You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

[WillowTree]

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

No one says otherwise.

And having ‘the rich’ pay taxes isn’t going to ‘destroy’ them.

They're already paying.

Yes! They are.

 

[DaGoose]

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You need to understand that the pre-Reaganomics tax level didn't "destroy" the rich back then and it certainly won't "destroy" them now. It will simply make them a little less rich. Millionaires will still be millionaires.

Your idea that adjusting the progressive tax rate will severely compromise anyone is based on right wing propaganda. The following list shows the tax rates that existed during the most prosperous and productive decades in our history, those between 1950 and 1980, when Reagan commenced the destruction of the middle class with a series of critical deregulations and tax reductions.

The income tax rate of upper income levels:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf



The following list will give you a general idea of why the tax rate on corporations is in serious need of adjustment.

1) Exxon Mobil – made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

2) Bank of America — received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

3) General Electric — Over the past five years, GE made $26 billion in profits in the United States but still received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

4) Chevron — received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

5) Boeing — received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

6) Valero Energy — the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, has received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

7) Goldman Sachs — in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

8) Citigroup — last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

9) ConocoPhillips — the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

10) Carnival Cruise Lines — Over the past five years, it made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

You need to understand that 'taxing the rich' is attacking individuals. That's who 'the rich' are... people.

And rolling back some of the massive tax cuts they have enjoyed over the past 30 years won't "destroy" them, will it?

.

 

[WillowTree]

Roll back ALL tax cuts for everybody. Fair and flat tax is the way to go. it will end the dimocrats endless class warfare. and welfare too?

 

[DaGoose]

Roll back ALL tax cuts for everybody. Fair and flat tax is the way to go. it will end the dimocrats endless class warfare. and welfare too?

Wow!! You're advocating raising EVERYONE'S taxes??

EVERYONE paying more in taxes to reduce the deficit (along with spending cuts) is the only correct path to resolve this mess.

But don't try and continue blaming Dems for "class warfare" when it was Reagan who cut taxes on the rich while making everyone else pay more. THAT'S when it got started. I remember because I was there.

.

 

[Seawytch]

 

[bripat9643]

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.


More : You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot fight hate by supporting a hater.

Liberal Dictionary:
==============================
Hate - truth

 

[bripat9643]

If the period between 1950 and 1980 was so prosperous what was the purpose of The Great Society?

Buying votes. That has always been the purpose of plunder.

 

[Big Fitz]

It was at 94%, it still is at 40%. Income redistribution is always socialism. Now, if we got rid of all social spending, we'd have no need for such high taxes, people would get to keep more of their money, and charitable organizations would flourish.

But hating the rich for being rich and not giving up money that if it was in your hands, you'd fight tooth and nail for as well, is well... moronic to be polite.

 

[Contumacious]

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.


More : You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

The welfare/warfare state has a voracious appetite.The parasites are like locusts.

,

 

[Ava]

It was at 94%, it still is at 40%. Income redistribution is always socialism. Now, if we got rid of all social spending, we'd have no need for such high taxes, people would get to keep more of their money, and charitable organizations would flourish.

But hating the rich for being rich and not giving up money that if it was in your hands, you'd fight tooth and nail for as well, is well... moronic to be polite.

Most people will always bite the hand that feeds them. It is really themselves they hate for taking it. It is a very unhealthful cycle.

 

[WillowTree]

Roll back ALL tax cuts for everybody. Fair and flat tax is the way to go. it will end the dimocrats endless class warfare. and welfare too?

Wow!! You're advocating raising EVERYONE'S taxes??

EVERYONE paying more in taxes to reduce the deficit (along with spending cuts) is the only correct path to resolve this mess.

But don't try and continue blaming Dems for "class warfare" when it was Reagan who cut taxes on the rich while making everyone else pay more. THAT'S when it got started. I remember because I was there.

.

Hey! asswipe! In case you haven't noticed it's not Republican making stupid ass statements about the rich and about corporations trying to incite the masses into hysteria. I keep asking what you sugar tit suckers are gonna replace the corporatins with?? Still no answer.

 

[Big Fitz]

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You need to understand that the pre-Reaganomics tax level didn't "destroy" the rich back then and it certainly won't "destroy" them now. It will simply make them a little less rich. Millionaires will still be millionaires.

Your idea that adjusting the progressive tax rate will severely compromise anyone is based on right wing propaganda. The following list shows the tax rates that existed during the most prosperous and productive decades in our history, those between 1950 and 1980, when Reagan commenced the destruction of the middle class with a series of critical deregulations and tax reductions.

The income tax rate of upper income levels:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf



The following list will give you a general idea of why the tax rate on corporations is in serious need of adjustment.

1) Exxon Mobil – made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

2) Bank of America — received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

3) General Electric — Over the past five years, GE made $26 billion in profits in the United States but still received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

4) Chevron — received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

5) Boeing — received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

6) Valero Energy — the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, has received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

7) Goldman Sachs — in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

8) Citigroup — last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

9) ConocoPhillips — the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

10) Carnival Cruise Lines — Over the past five years, it made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

If the period between 1950 and 1980 was so prosperous what was the purpose of The Great Society?

Since the Great Society didn't come into effect till the mid 1960's it's hard to credit it with prosperity before then.

The prosperity in the 1950's is due largely in part to the lack of foreign competition in Europe and Japan. They actually increased our prosperity because of the degree of exports we were sending over there. The excess demand for the good life coupled with war bonds being cashed in allowing for excess cash to come about in the middle class, often left to do without since the early 1930's went berzerk in the domestic market. This of course inspired a boom in the manufacturing industry converted over from WW2 and just hitting it's stride.

By the time it was starting to decline, Kennedy introduced his tax cuts and the economy shot off again and was then promptly used to fund the Great Society AND Vietnam War, dampening how high we could have really gone. The Great Society then managed to destroy minority (primarily Black) families it was supposed to help as well as make it easier to be poor and stay there, while the War in Vietnam drained away resources on the domino theory which ultimately failed and damaged severely US Military morale and nearly split the nation in two socially. Probably the worst decade in American history, save the one 100 years prior.

But MikeK's complaint that corporations need to be taxed more is silly at best. They do not need to be taxed more, we need to make ourselves a better investment. How do we do that? Simple, simplify the tax code, lower the taxes so they don't feel the need to hide their wealth because there are no better alternatives and eliminate loopholes. If you don't want someone to run from you, don't punish them all the time, and quit providing them with escape routes from their obligations. It's like a parent saying "eat your spinach or I'll beat you. But if you go over to your friends house, I can't beat you and wont stop you", the child then screaming no, and running next door to eat cookies with his friend. Not only did the child avoid the beating, they got cookies instead of spinach. That is how a globalist economy works when you make yourself a bad nation for investment.

You want that money back? Fine, make us a good investment. Of course, the logistics of doing that is to end the effort to become a socialist nation. Crazy that. Capitalists don't do well in socialist structures. Huh... and of course... socialists don't do well in capitalist structures either.

Of course, the crux of MikeK's complaint is still "Mommy Mommy he got a bigger slice of pie" ethics, ignoring how much of the pie 'Mommy' eats till he becomes 'Mommy'.

 

[Big Fitz]

Oh and another point that I just discussed with someone else on another board that is related.

When the rich have less money to spend on luxuries, this can severely hurt the middle class. I know I know, 'who needs 7 corporate jets'? Well simply put the aircraft manufacturer sure needs those 7 orders. They have hundreds of employees that have thousands more in related industries that depend on it. Everything from linen and Janitorial companies, to parts manufacturers, to tech help desks fixing problems with outside vender software to food service, from security to administrative temp agencies. All of these depend on those 7 private jets. Each purchase causes an economic 'churn' that after you pass that first transaction from rich person to the manufacturer, the money scatters out and then begins to multiply economic effect. One jet supplies the livelihoods of tens of thousands of related people. Now this isn't just 'in industry' people, but from the manufacturer, to their suppliers and support to the geographically related industries as well. The girl working the second shift at Subway can now pay rent and maybe have a little left over to buy something frivilous at Spencer Gifts. The mom of 3 working 2 at the local supermarket and hair salon can now afford diapers for her youngest and going out to the local tavern on Friday. Some go-getter working for a local tax firm as a freshly minted accountant can now invest a little more in a hot stock helping someone else's dreams, or even the local jet manufacturer down the road increasing more his local economy's health.

You see? That one purchase spawns a massive re use in revenue. It is not wasted. It gives life to entire cities and beyond.

So you take away that money, that jet purchase goes away, life in that jet manufacturing town decreases a little as the belt has to get a little tighter. But the government is there with a small portion of that money, to give only to those it deems the most needy, which grows a little every day thanks to the lack of industry in the town. Back in DC the bureaucrats on the other hand grow as more people are needed to shuffle papers back and forth, decide who should be helped and who shouldn't and their pay goes up as the job gets more stressful, meaning less money for the rest of the nation to be divvied up at their whim.

THIS is why you want to leave the rich alone. I've seen it in real life through a city that exists off of ship building. I've seen it with the paper industry as well. Supply side works as long as you make sure you are the best damn investment for their money in the world.

 

[Seawytch]

It was at 94%, it still is at 40%. Income redistribution is always socialism. Now, if we got rid of all social spending, we'd have no need for such high taxes, people would get to keep more of their money, and charitable organizations would flourish.

But hating the rich for being rich and not giving up money that if it was in your hands, you'd fight tooth and nail for as well, is well... moronic to be polite.

It's not at 40%.

So, asking the rich to share some of the burden of two wars not payed for equals hate, but cutting vital services off to those that need it most is fiscal responsibility?

The "job creators" haven't created a single job in 12 years of having these tax breaks.

You know, if they are taxed at a higher rate, they actually have more incentive to invest in their companies instead of just sitting on their piles and piles and piles of money.

People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit by a 2-to-1 Margin

 

[Contumacious]

THIS is why you want to leave the rich alone. I've seen it in real life through a city that exists off of ship building. I've seen it with the paper industry as well. Supply side works as long as you make sure you are the best damn investment for their money in the world.

Americans spend 12 years in government brainwashing centers where they learn that rich folks are bad government bureaucrats are good.

.

 

[Big Fitz]

It was at 94%, it still is at 40%. Income redistribution is always socialism. Now, if we got rid of all social spending, we'd have no need for such high taxes, people would get to keep more of their money, and charitable organizations would flourish.

But hating the rich for being rich and not giving up money that if it was in your hands, you'd fight tooth and nail for as well, is well... moronic to be polite.

It's not at 40%.

So, asking the rich to share some of the burden of two wars not payed for equals hate, but cutting vital services off to those that need it most is fiscal responsibility?

The "job creators" haven't created a single job in 12 years of having these tax breaks.

You know, if they are taxed at a higher rate, they actually have more incentive to invest in their companies instead of just sitting on their piles and piles and piles of money.

People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit by a 2-to-1 Margin

Ah yes, the loaded argument. Higher taxes to decrease deficit. Except every time this has been done, like Lucy pulling the football away, has not been spent accordingly. Therefore, this poll is worthless. Every single time revenue increases, spending increases dramatically as well. We need REAL budget cuts. We need the feds to be stripped of their unconstitutional agencies and expenditures. THAT is the only way back to fiscal responsibility.

Not to mention it's from a blog which makes it insanely suspect of any truthiness whatsoever. I love how they couch their questions by lumping the Some/All taxes together for a better number versus None. Yeah, way to fudge the figures. It's an obvious shill when the right does it as well as the left.

Before I even consider tax increases, I want to see guaranteed trillions of dollars of REAL cuts, shutting down of agencies and decrease in the size of the overall budget to BELOW equilibrium before I consider a tax increase to 'pay off the debt'.

That may work on the suckers in the sticks... but not on this little black duck. Love how the author of this particular blog has written 3 political attack books against Supply Side economics. Yep. he's not biased at all.

 

[Big Fitz]

THIS is why you want to leave the rich alone. I've seen it in real life through a city that exists off of ship building. I've seen it with the paper industry as well. Supply side works as long as you make sure you are the best damn investment for their money in the world.

Americans spend 12 years in government brainwashing centers where they learn that rich folks are bad government bureaucrats are good.

.

I never went to one of those. I did get sentenced to a government brainwashing center where I was told that government is the solution to all problems and private ownership and individual rights are bad and should be ended.

It didn't take.

 

[Nosmo King]

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.


More : You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot cut taxes on the wealthy, fight two wars, introduce a poorly conceived Medicare drug plan, turn a blind eye to Wall Street corruption, bail them out after their utter failure to the tune of a trillion dollars and then ask for the position of "responsible accountant" after losing the White House.

 

[Sunshine]

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.


More : You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

The internet is an amazing thing. Only on the internet have I seen people who believe that the rich need the help of hourly workers.

Roughly 95% of this country's wealth is in the hands of 1% of the people. Trust me, they do NOT need your advocacy nor your help.

 

[Trajan]

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You need to understand that the pre-Reaganomics tax level didn't "destroy" the rich back then and it certainly won't "destroy" them now. It will simply make them a little less rich. Millionaires will still be millionaires.

Your idea that adjusting the progressive tax rate will severely compromise anyone is based on right wing propaganda. The following list shows the tax rates that existed during the most prosperous and productive decades in our history, those between 1950 and 1980, when Reagan commenced the destruction of the middle class with a series of critical deregulations and tax reductions.

The income tax rate of upper income levels:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf



The following list will give you a general idea of why the tax rate on corporations is in serious need of adjustment.

1) Exxon Mobil – made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

2) Bank of America — received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

3) General Electric — Over the past five years, GE made $26 billion in profits in the United States but still received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

4) Chevron — received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

5) Boeing — received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

6) Valero Energy — the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, has received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

7) Goldman Sachs — in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

8) Citigroup — last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

9) ConocoPhillips — the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

10) Carnival Cruise Lines — Over the past five years, it made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

hummmmm

*shrugs*

ExxonMobil reported its first quarter 2011 earnings today, which came in at $10.65 billion, an increase of 69% from the same quarter last year when it earned $6.3 billion. While the huge earnings amount captured all of the media attention, several other items received much less attention (see chart above):

1. ExxonMobil paid $8 billion in income taxes to various governments in the first quarter, which is about $22 million in income taxes each day, or almost $1 million each hour.

2. ExxonMobil spent $7.8 billion in the first quarter on capital equipment and exploration (73% of its after-tax earnings), or more than $21 million per day, which is an increase of 14% compared to the first quarter last year. Over the next five years, the oil company plans to invest about $175 billion in capital equipment and exploration - that's equivalent to almost the entire GDP of the Philippines in 2010.

3. Compared to the first quarter last year, ExxonMobil increased its output of oil and natural gas by 10%, and a large part of that increased output came from a 192% increase in natural gas production in the United States, thanks to new advanced drilling technologies like hydraulic fracturing. While higher oil prices certainly played a major role in increasing Exxon's profits, the role of increased output shouldn't be ignored. And we shouldn't forget that retail natural gas prices in the United States, adjusted for inflation, are the lowest now since December 2002, in large part due to increased domestic production from companies like Exxon.


more at-

CARPE DIEM: QI: Exxon Paid Almost $1M per Hour in Income Taxes and Its Effective Tax Rate Was 42.3%