Let's Tax the Rich More!

[Iriemon]

Raising taxes on the rich is a good idea.

Bush lowered taxes for the rich, and that doubled the National Debt.

Spending is what raised the national debt. What's rich by the way?

Bush inhereted a surplus budget, slashed revenues by hundreds of billions with tax cuts, and cranked up spending on the military and wars. That's the main reasons he about doubled the national debt. That's what happens when you lower revenues and increase spending.

 

[edthecynic]

You need to understand the difference between "ownership" and "control" as well as the difference between "income" and "wealth."

The Truth About Taxes
August 6, 2007
RUSH: But there's no tax on wealth. There is a tax on income, and the tax on income is designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there.

August 7, 2007
CALLER: And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but the way our tax system works and the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income, and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.

RUSH: It does, exactly, and here's the dirty little secret if you ever to pull it off. It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income. I'm out of time. I'll explain that. There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income. Earned income is what the income tax rate is on. That's how "the rich" do it. They don't have "earned" income.
END TRANSCRIPT

Raising taxes on the rich is a good idea.

Bush lowered taxes for the rich, and that doubled the National Debt.

Spending is what raised the national debt. What's rich by the way?

The people even LimpBoy admits pay no taxes.
If you pay taxes then by definition you are NOT rich!
Though they should probably called "The Wealthy" for clarity.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Raising taxes on the rich is a good idea.

Bush lowered taxes for the rich, and that doubled the National Debt.

Spending is what raised the national debt. What's rich by the way?

Bush inhereted a surplus budget, slashed revenues by hundreds of billions with tax cuts, and cranked up spending on the military and wars. That's the main reasons he about doubled the national debt. That's what happens when you lower revenues and increase spending.

you mean just like Obama is doing??

You mean like how Obama is making GW look like Scrooge Mcduck?

 

[editec]

The people who the FEDERAL tax codes are truly screwing are obviously NOT the poor...

Likewise the people getting screwed by the FEDERAL tax codes are obviously NOT the superwealthy, either.

The people who are really getting it put to them by the FEDERAL TAX codes are the better off working classes.

Why?

Well because they are augmenting the taxes that the superwealthy DON'T pay and the poor working classes CAN'T pay.

If you're one of those WORKING PEOPLE who is working his or her ass off to make a fine income, and you're getting hammered with a FEDERAL tax rate, HELL YES, I think you're getting screwed.

Now who are those people?

Doctors, lawyers, small businessmen etc. For THOSE people of modest affluence, I have sympathy, I really do.

But fior the multimilliones?

Their taxes ARE too low.

All that being said, I STILL do NOT believe that taxes should be raised RIGHT NOW.

The time to have corrected the lopsided way we've structured our taxes was BEFORE the depression struck.

But simply fixing the tax codes will NOT solve the problem American is having because the root of the problem in this economy has to do with the deindisturialization (which really means the decreasing investment into American industry) that has been going on every since FREE TRADE made it more sesible for industrialist to invest in manufacturing offshore and selling INTO our economy.

As long as that is happening, the changes in the tax codes are NOT going to solve the problem of the American economy.

Good post, the really rich -- those making millions and billions, have been laughing all the way to the bank since their think tanks came up with the "supply side" sales scheme.

Obama should put a 10% tax surcharge on incomes over $1 million.

but why do you think taxes should not be raised on the wealthy now?

They were raised from 26% to 68% in the great depression, and after that the economy turned around and took off.

I understand the goal of a stimulus, but if the wealthy are taking their extra money and putting it into CDs, how is that helping the economy if the banks aren't lending and demand is falling?

raising taxes did not turn the economy around. WWII did that

And what did they do in WWII?

They spend money they did not have and they raised the tax rates on the superwealthy to 90% at the same time.

PLUS they didn't allow companies to make consumer goods so the workers didn't really spend the money they were making, but saved it, or as likely, they bought WAR BONDS with it.

And FWIW, that top 90% tax bracket lasted until the early 1960s, I note.

But what they did THEN, is, I think, not a great way of planning what we should do NOW, because the state America finds itslef in NOW isn't remotely like it was in THEN.

 

[Care4all]

Sure, let's figure out a way to penalize people for saving their money as well. Geez ... you people NEVER quit where it comes to digging in MY pockets and spending MY money.

How does it make more sense to penalize those who are at the bottom rung trying to work their way out of poverty instead?

I will repeat what Newby said, because it's true:

The poor don't pay taxes.

There is a bottom line, if you earn less than that you pay nothing in income taxes.

Tis true that you meet a certain level where you pay no income taxes, HOWEVER this is also the case with every single one of us out there in the working world....we do not pay any income taxes for the first 17k or so of our combined income if a couple, as you wouldn't, as the millionaire doesn't....just because these couples are poor and make less than 17k a year, doesn't mean they are getting any more of an income tax break than matt and I who also got the $17 k in standard deductions and only had to pay our taxes on the money earned above such.

Though it is true that if they have children, they can fairly easily qualify for an earned income credit, which helps compensate the Payroll taxes they pay without reducing their eventual benefits...but the EIC is one of the most beneficial credits out there....for the poor...it keeps them working verses being on the welfare system....

the EIC, makes working more beneficial than if they sat at home and collected a welfare check...and it keeps people productive, with more self esteem and also is a good example for their kids to see....them out working verses sitting on their tushes....collecting welfare because it is more beneficial than what working full time at a lower wage would bring in, when all the perks are added up.

Also, I think if we note that people making below a certain amount do not pay income taxes, that we also note that people making above $100k DO NOT pay social security taxes beyond that point....while those in the middle and lower incomes pay it on their entire earnings....as well as those making the very most, earn a good deal of their income from investment income not subject to the tax at all.

This is not a one sided deal where only the poor gets its "breaks" when it comes to taxes, because there are plenty of loopholes and deductions and tax codes like this one withthe SS cap, that benefits those making the most, as well.

And then on how income is earned is taxed differently as well, and those sitting on tushes with alot of money to give to other investments, don't pay taxes until they sell their good investment or when they do sell it, and take this money as income for themselves, they still don't pay the same higher income tax rates as others busting their butt, earning a living, the capital gains tax they pay is 15%....(with no SS taxes due, as noted above)

Not to be repetitive but all I am saying is that our tax code is so complicated, a genius would have trouble with understanding the monitary value of each code change and each new deduction or write off or loophole, or cap, writen in to it etc....

and calling out the poor not paying income taxes can be somewhat of a punch below the belt that I do not believe they deserve for the most part because none of us pay taxes on the first $9k or so that we individually earn either, and because as noted there are tax benefits or breaks for the wealthiest, or those working out of their home, etc. that many in the middle class or poor never see either.

Care

 

[Iriemon]

Spending is what raised the national debt. What's rich by the way?

Bush inhereted a surplus budget, slashed revenues by hundreds of billions with tax cuts, and cranked up spending on the military and wars. That's the main reasons he about doubled the national debt. That's what happens when you lower revenues and increase spending.

you mean just like Obama is doing??

You mean like how Obama is making GW look like Scrooge Mcduck?

Kind of. Unlike Bush, Obama inhereted a record deficit, a trillion dollars according to some here.

Bush "stayed the course" thru 8 years and ran up $5 trillion in debt. We can only hope that when the economy recovers, Obama doesn't follow Bush's lead.

 

[Newby]

The people who the FEDERAL tax codes are truly screwing are obviously NOT the poor...

Likewise the people getting screwed by the FEDERAL tax codes are obviously NOT the superwealthy, either.

The people who are really getting it put to them by the FEDERAL TAX codes are the better off working classes.

Why?

Well because they are augmenting the taxes that the superwealthy DON'T pay and the poor working classes CAN'T pay.

If you're one of those WORKING PEOPLE who is working his or her ass off to make a fine income, and you're getting hammered with a FEDERAL tax rate, HELL YES, I think you're getting screwed.

Now who are those people?

Doctors, lawyers, small businessmen etc. For THOSE people of modest affluence, I have sympathy, I really do.

But fior the multimilliones?

Their taxes ARE too low.

All that being said, I STILL do NOT believe that taxes should be raised RIGHT NOW.

The time to have corrected the lopsided way we've structured our taxes was BEFORE the depression struck.

But simply fixing the tax codes will NOT solve the problem American is having because the root of the problem in this economy has to do with the deindisturialization (which really means the decreasing investment into American industry) that has been going on every since FREE TRADE made it more sesible for industrialist to invest in manufacturing offshore and selling INTO our economy.

As long as that is happening, the changes in the tax codes are NOT going to solve the problem of the American economy.

That worked damned well BECAUSE of the bourgiouse class likes to imagine that some day they too will become superwealthy. Fools!


Not now though.



Because right now this nation is dealing with the sense that there isn't enough money in circulation because so many of us lost so much in the market and in our real estate values.

We are headed toward STAGFLATION right now.



Our economy is not the same NOW as it was then.

I understand the goal of a stimulus, but if the wealthy are taking their extra money and putting it into CDs, how is that helping the economy if the banks aren't lending and demand is falling?

If anything we ought to be encouraging the superwealthy to invest IN industrialization in AMERICA.

And we ought to be taxing the ever loving crap out of anyone who is importing manufactured goods in this nation.

As to former US corporations which moved the HQ offshore to avoid taxes, and even got TAX BREAKS to make that move?

Those corporations should be given a choice..move back here and pay your taxes or never again do any kind of business in THIS nation.

I don't hate the rich, I hate the parasitic rich who has bought out congress outright such that they distorted our laws to benefit them as they deindustrialized our nation.

We are becoming a third world nation thanks to these insane policies.

I think what you are saying has some merrit. Don't you think they're kind of screwing themselves over tho? If they're depending on the US economy to fund the production of their goods that they've moved off shore, once the US economy is no longer able to fund their industry, exactly because they have moved it off shore, they are out of business are they not? I mean, it might give them a 10 - 20 year ride, but then what?

 

[Big Cat]

Just how much makes one "rich"? Is the figure on gross or net income? I have the feeling that some of the "rich" are really not that at all. Look out middle class.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Bush inhereted a surplus budget, slashed revenues by hundreds of billions with tax cuts, and cranked up spending on the military and wars. That's the main reasons he about doubled the national debt. That's what happens when you lower revenues and increase spending.

you mean just like Obama is doing??

You mean like how Obama is making GW look like Scrooge Mcduck?

Kind of. Unlike Bush, Obama inhereted a record deficit, a trillion dollars according to some here.

Bush "stayed the course" thru 8 years and ran up $5 trillion in debt. We can only hope that when the economy recovers, Obama doesn't follow Bush's lead.

And Obama is going to make that trillion seem small by the end of his watch
but that is not the point.

The point is that the ******* government is too god damned big and expensive and it will continue to get bigger and more expensive unless people start wising the **** up.

Oh BTW Obama just revised his budget deficit up.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124204820923806673.html

Surprise.........NOT

 

[Iriemon]

you mean just like Obama is doing??

You mean like how Obama is making GW look like Scrooge Mcduck?

Kind of. Unlike Bush, Obama inhereted a record deficit, a trillion dollars according to some here.

Bush "stayed the course" thru 8 years and ran up $5 trillion in debt. We can only hope that when the economy recovers, Obama doesn't follow Bush's lead.

And Obama is going to make that trillion seem small by the end of his watch
but that is not the point.

The point is that the ******* government is too god damned big and expensive and it will continue to get bigger and more expensive unless people start wising the **** up.

Oh BTW Obama just revised his budget deficit up.

White House Boosts Deficit Projections - WSJ.com

Surprise.........NOT

The other side of the problem:

OMB now expects total government receipts to decline nearly 15%, or $368 billion, this year. As a percentage of gross domestic product, receipts are seen sinking to their lowest level since 1950, 15.1%.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Kind of. Unlike Bush, Obama inhereted a record deficit, a trillion dollars according to some here.

Bush "stayed the course" thru 8 years and ran up $5 trillion in debt. We can only hope that when the economy recovers, Obama doesn't follow Bush's lead.

And Obama is going to make that trillion seem small by the end of his watch
but that is not the point.

The point is that the ******* government is too god damned big and expensive and it will continue to get bigger and more expensive unless people start wising the **** up.

Oh BTW Obama just revised his budget deficit up.

White House Boosts Deficit Projections - WSJ.com

Surprise.........NOT

The other side of the problem:

OMB now expects total government receipts to decline nearly 15%, or $368 billion, this year. As a percentage of gross domestic product, receipts are seen sinking to their lowest level since 1950, 15.1%.

so much for that "Tax cut for 95% of Americans" huh?

I hate to say I told you so but.....I told you so.

 

[Iriemon]

And Obama is going to make that trillion seem small by the end of his watch
but that is not the point.

The point is that the ******* government is too god damned big and expensive and it will continue to get bigger and more expensive unless people start wising the **** up.

Oh BTW Obama just revised his budget deficit up.

White House Boosts Deficit Projections - WSJ.com

Surprise.........NOT

The other side of the problem:

OMB now expects total government receipts to decline nearly 15%, or $368 billion, this year. As a percentage of gross domestic product, receipts are seen sinking to their lowest level since 1950, 15.1%.

so much for that "Tax cut for 95% of Americans" huh?

I hate to say I told you so but.....I told you so.

I personally never supported a tax cut for anyone when the Govt is trillions in debt. It was another reason I supported Clinton over Obama. Obama should not only repeal the Bush tax cuts that have helped put us in so much debt but add a surcharge on top of that to increase revenues. And cut spending.

But that move would infuriate the pass the buck generation.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I am more in favor of slashing government spending to the bone not merely inflicting a scratch.

 

[Iriemon]

I am more in favor of slashing government spending to the bone not merely inflicting a scratch.

I don't think that is politically feasible. Maybe nothing is; though a combination of tax increases and spending cuts would be the most sellable.

No one is talking about compromise however, and most the nation probably doesn't care that the debt is being run up. Hasn't been and issue for them in the past. I'm not very optimistic.

 

[MatthewAycock]

Raising taxes on the rich is a good idea.

Bush lowered taxes for the rich, and that doubled the National Debt.

Spending is what raised the national debt. What's rich by the way?

Bush inhereted a surplus budget, slashed revenues by hundreds of billions with tax cuts, and cranked up spending on the military and wars. That's the main reasons he about doubled the national debt. That's what happens when you lower revenues and increase spending.

Absolutely. This is why Bush's fiscal policies are considered liberal. Obama has adopted these policies completely and increased the budget for them. They are both wrong in this approach.

Again, what do you consider rich?

 

[MatthewAycock]

Bush inhereted a surplus budget, slashed revenues by hundreds of billions with tax cuts, and cranked up spending on the military and wars. That's the main reasons he about doubled the national debt. That's what happens when you lower revenues and increase spending.

you mean just like Obama is doing??

You mean like how Obama is making GW look like Scrooge Mcduck?

Kind of. Unlike Bush, Obama inhereted a record deficit, a trillion dollars according to some here.

Bush "stayed the course" thru 8 years and ran up $5 trillion in debt. We can only hope that when the economy recovers, Obama doesn't follow Bush's lead.

It was a record deficit until Obama took over.... Neither is an acceptable way to run a government.

 

[sealybobo]

I am more in favor of slashing government spending to the bone not merely inflicting a scratch.

This is why Republicans always waste the majority of our money in the name of "defense"

President Obama has targeted the Department of Defense to absorb more than 80 percent of the cuts he has proposed in next year's budget for discretionary programs.

The White House identified a total of $17 billion in spending cuts, including cuts in mandatory programs that mostly involve entitlements.

"We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits do not matter and waste is not our problem," Mr. Obama said.

The defense cuts send "a very clear signal that this administration is not going to be as forceful on national security issues as the previous administration. I think that's pretty clear," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Georgia Republican.

See!!! So Republicans will waste our/your money if they ever get back into power. They just won't call it waste. They'll call it "DEFENSE". But we all know what it is.

 

[Iriemon]

I am more in favor of slashing government spending to the bone not merely inflicting a scratch.

This is why Republicans always waste the majority of our money in the name of "defense"

President Obama has targeted the Department of Defense to absorb more than 80 percent of the cuts he has proposed in next year's budget for discretionary programs.

The White House identified a total of $17 billion in spending cuts, including cuts in mandatory programs that mostly involve entitlements.

"We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits do not matter and waste is not our problem," Mr. Obama said.

The defense cuts send "a very clear signal that this administration is not going to be as forceful on national security issues as the previous administration. I think that's pretty clear," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Georgia Republican.

See!!! So Republicans will waste our/your money if they ever get back into power. They just won't call it waste. They'll call it "DEFENSE". But we all know what it is.

I've seen that too. Most conservatives are all on cutting spending until you mention defense related spending, then they suddenly are all for big spending. So when you get right down for it, they really don't want to cut spending, they just want to cut the programs that provide for the elderly and poorer.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I am more in favor of slashing government spending to the bone not merely inflicting a scratch.

This is why Republicans always waste the majority of our money in the name of "defense"

President Obama has targeted the Department of Defense to absorb more than 80 percent of the cuts he has proposed in next year's budget for discretionary programs.

The White House identified a total of $17 billion in spending cuts, including cuts in mandatory programs that mostly involve entitlements.

"We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits do not matter and waste is not our problem," Mr. Obama said.

The defense cuts send "a very clear signal that this administration is not going to be as forceful on national security issues as the previous administration. I think that's pretty clear," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Georgia Republican.

See!!! So Republicans will waste our/your money if they ever get back into power. They just won't call it waste. They'll call it "DEFENSE". But we all know what it is.

I've seen that too. Most conservatives are all on cutting spending until you mention defense related spending, then they suddenly are all for big spending. So when you get right down for it, they really don't want to cut spending, they just want to cut the programs that provide for the elderly and poorer.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

We should pull ALL our military out of foreign countries, that said, we should have the most modern and deadly weapons on the planet. we should be able to repel any and all attacks with overwhelming force and superior weaponry. We need not spend our money and the blood of our soldiers defending other countries. That alone will save billions a year. We should then have our Army and Marines standing post on our borders. we should have our Navy patrolling our waters. We need to make this country impervious to attack. By doing so we would also make it next to impossible for illegal immigrants to enter the country. drug smuggling would be all but eliminated.

How much money do you think that would save. Our educational resources would not be wasted on non citizens. Medical facilities would not be overrun by immigrants with no means to pay for care. We would not waste time and money investigating crimes done by illegals.

How much money is spent trying to keep drugs out of the country? Put the military on the borders and save hundreds of billions.

And what kind of ******* hypocrite is Obama? He plans to run multi-trillion dollar deficits for years to come and yet he says that deficits are a problem not to be ignored. He is just another power hungry corrupt politician talking out both sides of his mouth and his ass all at the same time.

and are both of you so ******* stuck in your dogma that you can't see that I am not a conservative as you define the term?

 

[Iriemon]

This is why Republicans always waste the majority of our money in the name of "defense"

President Obama has targeted the Department of Defense to absorb more than 80 percent of the cuts he has proposed in next year's budget for discretionary programs.

The White House identified a total of $17 billion in spending cuts, including cuts in mandatory programs that mostly involve entitlements.

"We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits do not matter and waste is not our problem," Mr. Obama said.

The defense cuts send "a very clear signal that this administration is not going to be as forceful on national security issues as the previous administration. I think that's pretty clear," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Georgia Republican.

See!!! So Republicans will waste our/your money if they ever get back into power. They just won't call it waste. They'll call it "DEFENSE". But we all know what it is.

I've seen that too. Most conservatives are all on cutting spending until you mention defense related spending, then they suddenly are all for big spending. So when you get right down for it, they really don't want to cut spending, they just want to cut the programs that provide for the elderly and poorer.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

We should pull ALL our military out of foreign countries. That alone will save billions a year. We should then have our Army and Marines standing post on our borders. we should have our Navy patrolling our waters. We need to make this country impervious to attack. By doing so we would also make it next to impossible for illegal immigrants to enter the country. drug smuggling would be all but eliminated.

How much money do you think that would save. Our educational resources would not be wasted on non citizens. Medical facilities would not be overrun by immigrants with no means to pay for care. We would not waste time and money investigating crimes done by illegals.

How much money is spent trying to keep drugs out of the country? Put the military on the borders and save hundreds of billions.

And what kind of ******* hypocrite is Obama? He plans to run multi-trillion dollar deficits for years to come and yet he says that deficits are a problem not to be ignored. He is just another power hungry corrupt politician talking out both sides of his mouth and his ass all at the same time.

and are both of you so ******* stuck in your dogma that you can't see that I am not a conservative as you define the term?

1) My post wasn't addressed to you either directly or explicitly, and while I'm sorry to burst your little self centric view, had nothing to do with you in any way.

2) My post did not say or imply that all conservatives thought that but most did. I believe that most conservatives are in favor of greater military spending. Even if my post was addressed to you, it would not have necessarily included what you believed because my statement was a generalized one.

So I'll address your last question back to you.