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: 5
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad

Next time try reading the article you're commenting on, you will not look so foolish!


So you are saying that a person who makes 5 million pays about 4.3 million in taxes? You assume everyone has great years, every year. What you all are talking about is a cap on income...can't make too much, we will let you have a 500k lifestyle but that million dollar one is out of the question...




posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
Hate to break it to you but if Reagan hadn't given those breaks to the wealthy our nation wouldn't be in the shape it is now. Because of those breaks he had to borrow money like crazy from the Fed Reserve and was the first President to drive our debt in excess of a trillion. Also by the sound of it you weren't even making enough to be part of the people that were paying the upper income taxes anyways. It was those tax breaks that screwed this nation over not the breaks to the people on the bottom like you.


Seems like the Democrats will have a soon to be 16 years to fix it, but they didn't, even when they had the numbers to pass the crappy Obamacare they couldn't fix it...

The government gets bigger and bigger... its about spending, not taxing. This is not to say that the very top end shouldn't have a 50% tax or close that that. I would like to see a flat tax on everyone, but hey I'm weird.
edit on 23-11-2014 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Iamschist


If there is no trickle down, how do you explain one of highest standards of living in the world? What does having employees have to do with anything? Trickle down is not about employees, it is about all of us.




A new report by the Tax Justice Network released Sunday reveals that between $21 trillion and $31 trillion is currently tucked away in global tax havens by the global super-rich--an amount that far exceeds previous estimates. Through exploiting gaps in global tax rules, the global financial elite are managing to hide "as much as the American and Japanese GDPs put together" from taxation, leaving the world's poor to carry the burden of global debt through harsh austerity measures. $32 trillion of hidden financial assets in offshore tax havens represents up to to $280 billion in lost income tax revenues, according to the study released to the Guardian's Observer.


source

Well that is a lot of money that did not trickle down!
edit on 23-11-2014 by AlaskanDad because: removed reply to's from quote for clarity



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Iamschist
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Yes that is what you said, but I disagree. It seems harsh and unfair to me. The wealthy do help the rest of us through trickle down economics, and investment. I don't want to hear about foreign investments and outsourcing, even with that plenty of money is still spent domestically. I agree with Nechash don't advocate doing to someone else what you would not want done to you. There is a disparity, and the death of the middle class is definitely not a good thing, to punish someone for being wealthy is not the answer.


I just threw up. Star for you. This was the most disturbing thing I've read in a long time.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

A blog and an activist/research group with an agenda. Can what they claim to have found be verified by an independent source? I expect the IRS would like to know the answer as well. I do not advocate people avoiding taxes.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

No. First the government has to start spending A LOT LESS.

Then, the rich have to be paid a lot less, and lesser paid jobs paid a bit more.

Then, no need to tax such high percentages.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 08:19 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Iamschist

You have not cited one article to back any of the numerous posts you have made, I wonder why.

Oh thats right you just use your belief system to justify your opinions!


With the annual gross domestic product of the U.S. closing in on the $17 trillion mark, according to the World Bank, this means that the ultra-rich now have almost twice the wealth of the world's largest economy. ... Rich hoard cash as their wealth hits record

source


Rich hoard cash as their wealth hits record high. ... With the annual gross domestic product of the U.S. closing in on the $17 trillion mark, according to the World Bank, this means that the ultra-rich now have almost twice the wealth of the world's largest economy.

source


Investigative economist James Henry exhaustively trawled through financial information held by the IMF, World Bank, Bank for International Settlements, central banks and national treasuries to come up with the most definitive report ever written on the super-rich and offshore wealth.

source< br />


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



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

First of all that would be a $700,000 life style,

maybe you could apply for food stamps to get through the month?



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

The trouble with taxing one section of society at such a rate is that governments would use this as an excuse to tax everyone else at 50% or more. And the rich would always have a way out of paying any tax at all. Here in Australia the rich (including politicians) avoid paying their share of tax by means of negative gearing on property and other assets. They have multiple properties that they claim a financial loss on against other income but receive a capital gain when they sell the property. You are only taxed on 50% of that capital gain. This scam is subsidised by the Australian taxpayer to the tune of 13.5 billion dollars a year. The whole economy is geared to maintaining and driving up property prices so the rich can get richer.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Iamschist
a reply to: FyreByrd and a reply to: buster2010

If there is no trickle down, how do you explain one of highest standards of living in the world? What does having employees have to do with anything? Trickle down is not about employees, it is about all of us.



We don't have any thing like the highest living standards in the world when compared to other first world nations and it is largely do to huge tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations.

Compared to second and third world countries perhaps, but I'm begining to wonder about that as well.

Yes, on a world-wide basis we have it pretty good. But it has been getting worse and worse and worse since I reached my twentys. I didn't want to believe it - but it's true. Wonder what it will take for you?



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: AlaskanDad

Next time try reading the article you're commenting on, you will not look so foolish!


So you are saying that a person who makes 5 million pays about 4.3 million in taxes? You assume everyone has great years, every year. What you all are talking about is a cap on income...can't make too much, we will let you have a 500k lifestyle but that million dollar one is out of the question...


Not at all. Your ignorance of how a progresive tax system operates is a large part of the problem. LOOK it UP before you condemn it. PLEASE



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Last time I checked, Title 26 [IRC] of the USC was still prima faice evidence of law and NOT positive law (1 USC § 204). Meaning it is only binding to federal employees and not the general populace like title 18 [criminal code] is since it [Title 26] has NO associated implementing regulations.
NO asterisk = Prima facie evidence of law

I make this conclusion because there are only three groups legally exempted from the requirement of publishing implementing regulations in the federal register:
1) Military or foreign affairs. See 5 USC §553(a)(1)
2) Agency management, personnel, or public property pursuant to 5 USC §553(a)(2)
3) Federal agencies or persons executing their capacity as public officers or government employees 44 USC §1505(a)(1)

Pretty sure you all voluntarily have taxes withheld under a "voluntary withholding agreement" per 26 C.F.R. §31.3401(a)-3 (a) and (b).

The best way to rebut a collection notice and legally challenge jurisdiction is simply to reply:
"Provide PROOF of the implementing regulations published in the Federal Register for all statutes to be enforced" and "Provide PROOF that the target [me] of the enforcement action is a member of one of the three groups specifically exempted from the Federal Register Publication requirements". I listed the three above.

The "Rich" know this and maintain the appropriate political status, i.e. "nonresident" who is not an "individual" or "nonresident alien individual". The first having no obligation to file (26 C.F.R. §1.6012-1(b) makes the only liable parties "US Persons" and "nonresident alien individuals") and the latter a 30% flat tax (26 USC §871(a) ) that is less 'taxing' in the long run than any current progressive 'tax' scheme... this of course, if the nonresident who is not an individual "voluntarily" decides to change status or file a 1040 to keep up appearances.

Don't hate the players. Hate the game. I did a decade as a federal employee and knew political, not legislative status, was everything. When you really dig into it you realize that it [income tax] is not a "tax" for us whom are not [no longer] federal employees, but rather a "voluntary donation" .

I make this deduction because: "Essential characteristics of a tax are that it is NOT a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution exacted pursuant to legislative authority" Michigan Employment Sec. Commission v. Patt 4 Mich.App. 228, 144N.W.2d 663, 665.

Well, where is the legislative authority? Where are the implementing regulations of the IRC [title 26]? Title 18 has them.

PEOPLE SIMPLY WANT THE RICH TO "DONATE" MORE... and they DO NOT have to.
edit on 23-11-2014 by J.B. Aloha because: super small typo



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: diggindirt

Exactly this kind of thinking is bringing the USA down, right now!

What will happen if the 1% is taxed up to 90% (well, that seems a bit harsh, even I would admit)?
The accepted theory in economics is that the rich would start to invest their profits into their companies, again.

Again?

Yes, again. The tax HAS ALREADY BEEN as high as 90% - in the fifties, look at the chart. And that is no fake, it really was like that. Did it hinder the economic progress in the USA?

Nope. Golden times, right? Yes.


But nooooo, it must be North Korea and China - go play this tune to someone else! It is wrong and just throwing around a deceitful label.

That was back when investing in the company meant investing in America. Now the companies are in China, so investing in the company means investing in China. Can you explain how that's a good thing?



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: AlaskanDad

Next time try reading the article you're commenting on, you will not look so foolish!


So you are saying that a person who makes 5 million pays about 4.3 million in taxes? You assume everyone has great years, every year. What you all are talking about is a cap on income...can't make too much, we will let you have a 500k lifestyle but that million dollar one is out of the question...

Pretty close. Top bracket is 400k +.

Currently:
Someone making 400k takes home 260,000
Someone making 1 mil takes home 622,400.
Someone making 2 mil takes home 1,222,800.
Someone making 10 mil takes home 6,626,400.

With 90% top bracket ...
Someone making 400k takes home 260,000
Someone making 1 mil takes home 320,000.
Someone making 2 mil takes home 420,000.
Someone making 10 mil takes home 1,220,000

Someone making $1 million now would need to increase their pay to $4 million to have the same lifestyle.
$2 million, you need $10 million.

Horrible idea.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Someone making $1 million now would need to increase their pay to $4 million to have the same lifestyle. $2 million, you need $10 million.


They could use a little austerity in their lives!

Maybe they should just tighten their belts and join the real world, rather than thinking they are some sort of lords!



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Someone making $1 million now would need to increase their pay to $4 million to have the same lifestyle. $2 million, you need $10 million.


They could use a little austerity in their lives!

Maybe they should just tighten their belts and join the real world, rather than thinking they are some sort of lords!


Or they can take their business and money elsewhere. They would avoid taxes by investing in other countries. So America's wealth would be exported to the world. Brilliant idea.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Well most manufacturing has already gone to China, a large percentage of what we have left is military contractors. I think the only reason they're still here is the legal red tape makes it hard to manufacture US military hardware in China.

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry.

Let the rich go elsewhere, buy some other countries politicians and ruin some their country!



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 11:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Well most manufacturing has already gone to China, a large percentage of what we have left is military contractors. I think the only reason they're still here is the legal red tape makes it hard to manufacture US military hardware in China.

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry.

Let the rich go elsewhere, buy some other countries politicians and ruin some their country!


Which country do you want to export all American wealth to? Better to give all our money to the Chinese rather than have wealthy Americans?

If you seriously think that I don't think it's possible to have a discussion with you.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I doubt the rich want to pay Europe's taxes, so where do they go?

Americans are not exactly loved around the world, maybe Columbia?



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join