Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Guess what? Still affiliated with no one

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 15, 2011, 6:59 p.m. EST by tedscrat (-96)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I continue to read the posts on this site. There are a lot of highly educated people on this site. The debates regarding economics and internation monetary policy honestly go over my head.
It is time to simplify things a little bit? These points may be a bit too simple for the complexities governing this nation. But it can't be any worse that what is going on now. So here it goes: 1. A flat tax across all wage earners, no exceptions, no exemptions. 2. Throw the tax code out the window. 3. 10% reduction in government in 5 years. 25% in ten years 4. Civics test in order to earn the privilege to vote. Any thoughts?

22 Comments

22 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by buphiloman (840) 2 years ago
  1. Voting is NOT a "privilege", it is a BIRTHRIGHT.

  2. Flat Tax = death of the middle class, and war on the poor.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20440) 2 years ago

Right.

[-] 0 points by tedscrat (-96) 2 years ago

Not a birthright if you have to wait until you are 18. With the percentage of people getting money back in April or paying no tax at all, there is still this war on the poor.

[-] 1 points by buphiloman (840) 2 years ago

It IS A BIRTHRIGHT...simple proof:

Take someone born to French Parents in France...when they reach 18, do they have the right to vote in the United States? No.

Take someone born to French Parents in the United States (say on a vacation).....when they reach 18, do they have the right to vote in the United States? Yes...they do...BECAUSE THEY WERE BORN IN THE USA.

That makes voting a BIRTHRIGHT, a Right tied to one's birth.

But I assume you'll think I am just another commie pinko. So here is the text of the 14th amendment, Pay close attention to the first sentence:

But when the RIGHT to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

THE "RIGHT TO VOTE"......IT IS A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE.

And just to cut off your asinine response before you give it, the word 'RIGHT' did not mean "privilege" in 1868, when the amendment was written and ratified.

[-] 0 points by REALamerican (241) 2 years ago

I agree with voting, but i feel a flat tax is only fair. put it at a level the poor and middle class can easily handle. Why should the rich have a third of their profits stripped from them? they should pay the same PERCENTAGE as everyone else. people considered in poverty should obviously pay nothing.

What I want to know is why people are so hateful towards the idea that you should show an ID for voting? To me that just seems like duh why haven't we been doing that?

[-] 1 points by Samcitt (136) 2 years ago

It's because the rich can (supposedly) afford to pay it. If you earn $1,000,000 a year in salary and get put in a 50% tax bracket as a result they'll still earn $500,000 a year after tax. Even though its a kick in the balls it won't particularly affect their tangible material wealth.

[-] 0 points by REALamerican (241) 2 years ago

Of course not, but it shouldnt be considered fair. It ISNT fair. most of them (maybe not currently) work hard to reach a point where they can earn that income, and then we strip half of it from them.

[-] 1 points by Samcitt (136) 2 years ago

Of course its not fair, but what in life is?

[-] 0 points by REALamerican (241) 2 years ago

We could at least try to make it fair?

[-] 1 points by Samcitt (136) 2 years ago

Perhaps. But I fear there just isn't room in this world for everything to be fair- or at the very least for a meaningful period of time. If we were an inter-planetary civilization then maybe. Maybe there is room for fairness and its just me.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

Check this out:

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.

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.

Those are just the top 10. There are dozens more on the list.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

The most profitable industries in the world (energy, healthcare, finance) have been given billions in government handouts and tax breaks. Meanwhile, they keep raising charges causing hardship for millions. With all those massive handouts, tax breaks, and obscene charges, profits rise to record high levels. Millions in bonuses are paid to the executives. With record high profits, record high dividends are paid. 40% of all dividends in the United States are paid to the richest one percent. All of this causes a gradual concentration of wealth and income. This results in a net loss for the lower majority who find it more and more difficult to cover the record high cost of living, which again, is directly proportional to record high profits for the rich. As more and more people struggle to make ends meet, more and more financial aid becomes necessary. Most of which goes right back to the health care industry through Medicare, Medicaid, and a very expensive prescription drug plan. This increases government spending. This has been happening for 30 years now. During the same time, tax rates have been lowered drastically for the richest one percent. Especially those who profit from investments. These people pay only 15 percent on capital gains income. As even more wealth concentrates, the lower majority find it more difficult to sustain there share of the consumer driven economy. Demand drops as more and more people go broke. Layoffs results. Unemployment rises. This results in less revenue and more government debt.

Massive subsidies and tax breaks for Wall Street, massive tax breaks for the super rich, heavy concentration of wealth, record high charges along with record high profits and record high cost of living, more hardship for the lower majority, more government spending in the form of financial aid to compensate, more concentration of wealth, less demand, layoffs and unemployment. All of this results in slower economy and less tax revenue. At the same time more and more financial aid becomes necessary. It's a horrible downward cycle which gradually pushes the national debt higher and higher.

The other big factors are the wars in the Middle East.

This post is not intended to excuse those who sit on the couch collecting welfare, make no attempt to find work, or squease out kids they can't provide for.

[-] 1 points by Samcitt (136) 2 years ago

1) What would the tax rate be? Wouldn't a flat tax merely harm lower income earners whilst the highest income earners just laugh? 2) What would you replace it with. 3) How would a smaller government manage and enforce a flat tax rate? 4) The Founding Fathers would double facepalm. Those who pass the civics test wouldn't necessarily be the most valuable voters or be more enlightened in what they support.

I don't consider myself that intelligent either but I just go with the flow on this site mainly.

[-] 0 points by tedscrat (-96) 2 years ago

Perhaps 10% or 15% flat rate. There would be no code. Not in the sense that there would be exemptions and loopholes. I would like to see the flat tax be the only tax. Therefore, perhaps, the code could be 1 page long. I have had a time pondering that thought about harming the lower income earners. I believe that is a risk that needs to be taken. How many people get full exemptions in April who still have to make cuts and count pennies? The government needs to shrink, period. At least some people with an education will vote. It will not indoctrinate them, just give them basic knowlege about how this country works

[-] -1 points by bereal (235) 2 years ago

I agree about the taxes. If you want it to be fair, the lower 47% should be paying some tax. Once we reach 51% of people not paying income tax, we are doomed. That new 51% will just keep voting in higher and higher taxes for everyone else until there is nothing left.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

Don't believe this outrageous crap about the rich paying 37% of the taxes in America 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 OVERALL 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 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 a MUCH higher rate 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 (followed by attorneys, doctors, and celebrities). Plus 40% 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 21 percent of all private income and hold 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. Not even close. 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. Not even close. Their share as a group represents just over their share of income. The difference is within 5 percent. In fact, the 2nd percentile actually pays a slightly higher rate on average than the top percentile.

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. After all, this obscene concentration of wealth actually CAUSES economic instability. It CAUSES poverty. It will CAUSE the next Great Depression.

No more excuses.

RAISE THOSE GOD DAMN TAXES ON THE RICH!

[-] 0 points by bereal (235) 2 years ago

How old are you? What do you do for a living?

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

Old enough to work. I work.

[-] -1 points by bereal (235) 2 years ago

Why are you so jealous of people that did better than you? Why do you think everyone owes you something? Since when are you my problem? Are you family, friend, or neighbor?

Where were you when I had problems? Actually, that wouldn't matter because I wouldn't try to force you to bail me out, I'd do it on my own...and have each time. But if I bust my ass for most of my adult life, risk everything, lose everything, several times over and then finally do good.... now I owe YOU something? Be real!

[-] 0 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

Who said anything about jealousy? If someone were to take a crap on your doorstep, would you be 'jealous' of them for their clean doorstep?

There may be a newer edition of 'Psychology for Dummies' on the market. I suggest you buy yourself a copy. Better yet, give up the field all together. You don't have what it takes.

[-] -1 points by bereal (235) 2 years ago

Actually, I gained a better understanding of you and your ilk by reading 'Psychology OF Dummies'.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

Then it may surprise you to learn that Albert Einstein went on record with very similar views.

Next.