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: 6
25
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 11:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
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?


They would stay here, there wealth would go.

Let's say you make $100mil
Option A: Lose $90 mil and give it in taxes.
Option B: Reinvest that $90 mil in other countries creating jobs there and making whatever nation the money is invested in wealthy, while simultaneously draining the wealth of America and shipping it oversees. If the money is reinvested then it's not a gain, and no taxes are paid on it, and it becomes an oversees holding. Much easier to then hide profits made oversees so that the net gain is much better for the individual, and it destroys America.




posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You might not have noticed but the corps lobbyist have pushed through many trade agreements to create globalization. This was done so they could beat feet overseas, where they can get cheap labor and buying of politicians is much cheaper.




Between 2007 and 2012, 200 of America’s most politically active corporations spent a combined $5.8 billion on federal lobbying and campaign contributions. A year-long analysis by the Sunlight Foundation suggests, however, that what they gave pales compared to what those same corporations got: $4.4 trillion in federal business and support.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

We need the corps so we can give them corporate welfare, there is no other place for that money to go.



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



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

And what you want is for them to send ALL their money oversees. Of course money spent lobying here would simply be deducted and so they could do that all they want to. The only thing they won't do is pay taxes and spend money in America.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You think all the McDonalds will close up in the US of A, is Boeing moving to Germany?

So some folks who think they're royalty take the Trillions of dollars held in their offshore tax shelters and move away. Good maybe some small business will take their place, imagine family farms rather Monsanto and friends.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

What do businesses have to do with personal income taxes? If business tax rose top 90% the businesses would claim $0 in profits because they would ship the profits oversees to "invest".

Monsanto would spend more money buying farms because any money they did not spend would basically be a loss. So there would be no incentive for them to keep money, it would all simply go into investment (killing competition).
edit on 24-11-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Well you don't say.
Gee whiz,
it took them this long to figure it out?

Let me guess,
once the whole system collapses,
Some form of half-assed correction
will be initiated.

Hoo Haa.....Good Golly Miss Molly

Vidiot Clip: www.youtube.com...

Here's some Tutti Fruiti for Hoots and Giggles :

Link : www.youtube.com...
edit on 24-11-2014 by Wildmanimal because: Add Rock N Roll Link



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad

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!



Come on who are you or anyone else to judge?


Do you hold the same disdain for those who do nothing with their lives, or spend their whole life from one screw up to another, never getting a head?

Do you get mad at the 40% who do not pay any federal taxes?

It seems on one hand you have a person who never tries, never does anything with their life and never contributes, and on the other hand you have someone that is successful and they are the bad guy for not giving more...

As I said it is spending, but our Government has created the evil rich to keep everyone's mind off the real reason. Do you know that if we taxed everyone 100% over 1 million that would only generate 650 billion, or about 1/3 the deficit for the year.

What do we do then to make up the other 2/3s?



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Lots of interesting opinions, yet you have failed to cite one fact to support any of it.

The rich are hoarding trillions and that is money that is not in the system, nor is it in the country, how will the rich leaving hurt the average american?

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!




edit on 24-11-2014 by AlaskanDad because: typo



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Lots of interesting opinions, yet you have failed to cite one fact to support any of it.

The rich are hoarding trillions and that is money that is not in the system, nor is it in the country, how the rich leaving hurt the average american?

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!


The fact that it's based on is something you yourself agreed with. Jobs are not being created here, new investments are mostly done oversees (China). You agreed that's true.

They are hoarding, changes should be made. One thing that will get that money is the death tax.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 12:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

As I said it is spending, but our Government has created the evil rich to keep everyone's mind off the real reason. Do you know that if we taxed everyone 100% over 1 million that would only generate 650 billion, or about 1/3 the deficit for the year.

What do we do then to make up the other 2/3s?




As head of Americans for Tax Reform since 1986, Grover Norquist has transformed a single issue - preventing tax hikes - into one of the key platforms of the Republican Party. As Steve Kroft reports, his biggest coup was getting more than 270 members of Congress, and nearly all of the 2012 Republican presidential primary candidates, to sign a pledge promising never to vote to raise taxes. But some opponents say the pledge may be hindering a solution to America's debt crisis.


source

This is no solution either...

Politicians cut the safety net to save a few bucks, yet they spend trillions supporting political donors, the rich.

I really wonder what use they the rich are, the rich fight for higher profits at the cost of the working folks.

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!
edit on 24-11-2014 by AlaskanDad because: edited for clarity



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 12:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!

No, everyone else will when they ship all their money oversees into "investments" so they pay as little as $0 in taxes.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 12:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

The fact that it's based on is something you yourself agreed with. Jobs are not being created here, new investments are mostly done oversees (China). You agreed that's true.

They are hoarding, changes should be made. One thing that will get that money is the death tax.


I did not agree that jobs are not being created here, I pointed out they have already been moved overseas!

As for a death tax, are you now saying to tax the rich?

I agree!

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 12:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: buster2010

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.

Trickle down economics is a fantasy that has never worked. We have been waiting since the 80's for it to start working and it still hasn't started.


I'm sorry you weren't able to take advantage of the fantasy that allowed me to reclaim a part of my taxes and go back to school to change careers. You see, I paid less taxes after the Reagan tax cuts. My boss paid less in taxes after the tax cuts so he could afford to invest more in his employees. We, the employees, in turn, had more disposable income to spend on things like education and even on buying a home in some cases. Those of us who were able to resist living above our means have done quite well in this fantasy world, thank you very much. You may have missed it if you were sitting around waiting for something to happen instead of going out and making it happen. Sorry you missed it. I had quite a few friends back then that just took the extra $30-50/month and failed to invest it so, No, it didn't work for them either.

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.


Hmmm, I guess my boss just tricked us by telling us that the extra money in our checks was from a tax cut. What a prankster that guy was!
I kinda think that the repeal of Glass-Steagall had a bit more to do with today's mess than any 1980s tax cuts. Seems to me like the Shrubs did far more damage than Reagan. I can lay a lot of blame for a lot of things on Reagan but to blame him for today's economy is just a bit out of my reach.
Nonetheless, in the '80s making money was a matter of going out and working and investing. You could find tax-free municipal bonds that paid 9% back then! US Savings Bonds were paying 10-12% in those days if memory serves me. It was easy to invest in the US and get a fair return on your money. I'm not particularly clever with money and was just getting over some serious financial stupidity in those days but even I managed to do well in that environment. I'll take my fantasy trickle-down world of the '80s and early '90s when even if you were only a paycheck from disaster you could at least see a way up out of the hole in which you found yourself. I see a very different outlook today.
Until we rise up and say we want no more war....I see no end to excesses of taxation. Sending them more money just encourages them to spend more. I'm not at all in favor of that.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 12:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

The fact that it's based on is something you yourself agreed with. Jobs are not being created here, new investments are mostly done oversees (China). You agreed that's true.

They are hoarding, changes should be made. One thing that will get that money is the death tax.


I did not agree that jobs are not being created here, I pointed out they have already been moved overseas!

As for a death tax, are you now saying to tax the rich?

I agree!

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!

Yes, I am saying tax the rich. They are already being taxed. The death tax already exists.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 12:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero




Do you know that if we taxed everyone 100% over 1 million that would only generate 650 billion, or about 1/3 the deficit for the year. What do we do then to make up the other 2/3s?




originally posted by: AlaskanDad



Between 2007 and 2012, 200 of America’s most politically active corporations spent a combined $5.8 billion on federal lobbying and campaign contributions. A year-long analysis by the Sunlight Foundation suggests, however, that what they gave pales compared to what those same corporations got: $4.4 trillion in federal business and support.




www.abovetopsecret.com...


Cutting part of the afore mentioned 4.4 trillion dollars could be a good start!


edit on 24-11-2014 by AlaskanDad because: code troubles



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 01:00 AM
link   


originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: Xtrozero




Do you know that if we taxed everyone 100% over 1 million that would only generate 650 billion, or about 1/3 the deficit for the year. What do we do then to make up the other 2/3s?




originally posted by: AlaskanDad



Between 2007 and 2012, 200 of America’s most politically active corporations spent a combined $5.8 billion on federal lobbying and campaign contributions. A year-long analysis by the Sunlight Foundation suggests, however, that what they gave pales compared to what those same corporations got: $4.4 trillion in federal business and support.




www.abovetopsecret.com...


Cutting part of the afore mentioned 4.4 trillion dollars could be a good start!


That's over 6 years, and is not personal income tax, so is 100% irrelevant. Personal income tax has nothing to do with businesses. This article you cited is also misleading and counts money that was paid back. It's also mostly during the Democrat stimulus plan, where the idea was to throw money at the problem. It does not reflect business as usual.
edit on 24-11-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Tax the rich who have capital and income over 10m at 80% for 5 years and then at 70% for a further 5 years and at 60% for a final 5 years. Then set the tax at 55%, where it should stay. This will address the reset the balance in society and enable redistribution of wealth and improve the lives and living standards of the bottom 20% whilst providing an uplift to the middle 40%. This would also cause a reset on real estate prices and rents.

Responsibility for transport and accommodation infrastructure should be removed from Government remit to ensure that policies and programmes can be set for 15-25 years and not subject to changes because governments change. A body made up of key professional and leading accademics etc should run this body. Not politicians!!!

etc...

I could go on and say what is need to police our world in such a way that the evils are stopped which is needed before the virus destroys us all!!



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

That would do nothing to fix our debt problem. We have a spending problem, not a tax problem. We would still have huge deficits every year, even at 80% taxation.

ETA: I am not against changes to taxes. It's simply a waste of resources to talk about tax change rather than spending change, as tax changes can NEVER solve the problem. Spending changes have to come first.
edit on 24-11-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Now you tell me how to answer another users post?




That's over 6 years, and is not personal income tax, so is 100% irrelevant. Personal income tax has nothing to do with businesses.


Yet it would seem to pertain to the post I was replying to, don't ya think?


Xtrozero
Do you know that if we taxed everyone 100% over 1 million that would only generate 650 billion, or about 1/3 the deficit for the year. What do we do then to make up the other 2/3s?


Bold on "the deficit" was done to emphasis that I was replying to what was asked by Xtrozero about cutting the deficit.

Tax the rich, they won't go hungry!










edit on 24-11-2014 by AlaskanDad because: Added line tax the rich...



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 01:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Now you tell me how to answer another users post?




That's over 6 years, and is not personal income tax, so is 100% irrelevant. Personal income tax has nothing to do with businesses.


Yet it would seem to pertain to the post I was replying to, don't ya think?


Xtrozero
Do you know that if we taxed everyone 100% over 1 million that would only generate 650 billion, or about 1/3 the deficit for the year. What do we do then to make up the other 2/3s?


Bold on "the deficit" was done to emphasis that I was replying to what was asked by Xtrozero about cutting the deficit.







Maybe you need to read his quote again. Taxed everyone. As in people, not corporations. So again, the topic is income tax, and business taxes are irrelevant when discussing personal income tax. The post you replied to was about income tax, and was on topic.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join