Tax the Rich

[CalvinJam]

Another Perspective:

[CalvinJam]

Pt 2

[Scottathew]

Rent is too damn high.

[oladub]

An aside: This fellow says in part 1 that Senator Obama voted against going to Iraq so the blood is not on his hands. [[?) The vote to allow President Bush was taken before Obama was a senator. So what vote is this guy talking about?

[Papasito]

When the Government spends a third more than they take in across the board, you simply can't raise taxes enough to cover the spending.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Un...federal_budget

[rb336]

The amount of deficit reduction mandated by the Budget Control Act: $1.2 trillion.
Amount of deficit reduction achieved by dumping dubya's tax cuts? over $2 trillion.

nuff said

[oladub]

The amount of deficit reduction mandated by the Budget Control Act: $1.2 trillion.
Amount of deficit reduction achieved by dumping dubya's tax cuts? over $2 trillion.
nuff said

Obama is burning through over $1T/year of deficit spending. He has lately taken to writing executive orders to spend money faster than Congress can spend it. Go ahead and raise the taxes back on the rich. That will cover 5-10% of Obama's deficit spending according to the sources below. Then, what are you going to do to cover the other 90% of Obama's deficits? Last February, the Obama administration projected a $1.1T budget deficit for 2012 and that was before Obama announced that he was going to rule by executive order because he couldn't wait for Congress.

Bush's tax cut resulted in $1.6T over ten years or $160B/year according to FAIR

Alan Combes liberaland reports that $60B/year could be gained by reimposing Bush's tax cuts for the rich.

"If the U.S. reverted to Clinton-era marginal tax rates, the U.S. Treasury would net an additional $72B annually, according to Citizens for Tax Justice."
-Huffington Post

[Occurrence]

I better idea would be for our government to stop spending more money than it takes in.

As long as our Government doesn't pay it's bills, I'm going to encourage anyone and everyone to do what they can to screw the tax-man in every way possible.

Don't ever put me on a jury for a tax evasion case, because I'm automatically voting "not guilty", no matter how guilty they obviously are.

[ghettopalmetto]

I better idea would be for our government to stop spending more money than it takes in.

And by what principle of economics is that "a good idea"? With 9 percent unemployment, doesn't it make more sense to create jobs and generate consumer demand rather than cut Social Security, defense, infrastructure spending, and funding for "extras" like national parks?

Cutting spending in the midst of a revenue crisis [[as Oladub aptly illustrated we are in), would only send more people to the breadline.

Oh wait--you probably think that if the federal government balances its budget, then rainbows will poop consumer confidence and puppy dogs across the land, banks will resume lending, employers will magically start hiring, and consumer demand will skyrocket thanks to all the cash that materializes from thin-air.

Got it.

[firstandten]

I better idea would be for our government to stop spending more money than it takes in.

As long as our Government doesn't pay it's bills, I'm going to encourage anyone and everyone to do what they can to screw the tax-man in every way possible.

Don't ever put me on a jury for a tax evasion case, because I'm automatically voting "not guilty", no matter how guilty they obviously are.

I know you think that government finances is like balancing your checkbook but its a little more involved than that.

Also as a public service for folks as yourself, I would never mention the words tax evasion and what you will and will not do in the same sentence. You might have IRS agents checking your last 3 years of tax returns, bank accounts etc. You want to use the word tax avoidance

Hate to see you bunked up with Wesley Snipes

[old guy]

I find the idea of reinstating the transaction tax interesting.

"The Wall Street Trading and Speculators Tax Act would impose a tax of 0.03 percent on financial transactions, meaning that longterm investors would barely notice it, but traders who move rapidly in and out of positions would feel its sting and, the authors hope, reduce the volume of their speculation in response."

"The Financial Transaction Tax, or the Robin Hood Tax as it has also been called, could raise hundreds of billions of dollars that could be used to reduce deficits in developed countries as well as provide financing for poverty reduction and climate change adaptation in developing countries which donor countries seem increasingly hard pressed to come up with. By imposing a very small fee [[a suggested 0.05%) on financial market transactions, the global financial sector, which benefitted most from the bail-outs and rescue packages, and who now pay far less taxes than other business sectors, will be made to contribute their fair share to a global recovery effort. The FTT would have the added advantage of discouraging excessive speculation."

The Facts

• Between 1914 and 1958, the tax was imposed on the par value, rather than the market value, of the stock.
• Par value is a legal concept that bears no relation to market value. Typically, a stock’s par value is significantly lower than its market value; this has been the case since at least the mid-1950s.
• In 1959, the tax was changed to apply to the market value of a transferred stock.
• By the end of 1965—seven years after the tax base was changed from par value to market value—the tax was viewed by Congress as complicating securities transactions and repealed.
• I don't know, it all makes sense to me and wouldn't place a strain on businesses or be a job killer. It worked for decades and raised a lot of money. At some point Wall Street got their way and it was eliminated. It seems like one piece of the pie that would help make things recover faster.

[Zacha341]

Tax everyone! LOL! That's ultimately where we are heading.

[jerrytimes]

Tax everyone! LOL! That's ultimately where we are heading.

They already do tax everyone. Maybe not income tax, but we all pay it. 6% sales. tobacco tax for smokers, gas tax, drivers license tabs and just a license are taxes and that's just a few.

[Zacha341]

Precisely! The 'tax the rich' is in part a distraction of distinction... ala get the 'rich' folk only! LOL!

They already do tax everyone. Maybe not income tax, but we all pay it. 6% sales. tobacco tax for smokers, gas tax, drivers license tabs and just a license are taxes and that's just a few.

[coracle]

Talking about good [[or novel) ideas Occurrence;
I recommend a bipartisan compromise [[so beloved by Democrats) to get us over this problem. As it's Democrats that want higher taxes on the Super Rich then let's legislate for higher taxes on the Democrat Super Rich. At least they'd get a part of what they want in this deal as most Super rich are Democrats anyway.
In general Democrat voters want higher taxes across the board because most of them don't pay any themselves and they do like to be fair, so I think it would be a further good idea to raise taxes on Democrats then they can spend their own money..

[ghettopalmetto]

Talking about good [[or novel) ideas Occurrence;
I recommend a bipartisan compromise [[so beloved by Democrats) to get us over this problem. As it's Democrats that want higher taxes on the Super Rich then let's legislate for higher taxes on the Democrat Super Rich. At least they'd get a part of what they want in this deal as most Super rich are Democrats anyway.
In general Democrat voters want higher taxes across the board because most of them don't pay any themselves and they do like to be fair, so I think it would be a further good idea to raise taxes on Democrats then they can spend their own money..

Uh, sure. That's why the wealthiest areas [[Northeast, West Coast, Chicago) tend to vote Democratic--because they're too poor to pay taxes. If anyone stands to gain from government spending, it's the leech states of the Deep South, which would revert to Third World status if it weren't for defense spending and Social Security incomes.

Or did I completely misinterpret your post, and instead of "Democrat voters", you meant to say "Black People"???

Not that it's any of your business, but I've paid well into five figures to the federal government this year. The only time I feel ripped-off is when I remember that some of that money went toward your education.

[Detroitnerd]

not that it's any of your business, but i've paid well into five figures to the federal government this year. The only time i feel ripped-off is when i remember that some of that money went toward your education.

*zing!*

[Goose]

Or did I completely misinterpret your post, and instead of "Democrat voters", you meant to say "Black People"???

pulling the race card has got to be the new Godwin's law........

[ghettopalmetto]

pulling the race card has got to be the new Godwin's law........

What else did Coracle mean by his post? Certainly, he didn't mean to say that Manhattanites or San Franciscans or Washingtonians vote Democrat because they're all eating mayonnaise sandwiches.

[coracle]

'Not that it's any of your business, but I've paid well into five figures to the federal government this year. The only time I feel ripped-off is when I remember that some of that money went toward your education."[/QUOTE]

Sorry if my note touched a nerve gpal. Humor with loose references to potential reality can do that to you if you have none; but nevertheless a firm thank you for the help in paying for my education with your five figures.

[jerrytimes]

Uh, sure. That's why the wealthiest areas [[Northeast, West Coast, Chicago) tend to vote Democratic--because they're too poor to pay taxes. If anyone stands to gain from government spending, it's the leech states of the Deep South, which would revert to Third World status if it weren't for defense spending and Social Security incomes.

Or did I completely misinterpret your post, and instead of "Democrat voters", you meant to say "Black People"???

Not that it's any of your business, but I've paid well into five figures to the federal government this year. The only time I feel ripped-off is when I remember that some of that money went toward your education.

Wow, this shows how intelligent you are. No argument so you play the race game. Lame....

[jerrytimes]

Yay! Raise the taxes on the rich which will give them less money to spend and create businesses which employ the average 'joe'. That's smart. I'm not a richie by any means, I'm just an average guy. My wife's cousin who is an engineer for GM has a very close friend that owned a large company in Michigan. He had a large house and his business employed over 500 people. 2/3's of his company was based in the Detroit area. Due to the combination of the economy and high/inflating taxes and increasing government regulation, his business went under. Bye bye 500 jobs, decent ones too. [[truckers, secretaries, dock workers ect...) He was in business for over 15 years and that's all gone. Sure.... lets raise those taxes and see how much that helps us.

On the same note, my taxes have increased dramatically since 2009 and I don't even make $50,000 a year.... they aren't only taxing the rich people. Last year I did the math and my taxes increased by 2.8% Might not sound like a lot, but I would have 2.8% more of my income to put into the economy. On an income of $40,000 thats over $1000

[jerrytimes]

Someone made a comment about money going to others educations and it reminded me of this. A friend teaches at a local college that anyone can get into [[community college). There are students there that get money from the government to pay for classes and apparently they get that money after the 4th week or something like that. On average 35% of the students after getting the money, drop the class, keep the money and never pay their tuition. Nice.

Also, our tax money goes to the beautiful Michigan Bridge Card. I'm fine with food stamps, but there needs to be limitations. This woman the other day in 7-11 bought a couple of candy bars, 2 donuts, a slurpee, some cakes, and other junk food. It all came up to about $15. She paid with a bridge card which is annoying since there was no regular food in there. She walked out of the store and got into her 2009 or 2010 CHRYSLER 300! Are you effing kidding?

[antongast]

Also, our tax money goes to the beautiful Michigan Bridge Card. I'm fine with food stamps, but there needs to be limitations. This woman the other day in 7-11 bought a couple of candy bars, 2 donuts, a slurpee, some cakes, and other junk food. It all came up to about $15. She paid with a bridge card which is annoying since there was no regular food in there.

So have you never in your life purchased or eaten an unhealthy snack food item? Or is the consumption of unhealthy snack food without being judged or criticized by others a privilege exclusively reserved for people whose income exceeds a certain threshold?

[Det_ard]

So have you never in your life purchased or eaten an unhealthy snack food item? Or is the consumption of unhealthy snack food without being judged or criticized by others a privilege exclusively reserved for people whose income exceeds a certain threshold?

This. If you're on the dole, no junk food for you.