*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by dystopianfuturetoday.

*promote

Any neigh-sayers should look @ this information on the taxing of the wealthy over the past century before commenting.

^Those tax numbers that I linked do not include any capital gains taxes (or in other words, the rich could still sell stocks and other capital and make an assload off of it b/c Uncle Sam isn't taking nearly that much in the way of those forms of taxes); that being said there is, I believe, a clear pattern established that supports the idea that taxing the rich means prosperity for the country as a whole.

END THE BUSH TAX CUTS NOW!

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Saturday, December 4th, 2010 11:03pm PST - promote requested by JiggaJonson.

*money *talks

Adding video to channels (Money, Talks) - requested by MrFisk.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Senator, Bernie, Sanders' to 'Senator, Bernie Sanders' - edited by volumptuous

*money

I can't believe that anyone would think that Tax cuts for the rich is a good idea. Sometimes Americans seem like a different species to the rest of the world.

>> ^rodmunch99:

I can't believe that anyone would think that Tax cuts for the rich is a good idea. Sometimes Americans seem like a different species to the rest of the world.


That's if you believe what they tell us about how that shit ever happened. As if we voted it in...

The abolition of Income Tax and the instution of some sort of Fair Tax is the only solution we need here. Ultimately speaking though, what really needs to happens is a reduction of the U.S. Corporate tax rate. The whole "Tax cuts for the Rich" argument the neolib left always makes is pure bunk. The progressive income tax has set things up so that the top 10% are paying 60% of the taxes, and the bottom 50% are paying only 5%. The only taxes left to cut ARE taxes on "the rich", because they're the only ones paying federal taxes any more.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The abolition of Income Tax and the instution of some sort of Fair Tax is the only solution we need here. Ultimately speaking though, what really needs to happens is a reduction of the U.S. Corporate tax rate. The whole "Tax cuts for the Rich" argument the neolib left always makes is pure bunk. The progressive income tax has set things up so that the top 10% are paying 60% of the taxes, and the bottom 50% are paying only 5%. The only taxes left to cut ARE taxes on "the rich", because they're the only ones paying federal taxes any more.


I guess you missed the part where the senator said that the top 1% makes the same amount of money as the bottom 50%. So even with a flat tax rate using your numbers, the top 1% would pay 5% of the taxes, and the bottom 50% would pay 5%. The other 90% of taxes collected would come from the 51-99 percentile bracket. It's not a far stretch to show that the top 10% of income earners would pay 60% of taxes, even at a flat tax rate!

By making the tax a progressive tax, you move the tax burden to the class of people who can afford it the most. A 1% increase on someone who makes $1M a year would pay a whopping extra $10k. Next to $1M, 10K is nothing when you look at quality of life and living expenses. But take an extra 1% from someone who makes $25K is $250 dollars. That's $250 from the class of people least able to afford it. There is a reason that people in this bracket get tax breaks.

Why do we keep having this discussion? The math is easy. Common sense should prevail, yet does not.

I'm curious what you guys all think about eliminating income tax and increasing consumption taxes to compensate.

I like the idea but, I admit, I haven't really given it serious thought yet.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Senator, Bernie Sanders' to 'Senator, Bernie Sanders, income tax, rich, middle class, poverty' - edited by xxovercastxx

I guess our friend Bernie hasn't heard of trickle down economics. Swish

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I'm curious what you guys all think about eliminating income tax and increasing consumption taxes to compensate.
I like the idea but, I admit, I haven't really given it serious thought yet.


Consumption taxes are regressive, and they create black markets. They would have to be ridiculously high to compensate for the loss of our income tax: The rich pay most of the taxes, but they don't spend their money on things that you would hit with a consumption tax.

Really no one knows what will fix the economy, often times opinion of the economy means just as much as actual changes. If people think the economy is in the toilet, they play safe with their money....if they think it's great they invest in more risky things (to me the tech bubbles demonstrate this, they don't know WTF they were investing in half the time but it sounded good).

But it strikes me as odd when you see a sudden decline in the economy and opinion of it tank....that they don't undo what they changed a few years prior to the economic downturn. Yes there are outside influences and other hard to account for things. But if tax cuts on the rich stimulated the economy in a beneficial way, we would not be in the situation we are in. Yes bank deregulation and other stupid moves, plus a blind payout to people who abused the system really hurt us. But the people who made those decisions also tend to be rich people with rich friends, after all it takes millions upon millions to campaign for any federal level job and you're going to notice the guy giving you a couple hundred thousand versus the guy who gives you 10 bucks.

As for making up the taxes in other methods...sales, consumption, sin tax, whatever you want to refer to. 1% of the population can go day to day without buying as much or can go to lengths to offset or remove the tax burdens they would otherwise face if they have many resources at their disposal. They could simply live somewhere else where those taxes do not effect them. And the rest of the people making, I think it's 250k or less a year to be the non-rich, they simply do not have the resources to avoid living near their jobs and are going to have the basic necessity expenditures as any rich guy.

I mean we all have things we need in common.
Food

Shelter (electricity, gas)

Toiletries (unless we're gonna wipe our asses with tree bark and not wear deodorant or brush our teeth),

Methods of transport (which is usually going to be a car, most places have pathetic public transport and riding a bike in sweltering heat or freezing cold is not going to cut it)

Medical - which at this point in time you have to be pretty destitute or disabled to receive government help with. And everyone at some point in their life is going to need medical assistance whether it's through a fault of their own or not. It's a stupid system where if you can't afford your treatment "RIGHT NOW" you may end up crippled and a burden on everyone else for the rest of your life over a few thousand dollars.

Rich people don't need to eat any more than poor people, they might have richer tastes but they can survive on poor people food. Rich people don't need any more than the minimum shelter. Same with toiletries, fancy colognes and perfumes are frills. BMWs versus 20 year old clunkers, rich can drive beaters too. Medical, rich people are going to have the basic care they need when they need it at every stage of their life....because they are rich and of course luck in genetic lotteries count for a lot.

So unless every rich person lives extravagantly INSIDE the US at all times, taxing them on anything but income is only going to get what they spend money on inside the country...even though they make their money and protect their money and assets utilizing what everyone else helps subsidize - roads, utilities, police, firefighters, etc.

It's the "I got mine, so fuck you." attitude that seems to be popular now. You can see it in a lot of things, unemployment extensions (I got a job, so fuck you.), universal health care (I'm not sick, so fuck you.), public transportation (I own a car, so fuck you.), Visa workers/offshoring (I can get cheaper labor, so fuck you.), etc.

So we end up with absolutely no positive future growth besides what you can afford to do for yourself. And we have more and more people falling onto government welfare programs where they are going to find themselves stuck until the problems become so blatantly apparent that no one can deny that paying your share benefits you just as much as it benefits others.

Go Bernie!!!

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

The abolition of Income Tax and the instution of some sort of Fair Tax is the only solution we need here. Ultimately speaking though, what really needs to happens is a reduction of the U.S. Corporate tax rate. The whole "Tax cuts for the Rich" argument the neolib left always makes is pure bunk. The progressive income tax has set things up so that the top 10% are paying 60% of the taxes, and the bottom 50% are paying only 5%. The only taxes left to cut ARE taxes on "the rich", because they're the only ones paying federal taxes any more.


Look here and here. The richest 20% pay 65% of all federal taxes but earn 55% of the pre-tax income. The bottom 60% earn 26% of income and pay 15% of taxes, so the swing isn't huge. Not to mention the fact that the mean income of the bottom 20% is below the poverty threshold for a three person household (I'm not sure how a three person household is supposed to get by on $17k).

Blah blah flat tax

Didn't say flat tax. Said fair tax.

The richest 20% pay 65% of all federal taxes but earn 55% of the pre-tax income.

So? They're rich, which means they earn more. The only germaine fact is that the richest 20% are paying the bulk of our federal taxes. What would you? You want the top 20% of our wage earners to pay 75%, 90%, or a full 100% At what point will you be satisfied?

Not to mention the fact that the mean income of the bottom 20% is below the poverty threshold for a three person household (I'm not sure how a three person household is supposed to get by on $17k).

Irrelevant. I know that bleedin' heart liberals hate hearing hard, cold, statistical reality - but here goes... No amount of taxation or government spending can eliminate "the poor". There will always be a bottom 20%, and that bottom 20% will always be "below the poverty line". This concept that there is some magical way though taxation and government spending to elminate the "lower class" is bunk.

I would suppose that the point is that the rich should keep pumping money into the government until that bottom 20% is no longer below the poverty threshold (or something along those lines). Going to have to pop the bubble here. That'll never happen. It never has. And it never will.