Tax the Rich? Tax the Millionaires!

[georgephillip]

It can't happen as long as over 90% of US voters continue "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat.

"There is overwhelming evidence that we are entering the final chapter of class warfare in the US. Today, in the 'public arena,' it is forbidden to say class warfare, and many citizens do not regard themselves as working class.

"The assault on language comes compliments of the propaganda apparatus, which includes: public relations, marketing, corporate media and the entertainment industry, universities, think tanks and so on. Its purpose is to distract our attention from serious matters so we can focus on trivial matters - usually involving consuming."

Class Warfare, the Final Chapter

At some point inequality in the US will rise to levels impossible to ignore.
Millions of Americans will blame immigrants and gay marriage.
Millions won't.

The internet makes it doable to FLUSH hundreds of Republicans AND Democrats from DC non-violently.

That may be our only chance at any kind of justice.

 

[Stephanie]

SNIP.


Report: 237 millionaires in Congress
ListenPrintCommentEmailSubscribe.By ERIKA LOVLEY | 11/6/09 12:14 PM EDT Text Size-+reset.
CRP says California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa is the richest lawmaker on Capitol Hill, with a net worth estimated at about $251 million.

POLITICO 44 Talk about bad timing.


As Washington reels from the news of 10.2 percent unemployment, the Center for Responsive Politics is out with a new report describing the wealth of members of Congress.


Among the highlights: Two-hundred-and-thirty-seven members of Congress are millionaires. That’s 44 percent of the body – compared to about 1 percent of Americans overall.

CRP says California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa is the richest lawmaker on Capitol Hill, with a net worth estimated at about $251 million. Next in line: Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), worth about $244.7 million; Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), worth about $214.5 million; Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), worth about $209.7 million; and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), worth about $208.8 million.


All told, at least seven lawmakers have net worths greater than $100 million, according to the Center’s 2008 figures.


“Many Americans probably have a sense that members of Congress aren’t hurting, even if their government salary alone is in the six figures, much more than most Americans make,” said CRP spokesman Dave Levinthal. “What we see through these figures is that many of them have riches well beyond that salary, supplemented with securities, stock holdings, property and other investments.”


The CRP numbers are somewhat rough estimates – lawmakers are required to report their financial information in broad ranges of figures, so it’s impossible to pin down their dollars with precision. The CRP uses the mid-point in the ranges to build its estimates.


Senators’ estimated median reportable worth sunk to about $1.79 million from $2.27 million in 2007. The House’s median income was significantly lower and also sank, bottoming out at $622,254 from $724,258 in 2007.


But CRP’s analysis suggests that some lawmakers did well for themselves between 2007 and 2008, even as many Americans lost jobs and saw their savings and their home values plummet.


Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) gained about $9.2 million. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) gained about $3 million, Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) had an estimated $2.6 million gain, and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) gained about $2.8 million.


Some lawmakers have profited from investments in companies that have received federal bailouts; dozens of lawmakers are invested in Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America.


Among executive branch officials, CRP says the richest is Securities and Exchange Commission Chairwoman Mary L. Schapiro, with a net worth estimated at $26 million.


Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is next, worth an estimated $21 million. President Barack Obama is the sixth-wealthiest, worth about an estimated $4 million. Vice President Joe Biden has often tagged himself as an original blue collar man. The CRP backs him up, putting his net worth at just $27,000.


read it all here.
Report: 237 millionaires in Congress - Erika Lovley - POLITICO.com
and here.
237 Millionaires in Congress - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

 

[georgephillip]

Things haven't changed much in the 112th either.

Congressional newcomers tend to live high on the hog relative to those they "represent." 40% of newly elected house members are millionaires and 60% of new senators are also in that same economic class.

Imagine how different US policies would be if the Senate was apportioned on the basis of income instead of geography, and the richest 1% of Americans shared a single US Senator?

Jim Hightower:

"The change in Congress is taking America backward, not forward, for the new majority literally is the voice of millionaires. That's not progress.

"Speaking of wealth, there is one piece of uplifting economic news that's sure to bolster the millionaire Congress' solidarity with 'The People' -- meaning the people who actually count in their world.

"Forbes magazine reports that there are 199 more billionaires this year than last. Moreover, the combined wealth of the world's 1,210 billionaires now totals $4.5 trillion dollars, up by nearly a trillion dollars from a year ago. So, see, the economy is not stuck in the doldrums, as so many party-poopers keep saying.

"Also, with an average of $3.7 billion in their bank accounts, you can just bet that these uber-rich folks will be spending like crazy, and you know what that means, don't you? It means that their vast piles of wealth will soon begin to tinkle down on you and me -- just you wait and see!

And wait. And wait. And keep waiting."

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I pay more in taxes per year than most people earn. It's time to institute "fair tax" where EVERYONE pays their share of taxes.

 

[georgephillip]

Would the "Fair Tax" increase the number of billionaires/millionaires in the US?

If it's true that over the last three decades the richest 1% of Americans has increased its share of national income by almost ten percentage points, would a Fair Tax increase or decrease those gains?

The Deficit Hawks Target Nurses and Firefighters

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Would the "Fair Tax" increase the number of billionaires/millionaires in the US?

If it's true that over the last three decades the richest 1% of Americans has increased its share of national income by almost ten percentage points, would a Fair Tax increase or decrease those gains?

The Deficit Hawks Target Nurses and Firefighters

I don't know and I don't really care. But I do know that a fair tax would tax every citizen fairly.

What do you have against the rich getting richer?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yeah... too bad that silly little Constitution will get in your way.
See: Article 1, S9:3

Not that liberals care about the Constitution, as your response will surely show.

While I have no real expectation of any such action taking place, the Constitution protects against seizure by attainder but there are no such protections against congressionally authorized levies by the Internal Revenue Service.

Ex. Post. Facto.

 

[MikeK]

Would the "Fair Tax" increase the number of billionaires/millionaires in the US?

It would because it would enable the super-rich to substantially increase the size of their fortunes simply by investing their vast accumulated principals.

If it's true that over the last three decades the richest 1% of Americans has increased its share of national income by almost ten percentage points, would a Fair Tax increase or decrease those gains?

Presuming a fair tax rate of ten percent: If my annual income is $1,000,000 I would pay $100,000, leaving me with $900,000 to play with. If your income is $20,000 you would pay $2,000, leaving you with $18,000, a situation which seems more like aristocracy than the American Ideal.

Even if I were taxed at 20%, leaving me $800,000, and you paid nothing, the big picture seems much more "fair."

I don't know and I don't really care. But I do know that a fair tax would tax every citizen fairly.

It would tax every citizen equally, but how "fair" it would be is a matter of interpretation.

What do you have against the rich getting richer?

Absolutely nothing.

"Rich" is a relative term. Based on what you said about your tax rate you are rich compared to me (my present annual income is less than $50k). But compared to the fellow who lives in a rented trailer and earns less than $20k, I'm rich.

There is a point, still to be firmly established via debate, at which the level of one's wealth becomes excessive. Because wealth is power it follows that excessive wealth is excessive power. It equates to aristocracy, which is distinctly un-American.

I think of excessive wealth as a net worth of more than twenty million dollars, which would enable one to own two fine, beautifully furnished homes, several fine cars, it would pay for several university educations for one's children and, if prudently invested, would enable a life of casual leisure. The only reason why one would not be satisfied with that level of wealth is the factor of greed, which is both a recognized pathology and a characteristic which is despised by all major religions.

Twenty million dollars is wealth -- and I have absolutely no problem with wealth. But excessive wealth is extremely dangerous to the integrity of a representative democracy. Excessive wealth is more money than any reasonable person needs to live a very comfortable life, so its purpose is open to question by the reasoning mind.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is a point, still to be firmly established via debate, at which the level of one's wealth becomes excessive.

No such debate can ever be had in a free country.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Would the "Fair Tax" increase the number of billionaires/millionaires in the US?

It would because it would enable the super-rich to substantially increase the size of their fortunes simply by investing their vast accumulated principals.

If it's true that over the last three decades the richest 1% of Americans has increased its share of national income by almost ten percentage points, would a Fair Tax increase or decrease those gains?

Presuming a fair tax rate of ten percent: If my annual income is $1,000,000 I would pay $100,000, leaving me with $900,000 to play with. If your income is $20,000 you would pay $2,000, leaving you with $18,000, a situation which seems more like aristocracy than the American Ideal.

Even if I were taxed at 20%, leaving me $800,000, and you paid nothing, the big picture seems much more "fair."

I don't know and I don't really care. But I do know that a fair tax would tax every citizen fairly.

It would tax every citizen equally, but how "fair" it would be is a matter of interpretation.

What do you have against the rich getting richer?

Absolutely nothing.

"Rich" is a relative term. Based on what you said about your tax rate you are rich compared to me (my present annual income is less than $50k). But compared to the fellow who lives in a rented trailer and earns less than $20k, I'm rich.

There is a point, still to be firmly established via debate, at which the level of one's wealth becomes excessive. Because wealth is power it follows that excessive wealth is excessive power. It equates to aristocracy, which is distinctly un-American.

I think of excessive wealth as a net worth of more than twenty million dollars, which would enable one to own two fine, beautifully furnished homes, several fine cars, it would pay for several university educations for one's children and, if prudently invested, would enable a life of casual leisure. The only reason why one would not be satisfied with that level of wealth is the factor of greed, which is both a recognized pathology and a characteristic which is despised by all major religions.

Twenty million dollars is wealth -- and I have absolutely no problem with wealth. But excessive wealth is extremely dangerous to the integrity of a representative democracy. Excessive wealth is more money than any reasonable person needs to live a very comfortable life, so its purpose is open to question by the reasoning mind.

I'm not sure you understand what the fair tax is.

Americans For Fair Taxation:


You're right, I paid 65,000 in taxes this year.

So you agree with Obama that at some point a person has made enough money and you set the limit at 20 million.

And you do have a problem with the rich getting richer. Why else would oyu consider placing a limit on the amount a person can have?

 

[MikeK]

[...]

So you agree with Obama that at some point a person has made enough money and you set the limit at 20 million.

Yes.

And you do have a problem with the rich getting richer. Why else would oyu consider placing a limit on the amount a person can have?

As I said, "rich" is a relative term. So if you have a million dollars you are richer than me but I do not consider a million dollars to be excessive wealth. So you can get richer, but at some point it becomes excessive. I think of that point as around twenty million. Once you get to that point you are no longer motivated by the wish for comfort, security and reasonable luxury. You are motivated by greed and the lust for power, which I feel is intolerable within the philosophical definition of the American Ideal.

Get rich. But don't get greedy. That's when the problems start.

 

[MikeK]

No such debate can ever be had in a free country.

That depends entirely on conditions.

Freedom in a two class society, in which one percent live in unlimited luxury while the remainder are either just getting by or are scraping the bottom to survive, is quite a bit different from the kind of freedom enjoyed by a three class society in which even the poorest are well fed. Think about the great Revolutions and you'll see what I mean.

The American Middle Class is the keystone of true freedom. And the Middle Class is being gradually eroded by the greed of a super-rich minority. Debate arises from such conditions.

 

[boedicca]

Actually, the middle class is being eroded to death by Big Government.

Since the 1950s, the total tax burden as a percent of income on the median family has more than DOUBLED. The growth of government has also greatly inflated the money supply, resulting in inflation and lessening the value of savings.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Why don't we just execute em and be done with it?...Seriously,Socialists/Progressives really are so damn ignorant. Scary ignorant.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

[...]

So you agree with Obama that at some point a person has made enough money and you set the limit at 20 million.

Yes.

And you do have a problem with the rich getting richer. Why else would oyu consider placing a limit on the amount a person can have?

As I said, "rich" is a relative term. So if you have a million dollars you are richer than me but I do not consider a million dollars to be excessive wealth. So you can get richer, but at some point it becomes excessive. I think of that point as around twenty million. Once you get to that point you are no longer motivated by the wish for comfort, security and reasonable luxury. You are motivated by greed and the lust for power, which I feel is intolerable within the philosophical definition of the American Ideal.

Get rich. But don't get greedy. That's when the problems start.

Who causes more problems in society? The rich or the poor?

Explain your answer please.

BTW who are you to say how much a man can make?

 

[MikeK]

Who causes more problems in society? The rich or the poor?

Explain your answer please.

What kind of problems?

Crime problems? The poor commit more crimes than the rich, but there are so many more of them.

Social problems? Most of America's social problems are the result of malfeasance and misfeasance by government, most of which is traceable to corruption. There are over 270 multi-millionaires in the Congress. If they were effectively audited I'm sure many (most?) of them would end up in prison.

BTW who are you to say how much a man can make?

The question will be more appropriately framed as, who am I to say how much personal assets may one individual be permitted to accumulate?

The answer is I am one man with an opinion, which at this time is insignificant. But as the economic situation worsens and more Americans fall into poverty, that will change.

 

[MikeK]

Actually, the middle class is being eroded to death by Big Government.

Since the 1950s, the total tax burden as a percent of income on the median family has more than DOUBLED. The growth of government has also greatly inflated the money supply, resulting in inflation and lessening the value of savings.

The years between the 1940s and the 1980s were the most prosperous, productive and economically progressive period in American history. Those were the years when the American Middle Class emerged and the wage standard, along with the standard of living, increased dramatically. So the basic information you've been fed is deceptive. If the tax rate increased during that period it did so in proportion with increased wages.

But government mismanagement of the economy is unquestionably the cause of our economic problems. On that we agree.

 

[georgephillip]

Would the "Fair Tax" increase the number of billionaires/millionaires in the US?

If it's true that over the last three decades the richest 1% of Americans has increased its share of national income by almost ten percentage points, would a Fair Tax increase or decrease those gains?

The Deficit Hawks Target Nurses and Firefighters

I don't know and I don't really care. But I do know that a fair tax would tax every citizen fairly.

What do you have against the rich getting richer?

Because the rich get richer by corruption.

Recently the richest 2% of Americans nearly doubled their share of returns to wealth because they bribed Republicans AND Democrats in DC to provide a $13 trillion bailout for rich Wall Street bankers and their richer clients.

Why do you think Wall Street needs more money it hasn't earned?

 

[RachelMadcow]

Obama gave Tax Cuts to Billionaires and bailed out Wall St Fat Cats


While invading libya, Afghanistan and Pakistan


LOL




Democrat voters are so gullible


I blame weed and the liberal run education union that fails black people

 

[georgephillip]

Warning: rich get richer on commodity prices, poor get angrier

"USA Today’s John Waggoner warns: 'Soaring food prices send millions into poverty, hunger: Corn up 52% in 12 months. Sugar 60%. Soybeans 41%. Wheat 24%. For 44 million the “rise in food prices means a descent into extreme poverty and hunger, warns the World Bank.'

"Many causes: Speculators. Soaring oil prices. Trade policies. Population explosion. But altogether they expose 'the underlying inequalities and issues related to the standard of living that boil beneath the surface,' says a Pimco manager."

Tax the Super Rich now or face a revolution Paul B. Farrell - MarketWatch