War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[Moonglow]

Could you occasionally "help" the needy with your own resources instead of taking from others by force to give to those you feel are more deserving?

Just as soon as bailouts for the rich come from the rich only. I will agree...

Wgat bailouts for the rich are you talking about?

Ronnie's S&L crisis, Clinton's Latin American/Asian debt crisis and Dubya's subprime crisis!


To name just a few

Chrysler, twice, airlines, what bailouts, with whose tax money. They got the gold mine, we get the shaft...

Chrysler, the airlines, AIG, the banks, are not wealthy people.
So that's a big fail.
btw, Democrats supported those bailouts. Conservatives opposed them.

Really, blue chip stocks are held by low income workers?

 

[Contumacious]

Nothing wrong with being rich as long as you contribute to the society that supports you

The rich people contribute the most to society of any of us. Every product or service we value, and are willing to pay for, is a contribution to society. If all the rich left, we'd be in ruins.

I beg to differ, an economy is much better served by 1000 millionaires than one billionaire. The mega-rich only buy so many houses, cars and jet-skis. Increasingly concentrated wealth in a nation where wages really do not move up is a drag on the economy not a boon. People only think we need the mega-rich because they own everything worth owning.

The nation's economy would be doing just fine under the old tax structure. Put an end to off shore tax havens, force billionaires to either invest in the US economy or pay a heavy tax penalty. They all used to pay much higher tax rates than they do now and they did just fine, they all made lots of money any way.

How about abolishing the welfare/warfare state? How about the federal government spending money ONLY on those items SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED in the Constitution?


.

Yes

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution

• The Air Force
• Congressional Districts
• The Electoral College
• Executive Order
• Executive Privilege
• Freedom of Expression
• (Absolute) Freedom of Speech and Press
• "From each according to his ability..."
• God
• Immigration
• Impeachment means removal from office
• Innocent until proven guilty
• It's a free country
• Judicial Review
• Jury of Peers
• "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"
• Marriage
• Martial Law
• No taxation without representation
• Number of Justices in the Supreme Court
• "Of the people, by the people, for the people"
• Paper Money
• Political Parties
• Primary Elections
• Qualifications for Judges
• The right to privacy
• The right to travel
• The right to vote
• The separation of church and state
• The Separation of Powers Clause
• Slavery
• "We hold these truths to be self-evident"

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

[Dad2three]

How is readjusting the tax code so that it no longer favors the rich, a "war on the rich"?

A flat tax doesn't favor anyone.

I have yet to see a flat tax proposal that does not result in a significant cut in taxes for the wealthy

SO?

All that illustrates is that some people pay far beyond their fair share.

Why should anyone pay a higher share than anyone else.

So...you don't try to get blood from a turnip

You tax where the money is not by shaking down poor people. Care to name a successful nation on earth that has a flat tax? Why not start with Russia?

Actually some eastern European countries have done very well with a flat tax and it has worked very well in Hong kong

You named HK? Which is a state (built ONLY on unsustainable wall street BS)AND almost 40% of the housing is subsidized? lol

So can you name the European nations or not? lol



Weird

 

[Moonglow]

Looks to me like the class war is over, the rich won.

That be true! The Oracle of Omaha has said on more than one occasion; that, there is Class Warfare going on in the United States; and, our Side is Winning! End of Discussion!

Please link to where he has said that

Warren Buffet said it perfectly when he said "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

And when he said "there’s been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won."

And when he said "if this is a war – I wouldn’t call it a war, I’d call it a struggle – but, if this is a war, my side has had the nuclear bomb. We’ve got K-Street, we’ve got lobbyists, we’ve got money on our side".

Warren Buffet is very smart and observant.

And Buffet is right in the sense that you are in a war you cannot win against an enemy you'll never defeat. The more you fire the cannons, the more you discover you've just blown another massive hole in your own ship. You're not affecting the rich people, they are two moves ahead of you at all times, and they always will be.

I come at this from a different perspective. Instead of waging war on the rich, exploit the rich! Encourage them to spend that wealth! Make it easier for them to profit and make more wealth! Open those doors of opportunity up and let them do what they do best, create more wealth! This generates economic prosperity. This creates new jobs, new industries, higher wages. You want to really HURT the rich? Make more rich people to compete with them for the wealth!

What you are doing now is not working and will never work. All you are doing is pushing us into a Marxist system that has consistently FAILED to work, time and time again. You don't want to call it Marxism because it's such an utter and disastrous failure, but that is exactly what it is.

If they really wanted more in taxes from the rich, just legalize cocaine and tax it..

 

[Contumacious]

Nothing wrong with being rich as long as you contribute to the society that supports you

The rich people contribute the most to society of any of us. Every product or service we value, and are willing to pay for, is a contribution to society. If all the rich left, we'd be in ruins.

I beg to differ, an economy is much better served by 1000 millionaires than one billionaire. The mega-rich only buy so many houses, cars and jet-skis. Increasingly concentrated wealth in a nation where wages really do not move up is a drag on the economy not a boon. People only think we need the mega-rich because they own everything worth owning.

The nation's economy would be doing just fine under the old tax structure. Put an end to off shore tax havens, force billionaires to either invest in the US economy or pay a heavy tax penalty. They all used to pay much higher tax rates than they do now and they did just fine, they all made lots of money any way.

How about abolishing the welfare/warfare state? How about the federal government spending money ONLY on those items SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED in the Constitution?


.

Yes

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution

• The Air Force
• Congressional Districts
• The Electoral College
• Executive Order
• Executive Privilege
• Freedom of Expression
• (Absolute) Freedom of Speech and Press
• "From each according to his ability..."
• God
• Immigration
• Impeachment means removal from office
• Innocent until proven guilty
• It's a free country
• Judicial Review
• Jury of Peers
• "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"
• Marriage
• Martial Law
• No taxation without representation
• Number of Justices in the Supreme Court
• "Of the people, by the people, for the people"
• Paper Money
• Political Parties
• Primary Elections
• Qualifications for Judges
• The right to privacy
• The right to travel
• The right to vote
• The separation of church and state
• The Separation of Powers Clause
• Slavery
• "We hold these truths to be self-evident"

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Neither is taking a shit, fucking or farting. What's your point?

.

 

[Dad2three]

A flat tax doesn't favor anyone.

I have yet to see a flat tax proposal that does not result in a significant cut in taxes for the wealthy

SO?

All that illustrates is that some people pay far beyond their fair share.

Why should anyone pay a higher share than anyone else.

So...you don't try to get blood from a turnip

You tax where the money is not by shaking down poor people. Care to name a successful nation on earth that has a flat tax? Why not start with Russia?

Actually some eastern European countries have done very well with a flat tax and it has worked very well in Hong kong

There you go interjecting fact into it.
Yeah, the East European countries saw revenue soar when they went to a flat tax. Simpler and less incentive to cheat.
No wonder Dems hate it.

PLEASE name the nations? LOL

 

[The Rabbi]

Just as soon as bailouts for the rich come from the rich only. I will agree...

Wgat bailouts for the rich are you talking about?

Ronnie's S&L crisis, Clinton's Latin American/Asian debt crisis and Dubya's subprime crisis!


To name just a few

Chrysler, twice, airlines, what bailouts, with whose tax money. They got the gold mine, we get the shaft...

Chrysler, the airlines, AIG, the banks, are not wealthy people.
So that's a big fail.
btw, Democrats supported those bailouts. Conservatives opposed them.

Really, blue chip stocks are held by low income workers?

The claim was the government bailed out rich people.
There was no bail out of rich people.
Unless you think UAW workers are rich people.

 

[Dad2three]

You seem to think that taxation is somehow stealing?

Haven't you read the Constitution?

Some is, some isn't.

For the first 160 years of this nation we used flat, consumption taxes.

The problem with consumption taxes is that they are anonymous. Let's say that major democrat Ima Phukinkruk takes a large bribe from Ted Danson or Brad Pitt. His job is to exempt Actors from taxes. With a direct tax, this isn't possible. How does the grocer or barber know who the actors are? They just collect a flat percent on the total spent.

This clearly is no good for selling favors. So the answer is a direct tax, particularly on income and property. An exorbitant tax where exemptions are sold to the highest bidder and the well connected looter is ideal - and exactly what we had prior to 1986. Reagan cut 90% of the corruption out of the tax code - which is why you are trained to hate Reagan. But the 10% remaining is still huge.

A flat tax offers a far more fair system, but beyond that, it creates honest government, it takes away one of the main elements that the crooks in Washington sell, tax exemptions.

so-called consumption taxes cause working people to pay as taxes a greater part of their income than wealthy people who save a greater percentage of their income.

the "flat-tax" is also called the "help steve forbes not pay taxes" tax.

but that wouldn't bother you, no doubt.

Nonsense. The Fair Tax has a built-in mechanism to avoid taxation on basic essentials. Each month, you'd get a 'prebate' for the taxes you would pay on basic needs. If all you are doing is 'surviving' there is no tax at all. The tax only applies to spending and consuming above and beyond just surviving. Now the thing is... many welfare recipients have iPhones and drive Cadillacs. But the myth that a consumption tax would burden the poor is unfounded.

No CREDIBLE economists thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!

 

[Boss]

Really, blue chip stocks are held by low income workers?

If they have a 401k they likely have some blue chip stocks.

 

[Boss]

No CREDIBLE economists thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!

Citations?

 

[jillian]

Inheritance is wealth. We have fairly high taxes on it.

and how much of inherited wealth is exempt from taxes?

and what percentage of people actually inherit enough wealth to pay inheritance taxes.

it's my understanding that there are six families behind the fight against inheritance taxes. one of them is the hilton family.

Most people don't pay inheritance tax. It's not meant to generate much revenue. It's meant for social engineering. I believe that it was originally implemented because people thought it would discourage aristocracy.

I believe that most Western countries do not have an estate tax. Canada does not.

you call it social engineering. but inheritance is taxed as a means of limiting a permanent aristocracy, as you note. i have heard it described as taxing the dead person. it is not. it is a tax on the recipients of new wealth. but a bit of history i found interesting:

In a letter to Robert Morris in 1783, Franklin wrote about the right of the public to regulate property passing to heirs: "All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it."

Basic property necessary for man to live should be left alone, Franklin wrote. But he continued that "all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition."

We thought one sentence has particular relevant here: "Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it."

In the book "Wealth and Our Commonwealth," William H. Gates Sr. and Chuck Collins write: "The nation’s founders and populace viewed excessive concentrations of wealth as incompatible with the ideals of the new nation. Revolutionary era visitors to Europe, including Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Adams, and Ben Franklin, were aghast at the wide disparities of wealth and poverty they observed. They surmised that these great European inequalities were the result of an aristocratic system of land transfers, hereditary political power, and monopoly."

more at link:

Rep. Jay Hottinger s assessment of this Founding Father unfounded PolitiFact Ohio

is there a social purpose? yes. but there are social purposes for a lot of what we do. what i find interesting is that the very people who usually demand we act in accordance with the beliefs of the founding fathers, ignore the founders in the instance of estate tax.

 

[RKMBrown]

Inheritance is wealth. We have fairly high taxes on it.

There are ways to avoid that tax.

Some can, not all

Why not make it so they can't? Oh right conservatives (both GOP/Dems) don't want to! Hmm wonder why?

Why should we steal people's property? What makes you think you deserve their stuff?

 

[Political Junky]

Top Economists: Tax The Rich At 90 Percent

I agree!

That crap has only been debunked about a hundred times on here.
Tax rates are only one part of the equation. Bring back all the deductions as well.

Well when the top rate was 90% the lowest rate was 20% and there was no EITC, no tuition deduction, etc etc

so people ought to be careful what they wish for when they want the good old days of a 90% bracket back

It grew our economy because businesses put money back into their businesses rather than take out a taxable profit. Now they pay less taxes and ship a bunch off to tax havens.

 

[Dad2three]

A 90% tax that only applies to 1% of the gross yields less than a 10% that hits 90% of it.

You might think that but a 90% tax on the top one percent of the population will yield significantly more than a 10% tax on the lower 90% but you would be wrong

Actually, a 10% tax on the wealthy would yield more

You democrats sell tax exemptions that shield 99% of the income of the wealth of the 1%

It's all about corruption - it always was.

Tax credits and exemptions are the currency of the democratic party. Take away direct taxation, and you take away most of the democrats sell in return for bribes.

democrats sell tax exemptions? wow... .that's a new one. the exemptions are rightwingnut gimmes'.
who is suggesting a 90% tax on the top 1%. i think most of us would be pretty ok if the top 1% paid the same PERCENTAGE of their annual earnings, whether by income or earnings on investments, as the middle class.

i've never seen a justification for taxing stock market earnings at a lower rate than employment income.

Stock market earnings are dividends and ARE taxed at normal income rates. These are short-term capital gains... 39.6% baby! What is not taxed at normal income rates is income on long-term investments. There is a lower rate there because we are encouraging rich people to take money out of security investments and do things with it, like fund capitalist ventures. They don't HAVE to do this, you see? We WANT them to do this because it means there is money available for banks to lend to upstart businesses and such. Raise the rates on that and you eliminate it almost entirely because the wealthy are no longer motivated to do it. So is it better to have 15% of something substantial while having the money available to fund economic growth, or is it better to have 39.6% of virtually nothing and no money available?

You show you don't have a pot to piss in Bubba

Cap gains is 20% today

How are capital gains and dividends taxed differently?


A: The U.S. tax code gives similar treatment to dividends and capital gains, although this will change slightly in 2013.

Currently, ordinary dividends and short-term capital gains those on assets held less than a year are subject to one's income tax rate. However, "qualified dividends" and long-term capital gains benefit from a lower rate. Qualified dividends are those paid by domestic or qualifying foreign companies that have been held for at least 61 days out of the 121-day period beginning 60 days prior to the ex-dividend date.

In the case of qualified dividends and long-term capital gains, individuals in the 25% or higher tax bracket currently pay a 15% tax, whereas those in lower brackets are exempt from any tax. Beginning in 2013, the long-term capital gains rate will jump to 10% for lower income earners and 20% for investors in the higher brackets.

How are capital gains and dividends taxed differently


Dividend Taxation in the United States: 2003 + [

Qualified dividend - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)

If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong

Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth or not - Forbes

 

[Dad2three]

Inheritance is wealth. We have fairly high taxes on it.

and how much of inherited wealth is exempt from taxes?

and what percentage of people actually inherit enough wealth to pay inheritance taxes.

it's my understanding that there are six families behind the fight against inheritance taxes. one of them is the hilton family.

Most people don't pay inheritance tax. It's not meant to generate much revenue. It's meant for social engineering. I believe that it was originally implemented because people thought it would discourage aristocracy.

I believe that most Western countries do not have an estate tax. Canada does not.

YOU MEAN THEY TAX THEIR 'JOB CREATORS' A HIGHER PROGRESSIVE RATE?


Canada is generally viewed as a country with no estate tax. While that's true, what many people don't realize is that a "deemed disposition tax," which is similar to an estate tax, applies when you die. In this article, we'll provide tips on minimizing your estate's exposure to this tax as well as structuring your estate plan to ensure your beneficiaries get the assets you intend for them.

Estate Planning For Canadians

 

[Dad2three]

Calpers was bailed out?

Big time.

{States' troubles are becoming bigger. Hitherto, local governments have acquired infusions of funds from federal budget earmarks, which are now forbidden. Furthermore, states are suffering "ARRA hangover" -- withdrawal from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, aka the 2009 stimulus. With about $150 billion for state and local governments, it raised the federal portion of state budgets from about a quarter to a third.}

Opinion Don t let states like California seek federal bailouts on pensions - San Jose Mercury News

Weird, the stimulus which was 40% tax breaks, was considered a bailout to unions? loll

YOU FUKKKING CRAZY BASTARD!

 

[Dad2three]

Looks to me like the class war is over, the rich won.

That be true! The Oracle of Omaha has said on more than one occasion; that, there is Class Warfare going on in the United States; and, our Side is Winning! End of Discussion!

Please link to where he has said that

Warren Buffet said it perfectly when he said "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

And when he said "there’s been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won."

And when he said "if this is a war – I wouldn’t call it a war, I’d call it a struggle – but, if this is a war, my side has had the nuclear bomb. We’ve got K-Street, we’ve got lobbyists, we’ve got money on our side".

Warren Buffet is very smart and observant.

And Buffet is right in the sense that you are in a war you cannot win against an enemy you'll never defeat. The more you fire the cannons, the more you discover you've just blown another massive hole in your own ship. You're not affecting the rich people, they are two moves ahead of you at all times, and they always will be.

I come at this from a different perspective. Instead of waging war on the rich, exploit the rich! Encourage them to spend that wealth! Make it easier for them to profit and make more wealth! Open those doors of opportunity up and let them do what they do best, create more wealth! This generates economic prosperity. This creates new jobs, new industries, higher wages. You want to really HURT the rich? Make more rich people to compete with them for the wealth!

What you are doing now is not working and will never work. All you are doing is pushing us into a Marxist system that has consistently FAILED to work, time and time again. You don't want to call it Marxism because it's such an utter and disastrous failure, but that is exactly what it is.

Lowest SUSTAINED tax burden on the 'job creators; in 80 years is 'pushing us into Marxist system'? Weird, I guess when the effective tax rate (ON MUCH LESS OF THE PIE, BTW) was more than double, the US didn't have 'freedom' or mobility or a middle class right?

CRAZY BASTARD!

 

[Dad2three]

The rich people contribute the most to society of any of us. Every product or service we value, and are willing to pay for, is a contribution to society. If all the rich left, we'd be in ruins.

I beg to differ, an economy is much better served by 1000 millionaires than one billionaire. The mega-rich only buy so many houses, cars and jet-skis. Increasingly concentrated wealth in a nation where wages really do not move up is a drag on the economy not a boon. People only think we need the mega-rich because they own everything worth owning.

The nation's economy would be doing just fine under the old tax structure. Put an end to off shore tax havens, force billionaires to either invest in the US economy or pay a heavy tax penalty. They all used to pay much higher tax rates than they do now and they did just fine, they all made lots of money any way.

How about abolishing the welfare/warfare state? How about the federal government spending money ONLY on those items SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED in the Constitution?


.

Yes

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution

• The Air Force
• Congressional Districts
• The Electoral College
• Executive Order
• Executive Privilege
• Freedom of Expression
• (Absolute) Freedom of Speech and Press
• "From each according to his ability..."
• God
• Immigration
• Impeachment means removal from office
• Innocent until proven guilty
• It's a free country
• Judicial Review
• Jury of Peers
• "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"
• Marriage
• Martial Law
• No taxation without representation
• Number of Justices in the Supreme Court
• "Of the people, by the people, for the people"
• Paper Money
• Political Parties
• Primary Elections
• Qualifications for Judges
• The right to privacy
• The right to travel
• The right to vote
• The separation of church and state
• The Separation of Powers Clause
• Slavery
• "We hold these truths to be self-evident"

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Neither is taking a shit, fucking or farting. What's your point?

.

Most spending would go away, and the US would look like any other 3rd world shithole that followed conservative/libertarian policy!

 

[Dad2three]

Wgat bailouts for the rich are you talking about?

Ronnie's S&L crisis, Clinton's Latin American/Asian debt crisis and Dubya's subprime crisis!


To name just a few

Chrysler, twice, airlines, what bailouts, with whose tax money. They got the gold mine, we get the shaft...

Chrysler, the airlines, AIG, the banks, are not wealthy people.
So that's a big fail.
btw, Democrats supported those bailouts. Conservatives opposed them.

Really, blue chip stocks are held by low income workers?

The claim was the government bailed out rich people.
There was no bail out of rich people.
Unless you think UAW workers are rich people.

No, Banksters aren't 'rich', they are just 'job creators' right:? lol

Lying piece of shit

 

[Dad2three]

Really, blue chip stocks are held by low income workers?

If they have a 401k they likely have some blue chip stocks.

IF?

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power