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.

 

Patriotic Millionaires

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 02:52 AM
link   



Because there are things we want to do as a country--and they are not free.


Patriotic Millionaires.org


Only 375,000 Americans have incomes of over $1,000,000

Between 1979 and 2007, incomes for the wealthiest 1% of Americans rose by 281%

During the Great Depression, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 68%

In 1963, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 91%

In 1976, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 70%

Today, millionaires have a top marginal tax rate of 35%

Reducing the income tax on top earners is one of the most inefficient ways to grow the economy according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office

44% of Congress people are millionaires. The tax cuts were never meant to be permanent

Letting tax cuts for the top 2% expire as scheduled would pay down the debt by $700 billion over the next 10 years


I don't know what more can be said. Honestly, who in their right mind could be opposed to this?




posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by links234
Honestly, who in their right mind could be opposed to this?


Lots of people, believe it or not. Lots of people.

But not me.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 04:00 AM
link   
Im sure someone here will soon suggest these folks have been effected by cultural Marxism and that they are a bunch of socialists, but what they are saying actually makes sense. If only we could get the billionaires to join them. I heard a statistic that the richest 400 people in America own more wealth than the bottom 50% of the entire country combined. Now however you want to look at that, it's not good for a nation to have such a disparity of wealth.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
From their site.....


Letting tax cuts for the top 2% expire as scheduled would pay down the debt by $700 billion over the next 10 years


Besides issues like the LAFFER CURVE where lower taxes can increase tax revenue, there is no chance in h*ll that the revenue gains from allowing the cuts to expire will pay down any debt. It will be squandered and spent into oblivion like all the rest. Maybe we will start another war.


Nobody is stopping these fools from giving up the cash willingly. The fact is, they don't want to give up their cash unless they can force everyone to. That is wrong.

Step one in the whole debt reduction process should be to cut government waste and inefficiency. To trust the government with more money is to trust a crack head to keep a bunch of coc aine in safe keeping.

Also, the whole idea of Patriotism is like Stockholm Syndrome.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
do tell how does destroying wealth create wealth?

taking money our of the economy has only one effect making everyone suffer.

you raise taxes everyone suffers the only one who doesnt is the one spending all the money

and that is the goverment.

there is nothing patriotic in robbing peter to pay paul.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by DINSTAAR
 


I would argue that we're still capable of generating revenue with tax increases at this point, considering how low they are. As for the argument that the money would just be 'sqaundered' I could agree with that. Consider the following:

Clinton: Pay debt by 2015


Clinton on Monday proposed paying off the national debt by 2015 after issuing a new budget outlook that adds $1 trillion more to the overall budget surplus over the next 15 years.


The republicans took office and listened to the ideas of supply side economics, gave into tax cuts for everyone. Which reduced government revenue, no matter how you look at it. We were then brought into to two wars overseas and allowed deregulation to destroy our economy. I don't want to Bush-bash but can anyone accept the idea that the first decade of the 21st century has nearly destroyed the country in economic terms?



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by links234
 




I would argue that we're still capable of generating revenue with tax increases at this point, considering how low they are.


GOOD RESOURCE HERE

When an increase in tax is levied, people adapt by finding ways to avoid the tax.... even if it costs more than just paying the tax. Businesses and people can move, donate to a charity, outsource, layoff people, or even restructure in order to avoid the tax.



As for the argument that the money would just be 'sqaundered' I could agree with that.


Has it ever not been? The government has a long history of waste and abuse.



Clinton: Pay debt by 2015


The whole early 2000s recession, perpetual global war, and republican-led increase in entitlement programs destroyed any hope of fiscal responsibility.



The republicans took office and listened to the ideas of supply side economics, gave into tax cuts for everyone.


The whole 'supply side'/'demand side' debate is a false dichotomy. It makes for a good sound bite, but actually does not provide a reasonable choice between two extremes.



Which reduced government revenue, no matter how you look at it.


Art Laffer would beg to differ that this is not always the case. In order to maximize government revenue, an increase in the individual tax rate is in many cases bad.



We were then brought into to two wars overseas and allowed deregulation to destroy our economy.


"Deregulation" is not a good synonym for "Poor Regulation". Never forget that.



I don't want to Bush-bash


Please do. He is a tool.



but can anyone accept the idea that the first decade of the 21st century has nearly destroyed the country in economic terms?


This wouldn't necessarily be Bush bashing exclusively. Everyone before and since that has stacked the house of cards is to blame.
Sad part..... the house hasn't even fallen yet... just a couple cards from the top.




When it comes to the economy, we need to look at our goals.

Is it our goal to increase government revenue, or to increase government productivity(sorry for the oxymoron)? If the government can do more with less, isn't that preferable to doing the same with more? Our military needs to be cut back and used for defense purposes only. Our empire must return home. Entitlements need reformed so drastically that the word 'reform' does not properly describe the great amount we must change the system. Waste, redundancies, and all money must be accounted for and we need to remove deficit spending from our culture as a whole.

Our goals should be to make our lives better, but not at the expense of the future.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


So paying taxes is now considered "destroying wealth", Neo?

Are you serious?
OP is suggesting that everyone pay their fair share of taxes. What's with the sense of entitlement? Pay your taxes like everyone else. Well, everyone except the illegals. You get my point.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
If I was a CEO of a corporation I would want my taxes high too.
edit on 7-6-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 


when someone takes away the fruits of your labor money that is a form of wealth destruction

because you no longer have that money you earned.

half this country pays taxes and the other doesnt.

i do not support the rape of one group because another group thinks they are entitled to that money.

a fair tax

and no person or group has a superceeding right than any other.

people are not entitled to money someone else earned

god forbid government actually stop spending instead of taking more money and still wasting it.
edit on 7-6-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


"Half the country pays taxes"?
links for that?

Why do you think it is ok for the middle and lower class to pay taxes, but not the top earners?
Don't you realize that if all the legal Americans (I am protecting myself against your impending illegal rant), paid their taxes that there would be more money to spend on..............say.............infastructure? Creating jobs and making sure our roads and bridges are up to date? I know it's a foreign theory to you, but if everyone paid their taxes, the United States would be in a better place economically.

You have stated that it's acceptible to "destroy the wealth" of everyone else, but the wealthiest Americans somehow deserve everything they make. How does that work? Why is the CEO's earnings any different than mine, or the steam-fitter's with 3 kids? I have accused you of having an elitist attitude, but this takes the cake. You honestly believe that the wealthy are more entitled to their earnings than a man who swings a hammer for a living. That's dispicable, man.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 


how many times do i have to repeat what i say? read what i said.

money.cnn.com...




NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Most people think they pay too much to Uncle Sam, but for some people it simply is not true. In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.


www.msnbc.msn.com...





WASHINGTON — Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it's simply somebody else's problem. About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.



71 million pay no tax
47 million receive welfare
20 million people are out of work and drawing unemployement

around 120 million people actually work in this country

so the solution is to rape the top earners when hello? look at those numbers why should those people be paying more.


like i said a fair tax no group or individual rights are more important than any other.

you want links i am not going to do the work for you do what i and everyone else does use google and the internet to find your own answers not what someone else says.
edit on 7-6-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Alright, to say 47% of the population pays NO TAXES is a complete misnomer on your part.


Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability.


Everyone pays taxes from their paycheck. At the end of they year, if you don't make enough money you get a refund. Somewhere in the area of single making under $50k/year...that's just a personal estimate. However, many of us have done our taxes at the end of the year. I can guarantee I pay taxes, sometimes I get a refund, sometimes I get less. Family of four making national average I tend to earn enough deductions to get a refund...but it's not giving me the thousands of dollars I already paid into state and federal taxes, I just don't owe anything extra.

What your articles are pointing out is that 71 million people will not owe any addtional taxes when they file. They're not getting off scott free, they still pay their taxes, they're just too poor or have x number of children or had any number of deductions to not have to pay anything more at the end of the year.


Originally posted by neo96
71 million pay no tax


False. Or at least very misleading.


47 million receive welfare


According to This article from 2009:


The number of families on welfare had been falling steadily and, nine months into the recession, stood at 1.6 million in September 2008, the most recent date for which national tallies are available.


Welfare is for extremely poor families.

However, the food stamp program has nearly 40 million people. Food stamps are easier to obtain;


In general, a family of four must have a monthly income of less than $2,297 to qualify for food stamps. Welfare, on the other hand, is designed as a last resort.



20 million people are out of work and drawing unemployement


An article dated April 2009 suggests differently:


While 13.2 million people were unemployed in March, approximately 5.8 million were collecting unemployment benefits at the end of the month...



around 120 million people actually work in this country


The Bureau of Labor Statistics suggests 153 million, but I don't want to nitpick.

Some of those employed don't make enough to feed their families and are on food stamps. Some of them are 'under' employed and are on welfare. They all contribute through taxes one way or the other.


so the solution is to rape the top earners when hello? look at those numbers why should those people be paying more.


Rape is a harsh word considering taxes have been lowest in something like 60 years or more...They, I, should pay more because I can afford to. Do I contribute to one non-profit to help a few dozen people or do I contribute to the government to help a few million people?


like i said a fair tax no group or individual rights are more important than any other.


I believe a progressive tax is a 'fair' tax. If these 'patriotic millionaires' can affod to pay more taxes and want to, let them! They make more than a vast majority of welfare recipients will ever see in their whole lives!


you want links i am not going to do the work for you do what i and everyone else does use google and the internet to find your own answers not what someone else says.


I will do the work for you and everyone else because people are lazy or just can't google well. We all need to know the facts and not just spout them off on our beloved forums and taken at face value.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   
just depends on what source you beleive

and yeah i was off on 120 milllion vs 150 million but really the government does the number takeing

and with a us population of 310 million at 9,1% is around 28 million unemployed and agian some magic government formula there agian.

your call on what you want to believe.


tell that to cnn and msnbc they were wrong.
edit on 8-6-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 

I think you are, in effect, proving the point of those who claim such as the op insinuated.

When you actually do the math on taxes and incomes, it becomes quite clear that the difference between the rich and poor are directly tied to government regulation and taxation.

Taxation and regulation itself, especially when tied to the corruption we see today, is part and parcel responsible for the major gap between the rich and poor. The lobbyists (AKA the Rich) are able to manipulate the system in any way that benefits those who are able to pay for that privilege.

To prove my point, can you show me how the rich "create the jobs" in America? Can you show me how taxing the rich destroys the economy?

You can't, because it is a misnomer. The rich do not create jobs. The rich invest, but do not for the most part employ.


tell that to cnn and msnbc they were wrong.

What does that add to the conversation? Why must you add talking points to this discussion? Is it because you actually lack facts to back up your claims?Link





edit on 8-6-2011 by sheepslayer247 because: add comment

edit on 8-6-2011 by sheepslayer247 because: add link



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


how do the rich create jobs?

lets take bill gates started a company employes thousands of people himself in turn his product needs people to make and produce his good and services and then that product needs transportation to be distributed to retail outlets that need people to sell his product and then all those people who are earning money from everyone else in the process in turn create more wealth for all the things those people do and it snowballs and snowballs and ends back up that the government as taxes.

now you raise his taxes the first thing to go are the people now those people arent earning as much and the people who earn from them arent earning as much and it snowballs and snowballs and doesnt end back up at the government.


i can i did and i have.

people who employ create wealth. people who work pay taxes people who sit on their butts and collect government checks do not produce anything but take from those who do earn.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 




now you raise his taxes the first thing to go are the people

This is only proof of the greedy, vindictive motive rich people can have when faced with less wealth. It really has nothing to do with taxes. What happens when costs rise? Does he lay people off to protect his income? According to your analogy, he would!



and doesnt end back up at the government.


According to your ideology, why would you want it to end up in government hands? Your statement is either contradictory or hypocritical.


people who employ create wealth. people who work pay taxes


Yep....you're right. I rest my case!



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 





This is only proof of the greedy, vindictive motive rich people can have when faced with less wealth. It really has nothing to do with taxes. What happens when costs rise? Does he lay people off to protect his income? According to your analogy, he would!


oh and those people who say push more taxes off to someone else isnt greedy? yeah yeah tax whoever and whatever not me

man thats garbage.





According to your ideology, why would you want it to end up in government hands? Your statement is either contradictory or hypocritical.


No its not there are two things in certain in life death and taxes just depends if your a special interest you get out of them and others dont.


i wish to god people would learn how to read as i have said numerous times in this thread already

a fair tax everyone pays and everyone pays equally.

the constitution has many protections for property rights ie money and that no persons right superceeds any other person or groups rights.

that means you can not take from me to give to yourself or someone else because all rights in this country are equal.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   
It took us over 100 years to reach 1 trillion in national debt. Over the past 10 (ish) years we've aquired an aditional 8 trillion. This year we will probably stack on another 1.5 trillion (if not more). How exactly would 800 billion over 10 years actually help? Lets just flush that money down the toilet... or better yet, hand it to offshore banks while the Federal Reserve refuses to tell us where our money went.
edit on 8-6-2011 by e11888 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 

OFF topic,

I want to ask

Why are you so pro rich???

You have got to admit, you are ATS's greatest champion for the wealthy, etc...

Are you loaded or something?







 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join