Economists Say We Should Tax The Rich At 90 Percent

a reply to: diggindirt

Blah, blah, blah....


Lifes not fair so-

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: diggindirt

Blah, blah, blah....


Lifes not fair so-

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!

Nothing left for you, eh?
You now want to whine about corporate financial policies---and yet you are proposing giving the very government that created the imbalance via legislative loopholes in the first place---more money---so long as it is taken from "the rich."
Oh look, isn't that a cute kitten!

You want my opinion on how to fix this whole situation? Two very simple things: one, prevent the mega-rich from being able to move their assets out of the country to evade taxes. Two, kill the entire concept of stocks and trading non-existent goods. Between those two, you've basically solved most of the issues in the US financial system in one go. And if it means "investment bankers" end up on the streets...good riddance.

a reply to: diggindirt

U r so funny

You might try reading the article I quoted and then read what was being posted to the thread, I hope that you can figure out what was wrong with your reply this time.

Until then...

Blah, blah, blah....

Lifes not fair so-

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!

a reply to: AlaskanDad
I read your article, thus my answer. Who do you think made it possible for those corporations to do what they did? The actions of government legislators. So your proposal to give them more money by looting individual's bank accounts via income taxes is simply ridiculous.
Have you ever sat down and written out a budget? I'm curious because you seem a bit confused about how money is made, saved and invested for gain. Do you routinely spend 10-20% more than you make? Howz that working out for you?

a reply to: diggindirt

I notice no reply as to how my answer fit into the discussion I replied to in the thread, just more of your -
umm brilliance. (:

Blah, blah. blah...


Lifes not fair so-

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!

originally posted by: NavyDoc


However, those higher marginal RATES were nothing near what was actually paid. There were tax shelters and loopholes, long gone, that were used to keep anyone form actually paying those rates.

Loopholes and havens have always been a fact of life amongst the rich. Regardless of how much they actually paid, whatever was collected was sufficient to maintain massive Cold War military commitments, put men on the moon, fund research, and keep civil order and general welfare up without plunging the country into debt. I think we even had more extensive federal programs back then.

However, it still does not explain why there is a correlation between tax cuts for the very wealthy and a steady decline in the American middle class. I think there are a few reasons for the overall drop in the standard of living for Americans, but I can see how massive tax cuts for the wealthy have played a part.

a reply to: ShadeWolf

Two very simple things: one, prevent the mega-rich from being able to move their assets out of the country to evade taxes. Two, kill the entire concept of stocks and trading non-existent goods.

Between those two, you've basically solved most of the issues in the US financial system in one go.

How right you are!

And if it means "investment bankers" end up on the streets...good riddance.

I am sure there is a cell in a private prison that we could rent to them! no free rides!


Lifes not fair so-

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!

originally posted by: diggindirt


Lots of us "normal folk" have unearned income if we've looked beyond next week. Anyone with an investment that pays dividends has unearned income.
That phrase is just another of the buzzwords of the greedy money grubbers to get people to believe that "the elite" are somehow "cheating" by investing their money.

www.socialsecurity.gov...

Did you read my post? Did you actually comprehend what I said.

I said that some normal folks have unearned income but in such a small percentage compared to the wealth that it's laughable. Pensions - they love you putting your money in IRAs & 401Ks and the like so that you think you are "in the game" but you are not.

A majority, perhaps a super-majority of the commons have very little unearned income.

If you do good for you - I hope you can hang on to it. I hear lots of stories about people's 'life savings' that are horrible.

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

originally posted by: NavyDoc


However, those higher marginal RATES were nothing near what was actually paid. There were tax shelters and loopholes, long gone, that were used to keep anyone form actually paying those rates.

Loopholes and havens have always been a fact of life amongst the rich. Regardless of how much they actually paid, whatever was collected was sufficient to maintain massive Cold War military commitments, put men on the moon, fund research, and keep civil order and general welfare up without plunging the country into debt. I think we even had more extensive federal programs back then.

However, it still does not explain why there is a correlation between tax cuts for the very wealthy and a steady decline in the American middle class. I think there are a few reasons for the overall drop in the standard of living for Americans, but I can see how massive tax cuts for the wealthy have played a part.

Well here are a few other factors for wage stagnation in the US that also contribute to massive inequity:

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Better work on your code, most of your quote is missing.

You should read what Xtrozero wrote do a little math, he is talking about taxing the one percent a 100%. If not his 650 million is wrong.


A little fact checking shows:

Federal Income Tax Data, 2011

1,042,571 Income Taxes Paid ($ millions)

Actually I said...

As I said it is spending, but our Government has created the evil rich to keep everyone's mind off the real reason. Do you know that if we taxed everyone 100% over 1 million that would only generate 650 billion, or about 1/3 the deficit for the year.

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!

So what do we do when the "rich" decide to stop working? What do we do when the semi rich decide it isn't worth the effort to continue after they reach their top limit? Someone creates jobs and it isn't the poor that does it. I'm not even talking the super rich that everyone seems to focus on, I'm talking about the guy that provides 10 to 100 jobs.

Do you feel that the rich have been taking jobs from the poor, and that the poor would up-rise and start to work once we get those pesky rich out of the way? Or do you think that jobs would even become less...

a reply to: Xtrozero

My bad on typing millions...

otoh - you did not bother to explain the difference between your claim of:

Do you know that if we taxed everyone 100% over 1 million that would only generate 650 billion

And this:

Federal Income Tax Data, 2011

1,042,571 Income Taxes Paid ($ millions)

1.042.5 trillion

originally posted by: Xtrozero


So what do we do when the "rich" decide to stop working? What do we do when the semi rich decide it isn't worth the effort to continue after they reach their top limit? Someone creates jobs and it isn't the poor that does it. I'm not even talking the super rich that everyone seems to focus on, I'm talking about the guy that provides 10 to 100 jobs.

So what if some quit, those quitters won't deserve to work, they'd be lazy bunch of do-littles. There are others that would happily take their places!

Do you feel that the rich have been taking jobs from the poor, and that the poor would up-rise and start to work once we get those pesky rich out of the way? Or do you think that jobs would even become less...

I see more small businesses where owners try to keep in that lower tax bracket, more like the 50's when there were more mom and pop businesses. Small dinners, mop & pop convenience stores, not every business owner needs multi millions to be happy.

There is no one so important the world can not survive without , ie - we live, we die!

Lifes not fair so-

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!

originally posted by: KawRider9
a reply to: AlaskanDad
Forcing others to pay for your shortfalls seems un-american.

It certainly is and if it were law then many bankers and corporations would not only be broke but billions in debt! Yet they are still rich, even after committing criminal acts because the government bailed them out or gave them awesome tax breaks.
They can invest or loan money with no risk involved anymore.
Society must now pay their gambling losses.
It isn't American, is it?

Question is, how do We The People (er Taxpayers) get back all that stolen money?
A 90% tax rate would be a good start.
Then perhaps graduating down to a flat 10% after a few years.

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

originally posted by: NavyDoc


However, those higher marginal RATES were nothing near what was actually paid. There were tax shelters and loopholes, long gone, that were used to keep anyone form actually paying those rates.

Loopholes and havens have always been a fact of life amongst the rich. Regardless of how much they actually paid, whatever was collected was sufficient to maintain massive Cold War military commitments, put men on the moon, fund research, and keep civil order and general welfare up without plunging the country into debt. I think we even had more extensive federal programs back then.

However, it still does not explain why there is a correlation between tax cuts for the very wealthy and a steady decline in the American middle class. I think there are a few reasons for the overall drop in the standard of living for Americans, but I can see how massive tax cuts for the wealthy have played a part.

Yes, you've nailed it on the loopholes, etc.
What we must remember when looking at correlations is that correlation is not equal to causation. There are plenty of other factors in the decline of the American middle class, not the least of which is the debt they've been convinced they can't live without.
My parents didn't spend a great percentage of their income paying interest on loans and credit cards because they were raised to pay cash for what they bought. Because they were raised that way they attempted to raise me the same way. But between the time they grew up and the time I grew up there was a revolution in both media and finances. By the 1970s both radio and TV were urging everyone within their broadcast range to buy stuff and to apply for the newest in credit cards. A whole herd of us did as we were urged and by the time Jimma left office we were beginning to realize our mistake, at least some of us were.
In an economy where interest rates were in the 20s it was a difficult haul to get out of that debt gully we'd tumbled into but not impossible. I remember quite clearly looking at an amortization schedule of my payments and realizing how much it was costing to be in debt and realizing that I could have been putting that money into a college fund for my kids.
Just recently I sat down with some young relatives to discuss finances. They have recently come into an inheritance and were seeking guidance. Her parents had advised her to use the inheritance to put a down payment on a house rather than paying off the car she bought two years ago. His parents are gone so he has always turned to us for advice and has followed our "no debt" policy.
Now she's a smart lady but has never been taught the first thing about personal finance so when I showed her how paying off her car loan first would increase the amount of money they would save, she was easily convinced. Showing them how to lay out a monthly budget and a multiple year financial plan got both of them fired up. They are both recent college graduates with good jobs---a dangerous time for a lot of young people. The biggest temptation for those just getting out of grad school is to "break free" of that grad school frugality. They try to step from college into the lifestyle their parents have after 20 years of work.
So these young people have a choice; they can continue to live frugally and save money for the things they want or they can go to the bankers and credit card folks and begin borrowing money to have the things that today's culture keeps telling them they MUST have. They can have a very fine life on their double income if all things stay the same. But even they know that all things don't stay the same....jobs change...accidents happen....kids come....and if there is no plan things can crash quickly and hard.
They learned that when his mother (his sole source of help) was killed. Even though he was going through school on academic and sports scholarships, he was in the midst of transferring to a new school and his funds were limited by the fact that he'd spent most of his savings to pay cash for a vehicle to get him to school and work. In a panic that he might not be able to find a job, he took a small school loan to be sure he could pay the rent in their new place. But he made sure to pay it off as soon as he had a job.
Boy oh boy, I wish I had been half as smart when I was that age. I might have ended up rich.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Better work on your code, most of your quote is missing.

You should read what Xtrozero wrote do a little math, he is talking about taxing the one percent a 100%. If not his 650 million is wrong.


A little fact checking shows:

Federal Income Tax Data, 2011

1,042,571 Income Taxes Paid ($ millions)

Actually I said...

As I said it is spending, but our Government has created the evil rich to keep everyone's mind off the real reason. Do you know that if we taxed everyone 100% over 1 million that would only generate 650 billion, or about 1/3 the deficit for the year.

Interesting and scary statistic.

a reply to: diggindirt

Sorry about not reading your entire post. You are correct that correlation is not 'proof' of causation. However is is an indicator.

I'll quote from another thread about an article on GMOs correlating to rising health problems.

Correlation is not proof of causation. But the authors point out "we have data for 22 diseases, all with a high degree of correlation and very high significance. It seems highly unlikely that all of these can be random coincidence.

www.alternet.org...

You cannot dismiss correlation, it does show a definite relationship between data streams and this one is a wopper.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: KawRider9
a reply to: AlaskanDad
Forcing others to pay for your shortfalls seems un-american.

Question is, how do We The People (er Taxpayers) get back all that stolen money?
A 90% tax rate would be a good start.
Then perhaps graduating down to a flat 10% after a few years.

Which stolen money? Did Bill Gates go into the homes of every 99%:er and swipe their bank account clean? Most likely some people are rich because they have provided a product or service that people want and the people happily payed for those services. To develop those services and products the company needed thousands and thousands of workers, hundred of thousands in some cases, people are not forced to buy these products and services but millions and millions of people happily do so because they want or need the services and products.

So some of you "hate" the 1%:ers that have given millions of americans a place to work so they can pay for a roof over their head and put food on the table, for themselves and their families.

Putting a high tax on rich people would probably not have any positive effect what so ever, maybe in short term but definitely not in the long term.

Here in Sweden the government put a "rich tax" into affect and what happened? The rich people moved out of the country, taking all the money with them, we lost Ingvar Kamprad (IKEA) Stefan Persson (H&M) Rausing (Tetra pak) and a lot other, studies done several years after the tax went into affect the result was astonishing, the net income tax to the government had decreased, the unemployment rates had gone up (thanks to the companies also moved out of the country) and a lot of other negative effect.

Taxing rich people 90% does not bring in that much more taxes in the short run either and in the long term it would be much better to make it more affordable for companies to hire unemployed people due to the double whammy (person gets payed for a job that brings in income tax to the government and the person is no longer on welfare)

Also, taxing rich people 90%, what incentive is it for people to create a company that have a multibillion revenue and employees 100´000 people? Basically none, in the long run fewer and fewer people would be employed.

Nothing stops you guys from earning million of dollars by yourself, no rich person is blocking you from doing so, i have seen to many unemployed people on welfare complaining about rich people should get supertaxed and that tax should be spread out to flatten the "inequality" but the persons themselves can never ever imagine lifting one finger to earn the living themselves, they think that everyone should handout everything to them and the same time nothing should be asked in return. I really hate that mentality.

Yes, i think rich people should be taxed more than poorer people, the tax is way to high for some of the poorest income brackets and should be lowered and the taxes for rich people should be raised, but 90% is WAY to high and in the long run will just have negative effects, decreasing the taxes for rich people after a couple of years means that the 90% tax was just a temporary solution and are just risking that rich people put all their future earning into tax paradises instead or moving the companies outside of America and outsourcing even more, 90% taxes does not help America bring back more foreign jobs back to America.


(Waiting for the #storm, nowadays people go bananas as soon as someone event hints at brutal honesty)

a reply to: Asktheanimals

A very good question indeed. But since not all rich folk had a hand in the thievery, I can't see a way to punish only the guilty with a tax. Sometimes justice is elusive....especially when the legislators are wholly-owned by the guilty.
I never understood why we didn't arise in mobs and storm the buildings with pitchforks and tar & feathers when the Saving and Loan debacle happened. How could we be surprised in the latest round?
Yeah, they sent a few of their members to jail and slapped a wrist or two but seriously, did you really think that they wouldn't do it again? and bigger and bolder next time?
Perhaps in this age of technology, it is time to enact a bit more direct democracy---by outlawing lobbyists. If a Congresscritter needs to hear from his constituents, it is as easy as picking up a phone or typing out an email. There is no need to have to pay anyone to make a case to the representatives. They are simply parasites on the society at this point as far as I can tell. Think of the millions that could go toward research and development if these corporations couldn't spend on lobbyists!
Getting rid of that nonsensical idea of a corporate entity being a "person" would be the other step I'd like to see given a chance to work as well.