where it comes to digging in MY pockets and spending MY money.

You're broke. Who's digging in your pockets? You most likely benefit from the progressive tax. See, you are the perfect example of someone who argues outside of his own tax bracket. I love it!

When McCain said Obama is going to raise YOUR taxes, you do know he wasn't talking to you, right?

Nonsensical comment. Try again.

 

[Gunny]

Sure, let's figure out a way to penalize people for saving their money as well. Geez ... you people NEVER quit where it comes to digging in MY pockets and spending MY money.

You're broke. Who's digging in your pockets? You most likely benefit from the progressive tax. See, you are the perfect example of someone who argues outside of his own tax bracket. I love it!

When McCain said Obama is going to raise YOUR taxes, you do know he wasn't talking to you, right?

Actually, raising taxes is bad for the economy, always has been, always will be. Raise it on the rich only and they will find ways to screw us more while no one will ever want to get rich, thus growth fails and we become third world. It's a razors edge and you fail to see that.

These morons and their class envy think they are going to somehow alter the lifestyles of the wealthy. Fact is, the wealthy will just come up with other ways to maintain the status quo. The first thing to go is their investment capital. That's the money they use to invest in ventures that keep people in the construction industry employed.

In effect, they're just screwing the little guy and deluding themselves that they aren't.

 

[Gunny]

If that is your logic, then aren't we by lowering taxes on the poorer encouraging growth in that lower classes?

Isn't that what we want to do?



You raise an interesting point on an asset based tax as a partial supplement. Particularly since many assets that were generated in a system where the Govt incurred debt to finance the lower taxes, it makes sense that those who benefitted most from that policy pay for fixing it.

Sure, let's figure out a way to penalize people for saving their money as well. Geez ... you people NEVER quit where it comes to digging in MY pockets and spending MY money.

How does it make more sense to penalize those who are at the bottom rung trying to work their way out of poverty instead?

Strawman. Never said anything of the sort. I commented on your having no moral objection to just taking from me what I have earned. How does it make sense if you take from me until I end up slaving to be one of the poor because you give my money to someone who isn't slaving to prop them up at an artificial level they have not earned?

You want to help the poor? There's no right way to do the wrong thing. Stealing from those who have is wrong.

 

[Gunny]

Sure, let's figure out a way to penalize people for saving their money as well. Geez ... you people NEVER quit where it comes to digging in MY pockets and spending MY money.

How does it make more sense to penalize those who are at the bottom rung trying to work their way out of poverty instead?

You would have to adopt the conservative mindset in order to understand.

They want to give all the tax breaks to the rich and they think it'll trickle down. Only problem is, people at the bottom suffer. But they don't care, because they believe in Darwin's survival of the fittest. The weak get eaten and the strong survive. Since this is natural, they don't see it as immoral.

Since we are better than that, I like bottom up economics better than trickle down.

And I don't buy it that it'll raise prices and cost people their jobs. Companies only hire as many people as they need to get the job done, no more or less.

And the only thing that brings wages up is a good economy. If 95% of us have money to spend, guess what? The economy runs great.

You're projecting out your ass.

 

[Gunny]

Be careful, you're class envy is showing.

And yes, folks can judge for themselves. It was rather apparent that the discussion was regarding federal income tax, which is what presidential hopefuls are talking about when they make promises on the campaign trail about 'taxes'. But, if you want to pretend that it was discussing all of the other myriad of taxes out there and not what April 15th is all about, then more power to you.

No shit. That's ALL this is about.

 

[KittenKoder]

You're broke. Who's digging in your pockets? You most likely benefit from the progressive tax. See, you are the perfect example of someone who argues outside of his own tax bracket. I love it!

When McCain said Obama is going to raise YOUR taxes, you do know he wasn't talking to you, right?

Actually, raising taxes is bad for the economy, always has been, always will be. Raise it on the rich only and they will find ways to screw us more while no one will ever want to get rich, thus growth fails and we become third world. It's a razors edge and you fail to see that.

These morons and their class envy think they are going to somehow alter the lifestyles of the wealthy. Fact is, the wealthy will just come up with other ways to maintain the status quo. The first thing to go is their investment capital. That's the money they use to invest in ventures that keep people in the construction industry employed.

In effect, they're just screwing the little guy and deluding themselves that they aren't.

The new Democrat way: instead of spending taxes on education programs and job training, things like that, just tax the hell out of the rich and hand it to the poor in the way of welfare.

I'm poor, but if they raise the taxes on the rich I think I'll stay poor. I am already getting a bonus from Obama this month thanks to being on state medical insurance (Medicaid) ... hell, if they keep that up I may as well stay on it as long as I can.

 

[Care4all]

I think we need to do some immediate things, one-STOP spending like there is no tomorrow, especially with the banks....and auto makers, NO MORE BAILOUT help from us, the tax payers.

At the same time, we need to get our economy going again...yes, easier said than done....but when it does recover, we will be pulling in MORE taxes, without having to raise any of our taxes.

The Economy is key, more people working, more taxes being collected to pay the bills....

 

[sealybobo]

You're broke. Who's digging in your pockets? You most likely benefit from the progressive tax. See, you are the perfect example of someone who argues outside of his own tax bracket. I love it!

When McCain said Obama is going to raise YOUR taxes, you do know he wasn't talking to you, right?

Actually, raising taxes is bad for the economy, always has been, always will be. Raise it on the rich only and they will find ways to screw us more while no one will ever want to get rich, thus growth fails and we become third world. It's a razors edge and you fail to see that.

These morons and their class envy think they are going to somehow alter the lifestyles of the wealthy. Fact is, the wealthy will just come up with other ways to maintain the status quo. The first thing to go is their investment capital. That's the money they use to invest in ventures that keep people in the construction industry employed.

In effect, they're just screwing the little guy and deluding themselves that they aren't.

So lets not undo any loopholes that we find. And lets just make the Bush tax cuts permanent since its no use fighting them, right?

And if nothing matters, why do they shit their pants and lie about the Messiah so much?

Grumpy today?

PS. I am rich. I pay a lot in taxes. I don't mind because I'm fucking rich. What part of this story makes you feel sorry for me? Stupid. Sure, if you raise my taxes, I'm just going to find new ways to cheat the government out of taxes. Of course I would have to go through the government to get those new laws passed, so I guess I couldn't find any new loopholes until some new ones are passed. So I guess that sort of blows your whole theory out of the water.

PS. Liberals don't want to alter my lifestyle. They realize that no matter how much they take from me, I'm still gonna be rich. We just get suckers like you to argue for us because its fun to watch. Its a game for us. People say, "why don't you retire since you have more money than you'll ever need"? And I say, "its fun to make money. it becomes a challange/sport/game."

PPS. Construction? Who's building or buying?