Tax the Rich!

[Mr. Shaman]

I ask again....what is their fair share?

Wouldn't it make MUCH-more-sense asking the people....WITH significant-income....what constitutes fair share??

*

Where do you stash your self-respect....while you're running-interference for the 1%ers/high-roller$?

 

[Openmind]

Alright, tell me what happens to those actual dollars then? They don't magically go away when they are converted to Euros.



It is a global economy...it is time to get on board.

It is BECOMING a global economy! And I'm all for it.
However, then, we need to compete GLOBALY, and provide EVERYONE with a level field.

Right now, most of our "global allies" have huge safety nets (including universal health care) which allows a more fair distribution of income and a more fair distribution of the benefits of being a thriving economy.

WE offer NOTHING to our poor and our lower middle class. Our wealthy pay less in tax than anywhere else in our direct "allies/competitors" in this global economy, but we ask the middle class to carry the brunt of the difficult process of adapting to a global economy.

Most other "allies/competitors" in this global economy are GAINING jobs. . .that WE (our big, smart, altruistic business leaders) are sending to them.

Why do those jobs go out to other countries? Part of it is obviously lower labor cost . . .a BIG part of labor cost are based on labor laws, including shorter work hours, more vacation times, double pay for vacations, stronger worker compensations laws AND, especially, UNIVERSAL health care, which take away that big burden on business: providing private health care of each employe, in a health care industry that cost anywhere from 50 to 100% more than most other health care across the developed world!

It's funny how that "global economy" is used at times to say we can't afford universal health care because that would make our businesses less competitive, and yet that is a big part of what makes OTHER countries MORE competitive with us. . .because they do have Universal health care and private insurances are having to compete in a REAL market to keep their customers, and big industries abroad does NOT have to fight to insure all their employees. . .it is a done deal, no matter who they pick (public or private insurance) for coverage.

 

[GenSeneca]

I ask again....what is their fair share?

We both know they cannot answer that question...

What is not fair is that someone who won't have to bear the burden of any tax increase tells me I am not paying my fair share...

"Be wary of the man who urges an action in which he himself incurs no risk." - Seneca

 

[Gipper]

WE offer NOTHING to our poor and our lower middle class.

This sentence completely destroys your argument. How you can make such an absurd statement? The United States has a HUGE welfare system in place that has cost TRILLIONS of dollars (more than all other programs) since LBJ foolishly implemented his Great Society programs (which he did merely for political gain to buy black votes and enslave them to government dependence - and it worked fantastically). The poor in this country have it better than anywhere in the world. And yet, you want more given to the poor. Ugh!!!

See this thread...
https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9719&highlight=welfare


The federal and state governments spent $15.92 trillion (adjusted 2008 dollars) on welfare from 1965 to 2008. By comparison, the cost of all American wars since the Revolution is $6.39 trillion (adjusted 2008 dollars).

And for anyone to admire the welfare states of other nations is also absurd. With numerous Euro welfare states about to collapse, wanting to emulate them is insanity.

And, we are still waiting for your definition of "FAIR SHARE."

 

[Mr. Shaman]

71% of Dems are Marxists!!! We must call them what they really are.

The Liberal elite have done a good job of brainwashing millions. Why are they unable to think for themselves? Why do they always accept the lies promoted by the Left?

Yeah.....I guess we should embrace Corporate America as our ethics-mentors!​

July 14, 2011​

"Members of the board of medical diagnostics company IRIS International (IRIS) courted trouble earlier this year when they voted to retain a 10-year-old poison pill takeover defense without seeking shareholder approval. They believed they were acting in the company’s best interests, says company spokesman Ron Stabiner. Many shareholders disagreed, and at the company’s annual meeting in May all nine of IRIS International’s directors received less than half of shareholders’ votes to retain their seats. That lack of support among a majority of investors triggered a company policy that required all board members to tender their resignations, which they did. Then things got interesting: The directors voted not to accept their own resignations, Stabiner says, and continued to do their jobs."

America’s Teflon Corporate Boards​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

July 18, 2011​

"News Corp. board member Thomas Perkins said Monday that embattled Chief Executive Rupert Murdoch has the full support of the company’s board of directors, and is not considering elevating Chief Operating Officer Chase Carey to replace him amid a phone-hacking scandal in Britain."

Board Member; Rupert Murdoch Has Full Support​

wow.....what were the chances?

 

[Dr.Who]

The point is that they are NOT paying their fair share!

After all loopholes, deductions for this and that (including, their interest deduction on super, dupper, $1 or $2 millions mortgages), as Mr. Buffett documented (and HE was not trying to get the last bit of deduction money through "creative" loopholes), he is paying LESS than his secretary!

He paid 17.7% of his net income. She paid 30% of her net income.

THAT is not fair!

We need a better example.

His secretary has earned income and pays more Buffet with unearned income. Meanwhile a middle class person may very well pay more on their investments than on another middle class persons earned income. Meanwhile those who are not quite middle class pay zero and thus are not contributing at all to our country (and often receive money).

Do you have a problem with loopholes? So do I. Lets get rid of them. Its not fair that one person pays less because he has loopholes. Now is a good time to mention that the Clinton tax rates were high but had more loopholes which resulted in lower taxes for many and increased revenue for the government.

 

[Dr.Who]

I ask again....what is their fair share?

And its time for you to finally get an answer. What exactly would be their fair share? Does the top 5% need to pay 100% of the taxes before it is fair?

We are waiting for an answer.

If they paid that much in taxes how much leverage would that give them over congressmen who pass out the favors?

 

[Lagboltz]

I ask again....what is their fair share?

That is a futile question. Fairness is subjective and the question only leads to interminable arguments, and we heard them all. Poor folks will say "spread the wealth" and richer folks will say, "keep your hand out of my pockets."

If we abandon that avenue and ask what tax bases will bring in the most revenue, we have to look at the Laffer curve. Then the argument turns to trickle-down theory. The Laffer curve is great in principle, but useless in practice.

Any other ideas for an optimum tax base?

 

[ProudLefty]

That is a futile question. Fairness is subjective and the question only leads to interminable arguments, and we heard them all. Poor folks will say "spread the wealth" and richer folks will say, "keep your hand out of my pockets."

If we abandon that avenue and ask what tax bases will bring in the most revenue, we have to look at the Laffer curve. Then the argument turns to trickle-down theory. The Laffer curve is great in principle, but useless in practice.

Any other ideas for an optimum tax base?

The Laffer Curve isn't even good in theory. There is just no metrics to weigh all the factors and decide whether the curve dips at 90% or at 92%, however we know it hasn't tipped at rates above 80%. An 80% rate is far higher than any levels being discussed by anyone anywhere. The Laffer Curve is irrelevant to the discussion.

What is a fair set of tax rates? Gosh, lets look at history and see what worked and what didn't work.

• Reagan's rates worked.
• Bush(41)s rates failed.
• Clinton's rates worked.
• Bush(43)s rates failed.

It would be my position that we can say that rates in the Reagan-Clinton range are fairly clear markers as to what works, I'd also mention that Americans, both Republicans and Democrats, saw those rates as being fair.

Do you, a Republican, see a problem with Reagan's rates?

Why not average Reagan and Clinton's rates and go with those?

 

[BigRob]

The Laffer Curve isn't even good in theory. There is just no metrics to weigh all the factors and decide whether the curve dips at 90% or at 92%, however we know it hasn't tipped at rates above 80%. An 80% rate is far higher than any levels being discussed by anyone anywhere. The Laffer Curve is irrelevant to the discussion.

What is a fair set of tax rates? Gosh, lets look at history and see what worked and what didn't work.

• Reagan's rates worked.
• Bush(41)s rates failed.
• Clinton's rates worked.
• Bush(43)s rates failed.

It would be my position that we can say that rates in the Reagan-Clinton range are fairly clear markers as to what works, I'd also mention that Americans, both Republicans and Democrats, saw those rates as being fair.

Do you, a Republican, see a problem with Reagan's rates?

Why not average Reagan and Clinton's rates and go with those?

This is absurd. You cannot simply look at tax rates and say "the economy was good and the tax rates were X, therefore X tax rates are good for the economy." There is simply no proof for such a claim.

It would be like saying "The Red Sox won the World Series and they play at Fenway Park, therefore whoever plays at Fenway Park will win the World Series."

It is an idiotic statement and has no basis in fact.

 

[BigRob]

That is a futile question. Fairness is subjective and the question only leads to interminable arguments, and we heard them all. Poor folks will say "spread the wealth" and richer folks will say, "keep your hand out of my pockets."

If we abandon that avenue and ask what tax bases will bring in the most revenue, we have to look at the Laffer curve. Then the argument turns to trickle-down theory. The Laffer curve is great in principle, but useless in practice.

Any other ideas for an optimum tax base?

The best way to increase revenue is the grow the overall tax base....we can accomplish this by reducing burdensome regulations on business, simplifying the tax code, and creating an environment in which business can thrive.

I mean, how often do you hear someone say, "If only the government would pass this new tax increase, I can start my business." I would wager never.

 

[Lagboltz]

The Laffer Curve isn't even good in theory.

I disagree. All it is saying is that there is a maximum somewhere between the endpoints if the endpoints of 0% and 100% give no revenue. But it is useless in the sense that there is no way of determining the optimum. The optimum may vary as time brings waves of prosperity and recession. That is what I meant when I said it's useless in practice.

Why not average Reagan and Clinton's rates and go with those?

That sounds like a great compromise to me.

 

[Lagboltz]

The best way to increase revenue is the grow the overall tax base....we can accomplish this by reducing burdensome regulations on business, simplifying the tax code, and creating an environment in which business can thrive.

I mean, how often do you hear someone say, "If only the government would pass this new tax increase, I can start my business." I would wager never.

Speaking for myself as a liberal, I agree with everything you say. The disagreement is in the details. I am basically distrustful of big business and would want tighter regulations on some businesses than you.
I think the tax code should be simplified, but still be increased and remain progressive. Business should thrive, but not if they are given free run cheat people like Verizon did by putting unauthorized charges.

 

[ProudLefty]

This is absurd. You cannot simply look at tax rates and say "the economy was good and the tax rates were X, therefore X tax rates are good for the economy." There is simply no proof for such a claim.

It would be like saying "The Red Sox won the World Series and they play at Fenway Park, therefore whoever plays at Fenway Park will win the World Series."

It is an idiotic statement and has no basis in fact.

I understand what you are writing. I can even agree, to a point. However, repeating the same action over and over and getting the same result is probably a pretty good indicator that if you repeat it once more, it will probably give the same result once more, even if we do not understand why.

There are similar scenarios that seem counter intuitive, The higher the prime interest rate, the better the economy. Seems wrongheaded, but it is as reliable indicator as you will ever find. Low interest rates = lousy economy, rising interest rates = rising economy. If there is any reason at all for using the financial crisis to drive up interest rates, that might be it.