Tax the Rich!

[Dr.Who]

You are not this naive.

Since when is it naive to want politicians to make laws fairly and grant an audience to all citizens equally? The first one is actually written into the constitution.

You don't support the present system, do you?

It would be pretty easy to make politicians treat us all equally. They just write a law that says they cannot know where the money in the election campaign comes from. It would be a whole lot easier than McCain-Feinstein which tries to limit our rights to spend our money rather than their non-right to grant favors unequally.

 

[Pepper]

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/08/239462/pawlentys-cuts-millionaires-taxes/

2012 presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty (R) yesterday laid out his economic “plan,” which is based around huge tax cuts that Pawlenty claims will spark a decade of 5 percent GDP growth, even though growth staying at that rate for that long has literally never occurred in America. As Michael Linden noted, Pawlenty’s tax plan would cost $7.8 trillion over ten years, triple the size of the Bush tax cuts.

– Taxpayers with incomes in excess of $1 million would enjoy an average cut in personal income taxes of $288,822, a 41.4 percent cut.

– Taxpayers with incomes in excess of $10 million would enjoy an average cut in personal income taxes of $2.4 million, a 46.3 percent cut.

– The cost of the personal income tax cuts just for taxpayers with incomes in excess of $1 million would be $141.8 billion.

And that’s just for Pawlenty’s income tax plan. He has also proposed eliminating the capital gains and estate taxes entirely, two moves which would overwhelmingly benefit the very richest Americans.

Pawlenty likes to point to his middle-class background while giving his economic pitch, but his tax plan implies either a huge tax shift, requiring the middle-class to pay for his massive tax cuts for the wealthy, or sky-high deficits in perpetuity. As part of the plan he introduced yesterday, Pawlenty also endorsed a spending cap that would require deeper cuts than the radical House Republican budget, as well as a cockamamie “Google test” that, if taken literally, implies that Pawlenty would be okay with eliminating the Pentagon.

 

[Pepper]

"So the top 0.1% would get an average of $1.4 million cut, an amount equal to nearly thirty times the median family income, but almost four in ten taxpayers wouldn't see their taxes go down by a single dime."


Think about it - four in ten don't pay any income taxes at all. They can't pay less than zero.

The quote is "Four in ten taxpayers".

Since when is it naive to want politicians to make laws fairly and grant an audience to all citizens equally? The first one is actually written into the constitution.

You don't support the present system, do you?

Your question was naive.

I do support our present system of government, yes.

 

[Dr.Who]

"
– Taxpayers with incomes in excess of $1 million would enjoy an average cut in personal income taxes of $288,822, a 41.4 percent cut.

– Taxpayers with incomes in excess of $10 million would enjoy an average cut in personal income taxes of $2.4 million, a 46.3 percent cut."

Lets explore that more. First recognize that the percentages given are percentage of the cut. Not what we usually talk about. But I can play that game.

-- Taxpayers with incomes of $34,55 would enjoy an average cut in personal income taxes of $1300, a 73% cut.

So you see the less one earns the more they benefit (unless one already pays nothing).

But we already knew that a few posts back when I said:

"
Who does it help more? Well many people pay a 25% rate now which would go down to 10%, a 15% drop. The rich pay 35% which would go down to 25%, a drop of 10%. So the rich get less of a drop than the more regular people."

 

[Dr.Who]

The quote is "Four in ten taxpayers".

That still only means that four in ten taxpayers (inlcuding those who file but don't owe?) pay ten percent or less. If one already only owes ten percent or less then a ten percent tax rate will not be any better than a ten percent tax rate - big deal.

[/QUOTE]
Your question was naive.

I do support our present system of government, yes.[/QUOTE]
Do you support a system in which rich people are given greater access to politicians by the politicians?

 

[Pepper]

"
– Taxpayers with incomes in excess of $1 million would enjoy an average cut in personal income taxes of $288,822, a 41.4 percent cut.

– Taxpayers with incomes in excess of $10 million would enjoy an average cut in personal income taxes of $2.4 million, a 46.3 percent cut."

Lets explore that more. First recognize that the percentages given are percentage of the cut. Not what we usually talk about. But I can play that game.

-- Taxpayers with incomes of $34,55 would enjoy an average cut in personal income taxes of $1300, a 73% cut.

So you see the less one earns the more they benefit (unless one already pays nothing).

But we already knew that a few posts back when I said:

"
Who does it help more? Well many people pay a 25% rate now which would go down to 10%, a 15% drop. The rich pay 35% which would go down to 25%, a drop of 10%. So the rich get less of a drop than the more regular people."

So it's a bigger deal to get $1,300 than it is to get $2.4 million.

Setting that aside [cuckoo-cuckoo], do you have a link for this?

 

[Pepper]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-10/pawlenty-to-give-richest-a-1-4-million-tax-cut.html

Compared with current tax policy, 63.6 percent of U.S. households would receive a tax cut, with most of the remainder experiencing no change. Almost half of the benefits would flow to taxpayers in the top 1 percent of income distribution, or those earning more than $593,011 in 2013.

“It’s heavily weighted toward benefits for the wealthy, giving big tax cuts for the wealthy, and it makes the tax system much less progressive,” said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center in Washington, which conducted the analysis and released it today. The center is a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution.

 

[Dr.Who]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-10/pawlenty-to-give-richest-a-1-4-million-tax-cut.html

Compared with current tax policy, 63.6 percent of U.S. households would receive a tax cut, with most of the remainder experiencing no change. Almost half of the benefits would flow to taxpayers in the top 1 percent of income distribution, or those earning more than $593,011 in 2013.

“It’s heavily weighted toward benefits for the wealthy, giving big tax cuts for the wealthy, and it makes the tax system much less progressive,” said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center in Washington, which conducted the analysis and released it today. The center is a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution.

When you reverse a progressive system that already is weighted to much against those on the top then more of the benefit will be received by those on the top.

If I buy a candle at Wal-mart and then return it I get a small amount back because I paid a small amount to begin with.

If I buy a plamsa tv at Wal-mart and then return it I get a large amount back because I paid a large amount to begin with.

The present tax system is grossly unfair to those who pay the larger amounts, give them a refund and they will receive a larger refund.

The Pawlenty system still gives the larger perentage back to the people who earn and pay less.

 

[Dr.Who]

So it's a bigger deal to get $1,300 than it is to get $2.4 million.

Setting that aside [cuckoo-cuckoo], do you have a link for this?

The 1300 was 72% of the cut of one guys taxes and the 2.4 M was 46.3% of the cut of the other guys taxes - so yes it is a bigger deal.

I used the sources we have already been discussing and have already been linked.

 

[clarkatticus]

I guess I could weigh in, I was in business for myself in 1978, long before anyone here. I was also a libertarian (read idiot) until 2003. One of the things they told us in 1st year business class was that 5% of Americans are unemployable-totally unable to perform profitible labor for the company. So, what we are saying is 10+% of good, solid, employable people are looking right now for work or better work. Adding more by crushing unions and firing or cutting wages of fed/state/county employees is counterproductive. Taxing the people who make less is not going to work because if they cannot afford their rent, they damn sure ain't gonna be able to pay more taxes. We are left with cutting social programs and raising revenue. Both will have to be done. Peppers graph showing the Bush admin 90% responsibility for the recession is wrong, it should be 100% since if we delete any three the rest can be handled by the increase in growth of the economy. Your mindless blind devotion to the "Great Communicator" Reagan after all the evidence thrown in your face (most recently by Pepper) shows a lack of critical thinking. To combat this draconian idea of actually tackling the problems at hand you have taken to name calling and lowbrow insults. America will resolve these problems, we will prosper again as will our children. It may take a couple of more elections before we shake ourselves of this silly "free trade" and "libertarian" fad that is going around and your protests will be lost in the footnotes of history.

 

[Pepper]

Who, reality is weighted toward those at the top. This poor mouthing it is really ridiculous.

The rich benefit tremendously from this crazy plan.

You clearly demonstrate that you don't care about the deficit, because this plan is going to send it skyrocketing.

Again, you're taking bread from the mouth of one man, and a vacation for his pet for another. Even if you dismiss that as "an appeal to emotion" , do you realize that you're playing with fire in terms of societal stability?

I guess I could weigh in, I was in business for myself in 1978, long before anyone here. I was also a libertarian (read idiot) until 2003. One of the things they told us in 1st year business class was that 5% of Americans are unemployable-totally unable to perform profitible labor for the company. So, what we are saying is 10+% of good, solid, employable people are looking right now for work or better work. Adding more by crushing unions and firing or cutting wages of fed/state/county employees is counterproductive. Taxing the people who make less is not going to work because if they cannot afford their rent, they damn sure ain't gonna be able to pay more taxes. We are left with cutting social programs and raising revenue. Both will have to be done. Peppers graph showing the Bush admin 90% responsibility for the recession is wrong, it should be 100% since if we delete any three the rest can be handled by the increase in growth of the economy. Your mindless blind devotion to the "Great Communicator" Reagan after all the evidence thrown in your face (most recently by Pepper) shows a lack of critical thinking. To combat this draconian idea of actually tackling the problems at hand you have taken to name calling and lowbrow insults. America will resolve these problems, we will prosper again as will our children. It may take a couple of more elections before we shake ourselves of this silly "free trade" and "libertarian" fad that is going around and your protests will be lost in the footnotes of history.

Well said, and thank you for mentioning me, Clark.

 

[Rick]

I guess I could weigh in, I was in business for myself in 1978, long before anyone here. I was also a libertarian (read idiot) until 2003. One of the things they told us in 1st year business class was that 5% of Americans are unemployable-totally unable to perform profitible labor for the company.

"They" told you that? Based on what? Evidence? Citations?

So, what we are saying is 10+% of good, solid, employable people are looking right now for work or better work. Adding more by crushing unions and firing or cutting wages of fed/state/county employees is counterproductive.

Almost NOBODY who has studied the matter would agree with that absurd statement. There are lifeguards in LA county who make over $100,000 a year. The city of vista california literally went bankrupt because of it's $125,000 a year firemen. Tens of thosands of california government workers can retire at 50 with 90% of their pay in pensions and free medical benefits. On and on and on. Even YOU can't fail to know about these sorts of things, so your comment falls in the category of a bald-faced lie.

Taxing the people who make less is not going to work because if they cannot afford their rent, they damn sure ain't gonna be able to pay more taxes.

The overwhelming majority of taxes are paid by upper income levels - half the country pays no income tax at all.

We are left with cutting social programs and raising revenue. Both will have to be done. Peppers graph showing the Bush admin 90% responsibility for the recession is wrong, it should be 100% since if we delete any three the rest can be handled by the increase in growth of the economy.

Completely wild, lunatic fiction - scarily deteached from reality.

It may take a couple of more elections before we shake ourselves of this silly "free trade" and "libertarian" fad that is going around and your protests will be lost in the footnotes of history.

One of the chief causes of the Great Depression was trade barriers erected in the U.S., to which foreign countries retaliated.

Your ignorance of history and economics is perfect. It's literally fear-inpiring that people like you have a vote

 

[GenSeneca]

Baloney. It's being done as a society, though our democratic process.

The "democratic process": Using government's monopoly on the legal use of force to coerce people into complying with collectivist policies.

Yes, I am.

"Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others." - John Rawls, "Godfather" of Social Justice.

It seems you disagree with Rawls and think that justice dictates some people must suffer a loss of freedom for the greater good of society.

While you support policies that make sure that the haves have ever more.

I support equality under the law while you support policies of discrimination.

No, I covered it the first time. A child like view of fairness. Self-serving, unable to grasp anything outside of the self and the immediate needs and desires of the self. An excess of id. Adult sociopaths.

I guess every dictionary was written by Sociopaths... Who knew?

That is nonsense. I made a factual statement. You are talking about necessities for one family and luxuries for another. No emotion. Simple fact.

Without offering verifiable proof to substantiate such a claim, it's merely an emotional argument.

Oh, but I did. I addressed it directly. You claim we all benefit equally from America's resources, and you are mistaken.

It seems you're the one mistaken because that is not what I said. I pointed out that areas with better schools, roads, public safety, etc., have a larger tax base than the tax base of blighted neighborhoods where most of the inhabitants have been exempted from the forms of taxation which support those things.

Income inequality leads to other inequalities.

So if my neighbor has more money than me, how does that lead to other inequalities between us?

The more the wealth disparity, the less ability those born at the bottom have to move up

Based on what proof? The best you can offer is anecdotal evidence, to which I could offer my own, like Larry Ellison. He went from poverty to being the 5th richest man in the world... I'd love to hear you explain how "wealth disparity" held back Mr. Ellison.

or even to seek justice.

You'll have to define your use of the term "justice" since in your vocabulary, it can mean something much different from what it says in the dictionary.

Your Galtian paradise is a fantasy, and preserving it leads to your inability to grasp the nuances of what others are saying.

It's no surprise to hear a Progressive claim that a society based on volitional consent and mutually beneficial exchange is a fantasy. I grasp what you're saying... You want to use government's monopoly on the legal use of force to coerce my compliance to your collectivist policies. There's nothing "nuanced" about relying on the use of force to take what you haven't earned and do not deserve.

Then you're really not all that bright a human being.

Here are two deals...

1. You eat lunch and I pay for it.

2. I eat lunch and you pay for it.

Which is the better deal for you?

There's nothing to do but laugh at someone who actually believes such idiocy. Please, swap places. Go for it. Should be fun to watch.

I'm already dirt poor, so your appeals to spite and appeals to poverty do not affect me.

Yes, it does have Galt on the side. He's really hurting us, isn't he?

Lets see... 14 trillion in debt... high unemployment... on the verge of a double dip recession... I'd say the Progressive policies are working great without Galt's assistance.

 

[TruthSeeker]

It's a neverending battle............those with intellectual honesty, integrity, and core values trying to have a meaningful debate with those who have the defective leftist gene.

Until medical science can identify and isolate the defective leftist gene, hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty and lack of accountability and lack of conscience will continue to be practiced by millions of misguided Americans.

 

[GenSeneca]

It's a neverending battle............those with intellectual honesty, integrity, and core values trying to have a meaningful debate with those who have the defective leftist gene.

Until medical science can identify and isolate the defective leftist gene, hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty and lack of accountability and lack of conscience will continue to be practiced by millions of misguided Americans.

That's why I think we should end the battle. Give Progressives perpetual control over 100% of government and let them do whatever they like, wherever they like, whenever they like. Such a period in history would make the Dark Ages look like a veritable Utopia in comparison.