jump to last post 1-12 of 12 discussions (31 posts)

Just Tax the Rich

  1. MikeNV profile image75
    MikeNVposted 6 years ago


    I'm not sure I buy into their numbers but here is what they had to say:

    "The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners — households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 — paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

    The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment."

    In my view this is just Government Propaganda... a Public Relations piece as they prepare new campaigns to bend you over.  Just another story to get you to drink the Kool Aid.

    1. 0
      ryankettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Makes sense to me.... the super rich paying for a war which will make them richer in the long run.... whilst those at the bottom lose their sons and daughters.

    2. 0
      Poppa Bluesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Well if it's based on government reporting, you have to assume it's accurate. I'm not sure why the government would want to lie about who pays what in taxes. Seems to me if they want to stick it to the rich they would portray them as not paying their fair share. For example Warren Buffet once said his secretary pays more taxes then he does, which isn't quite true. She does pay a higher rate perhaps 33% of earnings where Buffet pays only 15% since his money comes entirely from capital gains.

      But you are correct, government is about to stick it to us all big time. Today it was reported that Paul Volcker, ex Fed chief under Carter and Regan, said that a VAT tax would be considered "less toxic"  now than in the past. We all know that the health care bill cost will far exceed what the CBO scored, and government knows this too. President Obama's commission on reducing the debt will release their recommendations in December, after the elections and will provide the cover for Obama to institute a VAT tax to fund health care and all his other social programs. So prepare to bend over America and lube those cheeks because the big one is coming!

  2. tobey100 profile image61
    tobey100posted 6 years ago

    The numbers are correct.  Simple logic and math always prove out.  Taxing the rich more than we already are is a sure fire means of destroying whatever Obama plans to let us keep.  As an example:


  3. William R. Wilson profile image60
    William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago

    How many people do you know who make 366,000 a year? 

    And do you think, if you made that much, that you couldn't pay a decent accountant to find a way to shelter your income from taxes in some way or other?

    1. tobey100 profile image61
      tobey100posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Answers:  None and yes I believe I could

      Excellent points

  4. MikeNV profile image75
    MikeNVposted 6 years ago

    "How many people do you know who make 366,000 a year?"

    I actually know several.  And they do NOT get off the hook from taxes.  Most are business owners... and pay more taxes than any 50 "regular joes" punching a clock.

    There is this erroneous belief that the rich do not pay taxes, when in fact they pay most of the taxes.  There is no accounting trickery that gets them off the hook.

    As the article clearly states they pay the vast majority of Taxes.

    They however are not the people who complain the most about taxes.

    This article merely points out what the masses need to know - The "Rich" already pay the majority of taxes.

    It's politically popular for Team Obama to target the rich... but it's factually incorrect.

    1. tobey100 profile image61
      tobey100posted 6 years ago in reply to this


    2. 0
      ryankettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Really? I could have sworn that Jersey, Monaco, Switzerland, Lichenstien and several other countries rely almost entirely on these very people hoarding their cash....

    3. William R. Wilson profile image60
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Is their income actually 350,000 a year, or are you thinking of what their business makes?  Just curious.

      They might pay most of the taxes, but they also make most of the money. 

      Think about it. 

      If you make 35,000 a year, 20% in taxes equals 7,000 - leaving you with 28,000 to spend, save or whatever.  If you make 100,000 and pay 50% in taxes, you still have 50,000 to spend or save. 

      I need my money, and those tax credits, a lot more than someone who makes 5 or ten times as much as I do. 

      Also - the tax rates for the rich are actually at a low point compared to what they have been.  Tax cuts for the rich started with Reagan and have continued through Bush II.  So it's not like the rich are suddenly being exploited.

  5. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Yes, well at the same time you have corporations paying NO taxes whatsoever.

    "Last week, Forbes magazine published what the top U.S. corporations paid in taxes last year. “Most egregious,” Forbes notes, is General Electric, which “generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.” Big Oil giant Exxon Mobil, which last year reported a record $45.2 billion profit, paid the most taxes of any corporation, but none of it went to the IRS:

    Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas."

    Really-we should concentrate on corporate welfare instead of always blaming families who are just trying to survive.
    And everybody who works pays FICA...which goes to such things as SSI, railroad retirement, disability....
    You can't get blood from a stone. The cost of living is incredible due to the ridiculous profit margins these companies generously give themselves.
    What do you want? Cut more social programs...Like roads, bridges, hospitals, etc?
    Or make sure everyone pays their fair share.
    And it is NOT fair to tax investment income at 15% while labor is taxed at 35!

  6. 0
    Justine76posted 6 years ago

    I dont care how much money someone makes, they shouldnt have to pay for some other guy to sit around and snort pills while collecting unemployment "benefits" and food stamps.

    if someone makes 30 mill a year, they still shouldnt be foreced to pay a higher percetnage of income tax.

    1. tobey100 profile image61
      tobey100posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You go girl!!!!!

      1. 0
        Justine76posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        wink thanks.

  7. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    So someone who lost a job due to all the jobs being out-sourced is more a problem than the company who:
    1. outsuorced the job
    2. outsources the accounting
    3. outsources the income ...from what is due the gvt. into their own pocket.

    Who do you think makes up that difference?
    Corporate welfare is WAY more damaging to America than poor people welfare.

    Tell Bachmann to give back that $250,000---does she need that?
    How many unemployment insurance claims do you suppose that would equal?  A lot.
    And all of that $250,000 went to one family...hers.
    Gee, was that a socialist or a marxist thing for Bachmann to do?

  8. Cagsil profile image84
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    Taxing one specific social class is discrimination isn't it?

    Just a thought. hmm

    1. William R. Wilson profile image60
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      If you want to define it that way, sure. 

      Requiring certain people to work for wages (and enrich their employers in so doing) in order to eat and have a roof over their head would also be discrimination then, wouldn't it?

      1. 0
        Poppa Bluesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I suppose it would but you would only have that condition under a socialist/Marxist system. In America no one has to work.

        1. William R. Wilson profile image60
          William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          No one has to work?  So I can quit my job? Really?  Just never work?  Really?

          1. 0
            Poppa Bluesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Yes. You are free to do so. I wouldn't want you to enrich anyone else with your labor!

      2. Cagsil profile image84
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        If I want to define it that way? WOW!

        Now, this statement is foolish. The obvious fact that "money" is a requirement is something that isn't going to change, at least not for a very, very, very, very, long, long, long, long time. So, that makes it a requirement for living.

        There is no discrimination for those who have earn money to live. Everyone has to. Therefore, no separation, which is the discrimination foundation.

        Those who have to earn a wage is no different than the businesses who have to pay their laborers. Both are required.

        1. William R. Wilson profile image60
          William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I'm serious.  You seem to define discrimination as:  any action which has a greater effect on one class of persons than on another class of persons.  Thus, rich people paying more taxes is discrimination against rich people.

          Ok, fine.  So a toy manufacturer states that people who weigh more than 60 pounds can't swing on their swingset.  Well, that's discrimination too, using your definition.

          Pretty useless definition of discrimination, if you ask me.

          Money is a requirement for living in our society.  So - those who have nothing, who must work in order to afford the barest necessities of life, are affected much more greatly by that fact (money is a requirement) than someone who has money, and can invest and never actually has to work but can just earn while he plays golf. 

          So, using your logic, the person with no money is being discriminated against.

          1. Padrino profile image59
            Padrinoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "Money is a requirement for living in our society."

            Yep! And by your logic those who have money spend less of it because they have more!


            1. William R. Wilson profile image60
              William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this


              Posting drunk?

  9. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Sure you would . It happens all the time.
    Why do you think they like illegals so much?
    Dirt cheap pay.
    More money for them.
    Puleeeze, don't act like this hasn't been the whole deal since laizze faire economics took over. Ford would never have done that. He said he wanted to pay his guys enough so they could afford to buy the cars they were making.
    Japan doesn't allow it. Their ceo's are not allowed to pocket 500 times the pay of their workers.
    This country has been backasswards since Reagan.
    SO glad it's time for a change.

    1. 0
      LegendaryHeroposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Laizze faire? Hardly.

  10. MikeNV profile image75
    MikeNVposted 6 years ago

    "Rich People" are not your enemy... Government is.  Rich people not only pay the vast majority of taxes they also contribute the vast majority of social giving/charity contributions.

    Gates and Buffet are obscenely wealthy... they are also giving Billions back in the form of Charity and Social Giving.  And that's how it should be.

    The average person who has never run or owned a business is completely clueless.

    I have to track an enormous amount of paperwork.  I pay taxes like Federal Unemployment Taxes, Modified Business Taxes, Corporate Filing Fees, etc.  Things the average person working for wages has never encountered.

    The average person likes to Demonize Corporations and use words like Corporate Welfare because they have no real idea what a Corporation is and how it works.

    Corporations are NOT people.  The people who the Corporations pay - Employees, CEO's, Vice Presidents... all those people pay taxes.  Every last one of them.

    The amount of ignorance in the general public is alarming.

    What happens when you Gouge Corporations with Taxes?  The simply raise prices.  Either way you pay.

    It doesn't change the fact that the Rich still pay most of the taxes.

    Obama likes to Demonize people and industry... stir up Emotions and use the "Us against Them mentality" against the masses.  The masses by into this because they are uneducated.

    These very principals are why it is so easy for the masses to be controlled.

    If you don't want to be poor... then go start a business.  Incorporate yourself.  Buy the land, equipment, and hire the employees.  Then get ready to enjoy the massive amount of Government Regulation and Taxes you have never even heard of.

    I pay a FULL 15.3% Social Security Tax.  People forget about their employers picking up HALF of their Social Security and Medicare Contribution.

    But I regress... you can't convince uneducated people principals they simply do not understand.

    1. William R. Wilson profile image60
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Unintentional irony award for the day.

  11. Doug Hughes profile image59
    Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago

    "One way to ‘see’ the distribution of wealth in the U.S. is to imagine a group of 100 people who have a $100 between them. Evenly distributed each would have one dollar of wealth. Alas, that is far from the actual distribution. According to the most recent study, Currents and Undercurrents, by the Survey of Consumer Finance (Federal Reserve, Department of Treasury, 2006) wealth is distributed accordingly:

    50 individuals at the bottom have a nickel. ($0.05 times 50 = $2.50)

    The next 40 each have $0.70 of wealth (40 times $0.70 - $28.00).

    The next 9 each have $4.00 of wealth (nine times $4.00 = $36.00)

    The last richest individual has $33.40 (one time $33.40)."

    from - http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics … th-us.html

    Now who do YOU think should pay the most taxes?

    1. lovemychris profile image79
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Excellent point.

  12. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    This is a country, not a corporation.
    People have needs.
    Once you link needs to profit, what have you got?
    People living on the streets...kids or not, who cares? No money-No nothing!
    Veterans who have served this country-- on the streets.
    Mentally ill people on the streets or locked up in prison cause we don't want to pay for their care.
    Prisons-for profit now!
    More you lock up-more money you make....geeee, do you think that might affect the system somehow, like you know--- in locking more people up? More money in it that way.
    Gvt . is the problem because they have let the corporations get away with murder.
    Gvt. has not been doing its job because they were in bed with corporations.
    Look the other way, vote for me!
    Why is it that 6 companies own ALL of media?
    I would agree with cutting back on taxes if they'd up the wages.
    Less taxes for everyone if the cost of living would go down.
    But it won't.
    Trickle down was more like trickle up.
    All you have to do is look at the income disparity in America and you have the results of 30 years of gvt. sucks policy.
    Everything has gone to the top.
    Not by accident either.

    You could use a little educating yourself nv...
    Why don't you read "The Working Poor- Invisible in America", by David K. Shipler
    "Nickled and Dimed in America", by Barbara Ehrenreich
    It's not at all what you think.
    There are no "Welfare Queens" eating lobster and driving Cadillacs like Reagan used to quip. Boy, what a riot huh, chuckle chuckle..right after he threw the mentally ill on the street with the statement,  "We're cutting their allowance".

    I'll take Obama ANY day.