Revive Main Street by Taxing Wall Street

[thereisnospoon]

Selective equal treatment, support by wingers, AGAIN

If it's true the richest 1% of Americans have increased their share of the national income by about two percent (~37%-~39%) during the last two years would you call them selective or equal (or greedy)?

This is a straw man argument put forth by those who believe there is a finite amount of available wealth.
Once again, wealth is created. It does not exist in a vacuum. Now is there a magic pot of wealth that is held by a secret society which decides who gets more or as in the mindset of the Left, who gets less.
It is not a zero sum game.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What product does Wall street produce?
Once the stock is sold by a corporation then all the money from there on out is just made by stock trades which produce nothing except more money for more stock trades.

So mostly Wall Street just produces more money to trade more stock and no real product.

Investment in companies contributes to the bottom lone which allow firms are expand and create jobs. It also increases revenue on which companies pay taxes.

Of course you lefties look at Wall Street as some kind of playground for the alleged country club bluebloods. The existence of wealthy people infuriates you. However, you forget how many of the wealthy actually contribute to causes and candidates with which you agree...
Irony.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The only way people in the USA are going to buy more goods and services is to increase the number of jobs and or increase the wages on existing jobs.
We are a maxed out market.

Increase wages on existing jobs? Ok, who gets to mandate THAT? Washington?
Besides, you people would take one look at those higher wages and figure out a new way to tax them...
How about a new national minimum annual salary of $100,000 per year and then tax that at 50%?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Why Not Speculators?

"July 16 (Bloomberg) -- Why is Congress running away from a financial transactions tax?

"The intensifying struggle on Capitol Hill over revenue, spending and deficits, coupled with the widely felt, reckless behavior of Wall Street, would seem to provide an ideal atmosphere to debate a major source of new income that also helps to restrict rampant speculation.

"A bill to impose such a tax, introduced by Democrat Representatives Peter DeFazio and Peter Welch, is going nowhere.

"Apart from sporadic mentions at various Congressional hearings on the financial meltdown, this levy, with antecedents back to Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War, is a taboo subject."

Because speculators weren't the primary cause of the Financial Crisis.

More so than Social Security or Medicare?

No....Social entitlements are breaking this country.
Social Security now officially has fewer contributing than those receiving benefits.
The Left's reaction to this is "Bush took the money from the trust fund"....We all know that is a political campaign strategy and nothing else.
SS would have worked if the federal government had left all the money in a separate account not to be touched for ANY reason. In fact, my idea of SS is for each worker to have their own account from which they draw from after their retirement. This is similar to the Canadian pension system.
SS is broken and it contribute to the economic downfall of the USA.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What product does Wall street produce?
Once the stock is sold by a corporation then all the money from there on out is just made by stock trades which produce nothing except more money for more stock trades.

So mostly Wall Street just produces more money to trade more stock and no real product.

Wall Street Produces Inequity

"There is also the serious matter of equity.

"When people, who pay 6 percent to 8 percent in sales taxes on necessities every day, learn that there is zero sales tax on daily purchases of billions of shares, bonds and derivatives, they understandably get upset.

"It doesn’t matter whether they are conservatives or liberals, or whether it is during normal years on Wall Street or the recent massive collapse and bailout.

"If anything, the political climate for a financial transactions tax has never been better.

"It is time for a robust public initiative to replace the stagnant taboos now plaguing Congress and the White House.

(Ralph Nader is the founder of Public Citizen and author of the book “Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!” The opinions expressed are his own.)"

Here's the problem I have with this....Let's suppose for a moment the feds go ahead and enact their financial transaction tax....Typically new taxes do not REPLACE other taxes. These new taxes are simply in ADDITION TO existing taxes. That in and of itself give the perception that the government is performing a money grab.
T address your post below....Since your side believes in unqualified "fairness and equality of outcome", how do you justify a 60% tax rate on anyone?

 

[georgephillip]

Selective equal treatment, support by wingers, AGAIN

If it's true the richest 1% of Americans have increased their share of the national income by about two percent (~37%-~39%) during the last two years would you call them selective or equal (or greedy)?

This is a straw man argument put forth by those who believe there is a finite amount of available wealth.
Once again, wealth is created. It does not exist in a vacuum. Now is there a magic pot of wealth that is held by a secret society which decides who gets more or as in the mindset of the Left, who gets less.
It is not a zero sum game.

Money is a commodity in that it can be possessed only by one person or another.

If it's true the richest 1% of Americans have increased their share of national income during the last two years, it is only because of government's time honored practice of socializing cost ($13 trillion bailout) while privatizing profit for a select few.

 

[MSNY]

Is your daily lead intake high enough to believe the US economy is still lousy because government's too big?

Are you that suicidal? (and stupid)

Maybe your ilk think cutting heating oil for low income Americans over the next five years will bring more freedom to big American companies sitting on almost $2 trillion in cash because there aren't enough customers to buy additional goods and services.

Shit like you should have been aborted thereby increasing the national IQ and the quality of debate on USMB.

Maybe I'd like to keep my money in my own pocket?

Live like the rest of us, within your own means.
You stick your hand in my pocket you liberal shit, I'll cut it off.

Liberals need to get a job, make a living and stop taking handouts.
You want my resources, you will be met with gunfire.

The richest 1% of Americans have increased their share of national income by two percent during the last two years and you think I'm the one with my hand in your pocket?

Of course, the government left unchecked is greedy themselves.
They want us, the taxpayer to also think there needy.

Obama and his gang, are smoke and' mirror spenders.
He and the Democrats have now spent more then ALL the
POTUS administrations before them, over 1 trillion dollars.

All you want is a wealth transfer from one entity to another.
Making a bigger government, does not hurt the rich guy, it
hurts the guy on main street.

If the small business owner, making 300 grand a year is
penalized for making a good profit, he cut employees,
which in turn cuts tax revenues.

Think it though.
Tax and spend has never worked before, it wont work now.

 

[MSNY]

And do what with the proceeds?
Redistribute them? To who? Who decides what is fair and what is not, who gets what and how much?

The government? An organisation so inept that it gives tax refunds to dead people and animals? Thats going to be the arbiter of who wins and who loses?

Stupidest goddamn idea since people started thinking elections changed anything.

Exactly.

Redistribution of wealth is the old Joe the Plummer idea,
of a Communist state.

Obama and his kind are still pushing it.

 

[MSNY]

Is it good or bad if the richest 1% of Americans have increased their share of national income by two percent during the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression?

Is it good or bad that Warren Buffett and others pay income taxes at half the rate of their bodyguards?

It's hard to see how Buffett and the richest 1% could have done better than others without government socializing cost and privatizing profits.

The costs to liberty of enforcing Inequity could prove far greater.

You dont get it.

You have the same opportunity to get rich. Go out and make
a bundle. then, when the government comes calling you gonna
give 1/2 of it up? Your money?

I bet you would not feel that charitable, would you?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

We're asking an inept govt that spends all of our money to redistribute monies? I'm completely baffled.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If it's true the richest 1% of Americans have increased their share of the national income by about two percent (~37%-~39%) during the last two years would you call them selective or equal (or greedy)?

This is a straw man argument put forth by those who believe there is a finite amount of available wealth.
Once again, wealth is created. It does not exist in a vacuum. Now is there a magic pot of wealth that is held by a secret society which decides who gets more or as in the mindset of the Left, who gets less.
It is not a zero sum game.

Money is a commodity in that it can be possessed only by one person or another.

If it's true the richest 1% of Americans have increased their share of national income during the last two years, it is only because of government's time honored practice of socializing cost ($13 trillion bailout) while privatizing profit for a select few.

No..You are wrong. Wealth is created. There is no "pie" from which we share.
The notion held by your side that if one person has more money or wealth then another person must proportionately have less, is false.
Your idea that a wealthy person some how "stole" some from or victimized someone else to attain that wealth is a bunch of nonsense.
You people abhor capitalism( except when it benefits you) because you view it as unfair.
Based on that, you people seek to use the threat of government sanctions in order to confiscate the wealth of others to simply make yourselves feel better.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Would you agree all rich people have benefited from the $13 trillion taxpayer bailout of Wall Street?

"...while keeping the debt overhead in place for America’s 'bottom 98 per cent' – this happy 2 per cent of the population now receives an estimated three quarters (~75 per cent) of the returns to wealth (interest, dividends, rent and capital gains).

"This is nearly double what it received a generation ago.

"The rest of the population is being squeezed, and foreclosures are rising."

Crooks are to rich people as hypocrites are to politicians.

They are both stealing your money, and they're laughing at your knife and gunfire talk.

Obama's Greatest Betrayal

You keep citing the same class envy babble over and over expecting a different reaction.
Your solution of taking away from those who have earned is misguided.
No society has been able to prosper by lowering the top. That is what you suggest.

 

[thereisnospoon]

We're asking an inept govt that spends all of our money to redistribute monies? I'm completely baffled.

Liberals like it that way because when they surrender their wealth( while demanding everyone else do the same) it absolves them of all financial responsibility.
In other words, it's easy. Path of least resistance.
Liberals/socialists/marxists despise creativity and achievement. They hate individuality.
These people support collectivism.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Is it good or bad if the richest 1% of Americans have increased their share of national income by two percent during the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression?

Is it good or bad that Warren Buffett and others pay income taxes at half the rate of their bodyguards?

It's hard to see how Buffett and the richest 1% could have done better than others without government socializing cost and privatizing profits.

The costs to liberty of enforcing Inequity could prove far greater.

You are still touting equality of outcome which is incompatible with liberty and freedom of choice.
You want guarantees.
What's worse, you want these guarantees to be provided for you from an all powerful central government.
Other than your clinging to the false notion that you will become wealthier if only the government would take from others to share with you.

 

[georgephillip]

Instead of cutting the federal deficit, put more money into the pockets of average working families by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit to include people earning up to $50,000 per year and reduce their income taxes to $0.

Exempt the first $20,000 from payroll taxes.

Pay 10% on incomes between $50,000 - $90,000/year.
Pay 20% on incomes between $90,000 - $120,000/year.
Pay 30% on incomes between $120,000 - $250,000/year

Make up the missing money by increasing the taxes on those responsible for causing our Great Recession:

"Make up the revenues by increasing taxes on incomes between $250,000 to $500,000 to 40 percent; between $500,000 and $5 million, to 50 percent; between $5 million and $15 million, to 60 percent; and anything over $15 million, to 70 percent.

"And raise the ceiling on the portion of income subject to payroll taxes to $500,000.

"It’s called progressive taxation."

Robert Reich

Oh I get it. Let's have even FEWER people paying federal income taxes....
Look, genius, history proves that when government raises taxes on the producers not only does economic activity suffer, revenues to the federal government decrease.
Your "tax Wall Street" notion is a class envy straw man argument.
What you propose is not progressive taxation, it is confiscation of wealth.
Admit it. You believe in the redistribution of wealth from the producers to the non-producers. You believe in unfettered "fairness"...
Look, if you think the government needs more money, here's an idea that is a virtual certainty to work...
Tax all incomes above $30k for an individual and $50k for a family of 4 a rate of 15% of their gross income after State taxes are deducted. NO write offs. No deductions of any kind. A true flat tax.
And don't start screaming about how it's unfair because 15% of $50,000 leaves a family of 4 with just $42,500 while 15% of $100,000 leaves another with $85,000....Realize that the person who has more SPENDS more and stimulates the economy while doing it.
The more well off person buys more expensive homes which contribute locally to property taxes. The more well off person is more likely to invest in business which creates jobs. The more well off person buys more consumables....see where we are going here sunshine?
The federal government does not need more of our money. The federal government needs to learn to spend LESS..
BTW, Obama's budget proposal has $1.5 trillion in unfunded expenditures.
What he calls" drastic cuts" in spending are not cuts at all. In his budget all federal agencies respective budgets are getting a 1% increase in funding....When Obama and democrats refer to "cuts" what they really mean is a lower increase in the next FY budget.
BTW, the GOP's $100 billion in cuts is a joke....It should be 5 times that. However the GOP leadership knows well that any cuts to entitlements are politically unpalatable.

How are you defining "producer?"

Does Wall Street produce more value than American small business owners or a public school teacher?

Does the value produced by a single hedge fund CEO making $1 billion/year equal the value of 20,000 public school teachers earning $50,000/year?

Was it the teachers or CEO who contributed most to the need for a $13 trillion taxpayer bailout of other rich parasites?

Why do you consider a flat tax fair when it leaves the teacher $42,500 after taxes and the CEO $850,000,000?

The CEO quickly reaches a saturation level with purchases and begins buying financial instruments like bonds which add to the debt overhead that is pushing this economy into debt deflation and blind slaves like you into debt peonage.

It's the debt, Stupid.

 

[boedicca]

You are making an incorrect assumption that it is the government's role to place value judgments upon a citizen's worth by manipulating the tax code as either punishment or reward.

 

[georgephillip]

As many others have suggested, a flat tax of around 15% on every cent earned, without ANY write-offs would, (I think) be the way to go.
But without a little restraint in spending, and someone with the balls to tell these useless tits with their hands out to "fuckoff", it won't matter what convoluted taxing system you use to "get the rich".

"Every cent earned" is the key phrase, I think.

What about unearned income?

It's my understanding the Forbes flat tax proposal, for example, would exempt FIRE sector income. (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate)

Any solution that doesn't reverse the widening divide between the rich and the rest of America won't revive the American economy.

Your understanding of the Forbes plan may be correct, however that is immaterial.
Income, profit etc should be taxed only once.
The current system gives government several bites at the apple.
For example....Mr Jones gets his paycheck. He then takes some of that money and puts into a savings account. At the end of the year, the government looks at the statement form the bank and then bills Mr. Jones for the amount of money earned on the interest paid by the bank.
Mr. Smith makes a good living....He decides to dabble in a couple of solid blue chip stocks. He is a buy and hold guy. His investments pan out and yield him a few thousand in dividend income.... The government steps in and taxes that few thousand. Oh,during that year Mssrs Jones and Smith bought tires, opened cell phone and internet accounts, bought 5 oil changes each. All subject to federal excise tax or US tax. MOre federal biting of the apple.....So you see, there is much more to taxation than just income tax from wages.
If a flat tax of all income was policy,we could get rid of tons of un needed federal IRS workers at a huge savings, eliminate/simplify the complicated US Tax Code, etc....
Of course there is a "soak the rich" agenda on the political Left. These people will never be satisfied until the federal government sets up a system of total redistribution of wealth.

One reason for a "soak the rich agenda" on the left is the realization of Government's First Principle:

Socialize Cost; Privatize Profit

Your valid points about government taking multiple bites at Mssrs Jones's and Smith's incomes, profits and purchases confirm my suspicion about how government socializes cost while privatizing GE's profits:

"GE has $36Bn in sales and paid $431M in taxes (15% of net profits) in 2009.

"They also paid out $9Bn in dividends and over $24Bn in 2008 and 2007 and in 2007 they bought back their own stock but, in those three years, they paid -(NEGATIVE) $900M in taxes!

How many tires, cell phones, internet accounts and oil changes did Jones and Smith have to buy to cover GE's $900 million tax holiday?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Instead of cutting the federal deficit, put more money into the pockets of average working families by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit to include people earning up to $50,000 per year and reduce their income taxes to $0.

Exempt the first $20,000 from payroll taxes.

Pay 10% on incomes between $50,000 - $90,000/year.
Pay 20% on incomes between $90,000 - $120,000/year.
Pay 30% on incomes between $120,000 - $250,000/year

Make up the missing money by increasing the taxes on those responsible for causing our Great Recession:

"Make up the revenues by increasing taxes on incomes between $250,000 to $500,000 to 40 percent; between $500,000 and $5 million, to 50 percent; between $5 million and $15 million, to 60 percent; and anything over $15 million, to 70 percent.

"And raise the ceiling on the portion of income subject to payroll taxes to $500,000.

"It’s called progressive taxation."

Robert Reich

Oh I get it. Let's have even FEWER people paying federal income taxes....
Look, genius, history proves that when government raises taxes on the producers not only does economic activity suffer, revenues to the federal government decrease.
Your "tax Wall Street" notion is a class envy straw man argument.
What you propose is not progressive taxation, it is confiscation of wealth.
Admit it. You believe in the redistribution of wealth from the producers to the non-producers. You believe in unfettered "fairness"...
Look, if you think the government needs more money, here's an idea that is a virtual certainty to work...
Tax all incomes above $30k for an individual and $50k for a family of 4 a rate of 15% of their gross income after State taxes are deducted. NO write offs. No deductions of any kind. A true flat tax.
And don't start screaming about how it's unfair because 15% of $50,000 leaves a family of 4 with just $42,500 while 15% of $100,000 leaves another with $85,000....Realize that the person who has more SPENDS more and stimulates the economy while doing it.
The more well off person buys more expensive homes which contribute locally to property taxes. The more well off person is more likely to invest in business which creates jobs. The more well off person buys more consumables....see where we are going here sunshine?
The federal government does not need more of our money. The federal government needs to learn to spend LESS..
BTW, Obama's budget proposal has $1.5 trillion in unfunded expenditures.
What he calls" drastic cuts" in spending are not cuts at all. In his budget all federal agencies respective budgets are getting a 1% increase in funding....When Obama and democrats refer to "cuts" what they really mean is a lower increase in the next FY budget.
BTW, the GOP's $100 billion in cuts is a joke....It should be 5 times that. However the GOP leadership knows well that any cuts to entitlements are politically unpalatable.

How are you defining "producer?"

Does Wall Street produce more value than American small business owners or a public school teacher?

Does the value produced by a single hedge fund CEO making $1 billion/year equal the value of 20,000 public school teachers earning $50,000/year?

Was it the teachers or CEO who contributed most to the need for a $13 trillion taxpayer bailout of other rich parasites?

Why do you consider a flat tax fair when it leaves the teacher $42,500 after taxes and the CEO $850,000,000?

The CEO quickly reaches a saturation level with purchases and begins buying financial instruments like bonds which add to the debt overhead that is pushing this economy into debt deflation and blind slaves like you into debt peonage.

It's the debt, Stupid.

anyone who earns wages for work is a producer. Spare me the only unionized workers who work in factories are producers" bullshit...That's not even in the ballpark.,..
To answer your last question, it is not about "fair"...it is about what is right. A flat tax is the most correct and equitable solution. No deductions. No loopholes.
How many people actually earn $1billion per year? Maybe two or three. Your argument is moot....stop the nonsense.
It was not the choice of these companies to take bailout money. It was forced upon them.
In fact, the Obama admin was very pissed off at Bank Of America when that firm paid their bailout back so quickly.
I think the companies that were on the verge of failure should have been allowed to fail.
BTW, there were several banks that refused bailout money. In fact a bank in Massachusettes was called on the carpet by the Obama admin for not lending enough money to low and moderate income people...HUH? The Obama admin criticized banks for causing the mortgage meltdown when they knew full well that it was federal regulations and pressure that caused the whole mess. So you can take your $13 trillion and stow it. That crap doesn't wash here.
You have enmity against people who you view as "having too much"....so be it. That's just childish class envy.

 

[georgephillip]

And do what with the proceeds?
Redistribute them? To who? Who decides what is fair and what is not, who gets what and how much?

The government? An organisation so inept that it gives tax refunds to dead people and animals? Thats going to be the arbiter of who wins and who loses?

Stupidest goddamn idea since people started thinking elections changed anything.

Are you encouraging voters to reject ALL Republican AND Democratic candidates in 2012?

They can do as they please, but it is silly to pretend that it makes a great deal of a difference.
Though it is not nearly as silly as the premise presented in the op.

If American voters FLUSH 100 or 200 or more Republicans AND Democrats from the US Congress in a single day would that make "a great deal of difference"?

What do you find silly about putting more money into the pockets of nine out of ten Americans?

"The most direct way to get more money into their pockets is to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit (a wage subsidy) all the way up through people earning $50,000, and reduce their income taxes to zero. Taxes on incomes between $50,000 and $90,000 should be cut to 10 percent; between $90,000 and $150,000 to 20 percent; between $150,000 and $250,000 to 30 percent.

"And exempt the first $20,000 of income from payroll taxes.

"Make up the revenues by increasing taxes on incomes between $250,000 to $500,000 to 40 percent; between $500,000 and $5 million, to 50 percent; between $5 million and $15 million, to 60 percent; and anything over $15 million, to 70 percent.

"And raise the ceiling on the portion of income subject to payroll taxes to $500,000...

"The lion’s share of America’s income and wealth is at the top.

"Taxing the very rich won’t hurt the economy. They spend a much smaller portion of their incomes than everyone else."

And it's time for them to start giving back some of the economic gains Republicans AND Democrats have given them over the past four decades.

 

[georgephillip]

Selective equal treatment, support by wingers, AGAIN

If it's true the richest 1% of Americans have increased their share of the national income by about two percent (~37%-~39%) during the last two years would you call them selective or equal (or greedy)?

This is a straw man argument put forth by those who believe there is a finite amount of available wealth.
Once again, wealth is created. It does not exist in a vacuum. Now is there a magic pot of wealth that is held by a secret society which decides who gets more or as in the mindset of the Left, who gets less.
It is not a zero sum game.

It would seem there has been a finite amount of national income produced over the last two years.

If the richest 1% of Americans have increased their share of national income from ~37% to ~39% during that time, it is, in fact, a zero sum game with government picking the winners and losers.