Republican Millionaire, co-founder of H&R Block, Henry Bloch, Says It Is Time To Raise Taxes On Rich

  • metta

    Posts: 39139

    Aug 23, 2011 2:51 AM GMT
    The Middle Class Should Be Furious, Another Millionaire Says

    http://www.fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-the-middle-class-should-be-furious-another-millionaire-says-20110817,0,7362562.story

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

    Aug 23, 2011 5:03 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidRepublican Millionaire, co-founder of H&R Block, Henry Bloch, Raise Taxes On Rich

    ... and reduce the Obama deficit from $1.65 trillon to "just" $1.56 trillion.

    Great plan.

    Pssst: The problem is too much spending, not too little taxing.





    Total bullshit.

    The Bush tax cuts added 2.5 trillion dollars to the National Debt over the past ten years.
    And if they were extended another ten years they'd add another 3.7 trillion dollars to the National Debt.
    http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/let_cuts_expire.html

    The Bush tax cuts have been an epic disaster.
    The idea that we should extend them or make them permanent is INSANE.



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

    Aug 23, 2011 1:51 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    rickrick91 said
    southbeach1500 saidRepublican Millionaire, co-founder of H&R Block, Henry Bloch, Raise Taxes On Rich

    ... and reduce the Obama deficit from $1.65 trillon to "just" $1.56 trillion.

    Great plan.

    Pssst: The problem is too much spending, not too little taxing.





    Total bullshit.

    The Bush tax cuts added 2.5 trillion dollars to the National Debt over the past ten years.
    And if they were extended another ten years they'd add another 3.7 trillion dollars to the National Debt.
    http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/let_cuts_expire.html

    The Bush tax cuts have been an epic disaster.
    The idea that we should extend them or make them permanent is INSANE.






    RickRick,

    OK, let's go with your "liberal" numbers.

    $2.5 trillion over 10 years = $250 billion per year.

    $3.7 trillion over 10 years = $370 billion per year.


    And now let's plug them into the Obama spending machine:

    Deficit: $1,650 billion per year.

    Deficit less $250 billion = $1,4 trillion


    Deficit: $1,650 billion per year.

    Deficit less $370 billion = $1.28 trillion.



    RickRick, it's not a taxing problem that we are faced with, it's a SPENDING problem!


    This is correct. Raising taxes will not solve the problem. Rickrick must have missed (or conveniently elided) my last post on what taxing the rich 100% would accomplish for the debt and deficit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2011 2:53 PM GMT
    LMAO.. not one of you idiots other than the OP actually WATCHED the interview. Henry Bloch is DEAD ON!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2011 3:08 PM GMT
    Sound off only if you have watched the clip in its entirety:

    Yup. watched it all.

    He made an interesting point very early about the rich creating jobs being a fiction; it is companies that create jobs.


    "The rich do not create jobs, companies do."

    - Henry Bloch,, 2011.

    Discuss. (please state if you watched the whole clip in your comments.)







  • PRDGUY

    Posts: 641

    Aug 23, 2011 3:13 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidRepublican Millionaire, co-founder of H&R Block, Henry Bloch, Raise Taxes On Rich

    ... and reduce the Obama deficit from $1.65 trillon to "just" $1.56 trillion.

    Great plan.

    Pssst: The problem is too much spending, not too little taxing.


    AMEN!!!! With 3% of the top tier paying 85% of ALL taxes, and now 69% paying no Fed'l tax the system is screwed up~
    Either reform the system or replace with a National Federal Tax [exclude Food ofc] so every1 pays something.

    Even if all $1mil+ earners were taxed at 100%, ie every cent they make, it still would not make a dent in the debt... STOP THE SPENDING.


    And as many of you know, any1 may send in wutever they wish extra to reduce the debt. So if he's so gun-ho, the treasury dept has a special fund specifically set up for that! Sorry, any amount sent in is not a tax deduction.

    And BTW: the vast majority of jobs are created by small businesses that file as partnerships or as sole propriertships... and they are taxed at the personal tax level, therefore someone whom employees people, and earns using Bidens' number of $250K, their tax rate is hier than Buffet's and Gates. Big corporations shelter their cash/profits overseas... see GE, whom the CEO serves on Obama's Job Council. in Fact we have now the 3rd hiest corp tax rate in the world... and yes that factors in depreciation and other gimmee's from congress.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19136

    Aug 23, 2011 3:15 PM GMT
    I am sure the U.S. government would gladly accept a nice check from the generous Mr. Bloch....the more zeroes the better. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2011 3:17 PM GMT
    For YEARS, the two richest men in America, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, have been saying that estate taxes need to go up. As Buffet, America's savviest investor, has said for at least a decade, "I find it absurd that my secretary pays more in taxes than I do!"

    As a financial planner, I know how to take a middle age couple in reasonable health and let them pass on $20 MILLION estate tax-free. That's simply absurd!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2011 3:24 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Upper_Canadian saidSound off only if you have watched the clip in its entirety:

    Yup. watched it all.



    You are a Canadian and this is a topic about the USA and Art Deco has said that non-US citizens should not comment in threads like this.


    I refer you to the thread entitled 6 reasons Canadians[should] care about US economics.
    I will continue to coment on your politics because next to China we own your asses - and we supply most of your oil. We have to keep an eye on you like any possible deadbeat tenant showing bad financial sense. Or we are going to have to foreclose and sell our oil to someone more worthy. the Chinese want it very badly - we ought to sell it to them instead.

    USA = high risk (with potentially high returns)

    China = low risk, slow inexorable growth)

    They are also being a lot more polite in their ascendency than the US in its decline.


    The posters anbove apparently commented without even listening to the clip.

    sigh.

    No wonder no progress can be made in the US. How can you presume to discuss anything at all. when you don't even know what the other side is saying? result= impasse.

    The largest obstacle to productivity has got to be stubborn dogmatism.


    These forums are a total waste of time.







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

    Aug 23, 2011 3:39 PM GMT
    It's hilarious how People STILL don't get it.

    Raising Taxes alone won't solve the problem. (Democrats)

    Cutting spending alone won't solve the problem. (Republicans)

    Can we please share the sand box equally now folks and stop bickering like a 7 year old who's friend took his shovel and bucket? Politics these days is almost based solely on debunking what the other party says. "Oh, you think we shoudl do x? Well I think we should do -x"

    Seriously, grow the fuck up.icon_eek.gif
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Aug 23, 2011 3:42 PM GMT
    can we please cut out the straw man arguments? i don't remember ever hearing anyone say that taxing the wealthy is the complete solution to ending the debt crisis. it's a false logic to suggest that it's not a viable option, called the nirvana fallacy. the idea isn't that taxing the rich will solve the problem, but that it indeed does generate a significant amount of revenue that needs to be done in addition to massive spending cuts.

    The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
    World of Class Warfare - Warren Buffett vs. Wealthy Conservatives
    www.thedailyshow.com
    Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogThe Daily Show on Facebook



    The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
    World of Class Warfare - The Poor's Free Ride Is Over
    www.thedailyshow.com
    Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogThe Daily Show on Facebook



  • mustangd

    Posts: 434

    Aug 23, 2011 4:28 PM GMT
    its interesting that already we see that some deny knowledge of where our deficit and current spending/lack of revenue problems originated. the bush years. bush dug a deep hole, 2 unfunded wars, which wwe are still fighting, to the tune of some $20 billion per month, if president Obama walks away from iraq and afghanistan not only will the vacuum left come back to haunt us, the republicans would crucify him for doing so, and THEY got us into those messes.
    so even if what we are facing were a spending issue, it falls squarely on bush era polices that Obama inherited.
    the real issue is revenue, not spending. that doesn't mean we can spend without limit ( like invading irag and afghanistan which was very good for halliburton ), it means we need to generate more revenue, or even more accurately, return to levels of revenue we once received.
    how much per year does it cost in lost revenue since we changed the tax code allowng corporations to offshore to avoid paying taxes? add to that the bush era tax cuts? those 2 changes in the tax code cost us hundreds of billions every year in lost revenue, multiply those numbers over the last 11 years, you are looking at $ trillions in lost revenue.
    we need to return to receiving that revenue, immediately.
    the tax code was written to be flexible, to address good times and times of crisis, look at the history of the federal income tax, how the rates have changed over time, where they are today..
    the wealthiest amercians have had a good 11 years, now they want the good times to continue, at the expense of those who can least afford it. if Ike were alive today, a republican president, he would be aghast at what his party has done and is trying to perpetuate.
    the solution to our current problem is revenue intake, coupled with spending restraint, but, make no mistake this is a revenue problem.
    the u.s. economy has lost too many jobs that pay wages that built the country, either through technological changes, or offshoring. these are revenue issues. wroking people not only do not draw un-employment nor collect food stamps, they pay taxes, the more they make, the more tax the pay, the less they make, they less tax they pay.
    again, this is a revenue crisis, not a spending crisis. to those who say everyone need to pay some tax, stop burdening the rich, where is an un-employed person supposed to get money to pay more tax? where does an under-employed person get money to pay more tax?
    this is a revenue crisis, not a spending crisis. in the past, wealthy americans, largely saw it as their duty as american, to pay taxes, and, they paid a hell of a lot more in the past by percentage than they are today. look to Warren Buffets recent article, by percentage, he pays less tax than his secretary. what fuels our economy isn't a few wealthy individuals, its millions of working americans with good jobs.
    now, we are hearing this, that its ok to allow corporations to evade paying the taxes they used to, its ok to give tax breaks to wealthy americans, it was ok to start 2 unfunded wars that are still dragging on, and that the bill now due, should be paid by who? not corproations, not the people who can most easily afford it, due to their distance from the poverty level, but the bill should be paid by those who are not investors, who have had no means of benefiting from these changes in the tax code.
    the top tax rate under Ike was 91%, we survived the cold war, and built the interstate highway system, while maintaining social security, while not suggesting we return to that tax level, i am saying that we need to return to the level of revenue we were receiving before the bush tax cuts, and before we allowed corporations to evade paying taxes the way GE did last year for example.
    again, this is a revenue crisis, not s spending crisis.
    thos who say its a spending issue, are only looking after their own self-centered interests.
    there are answers out there, but the republicans refuse to implement them, they have refused to confirm, put holds on, or by any means stymied the presidentss attempts to invigorate the economy through economic oversight. they have blocked financial reform, in a different time their actions would have been un-thinkable in thier dis-regard for the health of the nation, in favor of the benefit of the few.
    why not bring overseas profit home, and while not taxing it at 35%, tax it at 10% with another 10% put into a trust fund that can ONLY be spent to create jobs, building bio-fuel plants, or funding research that would resutl in a design of an engine that runs on less fuel, or a new fuel, in the way that the government researches new drugs, then hands the results over to pharmaceutical corps to manufacture?
    the poblem with that is, when last it was tried in 2005, the corporations swore they would invest at home, but instead pocketed the profit.
    again, this is a revenue crisis, not a spending crisis...
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2605

    Aug 23, 2011 4:42 PM GMT
    I doubt raising taxes on the rich/super rich would make much practical difference to a national debt of about fourteen trillion dollars,but it would raise the point of the injustice of a society where they pay less in tax(as a percentage) than middle or low income people.
    I`m struck by how un-angry/compliant most middle/low income people are on this subject.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2011 5:27 PM GMT
    Jeandeau saidIt's hilarious how People STILL don't get it.

    Raising Taxes alone won't solve the problem. (Democrats)

    Cutting spending alone won't solve the problem. (Republicans)

    Can we please share the sand box equally now folks and stop bickering like a 7 year old who's friend took his shovel and bucket? Politics these days is almost based solely on debunking what the other party says. "Oh, you think we shoudl do x? Well I think we should do -x"

    Seriously, grow the fuck up.icon_eek.gif




    Sorry, but that's not accurate.

    The Democrats have NOT been saying that all we need to do and should do is raise taxes.
    The Democrats in Congress and President Obama have said that the ONLY way to seriously and credibly reduce the National Debt is by BOTH cutting spending AND raising taxes.
    That's the ONLY way that the numbers add up.
    That's what the Democratic debt reduction proposals look like.
    And that's the approach favored by a majority of Americans.

    So, you're right about what we need to do, but you're wrong to blame both parties.

    As we saw in the recent debt ceiling debate, the Democrats proposed a balanced package of mostly spending cuts with some tax increases, and the my-way-or-the-highway Repubs refused to negotiate in a bipartisan way and raise taxes one dime.

    The problem we have in Washington is that we have a new crop of Teabagger Repubs who won't listen to the will of We The People and work with the Democrats in a bipartisan way.

    The Repubs have also failed to keep their campaign promise to focus like a laser beam on jobs jobs jobs.
    It's been seven months since the Repub took complete control of the House and they haven't even proposed let alone passed a jobs bill.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2011 5:28 PM GMT
    Lincsbear saidI doubt raising taxes on the rich/super rich would make much practical difference to a national debt of about fourteen trillion dollars,but it would raise the point of the injustice of a society where they pay less in tax(as a percentage) than middle or low income people.
    I`m struck by how un-angry/compliant most middle/low income people are on this subject.


    Except they don't. They pay considerably more in absolute dollars and as a proportion of the overall US budget, a majority of it. In fact more than 51% of Americans don't even pay federal taxes -

    http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2011/05/senate-51-of-households.html

    The US for instance also relies disproportionately on its wealthy for tax revenues relative to all other OECD countries. If there's injustice here, it's that the wealthy are overtaxed in the US.

    In fact the US is the most progressively taxed nation amongst other wealthy nations -

    http://blog.turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/how-america-pays-taxes-vs-other-wealthy-countries/02022010-1843

    The Tax Foundation’s Fiscal Facts report shows that the top 1% of income earners (1,410,710 people) pay 40.42% of all income taxes in the United States. The top 2.5% (5,642,839 people) pay 20.20% of total income taxes, while the top 5% (a combined 7,053,549 people) pay 60%. The top 10% as a whole pays 71.22%, while the bottom 50% of taxpayers account for only 2.89% of all income taxes. Indeed, the Tax Foundation’s Scott Hodges cited ,”…an OECD study released last year showing that the U.S.—not France or Sweden—has the most progressive income tax system among OECD nations.”


    No, the focus for policymakers should not be on figuring out how to tax the rich but to develop policies to grow the number of tax payers - from reducing the cost of compliance to regulations by cutting them, cutting loopholes / simplifying the tax code and having immigration policies that encourage entrepreneurs to build businesses in the US.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2011 5:39 PM GMT
    Also more here -

    http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27134.html

    For instance what this reads is that the top 10% of income earners pay 45.1% of all taxes while earning 33.5% of all income. This compares with the other OECD of the top 10% paying 31.6% of all taxes while earning 28.4% of all income - far more proportionate though still having a higher reliance on wealthy tax payers.