War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[Dad2three]

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

Citations?

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/bartlett_fair_tax.pdf


Adding up the Fair Tax

SUMMARY: Mike Huckabee says a national Fair Tax will be like a "magic wand." We say magic wands don't exist.

Critics of the Fair Tax are legion: The harshest say the idea is ridiculous nonsense; the mildest say it's an interesting thought experiment that can't work in practice. Few mainstream economists find the idea a worthwhile policy proposal for several reasons.

"At the end of this story, when you add in some state sales taxes, we could be close to 50 percent," Baker said.
Adding up the Fair Tax PolitiFact

Why The Fair Tax is Unworkable

Why The Fair Tax is Unworkable Arnold Kling EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty


According to Money magazine, while many economists and tax experts support the idea of a consumption tax, many of them view the FairTax proposal as having serious problems with evasion and revenue neutrality
Money Magazine Just how fair is the FairTax - Sep. 7 2005

 

[Dad2three]

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?

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But 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. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."




Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers

If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.

Stephen Budiansky s Liberal Curmudgeon Blog Adam Smith Thomas Jefferson and other fellow travelers

 

[MikeK]

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.

The circulation of money through a nation's economic system is analogous to the circulation of blood through a living organism's arterial system.

Obstructing the flow of blood through an organism is potentially fatal. Likewise, obstructing the flow of money through a nation's economy eventually will result in total collapse.

While little attention is paid by the American public to the $17.5 trillion national debt it is in fact closely analogous to coronary blockage.

At the present time it is estimated that the One Percent category of America's financial aristocracy has participated in the hoarding of approximately $21 trillion in a variety of offshore hiding places.

Super Rich Hide 21 Trillion Offshore Study Says - Forbes

This massive hoard has the same effect on our national economy as would a big ball of solidified fat have on the coronary artery of a living organism.

To prevent death it is unavoidably necessary to remove that blockage by breaking it up and allowing the organism's blood to flow freely throughout the arteries, veins, and capillaries.

 

[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?

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But 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. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."




Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers

If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.

Stephen Budiansky s Liberal Curmudgeon Blog Adam Smith Thomas Jefferson and other fellow travelers

Are you really gonna point to Benjamin Franklin as basis for redistribution of wealth? ROFL he was anti authoritarian.. anti tax... anti-big government... you're a dumb ass.

 

[Discombobulated]

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.

Democrats are Marxists in much the same way as Republicans are Monarchists.

 

[Political Junky]

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?


.

How bout we only spend money on horses and buggies?

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.

Democrats are Marxists in much the same way as Republicans are Monarchists.

The Right were "Royalists" at the time of the Revolution.

 

[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?


.

How bout we only spend money on horses and buggies?

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.

Democrats are Marxists in much the same way as Republicans are Monarchists.

The Right were "Royalists" at the time of the Revolution.

Yep, like today, conservatives fought EVERYTHING that created America. They gave US the Articles of Confederation then fought the creation of the Constitution. They were the confederates, isolationists during both WW's, fought EVERY progressive act that created the America of the 20th century, from labor laws, union rights, civil rights, SS, Medicare, etc

 

[Dad2three]

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?

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But 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. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."




Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers

If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.

Stephen Budiansky s Liberal Curmudgeon Blog Adam Smith Thomas Jefferson and other fellow travelers

Are you really gonna point to Benjamin Franklin as basis for redistribution of wealth? ROFL he was anti authoritarian.. anti tax... anti-big government... you're a dumb ass.

Weird, the guy saying SOCIETY helped create it AND if they need it pony up? lol

WINGNUTTER

 

[MikeK]

The Right were "Royalists" at the time of the Revolution.

Or Tories, which many of them are comparable to today.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But 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. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."




Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers

If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.

Stephen Budiansky s Liberal Curmudgeon Blog Adam Smith Thomas Jefferson and other fellow travelers

Are you really gonna point to Benjamin Franklin as basis for redistribution of wealth? ROFL he was anti authoritarian.. anti tax... anti-big government... you're a dumb ass.

Weird, the guy saying SOCIETY helped create it AND if they need it pony up? lol

WINGNUTTER

He's not talking about redistribution dumb ass. Welfare did not mean the same thing then that it does now. Welfare of the public is things like our national defense, NOT REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH DUMB ASS.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Link?

 

[Dad2three]

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?

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But 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. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."




Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers

If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.

Stephen Budiansky s Liberal Curmudgeon Blog Adam Smith Thomas Jefferson and other fellow travelers

Are you really gonna point to Benjamin Franklin as basis for redistribution of wealth? ROFL he was anti authoritarian.. anti tax... anti-big government... you're a dumb ass.

Weird, the guy saying SOCIETY helped create it AND if they need it pony up? lol

WINGNUTTER

He's not talking about redistribution dumb ass. Welfare did not mean the same thing then that it does now. Welfare of the public is things like our national defense, NOT REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH DUMB ASS.

"But 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. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it"



Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing
By David Cay Johnston

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."


Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html



"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Link?

Weird, I asked YOU for a link on YOUR posit

"About 60% of people say they are worse off under Obamacare, about 20% say they're better. Do the math."

War on The Rich Dumbest Idea in History of Man Page 65 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


But I'll give YOU some links for him

What em Really em Is the Evidence on Taxes and Growth mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

A review of the economic research on the effects of raising ordinary income tax rates Higher revenue unchanged growth and uncertain but potentially large reductions in the growth of inequality Economic Policy Institute

The Economic Impact of Raising Taxes on High-Income Households Jared Bernstein On the Economy

 

[Barb]

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

That's pretty amazing since Conrad Hilton left NONE of his massive estate to his family members. It was all gifted to charity.

Who chairs / controls / administers those charitable trusts?

 

[The Rabbi]

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

That's pretty amazing since Conrad Hilton left NONE of his massive estate to his family members. It was all gifted to charity.

Who chairs / controls / administers those charitable trusts?

Dumbest comment on USMB Today.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But 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. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."




Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers

If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.

Stephen Budiansky s Liberal Curmudgeon Blog Adam Smith Thomas Jefferson and other fellow travelers

Are you really gonna point to Benjamin Franklin as basis for redistribution of wealth? ROFL he was anti authoritarian.. anti tax... anti-big government... you're a dumb ass.

Weird, the guy saying SOCIETY helped create it AND if they need it pony up? lol

WINGNUTTER

He's not talking about redistribution dumb ass. Welfare did not mean the same thing then that it does now. Welfare of the public is things like our national defense, NOT REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH DUMB ASS.

"But 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. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it"



Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing
By David Cay Johnston

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."


Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html



"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson

he's not talking about redistribution of wealth you marxist POS dumb ass.

 

[Boss]

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

You need to go look at a calender, bud... it's NOT 2013!

 

[Boss]

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.
[propaganda link removed]

So fucking what???? I've already explained, it doesn't matter how many wealthy people have wealth. That's the nature of being a wealthy person, you fucking HAVE WEALTH! You're running around with your hair on fire, waving your arms like a crazy person because wealthy people have wealth! Do you expect wealthy people to NOT have wealth? Do you think poor people should have wealth instead? Is there something wrong with your brain that you can't comprehend the word "wealth" and what it means? Of course wealthy people are wealthy... duh! Is it surprising they have MOST of the wealth? That IS why they are called "wealthy!"

Wealth is NOT FINITE! We create more and more wealthy people every single day! Tomorrow, there will be more wealth than there was today, and more people will become wealthy. Trying in vain to punish wealthy people is never going to create a single wealthy person. It's never going to lift anyone out of poverty or do anything for the middle class. All it is doing is discouraging wealthy people from investing, using their wealth to stimulate the economy and create new jobs, and promote a stupid class warfare ideology that has no place in our free society. It is the DUMBEST idea in the history of man!

 

[Boss]

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

Citations?

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/bartlett_fair_tax.pdf


Adding up the Fair Tax

SUMMARY: Mike Huckabee says a national Fair Tax will be like a "magic wand." We say magic wands don't exist.

Critics of the Fair Tax are legion: The harshest say the idea is ridiculous nonsense; the mildest say it's an interesting thought experiment that can't work in practice. Few mainstream economists find the idea a worthwhile policy proposal for several reasons.

"At the end of this story, when you add in some state sales taxes, we could be close to 50 percent," Baker said.
Adding up the Fair Tax PolitiFact

Why The Fair Tax is Unworkable

Why The Fair Tax is Unworkable Arnold Kling EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty


According to Money magazine, while many economists and tax experts support the idea of a consumption tax, many of them view the FairTax proposal as having serious problems with evasion and revenue neutrality
Money Magazine Just how fair is the FairTax - Sep. 7 2005

Okay... You said: "No CREDIBLE economist thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"
I ask you for a citation and you gave me a left-wing think tank writer who is of the opinion that "few mainstream economists think [it's] worthwhile." (a far cry from no credible economist period)
Then you give me Money magazine which admits MANY economists support the idea! (definitely a far cry from 'no credible economist period'!)

I did not ask you if there were some economists who didn't like the Fair Tax idea. I didn't ask you if there were left-wing bloggers who didn't like the idea. I didn't ask you if there were people who were skeptical of it. I asked for a citation to support your claim that "No CREDIBLE economists thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"

You have FAILED to present that!

 

[occupied]

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

Citations?

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/bartlett_fair_tax.pdf


Adding up the Fair Tax

SUMMARY: Mike Huckabee says a national Fair Tax will be like a "magic wand." We say magic wands don't exist.

Critics of the Fair Tax are legion: The harshest say the idea is ridiculous nonsense; the mildest say it's an interesting thought experiment that can't work in practice. Few mainstream economists find the idea a worthwhile policy proposal for several reasons.

"At the end of this story, when you add in some state sales taxes, we could be close to 50 percent," Baker said.
Adding up the Fair Tax PolitiFact

Why The Fair Tax is Unworkable

Why The Fair Tax is Unworkable Arnold Kling EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty


According to Money magazine, while many economists and tax experts support the idea of a consumption tax, many of them view the FairTax proposal as having serious problems with evasion and revenue neutrality
Money Magazine Just how fair is the FairTax - Sep. 7 2005

Okay... You said: "No CREDIBLE economist thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"
I ask you for a citation and you gave me a left-wing think tank writer who is of the opinion that "few mainstream economists think [it's] worthwhile." (a far cry from no credible economist period)
Then you give me Money magazine which admits MANY economists support the idea! (definitely a far cry from 'no credible economist period'!)

I did not ask you if there were some economists who didn't like the Fair Tax idea. I didn't ask you if there were left-wing bloggers who didn't like the idea. I didn't ask you if there were people who were skeptical of it. I asked for a citation to support your claim that "No CREDIBLE economists thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"

You have FAILED to present that!

67 pages and you have failed to convince anyone that the rich are our natural masters and should be treated like unaccountable royalty. If anything you have strengthened resolve with your horrible attitude and derisive attitude towards everyone who isn't rich. With few exceptions the rich do not act like you do and have no need for such a mean-ass hostile cheerleader as you.

Screwing with a person's livelihood is going to bring some negative blow-back. Many of them think we are screwing with their livelihood by taxation and regulation while many of the non-wealthy think they are screwing with our livelihood because the recovery seems to be very one-sided and all of the income growth seems to be for the 1% alone. Hostility on your part does not help their case, if they are indeed blameless in the crash or overtaxed or over-regulated or whatever then attitudes such as yours does them a great disservice.

If you really want to help out your aristocratic masters than quit presenting them as people who will kill any or all of us if we get uppity and go to any length to protect their profit margins because that only confirms my feelings that such dangerous people should be opposed.