64% Say Tax the Rich!

[chikenwing]

Just for a fun distraction,what were the percentage per bracket in the 2003 tax law?

who had the largest cut??,not who had the largest refunds,but the largest percentage cut from their bracket?? the real numbers are out there for anyone to see.

 

[DiamondDave]

You do realize that property and income taxes are different things... and what was the value per acre?? I have owned property that I bought for CHEAP just to have it, paying less than $400 per acre, just for a place to camp in the middle of nowhere

This is pure bullshit sensationalism

"Alabama's tax system is most abusive because it taxes items like milk, yet offers tax breaks for certain farm products," she said in a Huntsville Times (3/26/03) interview. 'It's also unfair to allow timberland (which Hamill found out accounts for 71 percent of Alabama land) to generate only two percent of all state property taxes.'"

71% of the land generating 2% of all state property taxes.
Get it?
Maybe this will help

"Alabamians with incomes under $13,000 pay 10.9 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes while those who make over $229,000 pay just 4.1 percent.

"Commercial property owners pay more than 50 percent of property taxes, with homes approaching one-third.

"Alabama's sales taxes are among the highest in the nation, up to 10 percent in some areas, and do not exempt even the most basic necessities such as food.

"The state's 1901 constitution was written primarily by large landholders to secure their economic interests, consequently property taxes are extremely light on their holdings."

btw, most rational people can find ways to camp in the middle of nowhere without buying the land.

BTW... I wanted the land... and in a free society.... I bought it...

And the poor should pay the same tax on every dollar earned as everyone else.. that is except in the eyes of leftists like yourself, who only believe in selective equal treatment by government

 

[DiamondDave]

Diamond Dave,

You're either shilling or woefully, terribly, amazingly naive.

This idea that if we only stop taxing the rich then they'll benevolently sprinkle the lesser people with jobs is not only erroneous, but historically inaccurate.

#1 The Bush/Obama Stimulus was 40% tax cuts. If you say the stimulus didn't work (as most conservatives do) then you're admitting that tax cuts don't help.

#2 Trickle-down theory has been disproven:

This graph shows the fluctuations of the real GDP growth rate over the period, indicating the performance of the U.S. economy as a whole. It is true that growth increased drastically after the 1982 tax cut, reaching as high as 7.3% in 1984. However, as the Reagan-Bush, Sr. administrations went on and taxes for the rich were slashed even further, growth fell to negative levels during 1991, at the heart of the last recession. And, two of the three years with the highest growth were during the 1950s, when the top tax rate was 91%. Overall, there seems to be no close relationship between the top tax rate and the GDP growth rate, and statistical analysis backs this up: the correlation coefficient between the two variables is 0.03, meaning that there is essentially no connection. (If tax cuts were strongly related to GDP growth, we would see a coefficient close to -1.) So much for upper-class tax cuts boosting the economy; now it's on to median income growth.

Same for income growth, wage growth, and job creation. It just doesn't work.

Link

#3 Simple logic: When rich people get to keep more of their money they have two basic choices - spend or don't spend. I can't make it easier for you than that. Even if we assume that spending the retained money and spending it via re-investment could be profitable...it doesnt mean that it will be profitable. Why does that matter? Because rich people know that. And it means that they won't necessarily risk their money. Which means that they save it. Don't spend it.

Like it or not we're in a crisis. One that's going to take more money. Either you can take it from those that will feel it less or you can speed up the crisis by taking it from those who will feel it more.

What you simply just don't understand is that while it might not be "fair" to tax rich people more...the alternative is the whole ******* system going down in ******* flames. Is that what you want? Seriously? You want the apocalypse now?

Sorry, I'm not naive. And I don't.

never condoned "not taxing the rich"... I condone equal rate taxation on every dollar earned... I've repeated that enough times that you should know it by now

 

[georgephillip]

You do realize that property and income taxes are different things... and what was the value per acre?? I have owned property that I bought for CHEAP just to have it, paying less than $400 per acre, just for a place to camp in the middle of nowhere

This is pure bullshit sensationalism

"Alabama's tax system is most abusive because it taxes items like milk, yet offers tax breaks for certain farm products," she said in a Huntsville Times (3/26/03) interview. 'It's also unfair to allow timberland (which Hamill found out accounts for 71 percent of Alabama land) to generate only two percent of all state property taxes.'"

71% of the land generating 2% of all state property taxes.
Get it?
Maybe this will help

"Alabamians with incomes under $13,000 pay 10.9 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes while those who make over $229,000 pay just 4.1 percent.

"Commercial property owners pay more than 50 percent of property taxes, with homes approaching one-third.

"Alabama's sales taxes are among the highest in the nation, up to 10 percent in some areas, and do not exempt even the most basic necessities such as food.

"The state's 1901 constitution was written primarily by large landholders to secure their economic interests, consequently property taxes are extremely light on their holdings."

btw, most rational people can find ways to camp in the middle of nowhere without buying the land.

BTW... I wanted the land... and in a free society.... I bought it...

And the poor should pay the same tax on every dollar earned as everyone else.. that is except in the eyes of leftists like yourself, who only believe in selective equal treatment by government

Except it isn't leftists like me who support the government's selective equal treatment of billionaires who pay taxes at half the rate of their bodyguards.

Why can't righties like you see how all governments manipulate their tax codes for the benefit of their richest citizens?

 

[RachelMadcow]

so the poll states: we currently have more democrat parasites than republican producers.

 

[georgephillip]

"Any Tea Baggers want to stick up for the rights of the over taxed Dems and Minorities who live in Urban Areas and suburbs?

"Any Tea Baggers want to give up their handouts and promise to only take from the government no more than their state takes in from the government?

"Its time we stop letting ourselves be scapegoats too Fracking Parasites!"

Lies my Parasite told me Or Unequal Representation lets the GOP win Elections and rewards failure! | MyFDL

 

[DiamondDave]

"Alabama's tax system is most abusive because it taxes items like milk, yet offers tax breaks for certain farm products," she said in a Huntsville Times (3/26/03) interview. 'It's also unfair to allow timberland (which Hamill found out accounts for 71 percent of Alabama land) to generate only two percent of all state property taxes.'"

71% of the land generating 2% of all state property taxes.
Get it?
Maybe this will help

"Alabamians with incomes under $13,000 pay 10.9 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes while those who make over $229,000 pay just 4.1 percent.

"Commercial property owners pay more than 50 percent of property taxes, with homes approaching one-third.

"Alabama's sales taxes are among the highest in the nation, up to 10 percent in some areas, and do not exempt even the most basic necessities such as food.

"The state's 1901 constitution was written primarily by large landholders to secure their economic interests, consequently property taxes are extremely light on their holdings."

btw, most rational people can find ways to camp in the middle of nowhere without buying the land.

BTW... I wanted the land... and in a free society.... I bought it...

And the poor should pay the same tax on every dollar earned as everyone else.. that is except in the eyes of leftists like yourself, who only believe in selective equal treatment by government

Except it isn't leftists like me who support the government's selective equal treatment of billionaires who pay taxes at half the rate of their bodyguards.

Why can't righties like you see how all governments manipulate their tax codes for the benefit of their richest citizens?

You don't mind inequality when it suits you... period...

Whereas someone like me... who does not want to see ANY CITIZEN pay a higher or lower % on every dollar earned, does stand for true equal treatment by government

 

[chikenwing]

BFD 100% of the people at one times thought the world was flat!

 

[georgephillip]

BTW... I wanted the land... and in a free society.... I bought it...

And the poor should pay the same tax on every dollar earned as everyone else.. that is except in the eyes of leftists like yourself, who only believe in selective equal treatment by government

Except it isn't leftists like me who support the government's selective equal treatment of billionaires who pay taxes at half the rate of their bodyguards.

Why can't righties like you see how all governments manipulate their tax codes for the benefit of their richest citizens?

You don't mind inequality when it suits you... period...

Whereas someone like me... who does not want to see ANY CITIZEN pay a higher or lower % on every dollar earned, does stand for true equal treatment by government

If it's true the share of pre-tax income earned by the richest 1% of citizens has increased from about 8% in 1974 to more than 18% in 2007 while middle class incomes flat-lined over the same time period, did government's tax regulations on % of every dollar earned play a role?

Do you think it's a coincidence Republican AND Democrats receive most of their campaign contribution from the richest 1% of US citizens?

The level of income inequality we have seen in this country since the mid-70s could NOT have occurred without government treating some of its citizens more equally than others.

 

[georgephillip]

Just for a fun distraction,what were the percentage per bracket in the 2003 tax law?

who had the largest cut??,not who had the largest refunds,but the largest percentage cut from their bracket?? the real numbers are out there for anyone to see.

Then why didn't you post them?

Do you think the rich are currently over-taxed in the US?

 

[Annie]

Interestingly when given choices, Americans seem to make wiser ones than the politicians responsible for doing so:

Program for Public Consultation

It's not all tax the rich or remove all safety nets.

 

[chikenwing]

Interestingly when given choices, Americans seem to make wiser ones than the politicians responsible for doing so:


MMMMMMMMMM who put them there??

 

[M14 Shooter]

If it's class warfare to increase taxes on billionaires, was it not also class warefare when their taxes were reduced?

"Class welfare" pits one class of people against each other for political gain, by promising to take from one group and give it to another group.
So, no.

 

[chikenwing]

Term limits because we can't trust ourselves

Balanced budget amendment because we can't trust them.

 

[georgephillip]

Interestingly when given choices, Americans seem to make wiser ones than the politicians responsible for doing so:

Program for Public Consultation

It's not all tax the rich or remove all safety nets.

Possibly those Americans making wiser choices do so because they don't have to raise campaign funds from the richest 1% of their countrymen?

Recently Simon Johnson has written about a $10 trillion increase in end-year 2018 debt that he attributes to the Great Recession that followed the financial crisis of late 2008.

"In early 2008, the CBO projected that debt as a percent of gross domestic product would fall from 36.8 percent to 22.6 percent at the end of 2018.

"In contrast, the latest CBO forecast has debt soaring to 75.3 percent of GDP in 2018.

"What caused this stunning reversal, which in dollar terms works out to a $10 trillion swing for end-year 2018 debt, from $5.1 trillion to $15.8 trillion?

"Almost all of this increase is due to the severe recession that followed the financial crisis of late 2008. This lowered output and employment, and therefore reduced tax revenue."

Since the political elite that now whine constantly about the fiscal deficit have made no serious effort to make the financial sector any safer after the events of late 2008, is there any good reason to think the Program for Public Consultation's deficit reductions won't be undone by another round of Wall Street looting?

And when, not if, that looting occurs, should the richest 1% be allowed to increase their share of national wealth again?

Fiscal Conservatives Dodge $10 Trillion Debt: Simon Johnson - Bloomberg

 

[georgephillip]

Interestingly when given choices, Americans seem to make wiser ones than the politicians responsible for doing so:


MMMMMMMMMM who put them there??

The richest 1% of individual citizens and major transnational corporate citizens paid for putting them there.

 

[georgephillip]

If it's class warfare to increase taxes on billionaires, was it not also class warefare when their taxes were reduced?

"Class welfare" pits one class of people against each other for political gain, by promising to take from one group and give it to another group.
So, no.

When the richest 2% of Americans used the $13 trillion Bush/Obama Wall Street bail-out to nearly double their share of returns to wealth in less than a generation, were they using their political influence to take from others?

"Obama seems to be campaigning for his own defeat! Thanks largely to the $13 trillion Wall Street bailout – while keeping the debt overhead in place for America’s 'bottom 98 per cent' – this happy 2 per cent of the population now receives an estimated three quarters (~75 per cent) of the returns to wealth (interest, dividends, rent and capital gains).

"This is nearly double what it received a generation ago. The rest of the population is being squeezed, and foreclosures are rising."

Michael Hudson: Obama's Greatest Betrayal

 

[The Gadfly]

The US has 413 billionaires

8.4 million Americans are millionaires

Explain why they should pay a lower percentage of taxes.

Rich people do NOT make jobs. Jobs are created from fulfulling the demand in "supply and demand". When no one has any money, there is no demand, leaving companies to fight over selling the basic necessities. Prices go up on those basics because of speculation from an unregulated Wall Street. The truth is RIGHT THERE. It's like arguing with the sky. Argue all you want, but it's still the sky.

Dood. The burden is on you to prove why anyone should pay MORE. It is not a premise that the money belongs to the government and we have to justify keeping a certain portion of what we have earned.

It just occurs to me. You don't understand it takes revenue to run a country. Without revenue, every disease you could name would be rampant. We would have lost the cold war. Our food would be dangerous. New Orleans would still be under water. Don't you get that? We would be Afghanistan without a government. Worse, we would be the Deep South all over.

I'd rather be free, here in the Deep South, than forced to remain in a nation ruled by you damn Bolsheviks! God, if I ever have to fight another war, I hope it's with you damn liberals; won't be any of you left, when that's over.

 

[georgephillip]

Dood. The burden is on you to prove why anyone should pay MORE. It is not a premise that the money belongs to the government and we have to justify keeping a certain portion of what we have earned.

It just occurs to me. You don't understand it takes revenue to run a country. Without revenue, every disease you could name would be rampant. We would have lost the cold war. Our food would be dangerous. New Orleans would still be under water. Don't you get that? We would be Afghanistan without a government. Worse, we would be the Deep South all over.

I'd rather be free, here in the Deep South, than forced to remain in a nation ruled by you damn Bolsheviks! God, if I ever have to fight another war, I hope it's with you damn liberals; won't be any of you left, when that's over.

What if We're Not Broke?

That's a huge IF, for sure.

But IF it is true that some elements of America are richer than they have ever been before in our history, wouldn't we be killing each others' children over another damn lie the rich tell?

"We're broke, broke going on bankrupt," said House Speaker John Boehner in Nashville last February.

Do you actually believe John and those who finance his campaigns are really "going broke?"

Apparently the US Bond Market believes Boehner was using a figure of speech:

"'The U.S. government is not broke,' said Marc Chandler, global head of currency strategy for Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. in New York. 'There’s no evidence that the market is treating the U.S. government like it’s broke.'

"The U.S. today is able to borrow at historically low interest rates, paying 0.68 percent on a two-year note that it had to offer at 5.1 percent before the financial crisis began in 2007.

"Financial products that pay off if Uncle Sam defaults aren’t attracting unusual investor demand.

"And tax revenue as a percentage of the economy is at a 60-year low, meaning if the government needs to raise cash and can summon the political will, it could do so."

Bond Market Shows Why Boehner Saying We