Record Deficits: Tax the Rich!

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit

Those are our options curb spending and get rid of the slave tax or tax the wealthy. Sucks but until people rise up these are our choices.

Let's look at these two options:

if we tax the wealthy, the wealthy will continue to do whatever they can to avoid the higher taxes. They can always leave and live somewhere else, so another country gets to sell them things they need and stimulate the that economy rather than ours. They can stay here and move their companies offshore, taking jobs with them. Either way, we lose the tax base completely, recieving 0% as opposed to the 40% tax rate now or the 60%? tax rate being proposed. So the middle class (you and me) will become the wealthy, and we'll be forced to pay everything that the rich were paying. As you pointed out, most can barely make ends meet now, so exactly what will happen when we don't have any money left?

If we curb spending, tehn the rich stay here and keep coughing up that 40%. Since the out-of-control spending by our mafia... er, government (sorry, I keep getting those two mixed up
) is the primary cause for the dropping value of our dollar, the dollar would stabilize and prices from overseas products (like, oh, maybe OIL?) would drop. That would mean the rich make more money, which means they pay more taxes, which means there is more money for these wonderful social programs to make sure that everyone has everything they need.

I like the curbing spending option myself. Call me crazy.


TheRedneck




posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by skyshow
I'm willing to bet that nobody on ATS is in the upper 1%,

how much a year do you need to make to put you in the 1%?



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Yup I agree but neither the republicans or democrats will curb spending. NONE OF THEM. Its disgusting. So we need to get the money and you cant get it from the poor or middle class. We are all tapped out. Theres only one place to get it. Sucks but its the truth. I had to pay the IRS almost 40k last year you think I like the IRS? Facts are facts though and until the people wake up the rich included and understand we are ALL being raped then some tough love is needed.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Fathom
From the site I referenced earlier, www.ntu.org... , the AGI (Anuual Gross Income) of the top 1% starts at $388,806.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Fathom
From the site I referenced earlier, www.ntu.org... , the AGI (Anuual Gross Income) of the top 1% starts at $388,806.

TheRedneck

ok, so welcome to the 1%, and no you can't tax me any further.
how about you cut off all those make you feel good programs and stop sending money over seas? how about you fix the welfare programs and quit supporting all those welfare queens driving escalades and using food stamps?
what are you like a modern day robin hood? you know how he ended up do't you?



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
It's not up to them to do anything. It's up to us to kick them the heck out when they start spending like a crazed woman in a credit card factory.

So exactly when do we say enough is enough?

reply to post by Fathom
Whoa, there! I'm arguing against raising taxes on the 'rich'.

Anybody got an extra playbook for Fathom?

TheRedneck


[edit on 2-8-2008 by TheRedneck]



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Warren Buffet admits his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does. It's the middle class that's being taxed to death.

The rich can pass off a lot of their income as capital gains, which is only taxed at about 15%.

In the 1950's and 60's the rich were taxed at a much higher rate than they are now. That was a period of great prosperity, when the middle class was actually growing rapidly, not shrinking as it is today.There were still the very rich; the difference was they were more like everybody else and not so unbelievably extravagant as they are now.

Lower tax rates won't stop the loss of jobs to Mexico, China, etc. The corporations are still going to do whatever it takes to make an extra dime, including taking away pensions and benefits, and screw the employees. The workers are there to be exploited, and corporations actually caring about them is so yesterday.

Starred and flagged, as you asked.

[edit on 2-8-2008 by Sestias]



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 





which means there is more money for these wonderful social programs to make sure that everyone has everything they need.


The US spends about $621 billion dollars on military, and makes up nearly half of all the world's spending on military. Only about 5% of tax expenditures are targeted to people at the povertyline.

I can't remember who it was, and I could check my reference, except I loaned the book to my neighbor...anyway a former high ranking general and military planner at the highest levels of govn't, said that after the cold war ended (post 1990 ish to recently) that we could actually trim this budget down from over 600 billion dollars a year where it is now, to 60 billion and still be able to adequately defend our borders.

I believe we could get at least half of it cut, and still be able to afford adequate armor, bullet proof vests, and helmet liners for the troups...something John McCain voted against...and also be able to fully fund veteran's care and be able to 100% take care of our men and women when they return...

Think about it, we can build another useless submarine and blow a few billion bucks for the price of a program to help the poor put milk, eggs, bread and cheese on the table for their children. America has a growing problem with child hunger in this country, and help for the poor has been severely shrunk under Reagan, Bush (I & II) and Clinton. Probably to help pay for a bloated military budget and massive tax breaks to the ultra-rich.

Even (as was talked about in a former post) Waren Buffet has publically came out and said that the rich don't pay enough taxes, and he's right. Back before they took over the govn't they used to pay a lot more tax, and yet they didn't flee, so I don't see that point about how if we begin to restore some of these taxes that the last half a dozen presidents axed, will drive these guys away. They are so rich at this point it doesn't matter, and many have already left.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by skyshow
Two different issues here, although related.


I can't remember who it was, and I could check my reference, except I loaned the book to my neighbor...anyway a former high ranking general and military planner at the highest levels of govn't, said that after the cold war ended (post 1990 ish to recently) that we could actually trim this budget down from over 600 billion dollars a year where it is now, to 60 billion and still be able to adequately defend our borders.

The key there is 'adequately defend our borders. We do a lot more than that now (and actually are doing a poor job at the borders). The question is then, do we need to be doing the things we do now with our military? I think the answer is no, we do not. We need to give up on our desire to control the world oil supply and develop our own oil. the problem is that this may well take ten years to do, even if we start today, and in the meantime we still have to worry about the world oil supply.

I would love to see us finish up in Iraq, finish things in Afghanistan, get at least most of our troops out of areas where they have been deployed for so long (some since WWII!), and get serious about defending our borders. International action should be only where absiolutely necessary to defend our own country, and there should never ever, under no circumstances, be any kind or 'military police action'. I think history has shown this is a mistake every time.

Now if we do that, yes, in a few years we could trim that military budget down to size.


America has a growing problem with child hunger in this country, and help for the poor has been severely shrunk under Reagan, Bush (I & II) and Clinton. Probably to help pay for a bloated military budget and massive tax breaks to the ultra-rich.

I would like to see some references to these supposed benefit cuts you and the OP seem to believe in. I have seen the rolls under medicaid, welfare, food stamps, WIC, SSI, all increase. You are aware that a 'cut' in DC-speak is simply a little less increase than was originally proposed, right?

Now perhaps you are right about tax cuts for the wealthy having taken place. But even if I abrogate that part of the argument, there is still the biggest problem hurting the poor in this country. It's not high taxes; as I said, the poor pay nothing and actually receive fiat credits for which they receive dollars. It's not the lack of available food or social programs. What it is is spiraling inflation (based on food and fuel and essentials, things that the poor have to have) and a faltering dollar. If we trim all government back, that situation will rectify itself. The reason the dollar is falling is that our debt is increasing.

The tax cuts which Reagan put into effect actually brought in more revenue than what was expected before the cuts. Also, people had jobs. The rich, evil as they are, actually hired more people because they had more money to do so with. That caused people to spend more, which led to more demand for goods, which led to more businesses supplying those goods and more people working to make those goods and paying in taxes.

Trickle-down works. Bottom up works as well, but only short-term. this is evidenced by the recent tax rebates. Yes, they had a direct impact on the economy; I saw that first hand. The problem is that now the tax money is spent, so retailers are, from hearsay, expecting the worst holiday season in history. I hope it doesn't happen, but that's the expectation, as told verbally to me by someone who is in high office in a national retail chain.

You want another problem? try NAFTA, CAFTA, and the SPP. Every one of these are geared at making it easier and cheaper to send our jobs overseas, leaving nothing for Americans to do except service and financial manipulation. No more manufacturing jobs. GM and Ford are struggling with their stocks in junk status right now, because they cannot make and sell cars here due in large part to the high employment costs. They cannot compete with the foreign car manufacturers, who have smaller tax burdens (or some who are actually government-subsidized).

We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the civilized world. Yet we have growing unemployment, growing poverty, and a shrinking middle class. Why not try something different besides all the class warfare we have been using in order to get a different outcome? If we try that, and we still fall short of our needs, then perhaps I will agree with you on taxing the rich more. Until then, I say attack the problem, not the diversion.

Warren Buffet notwithstanding.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by skyshow
The next budget deficit (as per Fox Radio News): $482 billion!!! (short another 80 billion for the war effort) Perhaps the new president can begin paying this back by taxing the upper 1% who have taken advantage of more than $20 trillion dollars in tax decreases since 1977 (and even more decreases under Bush & co.) and continue to grow richer day by day, while the middle class and the poor get massive inflation, job losses, reductions in social services, and decreasing spending power... After all it's the rich who benifit the most; just as it is with most wars, it's a war faught primarily for wealthy interests and the actual fighting is done by the lower class.

It's time we the people unite and demand more from these oportunistic military-corporatists from both parties!

[edit on 29-7-2008 by skyshow]


It is not the rich that are the problem it's the out of control corporations that have taken over our government.Things could be made better fairly easily.Close overseas military bases how much would that alone save?Face it the bottom line is how is a soldier in japan going to save you from a terrorist in your hometown?Yet we have over 700 military bases in something like 130 countrys.Neither Obama or McCain is going to close them.Why?Because thier corporate masters need them in place to drum up the next war.There are other things that can be done but they make sence and take the corporate hand out of the pie.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
the Rich pay no taxes
and the inflation that is filtering through the system as i am writing this
will be fair and even to all people in the USA.
and incredibly high ,it will hit at as the Dollar's last vestiges of value is threatened,you will be frightened for your future.
No man no woman knows the hour that sorrow comes
and when it does come it will be devastatingly harsh



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   


Howcome in 1993 the wallstreet journal reported that the tax increases by Clinton had spurred runaway growth in the economy and that the fed needed to increase the prime rate then


Clinton cut the Capital Gains tax which spurred the growth. Two other President's before him, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan did the same and got very good results.

Look that up. Obama supports the opposite (at least at the time this was written) but instead wants to nearly double the Capital Gains tax.

Not a very wise move if you want to spur growth. History has proven this otherwise three times with three past Presidents.

[edit on 2-8-2008 by jetxnet]



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by jetxnet
 


I thought you righties loved to hate Clinton and I believed refered to him as a "tax and spend liberal". Wich is it? Did he raise taxes or lower them?

ask one of the aids in the McCain headquarters there next to your desk, and see what you should type next...sheesh...what a history of anti-0bama posts you got going there...does it pay well?



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by skyshow

The tax cuts which Reagan put into effect actually brought in more revenue than what was expected before the cuts. Also, people had jobs. The rich, evil as they are, actually hired more people because they had more money to do so with. That caused people to spend more, which led to more demand for goods, which led to more businesses supplying those goods and more people working to make those goods and paying in taxes.

Trickle-down works. Bottom up works as well, but only short-term. this is evidenced by the recent tax rebates.


George H.W. Bush called trickle-down economics "voodoo economics," though that was before he actually got into office. More economists would question trickle-down economics than would favor it.

Reagan's tax cuts may have brought in more revenue than was expected, but they did not pay for themselves by any means. To his credit, the Reagan administration did end the recession that began in the 70's, but it still ran up one of the biggest budget deficits in American history (it has now been surpassed by George Bush Jr.) The tax cuts were partially responsible for that enormous deficit. The end of the recession notwithstanding, the Reagan years were not universally a time of high employment and prosperity for all. The middle class was rapidly shrinking and the benefits were mainly enjoyed by those on the high end of the income distribution. Employment rose much more during the Clinton administration (remember the guy who wiped out the Reagan deficit?).

You do admit that bottom-up works, and indeed it does. The present stimulus package is not a really good example, as it was only a one-shot deal. The 1950's and 60's were a time when more and more of the working class were joining the middle class, which expanded considerably during that period. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the top 1% paid a higher tax rate than they do today, and the economy was humming--there was none of the gloom and doom you predict if taxes are raised on the rich and not on the middle class, who are the ones who usually shoulder most of the tax burden. Those two decades are remembered as ones of unprecedented prosperity across the board. It can happen again.

[edit on 3-8-2008 by Sestias]



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


of all of us who have posted on this thread...all have made some really good points...we can all agree that it is an interesting topic, and absolutely fundamental to our society and our well being. This topic needs more exposure, and so I am issuing a call (for liberals, conservatives, and all others alike) to please star and flag these posts and this thread so we can bump it up into the spot light and therefor solicit more participation.

I for one am interested in hearing more opinions and ideas regarding this issue and what to me is one of the most pressing issues and perhaps one of the bigger conspiracies in existance today. 700 some odd views is not enough...this one should be on the front page of ATS, and not because I started the thread, but because it is so central to our existance as a nation and as a society.

Please flag this thread, and wherever you go on ATS, don't forget to star the posts you think really made a decent contribution.

We're all in this together, and I thank you for your support.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 07:41 AM
link   
all taxes on the rich slide off their backs and into loopholes tax breaks and
other vehicles like off shore banking schemes

the entire govt. of America is bought up save for a very few Americans
who are outnumbered.
taxing the rich can't happen unless the govt is fixed and to fix govt . you need
a third party. have them all sign affidavits
anything less will be prone to failure .

ah its a dream alas I must wake from my slumber


[edit on 3-8-2008 by solo1]



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Here is an article from back in June about how McCain and Obama want to change our tax system.

What They'll Do to Your Tax Bill


McCain: The average taxpayer in every income group would see a lower tax bill, but high-income taxpayers would benefit more than everyone else.

Obama: High-income taxpayers would pay more in taxes, while everyone else's tax bill would be reduced. Those who benefit the most - in terms of reducing their taxes as a percentage of after-tax income - are in the lowest income groups.





BREAKING DOWN THE NUMBERS
Here's how the average tax bill could change in 2009 if either John McCain's or Barack Obama's tax proposals were fully in place
..................... MCCAIN .............OBAMA
Income..............Avg. tax bill.......Avg. tax bill
Over $2.9M........-$269,364..........+$701,885
$603K and up.....-$45,361............+$115,974
$227K-$603K......-$7,871.............+$12
$161K-$227K......-$4,380..............-$2,789
$112K-$161K......-$2,614..............-$2,204
$66K-$112K........-$1,009..............-$1,290
$38K-$66K..........-$319................-$1,042
$19K-$38K..........-$113................-$892
Under $19K.........-$19..................-$567



Since I fall into the lower half of the graph, of course I like Obama's plan the best, but ...

According to the article, both of their tax proposals would increase the national debt.



Under both plans, all American taxpayers could pay a price for their tax cuts: a bigger deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion.



The key word in the above paragraph is "could".

Whoever becomes president will have to realize, in order for either one of these tax plans to work they will have to drastically cut the federal budget.

[edit on 8/3/2008 by Keyhole]



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias

Reagan's tax cuts may have brought in more revenue than was expected, but they did not pay for themselves by any means.

Huh? They brought in more money, but that meant less money?


To his credit, the Reagan administration did end the recession that began in the 70's, but it still ran up one of the biggest budget deficits in American history (it has now been surpassed by George Bush Jr.) The tax cuts were partially responsible for that enormous deficit.

OK, so by getting more money, we went deeper into debt. Now exactly how does that work unless the government spent more than they brought in?


The end of the recession notwithstanding, the Reagan years were not universally a time of high employment and prosperity for all. The middle class was rapidly shrinking and the benefits were mainly enjoyed by those on the high end of the income distribution. Employment rose much more during the Clinton administration (remember the guy who wiped out the Reagan deficit?).

There will always be areas where for some reason the economy falters. In the mid-80s, for example, my hometown pretty much turned into a ghost town, and I had to leave to find work for several years. Why? The closing of the three largest employers within a 2-month period. Nothing to do with taxes.

I will also give Clinton the credit he rightly deserves for balancing the budget.


You do admit that bottom-up works, and indeed it does. The present stimulus package is not a really good example, as it was only a one-shot deal. The 1950's and 60's were a time when more and more of the working class were joining the middle class, which expanded considerably during that period. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the top 1% paid a higher tax rate than they do today, and the economy was humming--there was none of the gloom and doom you predict if taxes are raised on the rich and not on the middle class, who are the ones who usually shoulder most of the tax burden. Those two decades are remembered as ones of unprecedented prosperity across the board. It can happen again.

Sure, the tax rebate worked, but at the cost of raising the deficit. We shot borrowed money to the lower income earners. That's the definition of bottom-up economics. And yes, it was a temporary fix, sorta like a bandage on a gushing wound.

Now, exactly how do you expect to continually feed money to the lower classes without borrowing it? Don't say 'tax the rich' because the rich don't make enough to cover that bill (based on the recent rebate amounts). If we follow through with more tax rebate fiascos, we will simply be digging ourselves in deeper to that debt hole every couple of months.

We will also increase inflation, since there will be more (borrowed fiat) money chasing goods. That's textbook economics 101. So, sure, everyone's income (if they started off poor) will increase, but so will the cost of the things they need. What is the difference between making $5 an hour to buy bread at $1 a loaf, or making $20 an hour to buy bread at $4 a loaf? You still work an hour for 5 loaves of bread.

As for the political side of this, you're wasting your time. Yes, I liked Reagan, but I also give Clinton credit for the good he did as well. I had mixed feeling about Big George, and I despise what Lil George has done. I base my opinions on the results, not what party gets them. If you're looking for a pundit, you need to find another debate partner.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 

Many economists estimate that tax cuts replace about 40% of the revenues lost. The Reagan administration may have recouped, say, 45% (more than expected) but that still wouldn't pay for them.

The Reagan and Bush, Jr. tax cuts were/are paid for with borrowed money. It's not just the stimulus package that put the country into debt.

Right now the middle class is shouldering a higher tax rate than either of the other two. Obama's plan would relieve the middle class somewhat and raise taxes on the upper 1% of the income distribution. That could be called a "bottom up" or at least a "middle up" plan. None of that would require the U.S. to borrow more money.

Even with an increase in the capital gains tax, most of the very rich would still not pay the highest tax rate. They have too many loopholes. Not all of their income is received as income, which is what would be taxed the most. For example, a person can be paid in stock options, which would be considered capital gains and taxed at the lower rate (even after Obama raised that rate somewhat). He or she can deposit a good amount of income into Roth IRAs or 401ks. He or she can receive their income over a long period of time, rather than getting a huge amount each year. And those are only some of the loopholes.

A strong, healthy and growing middle class is what is needed.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by skyshow
The next budget deficit (as per Fox Radio News): $482 billion!!! (short another 80 billion for the war effort) Perhaps the new president can begin paying this back by taxing the upper 1%



That is what the US usually does in times of war! Raise the taxes on the rich!

History of the U.S. Tax System - Department of the Treasury


The Civil War

The 1862 law also made important reforms to the Federal income tax that presaged important features of the current tax. For example, a two-tiered rate structure was enacted, with taxable incomes up to $10,000 taxed at a 3 percent rate and higher incomes taxed at 5 percent.





World War I and the 1920's

Driven by the war and largely funded by the new income tax, by 1917 the Federal budget was almost equal to the total budget for all the years between 1791 and 1916. Needing still more tax revenue, the War Revenue Act of 1917 lowered exemptions and greatly increased tax rates. In 1916, a taxpayer needed $1.5 million in taxable income to face a 15 percent rate. By 1917 a taxpayer with only $40,000 faced a 16 percent rate and the individual with $1.5 million faced a tax rate of 67 percent.

Another revenue act was passed in 1918, which hiked tax rates once again, this time raising the bottom rate to 6 percent and the top rate to 77 percent. These changes increased revenue from $761 million in 1916 to $3.6 billion in 1918, which represented about 25 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Even in 1918, however, only 5 percent of the population paid income taxes and yet the income tax funded one-third of the cost of the war.





World War II

By the end of the war the nature of the income tax had been fundamentally altered. Reductions in exemption levels meant that taxpayers with taxable incomes of only $500 faced a bottom tax rate of 23 percent, while taxpayers with incomes over $1 million faced a top rate of 94 percent.



The rich have always had to pay for our wars!

[edit on 8/3/2008 by Keyhole]





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join