“Tax, Tax, Tax the Rich!" Calls to Tax Wealthy Making Right Wingers Sweat?

[dreamdancer 0]

two and two make...

Quote

A simple but powerful chant is now starting to reverberate, all across the country, in protests against budgets cuts gone wild.

“How to fix the deficit?” marchers are shouting. “Tax, tax, tax the rich!"

That sentiment, unfortunately, hasn’t yet reached deep into many law-making chambers. Last week, in the nation’s capital, Rep. Jan Schakowsky from Illinois did introduce legislation that would up taxes on income over $1 million, from the current 35 percent to a range of new rates that run from 45 to 49 percent.

But the budget debate in Congress still revolves almost exclusively around questions about how much to cut, with no attention at all to the vast untaxed fortunes of America’s super rich. In state legislatures, largely the same story.

So why are cheerleaders for America's rich starting to sweat? They're hearing the rising drumbeat — from labor and community groups the nation over — for new “millionaire” taxes. And they’re watching the polls, too. Over 80 percent of Americans, the latest surveys show, want higher taxes on our richest.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/150305/%E2%80%9Ctax%2C_tax%2C_tax_the_rich%21%22_calls_to_tax_wealthy_making_right_wingers_sweat/

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[mnealtx 0]

Sweat? Hardly - if they get taxed too much, they'll pack up and leave just like they did in Merrye Olde.

Quote

France has emerged as the latest destination for wealthy individuals fleeing Britain to escape the 50% top rate of income tax due to take effect next month.

The country, traditionally seen as highly-taxed, has introduced several measures recently to encourage entrepreneurs to settle there.

Analysis shows the exodus is fuelled by Britain becoming the most expensive of all big financial centres from April 6, when earnings more than £150,000 will be taxed at 50% and personal allowances reduced for income above £100,000.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Belgian_Draft 0]

So the rich left-wingers aren't sweating? Or aren't they going to have almost half of their net earnings stolen by the government as well?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[metalslug 36]

Unfortunately the "knock" from this kind of thing often still ends up cascading down to the bottom guy.

Company directors and CEO's might still want their same nett income, and so will simply increase their gross to achieve that after tax. They afford that by tightening the company belt, lay off a few more staff, suspend wage increases, tighten production, bring in more efficient machinery to replace workers.

There are not many wealthy entrepreneurs who would just resign themselves to having less income after tax, they would shift the balance where needed to compensate.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Sweat? Hardly - if they get taxed too much, they'll pack up and leave just like they did in Merrye Olde.

ex-pat Americans are still subject to US taxes unless they renounce their US citizenship. Are you suggesting that the rich place money above patriotism? For shame!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jimmytavino 16]

certain distinctions should be made, between "millionaires" and "hugely wealthy"

if a person is working day in and day out and can generate income of over a million, then Bravo.. More power to them... They may still need to pay taxes,, but i think there needs to be categories based on HOW many million. This would be for actively working earners...Never wanna discourage people, and stifle growth...So those working,, need to be treated a bit easier, than those NOT working.

For uber wealthy,, Especially those wealthy, by little more than "being born into the right family"
the 2nd and 3rd and 4th Generation wealthy...
They need to Give Back... some... and without Grumbling about it..

trust Funds beneficiaries... Grand children of the Ones who did ALL the W O R K ....and who are now Gone... Great Grandchildren...
People in the stratosphere of the financial world, those whose MONEY simply keeps making them MORE money... without their having to go to work.. without having to really earn it, without having to do more than simply Plan the next World Wide trip, excursion, jetaway...
THEY need to notch it down a bit, especially in light of the harsh reality, for so many worldwide.

The real wealthy can still pretty much live the way they do.. but they should do so with some sense that they are Contributing to the worlds common Good . and should do so , in some way
which makes a better place for everyone.. Maybe create better incentives for the wealthy to donate to worthy causes
Make THAT a Damn mandate....

The issue with Taxes, beyond how to Increase them.. should be how to earmark the monies collected BY them..
Now , doesn't everything simply go into the "general fund"...??
Why not a tax code, where certain revenue streams, are used to
fund certain sensible expenses...
I'm ok with my income taxes from my WORKING being used for infrastructure, local community needs, medical research. But i'm NOt ok with it being used for various "subsidies" for covert and even Non covert Military operations...certain farm subsidies which discourage rather than EN courage...
Perhaps taxes collected from the military-industrial complex can be used for things like War, space research, pork barrel projects and "financing the DEBT"...
Cause i'd rather NOT see MY taxes, used that way...
I've managed to live MY life pretty much debt free....
why can't my Government??

Of course we spend too much.... that is the path we chose 40 , 50 years ago... when in a time of prosperity,, we ALL bought into the "buy Now Pay Later" Mentality...
Everything from clothes to cars, meals,, ( Diners Club was the 1st credit card ) to electronics. vacations to groceries....
Well here's where it got us...Because our own federal Govt. who SHOULD know better,,,,has been on an Explosion!!! of deficit spending... just writing blank checks,,spending what they KNOW isn't there.. thowing around The peoples money,,, with No regard, to the effectiveness of the expenditures!!! "bond issues" which simply means,, lets spend a whole Lot of money Now, which we can't raise by asking for donations...or increasing taxes ...Who cares about when it gets paid off.....

Not sure who said it or when i heard it... but this quote always made sense to me.....and i've tried my whole life. to follow it's advice..
" From Whom Much has been Given, Much is Expected " .

It's just a balance, harmony, equilibrium.. I learned about it science class. in grade school....Our world is So far OUT of equilibrium, socially, financially, POLITICALLY, and religiously.. No wonder it is Quake-ing.. like it is...


Maybe it's trying to tell us something...

jt

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

They need to Give Back... some... and without Grumbling about it..

Why do you think you have more of a claim to their property than they do?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[futuredivot 0]

Just curious, what's it like to live your life between someone else's quotation marks?

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[jimmytavino 16]

Quote

Quote

They need to Give Back... some... and without Grumbling about it..

Why do you think you have more of a claim to their property than they do?

I never made a CLAIM on ANYbody's money/property....
and as for it being "theirs"...when it's only by the luck of birth, and They did NOt personally Generate those riches, they are nothing more than a fortunate beneficiary....

i simply feel that a certain equity should exist...whereby the ones most able to help out. should...

again, the real issue is what is DONE with tax revenue...

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

For uber wealthy,, ...
They need to Give Back... some... and without Grumbling about it..



THEY need to notch it down a bit, especially in light of the harsh reality, for so many worldwide.

selectively cut and paste, forgive me

I want to understand your position here

The uber rich need to "give back" to the economy....by spending LESS???????




If their lifestyles bother you so much, wouldn't it make more sense that they spent recklessly until they made themselves poor?

Then you win by getting to see total strangers ruin their lives . And the rest of us win by all the economic transactions resulting from said downfall.

stimulus and class revenge in one pot. Of course the liberal-gasm would REALLY be the government took it all with no exchange and that money just disappears and helps no one, but you can't have it all

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

again, the real issue is what is DONE with tax revenue...

oops, nevermind - you DO want the liberalgasm

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,118]

>certain distinctions should be made, between "millionaires" and "hugely wealthy"

To a garment worker, someone who makes $200K a year is "hugely wealthy." To someone who started their own successful company, someone who makes $300K a year is middle class.

Which is the problem with taxing people based on what other people think they "deserve."

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Sweat? Hardly - if they get taxed too much, they'll pack up and leave just like they did in Merrye Olde.

Quote

France has emerged as the latest destination for wealthy individuals fleeing Britain to escape the 50% top rate of income tax due to take effect next month.

The country, traditionally seen as highly-taxed, has introduced several measures recently to encourage entrepreneurs to settle there.

Analysis shows the exodus is fuelled by Britain becoming the most expensive of all big financial centres from April 6, when earnings more than £150,000 will be taxed at 50% and personal allowances reduced for income above £100,000.

Ah... if it isn’t the Sheriff of Kosovo, showing up to protect the taxing of the poor by his benefactors and benevolent monarchs, King George and King Ronald. The taxing of the poor has always been preferred by the royalty, so they may PROPERLY hold onto all the wealth... by the Grace of God.

[billvon 3,118]

>There are not many wealthy entrepreneurs who would just resign
>themselves to having less income after tax, they would shift the balance
>where needed to compensate.

I don't know of any entrepreneurs who are both a) successful and b) so stupid/shortsighted that they would only work to improve their business when their personal income is threatened.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Ah... if it isn’t the Sheriff of Kosovo, showing up to protect the taxing of the poor by his benefactors and benevolent monarchs, King George and King Ronald.

Unfortunately, my dear court jester, your argument is in error. Reducing tax rates means the poor pay less or don't have to pay at all.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

I just find it so very saddening that "tax the rich" is so often mentioned. It's "us" and "them" class warfare and about punishment. Why do I say this?

Here's why:

Ever notice that it is never "We have problems that we must fix?" How about, "We all must pay more to balance the budget?" No. All we here is that "we must tax the rich." "The rich must pay for this." "Tax the wealthy for they have the money."

It's never, ever, ever about "we" or "us." It is, without fail, about how 98 percent should force the remaining ultrasuperminority 2 percent to pay for those things that the 98 percent has decided they want - but not enough to pay for themselves.

Liquidating everything that American billionaires own would keep the federal government operating for about six weeks, so we know that the vast majority of money lies within the remaining 98 percent.

What ever happened to problems we all should participate in fixing? Those are gfone and I'm disgusted by those who argue that only a small percentage (the moral hazard of democracy) should be forced to pay what everyone else is says they should pay for but is unwilling to do themselves.

It's not about "we." It's not about "e pluribus unum." It's not about "society." It sure as hell isn't about "equality."

I think it is about warfare. I think it is about greed and envy. I can find no other explanation for telling others to do what they refuse to do themselves, i.e. an across-the-board 49% tax.

No. Can't do that. That would hurt everyone when we just want the 2% to hurt...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,118]

>Liquidating everything that American billionaires own would keep the
>federal government operating for about six weeks, so we know that the
>vast majority of money lies within the remaining 98 percent.

Agreed. However, the vast majority of money lies within the top 10%. So if the argument is that "we can't tax the top 2% because you won't get enough money" then the solution is simple - tax the top 10% instead.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Liquidating everything that American billionaires own would keep the
>federal government operating for about six weeks, so we know that the
>vast majority of money lies within the remaining 98 percent.

Agreed. However, the vast majority of money lies within the top 10%. So if the argument is that "we can't tax the top 2% because you won't get enough money" then the solution is simple - tax the top 10% instead.

And when those top 10% close down Apple, IBM, Microsoft etc and move them overseas, then what?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Ah... if it isn’t the Sheriff of Kosovo, showing up to protect the taxing of the poor by his benefactors and benevolent monarchs, King George and King Ronald.

Unfortunately, my dear court jester, your argument is in error. Reducing tax rates means the poor pay less or don't have to pay at all.

Even 1% from someone with very little is a HUGE tax to bear. You and your ilk wish to give it All to your LORDS and MASTERS.. in hopes of you little trickle. Trouble is... you and yours have been conned into believing the trickle they have been drippping on you is a good thing.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

>Liquidating everything that American billionaires own would keep the
>federal government operating for about six weeks, so we know that the
>vast majority of money lies within the remaining 98 percent.

Agreed. However, the vast majority of money lies within the top 10%. So if the argument is that "we can't tax the top 2% because you won't get enough money" then the solution is simple - tax the top 10% instead.

And when those top 10% close down Apple, IBM, Microsoft etc and move them overseas, then what?

OMG... THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING... THERE WILL BE NO MORE TRICKLE>..... if we do not all show proper BENDAGE at the WAIST TO OUR LORDS

[billvon 3,118]

>And when those top 10% close down Apple, IBM, Microsoft etc and move
>them overseas, then what?

I'm not saying "tax the top 10%." I'm saying that the argument "we can't get enough money from the top" isn't a valid argument.

(And given that we saw a lot of growth in US industries back when the top tax bracket was 92%, I don't buy the "but US companies will leave!" argument either. Both are _way_ oversimplified.)

[lawrocket 3]

>>> However, the vast majority of money lies within the top 10%. So if the argument is that "we can't tax the top 2% because you won't get enough money" then the solution is simple - tax the top 10% instead

I disagree. I've found that the vast majority of money is not in hoarded wealth but rather in wages and income. For every person making $300k per year there are a couple hundred making less. 20 people making $30k per year is twice the income of the person making $300k.

We are about taxing income, right? Where's the income? With everybody.

That's where the rhetoric comes in - tax the wealthy doesn't mean taxing the highest earners. If we want to go after the real bucks, tax all wages and benefits. The wealthiest 10% is a great way to say "we won't hit the majority." This makes a selling point for voters.

But one way or another, Bill, it isn't about "us," is it? It's still about solving problems that those 10% are no more responsible for than anyone else by making that 10% pay up.

And since is is known that taxing them heavily will not even put a dent in the problems, then there has to be another reason, right?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Even 1% from someone with very little is a HUGE tax to bear.

So you support the Bush tax cuts that made it where they paid LESS or NOT AT ALL, then?

Quote

You and your ilk wish to give it All to your LORDS and MASTERS.. in hopes of you little trickle.

That would be YOU supporting the repeal of the tax cuts.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,118]

>I disagree.

Well, OK. It is quite literally true, though. Some other stats - in 2007, the top 1% of people in the US held 35% of the wealth The top 20% hold 85%. You can surely argue that that's a good thing, but that doesn't change the percentages. (That's wealth, by the way, not income.)

>That's where the rhetoric comes in - tax the wealthy doesn't mean taxing
>the highest earners.

Agreed. But then again, the term "tax the wealthy" is often a misnomer, since taxes as a percentage of income decline as you get towards the top 1% - and we're not taxing wealth anyway, we're taxing income. Heck, Warren Buffett only makes $100K a year in salary.

>The wealthiest 10% is a great way to say "we won't hit the majority."

It hits the majority less than raising taxes directly on the majority. It does have some other effects, as you have noted.

For the record:

1) I don't think that we should tax the rich because they are evil or they didn't earn their money or anything.

2) I don't think the middle class or poor "have a right to that money" - and redistributing money always ends poorly.

2) I think that by far the best way to deal with our debt is to reduce spending.

However, as we regularly see here, people do not want to reduce spending. Even the staunchest Tea Partyer gets cold feet when it comes to the really big expenditures - Social Security, Medicare, veteran's care, military spending etc. Given that (or more likely given minor cuts rather than major budget-balancing cuts) how do we avoid going ever deeper into debt?

We can raise taxes on everyone by X percent. Go right across the board and increase each bracket by a percentage. That would surely work, but would also slow down the economy, since that money would come right out of many people's disposable income (i.e. the money that drives much of our economy.)

To partially ameliorate that problem, you can increase the highest tax brackets. This hits the highest earners first, and they are the least likely to change their spending habits (due to having reserves) thus minimizing the impact on the economy.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Even 1% from someone with very little is a HUGE tax to bear.

So you support the Bush tax cuts that made it where they paid LESS or NOT AT ALL, then?

Quote

You and your ilk wish to give it All to your LORDS and MASTERS.. in hopes of you little trickle.

That would be YOU supporting the repeal of the tax cuts.

You really do not follow REAL WORLD news do you...

How many kinds of taxes to NORMAL people have to pay... you know.. the ones who buy things... live in homes.. etc etc.

Who did the Administration wish to let the taxes go back to what they were back when there was the closet thing we have had to a balanced budget since 1970???... oh yes your favorite group of TRICKLERS but your ILK.... in the hopes of that itty bit of TRICKLE thought that was oh so horrible to do to your LORDS