Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Don't believe any of these mega-rich pigs who are suddenly saying that they wouldn't mind paying more taxes. It's a lie. Nothing but PR crap. They lobbied for massive tax breaks. They hire tax attorneys to exploit every loophole. Their recent statements r

Posted 10 years ago on Nov. 22, 2011, 5:33 p.m. EST by ModestCapitalist (2342)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Don't believe any of these mega-rich pigs who are suddenly saying that they wouldn't mind paying more taxes. It's a lie. Nothing but PR crap. They lobbied for massive tax breaks. They hire tax attorneys to exploit every loophole. Their recent statements regarding taxes and those in support of OWS are only intended to reduce public backlash. They may be intended to reduce support for Obama (by making it seem as if we don't need him for tax reform). After all, these filthy rich pigs could have paid more in taxes voluntarily if they weren't such greedy pigs. THEY DIDN'T. NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM. They continue to pull one stunt after another to avoid paying taxes on their full income. They continue to claim tax deductions for their deliberately publicized fake humanitarian crap. Even the banks and energy companies donate a tiny sliver of their obscene profits to charity. Its not 'good will'. Its PR crap. The same goes for their bogus statements regarding taxes and support for OWS. They still charge as much as possible for their product and claim every possible deduction. They also dance their way around regulation whenever possible. They always have and they always will. The very concept of extreme personal wealth is immoral. Its having a profound effect on every nation in the developed world. Every single one. Thats why we're in this mess to begin with. So don't fall for their rotten PR crap. IT'S A LIE.

Another thing: Those of you with an open mind, be sure to read every comment on this page with no regard for position. The critics of OWS have been trying to 'vote up' their own comments and 'vote down' any supporting OWS. It's an obvious strategy to prevent you from reading the ugly truth. Especially those comments which address the outrageous corporate loopholes or the obscene concentration of wealth. They don't want you to read any of them. Be sure to scroll carefully and check out the entire page.

49 Comments

49 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by TheBatman (2) from Independence, KY 10 years ago

we need to educate the masses. it is NOT about higher taxes. you can raise the taxes to 100%, and if there are loopholes it does nothing. a fair tax level, coupled with actual stringent closing of the loopholes that allow the top 30 corporations to get REBATES is what we need to concentrate on. when we prattle on about raising taxes, we sound like ignorant children.

Understand the issue before you wave the banner is all i am saying.

[-] 0 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 10 years ago

I do understand the issue. And the bigger picture.

Don't believe this crap about the rich paying 37% of the taxes and the poor paying none. It's a trick. A spin on statistics to make it seem as if the rich are overtaxed. They aren't. But they damn well should be. We're in this mess because of them.

Be careful when you hear or read anything regarding the PERCENTAGE of OVERALL FEDERAL INCOME taxes paid by any particular group, it's a terribly misleading statistic. The rich pay a larger PERCENTAGE of OVERALL FEDERAL INCOME taxes now than 10 years ago because they have a larger PERCENTAGE of INCOME in America now than 10 years ago. That statistic regarding 37% of Federal Income Taxes is one of the most misleading in the history of propaganda.

When you account for all FEDERAL, STATE, and LOCAL taxes and fees, the lowest quintile in America (20%) actually pays about the same rate (as a percentage of income) as the top quintile. The difference is within 5 percent.

When you account for all FEDERAL, STATE, and LOCAL taxes and fees, the middle class actually pay about the same rate (as a percentage of income) as the rich. The difference is within 5 percent. It shouldn't be that way. The rich should pay MUCH more simply because they are horribly over-paid. We aren't. They own 43% of all financial wealth in America. We share the rest. But it gets even more disgusting. The devil is in the details.

Corporate profits have been partially subsidized with federal, state, and local revenue. This benefit has been hoarded at the top. Business managers make up the largest group of one percent club pigs. Plus 1/2 of the market is owned by the top 1%. Their record territory dividends have been partially subsidized by federal, state, and local revenue. The benefits have not been shared proportionally with the little guy. The lopsided division of growth across quintiles proves it. 

The highest percentile has grown more than 10 times faster than the middle percentile over the last 30 years. This is true EVEN AFTER taxes. When you account for inflation and the actual cost of living (tied to record high profits in energy, finance, and healthcare), the middle class have actually lost relative buying power while the top 1% have drastically increased their income and bottom line wealth. 

In 1976 (when their taxes were much higher), the top one percent reaped 9 percent of all private income and held less than 20 percent of all private wealth in America. Now, they reap 24 percent of all private income and hold over 40 percent of all private wealth. Meanwhile, the lower majority (those who are still employed) are working more hours and have less to show for it.

Just to make it crystal clear: The rich do not pay 37% of all taxes. They never have. They pay roughly 37% of all FEDERAL INCOME TAXES which account for less than 1/2 of total government revenue. The rest is drawn from a number of sources and across income levels. The rich harp on this 'Federal Income Tax' statistic because it leads people to believe that they pay 37% of ALL taxes. They don't. Their share as a group represents just over their share of income. The difference is within 5 percent.

If the rich want to pay a lower share of the taxes in America, then they should get themselves a lower share of the income in America. In other words, don't be so rich to begin with. 

RAISE THOSE GOD DAMN TAXES ON THE RICH!

[-] 1 points by TheBatman (2) from Independence, KY 10 years ago

that is what is called manipulating figures. as i said, and very simply, which i find to be the best and most transparent way, that raising taxes does nothing. it is just a number. raise the number to 100%, and the so called 'rich' will still pay the same as they do now, which is next to nothing. but fix the system that allows the loopholes, make 35% MEAN 35%, and the system is equitably repaired.

[-] 1 points by jomojo (562) 10 years ago

The idea that the upper and middle class understand poverty, is not funny. The wasteful spending of our taxes has been accepted as normal. I don't blame anyone for not wanting to contribute to the treasury. If any laws have been broken, we can thank our justice system for their fine police work. Of the examples given on corporate tax breaks, I'd bet some of them helped write the loopholes, that our public servants got passed into law. Without protest.

[-] 1 points by morons123 (131) 10 years ago

So I should work my ass off and pay your debts?

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 10 years ago

You should work at your own pace but hard enough to pay your own way if possible, refuse any subsidy or benefit of subsidy, and pay your taxes. But if you plan on being overpaid, then don't complain about being overtaxed.

[-] 2 points by morons123 (131) 10 years ago

overpaid? you decided what that is? and for your information I pay a tremendous amount in taxes as well as employ many grateful Americans.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 10 years ago

I'm a reasonable guy. One who reaps six figures isn't necessarily overpaid. They may be under some circumstances. But no one deserves more than 10 times the pay of a firefighter under any circumstances. And no one capable of paying their own way should benefit from any subsidy. Which I noticed, you didn't respond to.

I don't care how many people you employ. It's nowhere near that simple. If you want a lower tax rate, then get yourself a lower pay rate.

[-] 0 points by Apercentage (81) 10 years ago

You can't even begin to look at it this way. And as mentioned above, who are you, or anyone to say what is "overpaid"? Or if there is even such a term in this sort of discussion. Such tactics only boil down to jealousy, which is quite an ugly emotion. No one will admit its jealousy. How dare those powerful people earn more than me! And they even use that wealth to sway opinions?! How could anyone do that! Get off it, someone will always make more money than you and use it to there benefit.

Top people in companies get paid more, its just how it works. They have more responsibility, take more risks, and are often good at what they do. (Yes firefighters have a lot of responsibility, but not in they are responsible for billions of dollars of revenue sort of responsibility.) For ex: my cousin’s husband helped bring Virgin Mobile public, he’s not a top level banker but he sure played an important role in a deal costing billions, you bet he got paid well for it because his services were very valuable to those involved.

Its not what the "deserve" its what they are worth to the company and earn. And paying a few top dogs at a company what you think is "overpaid" is 9 times out of ten no big deal to a company's bottom line.

Also as far as 6 figure earners, most of these people are lawyers, doctors, engineers, midlevel businessmen/women and small business owners. These people have high risk jobs, that took years of hard work and money to get to where they are, even considering anyone in this area of income "overpaid" is ridiculous.

Also "If you want a lower tax rate, get yourself a lower pay rate?" what the hell is that nonsense? Discourage success? (At least monetarily) I've heard some outrageous comments in this melting pot of liberal ideas circle jerk, but that’s quite out there. You can't blame the so called "1%" for wanting lower tax rates, who the hell doesn’t want lower tax rates for themselves? I'm pretty sure just about everyone would like a tax break. Especially when the over-budgeted/no bang for your dollar social programs don't help you.

Get yourself a lower pay rate? Reasonable guy my ass.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 10 years ago

I've already responded to every one of your points on a number of pages. I'll skip the stupid assumptions and psychological BS for now as I am busy with another project.

Just read this:

The ugly truth. America's wealth is STILL being concentrated. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer. These latest figures prove it. AGAIN.

According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 99 percent of Americans (actually more like 98%), saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.

The sobering numbers were a far cry from what was going on for the richest one percent of Americans.

The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion. In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009. Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.

Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. In 1928, the rich were already way ahead. Still, they were given huge tax breaks. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated 44 percent of all United States wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the lower majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed.

 Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, some US wealth was gradually transferred back down to the majority. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. By 1976, the richest 1 percent held  less than 20 percent. The lower majority held the rest. This was the recovery. A partial redistribution of wealth.

  Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own over 40 percent of all US wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes are sharing the rest. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity. It is the underlying cause. No redistribution. No recovery.

Now, are you willing to acknowledge any ACTUAL downside with regard to the concentration of wealth?

Please include a 'yes' or 'no' somewhere in your response. If yes, tell me how to address the issue in time to prevent a global depression.

One last point for now:

Everytime a firefighter saves a life, he/she is saving the potential income of that individuals remaining life. Every penny of it. Everytime a firefighter saves a forest or a structure or an entire community, he/she is immediately saving the majority of resources within that forest and the majority of wealth within that structure or community plus any additional wealth that would be created from the resources or within the structure or community during the period of time which would be necessary to recover fully if the fire were left to burn itself out with no intervention whatsoever.

So don't feed me some half-wit crap that firefighters aren't responsible for billions. They sure as hell are. Not necessarily on every call but try to imagine what would happen if 500 firefighters decided to walk off the job with a raging wildfire just outside of a thriving upper class community. Think about the immediate loss of wealth and the subsequent loss. Give it some thought. You circle jerk.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 10 years ago

Now, say it again. While you're at it, consider how many lives and how much wealth would be lost if cops decided to walk off the job. If teachers decided not to teach. If farmers decided not to farm. If soldiers decided not to fight Al Qeada. Get my drift?

You say the rich deserve to own their current 43% of all financial wealth in America. I say it's not that simple. You circle jerk.

[-] 1 points by EXPOSED (222) 10 years ago

Taxes, taxes, more taxes! As long as it's not me...

[-] 1 points by morons123 (131) 10 years ago

i don't complain about paying taxes. Should athletes make less money? how about actors? isn't your salary based on what someone is willing to pay? If you buy a book for $20.00 isn't that book worth $20.00; at least to you the purchaser? some make less than others. it has always been that way and always will.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 10 years ago

The ugly truth. America's wealth is STILL being concentrated. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer. These latest figures prove it. AGAIN.

According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 99 percent of Americans (actually, more like 98 percent) saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively. The sobering numbers were a far cry from what was going on for the richest one percent of Americans.

The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion. In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009. Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.

Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. In 1928, the rich were already way ahead. Still, they were given huge tax breaks. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated 44 percent of all United States wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the lower majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed.

 Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, some US wealth was gradually transferred back down to the majority. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. By 1976, the richest 1 percent held  less than 20 percent. The lower majority held the rest. This was the recovery. A partial redistribution of wealth.

  Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own over 40 percent of all US wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes are sharing the rest. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity. It is the underlying cause. No redistribution. No recovery.

The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. It's up to us. Support small business more and big business less. Support the little guy more and the big guy less. It's tricky but not impossible.

For the good of society, stop giving so much of your money to rich people. Stop concentrating the wealth. This may be our last chance to prevent the worst economic depression in world history. No redistribution. No recovery.

Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority who have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 10 years ago

Your value for the 1% mark keeps dropping every new post of yours I see. Latest figures are north of $350k. Not $250k and sure not $200k. That's just pure misinformation.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 10 years ago

I never said that $250,000 was the entry salary for the top percentile. I never said that once. It's not. I never said it. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 10 years ago

Whatever, I'm not going to go searching through past rants to find it. Even if that is the case, then you only prove yourself more consistent at grossly understating the value at $200k instead of the reported $350k+ value that is reality. But then again, using it as a sole determiner isn't a true mark either, because there are wealth assets also required at a certain level for someone to be considered to be in the 1%. This is exactly the point I made elsewhere in this thread about your propagandized "facts". They are facts at all. Just partial truths.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 10 years ago

I never even implied that $200,000 or $250,000 was the entry level into the top percentile. I've made the distinction between income and wealth many times.

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 10 years ago

According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 99 percent of Americans, saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively. The sobering numbers were a far cry from what was going on for the richest one percent of Americans. That was your quote. So if 99% make that or less then 1% make that or more. Besides all of that I always wonder just who would make the distinction in the OWS world. I for one will not submit to some common law ruling.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 10 years ago

That is not my essay. It's an article printed by CBS Miami that I sometimes insert above one of my essays. I noticed the same flaw in that line. But its not as far off as you imply. What the author meant is that all those making below $200,000 are just beneath the top percentile. That is right around entry level for the 99th percentile. Not the high end. Earlier this evening (hours ago), I inserted a correction within that line and reposted it on another page. It's not my article but I did so anyway. I do take responsibility for my failure to notice the flaw sooner. But I'm not going to scrap the entire article over a flaw regarding a fraction of a percentile.

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 10 years ago

That "fraction of a percentile" makes a 75% difference in the actual values of $200k vs $350k. This is how numbers get abused and twisted to tell the story you want them to.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 10 years ago

I fully expected you to press on with your attempt to discredit me over one flaw in one line of an article written by another individual simply for my failure to notice the flaw before reposting it. I fully expected it. In fact, I sat here waiting for your response knowing that it would come within a few moments. As expected, it did.

So I decided to read a dozen of your comments (so far) posted on other pages of this site. I have already noticed one assumption of yours that I can prove is dead wrong and two more absolute falsehoods. I'm talking SERIOUS fuck ups.

Now, how would you like to proceed?

Would you like to give me a shred of credit for making the correction regarding that line in the CBS article I posted and drop it?

Or would you like me to read every single one of your previous comments posted on this site, scrutinize them for more fuck ups and write a new essay devoted entirely to your repeated failure to fact check your own work?

What's it gonna be?

I'll give you 5 minutes to answer while I start saving all of your previous entries.

Tick tock tick tock tick tock,

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 10 years ago

That's what I thought.

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 10 years ago

Go for it.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 10 years ago

I will. Including this which is very true and very contrary to what you have claimed over and over:

Don't believe this crap about the rich paying 37% of the taxes and the poor paying none. It's a trick. A spin on statistics to make it seem as if the rich are overtaxed. They aren't. But they damn well should be. We're in this mess because of them.

Be careful when you hear or read anything regarding the PERCENTAGE of OVERALL FEDERAL INCOME taxes paid by any particular group, it's a terribly misleading statistic. The rich pay a larger PERCENTAGE of OVERALL FEDERAL INCOME taxes now than 10 years ago because they have a larger PERCENTAGE of INCOME in America now than 10 years ago. That statistic regarding 37% of Federal Income Taxes is one of the most misleading in the history of propaganda.

When you account for all FEDERAL, STATE, and LOCAL taxes and fees, the lowest quintile in America (20%) actually pays about the same rate (as a percentage of income) as the top quintile. The difference is within 5 percent.

When you account for all FEDERAL, STATE, and LOCAL taxes and fees, the middle class actually pay about the same rate (as a percentage of income) as the rich. The difference is within 5 percent. It shouldn't be that way. The rich should pay MUCH more simply because they are horribly over-paid. We aren't. They own 43% of all financial wealth in America. We share the rest. But it gets even more disgusting. The devil is in the details.

Corporate profits have been partially subsidized with federal, state, and local revenue. This benefit has been hoarded at the top. Business managers make up the largest group of one percent club pigs. Plus 1/2 of the market is owned by the top 1%. Their record territory dividends have been partially subsidized by federal, state, and local revenue. The benefits have not been shared proportionally with the little guy. The lopsided division of growth across quintiles proves it. 

The highest percentile has grown more than 10 times faster than the middle percentile over the last 30 years. This is true EVEN AFTER taxes. When you account for inflation and the actual cost of living (tied to record high profits in energy, finance, and healthcare), the middle class have actually lost relative buying power while the top 1% have drastically increased their income and bottom line wealth. 

In 1976 (when their taxes were much higher), the top one percent reaped 9 percent of all private income and held less than 20 percent of all private wealth in America. Now, they reap 24 percent of all private income and hold over 40 percent of all private wealth. Meanwhile, the lower majority (those who are still employed) are working more hours and have less to show for it.

Just to make it crystal clear: The rich do not pay 37% of all taxes. They never have. They pay roughly 37% of all FEDERAL INCOME TAXES which account for less than 1/2 of total government revenue. The rest is drawn from a number of sources and across income levels. The rich harp on this 'Federal Income Tax' statistic because it leads people to believe that they pay 37% of ALL taxes. They don't. Their share as a group represents just over their share of income. The difference is within 5 percent.

If the rich want to pay a lower share of the taxes in America, then they should get themselves a lower share of the income in America. In other words, don't be so rich to begin with. 

RAISE THOSE GOD DAMN TAXES ON THE RICH!

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 10 years ago

The obscene charges in health care are another giant issue ($350,000 for a dentist. $50,000 for a firefighter.) OBSCENE charges in health care. You obviously don't know jack about the healthcare industry. COSTS of running a clinic are obscene. Because of that, costs of care are high. BTW, I make that $350k $20-$80 a procedure. That's Medicaid rates. The lowest level of compensation there is. To make so much with that fee schedule as a base is not usual. Most dentists make about half that when doing that same work bin able to do that through dedication and hard work. So do I deserve it? You'd better believe it. I do hundreds of procedures a week, all to help the underprivaledge youth of my country. Now, you've put ms in a position to where you can twist my words if I start making comparisons between healthcare and civil servants. I have the highest regard fir teachers, firefighters, police etc. But my education cost ME over $150k. Fourteen years later I'm still paying for it. So again, do I deserve to be paid well. Yes and yes. Does some foaming at the mouth radical spewing profanities and vilifying someone or some profession without any real working knowledge of the subject rile ms up? You bet. Here's something I've said in other posts too..... Just TRY to take what I have earned. I am prepared to fight for my America. As are many others.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 10 years ago

Read it again. I was referring to the income of a dentist. Not the operational costs of a clinic. There is a huge difference. I made the distinction. Read it again.

Bullshit. Your 'education' did not cost you $150,000 14 years ago. Even if it did (it didn't), you could have paid it off years ago.

The charges and profits in health care are obscene. Even now, they are record setting. These obscene charges and record setting profits are a primary reason for hardship. They can't be justified. So don't feed me that 'helping the underprivileged' crap. If you're reaping $350,000, it's too much. Period.

I've done my homework. If you pull that 'you don't know' crap on me again, I will throw it back in your face.....again.

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 10 years ago

For whatever reason there wasn't a reply option on your last rant. Err post. You took that statement out of the context of it's conversation(another spin tactic). We were talking specifically about income taxes and raising those taxes. I'm very well aware of the multitude of other taxes. They plague me daily. Spin it how you like, but most of the "rich" do already pay their fair share and more. No matter his you spin it, cut and paste it, whatever, that will still be true. Just because you want them paying more doesn't mean that needs to happen. What we need is comprehensive tax reform, with EVERYONE paying their share. Not inequities heaped on a minority.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 10 years ago

Tell you what: You point out the 'context' in which you made it clear that you were referring to one specific tax and not taxes in general when you said this:

" The tax code definitely needs an overhaul to prevent such abuses, but taking these instances and applying them 100% to the 1% is fallacy. The 1% pay 37% or more of our taxes, so most of them are doing their part. You also need to ask yourself, if these businesses didn't get out of paying so much in taxes, then where would that money have cone from? The answer is.... Your pockets."

And this:

"The "wealthy" still pay a much higher percent of taxes than the 99. The 1% pays 37% of the taxes. 47% of the 99 pay none. What's fair about that?"

Point out the 'context' in which you made the distinction between the share of overall taxes paid and the share of Federal Income Tax paid.

You can't because you made no distinction anywhere. You simply posted a falsehood and let it stand. Now, you're too stubborn to admit it.

Not that my attention will be diverted, but I've already explained how the richest one percent have a portion of their income subsidized by the same revenue they brag about paying a higher share of. Then you have eminent domain, state and/or local tax breaks, state and/or local subsidies, dirt cheap leases on property, free research dollars (health care), and even free advertising.

The benefits are not shared proportionally with the little guy. The lopsided growth across quintiles proves that. These points alone prove my position on taxes.

The obscene charges in health care are another giant issue ($350,000 for a dentist. $50,000 for a firefighter.) OBSCENE charges in health care.

Finally there is the extreme concentration of wealth and the profound impact on national debt, economic stability (Guess who else was convinced. Give up? ALBERT FUCKING EINSTEIN), and social stability.

None of which, you will be willing to acknowledge. Instead, you will swear on that the rich deserve their obscene share of income and bottom line wealth and that they "pay their share" in spite of all the points I have made.

Absolute tunnel vision. Absolute denial.

But like I said, my attention has not been diverted. You posted repeated falsehoods regarding tax burdens and never made any distinction.

[-] 0 points by NotYour99 (226) 10 years ago

Is all you have the same regurgitated crap? I've seen this post in numerous other threads. You seem to have reams of it just sitting there to cut and paste. Again, I stand by that number. It's comes from a Federal Agency and is the truth. You can try to spin it a different way all you like, but there it is. Oh, and to reinforce the math issue again, when you say two %ages are only "about 5% different", but you are talking values around let's say 20%, that's an actual difference of 20-25% when you do the full equation. just because you've added cursing to your posts that hasn't made them more true. Spin away.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 10 years ago

If you had read these statistics as you claim, you would not have fucked them up so badly. You made no distinction between Federal Income Taxes and taxes in general. You fucked up bad. Let me refresh your memory:

"The tax code definitely needs an overhaul to prevent such abuses, but taking these instances and applying them 100% to the 1% is fallacy. The 1% pay 37% or more of our taxes, so most of them are doing their part. You also need to ask yourself, if these businesses didn't get out of paying so much in taxes, then where would that money have cone from? The answer is.... Your pockets"

Look familiar? You've stated this falsehood several times. The devil is in the details. Which in this case, you left out over and over. Your repeated claims that the rich "pay 37% or more of our taxes" is dead wrong. 'Our' taxes include everything from sales tax on a pack of cigarettes to Federal Income Tax and literally hundreds in between. Most of which people like you aren't even aware of.

And unlike you, I made the distinction between a tax share and a tax rate. Why?

BECAUSE IT MATTERS.

Now, get out of my face. Go patch a tooth. I have work to do.

[-] 0 points by EXPOSED (222) 10 years ago

Right on comrade. Hail our communist overlords!

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 10 years ago

Check the dictionary. I'm not a communist.

[-] 0 points by NotYour99 (226) 10 years ago

Nor are you Modest or a good definition of Capitalst. From your latest posts it seems you're slipping gears and becoming RavingLunatic. Definitely not helping the cause, just spewing your own agenda for anyone that will listen.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 10 years ago

Next.

[-] 0 points by EXPOSED (222) 10 years ago

Disapoint...

You have good potential comrade.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 10 years ago

I'm not a communist. I'm a modest capitalist. I want a relatively free market with a reasonable scale of income opportunity and an adequate safety net for those in need.

[-] 0 points by EXPOSED (222) 10 years ago

No need to hide with me, I'm one too. we're among compadres...

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 10 years ago

Do you believe that mom and pop should be allowed by law to open a flower shop? I sure as hell do. I want mom and pops flower shop in my community. I want it run without subsidies, within the law, and by mom and pop. Not some conglomerate or parent company. If you don't believe that mom and pop should be allowed by law to open a flower shop, then you're a communist.

Do you believe that mom and pop should be allowed by law to open a flower shop?

Yes. Capitalist. No. Communist.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 10 years ago

Do you pay more taxes than you have to?

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 10 years ago

I don't lobby for breaks. Not for myself and not for my golden goose. I don't even claim any deductions except 1 for myself. I never complain about paying taxes. Never. The rich do everything they can to pay less. Who do you think lobbied for this?

Here is a list of the top ten companies that not only paid no taxes but got huge corporate welfare from we the people.

1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings. Note: This claim was made by Forbes.com in April of '10'. Shortly after, they published a followup article which included a rebuttal by Exxon Mobil. Forbes.com did acknowledge a mistake based on incorrect line items filed by Exxon Mobil. http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2010/04/07/exxon-says-it-does-pay-u-s-income-taxes

2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

These are only the top 10. Dozens more on the list.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 10 years ago

Anyone in America can own stock in those companies and profit, and a large amount do. And I bet there are at least a million Americans working for those 10 companies.

The laws need to be changed to make tax laws more fair. I don't know how you can fault them for paying as little tax as possible. I know you say you don't deduct anything, but you are in the very, very small minority.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 10 years ago

The benefits are paid primarily to the top one percent (51%), the next four percentiles (33% give or take), foreign investors (13% give or take), the scraps leftover are shared by the lower 95 percent of Americans. From the top down of course.

Close those damn corporate loopholes. Raise taxes on the rich.

[-] 0 points by NotYour99 (226) 10 years ago

I wonder just how many times you have cut and pasted this and other propagandized "facts" on this forum. Countless times in my eyes. Now you're just doing it with more swearing which actually lowers your credibility, not raises it.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 10 years ago

Next.

[-] 0 points by NotYour99 (226) 10 years ago

For those keeping score in any of these ranting threads of self adulation, when MC says "Next", that generally means that you caught him in a lie and he can't defend it.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 10 years ago

Wrong. It means that another critic has responded with another petty insult or grade school psychological trick. It means that I've become bored with them.

Next.

[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 10 years ago