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.

 

When the Progressive Income Tax Rates were high were the Rich or the Wealthy people still Rich did t

page: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
The Progressive's budget is the Ryan plan, but they replace spending cuts with raising taxes in several areas (like raising gas tax 25%), and get ready for it: defense spending. It perfectly outlines how communists in America would deal with a $14 trillion deficit, it's aptly named The People's Budget. So now the Dems have voted against Ryan's budget to stop the debt but not solve it, while also voting against the Obama budget which adds greatly to the problem, so it's clear the Dems don't want to do something, even when that something is nothing, they'd rather name call and kick the can down the road and vote against anything.

Their plan is summed up by a phrase many people have now used: Eat the Rich. The new media mantra is that the "rich" need to pay their "fair share", yet a look at the tax contribution numbers shows how unfairly they already pay. One of the Libs favorite piece of Marxian rhetoric is "shared sacrifice", it's equal to "future" and "millionaires and billionaires", "cutting defense", and their favorite: "safety net". Here's how that works though, from UAFF, Illinois raised it's taxes by 66% (on the "rich"), supposedly this "tax hike is necessary to get the state’s outstanding bills paid. Lawmakers also say cuts and spending limits will be part of the plan." They say cuts and spending limits will also be a part, but it's not, and notice the first thing they did was raise taxes, if R's try to cut they'll be called Hitler, but Dems raising taxes on nearly everyone is compassionate. "In real numbers, if your gross income is $50,000 a year, your state income taxes will rise from $1,500 to $2,500 a year." "As CBS 2′s Susanna Song reports, the tax hike wasn’t sitting well with Chicago residents Wednesday morning. She spoke with dozens of commuters Wednesday and none of them supported the tax increase." "The hike will also boost the corporate income tax rate by nearly 50 percent, from 4.8 percent to 7 percent. In addition to the corporate income tax, many businesses in Illinois pay a 'Personal Property Replacement Tax' of 2.5 percent of income, bumping their corporate tax rate to 9.5 percent."

Here is a WSJ article which clearly points out that confiscating all of the "rich's" wealth would only pay for several months of running the government, then all of the money would be gone. Their confiscated wealth would be around 938 billion dollars, now compare that to Obama's proposed 4 trillion dollar 2012 budget. There were 2.3 trillion dollars in support paid to Americans, yet there was only 2.2 tril in tax revenue, this is the first time since the Depression, yet we're told we need more of a safety net. Sean Hannity lives in the second highest taxing county and is very well paid, so he pays nearly 60% in taxes and must pay union dues, yet to Libs 60% isn't paying his "fair share". The top 10% themselves pay 69% of total income tax, while the top 5% pay more than all the rest of the other 95% combined, and the top 1% pay 38% of taxes. To top it off, 40% of people actually make money off of the government, and as mentioned before, nearly 50% don't pay any income tax. Someone called into a Talk Radio show and said they did their brother's taxes, he paid only around $100 in federal taxes, yet received the ludicrously named Make Work Pay tax credit of $1500, which perfectly describes the welfare state the Libs have hoisted on us.

The top 1% is surprisingly only $388,000 and up, so imagine what the top 10(108K+)-20% are, they are the small and medium business owners and those in high level positions, those responsible for growing the economy. If you make 108,000 you're in the US average top 10%, yet if you were to tell someone living in Manhattan/California this (very high cost of living), they would laugh and think you're crazy. We need to make more people rich, not less people rich, it isn't the top 10% ruining the world, it is more like the top .1% and all of their lackeys (Fortune 100 & Wall St.). These are the "rich" that the Libs always spare, since it includes themselves usually. Here is USA Today, you can check out the percent of people working in each state, the average is that 45.4% of Americans have jobs. This is the lowest rate since 1983, so Libs want to fix that with raising taxes. The Bush tax cuts not only raised considerable tax revenue, but during the time the number of millionaires almost doubled. Even though the taxes were cut, people paid more taxes, this isn't just because of a better economy, but because people didn't have to hide in the tax code or offshore (something Paul Ryan uses in his budget, trading cuts for removing deductions).

So of course there are "rich" Libs who say they should pay more, of course they gave themselves a very Leftist name: United for a Fair Economy. People like Bono and the classic Illuminati like Bernanke, Gates, and Greenspan, have called for higher taxes, many specifically on gas, yet they are all offshore and pay little to no taxes. That's the epitome of what's wrong with high taxes and fixing that with more taxes and spending, the elite and their companies hide their wealth all while constantly outsourcing. Unions and outsourcing (taxes) help destroy our auto industry, then they get bailed out, we don't get paid back, and they use the money to continue massive bonuses (for the hard work of knowingly running the world into the ground) and to purchase new plants in Brazil, China, and Europe. Many of the Illuminati Fortune 100 are making record profits during this black hole economy, that's hard to look past, especially while these "too big to fails" use the slush funds to buy up the smaller companies that couldn't get to the federal trough. So higher taxes completely destroy these smaller companies and hurt the core of America's economy, while these higher taxes don't effect the Fortune 100 nearly as much. This goes along with the lie that Clinton's higher taxes were a part of his succesful economy and balancing the budget, it was really Reagan's uphill work, while battling a Dem congress, which lead to the improved economy (it was terrible when he took office). So Clinton raising taxes actually slowed down this improvement, now the Libs act like it's the fair taxation level, saying that the Bush tax cuts were unfunded. Though according to an AP poll, only 4% felt that taxes were too low, of course Repubs were found to believe they were too high more often.

I'm excited to bring you, from CNS News, video included, "Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told the House Small Business Committee on Wednesday that the Obama administration believes taxes on small business must increase so the administration does not have to 'shrink the overall size of government programs." From Ellmers (R), "'Overwhelmingly, the businesses back home and across the country continue to tell us that regulation, lack of access to capital, taxation, fear of taxation, and just the overwhelming uncertainties that our businesses face is keeping them from hiring...They just simply cannot...Looking into the future, you are supporting the idea of taxation, increasing taxes on those who make $250,000 or more. Those are our business owners." "Geithner initially responded by saying that the administration’s planned tax increase would hit 'three percent of your small businesses.' Ellmers then said: 'Sixty-four percent of jobs that are created in this country are for small business.' Geithner conceded the point, but then suggested the administration’s planned tax increase on small businesses would be 'good for growth.'"

Geithner then went on to explain that if he didn't raise taxes on them, it would be like he gave ("finance"d) small bussiness a "tax benefit", it's exactly like them calling the Bush tax cuts unfunded. "We're not doing it because we want to do it, we're doing it because if we don't do it, then, again, I have to go out and borrow a trillion dollars over the next 10 years to finance those tax benefits for the top 2 percent, and I don't think I can justify doing that." Then he claims that by not raising that money, they'll have to cut spending, so that spending cut will hurt their businesses more than raising taxes. "And if we were to cut spending by that magnitude to do it, you'd be putting a huge additional burden on the economy, probably greater negative economic impact than that modest change in revenue." He goes on to say that by not raising taxes, though he calls it keeping the Bush tax cuts, we'll have to cut programs, education specifically (LoLz), "to levels that we could not accept as a country." "So to do a balanced approach to reduce our deficits you have to make modest changes in revenues...There's no realistic opportunity to do alternatives to doing that."

Then there is the NYT hitpiece, "Budget Talks Near Collapse as G.O.P. Leader Quits": "The Republican maneuvering threw the talks into disarray in a week when those taking part had hoped an accelerated schedule of meetings could produce a breakthrough that would persuade members of both parties to support a debt ceiling increase in the coming weeks." Then we have the NWO super-shills Schumer and Durbin, telling us (HuffPo), "Republicans are sabotaging economic recovery efforts because it will help them win in 2012, Senate Democratic leaders charged Wednesday." "'Unfortunately our Republican colleagues in the House and Senate are driven by putting one man out of work -- President Obama,' Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) declared at a Capitol Hill press conference called the day after Senate Republicans blocked an economic development bill that they have backed in the past. Durbin pointed to remarks made by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), in which he said the top goal of Republicans should be to make Obama a one-term President. "You can see in the way that the Republicans are acting on the floor of the Senate and the House, that is their goal -- their only goal,' Durbin argued. 'They want to play political games at the expense of getting this economy back on its feet,' he said. 'They believe a weak economy is their best chance of winning the next election.'" So now we're being told that the Repubs want to destroy the economy for political gain...wouldn't that just make them Liberals?

I saw an early comment that said to give proof that our "low taxes" were good for the economy, how about we look at how good the proposed tax hikes will be. Obama's budget which received 0 ayes and 97 nayes from the Senate would have added 9.75 trillion to the deficit in 10 years even with raising taxes, that's all that needs said. Even Paul Ryan's plan which lowers taxes and removes deductions doesn't even get rid of the debt in 10 years, it only stops adding to the deficit. Rand Paul's budget claimed to do that in 5 years, yet got no attention. So we basically come to this: there are no easy fixes and all the cures will be vehemontly fought against, by the Dem Senate at the very least. So it seems we have to continue waiting for the Illuminati to be kicked out, replaced with a better government, sound currency and financial system, release of suppressed technology including free energy, and a disclosure and meeting of our Space Brothers. It seems this will be happening by the end of the year, though likely sooner. Pretty soon it seems Greece will have to raise taxes and go through extreme austerity, we're far worse off than them, so the impact should be quite obvious, my guess is it will only weaken the already destroyed economy, just like it would to America.




posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by Schkeptick
 


Yeah.. I'd rather work for 30k, and get taxed.. 12% than make 250k and get taxed 25%.

Because in the end, I'm not making anymore money than the 30k guy..



Take home pay at 30K with 12% tax is $26,400.

Take home pay at 250k with 25% tax is $187,500

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? I would take the $187,000 job without any doubt. Maybe i am the stupid one?

To answer the OP's question, yes the rich manged to stay rich. The 70-90% tax was on income, and not on the wealth they already had accumulated. It simply made it harder for folks to get wealthy enough to compete with the elite. This is one reason that high tax rates don't work. It ends up leaving control of the economy in the hands of the people that have already accumulated the most wealth.

The ideal system in my mind, taxes wealth rather than income. If you spend everything you make then you pay no taxes. Exempt savings up to $1,000,000 in net assets. Then start a progressive wealth tax from there. Max it out at about 3% a year for the very wealthy ($100,000,000 or more). Then replace the corporate tax with a flat tax on revenues of 5% or a national sales tax of 5% (consumers will pay it either way).

I estimate national wealth at $70 trillion ($55 Trillion in 2009) . I estimate you can get about $1.4 Trillion in tax revenue from this. GDP was $15 trillion in 2010 so another $750 billion from this. So this brings us to to $2.15 trillion in annual tax revenue. According the GOA the operating cost to the government was $2.02 trillion in 2010. This differs from the total budget as some of the spending is offset by social security tax, medicaire tax and premiums, user fees, gas taxes, etc.

So we are already where we need to be under this tax plan. As the economy grows and tax revenues rise we can start eliminating our national debt and ultimately be able to lower these already low rates.

Any major objections out there to this plan?



edit on 29-6-2011 by sligtlyskeptical because: Spelling, grammar like usual


Hehe, i'm pretty sure that Schkeptick was being sarcastic.

Hope i'm right



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by lildaddy985
You said it yourself, your family "worked their arses off" to become wealthy. Then you talk about the unfairness of inheritance taxes??? You really must help me understand how much of one's arse is worked off by a dead person giving you money that you didn't earn??? A "handout" is a "handout", if you have something against handouts, you should not accept any money that you didn't work for.


The fact that rich people work really hard to be rich is completely irrelevant.

Taxing them more doesn't prevent them from being rich and successful and having more than everyone else.

It simply creates balance by supporting the infrastructure of the society that they became rich in in the first place.

Rich people couldn't become rich without organized and secure society.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by kettlebellysmith
 


Number 1, I called no names, it is partisan rhetoric. Everything we buy we are taxed upon. I am not a CPA, but do taxes for a living, can tell you where all of the breaks come in. 74 Million people in this country paying no taxes is an out right lie.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
America will continue to be a Global Community experiment, and as such, will be well protected in any global economic catastrophe, even a self inflicted one.

At the very least, it has enough Nuclear Arms to keep itself safe while reforming its internal economic and energy infrastructures.

Say what you will about the dark cabals, they know how to horde supplies.

If some global economic catastrophe were to happen, you can bet that the US will not end up on the bottom of the pile.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
I am trying to come up with an example to show where the tax breaks lie. Am going to try to keep my numbers round here.


I buy an apartment building for 1,000,000.
My gross rents for the year are 100,000
It is 27.5 year commercial real estate, so depreciation, of approximately 30,000 a year.
Now after Depreciation, I have a net income of 70,000
But then I get to deduct all of the other expenses, utilities, security, managers salary, payroll taxes, not to mention maintenance.
So I actually end up with a net loss of about 15,000.
The depreciation is on paper, so this thing has actually cash flowed about 15,000 a year.
But on my taxes I show a 15K loss.
Now it is passive, so it is limited to 3,000, but am allowed to carry the additional forward.
So 12,000 is carried forward to take off of earnings the next year, but I actually made 15,000 off of the building.

So 20 years down the road, I decide to sell the building, it is depreciated to a value of 400,000, so I sell it for a mil. I have 600,000 in capital gains that I have to pay 15% on since it is long term. But wait, I have 240,000 in passive losses carried forward that I can subtract. Now I only have to pay taxes on 360,000, or about 54,000.

Here is the kicker, I have my 1,000,000 dollars back, have made 300,000 that I paid no taxes on, so 1,300,000, and I have to pay 54,000, or about 4% divided by 20 years, damn that is rough. I have simplified this a great deal, but trying to make a point.

It is not the tax rates, it is the tax code and the tax breaks that are the problem.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Seems to me like the Rich is at war with the Middle Class...
edit on 30-6-2011 by SelfSustainedLoner because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
reply to post by kettlebellysmith
 

74 Million people in this country paying no taxes is an out right lie.


Damn straight it's a lie.. There is no way in hell there are 74 Million people who are homeless, or live outside of society.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by spinalremain
reply to post by neo96
 


No
That's another issue. This topic is about progressive tax, and how wealthy people don't want to pay their share.


I'm all ready to pay my share, I'm just waiting for my bail out money to come first before I pay up. Isn't that what the big banks do?


Haha! No, actually they don't repay even after the bailout


2nd



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   
we do not owe taxes. They spent our money without our say where it goes, thus taxation with representation is out the window. They give money to nations so that U.S can have a base there, what a joke we pay to have a base in alot of nations. WHAT, we bribe. OH , most definately. outright theft if you ask me. WHO is running the gov't anyways, THE MOB. Our money goes here there and everywhere and they keep spending and borrowing with no end in sight. They make laws that make the rich richer and more secure. I say we do not owe a dime, the gov't put us in this mess. THEY owe it all. make them pay it all back. I say stop paying your taxes, they do not spend your money in your intentions to help america anyways. I say get rid of bunk laws and useless officials, scrap the constitution and start over.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by spinalremain
 


yeah 74 millions americans are not paying there share but go after the ones who do pay.

NO!


Maybe it's because those 74 million people DON'T HAVE JOBS. You cannot pay out what you do not have. It is simple economics. Just like it's simple economics to know that people who do have a lot of money don't want to pay out and they don't have to.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by cloaked4u
we do not owe taxes. They spent our money without our say where it goes, thus taxation with representation is out the window. They give money to nations so that U.S can have a base there, what a joke we pay to have a base in alot of nations. WHAT, we bribe. OH , most definately. outright theft if you ask me. WHO is running the gov't anyways, THE MOB. Our money goes here there and everywhere and they keep spending and borrowing with no end in sight. They make laws that make the rich richer and more secure. I say we do not owe a dime, the gov't put us in this mess. THEY owe it all. make them pay it all back. I say stop paying your taxes, they do not spend your money in your intentions to help america anyways. I say get rid of bunk laws and useless officials, scrap the constitution and start over.


YOU DO NOT OWE A DIME, you do not owe a dime, you do not owe a dime, you do not owe a dime, you do not owe a dime.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


"To all you baby kittens out there who cry that you've paid into social security and demand to get your moneys worth, get over it. It's not going to happen. Want that free health care? It ain't going to happen Scooter. Try working hard for a change."

Tell you what "Bezzer use kittens who have been forced to pay into SS for over 40 years now have comfort in knowing if it goes belly up because DC has stolen all the money we have lots of ammo and we know who to shoot first and we are so old in your opinion that it will not make any difference in our lives if we are taken out or taken to jail.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   
It appears that many of you here are motivated by jealousy and envy. You have no right to control something that isn't yours (other people's money). Life is not fair nor can you expect it to be in a free and open society. We all have the same opportunities to create wealth. America has many rags to riches stories. This is what makes America a wonderful and desirable place for others to come. Tyranny against the wealthy is not freedom.

The real problem is not taxes, but waste by the government. There are billions missing in Iraq that are unaccounted for, no doubt that Iraqi officials have lined their pockets with this. The government gives billions to Pakistan and they are being used like suckers. I could go on and on, but rest assured the government wastes plenty of tax payer money. They then look to the most successful in society to bail them out. The wealthy had nothing to do with the wasteful government. It is similar to you being married and your wife spends her check on fancy meals, diamond rings, expensive handbags, etc., and when it's time to pay the bills she's broke and yells at you that you need to get a raise. It is totally illogical. She was wasteful and irresponsible, but now it's your fault.

I don't believe in envying some else's success. I don't care if they are worth 250 billion dollars. It is their money! There is a segment of society that is upset by this. This segment is mostly made of socialists, communists, or social justice fanatics. It appears their entire ideology is concerned with the lives of others and how to control them. All the while they have no ideas on how to create wealth, except how to take it from others. That's why these systems don't work. When was the last time you heard of Cuba or North Korea having any innovation in any field. You can't punish people for being successful by taxing them to death. What happens we they stop producing or the next wave of innovators have no incentive to be great?

I believe in a flat tax of 20-25% for everyone. I don't care about your station in life. Everyone pays and there are no tax refunds.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
Why does it matter?
To raise taxes is to take away from some to give to others.
If I go from say $150k a year, taxed at 40%, only to go to $300k a year and then taxed at 50%, then why move up in life? It is punishment.

Very plain and simple.



$150,000 taxed at 40% leaves you with $90,000 per year. $300,000 taxed at 50% leaves you with $150,000 per year. I would think the extra $60,000 would still be a pretty nice motivator.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


But those people are rich enough to go move somewhere else.

The whole point of why everyone should just pay 10% of their worth, no loop holes, no deductions, is because if you unfairly tax the very rich, they simply leave. The people bellow them cannot. They make billions of dollars. More than enough to buy a house on some unknown back-country nation in the middle of no where.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


60,000 /= 150,000

That's the point.

It doesn't matter if you give a child a pretty new volley ball. If there's another one, he wants both. And I'm afraid that adults wont stop crying. Nope, they'll just leave to somewhere they can pay for both and have it.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 
I am actually on your side in this discussion. I was (I guess, unsuccessfully) attempting to highlight the hypocrisy of their argument. The day when it was the lazy and shiftless who were poor has long since passed. There are no success guarantees in America. There are degreed minimum wage workers everywhere.
I am also tired of hearing that millionaires work hard for their money, THEY DON'T!!! Poor people work hard. Sometimes 70 or more hours a week for 400-something dollars a week in take-home, no medical benefits, sweating (sometimes bleeding) and toiling the entire time. These people aren't stupid or lazy (many are college graduates). They are doing what they can and being productive citizens...



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


But those people are rich enough to go move somewhere else.

The whole point of why everyone should just pay 10% of their worth, no loop holes, no deductions, is because if you unfairly tax the very rich, they simply leave. The people bellow them cannot. They make billions of dollars. More than enough to buy a house on some unknown back-country nation in the middle of no where.


Do you truly want to pay 10% of what you are worth? Just think about that You buy yourself a new ford mustang 40,000 bucks and just bought a new home of 250,000 dollars you would be paying 4 grand ayear on the car and 25 grand a year on the house. Is that how you want it?



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
It is a very very easy term to understand, and its simply "Corporate America" AKA "Capitalism". Need I say more? Say what you want about Socialism, we'd be 10x better off.




top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join