TAX THE RICH!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2011 3:33 AM GMT
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_usa_taxes_poll

    Most Americans (61%!) say TAX THE RICH to balance the budget.
    Exactly what the Repubs don't want to do.

    And the second option Americans choose for balancing the budget is cutting defense spending.
    ALSO something the Repubs don't want to do.

    It's MORE proof that those who think the country moved sharply to the right in 2010 are WRONG.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2011 5:50 AM GMT
    Eat the Rich!

    The poorest should get the first succulent morsel.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2011 6:00 AM GMT
    GAMRican saidEat the Rich!

    The poorest should get the first succulent morsel.


    Google Sweeney Todd ;)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2011 5:31 PM GMT
    But the American people also want jobs, so they are going to have to decide. We'll see what happens in 2012
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2011 5:34 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    rickrick91 saidhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_usa_taxes_poll

    Most Americans (61%!) say TAX THE RICH to balance the budget.
    Exactly what the Repubs don't want to do.

    And the second option Americans choose for balancing the budget is cutting defense spending.
    ALSO something the Repubs don't want to do.

    It's MORE proof that those who think the country moved sharply to the right in 2010 are WRONG.


    Why don't we just outlaw the rich, RickRick?


    DEATH TO THE RICH! Burn 'em, burn 'em
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Jan 04, 2011 5:36 PM GMT
    Tax everyone.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2011 5:46 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    southbeach1500 said
    rickrick91 saidhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_usa_taxes_poll

    Most Americans (61%!) say TAX THE RICH to balance the budget.
    Exactly what the Repubs don't want to do.

    And the second option Americans choose for balancing the budget is cutting defense spending.
    ALSO something the Repubs don't want to do.

    It's MORE proof that those who think the country moved sharply to the right in 2010 are WRONG.


    Why don't we just outlaw the rich, RickRick?


    DEATH TO THE RICH! Burn 'em, burn 'em


    Why don't they just pay their fair share for the good of the country?

    Marginal tax rates are at the lowest since the Gilded Age and yet the whining from the wealthiest Americans (and their RJ sycophants) never ends.

    And the Bush tax cuts were premised on the idea that they would create jobs (they didn't) and continuing them will stimulate the economy (it won't).

    Most Americans understand that the rich can afford to pay more, and if they care about the country that made their wealth possible, they would.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14350

    Jan 04, 2011 5:49 PM GMT
    I agree that everyone should pay their fair share of taxes. It is time to end the tax loopholes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2011 6:00 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidWhy don't they just pay their fair share for the good of the country?


    If that were to happen - the rich paying "their fair share" - then their taxes should actually be lower and those 48% of U.S. households that pay no federal income tax would have to pay something - but of course, paying nothing in federal income tax for those 48% is "their fair share" apparently. icon_rolleyes.gif


    I'm sorry that you're political philosophy (GREED) is at odds with the historical progressive tax policy of our country.

    The reason 48% of US households pay no income tax is because they don't have any income to speak of. Maybe if the rich and greedy didn't hoard all the fucking money, and paid their employees a fair wage or created the jobs they promised in return for the tax cuts, a greater percentage of households would pay federal income tax.

    In September, the percentage of families designated as "working poor" climbed to the highest level since 1959 - 14.3%. So 47 million Americans are living in poverty, while working and another 15% (48 million are unemployed). So, that's 30% of your 48% who don't pay federal income tax.

    What would you like them to pay it out of? Blood?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2011 12:54 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    I'm sorry that you're political philosophy (GREED) is at odds with the historical progressive tax policy of our country.


    Typical liberal tactic... Demonize anyone who doesn't go along in lockstep with the liberal philosophy.

    Sorry, but I don't subscribe to your liberal political philosophy (THE PHILOSOPHY OF FOOLS). (See, I can do the same thing to you).







    Christian73 said
    The reason 48% of US households pay no income tax is because they don't have any income to speak of. Maybe if the rich and greedy didn't hoard all the fucking money, and paid their employees a fair wage or created the jobs they promised in return for the tax cuts, a greater percentage of households would pay federal income tax.

    In September, the percentage of families designated as "working poor" climbed to the highest level since 1959 - 14.3%. So 47 million Americans are living in poverty, while working and another 15% (48 million are unemployed). So, that's 30% of your 48% who don't pay federal income tax.

    What would you like them to pay it out of? Blood?


    If it were up to you and the rest of the liberal / Democrat / socialists, there would be no millionaires. Once you got the government to confiscate all their income, everyone would be $40,000-aires.

    Oh, and the economy would be completely destroyed.

    Just admit it. It is not acceptable for people to amass over $1 million in wealth.

    Even if you took all the income of every citizen who earned more than $1 million, it STILL wouldn't be enough to satiate the appetite of the liberal Democrat socialists in Washington DC.



    Not at all. And you know it. We're for a progressive income tax. The more you make, the more you pay.

    Remember, many billionaires were created when income tax rates were 90%. And it was to retire the debt of WWII and provide for the soldiers returning. And it led to the biggest economic boom in the history of our country and everyone did very well. Quite the opposite to the "economy being destroyed."

    We have had 40 years of sustained tax cuts and the middle class and working poor have been and are being eviscerated.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2011 1:12 AM GMT
    Seems a downright shame . . .
    TODD: Shame?
    MRS. LOVETT:
    Seems an awful waste .. .
    Such a nice plump frame
    Wot's-his-name
    Has...
    Had . ..
    Has...
    Nor it can't be traced.
    Business needs a lift β€”
    Debts to be erased β€”
    Think of it as thrift,
    As a gift...
    If you get my drift...

    (TODD stares into space)
    No?
    (She sighs)
    Seems an awful waste.
    I mean,
    With the price of meat what it is,
    When you get it,
    If you get itβ€”
    TODD (Becoming aware, chuckling): Ah!
    MRS. LOVETT:
    Good, you got it.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jan 05, 2011 1:21 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    southbeach1500 said
    rickrick91 saidhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_usa_taxes_poll

    Most Americans (61%!) say TAX THE RICH to balance the budget.
    Exactly what the Repubs don't want to do.

    And the second option Americans choose for balancing the budget is cutting defense spending.
    ALSO something the Repubs don't want to do.

    It's MORE proof that those who think the country moved sharply to the right in 2010 are WRONG.


    Why don't we just outlaw the rich, RickRick?


    DEATH TO THE RICH! Burn 'em, burn 'em


    Why don't they just pay their fair share for the good of the country?

    Marginal tax rates are at the lowest since the Gilded Age and yet the whining from the wealthiest Americans (and their RJ sycophants) never ends.

    And the Bush tax cuts were premised on the idea that they would create jobs (they didn't) and continuing them will stimulate the economy (it won't).

    Most Americans understand that the rich can afford to pay more, and if they care about the country that made their wealth possible, they would.





    Q F T icon_exclaim.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2011 1:30 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidBut the American people also want jobs, so they are going to have to decide. We'll see what happens in 2012

    What, trickle down economics? Only the rich produce jobs? For chauffeurs, house staff and their other subordinates? A nice vision for America.

    And if you talk about industry, I'll remind you that almost all industry in the US arose from entrepreneurs who started with nothing. Very little was ever started by the already-rich.

    So your model doesn't fly. The people we need to be sponsoring are the poor, not the rich. The rich live on what they already have -- the poor make the new fortunes, and create the new businesses that never existed before, with all the jobs and wealth they bring.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2011 2:56 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    mocktwinkie saidBut the American people also want jobs, so they are going to have to decide. We'll see what happens in 2012

    What, trickle down economics? Only the rich produce jobs? For chauffeurs, house staff and their other subordinates? A nice vision for America.

    And if you talk about industry, I'll remind you that almost all industry in the US arose from entrepreneurs who started with nothing. Very little was ever started by the already-rich.

    So your model doesn't fly. The people we need to be sponsoring are the poor, not the rich. The rich live on what they already have -- the poor make the new fortunes, and create the new businesses that never existed before, with all the jobs and wealth they bring.


    According to you, anyone making 200k is "rich", so yes, the "rich" are the ones "creating" the jobs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2011 4:51 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    jprichva said
    yourname2000 saidI don't get it...this post has been up for two and a half hours...SouthBeach must be spinning in his hammock somewhere. icon_smile.gif

    He's "working" at his "job".


    Slight correction: jobs (plural). icon_wink.gif
    Keep workin em! You're payin my salary!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2011 4:52 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidStill waiting on the answer to this from our good liberal friends...

    Please do tell us.... what should the tax rates be which will allow the Federal government to provide all the goodies that this "overwhelmingly progress country" demands, in addition to enable it to perform all the other tasks, fund all the agencies and departments and pay the millions of government workers.

    And don't just pull a number out of your ass..... real numbers. No more "tax the rich" and "pay their fair share" sloganeering.
    You still fail miserably at economics.... you'll never learn.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2011 5:05 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    TropicalMark said
    southbeach1500 saidStill waiting on the answer to this from our good liberal friends...

    Please do tell us.... what should the tax rates be which will allow the Federal government to provide all the goodies that this "overwhelmingly progress country" demands, in addition to enable it to perform all the other tasks, fund all the agencies and departments and pay the millions of government workers.

    And don't just pull a number out of your ass..... real numbers. No more "tax the rich" and "pay their fair share" sloganeering.
    You still fail miserably at economics.... you'll never learn.


    That's why I'm asking of the all-knowing liberals on here.... let's see the numbers that will show what "their fair share" is and how that will cure the Federal government's financial woes.

    I'm asking the liberals for these numbers that apparently they have worked out. Please liberals, share them with us so we can see more than just "tax the rich! the rich need to pay their fair share".

    Do you actually have ANY understanding of national economies and how global economics actually work? Do you have ANY idea as to how a government actually operates?
    You aren't "asking" the "liberals".. you are goading them.. and I could goad you the same way.... but I won't because I know you can't answer....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2011 5:15 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    TropicalMark said
    Do you actually have ANY understanding of national economies and how global economics actually work? Do you have ANY idea as to how a government actually operates?
    You aren't "asking" the "liberals".. you are goading them.. and I could goad you the same way.... but I won't because I know you can't answer....

    OK, let's try this again.

    The topic is: "TAX THE RICH!"

    I'm asking: How much?

    For me personally? I want everything you got! (thats the republican in me)
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jan 05, 2011 5:18 PM GMT
    icon_biggrin.gif
    rickrick91 saidhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_usa_taxes_poll

    Most Americans (61%!) say TAX THE RICH to balance the budget.
    Exactly what the Repubs don't want to do.

    And the second option Americans choose for balancing the budget is cutting defense spending.
    ALSO something the Repubs don't want to do.

    It's MORE proof that those who think the country moved sharply to the right in 2010 are WRONG.




    works for me!! we all KNOW they won't give it up otherwise..... icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2011 5:24 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    TropicalMark said
    Do you actually have ANY understanding of national economies and how global economics actually work? Do you have ANY idea as to how a government actually operates?
    You aren't "asking" the "liberals".. you are goading them.. and I could goad you the same way.... but I won't because I know you can't answer....

    OK, let's try this again.

    The topic is: "TAX THE RICH!"

    I'm asking: How much?



    We've been over this before. A top rate of 50% would be reasonable, as long as it includes income from "capital gains" (or hedge fund gambling). As I've said before I would support a MORE progressive income tax. I makes no sense to me that David Tepper who made $4 billion last year pays a lower tax rate than you or I do.

    So start with 5% for those making $25,000 - $50,000; 10% for those making $50,000 - $100,000; 15% for those make $100,000 - $200,000; 20% for those making $250,000 - $500,000; 25% for those making $500,000 - $5 million; 30% for those making $5 million to $25 million; 35% for those making $25 million - $100 million; 40% for those making $100 million - $500 million; 45% for those making $500 million - $1 billion; 50% on everything over $1 billion.

    How's that sound?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2011 6:21 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said

    We've been over this before. A top rate of 50% would be reasonable, as long as it includes income from "capital gains" (or hedge fund gambling). As I've said before I would support a MORE progressive income tax. I makes no sense to me that David Tepper who made $4 billion last year pays a lower tax rate than you or I do.

    So start with 5% for those making $25,000 - $50,000; 10% for those making $50,000 - $100,000; 15% for those make $100,000 - $200,000; 20% for those making $250,000 - $500,000; 25% for those making $500,000 - $5 million; 30% for those making $5 million to $25 million; 35% for those making $25 million - $100 million; 40% for those making $100 million - $500 million; 45% for those making $500 million - $1 billion; 50% on everything over $1 billion.

    How's that sound?


    First, thank you for making the effort.

    Second, how much revenue would that actually provide to the Federal government?


    I'm not sure. Other issues would have to be address - loopholes, deductions - some of which should be kept and others phased out, but definitely simplified.

    But, putting that aside, do you think something along these lines would be fair?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2011 6:38 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said

    1) I don't believe any tax over 30% is fair to anybody.

    2) Please work the numbers for your plan and let us know how much revenue that would provide to the Federal government. I suspect that it will be far short of what the Federal government has been spending the past 2 years, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. But you need to actually do the math and come up with a bottom line number, otherwise, you're just shooting in the dark.



    1) I could say that I don't think it's fair to charge more than $500 for surgery, but then you would say some Ayn Randian BS about forcing people to give their labor for free. The reality is that the wealthy use more of the "commons" than middle class and even affluent people do, so they should pay more. And given that just 30 years ago the top marginal rate was 70%, 50% sounds reasonable to me.

    2) Ummm. This isn't school and you're not the study hall monitor, so you're welcome to do your own homework.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jan 05, 2011 6:40 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    TropicalMark said
    southbeach1500 said
    jprichva said
    yourname2000 saidI don't get it...this post has been up for two and a half hours...SouthBeach must be spinning in his hammock somewhere. icon_smile.gif

    He's "working" at his "job".


    Slight correction: jobs (plural). icon_wink.gif
    Keep workin em! You're payin my salary!


    I know! Your salary and probably 9 others.


    and mine also when i start my federal civil service retirement!

    keep workin' em!


    icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2011 6:44 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said

    1) I don't believe any tax over 30% is fair to anybody.


    Now you sound like those whiney liberals you lambast all the time..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2011 7:11 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said

    We've been over this before. A top rate of 50% would be reasonable, as long as it includes income from "capital gains" (or hedge fund gambling). As I've said before I would support a MORE progressive income tax. I makes no sense to me that David Tepper who made $4 billion last year pays a lower tax rate than you or I do.

    So start with 5% for those making $25,000 - $50,000; 10% for those making $50,000 - $100,000; 15% for those make $100,000 - $200,000; 20% for those making $250,000 - $500,000; 25% for those making $500,000 - $5 million; 30% for those making $5 million to $25 million; 35% for those making $25 million - $100 million; 40% for those making $100 million - $500 million; 45% for those making $500 million - $1 billion; 50% on everything over $1 billion.

    How's that sound?


    First, thank you for making the effort.

    Second, how much revenue would that actually provide to the Federal government?


    I'm not sure. Other issues would have to be address - loopholes, deductions - some of which should be kept and others phased out, but definitely simplified.

    But, putting that aside, do you think something along these lines would be fair?


    1) I don't believe any tax over 30% is fair to anybody.

    2) Please work the numbers for your plan and let us know how much revenue that would provide to the Federal government. I suspect that it will be far short of what the Federal government has been spending the past 2 years, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. But you need to actually do the math and come up with a bottom line number, otherwise, you're just shooting in the dark.




    SB, please educate yourself on the history of our country regarding taxation.

    Taxing the rich to pay off a huge and out of control National Debt - HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE.
    With EXTREMELY beneficial results.

    At the end of WWII, America had a proportionally LARGER National Debt than we have now.
    So, taxes were raised on the rich.
    Raised WAY up TO 60-70%.

    The result was that the National Debt was painlessly paid off, and a long period of sustained prosperity ensued.
    There was a massive expansion of the middle class and the American quality of life soared.

    NONE of the present-day right-wing BS scaremongering of how raising taxes on the rich is supposedly bad for the economy proved to be true at all.

    If only you bothered to educate yourself about the history of our country and the actual facts.