Tax the Rich? Tax the Millionaires!

[kaz]

"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.

If they are citizens and therefore forced to pay taxes, they they shouldn't have to pay taxes since they have been disenfranchised. You can't have it both ways.

Disenfranchised?

"Take GE, for example.

"GE has $36Bn in sales and paid $431M in taxes (15% of net profits) in 2009. They also paid out $9Bn in dividends and over $24Bn in 2008 and 2007 and in 2007 they bought back their own stock but, in those three years, they paid -(NEGATIVE) $900M in taxes! Are you feeling victimized yet?

" Does GE use our infrastructure?

"Do they use our public airwaves? Are they protected by our police? Is our army out there fighting and dying to protect them? Do they take money from our government?

"Do we educate their employees?

"This is the INSANITY of the US tax system."

My God liberals are so lazy. If you're going to respond to "disenfranchised" and you don't know what it means, ******* GOOGLE it you dumb ass.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If they are citizens and therefore forced to pay taxes, they they shouldn't have to pay taxes since they have been disenfranchised. You can't have it both ways.

Disenfranchised?

"Take GE, for example.

"GE has $36Bn in sales and paid $431M in taxes (15% of net profits) in 2009. They also paid out $9Bn in dividends and over $24Bn in 2008 and 2007 and in 2007 they bought back their own stock but, in those three years, they paid -(NEGATIVE) $900M in taxes! Are you feeling victimized yet?

" Does GE use our infrastructure?

"Do they use our public airwaves? Are they protected by our police? Is our army out there fighting and dying to protect them? Do they take money from our government?

"Do we educate their employees?

"This is the INSANITY of the US tax system."

My God liberals are so lazy. If you're going to respond to "disenfranchised" and you don't know what it means, ******* GOOGLE it you dumb ass.

It's not his fault - he hasn't been issued this week's talking points.

 

[kaz]

If they are citizens and therefore forced to pay taxes, they they shouldn't have to pay taxes since they have been disenfranchised. You can't have it both ways.

Not only can they not vote, they, according to the left, should not have the right to free speech.

Corporate "free $peech" determines the candidates you "choose" between months before you step into the voting booth.

Or maybe you think corporations have too little influence on US politics?

Reading this chain is so funny. He just told you that you don't know what the word means. OK, let me simplify this for you.

Click, "file"

Click, "new tab"

type in, Google

go to the search box and type in, "definition disenfranchise"

It's no wonder you need government to do everything for you.

 

[kaz]

Surely you know how many corporate employees were denied their right to vote recently?

Corporate money determines which candidates appear on your ballot months before you step into the voting booth.

How much more corporate influence on US politics are you recommending?

Ding, ding, ding. You did get there. Well done.

You didn't say corporate employees needed to pay taxes, you said corporations did. You're a moron, but on the other hand... Sorry, that's all I got.

 

[boedicca]

Actually, as Iowahawk has demonstrated, taking away all of the income of those making over $250K would result in $1.4T, so let's just seize everything over $200K and close the deficit!

Not so.
The combined income of those making over $250k is only $673B.
Add to that the combined income of those making over $150K and you get $1314B.
BUT... these people already pay $537B in income taxes (almost 59% of the total income tax revenue), leaving $777B available to take.
This reduces a 1413B deficit to $636B
(FY2009 numbers)


So, unless you want to start confiscating the incomes of those making under $150k, to kill the deficit, you have to reduce spending. A Lot.

What's your source? Those number don't look accurate.

 

[boedicca]

I am as opposed to wasteful spending as anyone.

The most prominent examples of wasteful spending that occurs to me are the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions and the counterproductive War on Drugs. What specific examples do you have in mind?

I have the example of spending in absolute dollar terms as well as a ratio of a % of GDP increasing by 25% since the Pelosi-Reid era, with a dramatic ramp once Obama gained power.

The Stimulus package has been used to dramatically increase the baseline of federal spending across the board.

Other areas that need to be addressed are Medicare and SS. The majority of federal outlays are now entitlements which are "untouchable". It's time to make that touchable. We should have a high sense of urgency to reform these programs before interest rates spike up and our annual debt service (interest on the debt) is in the range of $1T+.

What role did a $13 trillion bailout of Wall Street play in that 25% increase in spending since the Pelosi-Reid era and its dramatic ramp once Obama gained power?

Any thoughts on why the financial speculators who made the Stimulus package necessary are largely getting off scot free or why they are still not paying any tax on the purchase and sale of their "financial products"?

Do you think Goldman Sachs's 2008 effective income tax rate of 1% poses a bigger threat to the US economy than Social Security?

Would you agree?

“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. . . ."

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

You've never seen me support Big Government Cronyism, bub.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually, as Iowahawk has demonstrated, taking away all of the income of those making over $250K would result in $1.4T, so let's just seize everything over $200K and close the deficit!

Not so.
The combined income of those making over $250k is only $673B.
Add to that the combined income of those making over $150K and you get $1314B.
BUT... these people already pay $537B in income taxes (almost 59% of the total income tax revenue), leaving $777B available to take.
This reduces a 1413B deficit to $636B
(FY2009 numbers)
So, unless you want to start confiscating the incomes of those making under $150k, to kill the deficit, you have to reduce spending. A Lot.

What's your source? Those number don't look accurate.

PINC-11 Table of Contents
The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data
Historical Budget Data

 

[boedicca]

Not so.
The combined income of those making over $250k is only $673B.
Add to that the combined income of those making over $150K and you get $1314B.
BUT... these people already pay $537B in income taxes (almost 59% of the total income tax revenue), leaving $777B available to take.
This reduces a 1413B deficit to $636B
(FY2009 numbers)
So, unless you want to start confiscating the incomes of those making under $150k, to kill the deficit, you have to reduce spending. A Lot.

What's your source? Those number don't look accurate.

PINC-11 Table of Contents
The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data
Historical Budget Data

Did you actually read the tables?n This one shows the combined income of the top 1% of taxpayers as being $1,685B (includes over $380K). There's no break point at $250K; the next one is $160K, with an additional $1.2T being attributed to the rest of the bracket up to the 5% level.

Your math doesn't make sense.



The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

 

[georgephillip]

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?

The current budget deficit (~$1.3 trillion) is approximately 13.5% of Gross National Income (~$9.7 trillion)

What now?

That's what -I- asked -you-. Your response does not meaningfully address the question.

Now that you have taken -all- the income from -everyone- making $150k or more, you still have a $636B deficit

How do you plan on taking care of that $636B?

13.5% of current US Gross National Income is sufficient to completely cover the current US budget deficit.

I'm not taking "all the income" from anyone.
That was your logical fallacy.
I'm saying 13.5% of America's annual GNI is sufficient to cover America's annual deficit.

I'm also saying when 10,000 parasites dodge $100 billion in taxes the cost falls on those with far fewer meaningful resources.

 

[georgephillip]

Actually, as Iowahawk has demonstrated, taking away all of the income of those making over $250K would result in $1.4T, so let's just seize everything over $200K and close the deficit!

Or we could tax all corporations at the same rate as Warren Buffett(17.7%)

"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."

 

[boedicca]

Actually, as Iowahawk has demonstrated, taking away all of the income of those making over $250K would result in $1.4T, so let's just seize everything over $200K and close the deficit!

Or we could tax all corporations at the same rate as Warren Buffett(17.7%)

"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."

Great. Let's see how many more jobs can be destroyed.

And, it would behoove you to learn the difference between Revenue and Net Income.

 

[MitchMan]

boeddica, you got him. One thing that the right wing consistantly gets wrong are the stats that relate to these types of points. They either mistate the stats or they side step the issue and use deflective conversational tactics and spin to get out and away from the subject. You see, the actual numbers do not support right wing contentions, they disprove them.

 

[boedicca]

boeddica, you got him. One thing that the right wing consistantly gets wrong are the stats that relate to these types of points. They either mistate the stats or they side step the issue and use deflective conversational tactics and spin to get out and away from the subject. You see, the actual numbers do not support right wing contentions, they disprove them.

If you think I align myself with the Leftwing, I suggest you read more of my posting history.

 

[georgephillip]

And today's elected Republicans AND Democrats will turn on their own children before they turn on Wall Street, Mike.

The accounting you and I are looking for won't happen by "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican.

[...]

I don't disagree with that. The Republicans are totally owned by the corporatocracy and the Democrats are either corrupted or too timid to take a stand on anything. But what choice to we have? A vote for a third party candidate, or some independent write-in, is a vote for a Republican.

It's 7:58 PM and Obama just wrapped up his Libya speech. Whereas I once admired his poise and articulate delivery I am now weary of his style and his bullshit. He really isn't that much different from Bush. He just looks and sounds different.

Democrats turn to the same 1% of the population to fund their campaigns as Republicans. They are both owned by Wall Street. How else to explain why no one from Wall Street has been charged with control or securities fraud after the biggest transfer of private debt into public debt of all time.

In virtually every national election that I can remember, somewhere between 30% to 50% of all eligible voters find nothing worth voting FOR.

We have to find ways to use the internet to give these alienated potential game changers something to vote AGAINST.

Why not Republicans AND Democrats AND Wall Street?

 

[georgephillip]

I have the example of spending in absolute dollar terms as well as a ratio of a % of GDP increasing by 25% since the Pelosi-Reid era, with a dramatic ramp once Obama gained power.

The Stimulus package has been used to dramatically increase the baseline of federal spending across the board.

Other areas that need to be addressed are Medicare and SS. The majority of federal outlays are now entitlements which are "untouchable". It's time to make that touchable. We should have a high sense of urgency to reform these programs before interest rates spike up and our annual debt service (interest on the debt) is in the range of $1T+.

What role did a $13 trillion bailout of Wall Street play in that 25% increase in spending since the Pelosi-Reid era and its dramatic ramp once Obama gained power?

Any thoughts on why the financial speculators who made the Stimulus package necessary are largely getting off scot free or why they are still not paying any tax on the purchase and sale of their "financial products"?

Do you think Goldman Sachs's 2008 effective income tax rate of 1% poses a bigger threat to the US economy than Social Security?

Would you agree?

“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. . . ."

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

You never seen me support Big Government Cronyism, bub.

I've also never noticed you criticizing Wall Street or the FIRE sector.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What's your source? Those number don't look accurate.

PINC-11 Table of Contents
The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data
Historical Budget Data

Did you actually read the tables?n This one shows the combined income of the top 1% of taxpayers as being $1,685B (includes over $380K). There's no break point at $250K; the next one is $160K, with an additional $1.2T being attributed to the rest of the bracket up to the 5% level.

Your math doesn't make sense.

It does when you look at all of the information at the sites I cited.

 

[MitchMan]

M14, you are way, way off. Do you know how to read numeric data?

The real and substantive equitable way to cure the problem is to change the economic system away from its current massive inequitable bias that leads to massive disproportionate overcompensation of top income persons and the related accumulation of the disparate inequitable concentration of wealth at the top.

This excess wealth was siphoned away legally from the working class by way of the biased economic system that we have. The wealth was created by the hands and minds of the working class yet allowed to be steered to, acquired and accumulated by the top, mostly by high prices, successful measures/pressures to suppress compensation of the working class, and by non-productive financial maneuvering.

Having said that, right now the only tool to compensate for the inequitable concentration of wealth and income at the top is by way of the progressive income tax rates and the estate tax. Obviously, since the USA is the second worst offender in the world in such disparate concentration of wealth at the top, the progressive income tax rates are not nearly as progressive as they need to be and the estate tax is too lenient.

An analysis of the aforementioned tax info shows that the average top 1% taxpayer has over $923,000 left over after paying their fed inc tax, the average top 10% taxpayer has $224,000 left over after paying their fed tax, the average amount of income left over after the bottom 50% pay their inc tax is just under $15,000. Can you see the difference? Try to live on $15,000 after tax income. Not enough to even be at subsistence, but if you are in the top 10%, you have an average of $224,000. Now, you can live very, very fat on that! See the difference?

Anybody see a lopsided disparity? I do. The right wing ignores the fact that the wealthy have so much money left over after they pay their taxes. That is how they accumulated so much of the nation’s wealth. However, the right wing wants you to think that the top 2% pay such an inordinate share of income taxes, that they are hurting, even more ludicrously, they want you to believe that it is bad for the economy! $923,000 versus $15,000! What shamelessl people the right wing are.

Now, if we need more tax revenue, don’t look to the bottom 50% (there are many republicans in that bottom 50%) to get it, they can’t really live on their remaining $15,000 after taxes.

 

[MitchMan]

boeddica, how does taxing more of a corporation's profits kill jobs?

You know that it is a tax on profits, that means that all the operating expenses and all labor already hired and any and all other costs have been all been paid for, even things like depreciation which then allows reserves to be built up from profits to replace assets when fully depreciated. You see, there is no reason to fire anybody, your profits are proof that you have more than enough to pay all your labor.

The only reason to fire anybody in the face of profits is if you are an inefficient company and have too much labor on staff. But, if you are not inefficient and you fire some one even after making a profit, then you will not have enough labor to accomplish all the work necessary to stay efficient - you will be understaffed and then your profits will suffer. Cost accounting, basic economics, and business finance 101.

Now explain to me, to us how taxes on corporate profits destroys jobs(?)

 

[kaz]

Actually, as Iowahawk has demonstrated, taking away all of the income of those making over $250K would result in $1.4T, so let's just seize everything over $200K and close the deficit!

Or we could tax all corporations at the same rate as Warren Buffett(17.7%)

"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."

So when you go to bankruptcy court, I'm sure the judge will be glad to hear your excuse that if your employer just paid you 17.7% more then you could spend what you do and be just fine, so it's really your employer's fault. I'd go with that, if I were you.

 

[MitchMan]

kaz, bad analogy, doesn't intellectually hold up at all. A person going bankrupt versus a country deficit spending, there are so many elements that make your implied comparison totally not on point. You know, humanizing or personalizing things that are more complex and quite different is like the apples and oranges comparison. Works for the simplistic, but not the well adjusted and well oriented knowldegeable person. It is something Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck might say, but not Hugh Hewitt or Mark Levin or even Michael Medved.