I figured out why Boehner and the republicans do not want to tax the wealthy.

reply to post by Bicent76


As they say, it takes one to know one, I bow to your expertise.

Obama wasn't my first choice, but he has done far better than I expected.

Considering the mess GW made, it is an accomishment that things aren't far worse.

The left has their problems, but pretending that the ICBs are not the primary force behind this mess is just signing up to get fooled again. The ICBs are the super rich, and they should pay to clean up this mess.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Bicent76

 

As they say, it takes one to know one, I bow to your expertise.

Obama wasn't my first choice, but he has done far better than I expected.

Considering the mess GW made, it is an accomishment that things aren't far worse.

The left has their problems, but pretending that the ICBs are not the primary force behind this mess is just signing up to get fooled again. The ICBs are the super rich, and they should pay to clean up this mess.

Do you know why Obama didn't raise taxes on the 1%? Because he easily could have.

reply to post by Corporate Providence


We have done far better, and not that long ago, and we could do far better, by sticking to what works.

The WW II gen knew what to do, high taxes on the rich buggers, tight regulations on corporations, which is exactly what the revolutionary generation did, strict and limited immigration rules, and treaties that protect the workers.

Reinstate laws against usury, high interest rates, and start going after corrupt business practices so that honest business can be conducted once again.

It has worked in the past, and it can work again.

reply to post by poet1b


Simple. Find the correlation between higher taxes creating a better quality of life. You keep saying the 60s and the 90s. My chart goes over the 90s US and shows no distinct correlation as when taxes go up the GDP Per capita does not. The claim was made by you concerning your "certain fact" so the onus is on you to substantiate the claim and provide the evidence.

Either prove it, show the class the evidence, or retract it. Don't just claim it, SHOW it.

Of course they do not want to raise taxes on the wealthy, because that would mean their taxes would go up. Despite the fact that the richest people in the US already screw the population out of their money one way or another, usually by jacking up prices and cutting costs by outsourcing jobs, which screws over citizens again by taking jobs away, they pay the least in taxes as far as percentage of earnings are concerned.

Originally posted by WaterBottle
I can't believe people are still believing in trickle down economics. Open your eyes, nothing is trickling down. The wealthy hoard the money and invest it in 3rd world nations because they want to be able to pay slave wages.

It was called voodoo economics for a reason.

I just had to throw this in. I was telling my boss how trickle down economics didn't work because employers never gave any of the money to their employees, they just kept the extra money they got from the tax relief. The next day there was a check for $100 on my chair and a note that said "Thanks for doing such a good job"

My boss laid off myself and the other higher paid Project Managers and kept the new lower paid guys. His company went tit's up the next year and he had to file Chapter 11.

75% of Americans don't know what % means.

This could be aimed at a few here

reply to post by conspiracy nut


You need to consider that these cuts just bring us back down to 2009 spending levels. The Federal Goverment needs to rein it in my man!

You dont get to have our FN guns, and its already unfair that what I pay in goes right back out as a EIC credit. Next time you are rude to someone at the Walmart remember that they might have paid for that new car of yours, not the Federal Goverment!

The GOP did end the Bush era Tax cuts for those making $250,000 or higher. This is not enough for the WH as they just want a blank check and expect us to lay down and pay for it. How is that ok? I think you should be askig why they will cut education before touching foriegn aid to Israel et al!

I guess the 15 million people that live in Israel really need the billions in US aid every year, but really should we put their needs before our own?

reply to post by GreenGlassDoor


Your chart shows nothing at all, except you dont understand charts or rates of change.

Here is a link that proves you wrong.

www.perkel.com...

Under President Clinton's leadership, almost 6 million new jobs were created in the first two years of his Administration -- an average of 250,000 new jobs every month.
In 1994, the economy had the lowest combination of unemployment and inflation in 25 years.
As part of the 1993 Economic Plan, President Clinton cut taxes on 15 million low-income families and made tax cuts available to 90 percent of small businesses, while raising taxes on just 1.2 percent of the wealthiest taxpayers.
President Clinton signed into law the largest deficit reduction plan in history, resulting in over $600 billion in deficit reduction. The deficit is going down for 3 years in a row for the first time since Harry Truman was president.

Ok, Clinton cut taxes on the lower classes, and raised taxes on the top 1.2%.

Sounds like the prescription we need. Lower the cost of US workers, and increase the cost of the bankers. More money to goods and services, less money to Wall Street casinos.

reply to post by Donkey_Dean


I agree, we need to further cut gov spending.

Raise taxes on the rich, cut taxes on the workers to make US workers more attractive to investors.

reply to post by conspiracy nut


You are wrong. I'm actually am a auditor and I review income. The 1% pays more taxes than anyone else. The ones that don't pay any taxes are the .0000000001%. THey are exempt from taxes period. Doesn't matter if u raise taxes by 100% it doesn't effect them. I was actually surprise when I review some of these people income. They are the globalist bankers. In fact, these are the people who lobby for more taxes because it would bankrupt their competition which enables them to monopolize the economy. They are also the ones that get stimulus and insider contracts. They want more taxes to pay for their programs. Obama is executing their agenda to perfection, then he blames it on rich, which is a cover story to tax more. It's pretty disgusting when u know the truth and see the deception at hand.

If you read history then u would know it's these types of people are the same ones that fund Stalin and Mao because if u control the leaders then u can easily monopolize economies through government run programs.

The problem with raising taxes is that it will generate less revenue because companies can hire less people or move their business offshore to avoid taxes. Before JFK slashed taxes and he generated more revenue. I believe the government knows this, but they want more taxes intentionally to keep people poor and dependent on government for assistance like welfare for more control. It's a domestication agenda.

reply to post by poet1b


One data point? Seriously?

So, let's just cut to the chase. You won't believe me, so let's just go with what the Congressional Research Service says:

The scattered points, however, generally are not close to the fitted values line indicating that the
association between GDP growth and the top tax rates is not strong. Furthermore, the observed
positive association between real GDP growth and the top tax rates shown in the figure could be
coincidental or spurious because of changes to the U.S. economy over the past 65 years. The
statistical analysis using multivariate regression (reported in Table A-1) does not find that either
top tax rate has a statistically significant association with the real GDP growth rate.

Catch that? "The statistical analysis using multivariate regression (reported in Table A-1) does not find that either top tax rate has a statistically significant association with the real GDP growth rate."

Seems your conjecture is inconsistent .: not a fact.

When the rate of the tax increases the percentage of change in GDP per capita would increase with it. My chart shows that doesn't happen. There is no correlation between higher taxes on the rich and increasing the GDP. In fact, in the case of your beloved Germany, the per capita GDP varied widely while the upper marginal tax rate stayed consistent.

Seems you still don't understand rates of change or graphs.

You're not trained in the sciences, are you?

reply to post by conspiracy nut


Yeah none of the democrats are rich, and besides they're democrats so they're all honest and good.

You frickin Idiot

reply to post by conspiracy nut


You give a link to the claims of a man whose main argument is "the unequal distribution of wealth" and you want to claim this has nothing to do with communism?...

The whole argument of that man"Alan Dunn" is the argument of socialism/communism about "equal distribution of wealth"...

BTW, did you even know that the United States has the HIGHEST corporate taxes in the world? That's ONE of the main reasons why so many jobs have been going overseas for so long...

World's Highest Corporate Tax Rate Hurts U.S. Economically


By Joseph Mason
April 2, 2012 RSS Feed Print

Joseph Mason is the Moyse/LBA Chair of Banking at the Ourso School of Business at Louisiana State University and a senior fellow at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

United States-based companies and hardworking Americans face a steadily growing problem, one oddly self-imposed by Uncle Sam. Our current tax system puts businesses and workers at a competitive disadvantage in the global market and discourages companies from investing in operations here at home.

On Sunday, April 1, Japan lowered its corporate tax rate, leaving the United States with the highest effective rate among developed countries: 39.2 percent.

[Read the U.S. News debate: Is Obama's Corporate Tax Plan A Good Idea?]

Under the "worldwide" tax system the United States employs now, companies' profits generated abroad are subject to taxes both domestically and in the country they were earned. Certain provisions are built into the tax code to alleviate that burden, but even those protections are being challenged by members in Congress who seem ensconced on repealing these important incentives for U.S. industry. According to a 2011 Business Roundtable report:

American companies can face a tax rate on their remitted foreign earnings a full 16 percentage points higher than the rate faced by their foreign competitors.
...

www.usnews.com...

The so called claim that "equal distribution of wealth solves everything" it's only a claim, and a lie to get people to believe in socialism and communism...

MAYBE you might not be socialist or communist, but this argument you presented from that link is the argument of socialism/communism.... It has ALWAYS been the argument of socialists and communists, yet you want to claim the oposite?...

Oh and btw, I do not own any business, nor own stocks, and I am not rich either... but I was born and raised part of my life in a country that completely embraced the claim/idea of "equal distribution of wealth" which only led to a socialist/marxist dictatorship as has happened, and is happening in many countries around the world...

One more thing, this argument about "unequal distribution of wealth" is not really even about the "1%", but rather businesses in general. The new, and old socialists/communists ALWAYS claim that "distribution of wealth" only affects the "1%" when in fact their argument includes regular business people who are NOT part of the 1%...

Watch, and listen to this video on the ideas that these new socialists/communists have, and more to the point and the real problem of this argument about "equal distribution of wealth", pay MORE attention to what these guys have to say starting at 3:01 minutes in the video. They include ALL business owners INCLUDING small and medium business owners, most who are not really rich, as being "part of the problem"...










Oh and btw, have the "new socialists/communists" not found out yet what "taxing more and more businesses really do to a country"?...

I love how the "new/old socialists/communists" ALWAYS claim their arguments have nothing to do with socialism and communism, when the truth is the oposite...

The Occupy Wall Street demonstrators may have lost some of their headline cachet over the past few months, but they are aiming to reclaim the limelight with a revitalized “Occupy Spring” campaign, with special emphasis on a major May Day offensive on May 1 that includes calls for a “general strike” nationwide.

A “May Day 2012” print and Internet flyer (pictured at left) put out by May Day New York City (MayDayNYC) declares:

MAY DAY 2012
OCCUPY WALL STREET STANDS IN SOLIDARITY
WITH THE CALLS FOR A DAY WITHOUT THE 99%

WHEREEVER YOU ARE
NO WORK
NO SCHOOL
NO HOUSEWORK
NO SHOPPING
...
The “May Day Coalition” the Voice refers to is actually the MayDayNYC group that put out the above-mentioned general strike flyer. And MayDayNYC is just another name for the May 1st Coalition for Worker and Immigrant Rights, which is headquartered at 55 West 17th Street, #5C, New York, NY 10011. Which just happens to be the same address as the International Action Center (IAC) — and the same address as the Workers World Party (WWP), a revolutionary communist party with its own peculiar Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyist ideology and party line. Not only do all the above-mentioned groups occupy the same address, but all are run pretty much by the same Workers World Party staff. Which is another way of saying that the organizations are merely fronts for the WWP.
...

thenewamerican.com...

The argument of "redistribution of wealth" is also an argument in favor of the abolition of ALL private property, since in order to "equally distribute all wealth" then the STATE/government would have to OWN ALL PROPERTY to then distribute the wealth how those in POWER, CLAIMING to be the workers under a socialist/communist system, see fit...

In conclusion, the argument in favor of "the equal distribution of wealth" is an argument to abolish ALL private property, since this would be the only way for "supposedly" no one owning any companies or businesses except the state, and in general it is an argument in favor for the implementation of a socialist/communist/fascist government and economic system despite claims to the contrary...

And last but not least, here is what happens in one of the latest countries in which the government is forcing prices on businesses to SUPPOSEDLY "distribute wealth equally"...

Fight over food raises stink before Venezuela vote


Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:18pm EDT

* Chavez declares war on hoarders

* Rotting food undermines campaign

By Esteban Israel

CARACAS, June 18 (Reuters) - Mountains of rotting food found at a government warehouse, soaring prices and soldiers raiding wholesalers accused of hoarding: Food supply is the latest battle in President Hugo Chavez's socialist revolution.

Venezuelan army soldiers swept through the working class, pro-Chavez neighborhood of Catia in Caracas last week, seizing 120 tonnes of rice along with coffee and powdered milk that officials said was to be sold above regulated prices.

"The battle for food is a matter of national security," said a red-shirted official from the Food Ministry, resting his arm on a pallet laden with bags of coffee.

It is also the latest issue to divide the Latin American country where Chavez has nationalized a wide swathe of the economy, he says to reverse years of exploitation of the poor.

Chavez supporters are grateful for a network of cheap state-run supermarkets and they say the raids will slow massive inflation.

Critics accuse him of steering the country toward a communist dictatorship and say he is destroying the private sector.

They point to 80,000 tonnes of rotting food found in warehouses belonging to the government as evidence the state is a poor and corrupt administrator.

Jose Guzman, an assistant manager at a store raided in Catia, watched with resignation as government agents pored over the company's accounts and computers after the food ministry official and the television cameras left.

"The government is pushing this type of establishment toward bankruptcy," said Guzman, who linked the raid to the rotten food scandal. "Somehow they have to replace all the food that was lost, and this is the most expeditious way."

WASTED FOOD

Much of the wasted food, including powdered milk and meat, was found last month in the buildup to legislative elections in September. The scandal is humiliating for Chavez, who accuses wealthy elites of fueling inflation and causing shortages of products such as meat, sugar and milk by hoarding food.
...

www.reuters.com...

It is always ironic, and sad, that socialists/communists have always claimed that "capitalism is what causes these problems" when in fact when the socialists/communists take control it is THEIR SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST policies the ones that cause EVERYONE, including the poor to really go hungry, but like always even when they have THE POWER, they claim "it is the capitalists who are causing this"...

The same happened, or is happening in Cuba, the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Burma/Myanmar, Venezuela etc, etc, etc...

When are people going to learn to put the blame where it is really do?...

Originally posted by TheWrightWing
reply to post by conspiracy nut

 

It couldn't be that the "1%" pay well over 40% of all Federal Taxes, could it?

Is this what the left means by "Fair Share"? Sounds like State Approved looting to me.

How about everyone paying their Fair Share, including the nearly 50% who pay Zero taxes, but who can vote for other people's taxes raised even more? They'll soon be the majority, and workers will become enslaved by the entitlement class, by working harder, earning less to provide the entitled even more "free stuff" they vote for.

Flat tax for all would nearly eliminate the IRS, and everyone, yes EVERYONE would pay their Fair Share with the added bonus of having skin in the game.

Or, better yet, abolish the Federal Reserve and re-instate Taxes on Profit only. Reminder: Wages are not Profit, they are a fair trade.

LOLOL! Do you actually think about what you say before you say it? By chance, do you remember a time when you bumped your head really really REALLY hard? I think you may have actually damaged the part of your brain which processes rational reasoning. For your sake, I would encourage you to make an appointment with a neurologist asap.

reply to post by GreenGlassDoor


Wow, you can't even read your own post.

The scattered points, however, generally are not close to the fitted values line indicating that the
association between GDP growth and the top tax rates is not strong.

"Is not Strong" means the evidence is in fact there that increased tax rates from GW era rates do demonstrate a correlation with economic growth.

And you missed this part.

Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s; today it is 15%. The real GDP growth rate averaged 4.2% and real per capita GDP increased annually by 2.4% in the 1950s. In the 2000s, the average real GDP growth rate was 1.7% and real per capita GDP increased annually by less than 1%. There is not conclusive evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. The share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. The evidence does not suggest necessarily a relationship between tax policy with regard to the top tax rates and the size of the economic pie, but there may be a relationship to how the economic pie is sliced.

Tax rates of the upper level do result in redistribution of wealth, into the pockets of the super rich.

reply to post by amfirst1


i'm wrong about what? that politicians are not part of the 1%? that politicians, in this case republicans specifically, don't want to raise taxes because they themselves would then have to pay more taxes? that raising taxes would not be in their or their masters best interests?

i hate to keep bringing up partisan arguments but the last republican president to balance the budget was eisenhower and he refused to lower taxes for the wealthy, he spent money to create jobs, he paid down the debt, which is more than i can say for any other president since then besides maybe bill clinton who also balanced the budget, albeit w a republican controlled congress.