Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The Buffett Rule "will bring in less than $5 billion per year. ... Enough to pay one week’s interest on the national debt."

Posted 2 years ago on April 24, 2012, 6:23 a.m. EST by chatman (-478)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Rob Portman says Buffett Rule would raise just enough to cover 1 week's interest on national debt

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2012/apr/23/rob-portman/rob-portman-says-buffett-rule-would-raise-just-eno/

234 Comments

234 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

ok then, lets make it a 90% tax on all income over 500K! that WILL generate much more revenue to pay the banksters back the money they stole in the first place. Or we could just default on the stolen debt, and build a real democracy.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

so basically you have no serious input. 90% tax on income over 500K will generate next to nothing. You communists always fail to remember people change their behavior when policy changes.

[-] 4 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Here's a real communist for you:

"The farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of this country made a paradise by the (tax) contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings."

--Thomas Jefferson 1881

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (34982) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Imagine that and a founder of this nation. Who woulda thought? Think many of the Founders would puke at the state of conditions today?

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I have no doubt they would.

Even Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations, darling of capitalists the world over, advocated progressive taxes on the wealthy.

In 1776 he wrote:

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (34982) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

See that is just the thing. I have absolutely no problem with wealth - just the attitude of some who have it. How do they figure that they have no responsibility to their society and to all of those that made their success possible?

[-] 5 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I actually do have a problem with extremely wide disparities in wealth. It literally kills babies. The wider the income disparity in a country the greater the infant mortality rate among the poor. And that fact is independent of the average wealth of that country. A poorer nation with less income inequality actually has a lower infant mortality rate amongst its poorest citizens than a richer one with greater disparity. East Harlem has a higher rate of infant mortality than Calcutta.

Great wealth disparity also means less intergenerational economic mobility. It retards movement from one quintile on the scale to another. It is not only because the ladder has gotten longer, but it makes each rung on the ladder farther apart. The US currently ranks at the bottom of developed nations for intergenerational economic mobility. That's world wide.

Greater income concentrated at the top always creates more poverty. It destroys the middle class and expands the ranks of the poor.

Finally, it destroys democracy and civil society. Civil society is shredded because the populace perceives the system itself as unjust, and is therefore less apt to abide by its laws. And the concentration of money equates with concentration of power. It is inherently anti-democratic.

So I don't dislike wealthy people per se. I dislike exaggerated wealth itself.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34982) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I can not and will not argue with that. Disparity - extreme - wealth disparity - is a very major part of this country being weak and actually lying on it's death bed - due to economic starvation of the masses. This is a fight against Greed ever so much as it is a fight against Corruption.

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

How about some radical creative new ideas. 1) Outlaw Corporately owned Investment Banks and mandate that they be privately owned by people who can held to account. 2) Mandate that Individual Savings accounts pay minimum of 6-7% Interest to pay for inflation and to encourage savings. 3) Break up TBTF Wall Street Banks 4) Put ceilings on Public College and University Tuition 4) Mandate that all Student Loans be limited to 4% Interest 5) Eliminate/Outlaw all Corporate Shell Companies 6) Mandate that all Pension funds be fully funded or Terminated within one year 7) Prohit bonus' if the business loses money or doesn't make enough profit to pay bonus' since this is illegal as a fleecing of coroporate coffers 8) Prohibit Off balance sheet transactions especially for publically held corporations since this would tend to deceive bond holders, stock holders, and other investors (adher to GAAP rules). 9) Outlaw Private banking 10) Regulate all financial instruments and outlaw black banking such as derivatives. 11) End Revolving Door and Regulatory Capture by prohibiting government employee from working in industry and vice a versa.

Sorry I guess that wasn't very creative...

Corporations should stand alone in whatever country they manufacuture or produce in. Parent companies become investors with no board pressence, no formal relationships, no chairmanship, leaders or executives jump ship if they move to another country for a break-away company.

Corporations must be reregulated. Now there is not regulation on purpose, period of time, public service or public interest, there must be no opportunity to pollute air or water or earth and leave as an executive with no responsibility or legal recourse. Corporations should serve a larger good for the public. they can't be allowed to exploint people or resources with tragic consequences.

Articles of incorporation like a charter or a marque should be limited to a very narrow purpose, period of time, and restricted relationships to government, universities, churches, unions, and public opinion or public media. No Lobbying.

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

Why not end corporations altogether. The world got along fine for 4 billion years before they existed. We seem to be bing told that the world can't get along without them. I disagree.

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

Well how can it be done. Either all at once through a many pronged attack or in phases maybe 1) Banks first 2) Conglomerates and oligopolies second 3) reduce financial lobbying somewhere along the line and get rid of shell companies 4) The final step charters would be granted in the public interest for no more than 20 years in length of time with narrow purpose like a highway, bridge, biodome, greenhouse, energy project, water project, etc.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (34982) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You Sir are stark raving Mad...........................Huh?

Wait a minute for a second there I think I was channeling an evil spirit all dark and slimy. I think it was greed.

Uck...ptew..choke...cough..retch.....Oh what a nasty taste in my mouth........I have to lay down......sorry.........ewe..retch..achk..

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

LOL, yes, maybe we will have to reregulate corporations as a first step fefore really getting down to eliminating corporations altogether.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34982) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

We have much work to be done. This is a good place to start from.

[-] -1 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

How about getting your facts right first?

  1. People do not 'hold an account' in an Investment Bank. Those happen with retail banks. Investment banks are a different ball game altogether.

  2. There are ample opportunities for people (who are part of the 99%) to invest in other financial instruments that provide returns above inflation. Besides, trying to regulate interests on saving account has other negative consequences.

  3. Not sure I want that actually. Sure the bigger they are the worse the fail, if it occurs. But also understand that smaller banks do far worse because they have, by dint of their small size, lesser room for manuverability when hard times come.

  4. I for one support the notion that everyone who 'wants' an education should be able to get one. But I am not sure a 4% for all rule helps. For one, this would incentivize students who earlier did not want a loan to also apply for loans. A better way to do is would be to increase the number of scholarships and also incentivize parents to save for their kids education by making such savings tax free.

  5. Impossible actually. Shell companies don't come with a banner saying "Hey Look I am a shell company". Besides, these companies arent necessarily set up in the US

  6. Explain this one a little more.

  7. Not quite. One division may be doing exceptionally well but the company as a whole could be losing money because of losses in other divisions. In that case I don't see why you would want the well performing division to not get a bonus. Or say the operations dept is constantly innovating to reduce costs while R&D and marketing are burning through cash, I don't see why the Operations manager and her team do not deserve a bonus.

  8. Some off balance sheet transactions are perfectly legal and make sense. The SEC does try to plug in loopholes but a blanket ban is a very bad idea. May be you should consult a CFA

  9. All countries have had bad experiences with completely government owned banking sector. Not to mention I don't see why govt owned banks cannot commit the same mistakes as private ones.

  10. Outlaw derivatives, eh? Do you know what a derivative is? Even a mortgage on a house or even an insurance is technically a derivative. Options, futures and forwards are derivatives too. And futures on currency helps so many govt and private corporations manage their currency risks. Business would be much much riskier without such derivatives. I don't think you understand the slightest what these mean but since you have picked up from somewhere that "derivatives are evil", you make such uneducated statements.

  11. Whoa... So now you wanna sit and decide who should work where?

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

1) Don't you know the problem with having no on accountable?
2) Without the ability to save and earn interest US is just a banana republic. I believe you are a troll due to your comment. The cycle is down there is no easy way to save and earn a little edge on inflation. 3) The small banks have to live by the rules that help the big banks. And don't you understand that it is the small businesses that fuel the American Economy? It is bull that big corporations make the economy. You think a business with 3000 people is efficient. It is less efficient as it gets bigger. Did you go to college. remember the Bureaucratic paradox? The problem with banks is they forget they have a privilege not a right to create money. Banks should work for small businesses and the common good. you think the big 3 auto companies were efficient? what are you smoking? 4) Well the money has to come from some place. Fractional reserve banking is creating money from the air. No problem. Scholarship money comes from someplace also. But not every child will compete with the best and the brightest. I got my money from the Military. Where did you get your college money??? It is free money in the fractional reserve banking. 5) You with so little faith. If there is conviction then there is motivation and resolve. Implementation is a problem and resolution is the follow through. Remember this is about corruption

[-] 0 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago
  1. A bank having retail customers is very different from being 'accountable. Dude, do you not understand language?

  2. Yes, I am a troll. That is the popular opinion over here. Then again, any one who is smart and well educated and can point out the crater sized flaws in your statements is always labelled a troll. In fact I am happy you guys disagree with me. If you agreed, I would very very worried.

  3. What I was talking about was risk management. But clearly that's something you can't fathom. So I will lay it to rest here. As to my college education, I studied at 3 different educational institutions completing a BS, MS and then an MBA, and two out of those are Ivy League

  4. I was trying to suggest ways in which any kid that deserves and wants an education should be able to get it. Money should not be a factor at least until undergrad. As for where I got my money for my education, I had full scholarships for my BS and MS and then took a loan out for the MBA.

  5. It may be about corruption but preventing shell companies from existing is virtually impossible. Seek the opinion of a lawyer if you think I am wrong.

4.

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

Sir, I apologize for flaming you. We are subjects of those that make the rules. I know you have to apply critical thinking and cooler heads must prevail.

Sir, we are all brainwashed. Don't you agree? The problem with the scientific approach is that all people don't behave like good people. Just as we would expect, you and I, people act for their own interests.

Now we can make laws for good things like socialized education, interest bearing individual savings accounts. But many of us are trapped by our own patriarchy. And cognitive errors like labeling or black and white thinking. If I say I want socialized heath care, education, savings accounts, then many people will say I am anti-business. But I am not I am pro-investment, pro-small business (small businesses are the true power of the economy in the US), pro-portable pensions like the IRAs and 401Ks, etc.

The pendulum swings both ways. We can make things work differently in banking. The best way to rob a bank is to own one. Banks have abused their privileges. How can you not consider regulating banks. In fact if we increase the interest rates for savings accounts it will benefit the rich and probably won't lead to inflation compared to what the FED and the federal government debt does. The key is optimizing the money supply based on population.

1) Outlaw Corporately owned Investment Banks and mandate that all banks be privately owned by people who can held to account. (Hey you got me on this one - let's change it to all banks be privately owned)

2) 2) Mandate that Individual Savings accounts pay minimum of 6-7% Interest to pay for inflation and to encourage savings (I am sticking to this one)

3) Break up TBTF Wall Street Banks (Yes, I still like this on). As I understand it smaller banks don't compete well with TBTF banks making all the rules. And neither you or I will cry over small banks that are still going bankrupt because they took on too much risk.

4) Mandate that all Student Loans be limited to 4% Interest (I am sticking by this one) I dont see any solutions offered by you. I would never have competed well for scholarships. It seems job security is linked to having a BA or BS. What do you propose other than scholarships?

5) Eliminate/Outlaw all Corporate Shell Companies (I stick to this) You don't propose a solution. I'm thinking that you are a very successful person. I don't have a lawyer and think the cost is prohibitive. Transparency does offer a solution. Did you hear about the Bank of New York Mellon from David Kay Johnston? They created a company under a famers insurance law, so that they didn't have to pay the taxes on investment income. Laws are writen to prevent and discourage crime not to end crime. We can write a law that allows a pattern of deceit with shell companies to be prosecuteable. The problem is making the IRS, SEC, FTC, FBI, and state and federal regulators and prosecuters robust enough and well enough funded to sue giant companies.

6) Mandate that all Pension funds be fully funded or Terminated within one year (We could stretch time out to 18 months) If you talk to the old guys in your community, you will find many of them lost pension from mergers or other problems. From what I know about the big three auto pension problem, they were under funded for many years. It is not only unethical and wrong, it seems untransparent and should be prosecuted. And now of course there is huge growing problem of state government pensions. I'd love to see the executives that signed policies for huge unsustainable benefits packages be publically rebuked and ridiculed. We all know union benefits got too big in the US. How come we don't know the names of the executives that signed off on the benefits? Talk about stupid.

7) Prohit bonus' if the business loses money or doesn't make enough profit to pay bonus' since this is illegal as a fleecing of coroporate coffers (standing by this one) It might look like I am fighting the last war, but this is part of a pattern of corruption: Lawyers and Bankers make the rules, corrupt the US Banking Reputation, put corrupt and fraudulently rated financial instruments into the global financial community, plan and execute a huge federal bailout, admit no guilt or responsiblity, claim there are no bad laws, don't admit they have rigged the system, fight any solutions put forth, and effectively buy the silence of all employees with bonus'... You can't make this stuff up. Wow.

Don't you know? In the military you learn propaganda, how to control the narrative, corroption 101, how to turn over core military functions to private industry so they can charge twice as much, you learn to eat crap, you learn money is power...you learn that corporations get what ever they want.

Banking and Finance is Slick Salesman acting like they are special. The fact is they do what ever they want. Why should banks be able to create money and pick who get's it? Why shouldn't Banks serve the community instead of picking the highest yeilding investments with the highest Risk???

Banks can serve the Community. Just like Politicians could serve the USA. But it aint gonna happen as long as their is Lobbying.

8) Prohibit Off balance sheet transactions especially for publically held corporations since this would tend to deceive bond holders, stock holders, and other investors (adher to GAAP rules). (I stick by this) What do you propose? Nothing. What do you know about "off balance sheet transactions" Why should we allow coporations to play with millions of dollars that aren't traceable. If you are afraid of someone shorting your stock, then let's stop Naked Shorts.

You don't like GAAP Rules??? Why?

9) Outlaw Private banking (I like this one) Banking has become a den of corruption. This is called "black banking" or "shadow banking". Are you part of the solution? Why can't banking all be regulated which is probably what my goal is. People love power and money, but they need to do business in the day light to keep things legitimate.

Not all countries caused the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-2008. You can't tell me you are proud that unregulated US Banking ruined the reputation of the US Banking. Government banking can't be as bad as the corruption we have now. Get ready for the next Banking failure.

10) Regulate all financial instruments and outlaw black banking such as derivatives. (Actually my statement might need to be clarified) What is your alternate proposal??? Have you got some advice or is it all criticism?

Derivitives go way back. I think one of the fathers of MMT was the first to use or invent a new derivative like in 1970.

11) End Revolving Door and Regulatory Capture by prohibiting government employee from working in industry and vice a versa. (sure why not) Hey, you are sand bagging. If you are as smart as you say you are you know these laws exist already in more than one form in the USA. There is nothing new or unique in my statement.

Don't act like you don't know we have laws that prevent government people from jumping into industry jobs.

Your written proposals are anxiously awaited. And the fact is that all my ideas are not new or unique. They are all within normal legislative thinking.

We have a mixed economy. We have social heath care for some. we have social tuition for some. In the military they have social education at the univesity level. Congressmen get more social benefits than normal citizens. Mitt Romney gets a lower Income Tax Rate (social program for bankers). Walmart and Big Oil get subsidies from the Federal Government.

Why can't we have savings accounts of 6-7% Interest?

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

8) You're an idiot. If I am a stockhold holder or bondholder - I want to know what is going on. Hello. The whole industry doesn't know how to rate Stocks or Corporations if shennanigans are going on.
9) Try looking at the 2007-2008 Financial Crisis. How do you feel about $600T in global Derivatives, asshole.
10) See the defination of 2007-2008 Financial Crisis and the deregulation of the banking Industry, Asshole.
11) See Wikipedia and William K. Black. Watch all his videos on Youtube, Asshole.

[-] 1 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago
  1. I agree that stakeholders deserve full disclosure. That being said, off balance sheet transactions arent by themselves illegal. Very often companies create SPVs to finance projects and that is not illegal.

9,10,11. Calling me an asshole doesn't change the fact that you don't know a thing about banking or finance. Looks like you wasted the military's money on that education of yours. What did you learn? Knitting?

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

6) It is well know that big 3 auto companies or others did not fully full the pensions of employees. Then of course they wanted to negotiate not to full fill these past obligations. Sure, if I was an executive for the big three auto companies and I was responsible for terrible agreements that gave huge benefits to employees, then I would want to resist the process. Fine. But don't let it go on for 5-10-15 years. Someone has to stop the Fraudulent process.
7) You want to work for a company that doesn't add anything to the economy or the country and watch them fleece the company by givivng away funds from the corporate coffers - even when we all know they cross the line of ethics, morals, and legality? The profits belong to all Investors including bondholders, stockholders, venture capitalist, other banks, other institutions, other major investors. Are you really that uneducated? You didn't go to Business School?

[-] 1 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago
  1. Well employees have a right to their pension, every penny of it. I am not sure how your way is going to help.

  2. I believe I was talking about bonuses and how denying every employee a bonus (even if those employees performed well on individual merit) if a company makes a loss is unfair. I don't, however, remember talking anyting about whether or not the companies add to the economy or the nature of those companies for that matter or whether their actions are legal or ethical. FYI, there is nothing unethical or illegal about making a loss.

I think your reading comprehension needs work. Is that due to brain damage during your time at the military?

[-] 1 points by jimbosportsfan5 (16) 2 years ago

thomas jefferson was alive in 1881....good job

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

That's not communism, that's capitalism.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Exactly. When these right wing idiots talk about the idea that the wealthy should pay more of a percentage of their income in taxes than the poor as communism, it serves to remind them that the founders, capitalists all, favored the idea.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

Irony's a bitch.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

that's what is already happening. the bottom 50% dont pay any federal income tax so there you have it.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

But they pay more of their income in taxes in payroll taxes, sales taxes, local and state taxes, and all sorts of fees that cost them disproportionately. So it's hardly happening at all.

[-] -1 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

payroll tax is social security & medicare which they consume and everybody pays. Stay focused -we are discussing the federal income tax and capital gains tax which is what the Buffet rule is trying to address.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

No,"we" are not focused on federal income tax and capital gains tax. You are.

You accused the people on the thread of being communists. I showed you that Jefferson would have been labeled the same by you considering his views. You retort was that the poor don't pay income taxes. Mine was that they pay others, something Jefferson would have objected to. He wanted the rich to pay for ALL the tariffs (the only real taxes of the time) and the poor and middle class of his day to pay none whatsoever.

(And, btw, social security taxes are capped. The poor pay far more of their salaries toward it than the rich. Eliminating that cap would also be a very good thing.)

So was he a communist or not?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

the poor receive soc sec & medicare benefits so it's not the same. they put in & take out. on Jefferson - define "Rich" did he envision a country where the federal government consumes upwards of 24% of the economy? after Obamacare starts it will be 40% did he envision that? Tarriffs to run the legitimate functions of government are fine. Since the government has completely blown the lid off that idea - all bets are off. Up until 1913 we had it right and Jeffersons point is well taken. After that it's null and void since the feds completely overstepped their bounds.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

First, that's hardly the point, is it? The amount isn't at issue, the principle is. If is it communist to only tax the rich, it doesn't matter if the amount is small or large: it is still communism by YOUR definition.

Second, I congratulate you for at least being honest enough to admit what you think is optimal is the reality of the Robber Baron era a period in which starvation was commonplace, 80% of the elderly lived in abject poverty, there was no real established middle class, and wealth was concentrated only at the top. At least you're an honest douche bag in that regard.

[-] -1 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

oh - I thought the Principle was to maximize revenue to the federal government - not make a moral judgement about fairness. Pardon me.

Please cite your references about the 80% poverty among the elderly in the era of so called "Robber Barrons"

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

No, I am completely serious, and not a communist (socialist perhaps).

The vast MAJORITY of people in the US will not be paying this tax, as they earn much less than 500K. and that is how it is possible in a democracy. You do realize that this is close to what the rate in the past, no? http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

We have had mass deregulation and a shifting of taxation onto the working class for the past 40 years,. get ready for the pendulum to swing in the other direction!

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

The deregulation only happened for the very top. Small guys like me are regulated to the point of wondering whether to quit or not.

[-] 0 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

yes - and the people earning over 500K wont be paying this tax either. They will shelter & hide the money or not earn it at all. Nice going ! I guess it will make you feel good though.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Hiding income is illegal. Shelters rather than legitimate deductions are usually illegal. If the IRS get serious, most of those abuses would be gone.

Deductions often are for good reason, and aid the overall economy. Many are claimed for moneys given to charities and the like, money that is needed in a given community. Are there deductions are do not help the economy? You bet. And they should be eliminated from the tax code.

With that, the pre-Reagan progressive tax code, with top marginal rates at 70% is becoming the agreed to amount economists say this country needs and can sustain.

http://economics.mit.edu/files/6820

[-] -1 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

muni bonds - are they legal? or perhaps I wont take a cap gain and borrow against the asset's value to avoid the tax. Is that illegal? Invest in gold - is that illegal. or perhaps just sit on it unproductively. is that illegal? Why risk my capital if I have to fork over 30 - 40 % to the govt. who took no risk ?

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Muni bonds are actually a good thing. They fund local government projects like new schools, new roads, etc. I certainly favor them. As to the rest, they, too , are legal. And that's why, in addition to establishing a 70% op marginal rate, I would make those kinds of shenanigans illegal, too. I favor closing most loopholes.

[-] 0 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

and you will bring the economy to a screeching halt. but go ahead - start lobbying for a 70% top rate see how far you get.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

In fact, just the opposite. It would be the best thing for the economy. You ignore history completely with your statement that it will hurt it. The economy grew faster and that growth was sustained longer that at any time on history when the top marginal rate was between 70% and 90%.

http://economics.mit.edu/files/6820

[-] 0 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

and where did the top rate start at 70% - 90%. And why did the economy take off with growth rates of up to 7% in the 80's when those rates were slashed to 28% ? just asking.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The economy began declining for most American when those rates were slashed. Nearly all of the 80% in productivity gains were siphoned off to the top 1% of the people. It was the beginning of the largest redistribution of wealth, from the middle and bottom to the top, the world has ever seen in all of recorder history.

The period of the largest and most sustained economic growth in modern history correlated with top marginal rates of 70-90%

What's more, you are arguing out of both sides of your mouth at the same time. On the one hand, you say that nobody paid the top rates of 70-90%, and that raising them would make no difference. On the other you say slashing them made a huge difference. Which is it? Make up your mind.

[-] -1 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

funny - regardless of the tax rates - the revenue to the Federal government has never exceeded 20% of GDP. If the tax rates were 90% or 30% - the revenue has always fluctuated between 18 - 20% of GDP. So tell me - why would you have a rate of 90% if you'd get the same revenue from a rate of 30% ?

explain to me how that works. How do 70 - 90 percent tax rates grow the economy? In your own words - Please walk me through it. Thanks!

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

It would redistribute the tax burden from the middle class to the rich. That would go a good way towards restoring an equitable distribution of wealth. It would create a contraction in the distribution curve.

There are many other reasons, but that one alone is enough for me.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34982) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

ewe - your right - appearances can be deceiving. You carry smelling salts? The breeze just shifted.


[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4000) from Rutherford, NJ 0 minutes ago

No. A rock isn't soft and doesn't smell as bad when you step in it. ↥like ↧dislike permalink

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34982) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You "do" realize that you are talking to a rock.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

No. A rock isn't soft and doesn't smell as bad when you step in it.

[-] -1 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

so it is about redistribution and what YOU think is fair. It's not about revenue. Just what I thought - it's all about class envy.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Class envy has nothing to do with it. Democracy and equity are the issue. Too much concentrated wealth translates into concentration of political power. The nation becomes either a plutocracy or an oligarchy. I prefer equality, and democracy.

There is also an inherent fairness to making sure that those who have benefited most from the system everyone has created, and many have defended with their very lives, should be required to give more back. It is simple ethics, a concept you have only a passing familiarity with.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Ok, lets not pass a law because people will brake it? Logic is lacking in your comment. How about we remove the loopholes and collect the tax, does that not make more sense? You have bad karma (-109) BTW!

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

Back when they had those rates in this country, nobody actually paid them -- there were more deductions and loopholes and tax shelters than there are now, so the effective rate wasn't much different than it is today.

They have tax rates that high in Denmark now, and people really have to pay them. But, it doesn't work as intended, and the Danish government admits it. People don't work overtime because it's not worth it, and people don't take promotions in their jobs because its not worth it either, or do dangerous jobs, or lots of other things that we would get people to do by offering more money -- the tax man gets almost all of the extra money; and it turns out that people aren't willing to work extra hours or extra hard for the common good for free. So, they just don't try to earn the additional money in the first place. And, people who want high incomes simply move to other countries, so there's a serious brain drain of well-educated and talented people who go elsewhere because you'd be out of your mind to start a business there. If you raise tax rates that high, you have to be prepared to live with these sorts of things and the consequences flowing from them.

One of the problems with the thinking of most socialists is that they make the assumption that people in society at large are willing to selflessly work for some common good, and will forego personal gain to achieve it. Unfortunately, there isn't much evidence for this. People work hard to earn more money for themselves and their own family so they personally can have a higher standard of living. This is true here, and it's true everywhere else. In communist countries, when they liberalized the rules and let people on communal farms have a small personal plot that they could sell produce from, productivity on the private plots was 10 times greater than on the communal plots, because the proprietor of the plot gained personally from that one, but not from the communal one.

Take away the incentive for personal gain, and people just don't work very hard. The standard joke among workers in Cuba is "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work." The near-universal desire for personal gain may be an inconvenient fact, but a fact it is. And if you develop tax policy on the assumption that people will work 70 hours a week (which is pretty much what you have to do to make 500k) and then fork over 90% of the money in taxes, you're going against that fact and you're deceiving yourself, and you'll wind up with 90% of nothing. People just won't do it.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Sorry, I just don't believe your strange claim that working people don't want to work overtime, because the tax rate for income over 500k is 90%. What working person generates 500K of income in a year? This rate only applies to those people making money from having money 1%ers.

Most middle class businesses I know of do not generate profits over 500k so again your point seems completely fictitious. if people NEED more and do actually want to move away from their home country and families then bye bye greedhouds, good riddance!

There is endless evidence of people working for the common good without monetary rewards, ah, this movement is a great example. Besides, the average income is around 40k so there is loads of room for people to work to increase their wealth in the range up to 500k. lots of monetary incentive, and we can expand the non-monetary incentives as well,. . You have nothing to back up you assumptions and they remain just that your assumptions not shared by logic reason and most people.

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

To the contrary, most people with incomes over 500k get it through regular salaries. They're business professionals, business owners, etc., and a few odd things like professional athletes. All get regular salary, and all are already taxed at regular rates, that currently top out at 35%.

About people not wanting to work overtime, you mis-read me. In this country, people do work overtime, a lot. That's how you get extra money. Do like they do in Denmark and tax it at 90%, and that changes -- it's not worth the bother.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

500K incomes are NOT made by hourly wage workers. they are made by SALARIED employees. Overtime is not the least tiny teensy-weensy bit of an issue. It is a red herring.

[-] -1 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

Irrelevant. If you think someone's going to pay you 500K for an easy 40 hour week, you're living in dreamland. Folks who make that kind of money generally have to work insane hours and put up with crushing stress to get it. Take it all away in taxes, and people will rapidly decide that the hours and stress aren't worth it and will cut back or do something different. Maybe that's a good thing, but you still won't get the money.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The issue YOU raised was that no one would work overtime HOURS if making over $500,000 per year would be penalized by high progressive tax rates. I am pointing out that no one who needs overtime pay at all is in that position, so your point is a red herring.

Nor is anyone talking about taking it ALL away. You clearly don't know how progressive marginal taxes work, do you? They are never designed to be levied in one shot, but are tiered, usually with several steps.

And your "prediction" that they won't work is belied by history. They worked just fine between WWII and Reagan. People worked just a hard, for just as many hours, under just as much stress when the top marginal rate was 70%, and even, at times, 90%.

I don't advocate 90%, but I do advocate 70%. That is not an arbitrary number on my part, but based on the recent research of respected main stream economists.

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

I bet I know a lot more than you do about progressive tax rates -- I'm a tax attorney. I bet I also know a lot more than you do about what people do to get that high income and how they react, since I used to pull down that kind of bucks myself when I was younger.

That said, those historical high marginal rates are misleading. Back then, there were a myriad of exemptions, deductions, tax shelters and other things such that nobody really paid the 90% marginal rate as an actual aggregated rate on much, if any, of their income. The fully loaded rates were roughly about what they are right now.

I'd be interested in knowing which mainstream economists advocate a 70% marginal rate, since I'm unfamiliar with them. Can you point me to them?

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Besides Paul Krugman, (who has been dead on about everything he has predicted for the last 3 years) here is one paper. It calls for a 73% top rate. It also talks about the behavioral issues in terms of the wealthy and what they are likely to bear. What I like about the paper (besides the rigorous research - and frankly, most of the math is beyond me) is the fact that the authors don't take a moral point of view, but only a pragmatic one. They are looking at what the economy needs, and don't dwell on issues of equity or fairness for either the wealthy or the poor. Their agenda is demonstrating if/then scenarios, what best works for, rather than ethical judgments about what is right for society today.

http://economics.mit.edu/files/6820

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

It's an interesting paper, and the authors make some excellent points. There are however, a few critiques one might offer up:

First, the authors take it as an axiomatic working assumption that income redistribution is a good thing, and explicitly so state. Whether income redistribution is good, and how much of it is good, are points that there is some considerable disagreement on.

Second, taking it as a given that income redistribution is good, the authors then discuss how to achieve it in a manner that approximates a Pareto–optimal state. A Pareto optimal income redistribution scheme is itself not necessarily good or bad either. It's simply the most efficient way to achieve income distribution; efficient being very narrowly defined.

So, the authors do in fact avoid any moral or ethical discussion, they simply discuss how to achieve efficient income redistribution if in fact that's what you want to do. But, the entire discussion assumes that income redistribution is a good thing in the first place.

On a practical level, I'd be interested in seeing the data that they are using that suggests, as they seem to imply, that significant income redistribution does not to really affect people's behavior. Large–scale evidence in real-world situations, such as countries that have substantial redistribution schemes seems to suggest otherwise. In the absence of very, very rigorous controls, a fair percentage of people with high incomes try to game the system by avoiding taxes, while a fair percentage of people with low incomes try to game the system by either being intentionally unemployed or underemployed, or by accepting benefits that they really do not need or not necessarily qualified for. My own experiences and observations over the decades are consistent with this as well. I'm not at all sure that the theoretical models that are being used this paper adequately account for this human tendency.

(Before anyone starts trashing me for suggesting that poor people are lazy, that's not what I'm saying. But I am saying that whenever money is on the line, some percentage of people, whether they are rich or poor, will try to work the system and gain an advantage, rather than using the system honestly. That percentage is certainly not a majority or anywhere close to a majority, but neither is it insignificant. Poor and working class folks aren’t any worse than rich people on this score, but there’s no reason to think they’re any better either.)

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Thank you for your thorough consideration and analysis if the paper. It is clear you did so in good faith.

I would agree the abuses can and do take place at both ends of income levels. I would argue, however, that the "crimes" (for lack of better word) are different in nature. On is generally for the purpose of survival, and the gains are at best on the level of subsistence. At the other end of the curve, the wealthy steal more, since the amount of money is greater, and the motivation is more about keeping even more wealth rather than actual need. I am not excusing the former: theft is theft. But there is a difference between stealing bread and stealing a yacht.

If indeed one considers income distribution to be a good thing, a Pareto efficiency is a pretty good way to go. It reflects the actual numbers (very close to the 80-20 rule) of real wealth distribution. It is the biggest bank for the buck, as far as I can tell. I don't see that the authors are going for a perfectly equal distribution. Everyone would not end up with the same amount of money; far from it. The government would have most of the income and only a part of that would be used for transfers.

For me the importance of the paper is that it is very convincing regarding behavior, specifically the risk of flight or an unwillingness to accept such a distribution on the part of the very wealthy. They show such a risk is minimal. Even given your experience about seeing people trying to game the system, there would be no major rebellion.

With that out of the way, the crux of the matter is whether such distribution is a good thing or bad thing. The ethics of the issue can be discussed freely, and without demagoguery. That is a step forward as far as I'm concerned.

Again, I appreciate your good faith effort in this. Although I am fairly certain we won't land on the same side of the ethics issue, I appreciate your actually reading the paper ( a very difficult one for me, since my math literacy isn't nearly good enough to understand and check all the equations and statistical methods). Many people would not have done so. And your response was considered and thoughtful.

[-] 0 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

You're being petulant. If you've got some authorities backing you, by all means cite them I'd be interested in hearing their arguments.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Hope you dont hold your breath

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

Thanks likewise for your own thoughtful response. One additional thing I would note about that paper-it assumes that people have no legal method of avoiding the tax structure. That’s not really so. In the real world, for example, I can move from Illinois to Florida and reduce my tax burden by north of 10% of my income. I could move to another country and avoid income taxes entirely or nearly so. Businesses can do likewise, and nobody can stop them.
Of course, not everybody can do this, but that makes the problem worse. The ones who can do it are the ones with money and the resulting flexibility, and over time, the population subject to your tax scheme gets progressively poorer because the people and businesses with options have left. And there is a great deal of evidence that both people and businesses do this all the time. You could always try to get other jurisdictions to raise their tax rates to de-incentivize this behavior, but they won’t do it—they want those people and businesses to move there. We are probably not so far apart as you might think on the ethics of wealth re-distribution. I myself come from a very poor background, and my family received government assistance in the form of commodities when I was a child, so I can appreciate from firsthand knowledge the value of it.
On a societal level, I think some income re-distribution is both moral and necessary. A relatively rich society really ought not to let people starve who are willing to work and participate in society and themselves contribute to the overall welfare if they can. And as a practical matter, those with wealth are well-served on a personal level by making sure the inequality isn’t too great—or rather, that the bottom isn’t too low for too many people. When that happens it’s the stuff of revolutions, which never seem to turn out well for either side.
On the other hand, excessively generous social welfare benefits, de-coupled from any incentive or path to work your way off of them, seems inevitably to breed a disturbingly large parasite class that’s perfectly content to live their entire lives on public assistance. The old-style English dole is a classic example-an able-bodied man could live his entire life in a government-provided council flat, on a meager government assistance check, and never work a day. He couldn’t live well, but he could live, and for a lot of folks, that’s apparently enough. And, there are many, many other examples of this. Consider a reductio ad absurdum example: if there were a minimum guaranteed income of $100,000 a year, as someone on another part of this forum suggested, I myself would never work another day in my life. I’d go fishing and practice my guitar a lot. And I bet a lot of other people would do the same. All that said, your point about stealing for bread is well-taken. A mother will do what it takes to feed her children, and if cheating is what it takes, she can and should do so. These people I have no quarrel with. Any penalties for her so doing should be slight, if at all. In my view, the correct solution is to raise a person in this situation economically so that they’re not forced into this situation. My own experience with people gaming the system is, however, depressingly different. For example, right at this moment, I know five people who are collecting disability checks from the federal government. You’re only supposed to get this benefit if you are totally disabled and unable to work full time. Not only are all five of these folks able to work, all five DO work, at physically demanding jobs-under the table, for cash, with no taxes taken out. So, they’re all cheating on two levels, taking a benefit they’re not entitled to, and cheating on the taxes that fund the system they are taking from. Likewise, I know three people who are now collecting social security, who spent their entire lives working under the table to avoid paying taxes into the system that they are now collecting from. And I have several friends who, notwithstanding that they are all very bright and all have college degrees, have spent their entire lives purposely unemployed or underemployed—and as a result being eligible for government-provided health care and the like- because they just didn’t feel like working. They had rather spend Monday morning down at the driving range working on their golf game-no kidding. And all of these folks have been doing this for years-I have known some of these people for nearly 30 years and never seen them not gaming the system. None of these people lives particularly well doing this, but all are content to take what is given, live off it and contribute nothing in return. Perhaps even more depressingly, several of them are very vocal socialists who like to rail at me about the inequities of the system and who are undoubtedly strongly sympathetic to Occupy Wall Street and its goals. I’ve tried to point out the inconsistencies of their situation, but all have a rationalization that makes it okay in their case. And, there is strong evidence that my observations are not a deviation-there is, for example, compelling statistical and anecdotal evidence that the federal disability system is being massively defrauded by a combination of meritless claimants, crooked lawyers and judges on the take.
A while back, I heard a term I had never heard before –“fifteeners.” The term is used to describe what is apparently commonly understood to be an endemic problem in inner-city Baltimore. It was being used to describe female-headed families whose generations start having babies at the age of fifteen so the generations are fifteen years apart, live on welfare their entire lives, and who never seem to mature past the age of fifteen. The person who I heard using this term-with some contempt-wasn’t who you might expect. It was a democrat, black, female, very liberal, inner-city politician. She thinks this phenomenon is damaging the social fabric of the inner city very badly.
Like it or not, this sort of thing is a problem, and any social welfare scheme has to recognize and account for it. You can’t just pretend it doesn’t happen, because it does-a lot. The downstream issue isn’t so much rebellion as disillusionment and a cynical working populace– it’s pretty depressing, for example, to realize that all the taxes my wife and I pay in a year—effectively her entire full-time income—don’t quite cover the benefits being gamed out of the system by people I personally know.
So, the question becomes how much income do you re-distribute, and how do you do it in a way that doesn’t encourage this sort of thing? How do you avoid Russian oligarch trillionaires on one hand, and a large and permanent – and in some cases intentional--underclass on the other? First, I think that any basic social welfare net can’t be so generous as to be comfortable-the cushier it is, the more people you’ll get that decide it’s as much as they need. You need people to want to get off of it. Second, it should be coupled with meaningful training and economic opportunity (not the silly-assed, bullshit training programs the government offers these days. They are famously worthless.), and the correct incentives to go back to work. A good example of a place where this actually works is Denmark. If you lose your job, you get really excellent benefits. But, the government works closely with industry to determine what job skills are needed in the country. As a condition of receiving benefits, you re-train at government expense in one of the fields they determine are needed, and then are placed on the job roster. You must accept the first job offered to you-you have no say-so in it at all. They have no interest in catering to your tastes in work-they need you back on the tax rolls ASAP to pay for all of this. It all works very well and pays for itself, albeit the tax system required at least meets, and probably exceeds, the Pareto-optimal tax scheme in its level of re-distribution. I think also that income re-distribution can be achieved other, perhaps more effective ways than taxation. For example, the norm in the Silicon valley high-tech area, the norm is to give out stock options as part of an employee’s compensation package. These are generally given to everybody – secretaries, janitors, copy room clerks. The longer you work there, the more you accumulate, and the strike price is very attractive-if the company does well, the employee can make some serious money. For example, I worked on a project with a woman who worked for such a company as a secretary (not an executive secretary, just a regular old secretary in the facilities department), and when she retired after 20 years, she exercised her options and walked out with million dollars in cash, on top of a pension, after 20 years of an excellent salary and benefits working for a company what was very good to its employees in other ways as well. This sort of thing benefits everybody because everybody’s interests are aligned—the company gets highly motivated employees, the employee shares the wealth, and whatever the company does is better as a result. Over the long term, if coupled with the sort of social welfare net and training opportunities I describe above, I think this is a better solution. Society will function most effectively when everyone has a serious personal stake in the upside. The way to achieve that is to give them the opportunity to get a meaningful piece of the action. In my view, the shortcoming of a taxation-based re-distribution scheme is that it doesn’t provide that opportunity.

[-] -1 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

loopholes - you mean interest deductions for homeowners on their mortgage & property taxes? you mean deductions for businesses who invest in new equipment? what "loopholes are you talking about specifically? or the farmers tax deduction which is absolutely obsolete and abused by way more than the 1%.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (5804) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

No, more like 'vacation home' deductions. Being able to write off 100% of the cost of a new 'beemer' in the first year if you use it for business. Stuff like that.

[-] -2 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

yea - those can be tightened up I agree. So that will help get us out of this mess? how much revenue is that supposed to bring in? do you have the figures to back up your claim? or is it just about penalizing the rich so you feel better?

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (5804) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

All I did was give you two examples, chatman. I have no intention of getting into your dispute with jph. But, with 72,000 pages of loopholes, I'm sure a fair amount of money could be had by addressing this. Closing unfair loopholes is not a new subject, by the way.

[-] -2 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

"I'm sure a fair amount of money could be had by addressing this" Wouldn't it be good to know how much? or is the goal to punish the rich not increase revenue. As Obama said himself - he would raise taxes even if it meant no additional revenue because he thinks it's fair. I didn't know the Constitution addressed fairness as Governments role.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (5804) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Despite the rhetoric, I don't believe the goal is to 'punish' anyone other than those banksters, their cohorts, and the politicians that have actually committed crimes, like obvious fraud. Even the most closed-minded individuals by now should be able to see crimes were committed. MSM is no longer ignoring this. And although I would be curious as to how much could be raised by closing unnecessary loopholes, it, like the OP, is moot. Does it really matter how much is raised? Any amount would have to help the problem, no matter how small.

[-] -2 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

no one is saying not to punish criminals. OWS has painted the 1% (everyone earning over $367,000.00) as criminals.

[-] 3 points by gnomunny (5804) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

No they have not. You're repeating MSM bullshit. It's been about the corruption since Day One. And the 1% OWS refers to is a metaphor, chatman, it was never meant to be taken literally. If you'd been here longer than a week, or if you had read through the older posts, you'd already know this. But, your intent isn't to understand OWS. So get a clue otherwise your credibility will never rise above the zero it's at right now..

[-] -2 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

I've been here under many different names since the beginning lol! I have yet to hear a cohesive plan of what OWS wants. I am still waiting.

[-] -3 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

yea of course - you support a tax you wont be paying. That's genius lol! How did you come up with that lol!!! good luck. your dems couldnt even get the buffet rule thru the democrat controlled senate lol!

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Ever hear of the Republitard's unprecedented and disgraceful use of the filibuster? It was assholes on the right that killed it.

[-] -2 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

so Democrats never filabuster?

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The occasional filibuster is quite different than filibustering nearly everything. It is an unprecedented abuse of the rule..

[-] -2 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

so the dems use it only "occasionally" and the republicans all the time? do you have the figures to back that claim up? funny - the dems didn't respect the filibuster with Obamacare did they? they jammed it thru with 51 votes.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The Affordable Health Care Act won by 60 votes.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00396

The number of Republican Filibusters set new records:

http://www.ourfuture.org/obstruction

[-] -1 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

here it is - 54 votes on an unprecedented reconciliation move.

http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/senate/2/105

[-] -1 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

I stand corrected 60 democrats. It was after the House had some amendments and Scott Brown won in Mass that killed their filibuster proof majority - then it passed with 51 I believe. I believe the final bill was 51 no?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Vote Summary Question: On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 3590 as Amended ) Vote Number: 396 Vote Date: December 24, 2009, 07:05 AM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed Measure Number: H.R. 3590 (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ) Measure Title: An act entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Vote Counts: YEAs 60 NAYs 39 Not Voting 1

[-] -1 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

what was that whole reconciliation thing about?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Guess you missed it. Read about it on your own.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8689) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Apple's profits were 40 billion more than expected for one quater we could start by taking that, nobody was expecting to get it anyway.

That's 8 years worth of the buffett Rule, seems the only thing worng with the Buffet Rule is it's way too small.

[-] 2 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

Well, okay, and what would you do about that fact that lots of pension and retirement funds own stock in companies like Apple? The biggest single shareholder in the United States is the California Public Employees Retirement Fund, and many of the of the other largest shareholders are likewise pension and retirement funds (and virtually all retirement plans, corporate, government or personal, are invested in stocks, corporate bonds and the like), and they are all absolutely dependent upon the profitability of these companies to pay out retirement benefits. If you took that money you'd end up screwing a bunch of retired school teachers out of their pensions.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8689) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Oh I don't think the .0001% or so would hurt them that much or do think Apple would take it all from them just ouit of spite?

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

I don't think you answered the question. If you confiscate the profits of big corporations, what's your solution for dealing with the pensions funds, retirees and others whose income is dependent upon those profits? All of a sudden, the source of that income is gone because you took it.

And how would you deal with the fact that at a company like Apple, every single employee right down to the janitor is a shareholder, and the stock, and the profit from it, is part of their pay?

Is it your position that all of these people should just be expected to take the hit in the name of the common good? You can't have it both ways -- if you confiscate the profits of corporations, the people who would have gotten them won't get them. The corporation can't just magically conjure up more money for them.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8689) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Oh big picture I see, well we have about 60 trillion or so, I suggest we move 15 trillion out of the saving account and pay off the credit card so we can stop paying interest on that, I think the best way to do that is inheritance tax of 99% after the first 5 million till it's paid in full.

Oh and people would be rolling in dough to create jobs because of all the bonds being redeemed.

[-] 0 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

You still haven't answered the question. Try this: I'm a little old lady on a pension. My pension money is invested in Apple stock, so every quarter I get a dividend check based on Apple's profits that quarter. That's what I live on. You've confiscated Apple's profits, so now there's no money for my dividend check. What do I do now? What are you doing to do about it?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8689) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Really little old lady invested in Apple guess she will just have to live on the bond money that will be flowwing in but don't worry unless your little old lady makes more than $250,000 taxable she won't be touched.

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

I don't think you guys understand how the real world works. There are a lot of little lot ladies in the midwest whose sole retirement income is dividend income from shares in the local utility they accumulated over the years a bit at at a time. With the exception of some government pension funds funded entirely with taxes, every single pension fund in the United States, and virtually all private pension plans like 401(k)s and IRA's, are heavily invested in corporate stocks, bonds and other securities. The single largest investor in the United States isn't Warren Buffett or George Soros, it's the California public employee pension fund. Those pension funds are able to pay out pensions to retirees due to the profitability of their investments. The profits ARE the payout to pensioners. Kill corporate profits and you kill the ability of these pension funds to make their payments to pensioners. That includes a hell of a lot of little old ladies of very modest means, retired schoolteachers, retired autoworkers and a whole lot of other people that the people on this site spend a lot of time proclaiming solidarity with. If the pension fund's investments stop making money, the pension for that retired school teacher gets cut or eliminated, 'cause there's no money to pay her. I've seen what happens when pension funds go broke entirely. It's not pretty, and it's not happening to your mythical 1%.

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

That is, "of their income?" Autocorrect error.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8689) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I know exactly how the world works, most the money is in the pockets of fat cats hiding behind "little old ladies" in reality the little old ladies invest in bonds and they will make out great when we start paying them off, you don't understand how the world works. You see we cut taxes then borrow the money then pay interest forever, I suggest we stop doing that.

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

And where, pray tell, are they going to get the money to invest in your bonds when you just confiscated the source of your income?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8689) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

It is not "confiscation" it is paying a bill that them and the people they sent to Washington ran up. I think the least painful way to do this thing is to apply a 99% inheritance tax after the first 5 million, that way nobody pays till they die and nobody gets hurt.

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

Only problem there is that it wouldn't be anywhere enough money. Not enough people with a $5 million estate. And how would they pay the tax? Most of the wealth isn't money -- it's land and boats and big houses and airplanes, that can only turn into money if there's another rich guy waiting to buy it. If you take the property as payment of the tax, If nobody's got millions of dollars, you'd have no one to sell those mansions to, so you'd had no money for anything else. Just a big bill every month for maintenance on a now-empty house.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8689) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

People buy and sell things everyday, you are not suggesting that Romney was doing something wrong buying and selling them while at Bain are you? Many trillions tied up in trust funds and estates I would be willing to take some time so nobody has to pay a big tax bill while they are still alive, but if you think we should take the money sooner, I'm listening. Always rich guys looking to buy, and they will be flush with cash because we will be redeeming the bonds.

Remember we are not going to burn the money we are going to redeem government bonds so we can stop paying interest to rich guys when we can't even afford to pay teachers.

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

Take an example: Some farmer in Kansas dies. His family's been farming this land for 100 years. A Kansas wheat farm can be pretty big -- 2 or 3 thousand acres. And with land prices being what they are, that land may be worth several million dollars.So his estate owes your tax. Unfortunately, none of his estate is liquid. His income was probably $50,000 a year in a good year, and not every year was good. His family will lose the farm, because they'll have to sell it to pay the tax.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8689) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Didn't think it would take you long to break out "the family fram" why don't you take a look at how many of those there are left, by the way in case you didn't know the farmers are rolling in dough these days.

Don't make up "examples" I got a real life example, Paris Hilton.

If you can't make it on a 5 million dollar farm free and clear, you shouldn't be in farming.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

The only problem is the fun fact that a large portion of that unexpected profit came from sales of iPhones made in China and sold to people in China.

What makes you think the US has a right to confiscate that money?

[-] -2 points by takim (23) 2 years ago

apple is a private company, you or the govt are NOT entitled to their profits. the current problem is a spending problem,...not a tax problem

[-] 1 points by NotSoEasy (2) from San Francisco, CA 2 years ago

Actually, there are both spending and tax problems. Using Apple, an example of the tax problem is well discussed in the NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy-aims-at-low-tax-states-and-nations.html

The spending side is similar: Everyone want the government to pay for what they think they need but also what others to be taxed so the government can pay for it.

[-] -1 points by takim (23) 2 years ago

eveyone does NOT want the govt to pay for their needs. the people that do are the ones that want to bring this country , as founded, down.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8689) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

no body's is talking about entitlement I'm talking about laws like the ones that says Apple owns stuff.

[-] -2 points by takim (23) 2 years ago

care to explain what you're talking about,................

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8689) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

say for instance a patent, a lot of government involved in "owning" a patent

[-] -2 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

so basically you want to steal the money from Apple. How are they the bad guys again? I know you guys hate banks etc but now a computer company?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8689) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

steal? no we'll do legal just like they did

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago


The 30% on a million or more tax



[-] 0 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

the federal income tax is 36% on income above 367K. you are talking about the cap gains tax. so you want to tax cap gains on income on gains above 1 million dollars is that it? and everyone else pays the current 15% ?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

this should include all income like capital gains

deduction should also not be an option

income yax can be graduated to the levels at a million

so while if one makes more though they will be taxed more

while still end up with more after taxes than those who make less

[-] 0 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

and what do you think will happen to peoples investment behavior when you increase the cap gains tax?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

very little

they should still be able to make money after taxes

[-] 0 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

they "should" ? based on what? you just increased the cost. when you increase the cost of anything you decrease the consumption. It's a simple as that. So there will be less investment you can bank on that.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

because those that control the money will with hold in a temper tantrum I suppose

they are still better off investing to increase the money they already have

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

The vital importance of the Buffet Rule is not the gain in needed revenue which so many rich and corporate money managers evade contributing to, it's the principal, correcting the devious practices of destructive, rapacious greed. And... that it's like shoving a red hot poker up your miserable America-hating asses. Sweet revenge.

[-] -1 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

and you are going to distinguish those who are practicing rapacious greed & those who earn their money from hard honest work how?

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

To start with, tax records and offshore accounts.

[-] -2 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

yea - a police state. Drive them even further underground. How about the opposite. Make it more of a friendly climate instead of a hostile one.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17713) 2 years ago

LOL. Where have you been?

We've been a police state since the 60s. It's only correct to apply it them now.

[-] -1 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

yea good point. we are living in a police state. I'm surprised the 1% still bother living here. No problem - OWS will chase them out & you'll be left to manage things yourselves. Good luck.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17713) 2 years ago

Where they gonna go?

Dubai?

Anyway, good riddance to them. I hope they enjoy their lifelong stay in Galts Gulch.

[-] -1 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

There are plenty of places who are appreciative of Capital. Hong Kong, Singapore, even Canada is more business friendly than the U.S. now . We are slipping. Just like money flees high tax states for low tax states eventually it will leave altogether. If you think Galt's Gulch is fantasy - keep it up.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17713) 2 years ago

Just head on over to Galts gulch.

I hear Outer Mongolia is nice this time of year.

Then we'll show you what real competition is all about.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Ever been assaulted with a deadly downsizing/offshoring pink slip???

It doesn't get more "hostile" than unemployment and home foreclosure.

Yea plutocracy!

[-] -1 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

yea - and why do you think business is leaving? if you want a job - show business how much you appreciate them. Geez!! are you kidding!!!?

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Yea! I appreciate Big Biz offshoring, tax evasion, Enroning, suppressing wages, killing unions, and holding the country hostage!

Yea plutocracy!

[-] 0 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

why do you think business tries to avoid taxes unions etc?

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

The various transgressions Big Biz has committed are a result of their utter (elitist-justified) disregard for the country and society that made their enterprise possible and a public commons which they could not survive without ~ and a feeding frenzy of untethered exploitation and greed, as the situation they have perpetrated on America becomes more and more untenable.

Why would they (or anyone else) want to be the 1% rich in a 99% poor country?

[-] 1 points by Cvacca (-24) 2 years ago

It's nothing but Obama's attempt at class warfare.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

We should make it much larger do you not agree Scab Chatman.

[-] 0 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

ok - lets double it - so how does 10 billion a year help us?

[-] 1 points by American12 (1) 2 years ago

You can't just take all of a company's profit. They are not evil just because they make money.

[-] 1 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

yea - these occupiers think they have a claim on peoples businesses lol - it's pretty amazing. this is what you get when you send your kids to college. communist indoctrination.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

That would be great! One less week to worry about. It would not effect the poor or middle class, and the wealthy would only be paying a tiny bit greater a percentage of their income than the middle class do and still have enough left over to buy a yacht or two.

Doesn't solve everything, but it's a step in the right direction.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Okay, it is not a solution. So what? What solution does Rob Portman offer? The Republican coddle the rich playbook, aka, the Paul Ryan budget. Puh-lease. It is so bad, it even riles up harmless catholic bishops.

Here's a real solution. You man enough to read it?

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=70

Budget’s Bottom Line: • Deficit reduction of $5.6 trillion • Spending cuts of $1.7 trillion • Revenue increase of $3.9 trillion • Public investment $1.7 trillion

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

The Paul Ryan budget is nothing more than big spending fascist bullshit. Dont fall for the "far right" bullshit in the media.

Its just more corrupted banking funding shit while we all get fucked.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

I thought dubbing the Paul Ryan budget - "the coddle the rich playbook" - made it clear I'm not 'falling' for their bullshit.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Sorry, I think I misread your post. But you are right, its nothing but more corporate bullshit.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

No worries. Now, if you can convince chatman of the truth, I'll buy you a candy bar.

[-] -2 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

focus - the question is about the Buffet rule. we should be getting solutions from out leader. Now you are already looking for alternatives for the answer lol! you sound disappointed.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Do you live under a rock? The whole country sounds disappointed in our leaders. Why should I sound any different?

[-] 0 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

I'm not disappointed - this is exactly what I predicted from this guy hahaha! are you kidding? His whole history pointed to exactly where we are right now. This is what happens when you don't do your homework & just believe in hope & change because it sounds so marvelous lol!

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Is there a secret trick to knowing a person so fully by a comment or two, how do you do it?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Until someone is willing to scrap the entire tax code and start over, its all just fluff.

[-] 1 points by krmlei (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The Buffet rule is about taking the burdon off the middle class and putting it right on the people who can afford it.

How long should the middle class be carrying the higher tax burdon so the rich can have their lower tax rates? If the rich don't pay it, the money is going to come from somewhere else - want to guess where?

All this talk about national debt is just about changing the field of the discussion

[-] -2 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

what rate do the rich have that is lower than a middle class person. Be specific please.

[-] 2 points by krmlei (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Please read this article:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/taxes-richest-americans-charts-graph

If you don't understand exactly how the rich avoid paying taxes and end up with a lower rate, you will keep believing all the rhetoric that gets shoveled out by the "pundits" who are only playing cheerleader to their political party team

I can't be more specific than that article. I'm not here to write an essay. Good luck

[-] -1 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

I want you to tell me. I know how people avoid paying taxes. That's the point - you can make the rate as high as you want - it doesn't mean you are going to collect. you just drive capital underground. The question raised is about rates not about avoidance. So what rate is lower for rich people than for middle class people?

[-] 2 points by krmlei (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

There are only a certain number of loopholes in the system, so a higher tax rate for the rich will bring more income for the Treasury. The US had a surplus before the Bush Tax Cuts of 2001.

How about listening to a Senior Economics advisor to Ronald Reagan and Bush Sr. -

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/are-the-bush-tax-cuts-the-root-of-our-fiscal-problem/

For most of the history of the US since the Great Depression, the rich paid a much much higher rate in taxes. In the 1980s, the tax rate was reduced somewhat only to be brought back up by Reagan himself before being reduced again. The low tax rate that we see today for the rich is only a bit more than a decade old.

I'm more interested in YOU TELLING ME why you are so interested in protecting the rich from paying more tax. My guess is that you are not a millionaire because if you were, you probably wouldn't be too worried about sending your kids to college. So why all the sobbing tears over people who aren't really sobbing over paying their fair share?

[-] -1 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

How do you explain the fact that the federal revenue has never exceeded 20% regardless of tax rates? The tax rates were reduced more than SOMEWHAT . the income tax was cut by more than half then brought up a little. They adjusted all the rates up & down for the entire Reagan Admin but net result when he left was they were massively down from when he started. Are you kidding?

Define Fair Share? What is YOUR fair share?

[-] 2 points by krmlei (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Why don't you answer my question first? If you aren't rich, why are you sobbing whether a rich guy can afford his third swimming pool or not?

A fair share is what someone can afford to pay while still maintaining a high lifestyle and the rewards for earning his money.

If someone earns $100K a month, losing $15K a month to taxes is not going to hurt him as much as someone earning $2K a month losing $600 to taxes. You can either tax more people earning $2K at 30% or less people earning $100K at 15%. Which would you choose?

It not only hurts the rich less to pay taxes,it is easier for them to make more money because they have enough money left over to invest and as any third grader knows - it takes money to make money. The more money you got, the more you can make. From a government's perspective, the rich are a better supply for tax revenue than the middle class because the money from the middle class can run out.

So if you ask me, I think you are only participating in a little political theater. Honestly, you don't make $1 Million a year. If I'm wrong, please let me know. I would be more interested in the opinion of a real Millionaire on this tax issue than another "wish to be rich" lottery player.

[-] -2 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

If someone earns $100K a month, losing $15K a month to taxes is not going to hurt him as much as someone earning $2K a month losing $600 to taxes. So you are going to determine what someone is allowed to keep. Regardless - the govt will max out it's revenue @ 20% of GDP so wouldn't it be better to have a higher GDP number? 20% of a higher number is more revenue. You are not going to get more revenue by soaking the rich.

[-] 1 points by krmlei (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Did you bother to read the Bruce Bartlett New York Times article I posted above?

[-] 0 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

yea - I've read that before as well. He's just wrong. the reason revenue is so low is because there is less economic activity. people & business are afraid to commit their capital in such a hostile uncertain climate. I know I am waiting on the sidelines not making any serious commitments until I see were we are going.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Why is it these clowns talk about HOW HIGH the debt is but then turn around low those taxes would bring in? Fucking nutjobs.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

They have fantasies of becoming rich themselves, so they can buy, instead of rent, their home in the trailer park and hire a personal chef to cook their deep fried corn dogs for them.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

A-hahahahahahaha.

That was funny.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34982) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I lived in a park for a dozen years they ( the people ) would not have them as neighbors - not willingly and not happily either. {:-])

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I know, it was a cheap shot. But it still felt SOOOOOO good. ;)

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34982) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Not a problem - I really liked that show - Earl (?)

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I think it was "My Name Is Earl", and yes, it was fantastic. There was a real sweetness to that show.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34982) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Every once in a while there is still true comedy magic.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Trailer trash and hillbillies are a mental landscape, not really a geographical location.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34982) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Not to worry - Ever see Earl (?) - I loved that show sometimes - talk about bust a gut funny and sarcastic, ironic, acerbic - I mean they did a nice job with a good cast.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I have seen half of an episode. Does that count?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34982) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Was it funny? If not you need to see at least one whole episode.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

It was pretty funny.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34982) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Thought you might like it - you do seem to have a good sense of humor. This is a good thing, a good sense of humor can see a person through some mighty dark times.

[-] 0 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

because the debt is a function of spending not revenue. how does 4.7 billion in additional revenues help the problem? the govt spends that much every 11 hrs. this wont even make a dent in the interest on the debt. It's a gimmick to invoke class warfare. an election year stunt.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

It is 4.7 billion in additional revenues. There is a class war, honey.

[-] 0 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

yea - and although it will make you feel better to soak the rich - it wont help fix the problem at all. it's all based on emotions not reason.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Get over it. You will pay taxes.

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

You can spam this board all you'd like with repeated posts about the same issue, no one will give a shit. I encourage all to ignore this troll.

[-] 0 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

he is a troll because he speaks facts... taxing all rich to poverty aint gonna improve your financial condition

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

How is the Buffet rule taxing the rich to poverty? How in any universe does coming away with a minimum of $700,000.00 per year on an income of one million represent poverty?

On top of that their capital gains would remain at 15%. That's income, too, but not treated that way by the tax code. So they could STILL wind up paying less of a proportion of their incomes than the middle class. Poor things. Those millionaires have it so hard.

Here are some actual, rather than wanna-be, millionaires who understand the issue:

http://patrioticmillionaires.org/

[-] 0 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

The buffet rule isnt but a 90% tax rate above income of $500k will be disastrous for the long term. It will lead to flight of capital and talent. Why would I not go and get a job in the UK where top tax rate is 50%? Or even Singapore where it is 30%? Or Canada or any of the other developed countries? Life is equally good in all of these countries.

Well the people of this country are certainly not as stupid (or crazy or greedy or jealous) as the average OWS squatter so a 90% tax rate would never happen. But the point is in which universe will a person have any incentive to work if you are taking away 90% of her/his income above $500k? Say I am middle level sales manager and my salary is linked to the sales of my division. Once I have made $500k in sales, I would really not be all that enthusiastic to push for the next sale. Why wine and dine the client and take the pains of client calls at the dead of the night and negotiate over weeks and months if only 10% of it is coming to me?

And if you think I am wrong in my assessment, take the case of real estate agents given in Chapter 2 of Freakonomics. (Read the book)

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

In fact a top marginal rate of 70% is what is being recommended by some well respected mainstream economists. Their research has concluded that it would result in little, if any, of the kind of flight you are concerned about.

What's more, a marginal rate is not the same as a simple rate, and it is generally tiered with several steps.

I tend to take my guidance from the economists I respect rather than a rhetorical point made on this, or any other site. But I fully agree with the sentiment, if not the exact figure, expressed here. Steeply progressive taxes have worked in this country before. There is no reason why they shouldn't now. They are altogether far more beneficial to everyone, including, ironically, the wealthy than the current code. It would aid in the restoration and expansion of a robust middle class who would be consumers, driving the growth of the economy as a whole and guaranteeing steady profits as a result. Although individual wealth may not be as extreme, the increased strength of civil society and a corresponding decrease in crime, would result. It is also reasonable to assume that the greater perception of American fairness, its living up to its ideals of egalitarianism, would also create a greater influence in foreign policy. We would not be looked upon as hypocrites when we demand fairness in other countries, or from them. Foreign trade relations could conceivably likewise improve, which also helps those in the top economic tiers.

And, not LEAST important, through the contraction of income disparity they create more democracy by limiting the undue influence of great sums of concentrated money on the political process. Being an ardent supporter of democracy, that great American experiment, I support any and all measures that restore the institution, its integrity, to these shores.

[-] 0 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

Which economists have made the suggestions? Can you give me links of some papers/articles?

And your assertion of steep progressive tax rates working now has 2 major flaws

  1. The effective tax rates were much lower due to loopholes
  2. It is far more easy to move capital around now than say in 70s. Then the US had very little competition in business and manufacturing from other countries. But now, with talent being available in various countries, their economies thriving and the existance of manufacturing base (like China), moving your business over to another country would be far more promising proposition.
[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Effective tax rates NOW are much smaller than the 36% top rate. They would be higher with higher top rates.

Anyway, here is a link. A careful reading will show that all of your concerns are addressed.

http://economics.mit.edu/files/6820

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

No, but reasonable rates of taxation would improve our financial condition.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17713) 2 years ago

What facts?

I find trolls to be extremely fact challenged. Kind of like FLAKESnews, where distortion is the only fact................

[-] 1 points by shooz (17713) 2 years ago

Yeah, but like shooing the pit bull that just ate your kid, it will make us feel better.........:)

So it's worth a shot.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34982) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Shooting? I Whole Heartedly agree as well as beating the shit out of the owner that let it happen. Shooting the POS if it was not the 1st attack by that animal.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17713) 2 years ago

Now,now DKA. It was a metaphor for tax the crap out of them.....:)

Let them feel thing they fear worst of all........poverty.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (34982) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

OK Ok ok....I guess....shoot...hmph... Well at Least do the Bernie Madoff Restitution To Em. HEY?!? OH - YEAH {:-])

[-] -3 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

thats because your argument is completely weak. all this is is a collective temper tantrum of children.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

and it will be used to fund welfare and foodstamps, government healthcare for these people not americans! we a presently spending 2 BILLION a WEEK and now it will continue for another 15 yrs. all the while they cut food stamps and healthcare and soc. sec. for the people who PAY

http://news.yahoo.com/us-defend-afghanistan-decade-drawdown-112505244.html

[-] 1 points by Truth4Life (43) 2 years ago

At present the wealthy elites who run the USA have over $20 trillion sheltered in overseas tax free accounts. All the government needs to do is to recall that capital. That will solve the deficits without raising taxes.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

How do you "recall" other peoples money lol!? Sounds like communist confiscation to me. Never gonna happen. come up with a serious proposition.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34982) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Sheltering money out of the country.

Does this behavior sound familiar to anyone?

Maybe it's just me but I find the practice to be somewhat shady? I mean who has need to shelter their money outside of their own country anyway?

Oh OH yeah how obvious those who have done so are those you see quite often being chased out of their own country by their own people for having abused those people.

Funny.............am I the only one who wonders about the similarity of need and or purpose?

[-] -3 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

when you confiscate peoples money because you cant control your spending - what do you expect? You want me to pay more taxes when you have the GSA scandal out there or solyndra etc? give me a break. Besides - you forgot - there are massive taxes coming with Obamacare.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34982) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Figures:

chatman

No Profile Information Private Messages

Information

Joined April 21, 2012


Following the trend of supporting the greed and corruption factor.

Why am I not surprised?

[-] 1 points by Truth4Life (43) 2 years ago

chatman like others of the far right love it when the government gives them corporate welfare. Free handouts such as subsidies, tax abatements where they are relieved of tax liabilities, contracts for highway construction or the military industrial complex are all wonderful as far as they are concerned.

And of course, NONE DARE CALL IT WELFARE.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34982) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

chatman like others of the blind marching supporters of the greedy corrupt status-quo. Have no standing in reality all they have is denial and that just does not get them anywhere but out into the light where everyone can see them. Truly pathetic. Don't addicts live in denial?

[-] 1 points by shooz (17713) 2 years ago

How come you don't complain when WallStreet does exactly that?

[-] -2 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

what do you mean ?

[-] 1 points by shooz (17713) 2 years ago

Where else does their money come from?

They produce.........nothing. They add value to nothing.

They own controlling interest in almost everything.

They confiscate money just to exist.

[-] -2 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

you dont understand the first thing about wall street. anyway - we are off topic. how does the Buffet rule help solve the problem?

[-] 1 points by shooz (17713) 2 years ago

What's the problem?

More importantly who's Rob Portman? What's his area expertise, if any?

[-] -1 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

you still cant answer the question. or wont - because you know the answer makes you look like a fool.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17713) 2 years ago

I don't believe the information given.

Now please answer my questions. I find sources to be more important than you do.

So just who the fuck is Rob Portman and what is his area of expertise?

So far, the only one looking the fool, is you.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

It doesnt. And these idiots that run wallst disrupting a sound money economy arent going to solve it either.

[-] -3 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

sound money policy is being disrupted by the federal reserve - a government agency. Once again - blaming the wrong actor. you hate to see govt as the villain. They are your savior lol!

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

The Fed reserve is the wall st heads, who do think is on the two boards?

A bunch of ex fed members and ex banker members. The two are thick as thieves. Along with the congress.

Very few here displease this gov as much as I do. Stop jumping to conclusions. Ever seen the movie Office Space?

[-] -2 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

who do you want to work at the fed & treasury dept? ex basketball players?

if you don't like it - advocate to end the fed.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Thanks, Ive never thought about that before.....

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

It doesnt solve anything,.............but makes for a good sound bite by obama.

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

the goal of socialism is communism.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

No Comments? No surprise.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

The national debt is a farce. In our monetary system it only has meaning in terms of productivity. Unemployment is high, underemployment is much, much higher... so carrying a high debt number is not as bad as so called fiscal conservatives make it out to be. We are not on a gold standard.

The national debt is a political tool meant to frighten people. There has been only one time in the history of the US when the national debt was zero, and that was for 6 months duration. We have carried a national debt every year before that and since.

As long as the debt is payable in US dollars (which it is), it is not the crisis that politicians are making it out to be. Treasury's do not have to be sold to finance federal budget deficits. It is done so to bolster the bond market. You want to place blame on the high debt? Look to the bond traders... Federal Reserve and Wall Street.

[-] -3 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

"so carrying a high debt number is not as bad as so called fiscal conservatives make it out to be." Tell that to the Greeks lol!

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Learn some macroeconomics. Comparing the Greek situation to ours is like comparing apples to muffins. The Greeks do not issue their own currency like our federal government does, therefore, they are financially constrained to keep a balanced budget, like a household, county or state government here in the US. Also, the Greek carried a high degree of debt that was due in foreign currency... a huge no no. We are not even close to being in the same situation.

[-] -2 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

and hence the problem with the communist idea of the euro. we aren't there yet but still headed in that direction. how do you propose getting reversing course?

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

I don't understand your question. We are the worlds reserve currency. Unless you are Iran, China, or Russia, to buy energy products you need dollars. The Euro was trying to be like us, not us trying to be like the Euro.

[-] -2 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

we are off topic. how does the buffet rule solve the problem ?

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

It doesn't. There isn't a proposal out there that will 'solve' the problem, from the right or left.

Jobs can help with the productivity gap. Our shot at real jobs creation, which is one thing that will help alleviate the problem, not solve it, has been taken used for the wrong purposes. Industry got paid, was able to clear their debts, but haven't started hiring in earnest.

[-] -2 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

you dismiss the Ryan plan. it is the only plan out there and begins to solves the problem. Yet it is being demonized as draconian by the dems without them even putting a plan on the table. that's outragious dont you think?

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

It's a ridiculous plan. You want to cut government spending, which means cutting jobs in the largest sector that has a decent salary (outside of the rich), that is currently supporting our economy by putting that salary back into economy making purchases.

What are you going to do with all those unemployed government workers? The private sector doesn't have the resources to employ them, they are not hiring.... you will create more foreclosures and more on the welfare roles.

[-] 1 points by Incomplete212 (23) 2 years ago

I dunno. After hearing what GSA did with our taxpayer money I think cutting government jobs would be a good thing. And implementing performance metrics to ensure government employees are working for us and doing their jobs well. However the Government Employee Unions won't allow that.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

The government is full of performance metrics. Not all government jobs are unionized. Adding to the unemployment roles will cost the taxpayers more in the long run than having short sighted gains that will do very, very little to decrease the debt and hurt any economic growth we can hope for.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34982) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You know though it does sound typical of a lot of the repubs in office that they would try to forward a plan that would further swell the number of people out of work and as you correctly say shrink the tax and revenue base further choking the circulation of money in an anemic economy while at the same time having not created an alternative employment plan.

Lets see:

Shrink government payroll swell unemployment even further increase the number of those collecting unemployment until the aid runs out then swell the ranks of the homeless even further than the already unacceptable number of homeless and forgotten that already exist in abject misery in a wealthy nation. OH and weaken the function of government even further than the under funded gov already is. Continue to kill agency's like EPA, Education, FDA etc etc etc

You just have to love the repubs plans for success don't ya?

Yep let em continue in their programs much longer and we will all feel like we are truly living in a hell on earth.

[-] -2 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

ok - so you dont like the Ryan plan - what's your plan ? typical left winger you haven't offered one - you just criticize the one who has the guts to offer a plan.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

My plan would be on the order of FDR's plan. It's no secret America's infrastructure is falling apart. Real job creation on national projects that benefit all... instead we used the money to bail out industry and did a half assed job with 'shovel ready' projects that did little to help. I have no love for either Dems nor Repubs.

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

You are exactly right in this string, Geo. I would add that we have to break up corporations and corporate power. Republicans always act like they don't care about anyone else since they are on the inside and/or already have their job and wealth. And really it is true of them from my experience in government.

The other piece might be laws and leaders that make explicit that fleecing of corporate coffers is illegal, that ethics will prevail over corporate and military objectives, that corporations are artificial and they damage health, environment and natural resources, that big is bad when we are concerned with corporations, that all corporate transactions must be on balance sheet to be legal (GAAP Rules), that Private Banking is Illegal, that all financial instruments must be regulated especially derivatives and especially if they are global or sold globally, that shell companies are Illegal since they hide risk and activities from all Investors, TBTB Banks are Illegal since they hide the risk to US Taxpayers Financial Responsibility, Lobbying is Illegal since it has a tendency to corrupt the US Government as exampled below:

A) Savings and Loan Scandal 1988 B) Keating Five Scandal 1989 B) Mortgage Crisis 2007 C) Financial Crisis 2008 D) Reversal of Depression Era laws to prevent Banking Scandals E) Use of "Riders" in US Congressional Legislation F) Every Presidential Administration has Scandals G) Use of Social Security Trust funds to pay for the Vietnam War H) Operation Northwoods Plot to start war with Cuba thru "false flag" operation on US soil I) Gulf of Tonkin incident to start war with Vietnam J) Business Plot 1933 by US Industrialist to overthrow the US Government K) Operation Ajax by CIA in Iran in 1953 L) Subsidies by federal government for Walmart parking lots, regional warehouses, and stores M) The Federal website www.cfda.gov shows 2,200 different Domestic Assistance programs for 2012. I'm pretty sure this is the current number of Subsidies. In 2006, according to the Cato Institute website there were 1,696 federal subsidies. N) Vulture Fund Company Seeks $40 Million Payment from Zambia on $4 Million Debt from "aid money" granted to fight poverty O) No one has gone to JAIL in the 2008 Financial Crisis that went global and for which the FED provide over $20 trillion dollars in emergency loans P) Too Big Too Fail banks haven't been broken up q) There is no investigation of 2008 financial crisis since it would require 20K investigators and mortgage banks must put together the paper work "referral" R) Patriot Act - because it erodes the Bill of Rights S) National Defense Authorization Act - because it erodes the Bill of Rights T) Congress hasn't signed a US Budget for 1000 days U) The Iraqi War, Afghanistan War, Vietnam War, and Korean Wars were not declared by Congress. V) We allow rich people, corporations, and foreigners to contribute millions of dollars to US Congressmen. Foreign lobbyist can go to the State department. Congressional receipt of foreign lobby dollars sounds like treason. W) Antitrust law used to protect against monopolies and oligopolies, but today corporations get larger year after year, have personhood, and seem not to have any limitations since the lessons they learned from the Bell Telephone breakup X) There is no concerted effort by the US government to discover, monitor, control, or legislate prohibitions against slave labor and child labor in foreign countries where US textile and other jobs have gone Y) There is less funding for US job retraining today than there was prior to 2008 Financial Crisis as per NPR last week Z) Creation of the Federal Reserve AA) Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham plead guilty to taking over $2M in Bribes from 3 defense contractors BB) Congressman William Jefferson of Louisiana was caught with $90K in his house freezer CC) Cost of congressional campaign is $1 million per candidate, and Senate campaigns is $4.3 million, but could be $10-15 million and the winner usually is the one that has the most campaign money DD) One third of campaign money could be coming from Political Action Committees based on 1986 study (PAC are special interest groups) EE) Governor Rod Blagojevich was arrested in 2008 for trying to sell a US Senate seat FF) Opensecrets "all time top donors" list of campaign contributors shows AT&T, National Association of Realtors, and Goldman Sachs in the top 10 - Citigroup is #15, JP Morgan is #26, Microsoft #28, Lockheed martin #33, General Electric #35, surprisingly American Bankers Association #23 and American Medical Association #16 GG) US Government subsidies for oil exploration when profits are high and there is not chance the industry will fail anytime in the next 20 years HH) Teapot Dome Scandal involving bribes for government land leases to oil concerns II) Watergate Hotel Scandal involving the CIA being used for private gain and private interests of the US President.

Sorry was this list too long and unneeded?

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

C'mon, tell us how you really feel??? LOL...

Nice list!

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

Thanks, but it is still an amatuerish list. We all can do better with more current scandals.

I actually tried to publish something with this list. But too much of it is pre 70s or pre 60s. Well...there are more scandals that have been forgotten that I have to dig up.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34982) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

This is exactly where monies of reparation could go as well. I like the idea and in fact posted a comment somewhat similar a couple weeks back.

Yep get people back to work improving the country in which we live by doing needed work and upgrades to the infra-structure including the building of new green tech power-plants to replace the decommissioned old plants. The new construction could also be billed back to the power companies involved as they would need to replace those old facilities anyway - we just make sure the new ones are of the best quality for the environment and hence also for the consumer.

[-] -2 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

So you want the govt to spend even more money. What happened to the 800Billion stimulus? hows that working out?

why haven't the dem's put something like this on the table?

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

We were directly in a $5 Trillion dollar hole caused by the real estate and stock market crashes, because of aftereffects the hole is deeper. $800 Billion barely puts a dent in whats needed for recovery. A lot of that money was pushed out in supposedly shovel ready programs, which did some to bring back the economy, but nowhere near what's needed.

The Dems are no different than the Pubs, neither wants to talk about increased spending when the 'debt fear' has been pushed. What we don't need is selling treasury's or another QE.... that stuff is just plain stupid.

[-] -1 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

you didnt answer the question. how does the Buffet rule help fix the problem? 4.7Billion per year

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

ryan is a republican,........therefore he and his plan will be ridiculed. the dem wont even pass their own budget.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17713) 2 years ago

It's all in how they look at it.

We are not now, nor will we ever be Greece.

http://pragcap.com/understand-the-modern-monetary-system/understanding-modern-monetary-system

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (34982) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

True as long as we do not allow all meaningful work to be exported/outsourced. I mean Greece is largely tourist economy right? Why is that? Due to the sparsity of other resources perhaps? The USA does not have that problem - in fact if we wanted to we could be self sufficient but that would make us somewhat social isolationists. So up until recent decades we have been somewhat a part of the world society in a healthy participation and then the businesses/corporations started to run amok. The world has gotten very unhealthy world wide as a result.