BARNEY FRANK: "I'm a supporter as many in the House are, of a surtax on very wealthy people.
We should probably be restraining this. But secondly, this is why a surtax on the very wealthy ought to go forward. This is a way in which we can make up for some of the problems of having to pay for health care. So this kind of extraordinary wealth, if those people were taxed a small percentage, they wouldn't notice."
We've seen this before. In the darkest days of the First Great Depression, tax on the wealthiest was 97%. And people wonder why recovery took so long.
He also said he wants more Government In every area of our life . Reeks of communism to me !
"The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money"
Unfortunately any attempt to tax the rich pushes them offshore to tax havens.
Many rich people avoid almost all tax by hiring slippery accountants and finding new accounting means to hide wealth.
Many are rich because they selfishly contribute little and take a lot, feeling somehow that it is OK because they are "special" so stealing taxpayers money is an art form for big business.
I must agree that most rich people would not agree to a tax hike, the obsession with personal wealth is too entrenched in your culture.
When is enough enough?
For many super rich there will never be enough, they are mentally unwell and can't stop acquiring.
Americans seem to have their own selective idea of what socialism is.
You really don't know a lot about rich people do you? Or maybe the rich are different in Australia. It's the rich in America that start businesses to hire people so that people have a chance to put food on the table, put their kids to college and save towards retirement. It's the rich in America that buy costly goods and services from small businessmen that enable said businesses to hire a staff. It's the rich in America who have started foundations that have started local libraries, give scholarships to needy students, funded the arts and research organizations. It's the rich in America who even fund the political parties. It's the rich in American who pay the high taxes that many municipalities depend on to be able to run their government. You seem to think that the rich don't do much for their money. Maybe that's what happens in Australia but that's not what happens here in America.
Regarding tax hikes, yes of course they would disagree. They pay more taxes than anybody and get less from the municipality in terms of service, why shouldn't they move if it becomes too onerous to conduct business because the taxes are so high?
Just to piggy back a little, the rich will also try to offset and differ (as much as they can) additional taxes and costs to everyone else. I guess that's why SH%!& rolls down hill.
This is so true. My husband is in the homes of the rich nearly every day. They may work differently, but they still work hard. They own business after business, for which they must oversee the management of. The more they make the more they employ. Even those who live off of their stock and inherited wealth work hard. They are also known to be generous. OK, maybe it is for the tax breaks, but much good is done because of their money. As to more taxes, they already pay so much more than most.
Oh Oh Can I answer that?...Because they are unpatriotic Crooks and theives that just want to rape and rob this country and not contribute anything to it. Put food on the table? Give me a break. If the rich could get away with it, we would all be working for minimum wage or chained up in a factory working for nothing. Stop assuming people are stupid enough to believe the rich are motivated by anything other than greed. They have no loyalty to this country, and, they dont give a dam about putting food on anyone's table. Government regulation of business and Taxes is what the government is suppose to do. As a Citizen of this country you pay your taxes to live and prosper in this great country. Good businessmen know that concept. Some dont.
That's a good one. I love the way you counter an opinion with these labels. Really makes your point valid. It's kind of, oh,oh, don't listen to the bad man anymore.
And you think that kind of hysterical hyperbole deserves serious consideration?
Duh, what you should expect that they forfeit most of their fortune to help those who do nothing?
So who's more to blame, the rich who steal or the politicians who offer them taxpayer money?
What right do you have to determine for another person what enough is? What risks have you taken in order to build a business? Have you ever put your future on the line in order to do something like that?
I agree many wealthy people think of it as a game and they think that who ever dies the wealthiest wins.I thinks it's a mentally and morally degrading aspect of our culture that such wealthy people are allowed to get away with not contributing to the very people that made them rich. No man is an Island ,we all are dependent on each other even the rich. Unfortunately their attitude has rubbed off on too many others hoping to be in the same situation as the super rich.Like the old saying goes "You can't take it with you".Although some are thinking of using their wealth to live a very long life through life extention etc.The fact is not everyone can be rich,but the middleclass is declining and the poor increasing.If we had fair labor laws we wouldn't need unions.Then the biggest union of all is the unitedstates.You would think the countries labor laws would be fair to businesses and labor.
Seriously that's the problem.
IMO higher taxes to the luxuries the wealthiest people purchase is the only option I see (Bentley, Ferrarri, Mansions - houses worth x% more than the average cost of a home, etc)... Although I'm sure there would be loopholes for that too. Let's just do nothing, and let everything go down in flames. It's about time for that anyways.
Hopefully one day we can move to a flat tax system. That would eliminate a lot of the current loop holes.
I'm not rich but I am working to be rich in the future.
And if the government taxes my money more because I make more, I would be pissed.
Most rich people worked HARD and worked over 50 or 60 hour weeks. For the most part, they work way harder than the average person.
Yes, some win the lottery or inherit their money but the majority worked their butts off to get financial security.
The government should NOT take more because you make more. That is absurd.
At my job, I see people my age just slacking by and not putting a 100% into their jobs. These are the same people that will be broke their whole life looking for tax breaks and handouts.
I don't want to pay for them and their slacker attitudes in the future.
In fact if the taxes continue to go up, they might have to let go of employees, your darn right that the crap will hit the fan then.
I guess it is a bit different in Australia, but we may have a different idea of what rich is too.
I do not consider anyone with under 5 Million dollars in assets and cash to be really rich, and I am certainly not for heavy taxes on the way up.Most employment in Australia is created by small business.
In 1970's I was pulling down 4k a week net, I shared about half of it. We could live very well on 2k a week.
I did not share though a belief in some religion, I shared because I could afford too.
I have been on the board of several companies and seen greed at board level that looks like four year olds fighting over lollipops! We have directors and management that works it's butt off for their income, but so does everyone else in the company if it is to succeed. Nobody needs hundreds of millions in personal wealth.
I think it's great that you like to share. But your judgment on what somebody needs has nothing to do with other people or the company. Perhaps the company wants to retain certain people who have a particular skill or expertise and to prevent them from going to another company, they were offered an extraordinary amount of money. That is entirely up to the company. You were pulling down $4000 a week, your company obviously thought you were worth it. Did you ask them to cut your salary since you only needed half?
You were on the board and you have seen people work their butt off for that salary. Should they not earn the most they can for their labor that the market will bear? That's what most people do. If they have more than enough then good for them they can spend more and spread the money around in various other businesses.
The 4 k net was coming out of my own small business. I did not have a board at that time for that business, just a family trust.
We knew plenty of ways to avoid tax but chose to pay it.
As far as sharing money, I always have and always will, it is about me, selfishness that works!
I have seen many board members who work like hell, but it is often a choice.
If you are feeding and educating a bunch of kids on a minimum wage it is one hell of a lot different.
I have done both. You can do a shipload of good even with a couple of k a week.
Earnest, none of us have any problem with giving to the needy even if we are at times needy ourselves. What I, and I think others, have a problem with is politicians using our money to buy votes and creating this mass underclass that exist only to cast the "right" vote.
I'm not saying I'm for or against but not every single rich person in the world starts new businesses and hires people. Some of them are just the idle rich and travel around and party all day. And a lot of them have never worked a day in their lives and they inherited every penny they have.
Who cares? Those people will fritter away their inheritance sooner or later. You know the old saying, "A fool and their money are soon parted". At least the people those fools spend their money on are better off.
Intelligent people treat wealth as something to invest. Doing that preserves their wealth and creates jobs for everyone else. Take their money away and you lose that. Everyone is worse off then.
The family dynasties that are created through inheritance is the problem,why do you think they name dy-nasties.Because they are usually very nasty when they don't get their way.
Only if there is something like a government they can subvert to force people to do things, otherwise they have no mechanism to exert control over people. That's a crock anyway. How successful have the Rockefellers been in forcing people to use only Standard Oil, or the rail barons in forcing people to use the rails for transportation. Oh wait, they're all out of business because of air and automobile travel. New dynasties have come into being like Ford and Gates.
These people can't control innovation and unless they remain flexible, they lose out.
True Uninvited, but they still pay the high tax bracket. It may be unfair that they inherited that money but that's neither here nor there.
Leveling the playing field could start with national service for all graduating high school students. Two years withan option to continue for benefits. That way everyone starts out equal, then let the chips fall where they may.
I'm not a fan of aiming to "level the playing field" for the sake of everyone starting out equal.
Sometimes the playing field is level. It's just that some players play better, harder, and smarter than others - and when they do the team wins, gains recognition, becomes champs, etc. etc. When people aim to "equalize" everyone it usually means doing something that assures any advantage those best players have will be eradicated. The trouble is that the mediocre players still can't really play well, and in the meantime the team is no longer in the championships.
U.S. tax rates are low compared to most other countries:
The U.S. Tax Burden Is Low Relative to Other OECD Countries, by Sonya Hoo and Eric Toder, Tax policy Center: The United States raises significantly lower tax revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product than do most other countries in the OECD. In 2003 taxes in the United States, including all levels of government, amounted to 25.6 percent of GDP, down from 29.6 percent of GDP in 2000. Other countries in the G7 raised 33.9 percent of GDP, while non-G7 OECD countries raised 34.7 percent. Within the OECD, Mexico raised the least tax revenues at 19 percent and Sweden the most at 50.6 percent. (The recovery of corporate profits and the stock market since 2003 subsequently boosted U.S. tax revenues to 26.8 percent of GDP in the first three quarters of calendar year 2005.)
Compared with other OECD countries, the United States relies more heavily on income taxes as a source of revenue and less on taxes on goods and services. ... But unlike other OECD countries, the United States does not impose a value-added or other form of national sales tax. Consequently, the U.S. share of revenue raised from taxes on goods and services (state sales taxes and state and federal excise taxes on selected commodities) was only 18.2 percent, compared with 26 percent in other G7 countries and 32.6 percent in non-G7 OECD countries. ...
And? Who the hell cares about the rates in "most other countries"? Do you think the average American takes a look at his paycheck and says, "Well, US tax rates are low compared to most other countries, so I don't mind"?
Comparisons of all kinds among civilized countries can be and are frequently useful especially to deal with whining rich guys.
my idea about this is that if you tax the wealthy ones, they will find a way to nail it to the consumers, I am thinking of those who owns corporations and big businesses and multinational corporations too.
It is the small business that does most of the hiring in Australia, and provide the best employment prospects.
As for not knowing much about the rich, you would be surprised at what I know. I have been pretty rich myself and lived in our best suburbs, have friends world wide who are rich. I spent 15 years being co opted to board positions because I did understand rich people. I have seen then do everything in their power to pay less and keep more, especially with salaries.
I always worked on a fee basis up front, because often the rich get that way because they do not pay.
I know some exceptions, but only a few.
I love it when there is no counter argument, they call you a socialist.
Ralph Deeds raised facts, the US has one of the lowest tax rates in the world. I don't agree with Barney's Franks ideas on a value added tax, but someone has to pay for government services, or demand that Democrats and Republcians actually cut services.
But that hasn't happened, and it won't until tough decisions are made. Every politician promises they will not raise taxes, yet all Americans demand better Education, Healthcare, safer streets, etc. So we want all of this, but don't want to pay for it with income taxes? The problem isn't the tax rate, the problem is nobody wants to pay anything but wants everything provided. And this is the only thing that is bipartisan these days.
You do have one of the lowest tax rates, but nobody wants to pay for infrastructure that benefits others in the society.
When Australia had the Howard Government we were hated for our human tights record, breaking International laws to keep out the so called "boat people" After spending an enormous amount of time money and effort keeping them offshore and locking them up like criminals behind razor wire for years at enormous expense.
Eventually almost every one was allowed to stay, as they were genuine refugees!
All this was done to appease the greedy me first screw everyone else set. It cost hundreds of millions and achieved nothing.
When all of America decides to support it's poor and downtrodden it will then be a rich country again. It is how we support our poor that is the measure of a country's true wealth.
Our current Australian government is keeping the country afloat by injecting the financial stimulus money in to the most needed areas. Free insulation in the roof of poorer homes, free low usage light bulbs, things that will permanently reduce their costs and take pressure off the electricity grid.
I am still waiting for my trickle down check. Has anybody seen it? I must have had it taken as a tax by Barney Frank.
by ptosis65 minutes ago
federal income tax rates history, During the eight years of the Eisenhower presidency, from 1953 to 1961, the top marginal rate was 91 percent. (It was 92 percent the year he came into office.)What does it mean, though?...
by Jesusjohn7819 months ago
Everyone hates the "rich" and I do not understand why. I was always under the impression the American dream was to become successful and stay successful? SO why are we always trying to punish the...
by awesome775 years ago
Coming from a very poor background, I have come to realize that most rich people do not give a rats ass about the poor! If in doubt, show me a rich person and you will see someone that has gone to great lengths to...
by Sophia Angelique4 years ago
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/ … sone_share1. Only 3 percent of the super rich are entrepreneurs. Most entrepreneurs come from the middle classes.2. America is No 4 from the bottom in terms of...
by Texasbeta5 years ago
I hate to just post a link and walk away, but I cannot imagine it being put more clearly.http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne … h-20111109
by AnnCee6 years ago
He says "we've" allowed a few rich people to take all the money and keep it. And "we" need to get it back from them.http://www.theblaze.com/stories/really- … from-them/Anti-capitalism in...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.