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.

 

Economists Say We Should Tax The Rich At 90 Percent

page: 2
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

The interests of economics and the interests of the people are united. Whatever causes an increase in production lowers the cost of living. Whatever causes an increase in jobs lowers the unemployment rate, which raises the cost of labor.

Each of these economic forces are beneficial to all people, not just those living here on this continent. The problem is not so much workers, consumers and corporations as it has been special interests and government, although the corporations do have a lot of blame too and some are just immoral as can be imagined.

Trying to blame all corporations for what companies like Monsanto have done is insane. Trying to blame the wealthy for what men like George Soros have done is insane. Trying to blame credit unions for what the federal reserve has done is insane.

We do need corrections to our laws, no doubt about that. Firstly, it makes no sense for people outside of a jurisdiction to be donating to the political campaigns of a local politician whatsoever. Money in campaigning has essentially given the wealthy citizens a disproportionate level of control over the types of candidates we get to vote on; however, that can be solved easily.

If we simply had all people donate to a centralized campaign fund which distributed out to candidates based on their popular support, then that would effectively take the money out of campaigning, or at least level the playing field for grassroots candidates.

If we abolished corporate personhood, that would greatly reduce the amount of money in politics to begin with.

If we made it illegal to donate to a campaign outside of the area you live, that would reduce campaign funds even further.

If we outlawed superpacs, that would reduce campaign funds.

If we abolished political parties, that would reduce the likelihood of absolute corruption leaving us with only two choices.

If we created a multiparty system like Germany has, that would also lead towards that end.

If we instituted a voting system similar to Australia's, that could solve some of our problems.

There are dozens of things we could try to do that do not require increasing the size or power of government.

Our government is spending something like $7 trillion dollars a year at this point, most of that on warfare and you want to give them more money? Why? I'd rather have the wealthy guy down the road have it, he might spend it on a rolls royce or a boob job for his wife, but I can be sure he's not buying a F-4 phantom to donate to the Saudis, which is what our government is doing with it.
edit on 11 23 2014 by Nechash because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: KawRider9

But this tax system worked so well for decades until the current wave of conservative politicians started handing out tax breaks for the rich under Nixon.

Explain how the old tax system that charged upto 91% grew the economy and all the classes, saw the largest middle class growth ever, be bad today?



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

I saw this very thing happen in Santa Fe, NM. An influx of wealthy people drove up property values and so it goes. First, greed drove up property values and many of those who later complained, made money selling that $12,000 house for $100,000, and laughed all the way to the bank. This is the way it works in a 'free' economy. I agree there are innocent people caught up in the fall out and that is tragic. In a free economy they have the right to sell and move to a more affordable place tax wise.

I am in favor of Homestead laws. First they reduce taxes and second assure you that your home cannot be taken away from you for any debt as long as you live there. If you do not pay your debts, a lien will be put on your home and when you leave for whatever reason, your house can be claimed to pay your debt. Seems fair to me. Texas has such a law.
edit on 23-11-2014 by Iamschist because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Yeah, I'd like to see that happen. Even at 10% they'd still be filthy rich instead of obscenely rich.

However. The one place those revenues need to go is in the Social Security coffers and made off limits to any political pilfering.

A little pay a back for the exploitation of the average citizen.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Nechash


Our government is spending something like $7 trillion dollars a year at this point, most of that on warfare and you want to give them more money? Why? I'd rather have the wealthy guy down the road have it, he might spend it on a rolls royce or a boob job for his wife, but I can be sure he's not buying a F-4 phantom to donate to the Saudis, which is what our government is doing with it.


To much money in politics has brought us to this point; time to pay off our debt and take care of our own. With our 1% owning the political system as it now does how can change occur?

Tax em, the 1% will not go homeless nor will they go hungry, but they might not own the US of A's political system.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Iamschist




First, greed drove up property values and many of those who later complained, made money selling that $12,000 house for $100,000, and laughed all the way to the bank. This is the way it works in a 'free' economy.


But our economy is one of crony capitalism run by the new robber barons, not a free economy!

One thing you seem to miss is many people value the memories of living in their family home, is it fair they should be forced out of it?

How is that more fair than taxing the rich, it is not like it would put the one percent into poverty, would it?

The one percent would not go homeless or even miss a meal for paying more taxes!



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

In this case two wrongs will not make a right. The issue is not that the rich will not go hungry. The issue for me at least is that taxation should be equatable, for all.

I do believe we have a free economy. You have enormous power with your money. Not buying something, or boycotting a corporation does impact the bottom line and many times will bring about change.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Really? Most of the political donations in this country can be traced back to a handful of wealthy people. If you really just wanted to level that playing field, it would be easy enough. End corporate personhood and limit personal contributions to $1000 a year in totality. To those steep limits, most politicians would be forced to go door to door begging for donations just to get a few ads on TV the week before election night. ;p

The problem isn't truly the wealthy. The problem is how powerful and irresponsible our government has become and how apathetic our people are. Our politicians are basically accepting bribes from wealthy people as the means to buy their way into office and are offering a return of services on that investment. Prevent the money and hold the politicians accountable and the problem will be resolved without taxing anyone.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Iamschist

Do you have any proof you can cite that a 90% tax on the 1% is a wrong or it this your opinion?



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Nechash

And how does a campaign finance law stop the rich from hoarding money, which hurts the country and the other 99% of the people?



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

It is my opinion that taxing the rich 90% is wrong. I believe in tax equality.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Iamschist
a reply to: AlaskanDad

It is my opinion that taxing the rich 90% is wrong. I believe in tax equality.


Do you vote for your opinions and beliefs, or do you research and look for facts to guide your decisions?

I ask you is it fair that some people eat meals that are so expensive others could eat for months on the cost of that one meal?

Do you believe it's fair that the rich own homes that could be a resort to be enjoyed by many.

Fair and beliefs, really now!

Next you will say you believe the one percenters have earned their money! lol's



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Heres the problem with that... taxes get used to build bombs and prisons not schools and hospitals.

If that changed i might agree with you.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

I do say they have earned their money. What you are advocating is socialism. I believe we should help those who need it, kick the butts of those who don't but want it anyway.

Freedom does not automatically mean equality. The only difference between you and the rich are the quality of your toys. They can afford the best, I am assuming you cannot, but you still have toys. I am happy with what I have. I don't begrudge the rich. I have been rich and I have been poor, for me poor is better. Less hassles, less spotlight, less BS. That however is a personal choice. I have all that I need and much of what I want, it's all good.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

How does savings hurt an economy? Savings increases the demand for currency which causes money to become more valuable. Spending hurts an economy by overinflating things to unnatural highs causing a misallocation of resources. Spending is the reason we have perpetual boom and bust cycles, especially when it is orchestrated by the government to a massive level.

The people have all the resources they need right now to live a prosperous life. Why are they falling short of excellence?

We don't need to increase spending to get them out of their dilemmas. We need to motivate them to be organized and to come up with ideas that will increase productivity. When a person has a good idea, with all of this capital sitting in banks, it should become very easy for them to find investors.

Heck, people are crowdfunding things nowadays on kickstarter, so I know certainly that this is the case. The problem isn't truly a lack of spending, but a lack of good ideas and a lack of people willing to go through the hard work of making them happen. The rich aren't Scrooge hoarding his fortune. (With inflation the way it is, that would be financial suicide anyway). If they have a good idea that will earn them money and they can get in on the ground floor, the money will come.

If you were a millionaire, would you rather get a few percentages in a liquid account or would you rather get 40%+ ROI on a decent startup? These people are rational creatures. They aren't just going to hoard their money in the bank when a good opportunity comes along, but they also aren't going to write a blank check for a bad idea, like Telsa Motors, which our government does daily.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Agreed, but until we break away from our current status quo there can be no change.

Honestly, sometimes I see the mess we're in and I wonder if we are no just a defective animal / being that is headed to a deserved extinction, one brought about by ignorance and arrogance.

Sadly only time will tell. ):



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Nechash



Our government currently spends over 20% of the economic activity of our country. A 10% tax would either require crushing levels of debt accrual, which would inevitably bankrupt us as a nation or the dissolution of about 60% of our government.


You had me at 'dissolution of about 60% of our Government'.

I want Government to go away and get stuffed. If you give them more money they will just use it to control, manipulate and corrupt not to mention kill people. THAT is what Governments do.
edit on 2014/11/23 by Metallicus because: Sp



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Nechash

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country!

The one percent can pay more taxes!

Really in a world with so many homeless and starving is it asking to much that the one percent pay higher taxes?

Tax the one percent! they will be not homeless, nor shall they go hungry!





edit on 23-11-2014 by AlaskanDad because: typo



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Economists Say We Should Tax The Rich At 90 Percent

Taking from others simply because they have more or are more successful than you are ... that's called THEFT. The only fair tax is a flat tax. The ol' 10% flat tax so no one gets rewarded or punished for whatever their income level is. Also - no sense in stealing that money and handing it over to corrupt politicians. That would be useless.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

We can all pay more taxes. We still have electricity and running water. Those aren't essential. When you begin down the road of asking people to sacrifice themselves, you step onto an unending highway. Just look at Cuba. Once a government learns to grow and prosper off the lifeblood of a self-sacrificing public, the propaganda becomes unending. Soon you have people living in squalor hating the wealthy and wondering how they got to where they are.

We shouldn't hate the wealthy. We should all become wealthy. That is the purpose of economic activity. I personally don't want to become as wealthy as a millionaire or anything like that, but to have a comfortable lifestyle, one without constant sacrifices and compromises is a pretty good ideal. Personally, I don't believe you can create that ideal by scapegoating and asking for a blood sacrifice.

We have to build that reality together. When we finally decide to do it, united as one people, the bestowal that will be raised up from among us will be overwhelming, or we could continue to squabble over junk. The choice is ours really.



new topics




 
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join