Super rich pay no taxes

reply to post by dragonridr


These international corporations rape third world countries with the aid of the US Military and CIA hidden budgets, and they plan on putting the bill on future generations of taxpayers. Exactly what do you think is right about this?

They ICs don't pay taxes going, while they are there, nor when they get back.

The free market solution is to stick middle class Americans with the bill, for expenditures that the ICs want, that they had their DC puppetts put into the budget.

reply to post by charles1952


When it comes to police protection. It should be proportional to ones wealth, not income. Why should someone who spends their ince on wiser things than sports car bling be expected ti pay for such bling? It is time we bring back the wealth tax.

No the people actually on welfare, which is a small part of the budget can not pay higher taxes. Welfare is something we should all pitch in to pay in proportion to our income. But welfare should not be just a hand out. Repubs created the welfare ghettos on purpose under the Nixon program to convince a lot of suckers to blame all of our problems on welfare mothers.

Medicaid has been turned into a huge subsidy program for illegal immigration, from which giant corporations benefit. What we need to do is get rid of the private insurance scam.

Most of the bottom half of income earners are either students, military personnel, young people just starting out, or retirees. The whole fifty percent paying no taxes is just another piece of propaganda nonsense that completely distorts the reality. Most of these people will spend most of their lives pay enough taxes.

Lastly, goods shipped around the planet from slave labor sources should reflect the true cost of shipping, and the mitary to protect that international trade. Then it would be a fair competition for local manufacturers and small business. For any other reason, this is why we need to make the ICs pay for their share of government support.

reply to post by charles1952


No, fulllotusqigong is staying on course proving you wrong ever step of the way, while you keep trying to change the subject using the same propaganda nonsense put out by repubs for decades.

Most of what the Fed, State, and local governments do is support the interests of big business. They have written more and more regulations to eliminate the rights and liberties of individuals, while eliminating the rules that keep businesses in check.

And they expect the middle class to pay for the government whose cost and actions almost exclusively supports the interests of the super rich.

reply to post by fulllotusqigong


Thanks for the excellent contributions. It is sad how many people support tax policies that are against their own best interest based on propaganda lies.

At some point in time, the US middle class need to take a stand and defend themselves against the assault coming from the wealthy class and the International Corporations that are destroying them.

reply to post by poet1b

Dear poet1b,

I suppose I should go through your responses one paragraph at a time, until one or both of us surrenders to boredom. OK, 1st Paragraph, 1st Response.

It is time we bring back the wealth tax.

Current proposals for a wealth tax go beyond taxes on particular assets, like land or housing, and envisage a much broader tax that includes financial wealth, like stocks and bonds. I only say “broader” since a viable wealth tax would still exclude wealth in the form of human capital, the most important form of capital in modern economies, and the source of wage and salary incomes. Since the richest one percent of households on average get about half their incomes from wages and salaries (the remaining 99% get almost all their income from human capital), much of the true wealth of the rich would escape a wealth tax.

Another major problem with even a small tax rate on wealth is that it implies a very high tax rate on savings. Consider a constant 2 percent tax on wealth, and suppose that a household saves $10,000 out of its income to raise its future wealth. A one year 5% return on these savings would increase its before tax wealth next period by $10,500. Since a 2 % wealth tax on $10,500 would leave an after-tax value of just $10, 290, such a wealth tax would reduce the after-tax return form 5% to only 3%, a 40% reduction.

So what seems like a small tax on wealth of only 2% is the equivalent of an income tax on savings of 40%. Presumably, this would discourage savings and increase consumption, whereas sustained higher long-term growth in GDP requires greater, not lesser, savings. As I mentioned earlier, the discouragement to savings of an income (or wealth) tax is a major reason why consumption taxes are better.

Wealth taxes have several other serious problems in addition to their negative effects on savings. It is almost impossible to value accurately many sources of tangible wealth, such as the value of privately owned businesses, so that an actual wealth tax would be rather narrow. Moreover, forms of wealth that can be most easily valued because they have good asset markets, such as stocks and bonds, can be moved across countries, and hidden through complex arrangements of assets.

Therefore, I conclude that a general tax on wealth is undesirable because it is both inefficient and ineffective. A feasible wealth tax is dominated by consumption taxes, including even progressive consumption taxes, and by inclusive income taxes.

And Gary Becker is a huge name in economics. But forget that, consider his arguments.
www.becker-posner-blog.com...

With repect,
Charles1952

reply to post by poet1b


Yeah that poster has a lower chakra blockage from what I can read -- it means his brain is hard-wired to be wrong. He's mind controlled. This is just my opinion of course. But I would avoid him like the plague.

Political views are "hard wired" by the end of puberty -- but some people get it right and some people get it wrong. A progressive tax on wealth has been known since the beginning of the Greek Empire!!!! 500 BCE. So what is happening now, is as you say, not sustainable -- there will have to be a wealth tax again or else the Empire of the U.S. will be destroyed.

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong

O.K. so the poor people get a "tax credit" of 15% but their net income does not or barely covers their basic expenses.

But the very rich -- their huge income is not spent on goods and services - instead it's "invested" in speculation -- they don't SPEND it so it doesn't stimulate the economy -- it goes into financial products -- derivatives and gambling.

You are incorrectly claiming that stocks and bonds are equivalent to household goods and services. They're not.

Stocks and most assuredly bonds, at least Muni Bonds are investments in Goods and Services. Are there crazy financial derivatives out there? Sure. But for the most part, wealth is invested in either real estate or Stocks, Bonds and Mutual funds. You don have to spend in order to stimulate the economy. I recently added three new locations to my business, are you claiming I didn't' stimulate the economy by that action? Most every business and product is the result of investment, regardless of your claim to the contrary.

Give a person with a poor person mindset $10,000 and all they will do is figure out a way to spend it. Give a person with a rich mindset the same $10,000 and they will figure out a way for that $10,000 to make them $40,000. It truly is a vastly different mindset.

How exactly in your worldview does commerce actually occur? You seem to think those who have wealth do nothing but just sit around doing nothing and contributing nothing. Does a person with 2 Million Dollars invested in stocks who doesn't work and just lives off dividends, someone to be admired or despised? Where do all the companies come from that create our economy? It's not the Government. It's not the poor. Please enlighten me with your economics on this matter. While your at it, define "speculation". To me, it seems that you think speculation is the rich automatically making money. Does speculation ever not work? What exactly are they speculating on?

reply to post by fulllotusqigong

Dear fulllotusqigong,

I do understand the temptation to call me names, I do it, too but not in print. But is the solution really to ignore me and my arguments? Wouldn't it be better to show me my errors, and not simply rail against my stupidity.

A progressive tax on wealth has been known since the beginning of the Greek Empire!!!! 500 BCE. So what is happening now, is as you say, not sustainable -- there will have to be a wealth tax again or else the Empire of the U.S. will be destroyed.

I watched your video and am prepared to comment on it. The speaker never mentioned a wealth tax, he defended the progressive tax. But defended it against whom? I don't reject it, Republicans don't reject it, so what is the purpose of defending it if no one is attacking it.

You say that without a wealth tax, the "Empire" of the US will be destroyed. I don't know what you meaan by Empire, but I do know that there is not a lot of support for the position that a wealth tax is the only way to save the country. Did you have the time to read the material from Gary Becker in my last post? I'd be happy to discuss it with you.

Please give the matter a little thought. If the movement for a wealth tax ignores (insultingly) everybody who is opposed to it currently, how will the movement ever win new people over? And it does need to win new people over, the number of its current supporters seem tiny.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


I'm sure he gets paid well to write propaganda for wealthy institutions.

Getting the wealthy to start spending is exactly what needs to happen.

reply to post by pavil


When someoneakes reasonable investments, it is all fine and dandy.

When they earn their money by flipping houses and artificially driving up the cost of housing it is pure criminal activity that should be outlawed.

I think taxing the uber rich is a great idea, But what also needs to be addressed is the poor. Everything in my neck of the woods falls in two categories..#1. Either your rich and squander money like it grows on trees, Or..#2 Your poor and you get nearly everything for free. Can't pay your electric and gas? HEAP will. Can't afford a cell phone? Safelink will give you one. How about school? FREE! Hmm, oh you need rent? Have no fear, Belmont is here. You know what? That's not enough either. How about we throw you in some welfare to feed ya, Some medicaid too because you need your fix via prescription pills that your only going to sell anyways. Such a huge burden of debt is created through these programs. If your low income...get on the gravy train, the middle class will steam you forward. The rich are only half the problem.

reply to post by Ragemanifest


Wow, you must live in Candy Land, cause I don't know any place like that.

Must be where they are handing out $10,000 to people to see if they will invest the money or blow it on bling.

reply to post by poet1b




Here's a documentary on Candyland

The IRS is expected to take in over two trillion dollars this year. Nearly 40% of that total will go to military-related expenses — this according to a new report by the National Priorities Project. The research group estimates 27% of your federal taxes will be pay for current military spending, including the war in Iraq. An additional 9% will help pay off debt from past wars and military expenses. Another 3% covers benefits for veterans. While Pentagon spending is reaching the highest levels since World War II, some Americans are personally refusing to fund the military. Tax resisters across the country are planning to withhold part or all of their taxes to protest the war.

War and Taxes: With 40% of IRS Revenue Going to Military, Resisters Prepare to Withhold Taxes to Protest War





Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,650 billion MILITARY: 54% and $1,449 billion NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1,210 billion for 2009

reply to post by fulllotusqigong


And most of that military spending supports the ICs, so that includes interest on the debt. Then Medicaid subsidizes illegal immigration, which lowers wages. Many small businessmen think that works in their favor, when the reality is that higher paid workers translates into higher profits for small business.

Meanwhile the rich borrow money essentially interest free, and charge the rest of us up the wazoo.

reply to post by fulllotusqigong

Dear fulllotusqigong,

I don't quite understand the point that you and the video are making. Here's my confusion. If we are only going to consider the money collected by the IRS, then roughly half of Americans are paying nothing at all and the rich are paying a ton (excuse the technical economic term ) I thought that was the way you wanted the system to work?

If tax resisters all around the country are protesting this, they must be from the higher income half, because they're the only ones paying for it. So we have a situation where the lower income half get whatever benefits they get without paying anything into the system. For example, the gas tax is not collected by the IRS, but roads are open to everybody.

Or, did you want to consider all of the taxes that the government collects and decides how to spend?

See where you've got me confused?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Once again the half that do not pay taxes are school kids and retirees.

It is really sad how completely brainwashed so many people are.

Rich people do not pay all the taxes, that is a total lie. 1 in 10 people are not rich, nor are 1 in a 100. The rich are 1 in a 100,000, and that tiny group gets most of the advantages of our huge fed expenditures.

What I don't understand is why so many suckers support such a system.

reply to post by Ragemanifest


Yeah, people on welfare have the best lives. Living rent free in their mansions and getting 5 full free healthy meals a day with free cell phones for a whole 200 minutes a month and the worst part, their kids get to go to school for free just like rich kids. I know I wish I was on welfare.

I just came back from a whole town that was sponsored by Rockefeller...including day care centers, hospitals, cathedrals...you gotta admire rich philanthropists. Not only do they give the world the most in infrastructure, economy and industry but in addition to that they donate funds beyond our wildest dreams. We have the super rich to thank for so much.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Wow, where is this town?

Do they let just anyone in?

reply to post by poet1b


Look up Rockefeller donations, buildings, hospitals, towns all over normal America. The stuff this guy gave to society is awesome.