[IMG]https://****************************/hphotos-xlp1/v/t1.0-9/12524034_1295084617184105_16789461638681 36269_n.jpg?oh=e90a3b60c851f271126eb417f 7b97e25&oe=57327A5C[/IMG]
-
Comment -
We didn't need Eugene Debs or Norman Thomas in the 20th century and we ceratinly
don't need this Sanders guy in the current. I have to say watching the debate if my
inclinations were left wing I would prefer Sanders to Clinton easily. Two reasons he
is far more spirited & unlike Clinton he is sincere & not a card-carrying liar.
He's too much of a Utopian type thinker that's what bugs me. All this equality stuff.
This notion of a governing position to try to enable equality of rewards. In the end it
discriminates against the talented tenth
I think he has about a 33% chance to beat Mrs. Clinton as he's much superior to
her as a campaigner, though to me his issues are are even more odd than Mrs, Clinton's
I'll be hoping he's successful!Last edited by 15805; 01-18-16, 12:25 AM.Comment -
He's more about levying taxes on the 1% than he is about playing Robin Hood.Comment -
Ron paul was the last hope for america. All downhill from here.Comment -
You need more taxpayers. Less people living off of others.
Taxing the rich won't solve inequality - Oct. 13, 2015
<cite class="_Rm" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: inherit; color: rgb(0, 102, 33); font-size: 14px;">money.cnn.com/.../economy/taxing-the-rich-will-not-curb-in...</cite>
CNNMoney
Oct 13, 2015 - A big tax hike on the rich would have a 'trivial effect' on inequality in America, a new ... of wealth into a few hands is not good for the economy.
John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough ...
<cite class="_Rm" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: inherit; color: rgb(0, 102, 33); font-size: 14px;">www.forbes.com/.../john-stossel-tax-the-rich-the-rich-dont-have-e...</cite>
Forbes
Apr 3, 2012 - But it's a fantasy to imagine that raising taxes on the rich will solve our deficit problem. If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take ...Progressives claim an increase in tax rates won't stop producers from ...
NICK NOVAK: Taxing the rich won't solve our problems ...
<cite class="_Rm" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: inherit; color: rgb(0, 102, 33); font-size: 14px;">www.washingtontimes.com/.../nick-novak-taxing...</cite>
The Washington Times
Nov 24, 2015 - Taxing the rich won't solve our problems .... of people about 100 times bigger – paid just 30.2 percent of the incometaxes in our country. ... the way of consumers<wbr>, workers and businesses, the quicker our economy can recover.
WSJ shows taxing the rich won't cover the bill « Hot Air
<cite class="_Rm" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: inherit; color: rgb(0, 102, 33); font-size: 14px;">hotair.com/.../04/.../wsj-shows-taxing-the-rich-wont-cover-the-bil...</cite>
Hot Air
Apr 18, 2011 - How about 2005, when the economy was expanding, a period that Obama ... In other words, a soak-the-rich policy won'twork, in part because there isn't .... You start TAKING $100 a year from those who pay no taxes – they're going ..... we're right back to another “Crisis” that will mean higher taxes to solve.
New study shows why heavily taxing the rich won't work ...
<cite class="_Rm" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: inherit; color: rgb(0, 102, 33); font-size: 14px;">https://www.aei.org/.../new-study-shows-wh...</cite>
American Enterprise Institute
Nov 19, 2012 - Get AEI econ's weekly snapshot of news, views, and economic cues. ... New study shows why heavily taxing the rich won't work .... As far as what Romney promised, the fact is that 100% of all presidential candidates promise more than they can.... Medicare – increase premiums, co-pays – problem solved.
'Tax The Rich' Doesn't Solve Anything: It's The Math, Stupid
<cite class="_Rm" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: inherit; color: rgb(0, 102, 33); font-size: 14px;">www.zerohedge.com/.../why-tax-rich-doesnt-solve-anything-...</cite>
Zero Hedge
Sep 10, 2012 - Why 'Tax The Rich' Doesn't Solve Anything: It's The Math, Stupid ....Rich won't complain because their taxes aren't going up; Workers will like less taxes to spend on consumption to get the economy going. It is only .... You could tax the rich 100% of income and it would not solve fiscal ...... Tax the word tax.
Inflationomics.com - Four Problems with Taxing the Rich
<cite class="_Rm" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: inherit; color: rgb(0, 102, 33); font-size: 14px;">www.inflationomics.com/article.php?...Four%20Problems%20with%20T...</cite>
There are four problems with this: ... In 2017, someone who has 10,000 ounces of gold will be rich (the U.S. dollar will ... Higher taxes won't solve the budget woes. ... It's just a matter of time before the economy collapses under the weight of the ...
Taxing the rich is counterproductive - Israpundit
<cite class="_Rm" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: inherit; color: rgb(0, 102, 33); font-size: 14px;">www.israpundit.com/archives/35269/comment-page-1</cite>
Apr 13, 2011 - Still nowhere near enough, so let's just tax it at a rate of 100% thus bringing ... It won't solve Americas economic problems but it will reduce the ...
Fox Wins Straw-Man Argument Against Taxing Millionaires ...
<cite class="_Rm" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: inherit; color: rgb(0, 102, 33); font-size: 14px;">mediamatters.org/.../09/...taxing.../190105</cite>
Media Matters for America
Sep 24, 2012 - Fox: "Taxing Millionaires At 100 Percent" Would Fund Government .....it won't solve the economic problem by itself....ignoring the fact that no ...
Taxing the rich won't help | TheHill
<cite class="_Rm" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: inherit; color: rgb(0, 102, 33); font-size: 14px;">thehill.com/opinion/.../john.../186579-taxing-the-rich-wont-help</cite>
The Hill
Oct 10, 2011 - President Obama has made taxing the rich the centerpiece of his reelection campaign. ... making more than $100,0000 support raising taxes on rich people. ... and we all have to pay a little bit more to help solve our debt problems. ....they can't and won'tever say that our economic woes are due to any of it.
- It still shows the same story: Top earners pay a disproportionately large share of the federal tax burden. The top 10 percent pays 53.3 percent of all federal taxes. When looking at just federal income taxes, they pay 68 percent of the burden.Apr 15, 2015
1 Percenters Pay 24 Percent and Top 10 Percent Pay 53.3 ...
<cite class="_Rm" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: inherit; color: rgb(0, 102, 33); font-size: 14px;">www.cnsnews.com/.../1-percenters-pay-24-percent-...</cite>Cybercast News Service
The top 10 percent of income earners paid 68 percent of all federal income taxes in 2011 (the latest year available), though they earned 45 percent of all income. The bottom 50 percent paid 3 percent of income taxes, but earned 12 percent of income.
Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes - CNBC.com
<cite class="_Rm" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: inherit; color: rgb(0, 102, 33); font-size: 14px;">www.cnbc.com/.../top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-federal-income-taxes....</cite>
CNBC
Apr 14, 2015 - The top-earning 1 percent of Americans will pay nearly half of the federal income taxes for 2014, the largest share in at least three years, according to a study. The bottom 80 percent of Americans are expected to pay 15 percent of all federal income taxes in 2014, according to the study.
- It still shows the same story: Top earners pay a disproportionately large share of the federal tax burden. The top 10 percent pays 53.3 percent of all federal taxes. When looking at just federal income taxes, they pay 68 percent of the burden.Apr 15, 2015
Comment -
You need more taxpayers. Less people living off of others.*
Are you still talking about reducing the deficit?
Sounds like you're talking about something else now.
If the 1% who have more wealth than the other 99%, can't make a dent....
How is taxing the other 99% supposed to make a dent?Comment -
the system can't be fixed fiat currencies don't work. We need the money to be backed by an asset. The penny has more value then the us dollar once people lose faith in our currency. Sound money is key.Comment -
the debt yes.
Even Trump is in favor of some rich paying more. Like Hedge fund managers. But he says we need to fix the spending problem Washington has. I have been saying that forever.
Wouldn't you agree that the nearly 100 million out of the workforce and the almost 50 million on foodstamps isn't a good thing? And that getting them to work and paying taxes would be better? How much is too much in taxes for someone to pay? 60% 70% 80% 90%? Before you answer ....
- The National Science Foundation spent $856,000 to teach mountain lions how to walk on treadmills as part of a research project whose aim was to better understand mountain lions’ instincts.
- The State Department went on a bender the week before the government shutdown, purchasing $5 million of “exquisite” crystal glassware to presumably drink the $400,000 in booze they purchased in 2013.
- $562,000. The Department of Veterans Affairs went on a spending spree during “use it or lose it” season, purchasing over half a million in artwork and millions in furniture in a single week.
- The Defense Department wasted $100 million on unused flight tickets and never bothered to collect refunds even though the tickets were refundable.
- Congress has ignored efficiency recommendations from the Department of Health and Human Services that would save $9 billion annually
- The state of Washington sent $1 food stamp checks to 250,000 households in order to raise state caseload figures and trigger $43 million in additional federal funds
- Congress recently spent $2.4 billion on 10 new jets that the Pentagon insists it does not need and will not use
- The Conservation Reserve program pays farmers $2 billion annually not to farm their land
- Congress recently gave Alaska Airlines $500,000 to paint a Chinook salmon on a Boeing 737
- More than $13 billion in Iraq aid has been classified as wasted or stolen. Another $7.8 billion cannot be accounted for
This goes on forever it seems.
With all this going on, I can't understand how anyone can support raising taxes on anyone.Comment -
lets not confuse the issue here, most of progressives want the super rich to pay more not for any other reason than income inequality. nobody is talking about extreme miracles occurring by taxing the super rich. but it certainly will go a long way in helping develop a much better safety net. listen I don't have a dog in this fight as LBJ said. to me personally this is not an issue, but it is an issue for me in so much as what is right or wrong.
the 50's and part of the 60's prove beyond a doubt that when the tax rate on the richest is higher the health of the economy and the safety net for the very poor works very well. those were times of prosperity, some call it a golden age for America. to ignore facts and ignore what worked and what didn't work is simply wrong.
I have a question for you dwight and for many others. What is wrong with taxing the very rich at a higher rate. You know I can think of only one real answer that has some legitimacy. Every other answer given by the far right is bs. I know the real reason so do many of you but what is the only reason that has some logic behind it. I hope you know this answer so we can continue on with this discussion.
And really...you can't understand why raising taxes on anyone is proper. Really? You must be joking right?Last edited by dante1; 01-18-16, 11:32 AM.Comment -
dante1, if you can't understand why asking people to give more money to government who wastes it like they do, then no matter what I say won't matter. I will leave it at that.Comment -
The government does waste money, but the government also does a ton of good.
So you are running away because you don't know an answer, well what is new. The question is what is the only legitimate reason for not taxing the very rich. You don't know so you "will leave it at that." This is my basic argument with you and others, you take a position but you are unable to defend it. You simply state some nonsense and then when called on to defend it or expound on it you cannot. You do it all the time my friend. All the time. If you believe in something you should be able to defend your belief.
So I will ask again what is a legitimate reason for not raising taxes on the super rich? My god if you don't know research it, or at least guess. Don't do what you always do, give some bs response. Answer the question.Comment -
why is your only answer raising taxes to solve the spending problem Washington has?
Its the principal. The government takes in enough in taxes to do their job.Comment -
listen that is not the only answer but it is an answer.
so you have no answer for me, you cannot defend your position with one valid reason. the question again is give a valid reason why the super rich should not pay more? you cannot? Dwight, do you have any idea how much money a billion dollars is. I don't think you do. Governments always, good democratic governments anyway always contribute in some way when a person is successful. Do you know that? I don't think you do. That is the problem with you, you are a shallow thinker. You cannot think beyond simple one sentence answers. You can't see shades, you can't understand complex problems. Why I start a conversation with you is beyond me. You are not the only one attempting to speak with brooks is impossible too.
Research, do some research and find one valid reason that the very rich should not contribute more to a government that was in some way responsible for that same persons success.
Now before you answer with some bs, why not answer the question. Just answer the question. and btw, there is an answer this is not a trick question.Comment -
Dwight, do you always answer questions with questions?
I am getting the impression that you are against raising taxes on rich people without any basis in fact & without any logical reason. I am also getting the impression that you do not want to help poor people. Which is how most societies are judged, how they treat the poor and less fortunate in their society. When FDR taxed the top 1% at a rate of about 90% your country flourished. Since then your country's economy has been in constant decline and there is a reason for this, special interests simply took over. The government that you claim does not know how to spend money is essentially in the pocket of the 1%, the special interests. They have legislators in their pocket and those legislators design laws that only benefit the rich. These special interests, the rich, are the ones you are defending and from what I can tell you are not one of them.
So I'm completely confused & your refusal to answer or explain is not helping me understand your position.Comment -
just more nonsense from a self proclaimed intellectual who isn't very bright. I answered how I am going to answer. And if that infuriates you, that's just a bonus life provides.
I will go and research how much a billion now and I might ot might not get back you with what I discover.Comment -
WW2 introduced women into the workforce. When the war was over, they went back to being housewives into the 60's. Women got bored at home and wanted their own money. With women entering the workforce, that depressed wages for men. Good for the bottom line of companies.
Recessions depress wages.
Illegals depress wages. Foreign exchange students and green card holders depress wages.
The year 2000, health insurance companies jacked up rates so companies couldn't afford to cover their employees and passed that to the employees who got no raises to compensate. Depressing their buying power and holds true till this day.
Automation, depresses the work force.
More people looking for work than work available, depresses wages.
Doubling up the work load w/o pay increases on employees, depresses the work force.
NAFTA allowed companies to move off shore paying employees pennies on the dollar and allowed to bring their goods back here duty free. Depresses the workforce and wages.
Govt sucking the corporate/ rich dick and cutting their tax burden increased our deficit/ debt. To top it all off, they want more and our Repub candidates are ready and willing to suck on that protruding penis once again.
All of the above is why we are poor and they are rich.Comment -
you can pretend all you want that I am the only one who thinks like I do. You can also pretend that I don't want to help the poor. It's all nonsense. Government's job is to protect the people and help the needy. They take in more than enough in taxes to do this. It's easy to waste other people's money but those that make it will almost always spend it more wisely. I believe in less government and letting human being run their lives. They will always do a better job. Governments aren't accountable and will almost always make things worse. Of course, their whole game is make you believe different and to justify their existence to the degree it has become. More more more. You need us. Government are the ones that protect the 1%. They are the ones who allow them to dictate laws and policies. They have convinced you to blame the 1%. A classic deflect and blame tactic because it obviously works on many people.
Government should be a part time gig. They should get paid a modest fee, do their job and go run their own business or enter the workforce like everyone else instead of sucking off the taxpayer. Taxes should be around 10% with no deductions. A VAT or GST on everything you buy. This way, no one can avoid paying taxes. Not even on a can of coke or pack of gum. Not even those who work under the table and hookers and who ever.Comment -
FDR tax rates at the end of WWII, 94% on every dollar you made over 25k (about 380000 in today's dollars). Today its 35%.
FDR tax rates on corporations. For every dollar paid in personal income tax. Corporations paid a $1.50 or 150% Today corporations pay 25 cents for every dollar collected in personal income tax.
What this means is that the rich or 1% who own 75% of the stock in corporations. Have shifted the tax burden onto the working & Middle Class. Producing a wealth divide as great as it was during the Great Depression.
A Flat Tax is just another Rich Mans scam. Don't be fooled.Last edited by khicks26; 01-18-16, 01:04 PM.Comment -
I'm sure brooks will be along soon to tell me how wrong I am.Comment -
I never said you are the only one who thinks like you do & defends tax loopholes for the 1%.
In your (will2survive's) thread you stated that government shouldn't spend money on the less fortunate & I think that's also what you are saying in this thread.
If the government can't be trusted to spend money properly, or to your approval, who should be responsible for this task?
The banks? Wall St?
Maybe the top 1% should be trusted to distribute tax monies fairly?
[U]
Government are the ones that protect the 1%. They are the ones who allow them to dictate laws and policies. They have convinced you to blame the 1%. A classic deflect and blame tactic because it obviously works on many people.*[/I]
you're absurd.
Some times a duck is a duck.
Maybe they have people convinced that special interests are to blame because the system is, in fact, working for them. To serve them & their special interests. While they constanly make the rules and change the rules.
The government made the decision to bail out wall st & pass the buck onto the 99%. That doesn't seem self serving to you?
You still haven't explained what interest you have in the tax rate on the 1%
Why should you care whether they are taxed at 2% or 80%?Last edited by Jayvegas420; 01-18-16, 01:03 PM.Comment -
France is the only country with a higher corporate tax rate then usComment -
A bunch of billion dollar companies do not pay any taxes in the u.s because of the rates. Be more business friendly and eliminate the loopholes and we just brought back billions of dollars a year.Comment -
How can you be too big to fail but, not big enough to pay your fair share?Comment -
You can outsource to China now, but in the 1950s no one was going to a country run by Mao. People really don't want to go back to the 1950s, they're cherry picking. I doubt anyone wants to go back to the pre EITC days where the lowest tax bracket was 20%, where social program spending was a fraction of what it is today, to the pre-EPA days, to the 1950s regulatory code, etc.
The government could get away with the high taxes back in the 1950s. How many countries can you name back then that had a more stable government and economic system than America, had suffered less losses in WWII than America, and were less likely to become communist than America? I can think of maybe Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, but those countries had a much smaller population and less potential customers. The only way we can return to those policies if every other country went back to that era too.
Just a side note, but I read today about what a mess the French economy, led by socialist Hollande, has become. His approval rating is around where W's was before he left.Comment -
I have never ever said or thought that. If it seems like it somewhere, then I suggest that you read it again or perhaps its a typo that I made.
I have always said and did again in my last post "the government's job is to protect the people and help the needy" ... 4th sentence Post #968.
? You tell me. Isn't the government the people's employees? People elect and pay the politicians (the government) to look out for them. To protect them (military , police) and help the needy (elderly, poor etc) right? Is it their job to spend millions on parties and waste YOUR money on some of those things in post #957? Is it their job to bail out crooks on Wall street or help the clueless?If the government can't be trusted to spend money properly, or to your approval, who should be responsible for this task?
The banks? Wall St?
Maybe the top 1% should be trusted to distribute tax monies fairly?
Government is supposed to look out for everyone. Old, young, rich, poor, man, woman, gay , straight, white, black ... whoever.
Its not the job of the 1% to distribute anything. WFT?? Who the fukk are you or anyone to tell anyone to distribute money? So, Joe Blow works his ass off all year in the garage and pays his taxes at the end of the year and the government takes that money he pays and uses to study the effects of micro-gravity on sheep or spending 20 million to help students in Indonesia get master's degrees?
I am for the little guy! But I don't begrudge those you are successful or rich either. I am for the people who need help but against freeloaders. I don't claim to be the smartest guy in the world but I do have common sense. I am a man of principle. Maybe to a fault.
I believe, that if government really did as they are supposed to, the country would run better. The "1%" would spend more money in the country and do it better. But the government has proven to be submissive and crooked. They allow corruption. No one went to jail after the prime loan scandal in 2008. Iceland sent 17 bankers to prison. Which government did the right thing?
Your government is the last line of defense for its citizens it represents. They aren't God. If they aren't gonna look out for you and the constitution or charter of rights, then who will?
Blaming the 1% or the 10% is silly.
exactly. Government knew it was happening and let it go one for year and then took your money and bailed them out. Why? Because they were told to. The people who pay for them to get elected told them to. Iceland didn't. They put them in jail.The government made the decision to bail out wall st & pass the buck onto the 99%. That doesn't seem self serving to you?
I think I did answer it in this thread. People who are rich aren't usually rich because they are stupid with their money. The spend it better. Government is the opposite. Its really that simple to me.You still haven't explained what interest you have in the tax rate on the 1%
Why should you care whether they are taxed at 2% or 80%?Comment -
exactly.
The latest example a couple months ago. Pfizer.
The New York-based company’s official tax base will be moved from the US to Ireland, allowing it to take advantage of the Republic’s famous 12.5% corporate tax rate – rather than the top nominal rate of 35% in its home country
http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/pfi...60907-Nov2015/Last edited by DwightShrute; 01-18-16, 01:49 PM.Comment -
I'm not arguing who's smarter. You're clearly more intelligent than I am. That's why I try to keep my point simple. If you agree that a society is judged by how it treats it's less fortunate, why is there a problem if that has to be done at the expense of the top 1%?Comment
