Obama's Plan: Tax the Wealthy

[jwoodie]

How many of you swallow this "plan" which does nothing to reduce the deficit or create real (i.e., private sector) jobs? Please explain how raising taxes on people who earn more than you do will benefit you, other than allowing an outlet for your envy. Thank you for your thoughtful response.

 

[Ariux]

What's up with that shitheaded reasoning? "Does nothing to reduce the deficit."
1) Yes, it will do something to reduce the deficit. More taxes=less deficit, all other things being equal.
2) The rich control the government. If they're paying for more of it, they might want less of it, which equals less deficit and less tyranny.

 

[francoHFW]

And Jobs Act, Trans. Bill, Romneycare savings (PROVEN), training and ecucation, much more, dupe. NOT on Fox! Night kids!!

 

[Mr. H.]

Tax tables really do need to be amended. The "wealthy' have in the past paid a hefty sum relevant to their adjusted gross incomes.

That said... the real onus is upon the government to reign in spending, wean entitlements (not business tax preferences), and reduce their own impact on the economy.

I'm a Conservative and I heartily endorse my own post.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

How many of you swallow this "plan" which does nothing to reduce the deficit or create real (i.e., private sector) jobs? Please explain how raising taxes on people who earn more than you do will benefit you, other than allowing an outlet for your envy. Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Thoughtful responses?

This is usmb. Welcome

 

[Green]

How many of you swallow this "plan" which does nothing to reduce the deficit or create real (i.e., private sector) jobs? Please explain how raising taxes on people who earn more than you do will benefit you, other than allowing an outlet for your envy. Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Taxing the top 1% will fix practically everything. With new revenues, we can repair our decaying infrastructure, which will add a great deal of new private-sector construction jobs to the economy. Our center of wealth is in our bridges and roads. We can also build new alternative transportation like sidewalks and bike lanes, which will lessen our dependency on foreign oil.

It is also the top 1% who are destroying the economy with their tax benefits. They are the ones who are shipping all our jobs overseas, and the companies paying the least amount in taxes are the ones who are hiring the least. In the 1990s, the wealthiest Americans payed a much higher tax rate than lower-income people did, and we had a balanced budget and the best economy in U.S. history.

 

[Sinjorri]

How many of you swallow this "plan" which does nothing to reduce the deficit or create real (i.e., private sector) jobs? Please explain how raising taxes on people who earn more than you do will benefit you, other than allowing an outlet for your envy. Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Taxing the top 1% will fix practically everything. With new revenues, we can repair our decaying infrastructure, which will add a great deal of new private-sector construction jobs to the economy. Our center of wealth is in our bridges and roads. We can also build new alternative transportation like sidewalks and bike lanes, which will lessen our dependency on foreign oil.

It is also the top 1% who are destroying the economy with their tax benefits. They are the ones who are shipping all our jobs overseas, and the companies paying the least amount in taxes are the ones who are hiring the least. In the 1990s, the wealthiest Americans payed a much higher tax rate than lower-income people did, and we had a balanced budget and the best economy in U.S. history.

what will you do when they are gone and you cant tax them? and by gone i mean their papers, as you seen from facebook.


liberals love their money too

Facebook co-founder renounces U.S. citizenship, draws heat - CBS News

 

[Saigon]

The extremely wealthy in the US pay less tax than the extremely wealthy in virtually every other country on earth.

A key factor on this is the tax on dividends, which in the US are simply inexplicably low.

Within any sustainable and fair tax system, tax on share incomes can be structured so that people who earn $1,000 a year on dividends pay little to nothing on it as a genuine incentive to invest, while those who earn millions pay something very similar to income tax.

Those talking about class warfare and envy seem to have conveniantly forgotten that for the past 30 years tax policy in the US has been bent over backwards to assist the extremely wealthy - that was probably never fair and is certainly not now sustainable. The funny thing is, I believe many very wealthy people understand that very well.

It is the middle class in America who have been duped into paying more and questioning less.

 

[Saigon]

what will you do when they are gone and you cant tax them?

Anywhere they move, they will pay more tax.

They are welcome to Finland, where they can enjoy our 23% VAT on every dime they spend.

 

[Ariux]

Tax tables really do need to be amended. The "wealthy' have in the past paid a hefty sum relevant to their adjusted gross incomes.

You're an ignoranus. The middle-class pays a higher percentage of their earnings to taxes than do the rich.

I'm a Conservative and I heartily endorse my own post.

You're not a conservative, you're a shithead who pretends that the only tax in the world in the federal income tax.

Also, shithead, a conservative, aside from desiring an inexpensive government, would tax people with consideration of their ability to pay taxes. It's a market principle.

 

[bripat9643]

How many of you swallow this "plan" which does nothing to reduce the deficit or create real (i.e., private sector) jobs? Please explain how raising taxes on people who earn more than you do will benefit you, other than allowing an outlet for your envy. Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Taxing the top 1% will fix practically everything. With new revenues, we can repair our decaying infrastructure, which will add a great deal of new private-sector construction jobs to the economy. Our center of wealth is in our bridges and roads. We can also build new alternative transportation like sidewalks and bike lanes, which will lessen our dependency on foreign oil.

That has to be one of the dumbest claims posted in this forum in many months.

It is also the top 1% who are destroying the economy with their tax benefits.

ROFL!

You're killing me!

They are the ones who are shipping all our jobs overseas, and the companies paying the least amount in taxes are the ones who are hiring the least. In the 1990s, the wealthiest Americans payed a much higher tax rate than lower-income people did, and we had a balanced budget and the best economy in U.S. history.

Corporate taxes are one thing. Personal taxes are another. You don't give corporations an incentive to keep jobs in the country by raising taxes on them. Our economy did well during the 90s because the Republicans kept government spending low. The peace dividend accounted for a lot of this. Welfare reform, which Clinton fought tooth and nail, was another big part of it. Higher tax rates had nothing to do with it.

 

[Claudette]

If the object is to raise revenue then taxing the rich ain't gonna do it. Hell. It will make some folks feel good but it ain't gonna generate the revenue thats needed. Hell. They already pay around 60% of all the Fed taxes out there. You could take every dime they have and it would be a drop in the bucket.

If they want revenue then the middle class is the way to go. Way more of them than rich folks.

Of course they could get rid of loads of Fed programs, tax loopholes, tax credits and subsidies. That 49% who pay no Fed taxes at all should be hit as well. Loads of ways to cut spending in that fat bloated Fed Govt of ours.

Raising taxes on anyone in this economy is a bad idea.

 

[jillian]

How many of you swallow this "plan" which does nothing to reduce the deficit or create real (i.e., private sector) jobs? Please explain how raising taxes on people who earn more than you do will benefit you, other than allowing an outlet for your envy. Thank you for your thoughtful response.

really? funny. it actually would get rid of most of the deficit and would return the top 1% to the rates they paid during clinton's presidency.

do you know what you're talking about? as for envy, i like making money so you're full of it.

i think that's as thoughtful as your post deserves.

 

[SniperFire]

The 'rich' pay their greatest share of the Federal Income Tax burden, ever in our history.

The problem is, the taxes no longer predominately go to paying for road and bridges and military like they used to do. The rich pay their 'fair' share, and then some for that.

Now, the lion share of tax is a direct redistribution of wealth right back to the masses.

Today's Democrat party is simply a device for communist wealth redistribution.

Soon, the masses will gobble up every Federal tax dollar taken in as a direct redistribution of wealth.

The masses need to start paying much, much more because they are increasingly gobbling up the tax revenues as entitlements.

Lefty wants to pretend it is about 'roads and bridges', but that of course is part of the Liberal Lie. It is about paying people to have more bastard children and to stay on welfare.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

How many of you swallow this "plan" which does nothing to reduce the deficit or create real (i.e., private sector) jobs? Please explain how raising taxes on people who earn more than you do will benefit you, other than allowing an outlet for your envy. Thank you for your thoughtful response.

You're (quite) obviously too-young to remember....

..1993 Deficit Reduction.

 

[JoeB131]

How many of you swallow this "plan" which does nothing to reduce the deficit or create real (i.e., private sector) jobs? Please explain how raising taxes on people who earn more than you do will benefit you, other than allowing an outlet for your envy. Thank you for your thoughtful response.

The government taking in more money won't reduce the deficit? Really?

Funny, I seem to remember a guy named Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy, and he paid a political price for it, and oddly enough, we went from 200 Billion dollar deficits to 200 billion dollar surpluses in less than 8 years.

The problem with Supply Siders- Let's let the Rich keep more money, and they will grace us with jobs- is that it doesn't work. We have never, ever gotten out of a recession without a spurt of government spending.

Even the famous Reagan tax cuts didn't really get us out of the 1981 Recession. That had a lot more to do with the fact that Reagan doubled government spending. Unfortunately, he also tripled the debt.

Now, personally, I think the only way we get out of this mess is through both cuts and tax increases. And some of those tax increases are going to have to come from the middle class.

But it's not unreasonable to ask the rich to put in their fair share. (And no whining about how they are paying 50% of income taxes when they control 90% of the wealth.)

 

[jillian]

The 'rich' pay their greatest share of the Federal Income Tax burden, ever in our history.

The problem is, the taxes no longer predominately go to paying for road and bridges and military like they used to do. The rich pay their 'fair' share, and then some for that.

Now, the lion share of tax is a direct redistribution of wealth right back to the masses.

Today's Democrat party is simply a device for communist wealth redistribution.

Soon, the masses will gobble up every Federal tax dollar taken in as a direct redistribution of wealth.

The masses need to start paying much, much more because they are increasingly gobbling up the tax revenues as entitlements.

Lefty wants to pretend it is about 'roads and bridges', but that of course is part of the Liberal Lie. It is about paying people to have more bastard children and to stay on welfare.

again, you haven't a clue. it's not about dollar amounts... it's about percentages. if someone making 100,000 a year pays a particular percentage, why should someone like romney pay a fraction of that percentage?

the masses? the 'masses' already pay their proportionate share. and of course you should earn a minimum amount of income before you have to pay. so i'm not quite sure what you're talking about.

why should a corporation like Exxon/Mobile or Metlife pay no taxes or negligible taxes? And don't tell me it's about ;'job creators', b/c job creators already have tax deductions for what they pay in salaries.

and your 'job creators' have sucked since they got their tax cuts from baby bush while he ran two wars on our credit card.

so maybe the military budget should be cut before you cut firefighters, teachers and student loan guarantees.

 

[mudwhistle]

What's up with that shitheaded reasoning? "Does nothing to reduce the deficit."
1) Yes, it will do something to reduce the deficit. More taxes=less deficit, all other things being equal.
2) The rich control the government. If they're paying for more of it, they might want less of it, which equals less deficit and less tyranny.

Taxing the rich doesn't even pay one month's interest on the debt.

So STFU.

 

[SniperFire]

The 'rich' pay their greatest share of the Federal Income Tax burden, ever in our history.

The problem is, the taxes no longer predominately go to paying for road and bridges and military like they used to do. The rich pay their 'fair' share, and then some for that.

Now, the lion share of tax is a direct redistribution of wealth right back to the masses.

Today's Democrat party is simply a device for communist wealth redistribution.

Soon, the masses will gobble up every Federal tax dollar taken in as a direct redistribution of wealth.

The masses need to start paying much, much more because they are increasingly gobbling up the tax revenues as entitlements.

Lefty wants to pretend it is about 'roads and bridges', but that of course is part of the Liberal Lie. It is about paying people to have more bastard children and to stay on welfare.

again, you haven't a clue. it's not about dollar amounts... it's about percentages. if someone making 100,000 a year pays a particular percentage, why should someone like romney pay a fraction of that percentage?

the masses? the 'masses' already pay their proportionate share. and of course you should earn a minimum amount of income before you have to pay. so i'm not quite sure what you're talking about.

why should a corporation like Exxon/Mobile or Metlife pay no taxes or negligible taxes? And don't tell me it's about ;'job creators', b/c job creators already have tax deductions for what they pay in salaries.

and your 'job creators' have sucked since they got their tax cuts from baby bush while he ran two wars on our credit card.

so maybe the military budget should be cut before you cut firefighters, teachers and student loan guarantees.

No, it is not about percentages.

It is about what it costs to run vital functions of government, versus direct wealth redistribution.

But this is all rather over your head.

No worries. Just repeat after me:

HOPEY CHANGEY HOPEY CHANGEY HOPEY CHANGEY

 

[candycorn]

How many of you swallow this "plan" which does nothing to reduce the deficit or create real (i.e., private sector) jobs? Please explain how raising taxes on people who earn more than you do will benefit you, other than allowing an outlet for your envy. Thank you for your thoughtful response.

We can start to rebuild the infrastructure which will put more income into the hands of middle income Americans. Perhaps we can even get serious about getting back into space at some point.