Hillary Clinton: The RICH aren't paying their fair share

"The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues [like the U.S.] – whether it's individual, corporate or whatever the taxation forms are," Clinton said after clearly stipulating that these were her opinions, no those of the Obama administration.

Clinton went on to cite Brazil, long known for its high taxes, as a model of a successful economic policy. "Brazil has the highest tax-to-GDP rate in the Western Hemisphere and guess what – they're growing like crazy," Clinton said. "And the rich are getting richer, but they're pulling people out of poverty."

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

First off, I've NEVER liked Hillary Clinton and I still don't...HOWEVER...

She's right...THEY AREN'T PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE. I don't give a damn about the endless defenders of BILLIONAIRES on this website.

I would like to point out her example...BRAZIL.

Yes, BRAZIL has HIGH TAXES....but it also has something THAT WE DO NOT.

HIGH TARIFFS!!!!!!!!!!!!! THEY ACTUALLY PROTECT THEIR INDUSTRIES AND WORKING WAGES!!!! She didn't point this out however. It's also funny that HER HUSBAND BILL is largely responsible for the massive outsourcing this country has endures because of terrible trade policies HE SIGNED.

The products range from food items to luxury products such as cars, appliances and cosmetics. Tariffs on these products would increase from their current levels to between 14 percent and 100 percent. The tariff on cars imported from the U.S. would increase from 35 percent to 50 percent. The highest tariffs would be for raw cotton and woven fabrics.

www.thefreelibrary.com...


If you want this economy to recover, if you want to do something about the debt, if you want jobs to start coming back, if you want wages to increase again along with working benefits...

THEN DEMAND OUR TRADE POLICIES BE CHANGED. We need to increase our tariffs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For the life of me, I simply cannot understand why the vast majority on this website DOES NOT PUSH FOR HIGHER TARIFFS.

Strangely, many of these people are screaming about ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT and how they don't want it.

WITHOUT TARIFFS, we soon WILL BE A ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT...and we will all be working for meager wages because we no longer protect our nations economy or sovereignty.

ANY POLITICIAN who supports FREE TRADE as it stand currently is not a friend of the American people and need to be REPLACED.

You are right, for quite a good portion of US History there was no tax on income for individuals, and the country was fine. In fact, it was Lincoln that pushed through the first income tax to help pay for the Civil War, which was ruled unconstitutional.

In the early days, the US made its money from tariffs and moderate taxes on business. Then, with the combined effort of bankers and Progressives, came the income tax we see today.

But looking back at the early days of income tax, anyone making less than $5000/yr did not have to pay. It was considered a tax on the rich, because the majority of workers did not make $5000/yr. If the tables were adjusted for inflation, I think it would work out to no one making less than $50,000/yr would pay. And while we do not define $50K/yr as "rich" by today's standards, the majority of Americans make less than $50K.

Some would say that NAFTA and WTO are progressive movements as well. Some will say they are fascists movements as well. I am not sure that I can disagree with either claim. Because it does seem to me that progressivism has some commonalities with fascism in the mixing of government and business.

Consider this, how many of our current taxpayer subsidized social-economic programs could not be funded by business today? If businesses had to pay higher tariffs and higher corporate taxes directly to fund welfare and food stamps, do you think businesses would try to lower their overhead by removing people from these programs by more employment and better wages?

Would more small businesses be created in a few years if income taxes were eliminated? After all, more people would have more money in their hands to spend or invest as they see fit. The key to any robust economy is money changing hands, any place were money collects and is removed is stagnation. Pulling 28% out of the economy is a stagnation. It causes more hardship than it solves.

Seriously?
So if someone is growing fat and stupid your resolution is to feed them more? Or to give them more power?

I have no judgment against rich or poor regarding their duty to pay more or less, but I have judgment against unwise people who set up towers which fall and then set out amongst others, rich or poor, and demand tithing to prop the tower up again.

The ways of corrupt socialism is the same net result as the ways of corrupt capitalism. If we do not start living by truly free markets, we are slaves to those in power rather than the natural ebb and flow of human need/conduct. If we do not start living voluntarily by communal thinking, we will be slaves of a sharing gestapo.

Forcing social services is just as corrupt as regulating markets. These are basic principles and so many idiots are wrapped up in the arguments being fed to them. USE YOUR MINDS. THESE THINGS ARE NOT THAT DIFFICULT FOR GODLY MEN AND WOMEN TO UNDERSTAND. If your neighbor needs, provide. If not, the government of children will take it from you and give it to them as they take some for themselves anyway. DO YOU NOT SEE THAT HAPPENING? If you do not release the strangle hold on the markets, it will stop breathing. DO YOU NOT SEE THAT HAPPENING?

Really, even having to say these things makes me feel silly; like I am explaining maturity/wisdom to adults who should already have it. Doesn't anyone get it? The leaders, the shepherds, they are driving the flock over the sides of cliffs and the sheep are happy to follow. Do not rebel against a government. Self-govern and be considerate. Do not strike the false shepherds, for they are truly powerful and they should wear the burden of kind treatment of the sheep fully, but please, do not head for the cliff because you are unwilling to be wise. If they push you, so be it, but do not run towards your collective death.

Even to those who would fight against self-governance, be considerate. The Law is civil conduct for animals, Judgment is civil conduct for gods. Which are you?

reply to post by Ahabstar

If businesses had to pay higher tariffs and higher corporate taxes directly to fund welfare and food stamps, do you think businesses would try to lower their overhead by removing people from these programs by more employment and better wages?

YES!!!!

Excellent point.

Some would say that NAFTA and WTO are progressive movements as well. Some will say they are fascists movements as well. I am not sure that I can disagree with either claim. Because it does seem to me that progressivism has some commonalities with fascism in the mixing of government and business.

It's not progressivism to me. Both Republicans and Democrats put these laws upon us....and many of them wouldn't normally be defined as Progressives. (NEWT GINGRICH and DICK ARMEY for example) The start of what we are seeing now began with the implosion of our trade laws which really only benefited corporations who could employ slave labor and pay lower taxes in more poverished countries. Yes, it drove down prices here...but also drove down wages, benefits, and the loss of good paying jobs, etc. Now we are in a giant bind because most people went into debt trying to keep their lifestyle going that had been pulled out from under them.

You will see many "free market" individuals support free trade even though it is entirely destructive to our economy...and those same people are supposedly ALL ABOUT AMERICA.

We simply cannot compete against slave labor without higher tariffs...and until they are raised the middle class will continue to disappear. The largest and most powerful middle class the world has ever seen will soon be gone if things aren't changed.

I also believe that not only the USA should raise tariffs, ALL COUNTRIES should raise tariffs where they see fit to protect their industries within their country. It's the only way to get a handle on all of the most powerful transnational corporations.

IT makes total sense....yet the seemingly vast majority on this website simply ignore this fact.

Polar, polar, polar. Everyone is so polar. Polar bear? Not quite. Polar shift? Not quite. Just simply polar. Forget the wool! I'll do it myself! And over the eyes it goes.

what the hell is wrong with you people?


cause you have more your suppose to give more?

taxing a minority to give to the majority is unconstitonal......

according to them those who make $160,000 is considered rich. $ 160k is well off in my book.

you people need to stop hating on people who are doing well or well off..

noone ever gave them nothing and they are where they are through their own hard work and determination and built their own lives with their own two hands.

if its so easy to be rich and stay rich there would be 300 million plus millionaires- which there isnt..

the comments so far extremely disturb me.


i wonder if you people have a problem with bill gates,warren buffet, george soros being rich?

reply to post by David9176


You do know the top 10% of earners pay half of the taxes right?

When one pays the lions share of the taxes, the last thing to do is whine that they dont pay enough.

Try taking a Constitutional law class, you obviously need the help.

reply to post by David9176


This is not news, this is what we've known for like, forever!!!! Unless someone lives under a rock(Patrick starfish) then you should know this crap it's common sense they get bailouts while us shlubs PAY for it!!!!!

Originally posted by neo96
what the hell is wrong with you people?


cause you have more your suppose to give more?

taxing a minority to give to the majority is unconstitonal......

according to them those who make $160,000 is considered rich. $ 160k is well off in my book.

you people need to stop hating on people who are doing well or well off..

noone ever gave them nothing and they are where they are through their own hard work and determination and built their own lives with their own two hands.

if its so easy to be rich and stay rich there would be 300 million plus millionaires- which there isnt..

the comments so far extremely disturb me.


i wonder if you people have a problem with bill gates,warren buffet, george soros being rich?

But it's quite alright for you all to take bailouts that poor and middle class taxpayers paid for right??? That's why I hope they weed you people out of the world, I hope natural selection will come back...don't cry to us if it does we'll ahve little sympathy for you money grubbers when tshtf!!!! and guess what? Ur money aint' a getting ur a^^ out of it!!!

Do not kid yourselves... I have no doubt that Mrs. Clinton will be making many statements that are "her own opinion and not those of the Obama Administration" over the next couple years. All she is doing is laying down the foundation for her bid for the Presidency in 2012.

The secret is out and I have no doubt that Obama will be a one term President barring any enormous scandal of Voter Fraud. So I expect to see Hillary as well as others begin to plant the seeds that will launch their campaigns in 2012.

Originally posted by neo96
what the hell is wrong with you people?


cause you have more your suppose to give more?

taxing a minority to give to the majority is unconstitonal......

according to them those who make $160,000 is considered rich. $ 160k is well off in my book.

you people need to stop hating on people who are doing well or well off..

noone ever gave them nothing and they are where they are through their own hard work and determination and built their own lives with their own two hands.

if its so easy to be rich and stay rich there would be 300 million plus millionaires- which there isnt..

the comments so far extremely disturb me.


i wonder if you people have a problem with bill gates,warren buffet, george soros being rich?

Pardon me, but the question begs:- How did one made that $160,000 a year? By himself? He sweated and toiled on his own while other workers were eating melon under the shade?

i took a bailout? really? news to me.


last time i looked i was an individual not a corporation.





how does one make $160,000? they get off their ass instead of waiting for a handout .

[edit on 29-5-2010 by neo96]

reply to post by ldyserenity


Considering the poor and only a percentage of the "middle class" pay any form of income tax (actually pay, not have withheld and fully refunded), your argument, much like your logic fails miserably.

Originally posted by brainwrek
reply to post by ldyserenity

 

Considering the poor and only a percentage of the "middle class" pay any form of income tax (actually pay, not have withheld and fully refunded), your argument, much like your logic fails miserably.

Unfortunately, YOU are the one who failed utterly, if not miserably. The rich DO NOT pay taxes. Any tax to them is PASSED ON to the consumers when they purchase products and FACTORED into their earinings.

So who in reality are the biggest taxpayers? None other than the middle class and the poor, who have needs and are not in ANY position to create or produce products.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


But your boss probably did, I have no issue with your bracket I mean ,mainly the corporations, that's your boss, if you make that much unless you own a small business in that case this doesn't refer to you. most people that make that much work for a large corporation or the government, most of the time those that own a small business don't make that much yearly. But I didn't read how much you made till after I posted so I misunderstood I only read the first lines. then I saw what you made, but typically those who make that much work for banks or corporation (high level) and the government. All three of which got bailouts. Should've made myself more clear on that one.

[edit on 29-5-2010 by ldyserenity]

Looks like somebody needs to pay more taxes.

Considering the poor and only a percentage of the "middle class" pay any form of income tax (actually pay, not have withheld and fully refunded), your argument, much like your logic fails miserably.



I worked for 22 years, paid taxes all that time could only get EIC for the past oh 15 years, for seven years I worked and paid taxes and didn't get a cent back, my Husband don't get jack back and we are poor. And yes he paid taxes too. For oh say 32 years and never never has gotten any thing back. My mom was not rich by far she was middle class, she never saw a dime of her money returned to her. She never recieved her eic, nor any kind of refund for as long as I have known her. That's my whole life, your logic fails how would you know what the heck we'd pay or get back. Not to mention the crap we can't use when we need it that we paid to like welfare and ss and food stamps.

[edit on 29-5-2010 by ldyserenity]

[edit on 29-5-2010 by ldyserenity]

[edit on 29-5-2010 by ldyserenity]

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


You are talking about businesses, I am talking about individuals.

Try again, as it is you who has failed.

e remarkable finding is that the rich and especially the very rich bear by far the largest share of the federal tax liability. The top 10% of households by income, for example, pay more than half of all federal taxes and the top 1% alone pay over a quarter of all federal taxes."

Source


Even you may be able to understand this chart
Click here

The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

Source

Today, the rich pay more, the poor pay less. Bush tax rate cuts notwithstanding, those with high incomes pay at much higher marginal tax rates than those with lower incomes. They also pay much more of the total tax bill, a reality that has escaped Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Only 953,000 taxpayers – about 1 percent of the total who paid taxes – paid at the top 35 percent tax rate in 2005. They paid $315.4 billion in taxes on their $1,094 billion in income.

The most common tax rate is 15 percent, which is paid by 54.4 million taxpayers. This means the typical taxpayer pays at less than half the tax rate of the top earners.

The second most common tax rate is 10 percent. About 25.5 million taxpayers pay at that rate. This group pays taxes at one-third the rate paid by the highest-income taxpayers. So of the two-thirds of all households that pay anything in income taxes, about three-quarters pay at 15 percent or less.

Source


Thanks for showin up though

reply to post by ldyserenity


Well you just posted yourself into a corner.

If your earnings are low enough to qualify for the EITC, you certainly wouldnt have paid income taxes. You may have had them withheld, but you wouldve received a full refund if your earnings were that low, unless there was an outstanding tax burden that you owed.

You are either:

a) lying to sadly try to back up your point (hahaha)

or b) in desperate need of an education on how to do your taxes or find someone actually qualified to do them.


Bottom line: If you received the EITC, you wouldnt have paid any taxes.

[edit on 29-5-2010 by brainwrek]