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: 8
25
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


originally posted by: largo
To declare that taxes are theft is a complete refutation of democracy.


Stop right there.

I didn't say that taxes are theft. I said disproportionate and over taxing is theft. And that's what it is. To target people simply because they have more, that's theft and it's not fair. It punishes the productive and rewards the unproductive.

As for the rest of your post it was unnecessary. Since you misread what I posted, none of it applies.

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




posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I don't "repeatedly hear of people talk of their sceretarys paying higher taxes..."----I heard one political candidate say that and the msm jumped on it and ran with it like it was the norm. And since tax returns are confidential----how did he know how much his secretary paid? Were you ever presented with evidence of his statement or did you just believe him because....?
I'm positive there are ways that "rich" people can manage their money so as not to pay excess taxes. They pay people good salaries just to find those tax breaks and handle their money accordingly.
Don't you take all the tax breaks of which you are aware----or do you just pony up without deductions so as to pay the maximum? Why would you hold it against someone else who did exactly the same thing?
As with the a goodly portion of the society today, government hasn't in the past 40 or so years learned to live within its means. Until we begin electing candidates who believe that it is the people's money rather than the government's money, we will continue to slide deeper into the debt crater.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad

originally posted by: diggindirt

But who gets to define "responsible" in this situation? And who gets to define "rich"? I have friends living in Jamaica who honestly believe I'm one of the "rich" because I could afford to stay there a couple of weeks beyond the time my employment ended....drinking rum drinks on the beach. I have friends in the US who pity me as "poor" because I don't have the latest e-gadgets or cable TV or a new car.
Am I being irresponsible because I happen to have a house that has two bedrooms and a bathroom that are mostly empty these days? After all, there are people here in my county who sleep in their cars or at the coin laundry! Am I "responsible" for them?
Geeze, if the high priests and church people can get by on 10% why can't government?


I ask are the rich being held responsible today? Texas rich kid who killed 4 in drunken car crash spared jail

Banks that are to big to jail - is that the rich being held responsible?




And who gets to define "rich"?


Right now, you pay the top marginal tax rate on every dollar you earn over $406,750. Though I have read they would raise that minimum to one million dollars if they go the 90% tax.




Geeze, if the high priests and church people can get by on 10% why can't government?


Priests and churchs don't build strong nations, nor the maintain infrastructure to keep such nations working.







What does the weaknesses of the justice system have to do with taxes? Do you really think that taxing the rich at a 90% rate will impact the justice system? Or are you proposing taxing everyone to the point that everyone brought before the court system have a court-appointed attorney---just to make things fair?

Have you done any investigations of what churches provide for the less fortunate in our society today? Have you seen the hospitals, food pantries, clothing distribution, back-to-school programs, child care programs and home heating assistance programs provided by churches all across this land?

You have yet to provide me with a definition of "rich" and "responsible" or answer my specific questions about being "responsible" to those who have less than you and I. If you have an extra bedroom that isn't in use---are you being irresponsible and greedy if you don't allow the homeless to use it? How far are you willing to go with "responsibilities" to those who have less than you and I?



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

But you have failed to come up with anything to contradict my original statement:

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!

edit on 24-11-2014 by AlaskanDad because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
The big problem is how globally mobile they are and how well they can avoid taxes for both themselves and their companies. I would just be happy if we could even get them paying the amount of taxes they should be paying under current tax levels. Unfortunately it's easier said than done.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad

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.


Taxes have caused the poor to go hungry and lose their homes, thats harsh!


Which taxes? The lowest 40% of earners pay no income tax at all.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Better work on your code, most of your quote is missing.

You should read what Xtrozero wrote do a little math, he is talking about taxing the one percent a 100%. If not his 650 million is wrong.


A little fact checking shows:

Federal Income Tax Data, 2011

1,042,571 Income Taxes Paid ($ millions)





Why do you want to take from me what I've honestly earned. DO you hate people who make more than you that much?



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Read the thread Doc this was already discussed!

Thanks for your interest in helping the poor.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Wow. Now that's pretty fascinating. I never knew that back in the "good old days" the very rich were taxed so highly. Yet despite the higher tax rate, the country did pretty damned well for almost 4 decades. So much for the claims that taxing the rich is bad for the economy. In fact, from the looks of it, it seems the opposite. For example:

1. Notice taxes were lower than today in the 1920's. And a few years after the taxes for the rich were dropped? Stock Market Crash of 29. Interesting.

2. Kennedy, the Patron Saint of the left, gave the rich a 20% tax break. Wow. Compare to Eisenhower, a Republican, who kept the rates at 90%.

3. Regan was responsible for slashing the taxes on the rich by over 40%. And it was about then that the current trend of economic decline for the rest of America began. Also, despite these massive cuts, Reagan went crazy with the defense spending, putting us in massive debt.

4. in the 90's, taxes went up again, though no where near old levels. Interestingly, in the 90's, was the last economic "boom" this country experienced, and the 90's were generally an economically positive time for the majority of people, compared to now.

5. Later tax cuts for the rich=economic downturn for the rest of the country.


Definitely something to think about. I've often thought that trickle down economics provided little benefit to those getting "trickled down" upon, but this article puts it in a whole new light.

Thanks for sharing. First time I've actually seen an article in the Huff worth reading.





However, those higher marginal RATES were nothing near what was actually paid. There were tax shelters and loopholes, long gone, that were used to keep anyone form actually paying those rates.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Iamschist
I'm a 10%er. Ten percent across the board, no deductions, no exceptions. The rich would of course contribute more, due to the huge amount they have in assets. The more you profit, the more you pay, but never more than 10%. Seems fair and equatable to me and would increase tax revenue considerably.


agreed this is best. That way you still can have the American dream of becoming rich and you won't get it all taken away from you. What's the point of trying to get ahead in life if you get it all taxed from you? 10% for everyone...every corporation...everything. Then we start gutting the government. Starting with all of our secret spy agencies and alphabet agencies..and our military bases in foreign lands. Now we're getting somewhere! Oh.. but that makes too much sense! LOL



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: NavyDoc

Read the thread Doc this was already discussed!

Thanks for your interest in helping the poor.




I do help the poor, I just don't take from other people to do so.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad

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!


You do understand don't you---that the Tax Justice Network is a non-profit British corporation that holds the belief that government can better decide how to spend your money than you can---social justice using money taken by force. And you do understand that this article refers to GLOBAL money, not just the US?

You must forgive me if I balk when people in a corporation that pays no taxes tell us that taxes need to be higher on everyone else.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

I appreciate your noble gestures to the poor, thanks.


Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 03:58 PM
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 will the rich leaving hurt the average american?

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!





Speaking of "facts" you haven't supplied any either. Just opinions. Where, oh where, are these "hoarded" trillions?



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: NavyDoc

I appreciate your noble gestures to the poor, thanks.


Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!



LOL. Your "appreciation" is neither sought nor meaningful. I don't see where you were placed over me as arbiter of what is good nor ill. I must have not gotten then memo.
edit on 24-11-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

What I do understand is a gang of users has attacked me on several topics, yet no one has proven the article I posted as being wrong.

Nor have you disproved my statement:

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: diggindirt

What I do understand is a gang of users has attacked me on several topics, yet no one has proven the article I posted as being wrong.

Nor have you disproved my statement:

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry



Easy:

Myth of 90% tax rate
Wall Street Journal: Fantasy of 91% tax rate
Debunking Krugman's 90% tax myth



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Hey Doc you are the smartest person in this thread!

Congrats!

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!




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



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 04:26 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.


The 90% tax rate in the fifties was left at that rate to pay off the debts incurred by WWII---so the government would have the money to pay off the $190 billion in bonds bought by US citizens to finance WWII. When the debts were paid, (the bonds matured after 10 years---1953 and onward) Kennedy was able to convince Congress to reduce taxes on everyone because the inflation of war times was in check and the war-time economy had been able to cycle back to full employment for consumer driven materials.
To compare the late 1950s and early 1960s to today's economy----with two declared wars and numerous other "police actions" in place around the world---- is ignorance at best.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: diggindirt

But you have failed to come up with anything to contradict my original statement:

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!


Because it is nonsense.
How about we tax Alaskan Dad until he can't afford to buy a computer or internet services....after all you know---there are people in this big world who don't have the resources you enjoy?
See how that works? If I agree to empower the gubbermint to take all income which exceeds $1 million/individual what happens when that isn't enough for the greedy monsters? Well, then they must have everything in excess of $500k----and so it goes until THEY decide that an income of $35k/individual is satisfactory and if you desire to keep more than that---YOU ARE GREEDY!
By the way, since you live in Alaska and have no personal state income taxes, I'm assuming that you send them money on which to operate even though you aren't required to do so?




top topics



 
25
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join