Reduce taxes on the rich!

Yeah, that's what I thought. You can't say the number you have in mind, because that would reveal the real truth. I understand.

 

There is no need to raise the taxes on the rich, we just need to abolish all tax loopholes, rewrite the entire tax code, and throw any CEO's and Billionares in person if they don't pay their taxes.

 

Montoya, do yourself a favor, and watch this video. It will prove that taxing the rich more is not the answer to our deficit problems...reducing spending is.
[video=youtube;661pi6K-8WQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ[/video]

 

I'm aware of what's going on. And no, I won't pretend to be a math expert or and economist. Even so, I do know the arguments and basic data of those who are experts.

It makes sense that the wealthiest Americans should bear more (a larger proportion) of this nation's economic burdens. We likely disagree there, but that is not any surprise to me given the political environment we see in America today.

 

For those who go to extremes, it just needs to be said:

Taxing the wealthy a bit more is only PART of the solution; but it is clearly necessary.

 

Directly proportional to the services expected. You want Defense? Fine, pay for it. Public schools, roads, police force, fire protection, clean water, clean air, public lands, safe medicine, air planes that don't crash into one another? They all cost money.

Many of the highest rated standard of living countries, best education, best health care, most upwardly mobile, safest, cleanest and greenest happen to also be the highest taxed. With free healthcare and a college education for any citizen that wants it, the Nordic countries pay around 50% and have very comfortable, if cold, lifestyle.

Other countries have no taxes at all. Some have little or no effective government, others sell off national resources in lieu of taxes.

What's fair? What ever pays for the services demanded. Old time Conservatives, (a now extinct brand once called moderates), would say it doesn't matter what the rates are as long as they cover the expenses. For today's wildly out of balanced situation, they would support a large tax hike coupled with cuts in everything in sight, including Defense. In other words many would be cliff divers actually wanting and embrace the fiscal cliff. It might hurt for a while, but it brings things back in balance over the midterm.

 

Again, please just give us the number. I am sick to death of the tap dancing.

What percentage of ALL federal income taxes should people, and small businesses with $250,000+ in gross revenues pay? It is really a simple question.

 

Wow cant one person see that a sliding scale on companies stings the rich anyway? Nope we just have it in our heads we must tax the rich directly and continue this pointless cycle while the REAL problem will be the global corporations enslaving you anyway. Less tax more tax it doesnt matter its just the worker's wages that keep getting argued about - the global machine marches on. Does anyone really think the uber rich get all their wealth via wages and have it taxed at 50%? Of course not!

Example: Lets say up to $5m profit = 20%, $5m - $100m = 30%, $100-$1b = 35%, $1b- $5b = 40%, $5b-$10b = 50% and $10b+ = 60%

Then look at a Walmart who makes a profit of $15b i think it is. A start up player or competitor in their sector has a tax advantage until their profits start to catch up. Walmart now cant dominate the market place and screw workers wages or screw suppliers since their the only supplier. The more players in the same game the better for everyone, the better chance at promotions with more middle and upper management positions (since there more companies is that same space), they try to screw you to below 30hours a week you have more choice at getting a job in that same sector.

meanwhile the worker is on a flat (lets say) 20%

You're effectively taxing the rich before they get their hands on it! More people will be a part of the wealthy. Theres no loopholes or hiding it, it gets hit at the company level first. The more profit a company shows the higher the share price, the higher the CEO pay, they'll still have incentive to make profit. Same would apply to all companies/ businesses of course so that includes Banks, which would mean more but smaller banks.....hello no longer too big to fail!

 

Why is it necessary? Did the rich overspend or did the government? What will $80 billion in additional revenue solve when the government gives every indication that it will simply spend that money and make no progress against the deficit? How much Leftist greed is enough?

 

But, but, but it will work here......they just didn't do it right!
It has to work, the fat drug addict on the radio has been saying it will for years now!

 

When are you going to figure out that stat, which you keep changing, doesn't mean anything?
You also know that "half of America doesn't pay taxes", is an outright lie.

 

And then plummeted.

 

The money/revenue is needed. And certainly, we should not draw it ALL out of those who need it the most (working middle-class and the poor). It's a matter of life, and death for those people.

Leftist greed? (Whatever.)

 

Why should we ask a dime more from ANY American when the government shows an utter lack of discipline in its spending? The extra revenue isn't needed, it will just slip into the sucking black hole that's Washington D.C. and not make a dent in our deficit. So what's the real agenda except Leftist greed for OPM?

 

Yep.

And really, the supply side must be ultimately balanced by the demand side.

The MORE people we have making a real living in this society... the more it will grow. Encouraging the funneling or allowing the money to be concentrated so ludicrously and DISPROPORTIONATELY in the hands of a few (who would own it all)... isn't going to help this society. People need to stop buying into the lies which suggest otherwise.

 

A compromise does need to be reached. Trying to tax the rich too much will not solve our problems, and will cause just as much harm. We need to find a fair rate, which is why a progressive sliding tax system is the best way to go. However, I don't think a linear scale is the best way to go. I think an income level system is better, which brings me to my next point.

We have to decide, first off, what "rich" actually is. What is poor? What are the numbers that separate the two? What is an average amount of income that we can determine a person and/or a family can survive on comfortably. By comfortably, I mean being able to pay your basic bills, feed, house, and clothe your family, being able to afford medical services/insurance. Ideally, having some money available to invest for retirement or college as well.

 

Sounds good to me, by golly.

At one time, the Swedes paid almost 90% of their income in taxes (I don't know if that is still the case or not). Capitalism florished, as did standard of living. Mitt is paying about 14%. The standard of living for most Americans sucks and is getting worse as tax rates have gone down.

 

Your and the rightwings biggest problem is you fail to understand how not only your Govt works but how and economy works as well.
Then you fail to understand how they each work when put together.

 

The top 10% is also making 70% of the money.

 

I'm a lib but I don't know what the "fair" number is. With the middle class fading into oblivion while the rich get richer, my guess is that the "fair' number is a lot higher than it currently is.

 

Um, none of......all that....answers my questions. Why is the irresponsibility of government put on the backs of those who work hard, act responsibly, and have to turn a profit to thrive?

 

Some relatively expert folks have made it reasonably clear enough... that WHATEVER is going on (perceived or real), should not be balanced exclusively upon the backs of the working middle-class and the poor. I happen to agree with that.

Skin in the game for ALL... that is what I say.

 

It is so obvious when a college education was not obtained. You can tell from the misuse of words, bad spelling, disorganized rambling, and a complete absence of any knowledge of macroeconomic theory.

The Bush tax cuts were disproportionate for the rich (lets say rich equals anyone over $250K/yr married or $200K/yr single which is the low end of the definition, whereas $500K/yr would be a better definition, but the focus at the moment is on the $250K/yr group). No question about this, by anyone who has read the economic literature published since the first Reagan tax cuts.

The Bush tax cuts were very appropriate for the working poor (who only are subject to payroll taxes and very light income taxes on their payrolls). No question about this, for anyone who has any familiarity with the exploitation of the working poor by the fast food industries and other mom-and-pop businesses.

For the middle and upper middle classes, the Bush tax cuts were considerate, although not critical, and also not consisting of as much free disposable cash as the rich got again this time around.

G.W. Bush when he took over the US presidency (with a lot of help from the US Supreme Court and the corrupt state balloting officials in Florida) was anticipating another 4 years of peace such as it had been under Pres Clinton. Hence rather than paying down the deficit Bush choose to give himself and his rich donors and his buddies another huge tax cut instead in the Reagan-esque fashion. This alone would have resulted in rather large deficits, so you can clearly see that the Red party only talks about slashing deficits whenever they are out of power. It is a lie, it always has been a lie, and it always will be a lie, whenver they open their mouths and say anything about deficits.

When 9-11 broke out in 2001, the nation was plunged into war in Afghanistan. No choice. Al Qaeda was like vermin that needed to be flushed out of there. So no choice.

But Bush wanted to fight his daddy's war instead or as well, hence the big lie (note how lying is common for the Red party) again about yellowcake. And now we have 2 huge wars upon us requiring full mobilization of our Army, and our Navy, and our Marines, and the CIA. This also meant more work for the lumbering Air Force as well. Now the deficits really start to grow, but the Red party will not loosen their own greedy hands from the tax cuts they have implemented as their only legacy during their 8 years in power again.

The result of all this spending spree was huge massive deficits. Then on top of this the real estate mortgage derivatives crash in Sept 2008.

So anyone without the benefit of college econ is going to have a really hard time understanding any of this. So I am not surprised that these geniuses who never spent a day in college and cannot spell and never took an economics class are ranting about deficits.

Or ranting about more tax cuts for the rich.

Jeeze. Ignorance surely is bliss. No kidding.

 

Certainly self evident for anyone who went to college. But not everyone did, as evidenced by reading the OP and other earlier postings.

 

Even if most people would do more than just hang-out listening to Limbaugh, Hannity and Fox (and other tainted, paid-for-by-far-Right sources), they would surely understand much more of what you're saying.