Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[Ray From Cleveland]

4
If you put 12.4% of your lifetime earnings in the stock market and 12.4% of your lifetime earnings into Social Security and die tomorrow, at the age of 61 years, 363 days, which of your two retirement plans will give your family more money, the stock market or Social Security?

Unless you had all of your eggs in the market when Republicans/corporate America/BushCo crashed the economy in 2007/2008.

Then you'd still have much, much more than from Social Security.

Tell that to the tens of millions of Americans that lost some or all of their retirement income.

It was only lost temporarily. The market not only recovered, but because of the Fed Reserve pumping money into the market, your losses turned into profits quickly.

 

[Dad2three]

The idea that the housing bubble was created by Dems is ridiculous. Fanny and Freddie's share of the real estate market went from 75% to 25% in 2003 when corrupt, crony Boooshie regulators allowed private firms to rate toxic at A+ and allow it to be bundled, insured and sold around the world duh. Barney was one of hundreds of Dem and Pub pols who told people not to worry in 2008 duh. Trying to tamp down a panic.

OUT OF CONTEXT VIDS? LOL

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime


The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street.



Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble


He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Bush persuaded Congress to spend as much as $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.

And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government insured mortgages with no money down

 

[francoHFW]

4
If you put 12.4% of your lifetime earnings in the stock market and 12.4% of your lifetime earnings into Social Security and die tomorrow, at the age of 61 years, 363 days, which of your two retirement plans will give your family more money, the stock market or Social Security?

Unless you had all of your eggs in the market when Republicans/corporate America/BushCo crashed the economy in 2007/2008.

Then you'd still have much, much more than from Social Security.

Tell that to the tens of millions of Americans that lost some or all of their retirement income.

Yanno, for those with the stomach to stay the course, 2009-2015 was about the most profitable 6 years in history.

This is true. The wealthy never became wealthier.

Thanks to GOP defending to the death Reaganist policy that should have ended about 1987.
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.
Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:
1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.
Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.
But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):
1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%
A 13% drop since 1980
2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.
Share of National Income going to Top 10%:
1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%
An increase of 16% since Reagan.
3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.
The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.
1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
A 12.3% drop after Reagan.
4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.
Household Debt as percentage of GDP:
1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%
A 45% increase after 1980.
5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.
Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:
1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%
A 5.6 times increase.
6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.
The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:
1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%
A 10% Decrease.
Links:
1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zh1bveXc8rA/SuddUhLWUaI/AAAAAAAAA7M/iU2gefk317M/s1600-h/Clipboard01.jpg
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/
5/6 = http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4?slop=1#slideshow-start
Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

 

[OnePercenter]

Since the guy is in his early 60s, I assume no minor children.
And since his wife worked too, she's still going to collect her same benefit.
No boost based on his early death.

So how much was your income that you paid zero taxes on? Details man.

She'll collect his side as the last surviving spouse when she reaches age.

I made $1.00 last year.

How much did your trust make?
How much did your trust pay in taxes?

2014 - $36.5M

Federal taxes were 4%.

 

[Dad2three]

...The report, titled “Walmart’s Executive Bonuses Cost Taxpayers Millions,” focuses on tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation. The law was put in place in 1993 in order to discourage excessive pay, according to the study, which goes on to say that Wal-Mart has abused the law.

Wal-Mart attacked for big tax breaks - Fortune

So Walmart complied with a tax law enacted by congress? Big whup. Millions of Americans do just that every April 15.
The author of the "study" was something called Americans for Tax Fairness, which describes itself as "a diverse campaign of national, state and local organizations united in support of a tax system that works for all Americans."

Sure it is.

ATF claims to be "based on the belief that the country needs comprehensive, progressive tax reform that results in greater revenue to meet our growing needs. This requires big corporations and the wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes, not to live by their own set of rules."

The focus is getting clearer.

"Americans for Tax Fairness was established to help make the economy work for all — with adequate levels of investment in critical areas that create and sustain jobs and a balanced and equitable approach to decisions on the federal budget challenges we face. This requires raising sufficient revenues with everyone, including corporations, paying their fair share of taxes."

Interestingly ATF seems to believe only Walmart and the wealthy must pay more in taxes to achieve "fairness" while no consideration is given to redistributing current federal revenues to accomplish their "mission" and none at all to cutting gov't spending. Frankly, ATF seems to be a "progressive" entity whose sole purpose is to promote higher taxes (for corps and the wealthy) and more gov't spending.

ATF's co-chairs are:
Mary Kusler, the Director of Government Relations for the National Education Association.
Kim Fellner, associate director of Working America, the community affiliate of the AFL-CIO.
Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, 29% of whose funding comes from - drum roll, please - LABOR UNIONS.

Americans for Tax Fairness

Yep, the plutocrats YOU support have captured Gov't, and the PROGRESSIVES are trying to bring back FAIRNESS (like 1945-1980) where the top 1% don't take over 90% of ALL gains!

I know, lets cut Gov't spending since austerity has proved to work so well EVERYWHERE it's tried right? lol

 

[OnePercenter]

This is true. The wealthy never became wealthier.

True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.

 

[Dad2three]

tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation.
Hold on one second....WalMart is following the tax law????
Outrageous!!!!!
Moron.

BENDING the law they bought? Yep

You forgot to post a link to Walmart's purchase of that law which, according to your source, "was put in place in 1993 in order to discourage excessive pay..."

My guess? You're simply spewing the same old baseless loony leftist hate for all things successful.

As a disclaimer I admit that my family has benefitted nicely from having Walmart stock in our retirement portfolios for the past 20 years. Thank you Walmart.

YOU deny the plutocrats have bought DC? SERIOUSLY? lol'

 

[Dad2three]

The idea that the housing bubble was created by Dems is ridiculous. Fanny and Freddie's share of the real estate market went from 75% to 25% in 2003 when corrupt, crony Boooshie regulators allowed private firms to rate toxic at A+ and allow it to be bundled, insured and sold around the world duh. Barney was one of hundreds of Dem and Pub pols who told people not to worry in 2008 duh. Trying to tamp down a panic.

They did get into it late and did less than a quarter of it, as you can see from the bailout costs. The law you blame Clinton for was a Pub bill he just signed. It took corrupt Boooshie regulators to pervert it and cause the bubble.

No because I have plenty of articles supporting the point that Democrats were the ones who initiated the bubble. You can't force banks to give loans to unqualified borrowers and expect a decent outcome. Banks sell those loans because they know they are bad, so they toss them out into the market as bundled securities which investors expected to be solid.

I won't go as far as to say that GW nor the Republicans had nothing to do with it, but to say it was their fault entirely is ridiculous. The Republicans had no interest in getting more blacks into their own homes. Blacks vote Democrat. That would be like Democrats promoting the NRA.

What this video shows (and I have more just like it) is how Democrats fought tooth and nail to make sure F and F had no oversight by our government, and how Republicans knew well in advance how precarious these practices were. Yes, Republicans tried to stop it while Democrats promoted it.

The banks have known for 30 years the risks involved on the loan products they sold. This is why they lobbied so hard to allow them to sell the bad products to investors so they would not be holding the bad paper or the risks. The developed the products like stated income stated assets then bundled them to make it appear they were blended risks and then sold them to multiple investors. Who bought these high risk loans? Mostly pension funds and Insurances seeking higher returns who lost almost half of the pension funds value and the public that depended on those funds for retirement.




Nobody forced the big five investment banks to do what they did; they were not subject to CRA or other regulations common to depository banks. In fact, they mainly bought and sold loans rather than originate them. They did it because they thought they would make money.



"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them. And then they sold the loan and risk to investors and GSEs clamoring for the loans. Actually banks, pension funds, investment banks and other investors clamored for them. Bush forced Freddie and Fannie to buy an additional $440 billion in mortgages in the secondary market.

FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wrong. Coal is being attacked by the Obama administration and his minions. They already shut down many plants and forced the remaining open ones to invest millions of dollars in greener technology. It had nothing to do with natural gas because the US is the Saudi Arabia of coal.

Coal mines were shut down due to safety violations.

Natural gas prices dipped to historically low levels beating coal prices.

And why did natural gas prices drop? That's right, fracking:

Obama's Abandoned Power Plants
Ken Blackwell | Sep 28, 2012


At least 3 coal plants announced closing since Obama's energy speech

By ASHE SCHOW • 7/11/13 12:00 AM
At least 3 coal plants announced closing since Obama's energy speech

This is true. The wealthy never became wealthier.

True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.

Planned coal-power closings won't cut CO2 much

Planned coal-power closings won't cut CO2 much

Flurry of Coal Power Plant Shutdowns Expected by 2016

Flurry of Coal Power Plant Shutdowns Expected by 2016

 

[Dad2three]

The idea that the housing bubble was created by Dems is ridiculous. Fanny and Freddie's share of the real estate market went from 75% to 25% in 2003 when corrupt, crony Boooshie regulators allowed private firms to rate toxic at A+ and allow it to be bundled, insured and sold around the world duh. Barney was one of hundreds of Dem and Pub pols who told people not to worry in 2008 duh. Trying to tamp down a panic.

They did get into it late and did less than a quarter of it, as you can see from the bailout costs. The law you blame Clinton for was a Pub bill he just signed. It took corrupt Boooshie regulators to pervert it and cause the bubble.

No because I have plenty of articles supporting the point that Democrats were the ones who initiated the bubble. You can't force banks to give loans to unqualified borrowers and expect a decent outcome. Banks sell those loans because they know they are bad, so they toss them out into the market as bundled securities which investors expected to be solid.

I won't go as far as to say that GW nor the Republicans had nothing to do with it, but to say it was their fault entirely is ridiculous. The Republicans had no interest in getting more blacks into their own homes. Blacks vote Democrat. That would be like Democrats promoting the NRA.

What this video shows (and I have more just like it) is how Democrats fought tooth and nail to make sure F and F had no oversight by our government, and how Republicans knew well in advance how precarious these practices were. Yes, Republicans tried to stop it while Democrats promoted it.

Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble


He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Bush persuaded Congress to spend as much as $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.

And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government insured mortgages with no money down

Thanks again to the Bush administrations allowing the greedy & unethical brokers to operate at their will.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This is true. The wealthy never became wealthier.

True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.

Really? And just how did Republicans accomplish that?

 

[OnePercenter]

It was only lost temporarily. The market not only recovered, but because of the Fed Reserve pumping money into the market, your losses turned into profits quickly.

A person that saved a portion of their income to invest over a 30 year period made all of their money back in 7? How?

 

[Dad2three]

The idea that the housing bubble was created by Dems is ridiculous. Fanny and Freddie's share of the real estate market went from 75% to 25% in 2003 when corrupt, crony Boooshie regulators allowed private firms to rate toxic at A+ and allow it to be bundled, insured and sold around the world duh. Barney was one of hundreds of Dem and Pub pols who told people not to worry in 2008 duh. Trying to tamp down a panic.

They did get into it late and did less than a quarter of it, as you can see from the bailout costs. The law you blame Clinton for was a Pub bill he just signed. It took corrupt Boooshie regulators to pervert it and cause the bubble.

No because I have plenty of articles supporting the point that Democrats were the ones who initiated the bubble. You can't force banks to give loans to unqualified borrowers and expect a decent outcome. Banks sell those loans because they know they are bad, so they toss them out into the market as bundled securities which investors expected to be solid.

I won't go as far as to say that GW nor the Republicans had nothing to do with it, but to say it was their fault entirely is ridiculous. The Republicans had no interest in getting more blacks into their own homes. Blacks vote Democrat. That would be like Democrats promoting the NRA.

What this video shows (and I have more just like it) is how Democrats fought tooth and nail to make sure F and F had no oversight by our government, and how Republicans knew well in advance how precarious these practices were. Yes, Republicans tried to stop it while Democrats promoted it.

2002: Bush's speech to the White House Conference on Increasing Minority Homeownership


We've got to work to knock down the barriers that have created a homeownership gap.

I set an ambitious goal. It's one that I believe we can achieve. It's a clear goal, that by the end of this decade we'll increase the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families (HE LATER INCREASED IT TO 7 MILLION BUBS) (Applause.) …


White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire


“We can put light where there’s darkness, and hope where there’s despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home.” — President Bush, Oct. 15, 2002


here are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.

But the story of how we got here is partly one of Mr. Bush’s own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.

From his earliest days in office, Mr. Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own home with his conviction that markets do best when let alone.

He pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minorities, an initiative that dovetailed with his ambition to expand the Republican tent — and with the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[Dad2three]

Broke? lol

PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM, THAT CONSERVATIVES STARTING WITH REAGAN, RAIDED THE TRUST FUNDS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!

Oh, right.. its Reagan's fault.

You're such an idiot.

Nah, Ronnie "saving SS" by increasing SS taxes 60%, which hid the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich, and then using the trust funds of the $3 trillion in excess payments, WASN'T the fault of Ronnie??? lol

Nah, Ronnie "saving SS" by increasing SS taxes 60%,

Liar!

Reagan needed a new source of revenue to replace the revenue lost as a result of his unaffordable income tax cuts. He wasn’t about to rescind any of his income-tax cuts, but he had another idea. What about raising the payroll tax, and then channeling the new revenue to the general fund, from where it could be spent for other purposes? An increase in Social Security taxes would be easier to enact than a hike in income tax rates, and it would leave his income tax cuts undisturbed. Reagan’s first step in implementing his strategy was to write to Congressional leaders. His first letter, dated May 21, 1981 included the following:

As you know, the Social Security System is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy…in the decades ahead its unfunded obligations could run well into the trillions. Unless we in government are willing to act, a sword of Damocles will soon hang over the welfare of millions of our citizens.

Reagan wrote a follow-up letter to Congressional leaders dated July 18, 1981, which included:

“The highest priority of my Administration is restoring the integrity of the Social Security System. Those 35 million Americans who depend on Social Security expect and are entitled to prompt bipartisan action to resolve the current financial problem.

Social Security was definitely not “teetering on the edge of bankruptcy” in 1981 as Reagan claimed in his letter to Congressional leaders. The 1983 National Commission on Social Security Reform, headed by Alan Greenspan, issued its “findings and recommendations” in January 1983. The Commission accurately foresaw major problems for Social Security when the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. But that was nearly two decades down the road


Ronald Reagan and The Great Social Security Heist : FedSmith.com

Reagan needed a new source of revenue to replace the revenue lost as a result of his unaffordable income tax cuts. He wasn’t about to rescind any of his income-tax cuts, but he had another idea. What about raising the payroll tax, and then channeling the new revenue to the general fund, from where it could be spent for other purposes?

Sneaky! So he dropped the 1981 rates from
70%, 68%, 64%, 59%, 54%, 49%, 43%, 37%, 32%, 28%, 24%, 21%, 18%, 16%, 14% down to
50%, 49%, 44%, 39%, 33%, 29%, 25%, 22%, 19%, 16%, 14%, 12%.
And to replace the "lost revenue", he raised the Social Security tax from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988.

$2.7 TRILLION BUBS


AND DOUBLED THE SELF EMPLOYMENT TAX. HINT SS TAX REVENUES WENT UP 60%, lol

 

[francoHFW]

This is true. The wealthy never became wealthier.

True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.

Really? And just how did Republicans accomplish that?

Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.

 

[OnePercenter]

Wrong. Coal is being attacked by the Obama administration and his minions. They already shut down many plants and forced the remaining open ones to invest millions of dollars in greener technology. It had nothing to do with natural gas because the US is the Saudi Arabia of coal.

Coal mines were shut down due to safety violations.

Natural gas prices dipped to historically low levels beating coal prices.

And why did natural gas prices drop? That's right, fracking:

Obama's Abandoned Power Plants
Ken Blackwell | Sep 28, 2012


At least 3 coal plants announced closing since Obama's energy speech

By ASHE SCHOW • 7/11/13 12:00 AM
At least 3 coal plants announced closing since Obama's energy speech

This is true. The wealthy never became wealthier.

True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.

Planned coal-power closings won't cut CO2 much

Planned coal-power closings won't cut CO2 much

Flurry of Coal Power Plant Shutdowns Expected by 2016

Flurry of Coal Power Plant Shutdowns Expected by 2016

Historically

Commodities: Latest Natural Gas Price & Chart

Future

US natural gas glut prompts price warning - FT.com

Quit blaming Obama when the market is the bad guy.

 

[OnePercenter]

This is true. The wealthy never became wealthier.

True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.

Really? And just how did Republicans accomplish that?

Layoffs and business closures to shift monies to the market.

 

[Dad2three]

When 95% of new wealth goes to the richest 1% and the nonrich and the country are falling apart, it's time for more taxes on the richest and their tax free corps.

Could that possibly be because the top 1% benefit from wise investments in America, creating new jobs, products and services while the poor do not invest at all? The rich are not rich because the poor are poor and the poor are not poor because the rich are rich. Your consistent jealousy - like that of all the loony lefties here, there and everywhere, has been duly noted ... again.

Weird how the middle class incomes grew ALONG with those "job creators" 1945-1980. What changed?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Cuts? Where at? The government is getting bigger budgets every year. We need some big time cuts. Corporate welfare needs to go. BofA, Wells Fargo, GE, GM, and Amtrak, need to be cut off. Then cut 15% across the rest of the budget. Raise taxes on everyone for four years, then cut them back. Get rid of tax exemptions for PACs. We need to also rein in all non-profit political organizations.

The better way;


-Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with 500 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2015 price structure.

-Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

-Make inversion illegal.

Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

Did you ever find the real CPI number for this period?

 

[Dad2three]

Yes, the Kochs, Walton family, Romney ALL started at the same place as the poor *shaking head*

Sam Walton was a classic American rags-2-riches success story. The loony lefties who would destroy America's socio-economic system to serve their definition of "fairness" mostly want to end the kind of opportunity that made Walton's success possible:

"Sam Walton was born to Tom Gibson Walton and Nancy Lee, in Kingfisher, Oklahoma, He lived there with his parents on their farm until 1923. However, farming did not provide enough money to raise a family, and Thomas Walton went into farm mortgaging.
"Growing up during the Great Depression, Walton had numerous chores to help make financial ends meet for his family as was common at the time. He milked the family cow, bottled the surplus, and drove it to customers. Afterwards, he would deliver Columbia Daily Tribune newspapers on a paper route. In addition, he also sold magazine subscriptions.
"After high school, Walton decided to attend college, hoping to find a better way to help support his family. He attended the University of Missouri as an ROTC cadet. During this time, he worked various odd jobs, including waiting tables in exchange for meals."

Sam Walton? Yep, his lucky sperm club members? Nope, like the Kochs who together make up 6 of the top 10 richest AmeriKans. INHERITANCE, JUST LIKE OUR FOUNDERS WANTED RIGHT? lol