Tax the Rich? Tax the Millionaires!

[Salishan]

While President Obama capitulates to right-wing Republicans by extending tax cuts for the wealthy, some Democrats in Congress are pushing what is not only good policy -- but smarter politics. Bernie Sanders in the Senate and Jan Schakowsky in the House have sponsored legislation to raise taxes on millionaires -- rather than restoring the Clinton tax brackets for those making over $250,000. One Capitol Hill newspaper noted this deviates from where the White House currently stands, as it specifically targets the very rich. Moreover, it puts Republicans in a far more awkward position -- as they are left defending tax cuts for millionaires. There is a huge difference between rich people making $250,000 a year and those making $2 million a year, and the high upper-income tax brackets we saw in the 1930's and 1940's were likewise similarly targeted. Even in anti-tax states like California, voters have approved tax increases for millionaires -- which makes this legislation one of the most hopeful things to come out of Washington lately.

So...back in the 1930's and 1940's when we taxed millionaires much higher rates all of the problems were solved? Everyone was good to go?

How about if we taxed millionaires 95% today...would it fund all of our current budget obligations and pay down the defecit? That is, assuming that taxing millionaires 80 or 90 or 95% that they would still invest the same amount of money into the markets and purchase items that help provide jobs.[/QUOTE]
Why not start with this?

and Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky admit they wanted Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 to expire. But having lost that battle in December, they are proposing a 'surcharge' for incomes of over one million dollars.

"Schakowsky's bill creates a new tax bracket at 45% for those making $1 to $10 million a year, and 49% for those who make above $10 million. 'I certainly don't see it as a counter to the real and specific debate on the Bush tax cuts,' she said. 'The fact is, Republicans don't want to do anything to take away tax breaks from the richest Americans, and we want to stimulate that debate.'"

In the last two years as millions of working Americans have lost their jobs and homes the richest 1% of Americans have increased their share of national wealth by nearly two percent.

Do you think they are through taking yet?[/QUOTE]

You never answered my question. And in fact, Schakowsky's bill would bring in less than what was brought in (on percentage) than back in the 30's and 40's. And yet we still had poor people back then.

 

[georgephillip]

Indeed. But the reality of SPENDING still has to sink in...

Understood. There will need to be massive changes to entitlement spending if we are to come close to balancing the budget.

And it will require people to go to work...but that won't happen until the Gubmint gets the hell outta the way of the private sector, and those that refuse to work cease using the treasury as their paycheck.

Are you referring to Goldman Sachs or Citi?
Bank of America, maybe?

Government is the only institution capable of providing millions of jobs in our current economy.

The rich can earn a higher rate of return speculating on oil and food staples and credit default swaps.

That's why they're winning the class war.

 

[Salishan]

Indeed. But the reality of SPENDING still has to sink in...

Understood. There will need to be massive changes to entitlement spending if we are to come close to balancing the budget.

Chuck should stream National Nurses United on his Super Nintendo:

"Calculations by the Institute for Health and Socio-Economic Policy, research arm of National Nurses United, shows that a one-time wealth surcharge of 14% on those assets (ultra-high net worth individuals) would more than pay for the $1.6 trillion budget deficit projection for 2011.

"Or, it would support about 33.8 million households at the national real median income level for 2008, pay for a year’s worth of AIDS medication for about 142 million patients, or create 34 million jobs at $50,000 per year."

I am not sure that I shoud pocket the opinion of a union created in 2009 when they discuss rich people's income.

That was an awesome Chuck infusion by the way!

 

[Salishan]

Understood. There will need to be massive changes to entitlement spending if we are to come close to balancing the budget.

And it will require people to go to work...but that won't happen until the Gubmint gets the hell outta the way of the private sector, and those that refuse to work cease using the treasury as their paycheck.

Are you referring to Goldman Sachs or Citi?
Bank of America, maybe?

Government is the only institution capable of providing millions of jobs in our current economy.

The rich can earn a higher rate of return speculating on oil and food staples and credit default swaps.

That's why they're winning the class war.

Goldman and Citi are two of Obama's largest corporate donors.

Government can create its own money or force producers to give them more. That's the only way they can create jobs. Or maybe they can just continue to create more regulations that require more monitors. Or increase the size of the military after they create another few national security threats. Jobs for everyone! Meanwhile the Chinese and others fund the debt created to create more jobs. Once government burden becomes too much corporations go away. And then what? More government jobs from more unfunded spending? What if all the rich guys move to Dubai? You gonna tax them there?

 

[georgephillip]

While President Obama capitulates to right-wing Republicans by extending tax cuts for the wealthy, some Democrats in Congress are pushing what is not only good policy -- but smarter politics. Bernie Sanders in the Senate and Jan Schakowsky in the House have sponsored legislation to raise taxes on millionaires -- rather than restoring the Clinton tax brackets for those making over $250,000. One Capitol Hill newspaper noted this deviates from where the White House currently stands, as it specifically targets the very rich. Moreover, it puts Republicans in a far more awkward position -- as they are left defending tax cuts for millionaires. There is a huge difference between rich people making $250,000 a year and those making $2 million a year, and the high upper-income tax brackets we saw in the 1930's and 1940's were likewise similarly targeted. Even in anti-tax states like California, voters have approved tax increases for millionaires -- which makes this legislation one of the most hopeful things to come out of Washington lately.

So...back in the 1930's and 1940's when we taxed millionaires much higher rates all of the problems were solved? Everyone was good to go?

How about if we taxed millionaires 95% today...would it fund all of our current budget obligations and pay down the defecit? That is, assuming that taxing millionaires 80 or 90 or 95% that they would still invest the same amount of money into the markets and purchase items that help provide jobs.

Why not start with this?

and Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky admit they wanted Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 to expire. But having lost that battle in December, they are proposing a 'surcharge' for incomes of over one million dollars.

"Schakowsky's bill creates a new tax bracket at 45% for those making $1 to $10 million a year, and 49% for those who make above $10 million. 'I certainly don't see it as a counter to the real and specific debate on the Bush tax cuts,' she said. 'The fact is, Republicans don't want to do anything to take away tax breaks from the richest Americans, and we want to stimulate that debate.'"

In the last two years as millions of working Americans have lost their jobs and homes the richest 1% of Americans have increased their share of national wealth by nearly two percent.

Do you think they are through taking yet?[/QUOTE]

You never answered my question. And in fact, Schakowsky's bill would bring in less than what was brought in (on percentage) than back in the 30's and 40's. And yet we still had poor people back then.[/QUOTE]
The 30s and the 40s were two vastly different economies sharing at least one major asset... American manufacturing that has since been outsourced to China and India.

Today's millionaires invest much differently than those of the 30s and 40s. There is too much capital chasing too few productive ends today.

The result is a Wall Street Casino where the big players know in advance the taxpayer will cover all losses.

Would taxing all annual incomes over $5 million at 80% as was done in WWII solve all our budget problems?

Probably not.

Would it narrow the inequality gap between rich and poor that currently stands about where it was in 1929? I think it would.

The choice seems to lie between taxing the rich in the US or continue borrowing from them. The former decreases the deficit and the latter makes it even larger.

 

[georgephillip]

And it will require people to go to work...but that won't happen until the Gubmint gets the hell outta the way of the private sector, and those that refuse to work cease using the treasury as their paycheck.

Are you referring to Goldman Sachs or Citi?
Bank of America, maybe?

Government is the only institution capable of providing millions of jobs in our current economy.

The rich can earn a higher rate of return speculating on oil and food staples and credit default swaps.

That's why they're winning the class war.

Goldman and Citi are two of Obama's largest corporate donors.

Government can create its own money or force producers to give them more. That's the only way they can create jobs. Or maybe they can just continue to create more regulations that require more monitors. Or increase the size of the military after they create another few national security threats. Jobs for everyone! Meanwhile the Chinese and others fund the debt created to create more jobs. Once government burden becomes too much corporations go away. And then what? More government jobs from more unfunded spending? What if all the rich guys move to Dubai? You gonna tax them there?

Goldman gave Obama over $900,000 in 2008 more than four times what McCain received.

Most people believe government created jobs helped end the Great Depression. There are projects too big for private financing. Transcontinental railroads and Hoover Dam or the Manhattan Project, for example.

High speed freight and passenger rail lines as well as universal fiber optic internet are a couple of possibilities today that the Pentagon might view as part of national security.

I don't think it's possible to tax rich guys in Dubai; however, any products they produce that are sold in this country might be subject to a tariff or a fee of some kind.

Globalization seems like a genie that's way too big to fit back in the bottle, but so far the profits generated by global commerce are going more to capital than labor.

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... dem rich folks got the money...

... `cause dey ain't been payin' their fair share o' the taxes."

 

[The T]

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... dem rich folks got the money...

... `cause dey ain't been payin' their fair share o' the taxes."

Really? Yew wanna leeve dis az yer final answer?

 

[Political Junky]

Republican leaders are genius at getting middle income folks to support the wealthiest.
FDR called them the "economic royalists".

Speech before the 1936 Democratic National Convention

 

[The T]

Republican leaders are genius at getting middle income folks to support the wealthiest.
FDR called them the "economic royalists".

Speech before the 1936 Democratic National Convention

*Class Warfare* Discounted...and ignored. Non-Starter.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yep, punish success. Increase the size and scope of government with nary an idea in sight to get spending under control.

Love these recycled old, demonstrably failed policies.

Hey dumbass, the Bush tax cuts really resulted in a roaring economy, now, didn't they.

Clinton increased taxes, drew down the debt, and we had the longest sustained economic boom in this nations history. Bush cut taxs, created huge increases in the debt, and we damned near had the Second Great Republican Depression.

Failed policies, domestic or foreign is the sum total of GOP policy. You proved that from 2001 to 2009.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Yep, punish success. Increase the size and scope of government with nary an idea in sight to get spending under control.

Love these recycled old, demonstrably failed policies.

Ah, yes.....demonstrably failed......

"Not only was the entire national deficit eliminated after raising taxes on the wealthy in 1993, but the economy grew so fast for the remainder of the decade that many conservative economists thought that the Fed should raise the prime interest rate in order to slow it down."

1993 Deficit Reduction​

*

 

[skookerasbil]

Yep, punish success. Increase the size and scope of government with nary an idea in sight to get spending under control.

Love these recycled old, demonstrably failed policies.

Ah, yes.....demonstrably failed......

"Not only was the entire national deficit eliminated after raising taxes on the wealthy in 1993, but the economy grew so fast for the remainder of the decade that many conservative economists thought that the Fed should raise the prime interest rate in order to slow it down."

1993 Deficit Reduction​

*

Who cant laugh their balls off when far left nutballs post up graphs of the debt that ends in 2008!!! I cant even begin to think of an analogy to illustrate the absurdity..........and frankly, who the fcukk can figure the point trying to be made. What? That its acceptable to trade in the SUCK for the SUCKIER just because some percieve the intentions to be better?? Only mental cases think that way.

What people on the left dont realize and what was clearly demonstrated in November of 2010 is that MOST people are not willing to jump into the cesspool just because their shoes got a bit of poop on them. They will always choose getting poop on their shoes as compared to being totally covered in poop. This is exactly the dynamic you saw in November. A majority said, "FCUKK THIS CESSPOOL.......IM CLIMBING OUT WHILE I STILL CAN". Thats the political reality s0ns..............far left public policy got the kick in the balls because its never been something the people wanted. Realizing they got bamboozled by this flim-flam man, they punted...............or more succinctly, they climbed out of the cesspool. The far lefties on this board can try to distract with total horseshit all they want, but politically speaking, they are like relics of a former era at the present time. None of their shit has worked for the betterment of the country and that is the prevailing view. America is and has always been a center-right country. Its not even debatable.

Remember assholes...........this forum is not an "Ideology" forum, its a politics forum, thus, the philosophy crap is akin to a group exercise in navel contemplation.

And thats my role on this forum..........to bring the conversation back to real....................


Accordingly, we evidently need to point this out to the far left jarheads...................



Its now 2011 s0ns!!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

ps.....posting up partisan graphs is gay............

 

[midcan5]

I am always fascinated by the right wing conservatives, libertarians, and republicans response to this very sensible and moral idea. One of their first whines is 'we are punishing success.' What hooey, the only reason these people are successful is they are living in America. In Antarctica I doubt they would make any money. It is the governmental and societal structures that helps them. Many, if not most, benefit from the deep pockets of government. Google the 'conservative nanny state.'

Next they complain that this would amount to additional government? Huh! What! Where! Huh!!!! The very same people who want to control your family decisions, penalize immigrants, control who you can marry, create massive war machine - and they don't want bigger government? What a bunch of fools and hypocrites.


Are the Tea Partiers Being Taken for a Ride? | Mother Jones

"If The $5.15 Hourly minimum wage had risen at the same rate as CEO compensation since 1990, it would now stand at $23.03.
A Minimum Wage employee who works 40 hours a week for 51 weeks a year goes home with $10,506 before taxes.
Such A Worker would take 7,000 years to earn Oracle CEO Larry Ellison’s yearly compensation.
In 2005, there were 9 million American millionaires, a 62% increase since 2002.
In 2005, 25.7 million Americans received food stamps, a 49% increase since 2000."

A Look at the Numbers: How the Rich Get Richer | Mother Jones

"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

 

[Seawytch]

I know I'm agreeing with a majority of Americans when I say...tax the fuckers.

 

[georgephillip]

Republican leaders are genius at getting middle income folks to support the wealthiest.
FDR called them the "economic royalists".

Speech before the 1936 Democratic National Convention

*Class Warfare* Discounted...and ignored. Non-Starter.

In what universe?

In the US in 2010 600,000 new millionaire households were created at the same time 5,000,000 Americans were added to the food stamp rolls.

There's an obvious connection between the two groups for anyone not blinded by conservative ideology. The rising stock market explains many of the new millionaires. When corporations cut costs to boost profits the market rises and those who earn their wealth primarily from the stock market prosper.

Those in the middle class whose hours or jobs are eliminated in order to increase profits don't prosper, they resort to food stamps as their household real estate plunges in value.

"While the primary source of wealth for the top 1 percent is stocks and this sector continues to improve thanks to bailouts and the Federal Reserve pumping easy money into investment banks, millions of other Americans are being kicked out of their homes that are losing value.

"Americans have lost $6.3 trillion in household real estate wealth.

"If your primary asset for your net worth is collapsing is it any wonder why the majority of the population does not feel this as any sort of economic recovery even though the stock market is now up over 100 percent in a relatively short timeframe?"

If this isn't class war, what is it?

 

[theHawk]

Paul Hogarth: Tax the Rich? Tax the Millionaires!

While President Obama capitulates to right-wing Republicans by extending tax cuts for the wealthy, some Democrats in Congress are pushing what is not only good policy -- but smarter politics. Bernie Sanders in the Senate and Jan Schakowsky in the House have sponsored legislation to raise taxes on millionaires -- rather than restoring the Clinton tax brackets for those making over $250,000. One Capitol Hill newspaper noted this deviates from where the White House currently stands, as it specifically targets the very rich. Moreover, it puts Republicans in a far more awkward position -- as they are left defending tax cuts for millionaires. There is a huge difference between rich people making $250,000 a year and those making $2 million a year, and the high upper-income tax brackets we saw in the 1930's and 1940's were likewise similarly targeted. Even in anti-tax states like California, voters have approved tax increases for millionaires -- which makes this legislation one of the most hopeful things to come out of Washington lately.

Do that shit, do that shit, do that shit, teah do that shit, lol.

No seriously, rightwingers can't defend millionaires against this when the majority of Americans, especially the middle class, are proportionally bearing a bigger brunt.

Why don't we just tax the super rich 95% of their wealth, so the rest of us can have a free ride?

 

[percysunshine]

Paul Hogarth: Tax the Rich? Tax the Millionaires!

While President Obama capitulates to right-wing Republicans by extending tax cuts for the wealthy, some Democrats in Congress are pushing what is not only good policy -- but smarter politics. Bernie Sanders in the Senate and Jan Schakowsky in the House have sponsored legislation to raise taxes on millionaires -- rather than restoring the Clinton tax brackets for those making over $250,000. One Capitol Hill newspaper noted this deviates from where the White House currently stands, as it specifically targets the very rich. Moreover, it puts Republicans in a far more awkward position -- as they are left defending tax cuts for millionaires. There is a huge difference between rich people making $250,000 a year and those making $2 million a year, and the high upper-income tax brackets we saw in the 1930's and 1940's were likewise similarly targeted. Even in anti-tax states like California, voters have approved tax increases for millionaires -- which makes this legislation one of the most hopeful things to come out of Washington lately.

Do that shit, do that shit, do that shit, teah do that shit, lol.

No seriously, rightwingers can't defend millionaires against this when the majority of Americans, especially the middle class, are proportionally bearing a bigger brunt.

The gazillions of rich liberals are not going to look kindly on this.

 

[theHawk]

Republican leaders are genius at getting middle income folks to support the wealthiest.
FDR called them the "economic royalists".

Speech before the 1936 Democratic National Convention

*Class Warfare* Discounted...and ignored. Non-Starter.

In what universe?

In the US in 2010 600,000 new millionaire households were created at the same time 5,000,000 Americans were added to the food stamp rolls.

There's an obvious connection between the two groups for anyone not blinded by conservative ideology. The rising stock market explains many of the new millionaires. When corporations cut costs to boost profits the market rises and those who earn their wealth primarily from the stock market prosper.

Those in the middle class whose hours or jobs are eliminated in order to increase profits don't prosper, they resort to food stamps as their household real estate plunges in value.

"While the primary source of wealth for the top 1 percent is stocks and this sector continues to improve thanks to bailouts and the Federal Reserve pumping easy money into investment banks, millions of other Americans are being kicked out of their homes that are losing value.

"Americans have lost $6.3 trillion in household real estate wealth.

"If your primary asset for your net worth is collapsing is it any wonder why the majority of the population does not feel this as any sort of economic recovery even though the stock market is now up over 100 percent in a relatively short timeframe?"

If this isn't class war, what is it?

2010 has been the result of all liberal policies. Obama has been Pres for 2 years and Dems had Congress since 2007. But hey, lets blame those evil conservatives for failed liberal policies!