Tax the Rich? Tax the Millionaires!

[Skull Pilot]

My federal tax return for my small business with only 10 employees was over 100 pages long.

It's fucking ridiculous

 

[yota5]

Tax the Rich! Tax the Millionaires! This scheme is right out of the socialist play book of social justice. Let's define social justice. "Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution." Social justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is known as the Robin Hood effect (steal from the rich to give to the poor.)

As with all principles steeped in the deviant teachings found in the communist manifesto, social justice is doomed to failure. If you take away the rewards for people to risk their wealth in entrepreneurial endeavors you put a stopper on economic growth.

Rich people have disposable income to invest in business. This produces jobs. Poor people don't have the resources to do this. Jobs produce wealth for the worker, and the entrepreneur. No jobs no wealth. These are the basic tenets of Capitalism. Capitalism is the reason that the USA is the strongest economy in the world. Capitalism is the reason that Americans enjoy unprecedented quality of life.

Destroying capitalism by implementing socialistic ideology can be likened to killing the goose that laid golden eggs. The search for successful socialistic societies is a fools errand. A successful socialistic society only exits between the ears of a progressive, centrist, socialist, liberal, or communist of questionable intellect.

 

[georgephillip]

Paul Hogarth: Tax the Rich? Tax the Millionaires!






Do that shit, do that shit, do that shit, teah do that shit, lol.

No seriously, rightwingers can't defend millionaires against this when the majority of Americans, especially the middle class, are proportionally bearing a bigger brunt.

"Until 1963, the richest Americans paid over 90% of their income in taxes -- and it wasn't until Ronald Reagan that it dipped below 70% -- which makes the Sanders-Schakowsky proposals very modest, historically speaking. But what's interesting is if you look at who paid those high tax rates, who constituted as 'rich' was well above what $250,000 will get you today.

"Until 1965, the top tax bracket was for people who made over $400,000 -- and during World War II, the 80% tax rates only affected those making over $5 million."

Paul Hogarth: Tax the Rich? Tax the Millionaires!

You don't understand progressive tax brackets do you?

No one's entire income was ever taxed at 90%. The top tax bracket was 90% that means that only some of a person's income over a specific amount was taxed at 90%.

You got me, Skull.

I don't understand progressive tax brackets.

Do you understand effective tax rates?

"Goldman Sachs paid an effective income tax rate of only 1% in 2008. Prof. Hossein-Zadehi writes:

“'It is increasingly becoming clear that the working majority around the world face a common enemy: an unproductive financial oligarchy that, like parasites, sucks the economic blood out of the working people, simply by trading and/or betting on claims of ownership. . . . The real question is when the working people and other victims of the unjust debt burden will grasp the gravity of this challenge, and rise to the critical task of breaking free from the shackles of debt and depression.'”

Ellen Brown: Who Will Pay: Wall Street or Main Street?

 

[georgephillip]

My federal tax return for my small business with only 10 employees was over 100 pages long.

It's fucking ridiculous

Possibly GE could shed some light on your situation?

"As David Kocieniewski reports in The New York Times, G.E. 'has been cutting the percentage of its American profits paid to the Internal Revenue Service for years, resulting in a far lower rate than most multinational companies.'

"According to Citizens for Tax Justice, between 2006 and 2010, General Electric reported $26.3 billion in pretax profits to its shareholders but paid no U.S. taxes.

"In fact, they received $4.2 billion in refunds from Uncle Sam for an effective tax rate of negative 15.8 percent over these five years."

Bringing good things to life.

From Japan to DC.

General Electric: King of the Tax Dodgers | Common Dreams

 

[Skull Pilot]

"Until 1963, the richest Americans paid over 90% of their income in taxes -- and it wasn't until Ronald Reagan that it dipped below 70% -- which makes the Sanders-Schakowsky proposals very modest, historically speaking. But what's interesting is if you look at who paid those high tax rates, who constituted as 'rich' was well above what $250,000 will get you today.

"Until 1965, the top tax bracket was for people who made over $400,000 -- and during World War II, the 80% tax rates only affected those making over $5 million."

Paul Hogarth: Tax the Rich? Tax the Millionaires!

You don't understand progressive tax brackets do you?

No one's entire income was ever taxed at 90%. The top tax bracket was 90% that means that only some of a person's income over a specific amount was taxed at 90%.

You got me, Skull.

I don't understand progressive tax brackets.

Do you understand effective tax rates?

"Goldman Sachs paid an effective income tax rate of only 1% in 2008. Prof. Hossein-Zadehi writes:

“'It is increasingly becoming clear that the working majority around the world face a common enemy: an unproductive financial oligarchy that, like parasites, sucks the economic blood out of the working people, simply by trading and/or betting on claims of ownership. . . . The real question is when the working people and other victims of the unjust debt burden will grasp the gravity of this challenge, and rise to the critical task of breaking free from the shackles of debt and depression.'”

Ellen Brown: Who Will Pay: Wall Street or Main Street?

I'm all for getting rid of loopholes and arbitrary deductions.

Let everyone pay a flat 10% of income for individuals and profit for businesses.
No deductions for mortgage interest, no deductions for kids etc.

Get rid of depreciation schedules and let people write off what they spend on capital improvements in the same year. An easy bottom line 10% tax.

 

[editec]

The REAL PROPBLEM with our extraordinarily complex tax code is that is was designed by and for the wealthy to begin with.

Skull Piolots complain is certainly valid enough.

But do you suppose GE minds that taxation is complex?

Who do you suppose made it so complex?

Poor people?!

Some of you folks have a serious case of stockholm sydrome.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Gross National Income (most recent) by country

The most recent (according to the above link) gross income of the US was $9,780,000,000,000.00

Tell me if the feds collect 10% of that in taxes do you think we'd be in debt?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You are forgetting GE and other US corporations.

"US corporations, who are (according to to the Supreme Court) also citizens of this country, paid just $300Bn in taxes last year on $6 TRILLION in income (5%). That’s right, if US corporations simply paid the same amount of tax as Mr. Buffett – that would, by itself, be enough to wipe out our deficit.

I see you backed off your "10,000 richest Americans" silliness.
Good boy.

10,000 Americans (who buy elected Republicans AND Democrats the same way you and I buy newspapers) dodging $100 billion/year in taxes doesn't strike me as "silliness."
When the richest 1% of Americans "back off" from amassing an ever increasing share of national wealth, I'll do the same.

Just because I like repeating myself:
You could take EVERY PENNY as taxes from those that make >250k and you'd still have a $1000B deficit.
Now what?

 

[georgephillip]

Tax the Rich! Tax the Millionaires! This scheme is right out of the socialist play book of social justice. Let's define social justice. "Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution." Social justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is known as the Robin Hood effect (steal from the rich to give to the poor.)

As with all principles steeped in the deviant teachings found in the communist manifesto, social justice is doomed to failure. If you take away the rewards for people to risk their wealth in entrepreneurial endeavors you put a stopper on economic growth.

Rich people have disposable income to invest in business. This produces jobs. Poor people don't have the resources to do this. Jobs produce wealth for the worker, and the entrepreneur. No jobs no wealth. These are the basic tenets of Capitalism. Capitalism is the reason that the USA is the strongest economy in the world. Capitalism is the reason that Americans enjoy unprecedented quality of life.

Destroying capitalism by implementing socialistic ideology can be likened to killing the goose that laid golden eggs. The search for successful socialistic societies is a fools errand. A successful socialistic society only exits between the ears of a progressive, centrist, socialist, liberal, or communist of questionable intellect.

Is it equality or human rights you find most objectionable?

Lately rich people have run out of productive widgets to invest in and have turned to trading or betting on claims of ownership.

When they win their wagers, profits are privatized.

When they lose, losses are socialized.

Only fools (or slaves) in search of an errand would label that an "unprecedented quality of life."

 

[georgephillip]

You don't understand progressive tax brackets do you?

No one's entire income was ever taxed at 90%. The top tax bracket was 90% that means that only some of a person's income over a specific amount was taxed at 90%.

You got me, Skull.

I don't understand progressive tax brackets.

Do you understand effective tax rates?

"Goldman Sachs paid an effective income tax rate of only 1% in 2008. Prof. Hossein-Zadehi writes:

“'It is increasingly becoming clear that the working majority around the world face a common enemy: an unproductive financial oligarchy that, like parasites, sucks the economic blood out of the working people, simply by trading and/or betting on claims of ownership. . . . The real question is when the working people and other victims of the unjust debt burden will grasp the gravity of this challenge, and rise to the critical task of breaking free from the shackles of debt and depression.'”

Ellen Brown: Who Will Pay: Wall Street or Main Street?

I'm all for getting rid of loopholes and arbitrary deductions.

Let everyone pay a flat 10% of income for individuals and profit for businesses.
No deductions for mortgage interest, no deductions for kids etc.

Get rid of depreciation schedules and let people write off what they spend on capital improvements in the same year. An easy bottom line 10% tax.

Your solution sounds like a huge improvement to me.

I would strongly suggest FLUSHING as many Republicans AND Democrats from DC as possible in order to expedite your changes to the tax code.

WEB OF DEBT BLOG

 

[georgephillip]

I see you backed off your "10,000 richest Americans" silliness.
Good boy.

10,000 Americans (who buy elected Republicans AND Democrats the same way you and I buy newspapers) dodging $100 billion/year in taxes doesn't strike me as "silliness."
When the richest 1% of Americans "back off" from amassing an ever increasing share of national wealth, I'll do the same.

Just because I like repeating myself:
You could take EVERY PENNY as taxes from those that make >250k and you'd still have a $1000B deficit.
Now what?

And your point is?

Allow the 10,000 richest Americans to dodge another ~100 billion dollars in taxes and cut "entitlements" and pension plans to cover the difference?

The deficit is guaranteed as long as voters continue "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat.

 

[M14 Shooter]

10,000 Americans (who buy elected Republicans AND Democrats the same way you and I buy newspapers) dodging $100 billion/year in taxes doesn't strike me as "silliness."
When the richest 1% of Americans "back off" from amassing an ever increasing share of national wealth, I'll do the same.

Just because I like repeating myself:
You could take EVERY PENNY as taxes from those that make >250k and you'd still have a $1000B deficit.
Now what?

And your point is?

Duh....That taxing the rich CANNOT balance the budget.

Take every penny of income from those that make >$250K and you have $1000B left to cover.
Take every penny of income from tose that make >150K and you have $636B left to cover.

What now?

 

[boedicca]

Just because I like repeating myself:
You could take EVERY PENNY as taxes from those that make >250k and you'd still have a $1000B deficit.
Now what?

And your point is?

Duh....That taxing the rich CANNOT balance the budget.

Take every penny of income from those that make >$250K and you have $1000B left to cover.
Take every penny of income from tose that make >150K and you have $636B left to cover.

What now?

We ARE Devo. After that, we are expected to revert to much lower standards of living (including frequent brown outs and black outs) while the Overseers live in luxury.

 

[FBastiat]

the majority of Americans, especially the middle class, are proportionally bearing a bigger brunt.

And what data can you show to support this claim? Every report I've seen shows that the wealthy are shouldering an increased percentage of tax revenues, more so after the Bush Tax Cuts.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And your point is?

Duh....That taxing the rich CANNOT balance the budget.

Take every penny of income from those that make >$250K and you have $1000B left to cover.
Take every penny of income from tose that make >150K and you have $636B left to cover.

What now?

We ARE Devo. After that, we are expected to revert to much lower standards of living (including frequent brown outs and black outs) while the Overseers live in luxury.

You missed the part where those that make $150k and up have all of their income taken from them.

 

[MikeK]

[Duh....That taxing the rich CANNOT balance the budget.

Take every penny of income from those that make >$250K and you have $1000B left to cover.
Take every penny of income from tose that make >150K and you have $636B left to cover.

What now?

This is typical Glenn Beck blackboard-style trickery, which makes sense to those whose partisan bias makes them wish to believe it and whose reasoning skills equip them with little choice. It is equal to theorizing that the net holdings of the average person is insufficient to immediately settle all their debts, which might include a student loan, a mortgage and a car loan.

Balancing the budget means paying down the deficit to an easily manageable level, or eliminating it entirely. Of course this cannot be done in one immediate pass as your convenient little formula demonstrates. It will take time, as will paying off the average American's total debt. And increasing the tax burden of the wealthy to pre-Reagan levels will unquestionably facilitate that purpose.

The simple fact of the matter is had the progressive tax rate that existed before Reagan commenced its reduction remained in force we would not have the level of debt we are now burdened with.

 

[MikeK]

You missed the part where those that make $150k and up have all of their income taken from them.

Really?

Oh, the poor bastards. We must rush to help them before they starve or succumb to the cold.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[Duh....That taxing the rich CANNOT balance the budget.

Take every penny of income from those that make >$250K and you have $1000B left to cover.
Take every penny of income from tose that make >150K and you have $636B left to cover.

What now?

This is typical Glenn Beck blackboard-style trickery, which makes sense to those whose partisan bias makes them wish to believe it and whose reasoning skills equip them with little choice. It is equal to theorizing that the net holdings of the average person is insufficient to immediately settle all their debts, which might include a student loan, a mortgage and a car loan.

Um.... no.... its an illustratiuon as to how it is impossible to balance the budget simply by raising taxes. There isn't enough income to do it. Spending MUST be cut, and it MUST be cut by a substantial amount.

Balancing the budget means paying down the deficit to an easily manageable level, or eliminating it entirely. Of course this cannot be done in one immediate pass as your convenient little formula demonstrates.

One pass? I'm talking about every year, assuming that spending doesn't increase at all.
Fact of the matter is, the wealthy simply do no thave the income necessary to balance the budget thru tax hikes.

It will take time, as will paying off the average American's total debt. And increasing the tax burden of the wealthy to pre-Reagan levels will unquestionably facilitate that purpose.

--Only--- if spending is cut to an even --more-- significant degree.

The simple fact of the matter is had the progressive tax rate that existed before Reagan commenced its reduction remained in force we would not have the level of debt we are now burdened with.

Fact of the matter is that if spending had not increased when revenue decreased -- and actual decreases in revenue are realtively rare - we would not have the level of debt we are now burdened with.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You missed the part where those that make $150k and up have all of their income taken from them.

Really?
Oh, the poor bastards. We must rush to help them before they starve or succumb to the cold.

So, you support reducing several million people to $0 income?

 

[drsmith1072]

The call for selective equal treatment by government, yet again by liberal wingers....

Yawn

Look to the right's recent arguments concerning unions and how the public sector union members have it better than their private sector counter parts to see the right's support for selective equal treatement.

Get rid of them all, equally

So you want to get rid of unions and the top 2%?? Is that really your response??

BTW how does your response address the contradiction in how the right caters to the top 2% and how they tried to turn private sector workers against public sector union members??