Part of your writing is about what happened and the rest is about what you believe. Are the rich universally callous a-holes who care nothing about their employees? Some are like that, others ain't. Capitalism is like a military tank; it's better to be riding in the turret than getting caught under the treads.

Historically there appears to be more misery when taxocrats run the show than repubs. Why, what's stopping His Earness from announcing he loves socialism and implementing a carbon copy of the European model (have you see Greece lately)?

Not that I have much stake in defending them, but the wealthy pay the most taxes in America, despite the cheaters, that's fact. The bottom 50% don't even pay income tax but suck up plenty of "free" goodies.

There's a moral basis for making others pay a fair share of taxes, but not the lion's share.



>> ^RFlagg:

Let me tell you about "Employers". My former employer, just prior to the Presidential election sent out a memo saying that if Obama won the election and put his tax plan into effect he would have to fire 300 some people. Obama of course won, and even before Obama took the oath of office, they fired on the order of 380 people and told the rest that we wouldn't get a raise that year because the cost of living went down so much. He then went out and bought a private jet and another mansion in Glenmoor (a high end gated Arnold Palmer designed golf community) to add to the one he already had there (the second largest in Glenmoor) and his place on Miami Beach among others. A new year for the companies health care plan rolls around and the rates were supposed to go up 22% (the same amount as last year, but this is not mentioned the memo) but they held the line at only a 5% increase (again just like last year but not mentioned in the memo); the very next sentience of the memo about the health care cost increase goes to say how the company disagrees with Obama's costly health care plan as if it had anything to do with the insurance rate increases that year (one should note it is deceptive stuff like that which they put in their marketing which is why they can't do business in FL, PA, CA and a few others). Then when the Ohio governorship is up for election he sends another memo out talking how under Ted Strickland the company lost 380+ jobs and that we should vote for John Kasich. John Kasich wins and the owner fires 230+ people and once again no raises for anyone. 600+ people out of work but guess who still has his private jet. And it isn't like he is a rare case. Aside from the memos of voter intimidation he is typical of the rich and what they think of their employees. He has been given huge tax credits and incentives from the state, county and cities, but he still hasn't hired many people, and as a matter of fact fired over 600 people (far exceeding those hired by several hundred still) and pocketed the savings so he could get a jet. So don't believe or spread the lie that if we give the rich tax breaks or more money it will eventually help the working class. 30 years of trickle down economics has proven that doesn't happen. Of course you Republicans won't let facts stand in the way of robing the working class to support the rich, and using the media to tell them it is for their own good... sadly too many of the American public is too brain dead to realize they are being coned.
People like that guy is who the Republicans are all about rather blatantly, at least the Democrats pretend to care about the working class even if they don't have the balls to stand up to the Republicans or the rich. Some of the more caring Democrats have a plan that would balance the budget 10 to 20 years faster than the Republican plan, all without cuts to essential services to the working poor. If the Republicans really wanted to balance the budget as they say, and cut spending as they say, then they would go with the People's Budget, but since that cuts into Republican funded things like Tarp and cuts the military budget and raises taxes on the upper 2% they won't have it. Of course Obama and the majority of the Democrats are too chicken to support it themselves...

Let me tell you about "Employers". My former employer, just prior to the Presidential election sent out a memo saying that if Obama won the election and put his tax plan into effect he would have to fire 300 some people. Obama of course won, and even before Obama took the oath of office, they fired on the order of 380 people and told the rest that we wouldn't get a raise that year because the cost of living went down so much. He then went out and bought a private jet and another mansion in Glenmoor (a high end gated Arnold Palmer designed golf community) to add to the one he already had there (the second largest in Glenmoor) and his place on Miami Beach among others. A new year for the companies health care plan rolls around and the rates were supposed to go up 22% (the same amount as last year, but this is not mentioned the memo) but they held the line at only a 5% increase (again just like last year but not mentioned in the memo); the very next sentience of the memo about the health care cost increase goes to say how the company disagrees with Obama's costly health care plan as if it had anything to do with the insurance rate increases that year (one should note it is deceptive stuff like that which they put in their marketing which is why they can't do business in FL, PA, CA and a few others). Then when the Ohio governorship is up for election he sends another memo out talking how under Ted Strickland the company lost 380+ jobs and that we should vote for John Kasich. John Kasich wins and the owner fires 230+ people and once again no raises for anyone. 600+ people out of work but guess who still has his private jet. And it isn't like he is a rare case. Aside from the memos of voter intimidation he is typical of the rich and what they think of their employees. He has been given huge tax credits and incentives from the state, county and cities, but he still hasn't hired many people, and as a matter of fact fired over 600 people (far exceeding those hired by several hundred still) and pocketed the savings so he could get a jet. So don't believe or spread the lie that if we give the rich tax breaks or more money it will eventually help the working class. 30 years of trickle down economics has proven that doesn't happen. Of course you Republicans won't let facts stand in the way of robing the working class to support the rich, and using the media to tell them it is for their own good... sadly too many of the American public is too brain dead to realize they are being coned.
People like that guy is who the Republicans are all about rather blatantly, at least the Democrats pretend to care about the working class even if they don't have the balls to stand up to the Republicans or the rich. Some of the more caring Democrats have a plan that would balance the budget 10 to 20 years faster than the Republican plan, all without cuts to essential services to the working poor. If the Republicans really wanted to balance the budget as they say, and cut spending as they say, then they would go with the People's Budget, but since that cuts into Republican funded things like Tarp and cuts the military budget and raises taxes on the upper 2% they won't have it. Of course Obama and the majority of the Democrats are too chicken to support it themselves...

The myth is that if you give the rich business owners even more money and power, they'll save us all with job creation.

Now if that actually happened, I wouldn't mind it if they were given some sort of tax credit because it would mean they really are putting money back into the system. But that's just not what happens, it's the exception, not the rule. Most of the time that money just gets pocketed, not reinvested into their company. Gov't simply does NOT get good value for that investment

If there were actual stipulations to these tax credits, I'd be in favor of them more, but in reality it's more like this:

Rich Person: Hi, I'm rich, I'd like more money please."
Gov't: "Here you go! If you want more, just ask!"

Besides, even if tax increases killed job creation (and history shows that that doesn't happen) Whose fault is that? If someone is holding your wife hostage and will shoot your wife if you take a step closer. The person to blame is the guy pulling the trigger, not the person who took a step closer.

The thing is people belive in this dumb fuck mith that people with lots of money worked for that money.

they allso belive that fincail succsess is a skilled or something that good people achive , they are totaly ignorent to the fact that the biggest fincail rewards are for people that work out how to best Game the system not people that best contribute to socity.

the perpouse of money in our modern system is to allow for the ruling few to remain in absalut comfort and power , Not as a covenant bartering tool as it was intended.

>> ^peggedbea:

1. the lower income brackets DO pay something. sales tax, excise taxes, property taxes. and disproportionately so. the lower/middle income families spend a greater portion of their monthly incomes on taxable goods and services, where the higher income brackets have a higher rate of savings... they're saving a greater portion of their income, therefore not spending it on taxable goods and services.
states that have no state income tax (like texas) and rely solely on sales, excise and property taxes typically have a regressive taxation system... meaning the bulk of the burden of the state and municipal operating budgets are placed disproportionately on lower/middle income families.
2. i'm a working single mom with 2 kids. i work my ass off. i don't live beyond my means. i take care of my things. if a 15% flat tax rate were implemented guess who'd be (back) on government assistance??? i don't have 15% of my income left over at the end of the month. i typically can put 10-12% of my income back, split between a retirement account and a rainy day fund. a flat tax rate would create more problems than it would solve for the working poor with families to care for. and for 2 years i couldnt even dream of doing that. (i got laid off in 09 and JUST NOW got back to full time work that also pays a living wage)
>> ^bobknight33:
So is you issue with large corporations ( like GE ) not paying any tax due to loopholes or that their tax bracket is or is not high enough?
Would it not make since to cut all loopholes and give a relativity flat tax based on quarterly statements?
I agree with Qm The rich are pitching way more then anyone else. Still they stay filthy rich. But should they pay more? Should not the lower income bracket also pay something? If they would at least pay some tax they would have a better understanding of what is going on with respect to taxes.
Personally I would like a flat tax. I would even say ok to a excessive rate of 23% just to keep politicians from bitching and moaning that the children/ elderly will starve if we go to a flat tax.
Every thing I'm getting at is really for a smaller Government with a Keep it simple stupid mentality.
There is no reason for a person to spend 40 hours in figuring out their federal taxes each year.
And there is no reason for GE to post 14 Billion in profits (would wide) and not pay any taxes in the USA.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^quantumushroom:
The "evil rich" pay 38% of all taxes already. The 'bottom' 50% pay less than 2% of taxes yet slurp up plenty of government "services".
Dismissing the moral component for a moment, you could tax the rich at 99% and it wouldn't matter. There isn't enough money to cover a perpetually expanding government and the endless wants of the wish-to-haves.

You didn't define "evil rich", but the bottom 80% only control 15% of the wealth in this country, while the top 1% alone controls over 40% of the wealth.
I'd also disagree on who gets more out of government services. The rich mostly get their payoffs in the form of tax loopholes so they don't show up on lists of "government spending". For example, see how GE got $3.2 billion from the government for filing their taxes this year. That's a hell of a tax credit, and it doesn't show up in anyone's federal budget proposal!

1. the lower income brackets DO pay something. sales tax, excise taxes, property taxes. and disproportionately so. the lower/middle income families spend a greater portion of their monthly incomes on taxable goods and services, where the higher income brackets have a higher rate of savings... they're saving a greater portion of their income, therefore not spending it on taxable goods and services.
states that have no state income tax (like texas) and rely solely on sales, excise and property taxes typically have a regressive taxation system... meaning the bulk of the burden of the state and municipal operating budgets are placed disproportionately on lower/middle income families.

2. i'm a working single mom with 2 kids. i work my ass off. i don't live beyond my means. i take care of my things. if a 15% flat tax rate were implemented guess who'd be (back) on government assistance??? i don't have 15% of my income left over at the end of the month. i typically can put 10-12% of my income back, split between a retirement account and a rainy day fund. and for 2 years i couldnt even dream of doing that. (i got laid off in 09 and JUST NOW got back to full time work that also pays a living wage) a flat tax rate would create more problems than it would solve for the working poor with families to care for.

>> ^bobknight33:

So is you issue with large corporations ( like GE ) not paying any tax due to loopholes or that their tax bracket is or is not high enough?
Would it not make since to cut all loopholes and give a relativity flat tax based on quarterly statements?
I agree with Qm The rich are pitching way more then anyone else. Still they stay filthy rich. But should they pay more? Should not the lower income bracket also pay something? If they would at least pay some tax they would have a better understanding of what is going on with respect to taxes.
Personally I would like a flat tax. I would even say ok to a excessive rate of 23% just to keep politicians from bitching and moaning that the children/ elderly will starve if we go to a flat tax.
Every thing I'm getting at is really for a smaller Government with a Keep it simple stupid mentality.
There is no reason for a person to spend 40 hours in figuring out their federal taxes each year.
And there is no reason for GE to post 14 Billion in profits (would wide) and not pay any taxes in the USA.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^quantumushroom:
The "evil rich" pay 38% of all taxes already. The 'bottom' 50% pay less than 2% of taxes yet slurp up plenty of government "services".
Dismissing the moral component for a moment, you could tax the rich at 99% and it wouldn't matter. There isn't enough money to cover a perpetually expanding government and the endless wants of the wish-to-haves.

You didn't define "evil rich", but the bottom 80% only control 15% of the wealth in this country, while the top 1% alone controls over 40% of the wealth.
I'd also disagree on who gets more out of government services. The rich mostly get their payoffs in the form of tax loopholes so they don't show up on lists of "government spending". For example, see how GE got $3.2 billion from the government for filing their taxes this year. That's a hell of a tax credit, and it doesn't show up in anyone's federal budget proposal!

So is you issue with large corporations ( like GE ) not paying any tax due to loopholes or that their tax bracket is or is not high enough?

Would it not make since to cut all loopholes and give a relativity flat tax based on quarterly statements?

I agree with Qm The rich are pitching way more then anyone else. Still they stay filthy rich. But should they pay more? Should not the lower income bracket also pay something? If they would at least pay some tax they would have a better understanding of what is going on with respect to taxes.

Personally I would like a flat tax. I would even say ok to a excessive rate of 23% just to keep politicians from bitching and moaning that the children/ elderly will starve if we go to a flat tax.

Every thing I'm getting at is really for a smaller Government with a Keep it simple stupid mentality.

There is no reason for a person to spend 40 hours in figuring out their federal taxes each year.

And there is no reason for GE to post 14 Billion in profits (would wide) and not pay any taxes in the USA.


>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^quantumushroom:
The "evil rich" pay 38% of all taxes already. The 'bottom' 50% pay less than 2% of taxes yet slurp up plenty of government "services".
Dismissing the moral component for a moment, you could tax the rich at 99% and it wouldn't matter. There isn't enough money to cover a perpetually expanding government and the endless wants of the wish-to-haves.

You didn't define "evil rich", but the bottom 80% only control 15% of the wealth in this country, while the top 1% alone controls over 40% of the wealth.
I'd also disagree on who gets more out of government services. The rich mostly get their payoffs in the form of tax loopholes so they don't show up on lists of "government spending". For example, see how GE got $3.2 billion from the government for filing their taxes this year. That's a hell of a tax credit, and it doesn't show up in anyone's federal budget proposal!

>> ^quantumushroom:

The "evil rich" pay 38% of all taxes already. The 'bottom' 50% pay less than 2% of taxes yet slurp up plenty of government "services".
Dismissing the moral component for a moment, you could tax the rich at 99% and it wouldn't matter. There isn't enough money to cover a perpetually expanding government and the endless wants of the wish-to-haves.


You didn't define "evil rich", but the bottom 80% only control 15% of the wealth in this country, while the top 1% alone controls over 40% of the wealth.

I'd also disagree on who gets more out of government services. The rich mostly get their payoffs in the form of tax loopholes so they don't show up on lists of "government spending". For example, see how GE got $3.2 billion from the government for filing their taxes this year. That's a hell of a tax credit, and it doesn't show up in anyone's federal budget proposal!

I want to think you aren't a dick, but to do so we need to get real here for a minute. Are you including the FICA tax in your numbers? Do you agree with the social security raiders? Is the real problem where the actual thresholds are? Because if your problem is with raising taxes on people in the 90k area, I'm on board with you. The question becomes, why is there no support to raise taxes on people that earn over a million a year? Why is there no support to raise estate taxes? Indeed, how does taking away the basic human right to organize and negotiate even have anything to do with a budget crisis, particularly when that group is already prepared to make the necessary fiscal concessions?

I'm currently being paid about 10% of what I could be making. I'm working in the basic science of retinal function on work that could lead to all sorts of advances that benefit you, or your children, or for that matter humanity in general. I could be making ten times as much as a machine vision expert building predator drones to kill people whom most often I have no beef with. That's what you get with your "only spend it on 'defense', and let me keep the rest" attitude about taxation. FWIW, that's where I'm coming from, and that's why it pisses me off when millionaires don't want to give up an extra Ferrari in order to better educate the (by no fault of their own) underprivileged youth. Then out of the other side of their mouth they won't shave the $78 billion from the defense budget the DoD doesn't even want.

Nobody is trying to legislate morality here. You can write off the money you already give back for a reason. We just need to pay for all the infrastructure your business needed to succeed somehow. You're paying less in taxes than at almost any time since WWII. Cut us a little slack. We're barely making ends meet.

>> ^ridesallyridenc:

Why would you want to punish the people that actually succeed? How would it help to take away an individual's incentive to get ahead by taking more than half of their earnings when they do?
In 2006, the top 20% of earners in the country brought in 66% of the revenue and paid 85% of federal income taxes. The bottom 40%, on the other hand /consumed/ 3.6% in tax credits and incentives. Cumulatively, the bottom 60% of earners in this country paid only 0.8% of the federal income tax.
So, if you're making over $91k / year (which, face it, isn't rich), you're considered "elite" and should be punished for your success?

>> ^ridesallyridenc:

Why would you want to punish the people that actually succeed? How would it help to take away an individual's incentive to get ahead by taking more than half of their earnings when they do?
In 2006, the top 20% of earners in the country brought in 66% of the revenue and paid 85% of federal income taxes. The bottom 40%, on the other hand /consumed/ 3.6% in tax credits and incentives. Cumulatively, the bottom 60% of earners in this country paid only 0.8% of the federal income tax.
So, if you're making over $91k / year (which, face it, isn't rich), you're considered "elite" and should be punished for your success? Government programs that take from the rich and give to the poor disenfranchise people to try to succeed, as they'll be punished for it, while they reward people for doing nothing. And, somehow, it's a big puzzle why the income gap in America is growing? What's the incentive to bridge the gap?
If I can sit on my ass all day and make the same post-tax income as working 50 hours a week, why would I get a job? If I get sick, I just call an ambulance instead of a taxi - Medicare will pay for it after all. I get hungry - food stamps. If I need some extra cash, I sell my food stamps and buy beer. Beats working for a living.
If you want to combat earning discrepancies, provide incentive for people to get off their ass and make a decent living. And you don't do that by "dis-empowering" the rich.

>> ^Truckchase:
If anyone has a good idea as to how to dis-empower the rich in this country then I'm all ears.

Man I've got to be more careful; that's quite a cherry-pick quote. Looks nice without the context.


Your statement assumes anyone is in a position to be successful, and that is exactly what is currently under attack. If that were the case I'd agree with you. My concern doesn't surround the 90th percentile as you've quoted, but rather the 99th percentile. This is the segment that makes enough money to undermine our democracy and needs to be brought under control. This segment is moving to lower working wages across all employment spectrum but their own, and in a position to reap the rewards. We've been slowly and steadily moving towards a system with a much larger income gap, and it's been accelerated over the last few years with both the Republicans and Dems being eager to please the people who get them elected. (old data here)

We want to work for small business owners to be successful. SBOs are the engines of a working economy. Tax rates for the upper 99th percentile have little to do with small business success, and I think the argument against is generally one of principal and not of actual impact. There's a whole other issue here, and that's the impact on small businesses due to a vanishing middle class. The business opportunities afforded to an entrepreneur are much more likely to be upward servicing (corporations) as opposed to downward, (individuals) which has all sorts of easy to outline effects on the already tilted power structure that don't really need spelling out.

Bottom line is this: We're quickly becoming a society divided, a two-tier system. Your assertions are true in the optimal version of the society that we claim to live in, but it's been co-opted to the point where hard work, a great idea, and timing = success increasingly less often.

So, let me change the quote but ask the same question: If anyone has any ideas on practical, tangible steps to take today to resurrect the "American Dream" I'm all ears. I can assure you that the end of collective bargaining is a step in the wrong direction.

Good conversation; I gotta get back to work.

Why would you want to punish the people that actually succeed? How would it help to take away an individual's incentive to get ahead by taking more than half of their earnings when they do?

In 2006, the top 20% of earners in the country brought in 66% of the revenue and paid 85% of federal income taxes. The bottom 40%, on the other hand /consumed/ 3.6% in tax credits and incentives. Cumulatively, the bottom 60% of earners in this country paid only 0.8% of the federal income tax.

So, if you're making over $91k / year (which, face it, isn't rich), you're considered "elite" and should be punished for your success? Government programs that take from the rich and give to the poor disenfranchise people to try to succeed, as they'll be punished for it, while they reward people for doing nothing. And, somehow, it's a big puzzle why the income gap in America is growing? What's the incentive to bridge the gap?

If I can sit on my ass all day and make the same post-tax income as working 50 hours a week, why would I get a job? If I get sick, I just call an ambulance instead of a taxi - Medicare will pay for it after all. I get hungry - food stamps. If I need some extra cash, I sell my food stamps and buy beer. Beats working for a living.

If you want to combat earning discrepancies, provide incentive for people to get off their ass and make a decent living. And you don't do that by "dis-empowering" the rich.


>> ^Truckchase:

If anyone has a good idea as to how to dis-empower the rich in this country then I'm all ears.

>> ^lantern53:
50% of the people in this country pay no income tax. Yet they have an equal voice in government and hence the threat of the taking of private property that belongs to another.


Let's break that one down into the component logical assertions:

1. 50% of the people in this country pay no income tax.
   
2. All people have an equal voice in government.
   
3. People only pay no income tax when their incomes are so low that the standard deduction reduces their obligation to zero. (unstated, but common knowledge)
   
4. People with low incomes are more prone to "[take] private property that belongs to another", i.e. "steal" (strongly implied)
   

Once you decompose that argument a bit, you realize that even if I grant you 1-3 for the sake of argument, #4 is unquestionably a prejudicial statement without any real basis in fact.

Were you in favor of TARP, or did you decry that as a bailout? Given that the banksters have a team of lobbyists constantly petitioning the government for favors, and you seem to think of taxation as theft, isn't it rich people trying to steal every time major corporations ask the government for even one dollar of subsidy?

Does that really change if it's a tax credit, like the standard deduction that (supposedly) lets 50% of people pay no income tax?
>> ^lantern53:

It is a valid point.

No, it's really not.

@blankfist because we don't think the way to deal with bad government is to have no government.

I support some types of subsidies, but not others. The way things are now, way too many subsidies exist for people that don't need them, and that there's no compelling reason for us to subsidize.

I've said to you before, I think most liberals would take the compromise of "no corporate subsidies", though I think a lot of us think things like the R&D tax credit is still a good idea.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

He's for the Mosque - but he's against Arizona's right to enforce the law. He's for the Mosque - but he's against the right of the people of California to make their own laws. He's for the Mosque - but he's against the Bill of Rights when it applies to freedom of religious expression for Christians in schools or other places. He's for freedom when it comes to Mosques - but he's against it when it comes to the free market, people buying insurance, and on and on and on...

AZ's new anti-Mexican law gives the state the power to arrest anyone and hold them until they prove they are legal (presumably up to the usual Habeus Corpus limits). It doesn't matter that it's meant to be used against illegals; an officer can claim he has "reasonable suspicion" of anyone. I don't like my government having that much power. Lucky for me, I don't live in AZ.

The people of CA can and do make their own laws, but they have to be constitutional. It's amazing how many "conservatives" are just fine with more government when it agrees with their feelings.

If you're referring to a specific incident re: religious expression, I must have missed it.

You're free to not buy insurance, you just won't get your tax credit.

[edit]: I almost forgot... Opinions about the Mosque from anyone who isn't a Manhattan resident shouldn't matter, and "Manhatians" are in favor of it from the polls I've found.

Hey Sarah, dont quit your day job! And if you did, don't go in to real estate. Or any other industry that requires 1) Education above 6th grade andd 2) Maturity above a 4th grader. But then, did any expect Sarah Palin to be able to talk on something useful and on the topic? Real Estate people, are typically Republican, but MODERATE Republicans. The stuff her Tea Partiers enjoy will never work to real estate brokers/agents.

I recall a speech Mr. Clinton gave a few years ago, on real estate. While the speech was to help promote a Democrat, he stuck to the topic at hand. He explain the factors, the politics, and enviromental conditions from a politically-neutral stand point. Something a broker or CFP would do.

It doesn't help most Republicans/conservatives that most Americans took advantage of the $8000 tax credit on purchasing a new house last year. Certainly helped the real estate market. Which begs the question: Would you, as a real estate agent vote for the Democrat giving you more business? Or the Republican, who believes the goverment shouldn't be in the business of promoting good work ethics and policy?

Wow, I'd love to see video responses of everyone getting their tax credits in the mail, after they said it was a lie.