It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Progressive idea 80% tax - income over $500K doesn't go far enough to fix income inequality

page: 7
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere
So how does taking 80% of what some rich guy has help put money in my pocket?
Is it supposed to trickle down from the government to me? My taxes will go away? My mortgage will get paid? Cars will become more affordable? Food and gas won't be going up week after week?

Connect the dots for me. Don't use hypothetical or promises of government action because those are fairy tales.
Take a dollar from a rich man and increase my quality of life. Go through it from A to B to C so I can see how this action will directly benefit me.

I can show you how it has hurt you....www.truth-out.org...
how much longer are you going to stay in the bent-over position for these people?.....how much income do Americans have to give up to satisfy these people?....how much more wealth from the middle class and poor, needs to be transferred up to these people before you can "connect the dots"?


Look at my post about the CEO of Boeing...lowering his 13 million per year to 800k gives Boeing employees 100 bucks per year raise....

I need the dots connected too...


it's not only the CEO, it's the other officers, and investors in the stock....besides Boeing pays it's employees well. Exxon makes 7 to 10 billion in profits every 90 days, and still gets tax refunds from federal taxpayers. Wal-Mart owner sam Walton who died in 1992 left his fortune to these family members who in 2013 are multi-billionaires
...Christy Walton...age 59...38.7 billion
...jim Walton...age 66...36.4 billion
...alice Walton ...age 64...35.9 billion
...s. robson Walton...age 70...35.9 billion
...ann Walton...age 65...5.1 billion
...nancy Walton...age 62...4.3 billion

the combined net worth of these 6 family members alone is 156.3 billion, which if this family was a country, they would be at number 58 out of 187 countries in terms of GDP (gross domestic product).............so tell me why they ARE NOT paying their own workers a livable wage?




posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to Xtrozero

Sorry but your hypothetical situation and opinions have little credence when I see someone who is part of the 1% saying we need to raise taxes;


Buffett urges Congress to raise taxes on the rich

Umm what credentials do you have to back your opinions?

I see heavily taxing the top income earners as a good start to take away their total control of our government.

As for high wages for CEO's I see there are some influential stockholders that want their earning cut back:

Stop moaning about our bonuses: Barclays boss slaps down investors angry at bank's pay practices

FTA


In total, a third of shareholders withheld their support for the bank’s executive pay plan at a stormy AGM on Thursday, with nearly a quarter of those who voted actively opposing the board. It is the biggest major shareholder protest since 32 per cent of BP shareholders failed to back its pay policy last month, and demonstrates the growing concern about boardroom excess. Support for Standard Life and criticism for Barclays came from both left and right – with the Institute of Directors urging the bank to reconsider its bonus plans.


The USA and most of the world already got screwed by the 1% yet you stick up for them, why?


edit on 26-4-2014 by AlaskanDad because: added the reply to



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

Why? Because their workers agreed to a contract. And in that employee agreement they express their consent to work at their wages... and as long as they continue to work there happily then there IS NOT A PROBLEM.

Hey here is an idea... why not make them aware of what you know. Its not illegal to let people know what you know. Why not get them to quit?

Or even better... prevent potential employees from applying there.


You want ti know how much I make? 5.15 an hour. Our store is self sustaining. I accepted making # because NO ONE ELSE CALLED ME BACK. Believe it or not but when you starve as much as I have you will accept anything.



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: GiulXainx
a reply to: jimmyx

Why? Because their workers agreed to a contract. And in that employee agreement they express their consent to work at their wages... and as long as they continue to work there happily then there IS NOT A PROBLEM.

Hey here is an idea... why not make them aware of what you know. Its not illegal to let people know what you know. Why not get them to quit?

Or even better... prevent potential employees from applying there.


You want ti know how much I make? 5.15 an hour. Our store is self sustaining. I accepted making # because NO ONE ELSE CALLED ME BACK. Believe it or not but when you starve as much as I have you will accept anything.


been there....here's my BIG, LEFT-WING, ANTI-WEALTHY IDEA!.........Have the minimum wage keep up with inflation...when inflation goes up 2%, minimum wage goes up 2%........companies could automate this with a simple software program....this wouldn't be rocket science



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

And big companies will continue to offer their positions far below the minimum wage and some poor sap will eventually cave in and accept the wages. Juat like I did last month. Even though minimum wage is 9 dollars here.



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

Seeing how we have an Oligarchy running the show, I propose a 80% tax on those buying our politicians.
It would provide an excellent disincentive to throwing money at politicians.
They will still have their "Freedom of Speech" as well.

For everyone else not part of the Oligarchy, 15% tax.



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
Woo Hoo! Lets go relive Woodrow Wilson's mistakes. Yessir! It's not like the nation hasn't seen 90% taxing on wealth before. Did that go well? Well.....people know their history, right?

At least we aren't playing stupid games anymore. They are outright and honest about saying it is the fact high income exists AT ALL that they can't stand. Jealousy of accomplishment is how I'd term it, but others really believe they have the right, contrary to everything our nation DOES stand for here, to dictate how successful an individual American can ever become. Not TOO successful...and of course, this, according to some, is the duty of the State to regulate, monitor and ultimately control.

Da Comrade! Da! It's feeling a lot like 1918 around here.

You are gravely mistaken. The highest rate under Woodrow Wilson was 77%. These are nominal dollars - that is to say, $2 million then is well above $10 million in today's dollars. It was lowered soon after he left office to 58% in 1922-1923, 46% in 1924, and way down to 25% in 1925. What happened within a few years of that? Stock market crash, Great Depression, mirroring our low cuts during the last decade. Strange, huh?

We did not see 90%+ tax rates until WW2 - 1944 through 1964, when the Revenue Act of 1964 lowered it back to 77%. Weird that these two decades were often called the Golden Age of the United States, isn't it?



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: GiulXainx

So you admit you have no idea of your riders actual income or whether they fit the criteria being discussed or are a part of our crumbling middle class, exactly my point.




What is lowes known for? What id wal mart known for? What is pizza hut known for? What is safelite known for? What is geico known for?


Lowes- I have never been to one, though I know they sale hardware
wal mart- cheap period
Pizza Hut - quick cheap pizza
safelite- never even hear of them
geico- cheap and more crappy adverts than any other company on earth

So it would seem the majority of corps you referred to are known for underselling other businesses.




As for your articles.... I am fighting against the fcc wuth the latest petition. I have a t mobile service which is a competitor. I have century link internet. Everything is cheaper. Comcast doesn't want to pay for our connections to information that proves to be harmful. It isn't illegal yet so they literally are trying to pull wool over our eyes. But once people see what happens when they do this. Via the websites in protest by shutting down their own sites. People will fight against it.


Now can you explain why the Corporate Officers of Verizon and Comcast should not be taxed heavily, or at the least the tax breaks they are receiving should not be rescinded?




I learned a lot in my life... maybe you should live the life I did.


Sorry but I have better things to do in life than earn a taxicab diploma.



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
...and way down to 25% in 1925. What happened within a few years of that? Stock market crash, Great Depression, mirroring our low cuts during the last decade. Strange, huh?


Are you seriously trying to link the Great Depression to a reduction in marginal tax rates?

Even Keynesian Economists recommend cutting taxes in an economic downturn, which is the same as Monetarists and the Common position.



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Every time I read anything like this, I picture the kid throwing a hissy fit in the grocery store, because Mom won't buy some junk food o another. Maybe nobody ever told some of these people that life's not fair, never has been, never will be. It's up to you and you alone to improve your lot in life.

if anyone expects the Government to "even things out" you're living in a fairytale world. I'm sure once they STEAL all that money from everyone else, it will make its way down the line, just as soon as they all get their share. What a joke.

MOM! MOM! IT ISN'T FAIR! WAAAAAA



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
...Christy Walton...age 59...38.7 billion
...jim Walton...age 66...36.4 billion
...alice Walton ...age 64...35.9 billion
...s. robson Walton...age 70...35.9 billion
...ann Walton...age 65...5.1 billion
...nancy Walton...age 62...4.3 billion

the combined net worth of these 6 family members alone is 156.3 billion, which if this family was a country, they would be at number 58 out of 187 countries in terms of GDP (gross domestic product).............so tell me why they ARE NOT paying their own workers a livable wage?


I do not understand your point in what does money already made and tax got to do with all this. So they are lucky and got billion of dollars inheritances, once again big deal.

What is a livable wage? What should we be paying? Boeing pays well because of the skill level and education level to do most of the jobs there. What do you pay a job that takes high school education and zero skills outside what they might teach you?

I had those jobs when I was young and I decided they sucked and so I worked on getting better skills to get better jobs. I know people who work at Wall Mart, and love it. Wall Mart is a company, and companies are in the business to make money...period. There are a crap more investors in their stock that are not rich than rich and whether the company does well and grows their stock will determine the retirement for 1000s.

I don't know the answer, but I do know that not all jobs should be a livable wage, or can be one. 60% of workers work for small businesses so what are they to do? You act like they have huge margins to play with.

You seem to think the 6 billionaires above really matter. Their money is already taxed...too late, and most of it was most likely taxed at the old 80% level in the past. Should we tax it again? How much is pure stock in the company and really not money at all?



edit on 26-4-2014 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
The USA and most of the world already got screwed by the 1% yet you stick up for them, why?


I'm not sticking up for them, many are total assholes. My point is they are not the threat to your quality of life. You act like they have the responsibility to take care of you. If you don't like Walmart don't shop there or work there, it is that damn simple.

But what would taxing the rich an extra 300 billion when the government wastes trillions? That is my point, as long as people vote into office over and over totally inept people then we have nothing to bitch about.

Sticking it to the rich does NOTHING, it is what our government wants you to blame everything on so that they can go on being the real reason why your life may suck. You can quit working at Walmart and go get a better job, but it is kind of hard to quit your country to get a better one.



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   
So...let me guess. These taxes will go to the government...right? And then they will manage it, etc. with their employees who will be paid from that money. And they will give some of that money to people who are poor to buy their votes for...um...themselves. And if you don't like them you will still have your money taken, but not be given any or any services. Right? Do I have that one down right?

Who in their f'ing right mind would give money to these whores who use it...and us...to stay in power so they can continue taking from us and buying votes???



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
The USA and most of the world already got screwed by the 1% yet you stick up for them, why?


I'm not sticking up for them, many are total assholes. My point is they are not the threat to your quality of life. You act like they have the responsibility to take care of you. If you don't like Walmart don't shop there or work there, it is that damn simple.

But what would taxing the rich an extra 300 billion when the government wastes trillions? That is my point, as long as people vote into office over and over totally inept people then we have nothing to bitch about.

Sticking it to the rich does NOTHING, it is what our government wants you to blame everything on so that they can go on being the real reason why your life may suck. You can quit working at Walmart and go get a better job, but it is kind of hard to quit your country to get a better one.


You know...while we are at it. There are unloved people in the world. There are also those who are very loved, married, etc. I say we should take some of their love and distribute it to the unloved. It is completely unfair that the "loved ones" have it and others don't. Lets hate these loved people and demonize them for what they have.

Fair is fair...right?



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Are you seriously trying to link the Great Depression to a reduction in marginal tax rates?

Even Keynesian Economists recommend cutting taxes in an economic downturn, which is the same as Monetarists and the Common position.

In a way, yes.

It's an interesting parallel, isn't it? I wrote paper on it some years ago, if you care to read a more in-depth explanation of my theory. I have a somewhat diverse background and interests.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
So...let me guess. These taxes will go to the government...right? And then they will manage it, etc. with their employees who will be paid from that money.

Not exactly, please look over my linked post from a few pages ago.
edit on 17Sat, 26 Apr 2014 17:15:44 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago4 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero




My point is they are not the threat to your quality of life.


They have bought our government, destroyed our job market, they are hoarding trillions of dollars away from our economy, they have manipulated our markets to todays inflationary levels and are the cause of our war mongering; how could that possibly effect our quality of life?


You act like they have the responsibility to take care of you.


No I do not want their care, but I feel that they are responsible as any other citizen, buying politicians and manipulating them for personal profit is not being responsible to our country or society as a whole.




But what would taxing the rich an extra 300 billion when the government wastes trillions? That is my point, as long as people vote into office over and over totally inept people then we have nothing to bitch about.


Who's money is behind todays politicians, its not the government that donates to their election campaigns or to the two major corrupt parties is it? Looks like the govs bad spending is influenced by the 1%.




Sticking it to the rich does NOTHING, it is what our government wants you to blame everything on so that they can go on being the real reason why your life may suck.


No our government is ran by politicians who depend on the rich to put them in office, they do not wish to lay blame on their sugar daddies. lol's




You can quit working at Walmart and go get a better job, but it is kind of hard to quit your country to get a better one.


Once again lol; it is everyones responsibility to keep our countries government honest and allowing the rich lobbying / bribing our politicians is not acting in a responsible manor.



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
It's an interesting parallel, isn't it? I wrote paper on it some years ago, if you care to read a more in-depth explanation of my theory. I have a somewhat diverse background and interests.


Correlation is not causation. Marginal tax rates being lowered had nothing to do with the Great Depression, all three major economic factions agree. Even the one that wants higher marginal rates and more government spending.



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE




You know...while we are at it. There are unloved people in the world. There are also those who are very loved, married, etc. I say we should take some of their love and distribute it to the unloved. It is completely unfair that the "loved ones" have it and others don't. Lets hate these loved people and demonize them for what they have. Fair is fair...right?


A very good point; spreading love and good spirit is something more people should try rather complaining about what they hate continuously.

When was the last time you made a thanksgiving dinner for poor elderly citizens of your community, or took an elderly person to a doctors appointment, or anything else to help your nieghbor?

Or do you just hate those kind of people?



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Yes. That is I how see the matter. Tax the pee out them and either they will leave the country or get back to their own business.
edit on 26-4-2014 by MOMof3 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-4-2014 by MOMof3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Correlation is not causation. Marginal tax rates being lowered had nothing to do with the Great Depression, all three major economic factions agree. Even the one that wants higher marginal rates and more government spending.

This is true: correlation is not causation and the main economic schools of thought don't see it as a factor in the Great Depression.

Please examine my argument, however.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join