Liberals for wealth redistribution

[Meister]

Still nobody from the left wants to come out and put a % on what the $250,000+ crowd should be taxed. Is the old tax system going to include the healthcare that the left wants the rich to fund, or will that be an add on? It's easy to talk about it until asked about specifics.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why do you consider helping working American citizens to be Communist?

Is only helping the rich Patriotic to you?

Ok you disingenuous TURD, other then setting a magic wealth allowed cap and then seizing anything above that for redistribution, how EXACTLY do you expect the Government to redistribute the wealth away from those that have it to those that do not?

As Ronald Reagan used to say...."There you go again"

Show where anyone has proposed a wealth cap...magic or otherwise

Trying to deflect again I see, did you read the other thread you dumb ass? People in that thread and this one have said it, or are your blinders on to tight?

And I notice rather then ANSWER the question which you raised, you ignored and claimed what has been said was not.

 

[rightwinger]

Ok you disingenuous TURD, other then setting a magic wealth allowed cap and then seizing anything above that for redistribution, how EXACTLY do you expect the Government to redistribute the wealth away from those that have it to those that do not?

As Ronald Reagan used to say...."There you go again"

Show where anyone has proposed a wealth cap...magic or otherwise

Trying to deflect again I see, did you read the other thread you dumb ass? People in that thread and this one have said it, or are your blinders on to tight?

And I notice rather then ANSWER the question which you raised, you ignored and claimed what has been said was not.

LOL

I asked you on the other thread where anyone had said that we should have a cap on how much wealth you should have....you couldn't do it there either

 

[rightwinger]

Still nobody from the left wants to come out and put a % on what the $250,000+ crowd should be taxed. Is the old tax system going to include the healthcare that the left wants the rich to fund, or will that be an add on? It's easy to talk about it until asked about specifics.

First off....I don't think we should have a $250,000+ crowd
We should have a $2,500,000+ crowd and tax them at 39%

The $250,000 crowd should be taxed at 29.72%

 

[MaggieMae]

Check out this thread and note how many Liberal Democrats SUPPORT the concept of the US Government STEALING private citizens wealth. Yet they insist they are not socialist.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/124697-wealth-inequality-how-it-affects-the-economy.html

Freedom? No not if democrats had their way.

Spinning your wheels in the original thread, Sarge?

 

[MaggieMae]

Warren Buffett only pays his secretary $60,000 a year? What a dick.

She's a secretary. What should he pay her? Rich people aren't obligated to pay the people that work for them "extra". In fact, I suspect Republicans squeeze the people that work for them the way they do the middle class.

Wanna bet she gets full dental, vision and health care?

And stock options in Bershire-Hathaway.

 

[MaggieMae]

The wealthy should pay their share. The tax burden on the wealthy is much less than that of the middle class. And that is just about as liberal as I get.

I agree. But until spending is under control, I don't care what the wealthy do with their money. I don't support redistribution of wealth, and that's what this administration has in mind. If they want to tax ALL Americans to pay off the debt, I'm all for it. But taxing the rich to give handouts to those unwilling to work? No thanks.

This may come as a surprise to the younguns here, but income taxes have been indexed since 1913. The higher a person's level of income, the higher a tax rate that person pays.

 

[MaggieMae]

We could and should cut the dog shit out of the military occupation budget.

Stick with the program, the Liberals in the other thread are not discussing the Budget or the military. They are telling us that they would support the illegal seizure of people's personal wealth because it is "bad" for private citizens and Corporations to have more money then THEY think they should have. Further they would redistribute that seized money through the Government.

Since you hijacked my thread, why don't you go there and find where anyone said anything remotely resembling that comment.

MY thread (below) started out about spendable income comparisons between 1973 and 2005. The variance in tax structure was not intended to be dissected; only the economic changes causing the disparity.

In 1973, the top 10% held 49% of wealth; the bottom 90% held 51% of wealth. That means 37 years ago, middle- and lower-class citizens could afford to buy American, shop in small community stores, pay their bills and have savings accounts.

By 2005, the top 10% held 73% of wealth; the bottom 90% held 27% of wealth. That means that middle- and lower-class citizens can now only afford to buy cheap goods from China in giant big box stores that deal in volume, not quality, have difficulty paying their bills and saving at the same time.

This is not a Bush-bashing subject. It's a topic for discussion that big corporations run the economy now, and small businesses exist only to support them. There is no doubt about it.

Those who are so eager to return to the old ways of doing business, keep it small and simple, need to understand how impossible that has become when large corporations now set the stage for pricing, wage and benefit structure, and the myriad other management tools they employ in order to run an economy that is no longer affordable for small businesses to compete.

"Government" isn't the only villain in allegedly suppressing small businesses. How often does the army of U.S. Chamber of Commerce lobbyists descend upon Washington to advocate for keeping a small business competitive with big business?

 

[Meister]

Still nobody from the left wants to come out and put a % on what the $250,000+ crowd should be taxed. Is the old tax system going to include the healthcare that the left wants the rich to fund, or will that be an add on? It's easy to talk about it until asked about specifics.

First off....I don't think we should have a $250,000+ crowd
We should have a $2,500,000+ crowd and tax them at 39%

The $250,000 crowd should be taxed at 29.72%

Let's stick to what is.....and that is the 250,000+ crowd. Thanks for giving me a % for them. Now should they also get taxed for the healthcare? See where I'm going here? Add the income tax, plus the healthcare....then go for the state income tax, it could easily add up to 60% or maybe even more of their income....is this fair?

 

[Gadawg73]

The wealthy should pay their share. The tax burden on the wealthy is much less than that of the middle class. And that is just about as liberal as I get.

I agree. But until spending is under control, I don't care what the wealthy do with their money. I don't support redistribution of wealth, and that's what this administration has in mind. If they want to tax ALL Americans to pay off the debt, I'm all for it. But taxing the rich to give handouts to those unwilling to work? No thanks.

This may come as a surprise to the younguns here, but income taxes have been indexed since 1913. The higher a person's level of income, the higher a tax rate that person pays.

Why? When I buy a gallon of milk the next guy pays the same price.
Why should tax rates be different?
Makes no sense and causes negative productivity.

 

[jeffrockit]

The wealthy should pay their share. The tax burden on the wealthy is much less than that of the middle class. And that is just about as liberal as I get.

Completely untrue. The top 5% of earners pay 60.63% of income taxes.

National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes?

That, coupled with the fact that the bottom 50% pay 2.89%, some pay no tax at all. The facts seem to refute your statement.

Given those facts, how much do you feel the rich should pay in order to pay their "fair share"?

 

[Chris]

Check out this thread and note how many Liberal Democrats SUPPORT the concept of the US Government STEALING private citizens wealth. Yet they insist they are not socialist.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/124697-wealth-inequality-how-it-affects-the-economy.html

Freedom? No not if democrats had their way.

Yes, they are stealing our wealth and giving it to retired military who get government checks and healthcare for the rest of their lives.

 

[rightwinger]

Still nobody from the left wants to come out and put a % on what the $250,000+ crowd should be taxed. Is the old tax system going to include the healthcare that the left wants the rich to fund, or will that be an add on? It's easy to talk about it until asked about specifics.

First off....I don't think we should have a $250,000+ crowd
We should have a $2,500,000+ crowd and tax them at 39%

The $250,000 crowd should be taxed at 29.72%

Let's stick to what is.....and that is the 250,000+ crowd. Thanks for giving me a % for them. Now should they also get taxed for the healthcare? See where I'm going here? Add the income tax, plus the healthcare....then go for the state income tax, it could easily add up to 60% or maybe even more of their income....is this fair?

????????

What makes you think healthcare will raise the rate to 60%??

Healthcare should be paid for by policy holders and employers

 

[editec]

I kind of wish you would have answered the question, but that's OKay if you don't. I was just curious on what the left feels is fair.

Its a tough question to answer. The easy answer is to return to tax rates from 10 years ago as a start. The second thing is the conservatives have lumped the tax rates of the super wealthy with the upper middle class in the name of "fairness". This has protected hundreds of billions of wealth from taxation

Other than that, you would have to go through thousands of pages of tax code to find out exemptions and subsidies that allow the super wealthy to protect themselves

How EXACTLY does taxation redistribute the wealth?

You're kidding, right?

How does taking money from the rich to run unconstitutional programs give money to the poor?

How does taking money from the middle class to run unconsitutional wars give money to the rich?

You really don't know?

Seriously?

Further since we have been waging a war on Poverty for over 30 years why is it you think NOW the Government can get it right after 30 years of abject FAILURE?

We weren't waging a war on poverty.

We were waging wars on the middle class and the poor.

Rather a big difference.

 

[MaggieMae]

O.....kay.......

So will you go on record agreeing with RetartedGynacologist that the top 10% pay 97% of the taxes?

What I will say is the top 10% pays 70% of the taxes, and the bottom 50% pays 3%.
To me that is disproportionate, and proof of the redistribution of wealth already in place. Yet, it's not enough to the liberals. Go figure.......

Statistics are a funny thing. Watch:

Guy 1 made 1,000,000 last year.
Guy 2 made 100,000,
and Guy 3 made 10,000. All 3 paid 20% taxes.

Guy 1 paid $200,000, Guy 2 paid $20,000, and Guy 3 paid $2,000.

Total tax paid was $222,000. In this scenario, Guy 1 paid 90%, Guy 2 paid about 9%, and Guy 3 paid a meager 1% of the "Total Tax Burden."

The higher brackets are paying a higher share of the "Total Tax Burden" because they're controlling a disproportionate share of the wealth, not because the evil liberals are confiscating and redistributing their money. As I've just illustrated, in my scenario everyone was taxed at the exact same rate, but I could say "The top 33% of the population paid 90% of the taxes last year, while the bottom 33% paid only around 1%." And it would be technically true. Even though a flat tax was used, creative statistics make it appear that an unfair burden has been shifted to the top.

What's happening in your scenario is no different.

Maybe it would be easier to understand by underscoring the difference in CASH FLOW. A $2,000 tax burden on someone (Guy 3) earning $10,000 creates a far bigger hardship because he has to pay the same amount for essential goods and services as Guy 1, the millionnaire.

 

[MaggieMae]

I have zero doubt if you quite raping the rich the economy will boom.
that is the reason we went from 70% on the highest brackets.

Raping the rich? Surely you jest. First of all, what did "the rich" do with their windfall from the tax cuts? How was the economy in the last decade? Wages were flat, benefits reduced or stripped completely, people WERE laid off as more and more industry was outsourced, but they took lower paying service jobs which kept that precious unemployment percentage reasonable, and almost every American was in debt up to his/her eyeballs BECAUSE THEY HAD NO CASH FLOW.

 

[MaggieMae]

Let us consider the 1950s. We started building the Interstate system then. Our rate of economic growth was very healthy. What was the tax rate then on the wealthy? On the Middle Class? On the working Poor?

The tax rate on the wealthy was 75 to 90% and they still lived in mansions and drove Rolls Royce.

If you can come to this country and become a billionaire, why not invest so that the good news keeps on coming. How does it help if the wealthy just squeeze and squeeze?

Republicans don't understand that if the "golden goose" is cooked, only the few eat once. Everyone will eventually starve.

so your stance is tax them till they can't afford the manson. I don't feel it's right for them to give up enough money for someonelse's mansion even if it's spread.

A 4% hike in the top income earners (raising it to the level during Clinton's administration) isn't going to bankrupt any millionnaire. Trust me.

 

[MaggieMae]

Regarding the assertions by businesses that they are hoarding profits because of the uncertainty of the impact of future taxes, while I can understand that they don't particularly LIKE the idea of having to shell out more by way of taxes, to claim that they don't know what the tax burden will be is ludicrous. It's been spelled out completely, and there's no reason why (assuming they want to remain in business) that they can't begin reframing their product goals accordingly.

It's all here:

The Tax Foundation - List of Tax Provisions Scheduled to Expire on December 31, 2010

 

[ConHog]

Regarding the assertions by businesses that they are hoarding profits because of the uncertainty of the impact of future taxes, while I can understand that they don't particularly LIKE the idea of having to shell out more by way of taxes, to claim that they don't know what the tax burden will be is ludicrous. It's been spelled out completely, and there's no reason why (assuming they want to remain in business) that they can't begin reframing their product goals accordingly.

It's all here:

The Tax Foundation - List of Tax Provisions Scheduled to Expire on December 31, 2010

Yes, because certainly they aren't saying "We don't know what this fool Obama will do next, so we need to have reserves."

 

[editec]

They're hoarding money because they are fearful the economy is going to go flat again, and because it makes no sense to increase production if the consumers have no money.

Blaming the government for what corporations do is SOP for the anti-regulatory forces in this nation.