Economists Say We Should Tax The Rich At 90 Percent

originally posted by: eXia7
In my opinion, it's not about taxing more, as it should be about spending less.

More taxes does not = a better society

Actually it does = a better society. Back when we did tax the wealthy at a higher percentage they reinvested their wealth into the infrastructure of America to get out of paying taxes.

Your a complete idiot if you think the rich pay taxes..

Your view of the rich is the middle class...

a reply to: Nechash

Investments - you mean the hoading of capital and the looting of the poor and middle classes? That is the working definition for investment today.

What is actuall happeing is not investing in 'means of production' (infrastructure) or 'the will to produce' (research & development), nor the desire value those people who produce everything.

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: Nechash

Our government would not be the disaster it is, if not for the billions the rich have flooded into our politicians coffers!

We need a a government for the people, not one that is for corporate profits!

I'll piggyback on this.

We need a government with the person power to serve the public and the capital resources to repair, upgrade and add new infrastructure thoughout the country.

I phoned the CA Secretary of States office for hours this last week - the cuts to the state government have been so deep that I could not reach an actual person after a couple of hours trying. This is preposerous in a, so-called, first world country.

Do you really think big business can run the country? See to the welfare of it's people? Be efficient?

If you do, you are delusional at best.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Iamschist
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Yes that is what you said, but I disagree. It seems harsh and unfair to me. The wealthy do help the rest of us through trickle down economics, and investment. I don't want to hear about foreign investments and outsourcing, even with that plenty of money is still spent domestically. I agree with Nechash don't advocate doing to someone else what you would not want done to you. There is a disparity, and the death of the middle class is definitely not a good thing, to punish someone for being wealthy is not the answer.

Trickle down economics is a fantasy that has never worked. We have been waiting since the 80's for it to start working and it still hasn't started.

I'm sorry you weren't able to take advantage of the fantasy that allowed me to reclaim a part of my taxes and go back to school to change careers. You see, I paid less taxes after the Reagan tax cuts. My boss paid less in taxes after the tax cuts so he could afford to invest more in his employees. We, the employees, in turn, had more disposable income to spend on things like education and even on buying a home in some cases. Those of us who were able to resist living above our means have done quite well in this fantasy world, thank you very much. You may have missed it if you were sitting around waiting for something to happen instead of going out and making it happen. Sorry you missed it. I had quite a few friends back then that just took the extra $30-50/month and failed to invest it so, No, it didn't work for them either.

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: Iamschist

I say tax the 1% at 90% Soros, Gates, Kochs have to much money and it's ruining our political system!

Tax em, they'll not go homeless, nor will they go hungry!

You know those guys are the top .001%. Top one percent would start at 350k, so I guess you want them to be taxed down to 35k...good idea make them get food stamps too, the rich bastards!!!

originally posted by: KawRider9
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Never understood the Robin Hood mindset.

How about leaving your neighbor alone and focusing your attention on making your situation better?

Forcing others to pay for your shortfalls seems un-american.

Just my two round shiney copper peices...

Not helping your neighbor is short-sighted. And everyone is your neighbor.

I think the libertarians call it a 'mutal aid society' or somesuch but, I suspect, they really mean a 'club were we can pick and choose who to help'.

Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!

Here are the top 20 highest paid CEOs:

1. Lawrence J. Ellison, Oracle
2013 Compensation: $76.9M / One-Year Change: -18.7%

2. Leslie Moonves, CBS
2013 Compensation: $65.4M / One-Year Change: 11.1%

3. Michael T. Fries, Liberty Global
2013 Compensation: $45.4M / One-Year Change: 248.2%

4. Richard C. Adkerson, Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold
2013 Compensation: $38.9M / One-Year Change: 125.1%

5. Philippe P. Dauman, Viacom
2013 Compensation: $36.8M / One-Year Change: 11.0%

6. Robert A. Iger, Disney
2013 Compensation: $33.4M / One-Year Change: -8.1%

7. Jeffrey L. Bewkes, Time Warner
2013 Compensation: 32.4% / One-Year Change: 26.9%

8. Mark T. Bertolini, Aetna
2013 Compensation: $31.2M / One-Year Change: 174.9%

9. Fabrizio Freda, Estee Lauder
2013 Compensation: $30.9M / One-Year Change: 140.1%

10. Jeffrey R. Immelt, General Electric
2013 Compensation: $28.2M / One-Year Change: 262.1%

11. Lloyd C. Blankfein, Goldman Sachs
2013 Compensation: $28.0M / One-Year Change: 16.7%

12. Rex W. Tillerson, ExxonMobil
2013 Compensation: $27.6M / One-Year Change: 3.2%

13. Rupert K. Murdoch, 21st Century Fox
2013 Compensation: $25.8M / One-Year Change: 16.9%

14. David N. Farr, Emerson Electric
2013 Compensation: $24.9M / One-Year Change: 284.5%

15. Kenneth I. Chenault, American Express
2013 Compensation: $24.4M / One-Year Change: 10.9%

16. Laurence D. Fink, BlackRock
2013 Compensation: $24.0M / One-Year Change: 11.6%

17. Charles W. Scharf, Visa
2013 Compensation: $23.4M / One-Year Change: N/A

18. Brian L. Roberts, Comcast
2013 Compensation: $22.6M / One-Year Change: 5.7%

19. Alan Mullaly, Ford Motor
2013 Compensation: $22.5M / One-Year Change: 11.2%

20. Trevor Fetter, Tenet Healthcare
2013 Compensation: $22.4M / One-Year Change: 146.4%

source

originally posted by: Xtrozero


You know those guys are the top .001%. Top one percent would start at 350k, so I guess you want them to be taxed down to 35k...good idea make them get food stamps too, the rich bastards!!!

FTA:

A 90 percent top marginal tax rate doesn’t mean that if you make $450,000, you are going to pay $405,000 in federal income taxes. Americans have a well-documented trouble understanding the notion of marginal tax rates. The marginal tax rate is the amount you pay on your income above a certain amount. Right now, you pay the top marginal tax rate on every dollar you earn over $406,750. So if you make $450,000, you only pay the top rate on your final $43,250 in income.

Next time try reading the article you're commenting on, you will not look so foolish!

originally posted by: Iamschist
a reply to: AlaskanDad

In this case two wrongs will not make a right. The issue is not that the rich will not go hungry. The issue for me at least is that taxation should be equatable, for all.

I do believe we have a free economy. You have enormous power with your money. Not buying something, or boycotting a corporation does impact the bottom line and many times will bring about change.

And just how is the current tax system equitable for all? You repeatedly hear people talk of their sceretarys paying higher taxes (as a percentage of income) then they do.

Really - is that equal. Don't think so.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Heres the problem with that... taxes get used to build bombs and prisons not schools and hospitals.

If that changed i might agree with you.

Really? Really?

The common person doesn't not want either. It's the wealthy that want endless war and full prisons. I agree with you about government spending priorites and believe that a progressive tax system might just help pull the countries priorities back to helping people rather then just killing them or stashing them away at great expense.

Who makes money from these endeavors? Not the commons.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Economists Say We Should Tax The Rich At 90 Percent

Taking from others simply because they have more or are more successful than you are ... that's called THEFT. The only fair tax is a flat tax. The ol' 10% flat tax so no one gets rewarded or punished for whatever their income level is. Also - no sense in stealing that money and handing it over to corrupt politicians. That would be useless.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

And taking from the poor and middle class is called what???? Praying on their limited (budget cut) education for your own good???

Any income over 1 mil should be taxed at 90%

sounds all fine and dandy tax the ritch more ...

but umm is it only me whos see what our goverment dose with tax money

might aswell make a law that the ritch has to build a army on there own dime and go bomb the # outa some poor nation

yea giving our goverment more money is not the anser will never be untell they stop spending it on war and start spending it on the people

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Iamschist
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Yes that is what you said, but I disagree. It seems harsh and unfair to me. The wealthy do help the rest of us through trickle down economics, and investment. I don't want to hear about foreign investments and outsourcing, even with that plenty of money is still spent domestically. I agree with Nechash don't advocate doing to someone else what you would not want done to you. There is a disparity, and the death of the middle class is definitely not a good thing, to punish someone for being wealthy is not the answer.

Trickle down economics is a fantasy that has never worked. We have been waiting since the 80's for it to start working and it still hasn't started.

I'm sorry you weren't able to take advantage of the fantasy that allowed me to reclaim a part of my taxes and go back to school to change careers. You see, I paid less taxes after the Reagan tax cuts. My boss paid less in taxes after the tax cuts so he could afford to invest more in his employees. We, the employees, in turn, had more disposable income to spend on things like education and even on buying a home in some cases. Those of us who were able to resist living above our means have done quite well in this fantasy world, thank you very much. You may have missed it if you were sitting around waiting for something to happen instead of going out and making it happen. Sorry you missed it. I had quite a few friends back then that just took the extra $30-50/month and failed to invest it so, No, it didn't work for them either.

Hate to break it to you but if Reagan hadn't given those breaks to the wealthy our nation wouldn't be in the shape it is now. Because of those breaks he had to borrow money like crazy from the Fed Reserve and was the first President to drive our debt in excess of a trillion. Also by the sound of it you weren't even making enough to be part of the people that were paying the upper income taxes anyways. It was those tax breaks that screwed this nation over not the breaks to the people on the bottom like you.

a reply to: markovian

That has already been discussed in the thread:


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Edit: If the rich had less money to corrupt our political system, the people would have more influence with our law makers.

Sigh, the government taxes gasoline enough by itself to manage the government.. Their is just to much wasteful spending and broken policy in D.C..

I live in a state that does not have income tax, and we are doing pretty good..


Just imagine how much the federal government is taxing gasoline, and imagine all the people in this country with cars..




Remember the SUV era that was back during a stimulated economy...

Irony I suppose..

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: markovian

That has already been discussed in the thread:


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Edit: If the rich had less money to corrupt our political system, the people would have more influence with our law makers.

hmm fair point but how to fix that now they have alot of weath and there no way we can tax it out of them

a reply to: FyreByrd and a reply to: buster2010

If there is no trickle down, how do you explain one of highest standards of living in the world? What does having employees have to do with anything? Trickle down is not about employees, it is about all of us.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I did not say it is equatable, I said I believe that it should be.

The issue for me at least is that taxation should be equatable, for all.