Millionaires to Obama: Tax us

[Gardener]

You forgot about the complete failure of Reaganomics from a psychological standpoint. Give the rich and the corporations lots of tax breaks so they will "tickle down" the extra money to their employees. Unfortunately, people forgot to tell Reagan about the psychology of greed... or how people should just be responsible for themselves and not give a crap about others. The rich got richer. That was about it.

I see it as the undoing of decades and decades of progress, the same progress that had resulted in our achieving a middle class society, as we have reverted to the more traditional social stratification that is becoming more and more feudal with the passing years.


As far as psychology is concerned, the real hook used to hoodwink people to vote against their self interest is the very greed that drives those attempting to disenfranchise them. People imagine themselves as part of one group when they are really part of the other, and don't realize how their sympathies have been manipulated towards that end.

What I find particularly galling is the way an ideal we once held as so vitally important -- the notion that a well-educated, middle class society is a GOOD thing -- has been maligned so systematically that these days even the mere mention of such results in a barrage of condemnation that one is a "socialist" or worse.

 

[Gray_Fox_86]

Most millionaires are free to pay more taxes if they wanted to. They can give a gift to the treasury aside from the income taxes they pay. That way they can give what they feel is fair.

 

[TurtleDude]

and here is where your position is wrong
we have obligated our nation to incur indebtedness, but we refuse to impose a tax to pay for what has been purchased

notice that since we have been able to put our national purchases on credit, there is no pain inflicted on the public to pay for what was bought
we will push that obligation onto our kids

in the meantime, there are those of you who think it wise fiscal policy to continue to give billionaires - those who can afford to pay taxes our nation needs to collect - we can continue to give billionaires tax breaks

yes. i do notice that to pay for those tax breaks for billionaires your side wants to end unemployment for people who are without a job .... during this time when there are between 40-100 applicants for each job opening
yes, you also want to terminate anything which provides healthcare for all citizens despite that one-third of them have no ready access to health care services
and yes, you want to undermine the security of social security for those who are at the ends of their lives
no, you don't want to reduce the budget of a military which spends more than most of the nations of rest of the world collectively spend defending themselves

so, i admit we are at impasse
you and team red want to spend what we don't have for stupid purposes
others of us believe that government is of, by and FOR the people

why are you tax hiking socialists so dishonest? there are only 432 or so billionaires in the USA and you act as if they are the only ones who will be hit by the big obama tax hike. Why should only 2% of the country have to pay higher taxes when obviously they aren't the ones who voted in the politicians who ran up the deficit nor are they the ones who actually benefit from the spending.

If you think the country has a duty to pay for this crap then everyone ought to have increased taxes-especially the people who currently don't pay for what they use

 

[TurtleDude]

i will be delighted to pay the tax rates of the top 2% because that would mean i enjoy the income of the top 2%, giving me abundant opportunity to pay an elevated tax
those who gain the most pay the most. seems reasonable
but explain why it is not, squire

that is dishonest

the issue is you keeping exactly the same amount as the next dollar you earn as I do

what is really fair is using what you pay for. If you cannot afford more than don't expect someone else to pay what you want or need.

Under a flat tax I still would pay far more than you do-the only difference is you cannot have your vote bought by some scumbag liberal poltician who tells you that he will jack up the top bracket to pay your share.

 

[Gray_Fox_86]

why are you tax hiking socialists so dishonest? there are only 432 or so billionaires in the USA and you act as if they are the only ones who will be hit by the big obama tax hike. Why should only 2% of the country have to pay higher taxes when obviously they aren't the ones who voted in the politicians who ran up the deficit nor are they the ones who actually benefit from the spending.

If you think the country has a duty to pay for this crap then everyone ought to have increased taxes-especially the people who currently don't pay for what they use

Because this system works by a majority rule. Its a mistake but that is the way things work. And we all know people in mass are very stupid people.

 

[TurtleDude]

Always glad to see some people acting in the interests of others instead of themselves. Kudos to these 40.

always glad to see some people who are gullible enough to believe that such antics are really based on altruism

 

[TurtleDude]

That's nothing but your opinion. In my view it's the conservatives that started the class warfare by doing everything possible to create as much of schism both economically and psychologically as possible. You are an excellent example of this.

Oozing BS--I don't recall any major GOP politician running against "the poor" or trying to keep people poor. Gore, Kerry and Obama constantly whined about the "rich" not paying "their fair share" which you know is a lie even if you don't have the balls to admit it here

 

[TurtleDude]

I read the article. I assumed that folks who read it would be able to respond to what was said, not what they wanted it to have said.

My mistake.

I guess you don't know the names they listed there. I bet you won't find a single GOP activist.

 

[TurtleDude]

Mythology. Even under Bush, the Treasury department estimated that it would only impact 7% of "small businesses".

And that 7% of "small businesses" include things like Blossom Films - a five employee production company owned by Nicole Kidman. It also include high-dollar law firms and hedge fund operations in that 7%.

I appreciate your concern but this "it will devistate small businesses" thing isn't true. It's exactly like its cousin, the "family farm" that basically no longer exists.

Small businesses are vital, yes. If the top rate returns to 39.6%, it will have little effect on most businesses.

Example: Let's say a small business makes $1 million a year. Let's say they spend $650,000 to run the business and pay employees, etc. That's a profit of $350,000 (or the owner's income). If the tax rates do return to 39.6%, that means said owner would pay about $4,600 more in taxes.

Do you really think $4,600 is going to destroy a $1 million business?

why should they pay anymore when people who don't pay enough now won't suffer a tax hike

 

[cpwill]

another misguided forum member who believes there is no problem in buying stuff we cannot afford to pay for

no, he is arguing that we not buy the stuff, instead of pretending that we can pay for it.

observe:

taxes tend to hover around 18% of GDP; only once in the past 50 years has it even gone over 20% (hilariously, while Bush was President). Bush tax cuts of 2003 led to an increase in revenues, and it wasn't until the current Recession that we see a drop to 15%.

in the 1950's and 1960's, tax rates on high income earners were (comparatively) sky-high; yet they brought in no more revenue as a share of GDP. why?

because people seek to avoid exposing their income to taxes.

assuming you aren't in the middle of a market crash who's recovery has been stalled by foolish government intervention (ie: us right now), you are going to get about 18-19% of GDP in tax revenue. if you want to get out of debt, therefore, you have to get federal expenditures UNDER 18% of GDP.

it's not a revenue problem. it's a spending problem.

 

[justabubba]

that is dishonest

the issue is you keeping exactly the same amount as the next dollar you earn as I do

what is really fair is using what you pay for. If you cannot afford more than don't expect someone else to pay what you want or need.

Under a flat tax I still would pay far more than you do-the only difference is you cannot have your vote bought by some scumbag liberal poltician who tells you that he will jack up the top bracket to pay your share.

here is what you said was "dishonest":

Originally Posted by justabubba:
i will be delighted to pay the tax rates of the top 2% because that would mean i enjoy the income of the top 2%, giving me abundant opportunity to pay an elevated tax
those who gain the most pay the most. seems reasonable
but explain why it is not, squire

now tell me what was dishonest, squire

 

[TurtleDude]

here is what you said was "dishonest":
now tell me what was dishonest, squire

my point was if you want me to pay a 39.6% marginal rate so should you

In other words you should keep the same amount of your next dollar as I do.

BTW how much extra money do you send the IRS

my bet is a big whopping ZERO

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Oozing BS--I don't recall any major GOP politician running against "the poor" or trying to keep people poor. Gore, Kerry and Obama constantly whined about the "rich" not paying "their fair share" which you know is a lie even if you don't have the balls to admit it here

That's about as accurate as the left running against the rich. Are you really so gullible as to think that folks will come out and say it?

 

[TurtleDude]

That's about as accurate as the left running against the rich. Are you really so gullible as to think that folks will come out and say it?

the dems sure did

but being tied into top GOP leadership here in Ohio I have never heard any of that which you claim

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

the dems sure did

but being tied into top GOP leadership here in Ohio I have never heard any of that which you claim

And since you are tied to the GOP, firstly, you would not actually know what the dems believe, and secondly, your assumptions on what they believe are tied to your hyperpartisanship... and therefore irrelevant. In fact, from my observations, your opinions on liberals in general are completely inaccurate and very easy to demonstrate as so. You overgeneralize and make absolute statements CONSTANTLY. This is more indicative of YOUR problem than of those you oppose.

 

[justabubba]

my point was if you want me to pay a 39.6% marginal rate so should you

In other words you should keep the same amount of your next dollar as I do.

BTW how much extra money do you send the IRS

my bet is a big whopping ZERO

at what point, and on what portion of your income, are you subject to a 39.6% rate?
and explain why that is "dishonest", squire

 

[TurtleDude]

And since you are tied to the GOP, firstly, you would not actually know what the dems believe, and secondly, your assumptions on what they believe are tied to your hyperpartisanship... and therefore irrelevant. In fact, from my observations, your opinions on liberals in general are completely inaccurate and very easy to demonstrate as so. You overgeneralize and make absolute statements CONSTANTLY. This is more indicative of YOUR problem than of those you oppose.

sadly for you you are wrong. My mother was a major league dem operative-hosted a 10K a plate clinton fundraiser among other things.

and while generalizations are not 100% accurate and can be dead wrong when applied to an individual they are accurate as to the majority.

and I call em like I see em captain. and you can play these games all night long but the fact is-dem elite get their power from politics generally and that comes from getting votes while the GOP elite tend to get their power by controlling the means of production. One party supports the wealth creators, the other party supports those who want to redistribute the wealth

 

[TurtleDude]

at what point, and on what portion of your income, are you subject to a 39.6% rate?
and explain why that is "dishonest", squire

my overall tax rate is much higher than yours. You should pay the same effective rate as I do before you start bleating for me to pay more.

that's the beauty of a flat tax--if you think my rate should go up=so will yours. its the old put up or shut up concept. Nothing is more pathetic than someone telling me I need to pay more when they aren't willing to also pay more since they derive as much or more a benefit from higher taxes.

 

[Missed AB]

That's about as accurate as the left running against the rich. Are you really so gullible as to think that folks will come out and say it?

Here's the facts that people don't want to discuss here and would rather just state their own opinions. The rich pay the most taxes, and the poor use the most services.

The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shouldered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes


Lower tax rates have made the tax system more progressive, not less so. In 1980, for example, the top 5 percent of income earners paid only 37 percent of all income taxes. Today, the top 1 percent pay that proportion, and the top 5 percent pay a whopping 57 percent.

Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes — The American, A Magazine of Ideas

 

[TurtleDude]

Here's the facts that people don't want to discuss here and would rather just state their own opinions. The rich pay the most taxes, and the poor use the most services.

The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shouldered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes


Lower tax rates have made the tax system more progressive, not less so. In 1980, for example, the top 5 percent of income earners paid only 37 percent of all income taxes. Today, the top 1 percent pay that proportion, and the top 5 percent pay a whopping 57 percent.

Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes — The American, A Magazine of Ideas

and when the majority doesn't pay for most of the stuff they use, they have no incentive for the government to spend less or for the taxes of those who pay for the stuff to go down.

its like giving a majority of the voters a credit card that the minority has to pay the bills on. what incentive does the majority have to cut the credit limit on that card or to use it less? absolutely NONE and that is the way the dem politicians want it because they get the credit from the many for handing out the cards and making other people pay the bills

 

[Missed AB]

and when the majority doesn't pay for most of the stuff they use, they have no incentive for the government to spend less or for the taxes of those who pay for the stuff to go down.

its like giving a majority of the voters a credit card that the minority has to pay the bills on. what incentive does the majority have to cut the credit limit on that card or to use it less? absolutely NONE and that is the way the dem politicians want it because they get the credit from the many for handing out the cards and making other people pay the bills

I am currently in discussion with someone in another thread who is supportive of higher taxes as a way to "redistribute the wealth." I am not in the 1% but I am in the upperclass section, and my amount of tax is higher than many people's incomes. And when I see how the government wastes money it I can not understand why people want to see more of the same policies of spending on you and taxing me.

Our federal debt obligation is about 600,000 dollars/household. No amount of taxation will fix that problem. It's a spending issue. Why don't people understand that?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

sadly for you you are wrong. My mother was a major league dem operative-hosted a 10K a plate clinton fundraiser among other things.

All that means is that you know someone on the inside. Big difference than understanding what it's like being on the inside.

and while generalizations are not 100% accurate and can be dead wrong when applied to an individual they are accurate as to the majority.

That's fine. What I'm saying is present things that way. I confront you when you don't, mostly because I agree, conceptually, with a lot of the basics of what you presenet. But your way of presenting it and the fine tuning you make in these presentations are completely absurd and presents an extreme view of a reasonable position. That's the thing about extremism. Often it's not about the concept, but about the way the concept is presented or the degree of aggression towards those with different positions in which it is presented. Tends to push those who are opposed, on the cusp, or even marginally in agreement towards the other side. It's human nature to fight when attacked. The absurd way that you present reasonable concepts is attacking and when those who present as you do, do so, it makes it far less likely that what they are presenting will be seen as logical. It's like the gun control lobby calling any weapon that can fire automatically, an assault rifle. It's absurd and makes those who are pro-gun rights less likely to hear anything that person says... as they know it's absurd on the surface. That's, in essence, what you are doing.

and I call em like I see em captain. and you can play these games all night long but the fact is-dem elite get their power from politics generally and that comes from getting votes while the GOP elite tend to get their power by controlling the means of production.

This is another absurdity. Both parties get their power from getting votes. They just court different segments of the population and "buy" those votes in different ways.

One party supports the wealth creators, the other party supports those who want to redistribute the wealth

One party believes that people are generally altruistic and that people live in a vacuum. The other does not.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Here's the facts that people don't want to discuss here and would rather just state their own opinions. The rich pay the most taxes, and the poor use the most services.

The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shouldered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes


Lower tax rates have made the tax system more progressive, not less so. In 1980, for example, the top 5 percent of income earners paid only 37 percent of all income taxes. Today, the top 1 percent pay that proportion, and the top 5 percent pay a whopping 57 percent.

Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes — The American, A Magazine of Ideas

I'm not sure why you're saying no one wants to discuss this. What you are saying is completely accurate as far as I know.

 

[TurtleDude]

I am currently in discussion with someone in another thread who is supportive of higher taxes as a way to "redistribute the wealth." I am not in the 1% but I am in the upperclass section, and my amount of tax is higher than many people's incomes. And when I see how the government wastes money it I can not understand why people want to see more of the same policies of spending on you and taxing me.

Our federal debt obligation is about 600,000 dollars/household. No amount of taxation will fix that problem. It's a spending issue. Why don't people understand that?

the leaders of both parties understand that

the leaders of the dem party cannot stop spending because that is how they buy votes.

 

[TurtleDude]

All that means is that you know someone on the inside. Big difference than understanding what it's like being on the inside.



That's fine. What I'm saying is present things that way. I confront you when you don't, mostly because I agree, conceptually, with a lot of the basics of what you presenet. But your way of presenting it and the fine tuning you make in these presentations are completely absurd and presents an extreme view of a reasonable position. That's the thing about extremism. Often it's not about the concept, but about the way the concept is presented or the degree of aggression towards those with different positions in which it is presented. Tends to push those who are opposed, on the cusp, or even marginally in agreement towards the other side. It's human nature to fight when attacked. The absurd way that you present reasonable concepts is attacking and when those who present as you do, do so, it makes it far less likely that what they are presenting will be seen as logical. It's like the gun control lobby calling any weapon that can fire automatically, an assault rifle. It's absurd and makes those who are pro-gun rights less likely to hear anything that person says... as they know it's absurd on the surface. That's, in essence, what you are doing.



This is another absurdity. Both parties get their power from getting votes. They just court different segments of the population and "buy" those votes in different ways.



One party believes that people are generally altruistic and that people live in a vacuum. The other does not.

its the right that believes people are basically altruistic. The left doesn't and that is why they want to "force" charity through income redistribution. And I don't have to cite the studies for you that demonstrate that conservatives are far more charitable than liberals.