Forum Post: End Trickle Down - Raise Taxes On The Rich. That's the Change we need.
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 12, 2011, 8:56 a.m. EST by LongLostAndLooking
(74)
from Portland, OR
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
In spite of all the blathering you'll hear on TV, the founding fathers wrote into the US Constitution the government's right to tax
"US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;"
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8
The institutions that threaten our freedom, liberty, and lives are working very hard to train us to fear and resent the institution of government, which is the only institution we're capable of controlling that has the ability to control the institutions that threaten our freedom, liberty, and lives.
We’ve been in this economic situation before and we know how to get out of it.
In fact, it’s not even as bad as it once was…Everybody’s complaining that the debt to GDP ratio is getting high, but they ignore the fact that it was 30% higher after WWII, reaching higher than 120% of GDP.
You know how we solved that? RAISED TAXES ON THE RICH.
In 1946, on every single dollar you made over $200,000 per year, you paid 91% in taxes. http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
According to the CPI inflation calculator, $200,000 in 1946 dollars is worth $2,317,579.49 today.
Source: http://146.142.4.24/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
Raising taxes worked. The debt decreased dramatically until they started lowering taxes in the 1970's.
Today, with the tax levels as low as they are, the rich have a choice between paying their workers and hoarding their wealth in offshore accounts. They're choosing to hoard it in offshore accounts.
Back then, the rich could either pay their workers, or they could pay taxes instead. The smart business option was to pay your workers. That’s why my grandfather could raise a family on one 40 hour per week job.
And back then, workers had money to spend on the stuff that made the economy work. They bought and paid for cars. They bought and paid for TV’s. They bought and paid for their houses. And they still had money to put into savings. All while raising a family with three kids with the money from a single 40 hour per week job.
That obviously isn’t the case today.
Foreclosures Exceed 300,000 Per Month for 11th Straight Month – http://www.themoneytimes.com/featured/20100211/foreclosures-exceed-300000-11th-straight-month-id-10100126.html
And:
Consumer Spending Across All Income Groups Down in August (2010)Year-over-year self-reported spending is down compared with July 2010 and August 2009 - http://www.gallup.com/poll/142913/consumer-spending-across-income-groups-down-august.aspx
And:
U.S. savings rate falls below zero - Inflation wipes out gains in personal incomes – http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-july-savings-rate-falls-to-negative-06
We have to raise taxes if we want out of this. That’s the “Change” we need.
It frightens me how the downtrodden of this country think that they are too spoiled and that demanding that the rich pay more taxes = spoiled.
Have we been abused for so long that we don't know what being outside of the USA is like anymore? (both the countries better and worse than us) Have we been abused for so long that we think that the rich are on our side? Have we been so abused that now we are deluded into believing that a higher rate on the rich would -hurt- them?
Higher taxes on the rich would hurt the middle class once THEY become rich! Conservative policies play right into the greed of the middle class. Talk up things like class mobility, infinite pies, and so on, while actually further defining the distinction between class lines.
Not that Democrats are necessarily better, but conservative ideology is just comical...
Ha ha ha you said it - Even my dad believes that crap. My god the 1% are trash. I just talked to beardy who said that soldiers shouldn't be paid more because "they didn't get together to make the Ipod".
I don't know about the 1% of France but I can tell you - the 1%ers here are scum sucking trash. The only people worse than them are the elites of places like North Korea, South America and Africa.
Found the link where beardy insulted our troops
http://occupywallst.org/forum/tax-the-1-and-give-it-to-the-families-of-fallen-an/
Disgusting trolls...
ows from start has been democratic and all republicans do nothing but demonize the movement read the signs listen to the people and see tax rich get money out of politics end wars have never been backed by republicans tax cuts for middle class modernize roads and bridges invest in middle class not banking class by raising minimum wage thats the occupy wall street message
OWS is PEOPLEISM NOT Democrap!
Democrap = FOR scum sucking elite liberals!!! (aka the "Northeastern Liberals")
Repuglican = FOR scum sucking elite Neo-cons!!! (aka O'Reilly)
PEOPLEISM NOT DEMOCRAP! Down with the Two Party publicity leechers!
Go away Obama! Go away!
stop the fox spin
LOL
I despise Fox and the Repuglicans as much as I despise Obama who is a CENTRIST and not a Progressive.
The White House has two right wings. Stop fooling yourself.
But if you're just another Obama shill then I apologize, because you are not fooling yourself - you are a liar. A bad liar too. The Repuglican card is just low.
Also - If Obama is so "progressive" then why did he completely kill a public option to subsidize Private Health Uninsurance, which had and has death panels for all as they drain your wallet like a mosquito? If Obama is for jobs then why the hell did he sell our Tech Industry to South Korea so that we can sell them beef and pork?
You lose shill. Tell that corporatist Obama that when I get to legally vote he can count me out! (For voting for him)
ever heard of the tea party thats why the public option was killed
Is that a threat? I do realize your kind bought them out too.
You make me sick. How do you sleep at night knowing that you work for scum like that?
how do you sleep when the middle class is hurting
I don't because I am one of them. Asshole.
Now...I ask again -
How do you sleep knowing that you work for corporatist scum like Obama who just traded our Tech Industry to South Korea for their agricultural market AND killed single payer in favor of backdeals with drug companies and subsidizing the murderers called Private Health UNInsurance instead of actually prosecuting them for mass murder (LOL WE WON'T PAY FOR THE LIVER THAT YOU DESPERATELY NEED BECAUSE YOU'RE TOO SICK TO BE COVERED)?
Clinton...Bush....Obama...
More of the same.
stop the fox spin
Meh...you're either a troll or an overpaid shill. Maybe I should send a letter to Obama or whoever employed you and evaluate your performance, because pretty much all you do is call me a Repug when I am clearly an independant.
Then again getting someone fired during this emerging "from right to work to Somalia" hellhole is sort of a dick move. Plus I think you're a troll.
So laters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
Force passing of Obama jobs bill. It ain't about Obama its about your mamma. Elect him as a tactic but have your own strategy. Reject the formal freedom offered by existing power axis. Experience actual freedom undermining those coordinates.
Excellent article thank you!
Not taxing the rich doesn't even make sense. Once you have ten houses, what do you need 11 for??? Once you have 7 cars, what do you need 8 for? Maybe some people work really hard and deserve it. But not till they've paid their dues to the rest of society. We all flipping work to put this country together and these people wouldn't have their wealth if not for all of us.
Taxes used to be much higher for the rich - particularly in the 1950s, when the top marginal tax rate was 90%. Not only was society not a great place for non-whites (edit: and women!) then, but somehow the rich managed to coast their way out of that situation and into the current one. If we roll back the clock, don't be surprised if we wind up back in the same spot again. (even though we won't be rolling it back in terms of race/gender relations, which is gooood!)
This is not to say raising taxes on the rich isn't a good idea - in the short term at least. But I think without any democratic oversight of the economy, it's always going to be a tiny group of people voting to run the country their way, and the rest of us footing the bill.
Taxes are a secondary issue, what we most immediately need is a comprehensive strategy, and related candidate, that implements all our demands at the same time, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management System of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategic Legal Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:
http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures
Join
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/
if you want to be 1 of 100,000 people needed to support a Presidential Candidate – such as myself – at AmericansElect.org in support of the above bank-focused platform.
floating minimum wage evaluated quarterly pegged to inflation and cost
Low taxes rates on the rich, i.e., the increasing regressivity of our tax code over the last thirty years, is one of the main contributors to the rampant income inequality we are currently experiencing. See Winner-Take-All Politics: Public Policy, Political Organization, and the Precipitous Rise of Top Incomes in the United States, available at: http://pas.sagepub.com/content/38/2/152.full.pdf
What If? Instead of raising taxes, we stopped spending so much money? What if we put an end to entitlement programs? What if we demanded that any law congress passes, applies to them equally? What if we made Congress balance a check book, just like we do at home?
Then how do the disabled and elderly survive?
How about veterans? Just kick them all to the curb? Seriously?
You F'ing radical! ; )
Seems most here think that simply raising taxes is the answer to most problems independent of whether the money raised is spent in an efficient and effective manner. Which it's not by a long shot. I've been there and I've seen it myself.
Feeding the government beast just to grow government for government's sake does little to benefit anyone, including the purposes for which the money is raised. Having a huge bureaucracy in Washington doesn't serve well environmental, housing, education, or most other purposes. Its basically the equivalent of giving money to a charity that has a 40% overhead cost.
Clean up all of the waste and inefficiency in government and make it operate in a responsible manner and you'll see a whole lot less people complaining about paying more..
Demanding responsibility in government is just silly. I mean Barry Satoro should be able to funnel millions of dollars to the DNC without any over site.
Government spending accounts for thirty-seven (37) percent of the gross domestic product. It's too much. It's way too much. It's not sustainable. But most importantly, it's wrong. Your call for higher taxes would create change for the worse.
No. I'm not talking about new spending. I'm talking about raising taxes to pay off the debt and to force employers between paying their workers or paying taxes.
If they pay their workers, those workers buy stuff that makes the economy go. Back in the 1940's and 1950's, my grandfather worked ONE 40 hour per week job (while my grandmother stayed home) and still had enough money to raise three kids, buy a house, buy a car, buy a tv (a luxury item back then), buy a bunch of other luxury appliances (like a washer/dryer, fancy toaster, etc), and he still PAID for everything (no credit cards until about 15 years after he retired), all because his employer paid 91% taxes on income over $200,000.
If you own a business, and you had a choice between paying 91% taxes on money over $200k or giving those profits to your workers as pay and benefits (like health care), which would make the most sense for your business? Which does you the most good? Paying your workers, right? Because the guy with the best pay and benefits gets to choose from and keep the best workers.
THAT'S WHAT WE NEED!
He may have done all of these things but that was before health insurance (and ObamaCare, which has made things worse) and before "everybody has to go to college." That was before television, phone, and internet bills. Your comparison is horrible. And that was before millions and millions of illegal immigrants came across the border and checked into our hospitals.
The idea that the government can make up the difference is false.
If your employer is paying for your health care, why do you need anything else?
They're not doing that because they don't have to. With low taxes, their choice is between hoarding their profits or paying their workers and they're choosing to hoard their profits.
With high taxes, their choice would be between paying their workers or paying taxes. Hoarding wouldn't even be an option, and health care wouldn't be an issue.
Stupid to compare now with post war economy. U pay more tax.
Bull.
Warren Buffet pays 17%. I'm pretty sure that 17% is less than 91%. In fact, I think that if you check, you'll find that 17% is actually a lot less than 91%. You can ask a math teacher or someone if you want, but I'm pretty sure about that.
Senate republicans kill 2 million jobs. They do the work of Satan. 999 is 666