Tax the Rich: Fix Jobs and Deficits

[georgephillip]

And REPLACE them with what? More Communist? you can't get any more Commies than what you already have in the white house and in the DEMOCRAT party. so please stop blowing smoke up our asses about what YOUR solution would be..

How many communists have you counted among Libertarians?

Do you have any idea how clueless you sound when calling Obama a socialist?

How many ******* bankers has he thrown in prison?

Not as many as he is buddied up to, also, can you name any of the ones he has thrown in prison? And I would be willing to bet that they did not vote for him and probably sided against him on issues.

I don't think a single Wall Street banker has even faced charges of control fraud on Obama's watch.

Maybe that's why Goldman Sachs gave his campaign more money in 2008 than it gave to McCain?

Had Ralph Nader gone to the White House in 2009, hundreds of "savvy businessmen" would be rotting in prison this very minute with hundreds more waiting in the wings. Something similar actually happened after the S & L Scandal of the 1980s when hundreds of corporate and political whores were charged with crimes.

Even then elite elected Republicans AND Democrats were in it up to their rich white necks so those who planned the crime got away with little more than some bad press.

 

[skookerasbil]

Philosophy is gay.......this is a politics forum.

The jackass author of the thread is a hyper-progressive k00k who thinks very highly of his own intellect. The whole thread is fantasy, however..................

Having this discussion in a POLITICS forum is beyond absurd.

 

[georgephillip]

The Patriots side, and through the ballot by electing more Tea Party members in.

Would that be the "business as usual" tea party candidates?

"Faster than you can say 'business as usual,' freshman Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee have begun to execute Wall Street's agenda."

Any Republican or Democrat who defies Wall Street will find herself facing a very well-funded challenger in her next primary.

Republicans AND Democrats have to FLUSHED from DC by the hundreds for anything of substance to change.

Tea Party Rebels Quickly Tamed | Truthout

Truthout = gay........#8 on the top progressive blogs..........

Gay or Tea Party?

"Rep. Steve Stivers (R-OH) hauled in nearly $100,000 in just his first two months in office — 85 percent of it from the special interests his committee oversees."

Or just another DC hypocrite?

Tea Party Rebels Quickly Tamed | Truthout

 

[boedicca]

Here's the trap Barking Moonbats such as yourself consistently fall into:

The top tax rates that you advocate to put in place apply to middle class families. They are not the ones exploiting the Big Government Cronyism which really is an issue in this country. It's too bad you'd rather play Class Warfare Games against people who actually work for a living instead of addressing the collusion between career politicians, the permanent regulator bureaucracy, the Big Entities which capture the regulators, and the community organizing shakedown artists who work together to extract money from taxpayers.

The 70% rate from 1979 you cite above applied to income levels over $670K in 2011 dollars. Is someone at that income level well off? Yes, but they are not Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Jeffrey Immelt, or the head of a Wall St. Investment Bank.

Lumping in upper middle class people with billionaires pins the bogometer, and you fall for it every time.

Who said ANYTHING about a 70% rate on Upper Middle Class Families? $670K was a lot more money in 1979 than it is today. That's the trap you Conservatives fall into. Just because we want the top rate higher, doesn't necessarily mean that we want it to be so widespread. I'd say somewhere in the range of maybe more along the lines of $3M/year+ In personal Income?

Your Obamessiah wants to apply to top tax rate to families making $250K, bub. That's his number, not mine.

And the $670K is already in 2011 dollars (the breakpoint in 1979 was $215K). I said that in the post, but the concept of inflation adjusted dollars must be foreign to you.

 

[georgephillip]

Philosophy is gay.......this is a politics forum.

The jackass author of the thread is a hyper-progressive k00k who thinks very highly of his own intellect. The whole thread is fantasy, however..................

Having this discussion in a POLITICS forum is beyond absurd.

How many ballots were cast in 2008?

How many in 2010?

See any difference?

 

[skookerasbil]

So there Phillip........how about a link from another one of your beloved hyper-progressive blogs.............

Here ya go..........take your pick.............

AlterNet.org, Washington Monthly, Center for American Progress, The Nation MotherJones.com

 

[boedicca]

Here's the trap Barking Moonbats such as yourself consistently fall into:

The top tax rates that you advocate to put in place apply to middle class families. They are not the ones exploiting the Big Government Cronyism which really is an issue in this country. It's too bad you'd rather play Class Warfare Games against people who actually work for a living instead of addressing the collusion between career politicians, the permanent regulator bureaucracy, the Big Entities which capture the regulators, and the community organizing shakedown artists who work together to extract money from taxpayers.

The 70% rate from 1979 you cite above applied to income levels over $670K in 2011 dollars. Is someone at that income level well off? Yes, but they are not Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Jeffrey Immelt, or the head of a Wall St. Investment Bank.

Lumping in upper middle class people with billionaires pins the bogometer, and you fall for it every time.

Who said ANYTHING about a 70% rate on Upper Middle Class Families? $670K was a lot more money in 1979 than it is today. That's the trap you Conservatives fall into. Just because we want the top rate higher, doesn't necessarily mean that we want it to be so widespread. I'd say somewhere in the range of maybe more along the lines of $3M/year+ In personal Income?

Let's ask Robert Reich and Cato Institute Fellow Alan Reynolds what they think:

"Reynolds also distorts my proposal, implying that the bracket on which I call for a 70 percent tax is the same as in today’s tax code. Wrong.

"My proposed 70 percent rate would apply only to incomes over $15 million...

"Under my proposal, incomes between $5 million and $15 million would be subjected to a 60 percent rate, and incomes between $500,000 and $5 million to a 50 percent rate.

"Importantly, my proposal calls for a substantial rate reduction for families with incomes under $100,000. (Conveniently, Reynolds fails to mention this.)

"Reynolds entirely ignores my central argument, which is that rather than depress economic growth, higher taxes on the rich correlate with higher growth.

"During almost three decades spanning 1951 to 1980, when the top rate was between 70 percent and 91 percent, average annual growth in the American economy was 3.7 percent."

Robert Reich

Anyone think 70% is too much for the $15 million/year poor to pay for a few generations?

And just how many people make over $15M per year?

 

[Charles_Main]

So no deficit reduction, keep spending trillions more then we have and to help offset it steal the money from those you think have to much. Thanks for proving the point of just how brain damaged you are.

Explain again how taking MORE percentage wise from people that happen to have more then you is A) Justified under the Constitution, B) reasonable behavior for a Government to do, And C) why you think those with more should pay a higher percentage based on some sense of fair play and reasonable conscious.

If someone twice your size and half your age beats you senseless and transfers all the money in your pockets into his, will you bleat "life ain't fair" from your hospital bed?

The richest 1% of Americans earned about 9% of annual US income in 1979.
They earn over 20% today and control about 40% of national wealth.
And they have seen their "fair share" of both increase since 2008.

I don't believe the rich have earned all that money.
They have bribed politicians to lower their tax rates to acquire some of it.
They have manipulated the Federal Reserve and commodity markets for some of it.
And they've spiked unemployment to levels unseen in generations for some of it.

This is a damn war.
Why are you afraid to fight back?

Some of expect to be on "the other side" of your little war, and do not want to take away the chance that any of us can get there.

Why is it when you guys talk about how much money the rich have, you never seem to mention how the top 2% pay over 40% of all Revenue the fed takes in from Taxes?

Oh I know, because it blows you "not paying their fair share" argument to hell.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Anyone think 70% is too much for the $15 million/year poor to pay for a few generations?

How much money would the 70% rate collect the first year? How about the second? LOL!

 

[skookerasbil]

Philosophy is gay.......this is a politics forum.

The jackass author of the thread is a hyper-progressive k00k who thinks very highly of his own intellect. The whole thread is fantasy, however..................

Having this discussion in a POLITICS forum is beyond absurd.

How many ballots were cast in 2008?

How many in 2010?

See any difference?

Who gives a rats ass s0n..........for all your philosophy, you have the political IQ of a handball.

The GOP is going to PWN the House for a decade.........

The 2010 Election and the Republican Redistricting Advantage | Suite101.com

..........and possibly more. Mega tax hikes are a pipe dream s0n, thought about only by the uber left, but politically, zero chance.



Because elections have consequences!!!!!

 

[Charles_Main]

Anyone think 70% is too much for the $15 million/year poor to pay for a few generations?

Yes I absolutely do think it is to much. I think anyone, no matter how much they make, paying more than 25% of their money to the Fed is not only insane, its Criminal.

Look at what happened in NYC. They passed a millionaire tax, which they thought would give them a 100 Million dollar jump in Revenue. The Problem. The Rich can afford to move, and they did. NYC saw a significant Drop in Revenue.

You tax the Rich at 70% for 2 Generations, and there will be no rich left to tax.

Besides, and I can't believe I have to say this again because it has been proven on here many times over, But you could take 100% of Millionaires money and it would amount to a tiny Drop in the bucket compared to the Deficit and Debt Numbers were talking about.

Taxing the Rich is not the Answer, It's simple math it can't be.

You guys need to stop grasping at straws to find a way to Sustain this level of Spending, and pay for SS and Medicares future, and come to grips with the COLD HARD FACTS. We can not sustain it, Taking all the riches money will not sustain it. We must make hard Decisions and cuts, and find ways to sustain our Social Programs that will not destroy us.

PERIOD!!!

**** left and right, **** Dem and Rep. Just face the facts, It's just MATH!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOyaJ2UI7Ss&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - ‪Petition to Redistribute GPA Scores‬‏[/ame]

 

[boedicca]

Anyone think 70% is too much for the $15 million/year poor to pay for a few generations?

How much money would the 70% rate collect the first year? How about the second? LOL!

Damned little. Very few people make that much money - and they are they most mobile people on the planet. Raise their taxes, and they can move. Just ask U2. They moved out of Ireland to avoid taxes.

Going back to 2005:

The top tenth of a percent reported an average income of $5.6 million, up $908,000, while the top one-hundredth of a percent had an average income of $25.7 million, up nearly $4.4 million in one year.

Income Gap Is Widening, Data Shows - New York Times

Assume there are 150M taxpayers in the U.S. (it's actually lower than that).

And then let's assume that the top one-hundredth of a percent is where we'll find those making over $15M and that the average income applies to everyone. Being an average, the combined group's income is $386M. The total number of affected taxpayers is 15,000. Excluding their first $15M, that leaves $10.7M per individual to tax, or $160B in total. At 70%, the marginal tax collected would theoretically be $112B - but the government will never see those tax receipts due to The Very Rich's mobility.

When the government is running $T+ deficits, this punitive taxation barely makes a dent, and won't happen anyway. The Very Rich will move their tax jurisdictions, just like U2 did.

 

[daveman]

Even if I was capable of earning that kind of money, wouldn't I be equally corrupt to do so?

So that's your excuse for being a lazy bastard?

 

[Maple]

Since DC Democrats and Republicans are tone deaf to anything that doesn't ring of corporate cash, it falls on workers to demand a massive public works program which can be funded by taxing corporations and the richest Americans at pre-Reagan levels.

"And it makes complete sense because the growing inequalities in wealth over the past three decades has meant a spectacular concentration of wealth at the top.

"The rich have plenty of money to spare."

Spare me the brain-dead conservative vomit about how hard the rich have "worked" for all their money.

The rich have the money because Republicans AND Democrats threw money at Wall Street banks and hedge funds instead of prosecuting the executives responsible for the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression.

The rich have the money because their chief enabler, The Federal Reserve, has fueled a major commodity bubble "that may be in the midst of bursting, possibly triggering a double dip recession."

Throw in high unemployment which allows the rich to work remaining employees harder and thus increase profits and combine it with commodity speculation and you have the entire basis for a corporate recovery which both major parties tout as "proof" of economic "recovery."

It's another lie the rich tell.

When the Fed stops purchasing 60% of US Treasury bonds, a new creditor will have to step up. One that will probably demand significantly higher interest rates before loaning anymore money to the US Government.

Surprise, surprise - the rich win again!

They got all that free bail-out money which increased the deficit.
None of them went to prison for their crimes.
Their bottom lines are being enhanced by commodity speculation and high unemployment.
And now the rich want higher interest rates for investing in US Treasury Bonds.

"In (all) instances working people pay the bills."

The Rich Are Destroying the Economy | Common Dreams

I say tax the poor, hell take every dime you have, take every dime everyone has and it still will not be enough to pay off the deficit, it's not a revenue problem it's a spending problem.

 

[Maple]

Here's the trap Barking Moonbats such as yourself consistently fall into:

The top tax rates that you advocate to put in place apply to middle class families. They are not the ones exploiting the Big Government Cronyism which really is an issue in this country. It's too bad you'd rather play Class Warfare Games against people who actually work for a living instead of addressing the collusion between career politicians, the permanent regulator bureaucracy, the Big Entities which capture the regulators, and the community organizing shakedown artists who work together to extract money from taxpayers.

The 70% rate from 1979 you cite above applied to income levels over $670K in 2011 dollars. Is someone at that income level well off? Yes, but they are not Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Jeffrey Immelt, or the head of a Wall St. Investment Bank.

Lumping in upper middle class people with billionaires pins the bogometer, and you fall for it every time.

Who said ANYTHING about a 70% rate on Upper Middle Class Families? $670K was a lot more money in 1979 than it is today. That's the trap you Conservatives fall into. Just because we want the top rate higher, doesn't necessarily mean that we want it to be so widespread. I'd say somewhere in the range of maybe more along the lines of $3M/year+ In personal Income?

Let's ask Robert Reich and Cato Institute Fellow Alan Reynolds what they think:

"Reynolds also distorts my proposal, implying that the bracket on which I call for a 70 percent tax is the same as in today’s tax code. Wrong.

"My proposed 70 percent rate would apply only to incomes over $15 million...

"Under my proposal, incomes between $5 million and $15 million would be subjected to a 60 percent rate, and incomes between $500,000 and $5 million to a 50 percent rate.

"Importantly, my proposal calls for a substantial rate reduction for families with incomes under $100,000. (Conveniently, Reynolds fails to mention this.)

"Reynolds entirely ignores my central argument, which is that rather than depress economic growth, higher taxes on the rich correlate with higher growth.

"During almost three decades spanning 1951 to 1980, when the top rate was between 70 percent and 91 percent, average annual growth in the American economy was 3.7 percent."

Robert Reich

Anyone think 70% is too much for the $15 million/year poor to pay for a few generations?

Uhhhhhhhh, yes 70 cents on every dollar earned is a little extreme, maybe those wealthy people should give it all up and go on welfare, they might fare better that way. Pay for a few generations??? yeah sure. LOLOLOL it would be gone in about a new york minute.

 

[bripat9643]

Even if I was capable of earning that kind of money, wouldn't I be equally corrupt to do so?

So that's your excuse for being a lazy bastard?

Note the assumption that all rich people got their money by being corrupt. Liberals believe that because it's certainly true in the case of all Democrat politicians.

 

[hipeter924]

Even if I was capable of earning that kind of money, wouldn't I be equally corrupt to do so?

So that's your excuse for being a lazy bastard?

Note the assumption that all rich people got their money by being corrupt. Liberals believe that because it's certainly true in the case of all Democrat politicians.

Everyone is corrupt, not just the rich; take a trip to India.

Most people make that kinda money through luck or hard work; usually both, rich people aren't any more nasty than the people below them (in fact since they have made it to the top they are much less so). Or if we are to believe citigroup and the like, then most people are greedy, power hungry and need to be kept down, so they don't collapse the world economy and leave us poor, starving or dead.

 

[FA_Q2]

Are we not forgetting that WEALTH is NOT taxed? Taxing people at 100 would not help the distribution in this country; it would only ensure social mobility within classes was impossible.

 

[Steelplate]

Your Obamessiah wants to apply to top tax rate to families making $250K, bub. That's his number, not mine.

And the $670K is already in 2011 dollars (the breakpoint in 1979 was $215K). I said that in the post, but the concept of inflation adjusted dollars must be foreign to you.

Ok, First off... knock it the **** off with the Messiah Bullshit.... That is and always has been you Conservatives' Viewpoint on Obama. It never was ours.

That $250K Number? Nothing at all to do with a 70% top rate... that had to do with a very Modest 4% return to the Pre-Bush tax cuts... You know, when the budget was a hell of a lot stronger than it is now?

No, the concept isn't foreign to me... Just must have missed it.... Dickhead.