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.

 

Increasing the tax on the rich to get out of a depression?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
The only reason for this post, is because I read something that took me by surprise. The top rate of income tax has been up to 90% in America. It was still around 70% in the 70's.

the 90% tax rate is what got America out of the depression, and helped create the middle class . It payed for fighting World War II l, and helped build highway systems the education system and other infrastructure that is in place today America did all that without borrowing, and the rich still got richer.

Is redistribution of the wealth more effective than the trickle down effect?

www.ntu.org...



[edit on 11-8-2010 by woodwardjnr]




posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
The rich don't become so by working 80 hour weeks. They get rich by making others do the work for them. That is why I would argue that "redistribution of wealth" is not really a good term for it. The money taken from the rich in taxes goes back to the public and the workers who earned it in the first place.
Redistribution makes it sound like some type of polite crime when in fact it is the just and fair thing to do.
One of the most sickening things I have ever witnessed was watching Congress when they approved keeping the Bush tax cuts. The House nearly shook with their hurrahs when they announced they would be keeping the cuts in place.
When there is so much need in America and all these people can do is find ways to swindle more money from the public I find myself embarrassed to say that they are somehow our "representatives".

Self-interest is not representation.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


Cheers for the reply, I'm from the uk and dont know too much about American economics, I just found it surprising that that amount of Tax was seen at one point acceptable to most Americans, Yet now if you mention the idea of tax increases you are accused of being a commie.

At the time it must have been seen as something being done for the greater good, which again would be seen as socialism to most Americans today.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


I couldn't care less what they called me.

I think a fair idea to put the money back into the public purse, is to make it compulsory for anyone involved with high level banking at the time of the crash and bailouts, to hand over 50% of their total, personal net worth.

Plough the trillions back into public circulation, problem solved.

The bankers that caused the misery in the first place, would get their just desserts, and the country would be back in the black.

Even taking half their worth, they'd still be wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of average people.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
I don't agree with increasing taxes on anyone, especially to get out of our current "depression". The problem isn't with revenue, so much as it is with our system. You see, we have a debt based currency, which means that every dollar issued adds debt. If this is true, then even the money we use to pay back the debt, will only add more debt. This is crazy and basically means that we can never be out of debt, ever.

Furthermore, a lot of people don't even realize, that the same year that the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was established, so was the federal income tax. Why is that, you may ask? Simple, because our tax dollars needed to be used to pay off the debt for our currency.

There is no need for a debt based currency. It does not benefit the people in any way, shape or form. The only people that it benefits, are the ones who control the issue of our currency.

Another thing that such a system does, is create the "wage-slave". It basically turns us all into wage-slaves and ultimately breaks up the family. When you add all of this on to our Keynesian system of economics and lack of a free market, it spells really bad news.

We have all of the ingredients of doom mixed in with our current system, to include both the deficit and the debt. There is no way we are climbing out of this whole and keeping the same system we have now. The entire thing is flawed and hopelessly doomed. No amount of taxing or borrowing is going to help us out.

America has been living beyond it's means for a long time now and now is the time for us to pay the piper, so to speak. The generations before us basically mortgaged our generation and we are left to pick up the pieces for their golden years. However, it is not only their fault, as it lies on the shoulders of the elites who orchastrated the entire thing. With that being said, the responsability did lay with generations past, as they should have sniffed what was going on and never allowed even a tiny fraction of it to take place.

Again, no amount of taxing, praying, borrowing, wishing or ignoring is going to bring us into a better place. The only way our society is going to get better, is if it crashes first and we start anew, from scratch.

Sadly, even that is highly unlikley, as we have handed all of our rights over to the very same people who have been robbing us blind. Instead of being able to start anew, we are going to be controlled.

--airspoon

[edit on 11-8-2010 by airspoon]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Let the WEALTHY pay their FAIR share for a change!!

They want to play the game and be the BIG timer, have lots of profit, and lots of perks but they DONT WANT to PAY their FAIR share in taxes.

Bunch of ANTI-AMERICAN, UNPATRIOTIC, thieves and cowards they are those that get MAD about having to pay their FAIR SHARE!!

Thats why they are SO ANGRY with the current administration!!

Thats their BEEF with the Dems!!!



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I think the only fair way to tax people is to have a flat tax. Everybody pays the same percentage according to their income, whether you make 20k or 250k+ per year. I agree that in the end tho, the system of fractional reserve banking itself is the problem and needs to be removed.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Well said, good sir. Unless we do away with fiat currency, no amount of tax increase will ever eliminate recessions and depressions.

Taxing the "rich" makes for a nice sound bite, but that's about all. Who really pays the tax? Look at your power bill, or phone bill, or any bill from a large corporation. Any time they are taxed, they just pass it down the line to you. Leona Helmsley was right, only the little people pay taxes.

One might think that a flat tax would be a fair solution. Look at Christianity, for instance. God wants 10%, but does he offer deductions for dependents, etc.? If 10% is good enough for God, why not the government? The fact is, if there were a flat tax with no deductions, Americans would realize that we are paying over 40% in taxes. The government uses complcated tax codes to hide that fact.

If our currency had to be backed up with a tangible asset, the government could not spend more than they had, which would cut down on a lot of government waste. Remember, taxes cause wars, not vice versa.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by VictorVonDoom
 


I don't think that it's the fiat system that is our problem. During the so called civil war, the London bankers were hoping to throw America into massive debt, thereby allowing them to swoop in and shackle us with a central bank. In fact, many people argue this to be what instigated the "civil war" in the first place and they make a very good case for it.

Anyway, Lincoln being the brilliant man he was, saw this and decided to do away with the standard currencies of the time, instead replacing them with the "greenback", but to where the US issued and controlled it. This ultimately allowed Lincoln to avoid getting bogged down with loans from London bankers and stave off the vultures.

Many people argue for the gold standard and while this may seem like a good idea, it would only shift power from the bankers, to those who hold the majority of the gold. This would not benefit the people in any manner what-so-ever.

What would be the best system IMO, is to have a fiat monetary system, but to where the people control it in an open, free and decentralized market economy, based on Austrian economics.

--airspoon

[edit on 11-8-2010 by airspoon]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


I agree with a lot of what you say, but remember that the greenbacks were still backed by gold. So, it was still a partial victory for the banks; getting people used to the idea of using paper currency vs. metal.

Then more incremental steps were taken. Gold clauses were eliminated from contracts, forcing people to take paper over gold. The Federal Reserve Bank, the gold confiscation of WWII, the gradual reduction in the amount of gold backing each dollar until finally Nixon took us off the gold standard. Look at what that did for the economy in the 70s.

Later, bit by bit, we arrive to where we are today. Now, it's not even paper, it's just "credits" in a cyberspace, backed by absolutely nothing except laws requiring us to accept the fiat currency.

Government controlled fiat currency would be a start, but then the last president to try that was publicly assassinated a few months after he started the program. Still, even if we did convert to US Notes instead of Federal Reserve Notes, we would have to count on the government to be more honest and transparent than the Federal Reserve. Fat chance of that.

As to your point about the guys with the most gold, keep in mind, once they spend it, it's gone. They can't print more. So the people they pay get paid for their labor with something that's actually inflation proof.

Wish I had time to write more, but I have to go earn some Federal Reserve Notes



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Baloney
Let the WEALTHY pay their FAIR share for a change!!

They want to play the game and be the BIG timer, have lots of profit, and lots of perks but they DONT WANT to PAY their FAIR share in taxes.

Bunch of ANTI-AMERICAN, UNPATRIOTIC, thieves and cowards they are those that get MAD about having to pay their FAIR SHARE!!

Thats why they are SO ANGRY with the current administration!!

Thats their BEEF with the Dems!!!





And what is there "FAIR SHARE" to you? 90%? how is that fair at all? how would you like to get taxed 90%? whats the point of working and running a company when you get taxed 90% of your income.

I always lol when i here you guys say fair share. They already pay more then anyone else.

I agree let them pay there "fair share" and drop there taxes to the middle class lvl. that would make it "fair"



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


No one is saying that we have to return to a tax rate of 90% but if we are going to collect taxes then you have to go where the money is and if 1% of the population controls 95% of the money, guess what happens?

The rich should pay a higher rate because they take more out of the economy. During the Clinton years we managed to somehow develop a budget surplus and the highest tax rate was not 90%.

Now the republican party acts as if the rich will be bankrupted by returning to the Clinton era tax rates. I believe that 22 million jobs were created under those tax rates too!

How many jobs were created under the Bush administration after he put the tax cuts in place? Funny how they don't want to talk about that.

If you're rich and you think that you're being taxed too much, then go make your money somewhere else.

We also need federal legislation that mandates that if you want to sell your product in the USA then build it in the USA with American workers, period! I'm not against foreign companies or multi-nationals. I just believe that if they want to sell their products here, they should build them here and the same goes for American companies that want to sell their products overseas. Toyota is a good example in that they builds cars here for sale here.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


No one is saying that we have to return to a tax rate of 90% but if we are going to collect taxes then you have to go where the money is and if 1% of the population controls 95% of the money, guess what happens?

The rich should pay a higher rate because they take more out of the economy. During the Clinton years we managed to somehow develop a budget surplus and the highest tax rate was not 90%.

Now the republican party acts as if the rich will be bankrupted by returning to the Clinton era tax rates. I believe that 22 million jobs were created under those tax rates too!

How many jobs were created under the Bush administration after he put the tax cuts in place? Funny how they don't want to talk about that.

If you're rich and you think that you're being taxed too much, then go make your money somewhere else.

We also need federal legislation that mandates that if you want to sell your product in the USA then build it in the USA with American workers, period! I'm not against foreign companies or multi-nationals. I just believe that if they want to sell their products here, they should build them here and the same goes for American companies that want to sell their products overseas. Toyota is a good example in that they builds cars here for sale here.


Man i make one coment relating to high taxes and you run to the well of " bush this and that" I dont care about bush eather. he did alot of stupid s*** too. what does bush have to do with anything. its like a sickness, an automatic responce "well bush!"



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


It's not about Bush, it's about the tax rates that created a budget surplus versus the tax cuts and deregulation that led to economic collapse. Why is so hard to return to what worked?

Keep the tax cuts for the middle class and return to the Clinton era tax rates for the rich. It's not going to kill them even though they may scream like it is. I just wish that I made enough to be in the highest tax bracket!

By the way, I'm not a big fan of Bush or Clinton, I'm just saying that we should return to what worked in the past.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


Must say I am quite suprised, that's a very 'socialist' policy to advocate.

Personally I firmly believe in a little wealth re-distribution.
Somehow I suspect Cameron and his lapdog Clegg don't and it is the last thing that'll ever cross their mind.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr


Is redistribution of the wealth more effective than the trickle down effect?

www.ntu.org...


Redistribution of wealth takes down the value of money. Trickle down, which by the way I had to set and listen to how stupid it was from my lefty profs, say what you will is a system that maintains the dollar. When the dollar is not attached to thoses making it buy way of trickle down and is gotten by a hand out via tax on the thing making it it drops in value there and it drops in value when so many are getting it for nothing one way of another. Handing out money in country and out at every turn cant help but bring down the dollar....its just math.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


I couldn't care less what they called me.

I think a fair idea to put the money back into the public purse, is to make it compulsory for anyone involved with high level banking at the time of the crash and bailouts, to hand over 50% of their total, personal net worth.

Plough the trillions back into public circulation, problem solved.

The bankers that caused the misery in the first place, would get their just desserts, and the country would be back in the black.

Even taking half their worth, they'd still be wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of average people.


Why give money to folks that dont know how to make more with it? They just spend it and it ends back up in the hands of a wealthy person somewhere along the line.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   
The rich already pay most of the taxes anyway. The reason it's so hard to give a tax cut to the bottom 50% is becasue they don't pay any taxes anyway. Look at the latest CBO report on who pays taxes to see for yourself. www.cbo.gov... Taxing the rich to 'get out of a depression' is stupid. What do people do when they have what you would call 'excess money'? They either spend it or invest it. Both create jobs. Creating jobs is what can get us out of a recession. Do you really think giving more money to the government, which is not a producer of anything, will create jobs? Like the old guy said, "I ain't never met a poor man who gave me a job."

I'll give you the large corporations you like to call so evil, but most jobs in the US are provided by small businesses. With the increasing amount of bureaucratic nonsense being forced on them a lot of small business owners are saying, "Screw it. I don't need this." and bailing.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
US wealth distribution: 10% of US citizens own 70.9% of all US assets

Top 1% own 38.1%
Top 96-99% own 21.3%
Top 90-95% own 11.5%

And it gets much uglier as you proceed downward. Bottom 40% of population has 0.2% of all wealth.

www.dailypaul.com...



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


Yeah, we all saw how many jobs they created when the tax cuts were enacted. These corporations are sitting on some 1.8 trillion in cash and NOT creating jobs now, so how is giving them more cash going to create more jobs.

For every small businessman that wants to call it quits, rest assure that another will move in to take his place.

It's people that make businesses successful, whether they be workers or consumers or both. Without these people, no small businessman will be a success.

Just because the small business owner has chosen as his profession, to be the middleman between workers and consumers does not make them any more precious to our economic well being.

If a need is there, a business will arise to meet that need. So if you feel the need to bail, then do it, there will always be another to take your place.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join