You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

[Big Fitz]

Is this all about whether the upper bracket should be 34% or 39%? Because if it is -- the leftists don't even realize what they are asking for..

It ain't gonna make a damn bit a diff to the "evil" rich like Warren Buffet who pay 17.7% marginal rate because they take capital gains instead of salaries.. Same for hedge fund mgrs, silver spoon trust fund babies and all the other high value leftist targets..

Instead -- it's gonna be felt mostly by Venus/Serena Williams, Jay Leno, Oprah and the NY Mets.

They can't SHOOT STRAIGHT in this class war -- because they are functionally economically illiterate..

So drop the rate to 15% and include capital gains as income. What problem then? You still will increase revenue cause you're not going to get it with all the loopholes you left behind.

 

[JohnA]

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You need to understand that the pre-Reaganomics tax level didn't "destroy" the rich back then and it certainly won't "destroy" them now. It will simply make them a little less rich. Millionaires will still be millionaires.

Your idea that adjusting the progressive tax rate will severely compromise anyone is based on right wing propaganda. The following list shows the tax rates that existed during the most prosperous and productive decades in our history, those between 1950 and 1980, when Reagan commenced the destruction of the middle class with a series of critical deregulations and tax reductions.

The income tax rate of upper income levels:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf



The following list will give you a general idea of why the tax rate on corporations is in serious need of adjustment.

1) Exxon Mobil – made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

2) Bank of America — received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

3) General Electric — Over the past five years, GE made $26 billion in profits in the United States but still received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

4) Chevron — received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

5) Boeing — received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

6) Valero Energy — the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, has received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

7) Goldman Sachs — in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

8) Citigroup — last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

9) ConocoPhillips — the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

10) Carnival Cruise Lines — Over the past five years, it made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

yes and the majority of the companies listed above give millions to the democratic party

 

[Immanuel]

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.


More : You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot fight hate by supporting a hater.

Here's another, maybe it has been mentioned after this post.

You can't end discrimination by using discrimination... i.e. Affirmative Action.

Immie

 

[Big Fitz]

Oh horseshit. Class envy and oppression does not define every economic action.

By this, your success is due to you because you fucked over someone else and are therefore inherently evil to boot. Just not AS evil as someone who is more successful.

Oh and please try that "debt isn't ruinous" line when you've maxed out your cards and try to get a mortgage or car loan, on the bank.

Why is it greed for a man to want to keep the fruit of his labor, but not greed when someone uses the power of government to deprive another man of his hard-earned property?

You've read what I wrote there with a jaundiced eye.

What I said, quite simply, is the rich are rich because the resources of this Nation enabled their success -- not because they are endowed with magical powers. And for that reason it is only fair that they return an appropriate share of what they've managed to acquire to the source of their good fortune. And an appropriate share will by no means be ruinous to them. Because for the uber-rich, even if their tax rate is 91% of their income they would still have more and be living better than 98% of the population.

There is nothing complicated or devious about that. It simply proposes a payment of taxes proportionate to that paid by less financially successful citizens.

And if the rich don't think paying a tax on their earnings is justified they have a choice of not earning anything or moving to a nation where the tax rates are lower and trying to do as well there.

You make the assumption that the 'rich' stole from the 'nation' before they were wealthy, thereby making the 'nation' responsible for their wealth which the rich must be obligated to return to the 'nation', for it was never the 'rich's' to begin with?

Is that the line you're tossing out there now?

So, if the rich weren't rich before they became rich, then and they were poor before they became rich, they never stole till they became rich? Or is it if the poor steal the resources from the 'nation' but don't succeed for whatever reason, then they never really stole and should keep the resources they stole from the 'nation'?

So, who is the 'nation'? And what is the demarcation line for which the thief of national resources then must return them to the nation?

It's not that it's complicated or devious... it's ******* moronic to believe like this. The nation does not have a priori ownership of everything, nor does it have right to things you create, build or invent.

But I see we have a small problem comprehending the concept of 'private property', so I'm not surprised, socialist.

 

[Big Fitz]

No one says otherwise.

And having ‘the rich’ pay taxes isn’t going to ‘destroy’ them.

wow. Perfect and kinda mean. I mean shutting down this dumb ass thread like that. Good for you.

Psssst, hey idiot boy.... 'the rich' are already paying taxes... and you're clapping a lie. How very liberal of you.

They obviously ignored my post that it isn't about destroying the rich but increasing taxes on them hurt the poor far more than them.

But what the **** do they care, there's propagandist grist to be ground!

 

[Wiseacre]

Wealth is not a zero sum game, a rich guy's money does not come at the expense of a bunch of everyone else. A worker is paid whatever the market will bear, as long as there are other people waiting in line ofr his/her job then employers aren't going to pay more wages. We're seeing that now in the monthyl jobs report and the wage numbers. I would say that over time the worker becomes more productive and therefore his value increases and he/she gets modest wage increases because the employer would rather keep that person than hire a new one and retrain him/her. But the reason why the low incomes have not risen is becayse there's no market force pushing them up, too much supply of applicants keeps the priceof labor down.

Which brings us to the rich guys. Mostly they got that way for a reason, they went to law school or medical school or got an MBA somewhere, they make more money because they're worth more money. Further, they're the ones that invest and grow their portfolios. Do you realize how much the stock market has grown in the past 30 years? From around 800 to over 12,000 for the DOW, the greates expanssion of wealth in the history of the planet, no wonder they got way rich.

But here's the problem, we live in a global economy and money flows to where it gets the best return on investment. You can ***** all you want about it but that's the way it is. Employers and businesses are going to move their operations and money to places where it is the most profitable, so if you raise taxes on those people you are essentially incentivizing them to go elsewhere with their capital. Or you incentivize them to find ways to hide their income, either way the US economy suffers because it's not getting as much capital.

So you can raise taxes on the rich, and thereby increase revenue. But there's a hit to the economy is you do that, no doubt the exact effect depends on the size of the increase and a bunch of other factors. But any move you make that could be detrimental tot he economy is a mistake IMHO, that could lead to fewer jobs created. And that's what the poor really need: more jobs.

 

[imbalance]

Wealth is not a zero sum game, a rich guy's money does not come at the expense of a bunch of everyone else. A worker is paid whatever the market will bear, as long as there are other people waiting in line ofr his/her job then employers aren't going to pay more wages. We're seeing that now in the monthyl jobs report and the wage numbers. I would say that over time the worker becomes more productive and therefore his value increases and he/she gets modest wage increases because the employer would rather keep that person than hire a new one and retrain him/her. But the reason why the low incomes have not risen is becayse there's no market force pushing them up, too much supply of applicants keeps the priceof labor down.

Which brings us to the rich guys. Mostly they got that way for a reason, they went to law school or medical school or got an MBA somewhere, they make more money because they're worth more money. Further, they're the ones that invest and grow their portfolios. Do you realize how much the stock market has grown in the past 30 years? From around 800 to over 12,000 for the DOW, the greates expanssion of wealth in the history of the planet, no wonder they got way rich.

But here's the problem, we live in a global economy and money flows to where it gets the best return on investment. You can ***** all you want about it but that's the way it is. Employers and businesses are going to move their operations and money to places where it is the most profitable, so if you raise taxes on those people you are essentially incentivizing them to go elsewhere with their capital. Or you incentivize them to find ways to hide their income, either way the US economy suffers because it's not getting as much capital.

So you can raise taxes on the rich, and thereby increase revenue. But there's a hit to the economy is you do that, no doubt the exact effect depends on the size of the increase and a bunch of other factors. But any move you make that could be detrimental tot he economy is a mistake IMHO, that could lead to fewer jobs created. And that's what the poor really need: more jobs.

Couldn't agree more. Here's a post I wrote yesterday on another forum:

Rather than raise revenue by increasing the volume of taxpayer rates, we should be trying to raise revenue by increasing the volume of taxpayers. In other words, creating an environment favorable to new business and job growth. Even Bill Clinton recently went on record saying we need to look at reducing our comparatively high corporate tax rates. Fact is, in today's macroeconomy consisting of startup businesses across the globe competing with eachother for debt and equity investment capital from managers of roving multinational hedge funds in the alternative capital market, business investment in the US is comparatively non-competetive with BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) nations. Banks aren't nor were they ever the true wealth creators. Banks are debt creators, everyone knows this. The risk taking investors who made their billions via the spirit of entrepreneurship are the ones using their real money to make real money. Since banks are no longer giving them worthwile returns, the wealth creators are now parking their liquid assets in the internally regulated alternative capital market.

The US has to be an attractive option to hedge fund investors as well as their managers because that's the current reality of investment today and it will remain so for the foreseeable future. Simple as that. What we'd like to see is an investor-friendly environment here in the US. Unfortunately that is not the case right now as it is these very alternative capital market investors and fund managers that our current President has determined to be persona non grata in the States. Not by accident either, he knows exactly what he's doing.

 

[DiamondDave]

Except maybe a little history lesson on what was deemed to be income, what used to be deductible, etc... and you would see that there was never really 90% paid...

Hence, my support for a simplified system with zero loopholes or deductions with an equal rate on every dollar earned b every citizen with zero exceptions

 

[Moving to USA]

And how would you rid this great country of crack babies and the poor?

You would certainly get rid of the majority by just taking away the safety net. No work, no money.
Then build more prisons to put the crack heads in, for longer periods of time. Release from prison would be based on time served and the requirement that a job be lined up upon release.

give it three years max then end welfare. NO additional money for additional children. Have a child while on welfare, lose benefits completely. have mandatory drug testing once a month to collect your check, drugs in the system? no money the next month.

Those that refuse to comply can either "borrow" from family and friends, or they can pretty much go hungry.

The recent tax increases in Maryland and at the Federal level are starting to cut into my camping fund.. I personally find it more important to spend on my families leisure than to waste money feeding people that refuse to support themselves. Sorry if it sounds cold hearted, but there you have it.

 

[Big Fitz]

Wealth is not a zero sum game, a rich guy's money does not come at the expense of a bunch of everyone else. A worker is paid whatever the market will bear, as long as there are other people waiting in line ofr his/her job then employers aren't going to pay more wages. We're seeing that now in the monthyl jobs report and the wage numbers. I would say that over time the worker becomes more productive and therefore his value increases and he/she gets modest wage increases because the employer would rather keep that person than hire a new one and retrain him/her. But the reason why the low incomes have not risen is becayse there's no market force pushing them up, too much supply of applicants keeps the priceof labor down.

Which brings us to the rich guys. Mostly they got that way for a reason, they went to law school or medical school or got an MBA somewhere, they make more money because they're worth more money. Further, they're the ones that invest and grow their portfolios. Do you realize how much the stock market has grown in the past 30 years? From around 800 to over 12,000 for the DOW, the greates expanssion of wealth in the history of the planet, no wonder they got way rich.

But here's the problem, we live in a global economy and money flows to where it gets the best return on investment. You can ***** all you want about it but that's the way it is. Employers and businesses are going to move their operations and money to places where it is the most profitable, so if you raise taxes on those people you are essentially incentivizing them to go elsewhere with their capital. Or you incentivize them to find ways to hide their income, either way the US economy suffers because it's not getting as much capital.

So you can raise taxes on the rich, and thereby increase revenue. But there's a hit to the economy is you do that, no doubt the exact effect depends on the size of the increase and a bunch of other factors. But any move you make that could be detrimental tot he economy is a mistake IMHO, that could lead to fewer jobs created. And that's what the poor really need: more jobs.

It's why communist/socialist/collectivist/fascist nations have to close their borders. So capital and people can't flee their grasp and greed.

 

[Lasher]

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

No one says otherwise.

And having ‘the rich’ pay taxes isn’t going to ‘destroy’ them.

You need to research just who pays what taxes.

 

[Lasher]

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You need to understand that the pre-Reaganomics tax level didn't "destroy" the rich back then and it certainly won't "destroy" them now. It will simply make them a little less rich. Millionaires will still be millionaires.

Your idea that adjusting the progressive tax rate will severely compromise anyone is based on right wing propaganda. The following list shows the tax rates that existed during the most prosperous and productive decades in our history, those between 1950 and 1980, when Reagan commenced the destruction of the middle class with a series of critical deregulations and tax reductions.

The income tax rate of upper income levels:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf

Looks like the tax system has been becoming more equitable since the 50s, doesn't it?


The following list will give you a general idea of why the tax rate on corporations is in serious need of adjustment.

1) Exxon Mobil – made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

Do you want the price of gasoline to go over $5.00 a gallon?


2) Bank of America — received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

How much did they pay in taxes?


3) General Electric — Over the past five years, GE made $26 billion in profits in the United States but still received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

And they paid how much in?


4) Chevron — received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

You don't say how much they paid in, though. Most taxpayers get refunds.


5) Boeing — received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

What's your point? Didn't they build the planes?


6) Valero Energy — the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, has received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

But you neglect to say how much they actually had to pay.

7) Goldman Sachs — in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

Was any of this stuff illegal? If not, write your Congressperson.


8) Citigroup — last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

Aren't they required to pay it back?


9) ConocoPhillips — the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

If you were Conoco, wouldn't you take advantage of all the tax breaks you could?


10) Carnival Cruise Lines — Over the past five years, it made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

That 1% adds up to a staggering sum.

 

[MikeK]

Successful people are successful because they work hard and sacrifice.[...]

Do you mean like Bernie Madoff, Ken Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, Rupert Murdoch, et al?

You need to watch the MSNBC weekend series, American Greed. It will open your eyes to a fact of life in America.

 

[Mr Natural]

Who's destroying the rich?

Cripes, they even got stooges doing their whining and bellyaching for them.

 

[Lasher]

Successful people are successful because they work hard and sacrifice.[...]

Do you mean like Bernie Madoff, Ken Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, Rupert Murdoch, et al?

You need to watch the MSNBC weekend series, American Greed. It will open your eyes to a fact of life in America.

Since all those named are Jewish, it sounds anti-Semitic.

 

[Lasher]

Successful people are successful because they work hard and sacrifice.[...]

Do you mean like Bernie Madoff, Ken Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, Rupert Murdoch, et al?

You need to watch the MSNBC weekend series, American Greed. It will open your eyes to a fact of life in America.

Isn't MSNBC the network that is well known for its liberal, socialist, Marxist views, and that promotes Obama like a God?

 

[ShackledNation]

Wealth is not a zero sum game, a rich guy's money does not come at the expense of a bunch of everyone else. A worker is paid whatever the market will bear, as long as there are other people waiting in line ofr his/her job then employers aren't going to pay more wages. We're seeing that now in the monthyl jobs report and the wage numbers. I would say that over time the worker becomes more productive and therefore his value increases and he/she gets modest wage increases because the employer would rather keep that person than hire a new one and retrain him/her. But the reason why the low incomes have not risen is becayse there's no market force pushing them up, too much supply of applicants keeps the priceof labor down.

Which brings us to the rich guys. Mostly they got that way for a reason, they went to law school or medical school or got an MBA somewhere, they make more money because they're worth more money. Further, they're the ones that invest and grow their portfolios. Do you realize how much the stock market has grown in the past 30 years? From around 800 to over 12,000 for the DOW, the greates expanssion of wealth in the history of the planet, no wonder they got way rich.

But here's the problem, we live in a global economy and money flows to where it gets the best return on investment. You can ***** all you want about it but that's the way it is. Employers and businesses are going to move their operations and money to places where it is the most profitable, so if you raise taxes on those people you are essentially incentivizing them to go elsewhere with their capital. Or you incentivize them to find ways to hide their income, either way the US economy suffers because it's not getting as much capital.

So you can raise taxes on the rich, and thereby increase revenue. But there's a hit to the economy is you do that, no doubt the exact effect depends on the size of the increase and a bunch of other factors. But any move you make that could be detrimental tot he economy is a mistake IMHO, that could lead to fewer jobs created. And that's what the poor really need: more jobs.

It's why communist/socialist/collectivist/fascist nations have to close their borders. So capital and people can't flee their grasp and greed.

I think people need to relearn the lesson of the Berlin Wall.

 

[MikeK]

Successful people are successful because they work hard and sacrifice.[...]

Do you mean like Bernie Madoff, Ken Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, Rupert Murdoch, et al?

You need to watch the MSNBC weekend series, American Greed. It will open your eyes to a fact of life in America.

Isn't MSNBC the network that is well known for its liberal, socialist, Marxist views, and that promotes Obama like a God?

Watch the series. It consists of factual documentaries. Not opinions or interpretations.

As for MSNBC's political orientation, it definitely is not right-wing and it doesn't host the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.

 

[Dr Grump]

Maybe you don't realize....

......that because of outsourcing from other countries to the US, we have more higher paying jobs in this country....

....And those jobs outsourced to us are more than double the amount of jobs outsourced from us......

......Or that the top 10% already pay the vast majority of all taxes, despite the fact they provide us with the products we take for granted.....

...that taxation redistributes wealth and can never create it....

....that the drop in tax revenue is due to a complicated tax code made complicated by so many taxes...

...and that taxing someone a higher percentage of their income because they are more successful isn't fair at all.

I thought you righties were all about "life isn't fair, deal with it"..

I have no problems with the rich paying more taxes....

I am a libertarian, not a conservative, and your reply is both a strawman and a guilt by association fallacy. Try again.

Ah, a so-called libertarian....what a Utopian ideal. However, trying to live up to said Utopian ideal and actually doing it are two different things....

There is a reason so-called libertarians live on the periphery of society (well, their ideals do). Talk about strawman....

 

[ShackledNation]

I thought you righties were all about "life isn't fair, deal with it"..

I have no problems with the rich paying more taxes....

I am a libertarian, not a conservative, and your reply is both a strawman and a guilt by association fallacy. Try again.

Ah, a so-called libertarian....what a Utopian ideal. However, trying to live up to said Utopian ideal and actually doing it are two different things....

There is a reason so-called libertarians live on the periphery of society (well, their ideals do). Talk about strawman....

You do realize nothing you said is a valid argument? It is a guilt by association fallacy used as a cop-out...again.