Why We Must Raise Taxes On The Rich:

[M14 Shooter]

Americans fighting against Americans. Class Warfare at its worst. And that's just the way all "Community Organizers" want it. Vote for real change in 2012! Boot the moronic Community Organizers. Make it happen America!

Ban the Entitlement Mindset!

 

[MikeK]

These are corporations, not people.
What do they have to do with raising taxes on the rich?

Who do you think are principal shareholders and managers of those corporations, the poor?

 

[MikeK]

Ban the Entitlement Mindset!

What, specifically, do you mean by entitlements?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

what we need to do is stop giving tax breaks for business to take their jobs over seas , tariffs on all imports especially those that are owned by American business .
a fare playing field , but neither party's will do this .

That's because it's a completely asinine idea.

And I believe you mean fair.

 

[GunZawga]

Economic growth has ALWAYS followed the path of marginal upper income tax rates. Rates go up, so does growth, rates go down, growth ceases. If you actually have FACTS that show otherwise I would LOVE to see them.

Debunking the claim that higher income-tax rates reduce GDP. - By Eliot Spitzer - Slate Magazine

Lower Marginal Tax Rates Don’t Correlate With Increased Economic Growth

High marginal tax rates and growth in GDP, Our Money | Midwest Democracy Project

Anything except the truth: How Does A 60% Marginal Tax Rate Promote Growth?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Economic growth has ALWAYS followed the path of marginal upper income tax rates. Rates go up, so does growth, rates go down, growth ceases. If you actually have FACTS that show otherwise I would LOVE to see them.

Debunking the claim that higher income-tax rates reduce GDP. - By Eliot Spitzer - Slate Magazine

Lower Marginal Tax Rates Don’t Correlate With Increased Economic Growth

High marginal tax rates and growth in GDP, Our Money | Midwest Democracy Project

Anything except the truth: How Does A 60% Marginal Tax Rate Promote Growth?

Elliot Spitzer? Midwest Democracy? Anything but Truth?
You should throw Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart and perhaps Russel Brand in the mix.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Economic growth has ALWAYS followed the path of marginal upper income tax rates. Rates go up, so does growth

Correlation.
:roll:
Show causation.

rates go down, growth ceases.

Except in 1961, 1981, and 2001.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ban the Entitlement Mindset!

What, specifically, do you mean by entitlements?

The entitlement mindset.
Where you beleive you are entitled to a standard of living, and that if you cannot provide it for yourself, you are entitled to have the government force others to provide it to you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

These are corporations, not people.
What do they have to do with raising taxes on the rich?

Who do you think are principal shareholders and managers of those corporations, the poor?

How does the tax rates on these businesses affect the tax rates on those individuals, and vice versa?
Your examples are unrelated to the topic.

 

[JimH52]

Republicans never want to anger their greatest supporters, the rich. It ain't gonna happen.

 

[Trajan]

Robert Reich...

He's starting with a flawed premise:

The only way America can reduce the long-term budget deficit, maintain vital services, protect Social Security and Medicare, invest more in education and infrastructure, and not raise taxes on the working middle class is by raising taxes on the super rich.

He has no interest in making social security and medicare more efficient by using free market solutions and we already pay way too much for education. He'll have to define what he means by infrastructure because that could mean anything.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to xsited1 again.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Republicans never want to anger their greatest supporters, the rich. It ain't gonna happen.

Beats the way Democrats are constantly TRYING to get their supporters angry and hating other Americans.

 

[Trajan]

I have said it before and will say so again, they can go ahead and raise taxes on me if they get serious about cutting spending.I'll do my part but their whoring has got to stop and I mean corp. loopholes, spending ahead of pop. growth and inflation the lot of it, its called living within ones means.

here;

from a wapo Samuelson article today;


Few Americans realize the extent of their dependency. The Census Bureau reports that in 2009 almost half (46.2 percent) of the 300 million Americans received at least one federal benefit: 46.5 million, Social Security; 42.6 million, Medicare; 42.4 million, Medicaid; 36.1 million, food stamps; 3.2 million, veterans’ benefits; 12.4 million, housing subsidies. The census list doesn’t include tax breaks. Counting those, perhaps three-quarters or more of Americans receive some sizable government benefit. For example, about 22 percent of taxpayers benefit from the home mortgage interest deduction and 43 percent from the preferential treatment of employer-provided health insurance, says the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Big government on the brink - The Washington Post

now, in 1960 you know what that figure was, as to what % of the pop. was on some type of sppt.? 14%.........now, when Kennedy decided to start ratcheting down taxes and it continued over the decades we, did not live within the means we dictated, we spent ahead always looking away from tomorrow and just to today.

Now, that we are strangling in all of the liabilities we created because we ignored our own tax policy, the answer is; ratchet taxes back up, as if this is the answer?

No, its not, but I am willing to help, stop the spending first, or its no dice, I don't trust them and what I just described is exactly why.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Republicans never want to anger their greatest supporters, the rich. It ain't gonna happen.

Democrats never want to anger their base - the entitlement-receiving poor.
This is why they will never cut entitlement spending, lest they lose those votes.

 

[georgephillip]

I have said it before and will say so again, they can go ahead and raise taxes on me if they get serious about cutting spending.I'll do my part but their whoring has got to stop and I mean corp. loopholes, spending ahead of pop. growth and inflation the lot of it, its called living within ones means.

here;

from a wapo Samuelson article today;


Few Americans realize the extent of their dependency. The Census Bureau reports that in 2009 almost half (46.2 percent) of the 300 million Americans received at least one federal benefit: 46.5 million, Social Security; 42.6 million, Medicare; 42.4 million, Medicaid; 36.1 million, food stamps; 3.2 million, veterans’ benefits; 12.4 million, housing subsidies. The census list doesn’t include tax breaks. Counting those, perhaps three-quarters or more of Americans receive some sizable government benefit. For example, about 22 percent of taxpayers benefit from the home mortgage interest deduction and 43 percent from the preferential treatment of employer-provided health insurance, says the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Big government on the brink - The Washington Post

now, in 1960 you know what that figure was, as to what % of the pop. was on some type of sppt.? 14%.........now, when Kennedy decided to start ratcheting down taxes and it continued over the decades we, did not live within the means we dictated, we spent ahead always looking away from tomorrow and just to today.

Now, that we are strangling in all of the liabilities we created because we ignored our own tax policy, the answer is; ratchet taxes back up, as if this is the answer?

No, its not, but I am willing to help, stop the spending first, or its no dice, I don't trust them and what I just described is exactly why.

In 1960 when 14% of Americans received at least one federal benefit compared to today's rate of 46.2% what percentage of national income were the richest 1% appropriating?

Twenty-five years ago the figure was 12% for income and 33% for national wealth. Today, those who buy and sell elected Republicans AND Democrats the same way you and I buy newspapers "earn" nearly a quarter of all national income and control 40% of national wealth.

Do you trust those "Americans" who have increased their share of national wealth by nearly two percentage points over the last two years to stop funding the campaigns of millionaire politicians?

Is it likely that "self-interest properly understood" will ever be understood by those who increased their personal wealth during the same two year span that saw millions of their countrymen lose their jobs, homes, retirements and savings?

"In recent weeks we have watched people taking to the streets by the millions to protest political, economic, and social conditions in the oppressive societies they inhabit.

Governments have been toppled in Egypt and Tunisia.

"Protests have erupted in Libya, Yemen, and Bahrain. The ruling families elsewhere in the region look on nervously from their air-conditioned penthouses—will they be next?...

"The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live.

"Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn.

"Too late."

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% | Society | Vanity Fair

 

[Cecilie1200]

Okay, folks, if we want to stick it to rich people in order to deal with our budget deficits, how about we start with THESE rich people?

1) Agricultural subsidies that go to billionaire agricultural corporations, rather than small farmers. Why the hell are we paying agricultural subsidies, anyway?

2) "Green" and "alternative energy" subsidies to big corporations.

3) Government-subsidized insurance for expensive coastal resorts built too close to the ocean for private insurance companies to be willing to insure them.

Problem is, these are all "corporate welfare" programs implemented and favored by the left. So how about it, lefties? Wanna put your money where your "rich fatcat"-hating mouths are and start by skewering your own sacred cows?

 

[kaz]

Republicans never want to anger their greatest supporters, the rich. It ain't gonna happen.

All America need to share in both the bounty that it is to live in this great country and the burden of paying for it. Republicans aren't protecting them from any of that, they're just protecting them from you singling them out for a campaign of blame, hate and pillage

 

[kaz]

what percentage of national income were the richest 1% appropriating?

appropriating, what a moron

"The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live.

"Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn.

"Too late."

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% | Society | Vanity Fair

Yes, the revolution will come comrade, we will in our greed take from the rich. Wait, er, we will take from the rich because they are greedy and we want their money. No wait, what I mean is...

 

[Spoonman]

Okay, folks, if we want to stick it to rich people in order to deal with our budget deficits, how about we start with THESE rich people?

1) Agricultural subsidies that go to billionaire agricultural corporations, rather than small farmers. Why the hell are we paying agricultural subsidies, anyway?

2) "Green" and "alternative energy" subsidies to big corporations.

3) Government-subsidized insurance for expensive coastal resorts built too close to the ocean for private insurance companies to be willing to insure them.

Problem is, these are all "corporate welfare" programs implemented and favored by the left. So how about it, lefties? Wanna put your money where your "rich fatcat"-hating mouths are and start by skewering your own sacred cows?

only give subsidies to companies who create jobs or bring outsourced jobs back domestic

 

[kaz]

Okay, folks, if we want to stick it to rich people in order to deal with our budget deficits, how about we start with THESE rich people?

1) Agricultural subsidies that go to billionaire agricultural corporations, rather than small farmers. Why the hell are we paying agricultural subsidies, anyway?

2) "Green" and "alternative energy" subsidies to big corporations.

3) Government-subsidized insurance for expensive coastal resorts built too close to the ocean for private insurance companies to be willing to insure them.

Problem is, these are all "corporate welfare" programs implemented and favored by the left. So how about it, lefties? Wanna put your money where your "rich fatcat"-hating mouths are and start by skewering your own sacred cows?

only give subsidies to companies who create jobs or bring outsourced jobs back domestic

Better yet, don't give any subsidies to anyone and let the free market solve it