Why We Must Raise Taxes On The Rich:

[Charles_Main]

Why We Must Raise Taxes on the Rich
Wednesday 6 April 2011
by: Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

It’s tax time. It’s also a time when right-wing Republicans are setting the agenda for massive spending cuts that will hurt most Americans.

Here’s the truth: The only way America can reduce the long-term budget deficit, maintain vital services, protect Social Security and Medicare, invest more in education and infrastructure, and not raise taxes on the working middle class is by raising taxes on the super rich.

Even if we got rid of corporate welfare subsidies for big oil, big agriculture, and big Pharma – even if we cut back on our bloated defense budget – it wouldn’t be nearly enough.

Read the whole article before disputing what Reich is saying:
Why We Must Raise Taxes on the Rich | Truthout

Joe Stiglitz is saying pretty much the same thing.

"The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live.

"Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late."

This time it is different. All those other times that the rich learned the hard way. The rich were paying nothing and taking from others. Here in America the top 2 % pay well over half the total tax load. They are paying!

 

[Ernie S.]

It started by listing the author as Robert Reich. A sane person would stop reading right there.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Why We Must Raise Taxes on the Rich
Wednesday 6 April 2011
by: Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

It’s tax time. It’s also a time when right-wing Republicans are setting the agenda for massive spending cuts that will hurt most Americans.

Here’s the truth: The only way America can reduce the long-term budget deficit, maintain vital services, protect Social Security and Medicare, invest more in education and infrastructure, and not raise taxes on the working middle class is by raising taxes on the super rich.

Even if we got rid of corporate welfare subsidies for big oil, big agriculture, and big Pharma – even if we cut back on our bloated defense budget – it wouldn’t be nearly enough.

Read the whole article before disputing what Reich is saying:
Why We Must Raise Taxes on the Rich | Truthout

Why would I spend a moment reading anything by Robert Reich?

 

[georgephillip]

Anybody who claims that creating a massive federal bureaucratic apparatus (i.e. "single payer" socialized medical services) as a way to save money has zero credibility whatsoever.

His dreck is just another re-re-re-re-rehashing of classic leftist wealth envy, flimsily cowering behind the rubric of fiscal responsibility.

Reich's Wiki

Oddball's Wiki ?

"If the rich were taxed at the same rates they were half a century ago, they’d be paying in over $350 billion more this year alone, which translates into trillions over the next decade. That’s enough to accomplish everything the nation needs while also reducing future deficits."

Do you find this credible?

Why We Must Raise Taxes on the Rich | Truthout

 

[Ernie S.]

Why We Must Raise Taxes on the Rich
Wednesday 6 April 2011
by: Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

It’s tax time. It’s also a time when right-wing Republicans are setting the agenda for massive spending cuts that will hurt most Americans.

Here’s the truth: The only way America can reduce the long-term budget deficit, maintain vital services, protect Social Security and Medicare, invest more in education and infrastructure, and not raise taxes on the working middle class is by raising taxes on the super rich.

Even if we got rid of corporate welfare subsidies for big oil, big agriculture, and big Pharma – even if we cut back on our bloated defense budget – it wouldn’t be nearly enough.

Read the whole article before disputing what Reich is saying:
Why We Must Raise Taxes on the Rich | Truthout

Joe Stiglitz is saying pretty much the same thing.

"The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live.

"Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late."

Here's what you fail to admit. The top 1% EARNED the right to own the best homes, get the best educations, be seen by the best doctors and live the best lifestyles. YOU DIDN'T.

 

[Oddball]

It started by listing the author as Robert Reich. A sane person would stop reading right there.

Hell, I gave the socialist drip the benefit of the doubt and read his piece.

If he wasn't serious, it would be high comedy.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It's not an 'article', it's a blog.

I would love to see us adopted the 50% tax ,
everyone pays 50% of their wages to the government ,
and we get free collage , health care , and more . all of our services fire police , cover everything , no matter rich poor or middle class .

Oh brother.

 

[westwall]

Anybody who claims that creating a massive federal bureaucratic apparatus (i.e. "single payer" socialized medical services) as a way to save money has zero credibility whatsoever.

Why? It's working very well in every country where it's in place, e.g., Canada, France, Germany, et.al. The problems here are bureaucracy, fraud and mismanagement, all of which can be controlled with sensible regulation.

His dreck is just another re-re-re-re-rehashing of classic leftist wealth envy, flimsily cowering behind the rubric of fiscal responsibility.

Your country is presently burdened with a crushing national debt. Robert Reich's academically competent advice led to the economic success of the Clinton Administration and now he's telling us how to best deal with our debt problem. But you have somehow worked it out that "envy" of the rich has fostered his reasoning.

You've become a Johnny One-Note with this "envy" theory. Who planted that notion in your mind -- Limbaugh, Beck or Hannity?

Yes it works so well for Canada that a Canadian politician came to the States to get her life saving operation. You need to get some better facts.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXJgkvF19QA]YouTube - Health Care: Does Canada Do It Better?[/ame]

 

[Oddball]

Anybody who claims that creating a massive federal bureaucratic apparatus (i.e. "single payer" socialized medical services) as a way to save money has zero credibility whatsoever.

His dreck is just another re-re-re-re-rehashing of classic leftist wealth envy, flimsily cowering behind the rubric of fiscal responsibility.

Reich's Wiki

Oddball's Wiki ?

"If the rich were taxed at the same rates they were half a century ago, they’d be paying in over $350 billion more this year alone, which translates into trillions over the next decade. That’s enough to accomplish everything the nation needs while also reducing future deficits."

Do you find this credible?

Why We Must Raise Taxes on the Rich | Truthout

It's the same insipid piece linked in the OP, dumbfuck.

Please try to keep up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Robert Reich...

He's starting with a flawed premise:

The only way America can reduce the long-term budget deficit, maintain vital services, protect Social Security and Medicare, invest more in education and infrastructure, and not raise taxes on the working middle class is by raising taxes on the super rich.

He has no interest in making social security and medicare more efficient by using free market solutions and we already pay way too much for education. He'll have to define what he means by infrastructure because that could mean anything.

I like how he whizzed over the whole idea of cutting spending like a man skating over thin ice: we can't balance the budget just by cutting corporate subsidies and the defense budget, so fuck the whole idea. We obviously need to raise taxes. Yeah, because those are the ONLY two POSSIBLE places to cut the federal budget. Everything else is a lean, mean, cut-to-the-bone budget machine, right?

 

[midcan5]

It is a waste debating with the rich wannabes, like lottery players they too will be rich one day, and being a responsible citizen is just not part of their makeup. Whenever I hear we are an 'exceptional' nation or a 'religious' nation, I check my address twice? But knowing a fair amount of the really well to do, I laugh that anyone worships them.

"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."

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well." Tax cuts spur economic growth

UBI and the Flat Tax

The rich get rich because of their merit.

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


"For the mature Orwell, Christianity was no more than a "lie, a semi-conscious device for keeping the rich rich and the poor poor. The poor were to be contented with their poverty, because it would all be made up to them in the world beyond the grave, usually pictured as something mid-way between Kew Gardens and a jeweller's shop. Ten thousand a year for me, two pounds a week for you, but we are all the children of God."" George Orwell

 

[Political Junky]

Anybody who claims that creating a massive federal bureaucratic apparatus (i.e. "single payer" socialized medical services) as a way to save money has zero credibility whatsoever.

Why? It's working very well in every country where it's in place, e.g., Canada, France, Germany, et.al. The problems here are bureaucracy, fraud and mismanagement, all of which can be controlled with sensible regulation.

His dreck is just another re-re-re-re-rehashing of classic leftist wealth envy, flimsily cowering behind the rubric of fiscal responsibility.

Your country is presently burdened with a crushing national debt. Robert Reich's academically competent advice led to the economic success of the Clinton Administration and now he's telling us how to best deal with our debt problem. But you have somehow worked it out that "envy" of the rich has fostered his reasoning.

You've become a Johnny One-Note with this "envy" theory. Who planted that notion in your mind -- Limbaugh, Beck or Hannity?

They don't like that. It reminds them that the debt is totally due to the republicon party under Bush.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Having seen what the so-called "free market" has done to our economy over the past three decades you are still a Milton Friedman acolyte? Interesting.

Dude, you are so lost. When was the last time we had a free market in this country? Not in my lifetime, that's for sure.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Why? It's working very well in every country where it's in place, e.g., Canada, France, Germany, et.al.

Where the hell did you get that idea from??

High death rates at 19 NHS hospitals revealed | Mail Online

NHS facing record funding £15m funding shortfall as experts warn service 'will not survive without major changes' | Mail Online

NHS short of 4,500 midwives, health service boss tells PAC | Mail Online

Pick up a British newspaper any day of the week and see how awful the NHS is.

Then there was this expose done by the LA Times just a few years ago.

Universal healthcare's dirty little secrets - latimes.com

 

[georgephillip]

Anybody who claims that creating a massive federal bureaucratic apparatus (i.e. "single payer" socialized medical services) as a way to save money has zero credibility whatsoever.

His dreck is just another re-re-re-re-rehashing of classic leftist wealth envy, flimsily cowering behind the rubric of fiscal responsibility.

Reich's Wiki

Oddball's Wiki ?

"If the rich were taxed at the same rates they were half a century ago, they’d be paying in over $350 billion more this year alone, which translates into trillions over the next decade. That’s enough to accomplish everything the nation needs while also reducing future deficits."

Do you find this credible?

Why We Must Raise Taxes on the Rich | Truthout

It's the same insipid piece linked in the OP, dumbfuck.

Please try to keep up.

Rhymes with rich

If the rich paid taxes today at the same rates they paid 50 years ago, they would pay in over $350 billion more this year alone.

Credible?

Or not?

 

[Oddball]

Robert Reich's academically competent advice led to the economic success of the Clinton Administration and now he's telling us how to best deal with our debt problem.

Complete...Utter....Total...Bullshit.

During the '92 presidential campaign and after, Perot pointed out numerous times that, given the 3-ish% growth rate and revenue taken by the feds under the current taxing and spending structure, the budget was going to balance all by itself in 2002.

Buuba didn't do that...Reich didn't do that....The republican congress didn't do that.

 

[Oddball]

Reich's Wiki

Oddball's Wiki ?

"If the rich were taxed at the same rates they were half a century ago, they’d be paying in over $350 billion more this year alone, which translates into trillions over the next decade. That’s enough to accomplish everything the nation needs while also reducing future deficits."

Do you find this credible?

Why We Must Raise Taxes on the Rich | Truthout

It's the same insipid piece linked in the OP, dumbfuck.

Please try to keep up.

Rhymes with rich

If the rich paid taxes today at the same rates they paid 50 years ago, they would pay in over $350 billion more this year alone.

Credible?

Or not?

If robins had machine guns, robins wouldn't fuck with them.

In the meantime, he claims that fully socialized medical services will save money, when not a one of you schmucks -or Reich for that matter- can point to just one federal welfare state program that has ever come in at or below the costs projected for it when enacted.

 

[georgephillip]

Why We Must Raise Taxes on the Rich
Wednesday 6 April 2011
by: Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog



Read the whole article before disputing what Reich is saying:
Why We Must Raise Taxes on the Rich | Truthout

Joe Stiglitz is saying pretty much the same thing.

"The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live.

"Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late."

This time it is different. All those other times that the rich learned the hard way. The rich were paying nothing and taking from others. Here in America the top 2 % pay well over half the total tax load. They are paying!

Currently the richest 1% "earn" nearly a quarter of US national income and they control 40% of national wealth.

"Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent. One response might be to celebrate the ingenuity and drive that brought good fortune to these people, and to contend that a rising tide lifts all boats.

"That response would be misguided. While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall.

"For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades—and more—has gone to those at the top.

"In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride. Among our closest counterparts are Russia with its oligarchs and Iran."

In the last three years the richest 1% were either directly responsible for the Great Recession or they have increased their share of national wealth by nearly two percentage points in its aftermath. It's long past time for the parasites to pay the same tax rates they paid fifty years ago.

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% | Society | Vanity Fair

 

[georgephillip]

Why We Must Raise Taxes on the Rich
Wednesday 6 April 2011
by: Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog



Read the whole article before disputing what Reich is saying:
Why We Must Raise Taxes on the Rich | Truthout

Joe Stiglitz is saying pretty much the same thing.

"The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live.

"Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late."

Here's what you fail to admit. The top 1% EARNED the right to own the best homes, get the best educations, be seen by the best doctors and live the best lifestyles. YOU DIDN'T.

I didn't inflate and crash a credit/housing bubble either.
Did you?

I didn't bribe Republicans AND Democrats to outsource millions of middle class jobs while encouraging junk bond dealers to destroy the industry left behind. Did you?

Many of the richest 1% did NOT earn their rewards they STOLE them and they have no plans to give anything back.

"But one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. The most obvious example involves tax policy. Lowering tax rates on capital gains, which is how the rich receive a large portion of their income, has given the wealthiest Americans close to a free ride.

"Monopolies and near monopolies have always been a source of economic power—from John D. Rockefeller at the beginning of the last century to Bill Gates at the end. Lax enforcement of anti-trust laws, especially during Republican administrations, has been a godsend to the top 1 percent.

"Much of today’s inequality is due to manipulation of the financial system, enabled by changes in the rules that have been bought and paid for by the financial industry itself—one of its best investments ever.

"The government lent money to financial institutions at close to 0 percent interest and provided generous bailouts on favorable terms when all else failed. Regulators turned a blind eye to a lack of transparency and to conflicts of interest."

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% | Society | Vanity Fair

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners.

And who would that be exactly, Karl?

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."

In other words, everyone would be dirt fucking poor and have a vastly lower standard of living with the exception of the .005% of the population who make up the ruling class who would be living high off of the hog like in the old USSR.

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

God you people are so fucking ignorant. Do you understand that correlation does not equal causation? Do you know how many times I have already explained this in various threads. Ok, here it goes again. Do you know why the U.S. was able to survive the 1940s and 1950s with 80 and 90% top tax brackets? Because we were one of only a few nations in the world producing anything. Europe was blown to shit from WWII and was rebuilding their infrastructure. We were manufacturing and exporting everything to everyone. You'll notice that as Europe came back online our economy began to decline and that is why JFK cut the top tax rates to 70% and then Reagan did so again to 50% and eventually down to 28%. Every time this happened the American economy improved. That is a fact, plain and simple. Deal with it.