Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Should anyone have to pay 30% of their income in taxes???

Posted 9 years ago on Jan. 25, 2012, 3:04 p.m. EST by sampson (34)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Hearing Obama state that people that make a million should have to pay 30% in taxes like everyone else just sounded crazy to me last night...

I do believe that they should pay the same as everyone else, but now that we are paying 30% i.e. ONE THIRD of our income, I think this system has gotten out of hand. It's absurd to think we bust our asses to get by and automatically we give 1/3 of it away... to the government to spend as they wish. We could use that money to save for a house or start a family, to pay off debt, student loans, etc...

WHY do we just give it away?



Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by ChemLady (576) 9 years ago

You can't have it both ways. If you want Medicare, Medicaid, a military, aid for the homeless, free university tuition, whatever, you have to pay for them. We can't get a majority to agree to vote down any of the spending or increase taxes enough to cover it.

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 9 years ago

I have no problem whatsoever with taxing millionaires at 30%, especially considering that the top tax bracket is actually 35%. As far as government is concerned, something tells me that if you open up the revenue stream by pulling new taxes from the group that can afford it the most and institute a few other changes (namely campaign finance and lobbying reform) you'll find that Uncle Sam is a whole lot leaner, more efficient, and more productive than you'd think. See this for more: http://www.themultitude.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=585

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 9 years ago

It's a good start, we certainly have to change the way we tax the rich. We also have to look at what we do with what we collect. Do we have to be the policeman for the world and go on one military adventure after another?

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 9 years ago

As far as warfare is concerned, there are two things we can put an end to right away that will save us a lot of money in the long haul; stupid wars like Iraq and bloated, inefficient military contracts. As far as being the world's policeman, I don't necessarily know if we should stop right away (because on some level someone has to do it), but I would definitely be willing to renegotiate troop levels in all countries in which we have bases, both with national leaders and with communities in which bases are situated, with the intent of cutting overseas troop levels by a fair amount.

[-] -1 points by Galt01 (55) 9 years ago

What is the cost of doubling the long term Cap Gains rate from 15% to 30% as Obama suggests?

[-] 2 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 9 years ago

Actually, 30% for ALL would be a bargain for the social nets some desire. Look at the Scandanavian states that have been praised over and over here lately....their tax rates are more than 30, and they don't let nearly 1/2 the working population pay nothing (or negative since so many here get a check back that exceeds their withholding).

Hell, at my current income/age, 40% would be a bargain for healthcare...maybe we should nationalize it.

[-] 2 points by ChemLady (576) 9 years ago

I agree, that is pretty much my point, they take a more realistic approach, it's not simply give me free stuff. They have decided on a social welfare system and are willing to work for it and pay for it. Americans let politicians convince them everything will be paid for by someone else. We do have to tax fairly, but we have to realize we're all going to have to pay.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 9 years ago

And people are moving there by the MILLIONSSSSSS. NOT.

[-] 2 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 9 years ago

No you don't. Buy legislation to give you loopholes, skip out on taxes, then let the working class pay for it all.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 9 years ago

What is the political future of the United States. We are being forced into a one world government, New World Order by the use of the word, democracy, and by the use of the word, global trade and free trade.

The United States made itself great by its own manufacturing ability. We had our people fully employed. Our people who could buy all the products that we made. We did not need global trade. If people wanted the privilege of selling products on our markets they had to pay customs tariffs.

Untill 1913 all of the money required to run the United States came from customs tariffs. And, in 1913 we had a surplus of five billion dollars after all our bills were paid.

Now, comes socialist, Woodrow Wilson, and the first thing he does is call for a joint session of Congress to stop isolation. Isolation is a smear word, intended to deceive you.

We do not need global trade. We need full employment. We need our people back in full paying jobs. The niddle class is being destroyed. We need our industries revitalized. We have become the dumping ground for the worlds products and that has put our people out of jobs, and reduced our standard of living. The objective is that one day we shall be no better than a third world country as far as our standard of living.

In 1950, only 4% of shoes sold in America were imported. Every President that came along since then has knocked down the tariffs against imported shoes. Today China, Taiwan, and Malaysia produce 84% of shoes sold in America. Which means a total unemployment in the shoe industry of this country of more than 250,000 people.

Isn’t that a scandal and a disgrace, that we open our doors and allow these people who we subsidize with foreign aid to come back and dump their products and put our people out of work?

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 9 years ago

we dont have to have it both ways we can stop foriegn aid.. we are giving a billion a year to egypt alone.. and spending a billion a month in iraq. billions more go to lybia pakistan ect. ect.. stop spending that money before you attack medicaid the homeless and what ever else in america.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 9 years ago

I Agree. We are supposed to beleive in charity, but we raided social security trust of money that citizens put into it.

Republican Bullets say individual charity contributions, but support foreign military grants, foreign military aid, state department deals of billions of dollars of aid to dictators that steal the money. Oh and $4 Trillion dollars for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to transfer taxpayer money to their buddies in Lobbying.

Oh but let's cut all the Social programs they say. Bankers want to keep us desperate and poor. No charity at home - unless the rich get a write off in their taxes.

Oh and Don't work about Oligarcies in Big Pharma, State Health Care, Cable TV, Media, ...This is a violation of the US Anti Trust Law by the way.

They will go after Social Security and the will go after Medicare, just because they know they can talk us all into allowing it to happen.

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 9 years ago

You talk about foreign aid as though it were a significant amount of the budget. I do agree we should stop military actions, they are certainly a major expense. You would need to end all military spending, all discretionary spending and you still couldn't balance the budget from 2011.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 9 years ago

About the aid, grants, and military assistance. Most of the numbers I have ever come across have been like in the million dollars not billion dollars. But congress doesn't know the value of what they spend. Just like you and me -- they use a kind of right-sizing logic.

Think of the Joint Strike Fighter program partnership with Japan. And think of the Kingdom of Saud. We probably transfered technology to Japan as well as hundereds of billions of dollars.

It seems to me that we never can get all the dollars spent and sent to foreign nations on one sheet of paper. You have the state departments, intelligence, DEA, the war on drugs, where does it end if some are off balance sheet transactions (off budget)?

[-] 0 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 9 years ago

maybe but thats a 45 billion dollar a year tax break for the citizens of amerca then we would not need to worry about raising taxes.. we could start from there at least..

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 9 years ago

you are full of shit

[-] 0 points by ChemLady (576) 9 years ago

Always a pleasure to have an intelligent conversation.

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 9 years ago

well with you none is possible - "there are none so blind as those who will not see!"

[-] 0 points by technoviking (484) 9 years ago

i agree totally!! the government can afford it without having to tax.

i don't understand why they just print more money!

zimbabwe used it to great effect - civil servants were paid a millionaire's salary!

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 9 years ago

it is pretty clear you understand how money works - read that little fascist ayn rand lately - you might want to pick up graeber to further your education. like ron paul and his gold standard goofiness do you?

[-] 5 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago

Between 1945 and 1980, top tax rates were between 70% and 91%. During that time we paid Great Depression and WWII debt down from 120% of GDP to around 30%, built a nationwide infrastructure, put men on the moon, had a huge thriving middle class and the longest sustained period of stable growth in history.

Ignorance is lack of knowledge. Stupidity is lack of intelligence.

[-] 4 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

Thank you nucleus! Can you tell this to Galt01 too? Because I think I'm going to lose my mind with these people that act like paying a higher tax rate is like a fate worse than death. Like the very earth will stop turning and fall off its axis!

People in our military sacrifice and risk their lives for our country in costly and questionable wars. Yet there are those that somehow can not find it within themselves to fathom the thought of paying a little bit higher taxes for the good of our society and country. It just makes me want to vomit.

Wealthy people will still be wealthy!

[-] 5 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago

I've posted the same thing half-a-dozen times and it never fails to clear the room of trolls, intellectually challenged and over-opinionated "conservative" morons, libertards, free market / anti-tax numbskulls, etc.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

I need to use this on Galt01, because I think he's one of those guys. You said it really well! I just hope it works so well for me. He is so simplistic and actually told me that there are plenty of secretarial jobs listed in the news paper???? So maybe your information will do the trick. I'm not holding out too much for this one though. The secretarial thing, just, wow (head shakingly stupid).

I would also point out the President Reagan raised taxes on the wealthy and would probably do so again today based on his ideas and principles when he was President. And the world did not stop turning! Imagine that! Everyone survived. And the wealthy did not sink into the depths of poverty. Despair maybe, but not poverty.

[-] 2 points by ineptcongress (648) 9 years ago

reagan lowered the top tax rate from 70% to 28%. btw: galt is a character in atlas shrugged by ayn rand--a required read for all business majors and the book 90% of CEOs say is their favorite. i think 01 stands for 1%--but clearly there is no truth behind it in his case.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

I haven't read the book- I sort of did the cliff note version of it. : )

You're right. Marginal rates overall were lowered substantially. But the year after there was pressure to reduce the deficit which led to and increase after the decrease (still a net decrease). And then later TRA 86 also raised taxes particularly on high income earners. Mostly through closing loopholes and tax shelters used by the wealthy. In the end, the ups and downs netted each other out. I'm not quite sure what the result was by income level. The wealthy got a break for 5 years until TRA 86 ended their loopholes?

[-] -2 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 9 years ago

Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago? NOPE,, worse.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

Actually I am better off. But I see things around me have gotten worse.

[-] 3 points by ineptcongress (648) 9 years ago

thank you. those shits making more than 1 million cry like babies about a 50% tax rate applied to that income above 1 million, which is entirely appropriate. and yet soldiers are prepared to pay with their lives--a far greater sacrifice for the good of country--and they do not cry like sissies about it..

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

Exactly. Its deplorable and disgusting. They really should be ashamed of themselves for it. But clearly, they have no shame.


[-] -1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 9 years ago

Where do you think they will adjust that overhead at?

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

Sorry, "overhead"? Not sure what you mean.

[-] -1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 9 years ago

The operating expenses of a business, including the costs of rent, utilities, interior decoration, and taxes, exclusive of labor and materials.


[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

Yes, it is very easy to ask others to pay for the good of the society, the troops and also your worthless liberal arts degree, your car, your house, your credit card debt. Just as long as it's others who are paying.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization" ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

See also, Taxes are the Price of Civilization, by Jeffrey Sachs

[-] 0 points by sampson (34) 9 years ago

I'm questioning the system... Should anyone have to pay a third of their wages to live in the "land of the free"?

Do pointless wars have an effect on our taxes? probably so. If we weren't out fighting all these wars, we probably wouldn't have to fund the world police military complex...

[-] 3 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

You don't like the wars, I don't either. But we are where we are.

We have $14trillion in debt. The middle class is struggling with 30 years of wage stagnation and is putting tremendous strain on social services as well as entitlement costs going up as a result of demographics and poor government planning of these entitlements.

If you have any other ideas how to pay down the debt, prop up the middle class to reverse the wage stagnation, and handle the entitlement issues, I'm sure people will listen.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 9 years ago

the solution is very simple and obvious, but politically cannot be accomplished because the voters don't want it; they'd rather live in denial. just like a crack addict doesn't want to quit his self-destructive habit.

[-] 2 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 9 years ago

The wars, unfortunately, are very pointed -- if you are in the oil business. I hate that we have military all over the bloody world and no one is rebuilding our own country. However, until we can devise a new system, we more or less have to work from where we are now. I think those who have benefitted so greatly from this country should be more than willing to build it back up. 70% of disposable income in a country that is vital and productive is better than 85% of disposable income in a world that is collapsing.

[+] -4 points by kingscrossection (1203) 9 years ago

Well you're kind of right. We also wouldn't have to pay as much if there weren't as many entitlement programs or to pay for the mexican's or the indians. These are both pet peeves of mine.

[-] -2 points by Kirby (104) 9 years ago

What I have difficulty with in these Obama led, "pay your fair share" mantra, is the people demanding more money from this group seem to be as greedy as the so called rich. I have rarely seen anyone on OWS demand the government balance it's checkbook like we have to do. My income is down 30% over the past few years and I have to adjust. The government just spends more, robbing our future from us and our kids. I know most OWS people hate the tea party, but they started because they were pissed at Bush for all the bullshit TARP and the other phony stimulus.

[+] -6 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 9 years ago

Dont choke on your vomit because I dont want to have to pay for your welfare medical bill.

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 9 years ago

Well done, nucleus. Saved me the effort. ChemLady, above and SteveKJR below are also correct. Will Rogers used to say, "Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for." It's a good joke, but we should be getting all of the government that we pay for, but the one thing that Greenspan said that is correct is,"This isn't capitalism, it's corruption." We have to plug two leaks, the one losing revenue and the one misspending it.

[-] 1 points by GreenMonster (8) from Atlanta, GA 9 years ago

While tax rates on the highest income earners may have been between 70% and 91%, there were so many deductions that nobody paid the highest rates. The "effective" tax rate in 1979 for the top 1% was about 37% today it's about 20%.

For the top 10% of earners the effective tax rate in 1979 was 29.6% and today it is 27.5%. For the lowest 20% it was about 8% in 79" and today it is about 3.7%.

You need to separate the highest rate at the time and the the "effective" rate people actually paid.

Also don't forget these are just federal rates, throw in another 5% plus in many states with state and local taxes. In NYC this can be as high as another 10%.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 9 years ago

You are correct and we have 30 some large corporations that are "paying" negative effective rates.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 9 years ago

One point to your comment "tax rates were between 70% and 91%.

Although this may be true, less then 1% of those paying taxes paid this amount mainly because not very many people made enough money to put them in that tax braket.

Correct me if I am wrong but I think what most people paid in taxes was between 11% to 15% based upon their income.

I have researched this awhile ago and I believe the numbers are correct but even if they are wrong they are not off by much.

[-] 3 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

That is his point, less than one percent paid at that rate

But when the top 1% earns 34% of national income, it's a whole lotta big difference


[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 9 years ago

Are you talking about between 1945 and 1980 or are you talking about todays tax rates. There is a difference you know.


[-] -2 points by uncensored (104) 9 years ago

Don't confuse NucleHead with facts.

[-] -2 points by Cweiss (-8) 9 years ago

Growth began slowing in the early 60's hence Kennedy's move to lower rates. Stagflation occurred in the 70's forcing the lowering of rates in '81. Not to even mention the introduction of low cost producers beginning in the late '60s.

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago

Economic cycles persist in any economy. "Stagflation" was largely the result of the oil price shock in the early 70's due to OPEC.


[+] -4 points by Cweiss (-8) 9 years ago

Inflation hasn't budged the past 5 years when oil prices skyrocketed. If true the President sh ould pass the XL pipeline?

[-] 4 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago

Mix and match all you want. Cherry picking statistics isn't going to change history.

Global economic conditions are different than they were 40 years ago, and inflation is being aggressively pursued with the creation and pumping of vast amounts of money into the world economy in a desperate attempt to stave off a deflationary spiral.

[-] 2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 9 years ago

tar sands are a sandy sludge that will be pumped under pressure through a pipe.

  • can you say SANDBLASTING?
[-] -2 points by Cweiss (-8) 9 years ago

Inflation is a monetary effect. Oil prices increasing in 1973 did not cause stagflation.

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago

Another retread conservative troll ... how many accounts do you have now? Cweiss Joined Jan. 25, 2012

Stagflation (rising inflation, reduction in growth) inthe 1970's was the result of Nixon's economic policy of ending the gold standard and the 1973 oil crisis.

Look it up.

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 9 years ago

Make up your mind. This is not what you said above.

Look it up.

[-] -2 points by uncensored (104) 9 years ago

Bone head, the rates were high but nobody payed the high end rates due to a million tax shelters and loopholes. Quit spewing "facts" you don't understand.

[-] -3 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

Again mistaking correlation with causation. And you conveniently do not mention that the top tax rate came down to 38% in 1987 and since then has been pretty low and America has grown tremendously.

The reason America grew so fast after WW2 was that it was pretty much the only country that survived without much damage. Germany was down, so was France. Hitler bombed the shit out of Britain and they had other problems in their colonies particularly India. Japan was also in ruins and China wasn't much developed, India was yet to be independent. USSR was more interested then in military expansion than production and exports.

So all that was left was America and industry had expanded to support WW2 and could not get into massive production. Veterans joined the work force too. Those favorable circumstances dont exist now. It's no longer a unipolar world. Other countries have risen and they will want a share of the pie.

And you are right "Ignorance is lack of knowledge. Stupidity is lack of intelligence".

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago

Growth in the top 1%. Largely flat or decreasing beneath that.

[-] -3 points by shadz66 (19985) 9 years ago

A very real and fundamental point to bear in mind is that taxes on individuals, new entrepreneurs, small businesses and just about everyone else in society (The 99%), would be lower if Imperial Wars could be ended AND IF the truly Parasitic 0.01% ; The 1% and all 'The Corporations' (apparently 'legally individual persons') paid their Proper and Fair Share of the Taxes !

The (Tax Payer Bailed Out!) Banking Corporations in particular, are among the primary culprits in this 'cult of tax avoidance and evasion' and their selfish opposition to The 'Tobin' / Financial Transaction Tax, is utterly unconscionable given the long term existence of the highly regressive 'Goods and Services Tax' ; 'Sales Tax' and 'Value Added Tax' (currently 20% in The UK!), which everyone else has to pay !!

Read more : http://www.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-30-american-companies-that-paid-less-than-zero-income-tax-from-2008-2010-2011-11?op=1#ixzz1ejBOPiGq and http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersReport.pdf .

fiat justitia ...

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 9 years ago

I believe the term is "legal artificial persons" for corporations as opposed to "natural persons."

[-] -3 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

correlation and causation are two different things

[-] 6 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago

As are knowledge and intelligence, as you are so fond of demonstrating.

[+] -4 points by uncensored (104) 9 years ago

So lets make the tax rate 100% and we'll have 0 unemployment and a perfect economy!

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago

Since you can't challenge historical fact, you revert to idiocy. Nice work that proves the last line in my original post.

[-] 0 points by uncensored (104) 9 years ago

So 91% rates were great and 100% rates are idiocy, so maybe 95 percent rates would be better? Or is 91% the "perfect" balance? You seem to know it all, what would be the perfect rate? What is the real "fair share"?

[-] -2 points by Kirby (104) 9 years ago

Taxes collected as a percentage of GDP fluctuates between 17% and 20% regardless of the tax rates. high tax rates produce the, "Why should I work so hard when uncle Sam takes a higher percentage" attitude. I've worked my entire life in the blue collar trades and I know people that won't work that much o.t. because it turns out the government takes too much.

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago

GDP is irrelevant. Tax revenue is relevant to federal spending not GDP.

No matter how hard you try, you can't defeat historical fact. But keep on trying. It's kind of entertaining in a sad way.

[-] 0 points by Kirby (104) 9 years ago

Federal spending is out of control. Ever heard of a limited federal government? I didn't think so. The states rights have been trampled on by this behemoth. But every liberal thinks the government doesn't spend enough. Right atom brain?

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 9 years ago

You just proved how stupid you are, NucleHead. Nice job.

[+] -4 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 9 years ago

We were also the only industrial infrastructure not decimated or negatively effected by the War...there was no competition, we set the rules.....the world market isn't like that anymore, and NEVER will be

The idea that we can return to those days is naive and foolish...

[-] 4 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago

Historically, the economy has been positively effected by war. But that was before war was outsourced and taxes on war profiteers was largely eliminated.

Why does the US have to participate in global markets? Why can't we build a sustainable national economy?

[+] -4 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 9 years ago

so......you want to become an isolationist country again? That didn't work so well the first time....the world is becoming advanced...we cannot halt that advance by hiding from it...sorry, that is a naive and foolish idea...

[-] 3 points by ineptcongress (648) 9 years ago

i want more protectionist/ isolationist policies. the borderless "free trade" concept is complete bullshit... we cannot compete with countries with radically lower cost structures, where they make a nickel a day but a home costs $5.00. and then to boot they don't allow their currency to attain market pricing and they impose tariffs favorable to domestic companies. the free trade HARD SELL was propaganda brainwash. just like "deregulation." check out "the warning" by PBS to see how the once exalted greenspan was completely fucking wrong. his deregulation policies are the direct cause of this second great depression. well i am likening those deregulation junkies to the "free trade" junkies... completely wrong.

[-] 3 points by UncomonSense (386) 9 years ago

"Isolationist" is an extremist point of view.

Nucleus seems to be talking about economic protectionism as a means to rebuild the US economy. Since the economy has been globalized and outsourced, ideas along these lines are a reasonable proposition.

You seem to be referring to non-interventionism. In that respect, I think we would be well-served by not meddling in the affairs of other countries around the world. Most US alliances are simply an excuse to extend the global empirical grasp of the corporate-military-financial complex.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 9 years ago

we cannot create a false economy not tied to the value of our products and services on the world market....that is a house of cards

[-] 1 points by UncomonSense (386) 9 years ago

False economy - what do you think we have now? Industrial production outsourced overseas, massive unemployment, and the remnants of a once powerful economy dominated by a financial sector that that gambles on debt. As if that were productive or even sustainable ...

A "real" economy would employ citizens and protect domestic markets.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 9 years ago

Yes absolutely, It should be noted that the wealthy do benefit from social programs. Well run social programs prevent civil unrest; and by giving people at the bottom a floor which they can't fall below, and giving them access to educational opportunities (and a reasonable chance at a fulfilling life), it promotes social cohesion, thereby enhancing public happiness, and improving our economic prospects (which the wealthy benefit from the most). Moreover, the wealthy do disproportionately benefit from having a modern, "functional" infrastructure.

Studies have shown that where there's less wealth disparity, everyone in society (including the wealthy) enjoy a higher standard of living. I mean, sure, there is a level at which taxes can become confiscatory, but most reasonable people are not talking about this level of taxation (although the more the wealthy overreach, the more the dialogue will likely deteriorate).

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 9 years ago

Yes, it has gotten out of hand and it is all your fault. It is your fault because you were too lazy, to understand how government works and to stay on top of it and fight to keep it on the right track. So you are shocked, by things that you don't understand and are oblivious to all of the corruption that your complacency has encouraged. You should be apologizing to your fellow citizens who have been trying with zero support from you to slow down the guys with the money from changing the rules so only they can win. And you should apologize to your children and grandchildren for throwing away their inheritance. And, then have the nerve to you complain. If you were in a coma you have an excuse. If not, you are one of those who are finally getting what you deserve. You should be ashamed.

Now get to work and clean up your mess.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 9 years ago

No, I'm not that old. I blame the generation of the grey/white haired guys - back when few women worked. My whole work life has been in competition with women and men. And I have never had the recognition. In my industry there were people 10-20 years older than me that always said I'd never be ready to take control, lead, and manage the big offices and make the big decisions.

-----So screw 'em, I'm out. I can write, I can think, I can put information in some of the right hands, but I'm out of here baby!!----I'm looking for a country in Europe (where they are intelligent and knowledgeable) or in Asia where the food is healthy with lots of vegis---

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 9 years ago

Try Denmark.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 9 years ago

I recently met some nice people from Denmark and Sweden. Some of them are Interning as doctors in foeriegn countries. The conversion from Denmark, Sweden, and Switzerland is great right now so they can travel on the cheap.

Denmark is great in that there is Socialized Education and Medicine.

I'm afraid of living in Europe on one hand beause of the cost of living. But I don't need a car/auto, or a house. I would need to get the rent down, so... maybe Poland, Portugal, Spain, Croatia, France? Never been to the east so not sure the weather is good in places like Hungry, Slovakia, Prague is cold in the winter.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 9 years ago

II was in Split, Croatia in September. It's beautiful, warm, the people are very friendly. Not as cheap to live as Portugal or Spain, but the stability of those two and the austerity they are going through could raise the motivation for crime, especially for an outsider.

I was in Denmark Sweden, Norway, Finland and Estonia, 18 months ago. I loved Estonia, they don't have so much debt, they have gone hi tech and many speak English, love Americans. 40% are Russians, who they hate, and take up too many jobs. Estonians are cousins of Hungarians. Fins are too close to Russia in more one than one respect. Fiercely independent. Sweden would be my third choice in Northern Europe behind Denmark and Estonia. Denmark is warmer. The others are colder than the dickens. Switzerland is the most expensive except maybe Monaco. Good luck.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 9 years ago

Wow, yes. I was also reading about Estonia one day in the office. I mentioned it to a guy that retired from the Army 15 years ago. He knew about Estonia (he has a lot of contacts). He said he heard it was good too. I looked up another country nearby Estonia, maybe Lavia...they seem to have more problems with crime.

Croatia seems to have lots of summer rentals. But off the shore must be some cheaper apartments.

I was in Copenhagen one year and it was nearly June, the flowers were just coming out to bloom. Went out of town to the country and found the wind and overcast skies.

[-] 1 points by Budcm (208) 9 years ago

Good thing you weren't powerful in 1941 or we'd all be speaking Japanese with a German accent!

[-] 0 points by NKVD (55) 9 years ago

So your devil is white men?

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 9 years ago

I said Europe. Didn't you go to college at all.

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 9 years ago

People at or below the poverty line should be subsidized to the point where there standard of living is at the poverty line. Those making between 1X and 3X the poverty line should be progressively taxed. All income over 3X the poverty line should be confuscated.

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 9 years ago

I think all income above 3X the poverty rate should be taxed at a rate of 100% without exception. That should provide us with more than enough to pay down the debt and perhaps lower the retirement age to 50 and the work week to 30 hours, especially if we end the American empire, bring all the troops home from everywhere that is not sovereign American soil and ending all military research.

[-] 2 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 9 years ago

Should anyone have to pay 30% of their income in taxes???

Actually, yes. The top tax rate is 35%. So they should pay 35% on all income above the top marginal rate.

[-] -1 points by sampson (34) 9 years ago

But don't you think 30 or 35% is too much?

[-] 1 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 9 years ago

Nope. If I ever had the good fortune to make enough to qualify for such a rate (currently $379,000), I'd be happy to pay it ASSUMING that it didn't go to corporate subsidies, corporate bailouts, endless wars, etc.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

Ya know? Somehow I think that if I brought home a million or more a year, that I could probably afford a 30% tax without pain.


[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 9 years ago

I agree in spirit with Sampson.

If I continue to pay 30% for my Federal and Local taxes then I have some demands:

1) I demand that loop holes in the tax law be closed up - to prevent corporations and rich people from paying less than 25%. 2) I demand that Social Security be fully funded this year, and that it be redesigned as a legal trust that Congress can't use. 3) I demand that no wars be made in foreign lands without a national referendum vote, and I want to see the signatures of congress memebers who will declare the new war. 4) I demand we establish a baseline of social programs as a net for the elderly, handicaped, ill and dying, and the unemployed - the base line of minimum trust funds be maintained in perpetuity (I'm not a lawyer)... say 5% - 10% of our GDP go into maintaining a social program trust. 5) I demand that referendum votes be held every 6 months to provide priorities and focus to US Congress memebers. Congress would then be required to report quarterly how they voted, what they are working on, and what their position is on 3 social issues of their choice (call it a position paper that lets voters know in writing how they feel about the issues that are important). 6) I demand an END to LOBBYING, and a trial for congress members that accept gifts from foreign lobbist/governments. Congress shall not receive gifts of any kind over $5 value, including airplane tickets, concert tickets, hotel rooms, or dinners. The rest of the Federal Government has to follow these rules and they are good for congress. (Congress can make money through books, speaches, and the like - however they can not sell most of their books to PACs or to corporations)

[-] 0 points by sampson (34) 9 years ago

1 outta 30 ain't too bad...

Surprised so many people enjoy giving up a third of their pay

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) 9 years ago

Sure. Lets get rid of taxes all together. Make every road a toll road, police as a private service. Fire dept as a private service. If china wants to take your house, you better have a contract with the military. Pay full price for your trash water and sewer because what you see in your bill is the percentage not paid by the government. If your bank loses your money, too bad because there is no FDIC. If you leave your house, you will need a security detail because there are no cops on the street. The list goes on and on. Me, I'm fine with all of it. I don't have enough money to need a bank account, it's only a connivance.

[-] 0 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago

5 points in nine minutes - vote yourself up much?

richardkentgates richardkgates richardkengates richardgates MOrichardgates fredastaire etc., etc., etc.

I'm disappointed, I thought you had outgrown that.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 9 years ago

You will have to pardon my disdain for deadbeat employers paying crap wages and complaining they have to make it up in taxes.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago

I will, as long as you vote yourself back down and confine your response to prose, preferably ironic / sardonic.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 9 years ago

Ok but one of those votes was not me. So I will remove the votes I made only. As far as my responses, I owe that to nobody after the treatment I received for the way I choose to support this movement, especially in light of the contrast between Black Blocks approach and mine.

[-] -2 points by sampson (34) 9 years ago

okay and you keep bending over and not asking questions... D U M B F U C K

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 9 years ago

When working people make enough money to pay their way and their own taxes, we can change that 30%. As long as those in the top tax bracket continue to pay low wages, you will continue to make up the difference in taxes. You will pay, be it a fair wage or through taxes is indifferent.

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) 9 years ago

Really, I'm here because I'm complicit? Your post and reply indicate your lack of thinking things over.

[-] -1 points by sampson (34) 9 years ago

OK and I'm stupid for asking questions??? I thought that's why we were ALL HERE.

All I'm asking is do we have the best system in place? NO, so what's your input? if you dont have any then get out

[-] 2 points by UncomonSense (386) 9 years ago

BO's 30% tax on a million dollar income is LESS than the top bracket tax rate of 35%

Go figure.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 9 years ago

I guess this thread has been closed off, since I think I posted twice since this last poast (roast).

[-] 1 points by sampson (34) 9 years ago

you can always add more... At least until shit changes

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 9 years ago

ChemLady and ARod1993

I responded today in the positive to your posts, but they were censored for using buzz words. I guess we can't talk about cutting some agencies...

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 9 years ago

Anything over 1 million in earned income or investment profit should be taxed at 60%. Corps like apple should have a 200% tax put on their products coming into the US from China. Corps like bank of America should have a $250,000 per person tax on every person they have employed via out sourcing in India. There should be a 200% tax on any vehicle imported into America (ending importing cars in America).

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 9 years ago

Hey ChemLady and ARod1993 I think you guys are on to something.

The future looks like we would have to start paying higher tax rates, but just looking at the 30% or 35% tax rate - I gotta say we are just transferring taxpayer money to businesses.

I guess this would be where I rant about Federal Subsidies. See the cato institute http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb_0611-41.pdf

Here is a map of all the subsidies that we gave to Walmart (free enterprise or tilted playing field?) http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/

Anyone want to continue subsidies to Oil Exploration and Development, Tobacco, Corn, Soybeans, ETC.

I would rather have import Tarriffs to protect our manufacturing in the USA, than have subsidies for health, agriculture, whatever. If there is National Security issue that requires a subsidy to a pharmacy corporation, then I would like to question that all the way. Food, electricy, and Water are important to our country's national security, but lets get rid of DHS and then treat these things as unitlities which are regulated and well looked after.

The biggest transfers of taxpayer money seem to go to the prision, military, industrial complex (PMIC).

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 9 years ago

Budcm said "Good thing you weren't powerful in 1941 or we'd all be speaking Japanese with a German accent!"

This statement make it impossible to have further conversation, but it has nothing to do with OWS or the Financial Crisis or how corporations and lobbyist "DEREGULATED" banking and financial rules to put ALL of us at risk, and RUINED the reputation of the USA as a world leader in Finance, and probably ruined the USA as a global financial hub.

Why don't banks make loans any more, because they don't trust each other, and they can not longer controll the risk on their books, and can no longer assess the risks of their own businesses.

This is a Major Point. Many Americans can not have discussions, because they are polarized, programed, closed minded, stubborn, and often uneducated about the world and the kind of "ACTORS" we have in our political system.

So basically I just called Budcm naive and unexperienced. Although he will fight to the death to defend his opinion, and we need fighters to change this country.

[-] 1 points by NKVD (55) 9 years ago

Since the super rich tend to live off capital gains income ,which is taxed at a lower rate than personal income, it seems to me that the capital gains tax needs to be at least doubled.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 9 years ago

End Foreign Aid then talk about taxes.. we give away billions and billions of dollars as welfare to subsidize the world.. before you talk about cutting gov spending in america stop supporting the foreigners.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 9 years ago

Just getting corporations to pay ANY taxes would the first step.

REVEALED: The 30 American Companies That Paid Less Than $0 In Income Tax Over The Last 3 Years

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-30-american-companies-that-paid-less-than-zero-income-tax-from-2008-2010-2011-11#ixzz1kg8eCZtL

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson

[-] 1 points by Budcm (208) 9 years ago

I would LOVE to pay just 30% in taxes. What with the local, state and federal taxes and fees you are paying more than 50%. Add 'em up. And don't forget your car license plates!

[-] 1 points by pinapple (7) 9 years ago

yes, I think you should. Do you want your country to have no money at all? to go poor and broke, then crumble and die? You pay for your country, for what you have. Stop whining like a bunch of little bitches, if you don't pay, your life is going to be terrible.

[-] 1 points by louisrocc (74) 9 years ago

I like to get something for my money. If I pay 30% I want good roads and other things I can use. Too much of the the taxes and the investments favor the 1%. We have disproportionate representation in our nation because the 1% with the wealth have all the representation. I have proposed the Zero Contributions Campaign Finance Amendment posted at www.campaignfinanceamendment.org as a real solution. Do you think you could support this?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

what income ?


[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

my last job paid $10 an hour


[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

What is your thought?

What would happen if a fee were applied to money ( American ) transferred in from an out of Country Financial institution account. You know like from the Cayman islands or from Switzerland?

You know collect taxes deferred by out-sourcing ( hiding ) savings/income?

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 9 years ago

Because the idiots making the decisions to fuck up this country...Should obviously want to pay more for their own stupid decisions..

But instead they want the working class to pay for it...

They make the decisions, profit from destroying this country, and you pay for it all!

Hey poor and middle class, the elite have this lodestone they'd like you to try on.

Elite says: How's that feel? OK OK no, I know it hurts....Just see how you can manage..How long do you have to wear it? Ummm Ahhh I've got a plane to catch...see you....

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23396) 9 years ago

Yes. The rich people raking in capital gains should have to, yes.

[-] 0 points by uncensored (104) 9 years ago

At what income level or total assets do you (personally) consider someone "rich"?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23396) 9 years ago

Good question. What is the context? Are you talking about where we should make the cut off for increasing taxes on the wealthy?

[-] 0 points by uncensored (104) 9 years ago

First I just want your judgment on who is wealthy.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23396) 9 years ago

Alright, I'll indulge you. For someone to be "rich" I'd say they have to have income, not net worth, but income of at least over $300,000 per year. But, if they spend it all, then they are not rich. So as far as net worth goes, to be "rich" I think you'd need to be solvent and have at least $1-2 million dollars or so. I haven't really ever given this much thought. Now you can attack me.

[-] 0 points by uncensored (104) 9 years ago

Not here to attack you, just trying to understand your POV and maybe give you some things to think about. Mind if I ask a few more questions?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23396) 9 years ago

Oh. Go ahead. I am getting tired though, not of you, just sleepy. Keep in mind, that my philosophy differs from some of the others here. I am really more for the profits earned from the labor productivity of the American people being shared more in the first place, than I am for raising taxes. I would like to see workers compensated more fairly for their labor.

[-] 0 points by uncensored (104) 9 years ago

Moved here to keep continuity...

What if you worked your butt of for say, 10 years, barely able to make a living at construction, music, sports, art, inventing, or whatever. Then finally, after all those years of struggle, you get 1 good deal that nets you 300k one year. Are you now rich?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23396) 9 years ago

No. Like I said you need a lot more than that in your net worth to be rich, in my mind. I know your going to attack me at some point. I'm waiting. LOL!

[-] 0 points by uncensored (104) 9 years ago

No attacks. I had many more example but I'm tired too. My point is that you cannot put a number on "being rich", there are many many factors involved. When the government actually considers those factors and compensates for them when making tax law, some consider them "loopholes". Over the years the loopholes are being closed under public pressure and this has unintended consequences. In most cases, the people getting hurt the worst are not really "rich".

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23396) 9 years ago

I, personally, am concerned about the folks at the tippy top of the 1% and corporations. The 1% vs. the 99% is kind of just a generalization. Going to sleep now. Nighty night.

[-] 0 points by uncensored (104) 9 years ago

It's not that simple, hence my questions to you...

See below.

[-] 1 points by dreamingforward (394) from Gothenburg, NE 9 years ago

Are you dumb? Your commentary seems oblivious to how much of public services were used in order to make that money. Perhaps it would amount to only 10%, but maybe it would be 50% if its a job that depends heavily on public goods.

That (plus historical indebtedness) is the only way you can measure what it fair for the government to collect.

But the other question you could ask is how should anyone be able to earn a million dollars? Is there anyone that's actually creating that much value on behalf of humanity's future?

[-] 8 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago

I don't care how much anybody earns as long as it is properly taxed at pre-Reagan rates.

Hedge fund manager John Paulson pocketed $4.9 billion in 2010. At a 90% tax rate he would have taken home $500 million.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 9 years ago

But no! We need to pay down the deficit by cutting social spending! Wahh, wahh, wahh!

God, I never heard such a bunch of spoiled crybabies!

[-] -1 points by commonsense11 (195) 9 years ago

A 90% tax rate for anyone is ridiculous and not fair. They should pay a fair share not the entire load!

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago

A 90% tax rate on a hedge fund guy who made $4.9 billion would only leave him with some $500 million to live on. Poor guy would probably starve to death.

What's ridiculous and not fair is that someone can accumulate that kind of money gambling on manipulated paper markets. Or are you going to lecture me on how many jobs the hedge fund guys create with credit default swaps, currency arbitrage and other investment strategies?

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

It's not about starving to death, it's about letting someone have a fair share of his own income.

As to what hedge fund people do, trust me it's way to complicated for you or any Occutard to understand. And hedge funds don't create credit default swaps. You have not the slightest idea of how the financial sector works and yet you dare make tall statements about us. But then all Occutards do that.

Good night Sir. My day at office ended an hour ago and I work at a hedge fund. How many days did your office end at 2 am in the morning and you had to come back and report at 7 next morning?

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago

A fair share for a working class guy is a 20-25% effective tax rate, but a fair share for a centimillionaire is a 13.9% tax rate? LOL

Do you even know how to read? Where did I say hedge funds created credit default swaps?

13% think they are the 1%.

[-] -2 points by commonsense11 (195) 9 years ago

Lecture you? What would be the purpose? Anyone that even believes it's ok to tax anyone at 90% is either insane or an idiot. Now outlawing unscrupulous business practices is a much better route.

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago

FACT: Between 1945 and 1980, top tax rates were between 70% and 91%. During that time we paid Great Depression and WWII debt down from 120% of GDP to around 30%, built a nationwide infrastructure, put men on the moon, had a huge thriving middle class and the longest sustained period of stable growth in history.

Are you saying the basis of the most stable period of high economic growth we've ever seen is idiotic, or that anyone who would like to return the country to that kind of wide economic prosperity is insane?

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

You are still touting this crap of yours. The rise of America after WW2 had nothing to do with tax rates. If simply taxing would drive the economy, then every country would have done that.

By any chance are you that 'proud engineer' guy they showed on Youtube who was showing these stats on a board hung to his neck?

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

If you taxed 90% of his income he wouldnt have bothered to make that much. In fact most top level managers wouldnt bother. Your basic flaw is in assuming that people woould still behave in a similar way when the rules of the game are changed. At differential taxation rates, I would choose my own profit maximizing outcome and would prefer to work 8 hrs a day and make $300 million than 16 hrs a day and make $500m

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago

Unadulterated BULLSHIT Have you interviewed John Paulson? Or "most top level managers"? Nope. those are not facts you are spewing but opinions. You should try to understand the difference.

The vast majority of people would never experience a 90% tax rate, and the majority of them are far more concerned with making a basic living than with maximizing their outcomes.

When they (the the 1% or so) are lucky enough to have such ability, individually choose their own "profit maximizing outcome" as you put it, so for you to assign your own values to anyone else is absurd.

[+] -4 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

Now that you ask. No I haven't interviewed him but I did make a presentation to him once back in 2008. And in my line of work I usually get to meet (or talk on the phone) the CFO and CEOs of firms which does count as top level managers. As to whether I am imposing my own 'value system', I am simply applying common sense. And even Peter Schiff says the same www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA_MvzhA_q4

The 1% guy right now is anyone making more than $380k. So say I make $400k (for which I have to put in 14-18 hrs a day and most CEOs I know even work on weekends) a year and it's taxed at 90%, what it retain is $40,000. I would rather do a job that pays $70k with 8 hrs a day and pay a tax of 50% on it.

That's common sense which is in short supply among Occutards.

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago

WRONG. A top tax rate of 90% would only apply to the difference between $400,000 and the top tax bracket. The current top rate begins at $379,150.

At $400k income, 90% top rate based on current brackets, your take home would be around $280,000.

Misrepresent this all you want, it doesn't prove anything other than your lack of "common sense".

[-] -3 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

Okay. So say the 90% tax rate becomes effective at $400k and 70% at say $250k. And if I am a doctor making $250k by working for 10 hrs, i would have hardly any incentive to work for another 6 hrs to earn another $200k which i know will be taxed at 90%.

It's easy to impose morality on others when you don't have to face the consequences yourself. It is easy to expect high earners, who toiled their way to those positions, to pay for your welfare. A 90% tax rate is nonsense, particularly when those same Occutards are demanding free education, free food, free car, free house for themselves. You guys are actually even worse than our politicians.

[-] 4 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago

Why are you imposing your "morality" on others? If you don't want to work, go home. Everybody is different. Some people like working. Some doctors work for free to help people in need.

And big incomes don't necessarily reflect toil or hard work.

[-] -3 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

I think you are the one who is imposing your (im)morality on others. It is in fact your assumption that people will continue to work at the expense of health and leisure even when there are no rewards for it. You think it is right to tax 90% of someone's hard earned money. And you can think that because it does not effect you. It is always easy to expect others to be upright, just, generous and moral.

Yes 'some' doctors do work for free. But at the end of the day for most doctors (or managers or bankers) what keeps them at office for 14-16 hrs a day is the money they get to make for their families.

And I expect your kind to make statements like "And big incomes don't necessarily reflect toil or hard work". All losers make those excuses , "I may not be earning as much as the CEO but my work of tightening nuts and bolts is so much more hard and valuable."

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

High incomes are paid for highly valuable positions. The value of a position is determined by supply and demand. Not by how "hard" the work is.

Given a persons skills and abilities, a person that tightens nuts and bolts, or digs ditches, I'm sure works just as hard as a highly paid CEO. Hard labor is hard. Lets not diminish it just because it doesn't pay as well as a more intellectual position that requires higher skills, abilities and education.

CEO's are not working harder. They're worker smarter maybe. And they get paid more because of supply and demand.

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago

CDOs, credit default swaps and various other shadow finance strategies have absolutely nothing to do with supply and demand. There is no such thing as supply and demand in the opportunistic manipulation of capital markets.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

You mean wages or commissions for brokers that trade those things? How does it work?

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

You are right but Supply and demand is just one of the factors that determine compensation.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

How about - unique skills or abilities that are in demand get paid more. Is that a fair assessment? Is there anything else? I suppose we could go into Union workers, which may not be as sensitive to the traditional supply/demand factor for compensation. What else were you thinking of?

[-] 1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

There are a host of factors. Uniqueness of skills, personal risk, risk to the business (related to how much revenue would be affected if you screwed up) etc.

Did you read about the on going investigation on the Apple Google no poach conspiracy? It's ugly and I never expected these guys to engage in such tactics. Being an ex geek and coder myself, I am outraged. http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/26/apple-google-consipracy/

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

I didn't read the article yet, but I think risk is mostly associated with commissions. Which I agree, has nothing to do with supply/demand. But the base wage still does. And even the commission rate is essentially a function of a competitive market and supply/demand, right?

The other thing I thought of was bonuses, based on business goals. Not really supply/demand, this is more of a merit thing. Which I think that would go to your comment about business revenue and loss.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

You would take a lower paying job so you don't have to pay as much taxes?? Would you turn down a raise so you won't have to pay more in taxes? Just curious.

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

If I can make annually say $100,000 (after tax) by working 10hrs a day but only $20k (after tax) for the next 4 hrs that I put in yearly, I would rather take the day off and go watch a movie with my girl friend. I would just not work. The raise or the extra income has to make sense.

Take over time for example. The over time rate is usually higher than regular working hours rate. This is done to provide incentive to work beyond your call of duty. Same would be case with me. The only reason I work the kind of hours I do is because I make a lot of money and I can hopefully retire by 37 or 40.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

Whatever hours that you forgo, if other people do the same as you, a new position would be created to complete the work that you people didn't finish. Congratulations! You've just helped to create a job opportunity and expand the economy! But sadly, you'll have to wait until 40 to retire. Sorry.

In many cases, overtime is used as a tool or incentive to provide management flexibility in handling temporary business fluctuations that occur. Like seasonality.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

I doubt if that would happen in all cases. Please understand that two donkeys tied together cannot beat a horse. What you are suggesting is valid for only the most simplest of job like those in manufacturing shop floor, or flipping burgers etc.

I can speak for the finance sector and we face a severe shortage of smart people, which is why our crazy wokring hours. So just decreasing our work hours wont magically make skilled people appear. If someone is not getting employed in job X, then he or she very likely is not good enough for it. Stopping others from working to get that guy to work will be a disaster.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

I hear what you're saying, and you're right to a degree. I'm talking from a theoretical, high level, I understand.

To the extent that there may be severe shortages of people within a particular field, in an economy with real 18% unemployment (+/- whatever depending on the source) is a problem. Yes, there will always be some shortages and overages in a particular field until the market corrects itself. But I think there are some bigger issues contributing to this. Outsourcing overseas, fair trade policies, the high cost of college education.

We need good jobs at all levels of the economy and better and more affordable education to continue our innovation leadership, which will help ensure good job opportunities in the long term. Short term, while the market is correcting, the government has to help. And we really all have to do our part. If that means paying a little higher taxes, to help with the national debt, I really don't have a problem with that. I'm pretty certain that however the Buffet rule pans out, whatever percentage is decided on for whatever income level, it sounds like you'll still be ok, and I'll still be ok. And the really upper upper level incomes will still be ok too.

I'm not suggesting that we "stop" others from working. My point is, maybe it's not such a bad thing to create a little dis-incentive to working such long hours. It could open up some opportunity for others.

I'm a litte biased here. My husband travels alot and works incredibly long hours. I know alot of people like this. From my perspective, lots of people are just putting in way too many work hours. It's really not very healthy. There has to be a balance. The only way to stop it, is to stop it. I know it's probably a crazy point of view. But if people stop it, a new braintrust will develop. So that another person will be able to fill part of your shoes, so to speak. A new job may be created.

Anyway, I think you should cut back a bit, and take your girlfriend out more! Just a suggestion. : )

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago
  1. I agree we need better education though frankly our higher education is one of the best in the world.

  2. See, I think many of us, particularly in the top 10%, can live with higher wages. London has 50% tax rate (but there are deductions) and yet there is a thriving financial center there. But some of the suggestions for 90% tax is ridiculous and I would rather give my money away to a charity in Africa than share it with jobless hippies. But I also believe the government needs to cut down on spending and probably find a way to reduce health care expenses. Your health care costs are ridiculously high.

  3. Your husband must be either in consulting or Sales considering he travels that much. Yes, I don't really like working these kind of hours and only I know tough it is to maintain any social life with these kind of work hours.I meet my girl friend mostly on Sundays or at 11 in the night.

4.France and Germany do have rules on working hours and it was done mainly to ensure that more people have an employment. But Greece has even easier working hours and better salaries and it got screwed. So a balance would be needed.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

Our education system has been in decline for quite some time. If you do a little reseach, the US is no better than average. Our higher education is better. But the cost of higher education is farther out of reach for many people because the cost has increased 1025% since 1980.

The 90% with only apply above a certain threshold. It's not that important. The bottom line effective rate is the important thing. I think you're getting wrapped up over a number that is essentially meaningless. I think the effective rate would end up 30% right? This is only 2 points higher than the top marginal rate under President Reagan. I think I got that right, but correct if I'm wrong. I don't see what the big deal is.

See that! You need to slow down. You need more of a social life! The only way to stop it is to stop it. I think this is really a larger societal problem. Ambition is good, but has to be put in perspective with other things that are important in life. And for God's sake, in case you're anything like my husband, turn off your Blackberry when your with your girlfriend! haha.

I'm not really familiar with the work rule hours of France and Germany. I'll look into that. But it sounds like, if done right, it could have some merit. Thats just what I'm saying. We all need to slow down and realize its not all about work work work and getting more more more. I don't really like the idea of imposing rules on something like this though. Like I said, I'll have to check it out. I think it's mostly a societal mindset that has to change. Which maybe imposing some rules or dis-incentives could help work toward that I suppose.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

Well actually i care about the top end of 90% one for personal reasons and another because it actively discourages high earnings and the effects of such disincentive cannot be predicted under the current scenario (yes, OWS ppl would agree that it is good)

And yes the BB is a constant companion. I guess as a whole, we are a generation that sticks to our phones more than anything.

And yes, I would love to slow down, we all need to. It appears that we live to work. But if I do now, it would mean a severe drop in living standards :)

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

People were thrilled in 1981 with a 28% tax rate. And everyone got along just fine. To have a problem today with a 30% rate, I think this is more psychological than anything else.

I like my smartphone too. But you know what I mean - don't do work stuff when you're on your girlfriends time. It's really annoying. With what little time you have together, she wants your full attention I'm sure!

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

Yeah the psychological factor is the bigger issue. Just as I dont want very high top tax rate, similarly I would much rather prefer people earning less than $30k to be not taxed at all. it's quite a tax to live with that little money, taxes makes no sense. We can and should give them some breathing space.

And yes, we do try and give each other as much time as we possibly can.

[-] 0 points by Socrate (28) 9 years ago

People were really thrilled in 1982 when a delicate Michael Jackson came out with his sixth studio album which featured a picture of him and a baby tiger on the cover. The photographer said Bubbles was in a furious rage of jealousy.

[+] -4 points by uncensored (104) 9 years ago

Umm, bullshit. When the rates were that high, no one payed the top rates because of all of the tax shelters and loopholes available. You continue to spew crap you don't understand.

[-] 4 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago

BULLSHIT is right. Nobody pays the effective top rate now.

And this bullshit does not change historical fact. High tax rates are directly linked to high employment and solid economics including debt reduction. Low taxes are the corollary to that, and the results have been the opposite: soaring deficits and unemployment.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

Haha.. taxed linked to employment. Why don't you publish your 'finding' (or wild conjectures)? Employment happens when there are firms to employ people. With a tax rate of 90%, if nothing else, most firm would shut down their american presence. That would mean unemployment.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago

You opinion does not erase history, it only demonstrates your ignorance.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

Yeah, I guess I and a few thousands other economists are all ignorant while jobless hippies are the ones who know it all.

[-] -3 points by uncensored (104) 9 years ago

So lets make the tax rate 100% and we'll have 0 unemployment and a perfect economy!

[-] 4 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago

You are literally too stupid to insult.

[-] 0 points by uncensored (104) 9 years ago

So 91% rates were great and 100% rates are idiocy, so maybe 95 percent rates would be better? Or is 91% the "perfect" balance? You seem to know it all, what would be the perfect rate? What is the real "fair share"?


[-] 1 points by CurveOfBindingEnergy (165) 9 years ago


Which is not to be construed as support for the Black Bush.

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 9 years ago

You don't need to alert us of your retardation. It is plainly obvious.


[-] 1 points by CurveOfBindingEnergy (165) 9 years ago

Obama is no prize, but Congress is to blame as well as previous administrations including Clinton and RayGun.

[-] -1 points by sampson (34) 9 years ago

insult my intelligence? is that how you have a conversation?

I'm asking a simple question...

As a society, are we giving away too much of our income? Is there another system? Is there a better way to set things up? Could we have more say on where our money goes??

I mean it seems that people that are legitimately struggling to make ends meet could probably get by without "government handouts" if they weren't handing out to our government...

[-] 1 points by dreamingforward (394) from Gothenburg, NE 9 years ago

Technically, I did not insult your intelligence, but since your name is sampson, I'll leave it at that.

As to how much money should you take home? Consider that if you were taxed 0% but were simply paid 30% less -- keeping your quality of life the same -- would you complain?

Consider carefully....

[-] 0 points by CurveOfBindingEnergy (165) 9 years ago

It is not possible to insult your intelligence, as you are literally too stupid to insult.

[-] 0 points by sampson (34) 9 years ago

shill much?


[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 9 years ago

Welcome to the world of the "16th amendment" and the "income tax" as defined by that amendment.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 9 years ago

Where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it mention that the CITIZENS must pay 30% in income taxes? Who invented this number? Just because some person along the way said 30% does not mean our country was founded on any one single number. Show us where in our founding documents 30% and I will kiss your butt on Main Street.




[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 9 years ago

This is not crazy. It is the right thing to do.

[-] 0 points by ErnieB0T (12) 9 years ago

Only the poor should, the reagular folks in the top 1% should pay maybe 5%

[-] -1 points by Riley2011 (110) from New Britain, CT 9 years ago

Sorry- alot of ideas in here.... I have no problem with paying taxes, we need to have roads, etc. My problem is that the middle class is drowning. A chunk of the paycheck goes out for fed and state taxes. My problem occurs when I see illegal immigrants getting back billions while middle class and poor people are further going down the tubes. Let's be honest, we cannot balance the budget by taxing the rich...we have overspent so much that the only way that we could possible balance the budget is by further taxing middle class America.It is a numbers game- we can lie all we want...We can believe that the top 1% can float us...they can't. Tax the hell out of corporate America- we are overspending... If we do not stop spending...we will all be paying more taxes...35% 40% This is turning into a class war...things need to be fair and I am not talking socialism here. I would like to have X amount taken out of my check and then not to have to worry about filing-but I am worried about Obama borrowing another 1.2 trillion- I am sorry that government agencies got cut...but what are we to do? I like having these conversations, for what it is worth...can anyone tell me what middle class is anymore? I am fighting to stay here- but I don't know where it is anymore- feeling poor- does anyone else budget down to the dime?

[-] -1 points by freewriterguy (882) 9 years ago

hell no, let them keep it, its more likely we would get a piece of it by selling them a product or a service, than to give it to the government so they can hire more bums.

[-] -2 points by iwantfreemoneynow (58) 9 years ago

So the mooches won't have to work. We need to provide all the budding artists with a "guaranteed minimum income". You see, they aren't really deadbeats, they are sensitive artists who need time and a stress free environment in order to produce the Great Socialist novel. Plus, beer and twinkies aren't getting any cheaper!

[-] 3 points by sampson (34) 9 years ago

how much do members of congress make? off us? how many days a year do they work?

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 9 years ago

By mooches, I take it you mean the 1%?

[-] -3 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 9 years ago

NO. I hate the idea that 25% of what you make goes to pay taxes. Deadbeat people on here probably havent paid an income tax, yet they got a refund check with MY money in it. And, free healthcare. But they are poorer today than they were just 4 years ago.

[-] 2 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 9 years ago

The real deadbeats are the corporations that have bankrupted this country for their own profit, and been bailed out taxpayers. The billions in Temporary Assistance to Needy Families are insignificant compared to the billions of taxpayer dollars given to corporations in tax breaks subsides and the trillions of dollars in bailouts.