It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Senator introduces legislation to shift tax burden back to billionaires

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 01:31 AM
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

Make no mistakes. Debts WILL BE PAID. We as citizens are responsible for the debts created by our votes. We may have been lied to, not told the whole truth, but ultimately, money had been spent, such as the senseless war in Iraq. We are responsible. The buck stops with the people who empowers others to make such decisions. Thus we as citizens MUST be careful with our votes from hereon.

Actually, that's not entirely true. In international law, there is something called "odious debts", which is an established legal principal that people don't have to repay their government's debt if that debt was incurred for wars of aggression, to oppress the people or other tyrannical actions. These "odious debts" are considered to be the personal debts of the tyrants who incurred them.

According to this entry in wikipedia, which explains it much better:

In international law, odious debt is a legal theory which holds that the national debt incurred by a regime for purposes that do not serve the best interests of the nation, such as wars of aggression, should not be enforceable. Such debts are thus considered by this doctrine to be personal debts of the regime that incurred them and not debts of the state. In some respects, the concept is analogous to the invalidity of contracts signed under coercion.

The doctrine was formalized in a 1927 treatise by Alexander Nahum Sack, a Russian émigré legal theorist, based upon 19th Century precedents including Mexico's repudiation of debts incurred by Emperor Maximilian's regime, and the denial by the United States of Cuban liability for debts incurred by the Spanish colonial regime. According to Sack:

When a despotic regime contracts a debt, not for the needs or in the interests of the state, but rather to strengthen itself, to suppress a popular insurrection, etc, this debt is odious for the people of the entire state. This debt does not bind the nation; it is a debt of the regime, a personal debt contracted by the ruler, and consequently it falls with the demise of the regime. The reason why these odious debts cannot attach to the territory of the state is that they do not fulfill one of the conditions determining the lawfulness of State debts, namely that State debts must be incurred, and the proceeds used, for the needs and in the interests of the State. Odious debts, contracted and utilized for purposes which, to the lenders' knowledge, are contrary to the needs and the interests of the nation, are not binding on the nation – when it succeeds in overthrowing the government that contracted them – unless the debt is within the limits of real advantages that these debts might have afforded. The lenders have committed a hostile act against the people, they cannot expect a nation which has freed itself of a despotic regime to assume these odious debts, which are the personal debts of the ruler.

Patricia Adams, executive director of Probe International (an environmental and public policy advocacy organization in Canada), and author of Odious Debts: Loose Lending, Corruption, and the Third World's Environmental Legacy, has stated that:

by giving creditors an incentive to lend only for purposes that are transparent and of public benefit, future tyrants will lose their ability to finance their armies, and thus the war on terror and the cause of world peace will be better served.

So really, we may not be responsible for the debts incurred by our tyrannical government. The only catch is that we have to "replace" this government first, to include the corrupted system... the entire corrupted system. In other words, if there was a revolution tomorrow, then we could argue to have the debts removed from our responsibility. I hope this helps, as not too many people know about it.


[edit on 26-6-2010 by airspoon]

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 07:16 AM

Originally posted by KATSUO
I think camero68 is full of it..
if you and your dad are so rich, and you have a high end education..

why dont you know the difference between their and there?

not that im stalking you or anything, but I ws reading this other thread and
recognized you avatar..
you and your daddy own privet..LOLOL -private- property..
and you cant pay a simple 550 fine..
you do realize they will work out payment plans..
usually $50 a month.. zero interest. right?

sorry camaro68.. now I know that you are full of it..
$550 and the judge wont give me a reduction. I CANT PAY IT. i dont know what to do..... i work, i cant do comunity service with out losing my job. i've cut everything but my cheap cell phone bill, house bill and food. cant be done!!

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 02:37 PM
Yes...and the idea that a business man wants to hire people sounds great....but why aren't they...I have seen how business works...and every year every major business sets growth goals....meaning every year they are trying to make more money...half the time they don't account for the economy so when the numbers don't line up they start firing people so that they can make a surplus of $31 million to top last years $30 million etc...its sick...they have money...and its obvious...they could hire THOUSANDS of us unemployed people but they don't because it doesn't line up with their money making goals.

I have not had steady employment for almost a year now...partly because I have no transportation and I am forced to couch surf and stuff...meaning I move a lot...makes it damn near impossible when it takes a few months for them to even look at your application in the first place (or if your lucky they look sooner but it still seems to take forever -.-)

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 04:02 PM

Originally posted by poet1b


Ron Paul it the biggest sellout in congress. He wants to sell our country to rich corporations. All these followers of Ron Paul are suckers through and through, unless you're a billionaire.

If Ron Paul doesn't like Senator Sanders, Sanders is probably and upstanding honest guy.

what do you have against ron paul? any sources or evidence to back up this opinion of yours? care to enlighten us? or perhaps is it just blind faith you use to judge people with?

[edit on 26-6-2010 by pryingopen3rdeye]

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 05:53 PM
The whole "trickle down" theory wads a sham and I can't believe that people bought it hook, line and sinker. No, we don't need to give rich people all of our money or help to ensure that they stay rich so that it may trickle down. Rich people need to pay their fair share too, especially when the low man is carrying most of the burden. If we wouldn't be fighting wars for the rich and growing the government for the rich, then we wouldn't need to be individually taxed in the first place.


posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 07:30 PM
reply to post by airspoon

Since I knew people who voted in the 1980's, I'll tell you why they voted for the trickle down economics. Well, actually, they first voted the way they did for other reasons.

They voted because they were tired of the dope smoking hippie culture, of "white jobs" going to minorities, of high interest rates (even though wages were keeping up and their savings accounts were earning lots of interest), of religious ideas that were changing. They were told that Jimmy Carter was a buffoon with his solar panels, plus he couldn't seem to get the hostages home, and his failed rescue mission in the dusty desert added to the shame of losing the war in Nam.

Well, they got the td economy, believing it would gush to them. Then they got unemployment, but they found work in the service sector or worked for less wages. But that was ok, because politicians promised to get rid of gays and abortions. And so they continued to vote, and they kept losing their jobs and sometimes those jobs started to leave the country. But that's ok, because abortion, gays, and Satan had to go. Oh, and some went into the new economy...selling drugs and buying BMWs and houses with cash.

When they ran up against the stupid economy, they voted to change, but by then their taxes were less but they were now paying more in user fees. They ended up with more jobs disappearing and wages not going up, but since all this time their house values were going up, well, they kept selling and buying.

Then came along a couple of contentious elections, and they still needed to get rid of abortion and gays and have a leader they could drink a beer with. A lot more jobs disappeared but buying things was cheaper, and all was going well as long as you took out home loans and used lots of plastic credit, not just for vacations but to pay doctors and hospitals. Oh, yeah, there was a little matter of patriotism to vote for in patriotic leaders.

Nothin' trickled down in all those years. Instead they should have heard a big sucking sound as their wealth was vacuumed up. But no one could hear it over all the prayin' and patriotic parades.

Finally, not only was the tap turned off, but someone kept pouring all this war debt over them, while others were creating financial schemes out of thin air and bad debt, which finally left them floating helpless in a sea of debt with nary a job, let alone a good one, to hang on to. At least this time politicians had the good sense to shut up about gays and abortion, although now some think sodomy should be an issue. Is there no shame, no low they won't stoop to?

Well, they and those fancy financiers sure dug themselves a big that really did go all the way to China! Took a long time to dig, sure gonna take a long time to fill in. But the "small people" won't get much help in fixing that mess. No, the ones that caused it are all off on their fancy yachts, leaving the "small people" with holes in their boats to clean up the mess.

Say, I got another story... a true one, but sad....about differences between the "small people" and the rich. Another time.

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 12:37 AM
reply to post by desert

To me the difference between a billionaire who pays no taxes all his life (which is a myth) and another person who never tries to get ahead and makes low wages all his life that ends up to paying zero taxes is nothing, no difference at all.

But the true difference is the billionaires who we might think they do not pay taxes are what 100 people at best and the other type is what 100million?

If we want fair let’s go with an 8% flat tax, do away with IRS, and EVERYONE pays. No free rides for anyone…

[edit on 27-6-2010 by Xtrozero]

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 12:48 AM

Originally posted by airspoon
Apparently, W. Bush passed a law that abolished the estate tax for heirs to extremely wealthy estates, putting the entire tax-burden of the US on the "little people", of course. Since we aren't getting rid of taxes anytime soon, I support this one. I think it is more than obvious why W. and Congress passed this law and I believe that Sen. Sanders is doing the right thing.

As it stands, I don't support any unfair tax, even if that tax is targeted at the super-rich, however this tax seems more than "fair", relatively speaking. This country's billionaires already profit so much at the expense of tax-payers, it's about time that they start "ponying" up a little.

Can you explain to me just how much tax I'm paying because billionaire's children don't have to give a portion of their inherited wealth to the government? Just some sort of estimate -- assume I am an individual making 50k a year if you need tax bracket info (even though I don't).

And also how a billionaire will "pony up" if he's dead at the time this tax takes effect. But that's secondary, I really just want you to quantify how much tax burden you're glad that we are "shifting back."

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 12:55 AM
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye

Ron Paul is a free market communist, and wants to sell our nations public assets, like our drinking water, to private corporations. That makes him completely messed up in my opinion.

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 01:00 AM
reply to post by Xtrozero

A better idea would be for people to pay taxes in propensity to the wealth they are able to claim.

The average worker gets little to nothing from the government, while the super rich need a great deal of services from the government to remain in business, this is why the super rich should pay most of the fed gov tax revenue.

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:18 AM
Some of you here are so ignorant.
It would be laughable if it were not so important. Most of you know nothing about taxes and only spew talking points without doing the research for yourself.

As you can see from the chart, the top 50% of all wage earners pay 96% of all taxes!

How much more do you want the rich & working folks to pay? 100%?

I am only middle class but those bottom 50% need to pay there fair share to reduce my tax burden. The bottom 50% pay no taxes yet receive ALL the benefits.

[edit on 6/27/2010 by WhatTheory]

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 09:00 AM
reply to post by Xtrozero

Well. now is as good a time as any to tell my story, which is a true one, because it involved my son's high school classmate, and I asked around about it, too, talking to people involved.

You see, this student had been dropped from his morning class because he ended up coming in tardy too many times, in a recent period. So he was not getting any credit, plus a grade of "F", plus having to sit in the school's equivalent of a jail.

It turned out that he was tardy because his mother had taken so ill that she had to stay in bed, and she was the one who got this boy's 15 yr old mentally retarded sister ready for school every day, and the father couldn't help out because he had to go out before daybreak to his job, picking oranges. Well, you try getting a 5 yr old in a big 15 yr old body to do what you want her to in the morning, like quickly eat the breakfast you had to help fix, then make her get dressed quickly, plus taking care of your ill mom.

I won't get into the house they rented, probably would have made someone else a small cheap fixer upper. Anyway, this boy was having some personal problems himself, the extent he didn't make visible. One Sunday, the one day of the week his father was home, unless the weather prevented him from working, which could go on for days sometimes, with no money coming in, he and his dad got into an argument, dad shouting at him about his sneaking out of his bedroom window to see his girlfriend last night.

The boy stormed out of the living room, got his father's gun, went to his bedroom, put the gun in his mouth and fired. It was said his brain was all over that tiny room, which the family had to clean up, and they closed the door and didn't want to use it, but someone said, no, let's paint it with bright colors and leave the door open so at least sister can see how pretty it would look.

Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy some other things to make this earthly life a little easier. In another household, a nurse could have been hired to attend to the mother, who would already have been to a doctor. A cook would have cooked the breakfast, a nanny would have helped the retarded girl get ready for school, a chauffeur would have then driven them to school so as not to be late. Oh, yeah, lest I want to make it seem like a lot of help needed to be hired, the family would have at least one person to cook, attend the girl and drive her to school, not necessarily three different people. Oh, and the son would have been to a psychologist or psychiatrist to help him deal with his personal problems.

Resources. The more discretionary money you have, the more resources you can buy to help make this earthly life a little better. This family did all it could to feed, clothe, and house themselves. In fact, this father worked so someone else could have the food to feed their family. But they couldn't afford outside resources to help them. Maybe in this case, money could buy happiness.

Years ago Charles Dickens wrote about a wealthy man who was visited by ghosts who helped make him see life and himself differently, and that experience changed him. Maybe today we need those ghosts back to come pay a visit to some more people. It couldn't hurt, and it would make for another story. And it might buy someone some happiness.

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 12:22 PM
reply to post by WhatTheory

I am sick of ignoramous people like who claimed 'the poor do not pay any taxes'!

Who the hell are you trying to fool?

EVERYONE PAY TAXES in some form or another, either directly through personal taxes or indirectly by purchases or PASSED ON BY MANUFACTURERS.

Thus, the ones who really pay NO Taxes are the rich and the super rich, for whatever they are supposed to pay, they incorporate it into their products and passed it on to the suckers-the consumers - who need those items.

Either you wake up or stop fooling others please!

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 01:02 PM
reply to post by WhatTheory

You are so ignorant all you do is repeat what you have been programmed to read.

Remember, his whole argument is a complaint about the first 50% of tax filers. He is using the millions of people who work a short bit here to run up the numbers, so he can reach that first 50% by using all sorts of people who aren't really part of the actual, full-time work force.

And he doesn't just use these part-time workers. Anyone who is unemployed but collected at least one unemployment check has to file a return. Guess what, Rush counts you as the bottom 50% of wage earners.

Guess who else? Grandma who got a little bit of retirement cash or a few hundred dollars interest from a savings account. Yep, Rush is counting her among that lazy, non-self respecting first 50%.

As you can see, Rush uses the term "wage earners" to try and make it seem he is talking only about real workers. The first clue to any thinking person would be the fact that he says that by the top 50% he means anyone who earns just $26,000 or more. That amount is so low it should ring a bell for any thinking person. But we know Bush/Limbaughians just want to hear what allows them to keep their right-wing views and not what is useful or accurate.

So, included in this first 50% are lots of people who owe nothing after the standard deduction. That, Rush, drives the average way down and, as you know, completely distorts what percentage we average American workers actually pay in taxes compared to the rich.

What are the actual numbers like? I thought you'd never ask. I'll use the same year Rush has there just for kicks, 2000.

Let's first say the simple fact that makes clear how stupid and dishonest Rush's statement is: of all people who filed returns (all wage earners, as Rush used,) the top 50% of wage earners made about 95 percent of taxable income.

You see, Rush used the adjusted gross income to lower that percentage to 87%, but even so, look at the big furious premise - people who earned 87% of the money paid 96% of the taxes. Hey, if you put it that way, doesn't sound so bad, right? But of course he didn't, he said, "Top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of taxes."

But in all honesty, the number he uses - 87% - is bunk. Adjusted gross income is the number before you get your standard deduction - you know, that measely $6,000 or so they allow you to deduct for expenses. Everyone gets to deduct that, but for the people who shouldn't be included at all - the people earning just a couple hundred at Christmas or a little over the summer - that helps take them out of the measurement.

So, you get to people who earned something that is taxable. (This is misleading, too, but more on that in a second.) Of the taxable income, the top 50% of wage earners makes right about 95% of it. And what percent do they pay in taxes? Right, right about that 96.4% figure Rush uses.

You need to pull your head out, wipe off your face, and start taking a look around at the real world.

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 02:19 PM

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
I am sick of ignoramous people like who claimed 'the poor do not pay any taxes'!

Sorry if the truth hurts.

EVERYONE PAY TAXES in some form or another, either directly through personal taxes or indirectly by purchases or PASSED ON BY MANUFACTURERS.

Stop grasping for straws.

We are talking about federal income taxes and I think you know this.

This is IRS data. So if the top 50% of wage earners are paying 97% of the income taxes, who do you think is paying the remaining 3%? Right, the poor. The bottom 50% only pay 3%. Not fair!!

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 02:22 PM

Originally posted by poet1b
You are so ignorant all you do is repeat what you have been programmed to read.

Yeah, I'm the ignorant one when you refuse to accept reality or the actual IRS data.

See previous post.

Here are some other articles showing how ignorant you really are:

Who really pays taxes

Number of Americans Paying Zero Federal Income Tax Grows to 43.4 Million

I could go on and on but I think you get the point.

[edit on 6/27/2010 by WhatTheory]

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 02:23 PM

Originally posted by poet1b
A better idea would be for people to pay taxes in propensity to the wealth they are able to claim.

The average worker gets little to nothing from the government, while the super rich need a great deal of services from the government to remain in business, this is why the super rich should pay most of the fed gov tax revenue.

So how about the person who makes lets say 300k to 1 million per year? Also your statement is too generalized and suggests all billionaires are alike.

If I make 500k per year is it fair for me to pay 43% of it?

BTW what is welfare. food stamps, HUD, no taxes, free schooling etc...are these and many other services for the rich?

Also you still have not defind fair (nor anyone else answered what is fair) I paid about 70k last year in Fed taxes is that fair?

[edit on 27-6-2010 by Xtrozero]

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 02:56 PM
reply to post by desert

I agree that is a very sad story, I also understand there are many other cases like that one. With that said one need to ask how did that situation end up to such a horrible ending?

Also should we blame those successful for the failures of that family? We already understand that the top 50% wage earners pay 96% of all taxes, we also know that the top 5% wage earners pay 50% of that 96%. I pay more in taxes than the gross income of 50-60% of American families, and I’m far from being rich in anyway.

So are we saying that 96% is not enough for the upper 50% wage earners to pay, or that 50% of that 96% is not enough for only the 5% of the workforce to pay? Or do we put the blame on those who go through life not trying to get ahead and end up living a poor life full of failings, frustration, pain, suffering etc.. oh and they still choose to bring childern into their own little self created hell...I find that sad too.

Not only do I pay what I think is a ton in taxes, but I pay 8k per year in property tax that goes mostly to the schools, and the families that live in rented condo/appt pays zero, or maybe some really diluted amount as part of their rent, but our kids get the exact same education…hmmm

So looking from my angle I do not see our failures rest on the shoulders of the upper 50% wage earners, but on the lower 50% wage earners, and unfortunately your story supports my views. I have busted my butt all my life to continue to do better in life to provide the best life for my family and a huge number of Americans don't even try.

So our Government is failing and is spending like a drunken sailor on a weekend pass, and so those who just happen to be successful now need to foot this new bill, as if they are not paying enough already.

And as I already said today it is the billionaires, tomorrow it will be the millionaires, and soon it will be all of the upper 50% wage earners.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by Xtrozero]

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 03:07 PM

Originally posted by poet1b

A better idea would be for people to pay taxes in propensity to the wealth they are able to claim.

So if we had a flat tax of 8% and a person who makes 40k per year pays 3200 dollars and a person who makes 400k pays 32k. Is this not what you want?

As it is today the 40k person pays zero and the 400k pays about 150k plus.

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 03:18 PM
reply to post by WhatTheory

My link provides a link to IRS data, while your links do not.

You haven't posted any links that tie directly to the IRS data, just a bunch of propaganda garbage put out for suckers like you. Sure they are based on cherry picked date from the IRS that they then twist to falsely skew the data. The second link you provide adds the footnote that clearly points out the deception.

1. Those who are claimed as dependents on a tax return with positive tax liability are defined as “in the tax system.”

Which means that if you are twelve and de-tassle corn in the summer, you are one of the non-taxpayers with income. If your parents have a savings account in your name with interest income, you are a part of this statistic.

Your bottom 50% of income earners also includes almost all retirees.

At what point do you become embarrassed for going after grade school kids and retirees for being deadbeats?

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in