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: 9
25
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Tax the rich feed the poor till there no rich no more. What do you do when you run out of other peoples money?




posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: guitarplayer
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Tax the rich feed the poor till there no rich no more. What do you do when you run out of other peoples money?



well there's always ‘Scotch & Honey’....................

www.youtube.com...



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

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.


Assuming your figures are correct. Why would it be a 'horrible idea'.

We had progressive taxes rates equivalent to those during the boom years following WWII. If you look at the chart in the OP - I'll repost for your convenience:



...you will note that when the marginal tax rate is the lowest coincides with economic depressions and recessions.

The argument that you will make is that 'no - one will invest. no-one will create jobs, it will stifle innovation'. Well I point out the chart again. It didn't stifle anything in the past - in fact it created an environment with mobility and great incentives for innovation and small start-ups.

I think it is unfortunate that you believe that people are only motivated by money. For most people (and this includes the few truly wealthy people I've had a chance to know) their work is more then enough reward as long as their family's are taken care of nicely.

If you only motivation for hard work is money and power - then I can see your point of view - but I don't and neither does a large segment of the population.

I don't want to go to a doctor who's only in it for the money. Do you??? - well, maybe you do - but if the doctor sees you as these 'capital suckers' do - then he'll want you to be ill so that he can suck more money out of you. That's just how the big corporations operate. These uber corporation have grown 'too-big to fail, jail or whatever' because of tax inequities, LACK of enforce of anti-trust laws (thank you St. Ronnie) and the repeal of Glass-Seagal.

You may 'think' or 'believe' it is a bad idea but that doesn not make it a bad idea.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
I don't "repeatedly hear of people talk of their sceretarys paying higher taxes


Look harder. Bill Gates has said it and others. And it's a fact - that middle income people pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes then the wealthy do. And that doesn't even touch on 'unearned' income. The dollar numbers aren't as high - but the dollar number mean nothing. What matters when speaking of fairness is the percentage of income paid in taxes (the effect tax rate) not the raw numbers.

The vast majority of the wealthy increase their wealth with unearned (meaning 'financialization') income not from earned income whereas normal folk have very little if any unearned income.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

I've never said I was against paying my taxes, nor have I ever bitched about them.

But one thing you do not understand; we live on a planet with enough resources for all to live, but some greedy folks think they can own Gods Gifts to all and restrict others use.

Don't worry Alaska's income tax is not long in coming, we allowed our oil income to be given away.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: guitarplayer
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Tax the rich feed the poor till there no rich no more. What do you do when you run out of other peoples money?



Barter!!!

Duh!



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

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


Since when is the, so-called, 'American Dream' about becoming rich. It was about opportunity and the dream of owning your own modest home, a good 'tax paid' education for your children so that they could do the same. The dream you are taking about is the 'nightmare' we are living in.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

OccamsRazor04 does not get it, the more the rich get the more they want!

And where do they get their money? From anyone and anywhere, they have no scruples when it comes to taking money. Ya taking not earning it like honest people!

Greed is one of the deadly sins for a reason!

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: diggindirt

I've never said I was against paying my taxes, nor have I ever bitched about them.

But one thing you do not understand; we live on a planet with enough resources for all to live, but some greedy folks think they can own Gods Gifts to all and restrict others use.

Don't worry Alaska's income tax is not long in coming, we allowed our oil income to be given away.



Good point. But as I understand it, the citizens of Alaska did receive payments on the oil leases. A pittance compared to the value of the leases but at least you received something for the corporate exploitation of a 'public asset'.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: guitarplayer
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Tax the rich feed the poor till there no rich no more. What do you do when you run out of other peoples money?



According to OccamsRazor04 they will just make more to make up for the taxes!




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.


Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd




Today, we are supposed to hate paying taxes. They are our “tax burden.” We vote for politicians who will reduce our taxes, even if that means destroying the welfare state. Conservatives’ century-long war against taxes has paid off by convincing everyday Americans to think taxes are a horrible thing that pays for government waste.

Our ancestors knew this was not true. The income tax was the most popular economic justice movement of the late 19th and early 20th century. This truly grassroots movement forced politicians to act in order to stay in office, leading to the 16th Amendment to the Constitution in 1913. That’s right, the income tax was so popular that the nation passed a constitutional amendment so that the right-wing Supreme Court couldn’t overturn it.


You seem to be ignorant of how the income tax amendment was passed it was full of shenanigans just like the ACA was passed fooling the American public. Read the two volume work called the law that never was. It was not a popular amendment as you stated it was only to tax the very rich with I beleive a tax rate of under 5%. As you can see that tax the rich scheme developed into everyone being taxed.
edit on 24-11-2014 by guitarplayer because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad

originally posted by: guitarplayer
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Tax the rich feed the poor till there no rich no more. What do you do when you run out of other peoples money?



According to OccamsRazor04 they will just make more to make up for the taxes!




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.


Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!


In my opinion they will take their money get out of the game and leave the USA then what?



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: guitarplayer

In my opinion they will take their money get out of the game and leave the USA then what?


Could you tell me how often a multimillionaire adds value to you personally, and how they did so?

Lifes not fair so-

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: diggindirt
I don't "repeatedly hear of people talk of their sceretarys paying higher taxes


Look harder. Bill Gates has said it and others. And it's a fact - that middle income people pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes then the wealthy do. And that doesn't even touch on 'unearned' income. The dollar numbers aren't as high - but the dollar number mean nothing. What matters when speaking of fairness is the percentage of income paid in taxes (the effect tax rate) not the raw numbers.

The vast majority of the wealthy increase their wealth with unearned (meaning 'financialization') income not from earned income whereas normal folk have very little if any unearned income.


Lots of us "normal folk" have unearned income if we've looked beyond next week. Anyone with an investment that pays dividends has unearned income.
That phrase is just another of the buzzwords of the greedy money grubbers to get people to believe that "the elite" are somehow "cheating" by investing their money.
While it may be true that during our working lives, we have little enough "unearned income" except the paltry amount on savings accounts and such, if we are financially responsible people, by the time we get to retirement, we'd better have a goodly portion of income which is unearned or we'll be in the soup lines. If however, we decide as young wage earners to put all our resources into the latest and greatest of modern society's offering---cars, gadgets, etc., which decrease in value through time....no, you'll not have an unearned income. If most folks just had the interest they've paid on loans and credit cards they would have substantial funds to invest so they would have more unearned income.



“Unearned income” is all income that is not earned. Some common types of unearned income are:

In-kind support and maintenance (food or shelter) given to an individual or received by an individual because someone else paid for it (see §§2140-2142);
Private pensions and annuities;
Periodic public payments such as Social Security benefits, Railroad Retirement benefits, Department of Veterans Affairs pension and compensation payments, civil service annuities, workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, and payments based on need involving Federal funds;
Life insurance proceeds and other death benefits, to the extent that the total amount is more than the expenses of the deceased person's last illness and burial paid by the individual;
Gifts and inheritances;
Support and alimony payments in cash or in-kind;
Prizes and awards;
Dividends and interest;
Rents and royalties (except those royalties defined as earned income); and
Certain payments not considered wages for Social Security purposes:
In-kind payments to certain agricultural workers;
Tips under $20 per month;
Jury fees;
Money paid to individuals who are residents, but not employees, of institutions.

www.socialsecurity.gov...



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

Are you trying to imply that a persons personal financial ability has a definite effect on their personal financial position?

You can't possibly be serious...



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad

originally posted by: guitarplayer

In my opinion they will take their money get out of the game and leave the USA then what?


Could you tell me how often a multimillionaire adds value to you personally, and how they did so?

Lifes not fair so-

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!


So now this about personal greed---not government greed? You want the millionaires to hand you a part of the money they've made just because you haven't made as much? Well, it would make more sense to take out the middle man I suppose!



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad

originally posted by: guitarplayer

In my opinion they will take their money get out of the game and leave the USA then what?


Could you tell me how often a multimillionaire adds value to you personally, and how they did so?

Lifes not fair so-

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!


Sure I work for a company that has provided me with over 30 years of employment which has alowed me to buy a home a car and raise a family. All this was paid for by my hard work and their willingness to hire and keep me employed.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: peck420
a reply to: diggindirt

Are you trying to imply that a persons personal financial ability has a definite effect on their personal financial position?

You can't possibly be serious...


Nah, I'm just joking...personal responsibility has nothing to do with personal finances does it? It's because my neighbor the multimillionaire has a pile of money that my pile isn't as big as his---yeah, that's it. Nothing to do with the fact that he spent most of his spare time for 20 years building the company for which someone paid him millions while I was spending my spare time raising kids and going to school to change careers instead of building a company that someone thought was worth millions. By golly, it just ain't fair---the government should take his millions and give it and decide just who is really deserving.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt






The result has been an incremental exclusion of workers from revenue-generating and compensation-setting processes. Our analyses of U.S. non-finance industries since 1970, finds that dependence on financial income is associated with labor's declining share of the economy, skyrocketing executive compensation, and growing income inequality among employees, even when a other developments such as technological change, deunionization, and globalization are taken into account. Strikingly, our models indicate that the influence of financial income on growing income inequality is comparable to, and at time larger than, other more common explanations.

We conclude that the rise of finance is one of the driving forces behind growing income inequality and the concentration of income at the very top.


source

Lifes not fair so-

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: diggindirt






The result has been an incremental exclusion of workers from revenue-generating and compensation-setting processes. Our analyses of U.S. non-finance industries since 1970, finds that dependence on financial income is associated with labor's declining share of the economy, skyrocketing executive compensation, and growing income inequality among employees, even when a other developments such as technological change, deunionization, and globalization are taken into account. Strikingly, our models indicate that the influence of financial income on growing income inequality is comparable to, and at time larger than, other more common explanations.

We conclude that the rise of finance is one of the driving forces behind growing income inequality and the concentration of income at the very top.


source

Lifes not fair so-

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!



Again, your OP was about top marginal individual income tax rates....now you want to talk corporate taxes....that's a different subject don'tchaknow?
Make up your mind...is it government greed, corporate greed or your own personal greed you want to discuss?




top topics



 
25
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join