Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Tax 'Em!

Posted 2 years ago on April 1, 2012, 5:51 p.m. EST by shoozTroll (17632)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Here's a way to help get super PACs under control without an amendment.

Just tax the crap out of them........:)

Sign it with glee!

http://www.rootsaction.org/featured-actions/426-tax-super-pacs-at-99

36 Comments

36 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

Why not just end Super PACs period?

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

2012 Elections Thursday, Feb 16, 2012 9:45 AM Mountain Daylight Time The 196 people who will choose our next president

Billionaires like Adelson and Freiss are behind the vast majority of super PAC dollars. The rest of us don't count By Ari Berman - Google it!

Blank102, isn't that extreme?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

The real extreme, is that they exist in the first place, with the backing of SCOTUS.

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

Yes, indeed, Sir. You are correct again. As I pointed out to Blank102, your suggestion is a legal tactic to deal with the problem while others dither about amendments and such.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

That's what it's meant to be. SCOTUS has decimated many years of struggle for election reform.

It's just one way to fight back.

[-] 2 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

This proves yet again that Democrats never met a tax they didn't like.

However,Obama and his buttbuddy Bill Maher probably wouldn't quite agree with this it's safe to say.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Oh, smarty pants.

Ask me if I care.

I'm on the side of those who say, get the money out!

When I say that, I mean all of it.

It's an almost impossible concept to the (R)epelican't supporters, because it's the only way they get elected.

[-] 2 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

I guess you haven't heard Obama has a Super PAC also. You're not a very smart Demonrat are you.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Silly smarty pants.

You forgot to read what I posted, and just jerked your knee.

I guess you're not a very smart, whatever the hell you are.

[-] 2 points by Blank102 (86) from American Canyon, CA 2 years ago

99%? Isn't that extreme?

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

This isn't a tax on personal income, or on dividends or on corporate profits. It is a tax on campaign contributions to superpacs. As result the superpac would be left with 1%. How much money do you think would be contributed to superpacs, under this scenario? Good for you zero is the right answer.

And what are we trying to accomplish? Good, shutting down superpacs which are giving all of the political power to the rich effectively disenfranchising the middle class and the poor is our goal. Extreme? Hardly! Extreme would be taxing the contributor 99% of their net worth, as well. Hmmmmm!

[-] 0 points by Blank102 (86) from American Canyon, CA 2 years ago

So are you saying that in the event of a 99% tax on contributions smaller contributions would then be useless. Say a small business or a social club wants to give $100 to their favored candidate. Are you saying that the candidate will only be allowed $1.00 of said contribution?

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

Well of course the policy isn't set. It could just effectively get it back to the McCain Finegold limits for personal contributions and for corporate contributions, by taxing contributions above these amounts at 99%.

In principle, do you think the success of a candidate should be determined by the amount of money that they can raise or by how many people they persuade to vote for them by their ideas, record and character?

The best government that money can buy?

[-] 1 points by Blank102 (86) from American Canyon, CA 2 years ago

Not at all. But if you are really talking about outlawing campaign contributions why not just say so from the start?

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

Because you can't do that. This is an option which is available to be used legally.

In principle, do you think the success of a candidate should be determined by the amount of money that they can raise or by how many people they persuade to vote for them by their ideas, record and character?

The best government that money can buy?

[-] 1 points by Blank102 (86) from American Canyon, CA 2 years ago

I agree with you. Although just getting the money out isnt going to make the average voter any more informed or any smarter.

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

If you knew that you had .0000001% of the influence that a 1%er has, would you try to get smart about the issues? Have you even been elected to some office in an organization, board or committee? Were you worried about embarrassing yourself? Did you inform yourself and get a little "smarter?"

Unless you believe in turning the country over to a benevolent dictator so you don't have to do anything to help the country make intelligent policy decisions, you must believe that being a citizen has some responsibilities.

I admit that your are smarter than the average but I believe you don't have to be a doctor to pick a doctor. Other people will ask questions. You have to inform yourself enough to judge at least some of the answers to them and decide if anyone is telling the truth. When we get the money out there will be less incentive to lie. We might even find people to hold office who try to do what is best for the country?

[-] 1 points by Blank102 (86) from American Canyon, CA 2 years ago

I can't disagree with you more. The powers that be have set up the modern day Bread and Circuses and they are all at least 75% of Americans care about.

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

If you know ALL of the power and ALL of the control is in somebody else's hands. you might as well go to the circus. If you have reason to believe that your decision may really be significant, you might take it seriously and prepare to do it well. This is not a situation that anyone younger than, say 65 has ever faced. So, how do you know if they an handle the prospect with the seriousness it deserves?

And if you are right, do you get to be the benevolent dictator or do I? Or does Mitt?

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Not really. We have to make up for lost time.

Or are you yet another (R)epelican't, that has no concept of compromise?

[-] 2 points by Blank102 (86) from American Canyon, CA 2 years ago

No. I'm not a republican. But is taxing someone at 99%? That would hurt the smaller contributors too.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Small contributors don't have "Surper PACs."

[-] 1 points by Blank102 (86) from American Canyon, CA 2 years ago

Well, no. It's the candidates that have the PACs. The contributors make the contributions. Or are you saying that taxing a PAC at 99% will in no way effect smaller contributions to candidates?

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

There should be no contributions to candidates. I don't care what the mechanism.

[-] 2 points by Blank102 (86) from American Canyon, CA 2 years ago

Okay. Now that I can agree with.

[-] -3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Yepperz. No concept of compromise.

Almost a (R)epelican't then?

[-] 2 points by Blank102 (86) from American Canyon, CA 2 years ago

What the fuck is your problem? I'm not even talking to you. Take your childish shit somewhere else.

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Um......I started the thread........??

And it was your comment I was posting on.

So what the hell is your problem?

You get lost easily?

Having a hard time with the concept?

[-] 2 points by Blank102 (86) from American Canyon, CA 2 years ago

We're my posts addressed to you? Can you read these threads to see what is addressed to whom? The only thing I ever see you doing is calling people insulting names and acting like a child. Go away. You obviously lack the maturity and intelligence to talk with the grown ups.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Yes they were, lost boy.

Try and keep up. You thought 99% was extreme.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21299) 2 years ago

Anyone know what happened to nucleus? He always made the best posts regarding taxes.

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

I love it. See below re extreme.

[-] 0 points by glennmend (-6) 2 years ago

Another ignorant post but what do you expect for a libtard??

[-] 0 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

OK, actually it's not a petition but a letter to your representatives. Still, a good opportunity to let your voice be heard. Make your representatives work for a change and sign this sucker.

[-] -3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Bump up.

Everybody really need to sign this letter........:)

C'mon. It'll be fun.............:)

[-] -3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

C'mon sign the petition. It'll be fun.....:)